ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING,
EVERYBODY. I WANT TO WELCOME YOU
TO THE ASSEMBLY HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
HEARING FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL
24TH. WE HAVE 29 ITEMS ON OUR
AGENDA TODAY. 11 OF THOSE BILLS
ARE ON CONSENT. THEY ARE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, AB 2373. ITEM 12,
AB 2533. ITEM 13 AB 2553. ITEM
14 AB 2570. ITEM 15 AB 2579.
ITEM 16 AB 2593. ITEM 20 AB
2903. ITEM 23 AB 2934. ITEM
NUMBER 25 AB 3012. ITEM 27 AB
3057. ITEM 28, AB 3276 AND ITEM
29 H.J.R 14. WE WILL TAKE UP THE
CONSENT ITEM WHEN WE CONSENT.
CALENDAR. WHEN WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED A QUORUM, EACH BILL
CAN HAVE TWO MAIN WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION, AND EACH
MAIN WITNESS WILL GET TWO
MINUTES EACH. I WELCOME YOU TO
SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY THROUGH
THE POSITIONS PORTAL ON THE
COMMITTEE WEBSITE. THIS WILL
BECOME PART OF OUR OFFICIAL
RECORD OF THE BILL. OUR HEARING
ROOM WILL BE OPEN FOR ATTENDANCE
OF THIS HEARING. WE ARE IN ROOM
437 THIS MORNING. ALL ARE
ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE HEARING
FROM THE LIVE STREAM ON THE
ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE. AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING.
TODAY WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA.
WITH THAT, WE CAN BEGIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. WE DO NOT HAVE
QUORUM YET AND OUR BILLS WILL BE
HEARD IN FILE ORDER. SO LET ME
GO DOWN FOR AND SEE WHO'S HERE.
I SEE YOU, I DON'T SEE YOU. SO
WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH ITEM
NUMBER THREE AB 2291.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER ALANIZ, WHEN YOU
ARE PREPARED WITH YOUR
WITNESSES, YOU MAY BEGIN
TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. I'M PROUD
TO PRESENT AB 2291 TODAY AND WE
WILL BE ACCEPTING COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TO NARROW THE BILL TO
FOCUS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT'S OVERSIGHT OF
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS. SO IN
DECEMBER OF 23, THE STATE
AUDITOR PUBLISHED A REPORT
IDENTIFYING DEFICIENCIES IN THE
DEPARTMENT'S OVERSIGHT OF THE
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCY LAW
PROTECTION PROGRAM, SPECIFICALLY
HIGHLIGHTING AMONG MANY ISSUES
THE DEPARTMENT NOT PROPERLY
CORRECTING INAPPROPRIATE DENIALS
OF FILED COMPLAINTS AS IT
PERTAINS TO THE PROGRAM. IN FACT
, THE AUDITOR IDENTIFIED MORE
THAN TWO DOZEN COMPLAINTS THAT
WERE INAPPROPRIATELY DENIED
BASED ON ASSESSMENTS MADE
REGARDING THEIR OR THEIR FILERS
INCOMES. DESPITE THE PROGRAM
HAVING NO INCOME ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS. THE AUDITOR STATED
THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT TAKE
STEPS TO CORRECT THESE
INAPPROPRIATE REJECTIONS IN THE
NEARLY TWO YEARS SINCE THEY WERE
FIRST NOMINATED OR NOTIFIED OF
THE REJECTION. AB 2291 CORRECTS
THIS ISSUE BY REQUIRING THE
DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A MORE HANDS
ON APPROACH IN ASSESSING
COMPLAINTS FILED WITH LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDER PROVIDERS TO
DETECT AND RESPOND TO
INAPPROPRIATE DENIALS OF
SERVICE. WITH THIS CHANGE,
MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS WILL HAVE
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS WHEN IT
COMES TO ENSURING THEIR
COMPLAINTS ARE PROPERLY FILED
AND NOT INAPPROPRIATELY DENIED.
WITH ME TODAY IS TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT CHRIS WAUSAUKEE WITH THE
WESTERN MANUFACTURERS HOUSING
COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION. CHRIS,
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLYMAN. MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS, APPRECIATE IT.
I'M CHRIS WIECKOWSKI WITH MÀ AND
WE ARE RISING TODAY IN SUPPORT
OF MR. ALLEN'S BILL, WE LIKE THE
ORIGINAL VERSION, BUT THE THIS
BILL RIGHT NOW WILL ESSENTIALLY
PROVIDE MORE ACCOUNTABILITY TO
LSPS, YOU KNOW, THE INITIAL BILL
CALLED FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE
$10 FEE THAT'S BEEN TAKEN OUT,
BUT BUT THE WAY LSPS OPERATE, WE
BELIEVE SINCE IT IS RESIDENT
MONEY THAT'S BEING USED TO
ACTUALLY PAY THEM, THERE SHOULD
BE ACCOUNTABILITY. AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL ACTUALLY SEEKS TO
ACCOMPLISH. SO FOR THOSE AND
OTHER REASONS, I KNOW YOU HAVE A
BUSY HEARING. I'M NOT GOING TO
DRONE ON AND ON. SO WE ARE IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. GREAT.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES OR ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL?
YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
JASON IGER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MOBILE HOME PARK
OWNERS ALLIANCE. ALSO
EXPORTABLE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL TODAY? AND YOU CAN COME
UP HERE TO THE PRESENTATION
TABLE. YOU'LL HAVE UP TO TWO
MINUTES.
HELLO. YES ROGER JOHNSON, ON
BEHALF OF GSM. WELL, A RESIDENT
BASED ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING
FOR OVER 60 YEARS FOR SENIORS
AND CALIFORNIANS ON FIXED
INCOMES LIVING IN MOBILE HOMES.
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE AB 2291. IT
TOOK OVER TWO YEARS FOR GSML AND
MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS TO
ESTABLISH THE MOBILE HOME
RESIDENCY LAW PROTECTION
PROGRAM. THIS WAS A FIVE YEAR
PILOT PROGRAM THAT RESIDENTS PAY
FOR OUT OF OUR OWN MODEST
INCOMES, TO PROTECT OURSELVES
FROM PARK OWNERS WHO VIOLATE THE
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCY LAW.
GOVERNOR BROWN AGREED WITH US
AND SIGNED AB 366 INTO LAW. IT
WAS THE FIRST TIME IN
CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY PARK OWNERS
OPPOSED THE PILOT PROGRAM OVER
THOSE TWO YEARS, AND HAVE EVER
SINCE. LAST YEAR, IN ONLY THE
THIRD YEAR OF THE PILOT PROGRAM,
WE WORKED WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ADAMS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING TO BEGIN MAKING
IMPROVEMENTS BASED UPON THE
COMPREHENSIVE DATA THAT HCD WAS
REQUIRED TO GATHER AND PUBLISH.
THE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED
EXPANDING THE PROGRAM TO COVER
ALL MRL ALLEGED VIOLATIONS BY
PARK OWNERS. GOVERNOR NEWSOM
AGREED WITH THESE IMPROVEMENTS
AND SIGNED AB 3.18 INTO LAW,
WHICH JUST TOOK EFFECT THIS
JANUARY. JUST THREE AND A HALF
MONTHS AGO, PARK OWNERS FAILED
TO STOP ASSEMBLY MEMBER ADDIS'S
BILL, SO THEY PURSUED A STATE
AUDIT OF A PILOT PROGRAM THAT
HAD ONLY BEEN IN PLACE FOR THREE
YEARS. DESPITE THE FACT THAT HCD
DATA HAD ALREADY HELPED US TO
START MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH
WE HAVE BEEN DOING. THIS BILL
AND SB 1052 ARE THE PARK OWNERS.
DOUBLE BARRELED ATTEMPT TO
ROADBLOCK THE ABILITY TO PROTECT
OURSELVES WITH A PROGRAM THAT WE
PAY FOR, NOT THE TAXPAYERS, NOT
THE GENERAL FUND, AND NOT THE
PARK OWNERS. 10S MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTS WANT GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER ADUS BILL TO
BE ALLOWED TO TAKE EFFECT,
INCLUDING THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE
TO THE PILOT PROGRAM. THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE TODAY. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES OR MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC IN OPPOSITION?
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
PLEASE. CHAU MONNING I AM THE
HOA PRESIDENT AT ONE OF THE
MOBILE HOME PARKS, LOCALLY AND
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. JOSEPH NYE
OPPOSED THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
LINDA NYE, MOBILE HOME OWNER,
AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL STRONGLY.
THANK YOU. IN STRONGEST
OPPOSITION, BEV PURCELL, HOA
PRESIDENT, HOMEOWNER AND GSOL
MEMBER. THANK YOU. ROBIN MARKS,
MOBILE HOME OWNER AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR COMING TO THE CAPITOL
TODAY, SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS
WISHING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO WEIGH IN ON POSITION
ON THIS. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WISH TO
ASK QUESTIONS? OKAY. SEEING
NONE, MR. ALEX WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM YET, WE'LL ENTERTAIN ANY
MOTION AT THAT TIME. BUT I DO
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON
THIS. I THINK TO YOUR EARLIER
POINT, THIS IS ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND I APPRECIATE
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH
THE COMMITTEE STAFF ON ON THE
AMENDMENTS. I THINK WE DON'T
WANT TO UNDERMINE THE PROGRAM,
AS IT'S CURRENTLY STILL, IN
DEVELOPMENT WITH THAT. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, WITH WHAT YOU
SAID? I WILL RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ASK FOR
AUTHORS TO COME TO ROOM 437, YES
. MISS QUIRK-SILVA. YOU HAVE
FILE ITEM NUMBER. THERE'S A HOLE
PUNCH THERE. SO IS THAT NUMBER
SEVEN? THIS IS AB 2433.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS. AB 2433 ADDRESSES THE
LENGTHY DELAYS IN THE BUILDING
PERMIT PROCESS BY INTRODUCING
FLEXIBILITY AND INSPECTION
TIMELINES AND THE CONDITIONAL
UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. OVER THE
PAST DECADE, MANY FACTORS HAVE
CONTRIBUTED TO PROLONGED
PROCESSING TIMES OF BUILDING
PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. THESE
CHALLENGES HAVE ONLY
EXACERBATED, 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
INSPECTIONS. IT IS ABOUT KEEPING
PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD SMOOTHLY
AND PROVIDING RELIEF TO OUR
LOCAL AGENCIES FACING CHALLENGES
IN A TIMELY PERMIT PROCESSING BY
MAKING THE PROCESSES MORE
EFFICIENT, WE CAN SUPPORT BOTH
OUR COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES,
CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY TO
IMPROVE THE LIVES OF
CALIFORNIANS. THE SPONSORS IN MY
OFFICE HAVE BEEN WORKING
DILIGENTLY WITH THOSE WHO ARE
CONCERNED WITH THE BILL IN ORDER
TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES. DUE TO
TIME CONSTRAINTS, RECENT AGREED
AMENDMENTS ARE BEING DRAFTED BY
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND WILL BE
PROCESSED IN THE ASSEMBLY
APPROPRIATIONS. IF THE BILL
PASSES. COMMITTEE TODAY, I WANT
TO THANK YOUR COMMITTEE FOR
WORKING WITH THIS, AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON CONCERNS
WITH ME TODAY IN SUPPORT OF AB
2433 IS SKYLAR WONACOTT, SENIOR
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP, SORRY,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M SKYLAR WONACOTT AND I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBERS. NAIOP
CALIFORNIA AND BOEM CALIFORNIA,
PROUDLY SPONSORING AB 2433 TO
ENHANCE CALIFORNIA'S BUILDING
PERMIT PROCESS EFFICIENCY. OUR
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, PROPOSES CONDITIONAL
USE OF LICENSED ENGINEERS OR
ARCHITECTS FOR PLAN CHECKING AND
INSPECTIONS. IF LOCAL AGENCIES
EXCEED THE 30 DAY REVIEW OR FIVE
DAY INSPECTION DEADLINES. THESE
PROFESSIONALS MUST SUBMIT
AFFIDAVITS AFFIRMING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE 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 I VOTE
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL? HI,
MEG SNYDER, YOU'RE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION FOR THIS
BILL?
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MARK
NEWBERGER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES.
WE DEFINITELY WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS FOR
WORKING ON US WITH OUR CONCERNS.
AT THE MOMENT, WE STILL HAVE
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED, BUT WE
ARE AWARE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE CIRCULATING RIGHT NOW.
I DO WANT TO TOUCH ON OUR
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL AS
DRAFTED. RIGHT NOW. I THINK THE
COMMON KIND OF CONCERN WE HAVE
HERE ACROSS LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS
THE SORT OF ESSENTIALLY PAYING
THE REGULATOR THAT THIS BILL, AS
DRAFTED RIGHT NOW, PROPOSES THAT
BOTH THE PLAN CHECKER AND THE
PERIMETER WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE
GOING TO A PRIVATE PARTY AND THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT, THE
UNINVOLVED OVERSIGHT, THE MAKING
SURE THAT BUILDING CODES, HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODES, AND ALL THE
VARIETY OF CODES THAT IMPACT
PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR EVEN PRIVATE
BUILDINGS THAT COULD HAVE A
PUBLIC IMPACT, ARE OBSERVED. AND
ACCORDINGLY, I THINK THE OTHER
PART TWO HERE IS ESSENTIALLY THE
CONTINUATION OF CREATING SHOT
CLOCKS THAT HAS BEEN KIND OF A
MAJOR COMMON THREAD OVER THE
PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
LEGISLATURE WHEN IT COMES TO
CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING IS
CONTINUING. WE STILL HAVE
CONCERNS THAT THAT KIND OF
ARBITRARY 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK AND
FINAL REPORT WHEN MANY OF THESE
COMPLEX STRUCTURES, EVEN WITH
THE BILL, IS PROPOSED, EXCLUDING
SOME MORE COMPLEX ONES, COULD
CREATE KIND OF THAT. ONCE AGAIN,
THE THAT RUSH THAT DOESN'T THAT
MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE
SMARTEST THING FOR SAFETY TO BE
THERE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE
DEFINITELY THAT'S THE KIND OF
THIS BILL TOUCHES ON A CONCERN
THAT WE HAVE PUT BEFORE AND
SEEKS A WAY TO KIND OF ADDRESS
THAT, THAT THAT MANY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE KIND OF
OVERWHELMED. AND THAT PLAN
CHECKING CAN TAKE SOME TIME,
WE'RE STILL KIND OF AWARE OF
THAT. THAT IS A CONCERN OF OURS.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE AN
IMPEDIMENT IN THAT KIND OF PLAN
REVIEW SPACE, BUT THERE IS A
VERY SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF
THIS BILL OR THE PROCESS THAT
NEEDS TO BE OBSERVED, THAT TIME
NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO MAKE SURE
THAT ALL THE CODES AND
CONSTRUCTION IS GOING FORWARD IN
A SAFE MANNER. GREAT. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. BRADY GUERTIN, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN A
RESPECTFUL OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION AS WELL. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NO
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO WEIGH IN ON THIS AT
THIS MOMENT, WE'LL PAUSE REALLY
BRIEFLY TO ESTABLISH QUORUM.
WARREN HERE WEREN'T HERE PERSON.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON HERE. CHOLERA.
LEE HERE. LEE. HERE. QUIRK-SILVA
HERE. QUIRK-SILVA. HERE. RIVAS.
SANCHEZ HERE. SANCHEZ. HERE.
WILSON. WE HAVE QUORUM. THANK
YOU. WE HAVE QUORUM. TURNED TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GRAYSON. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I WANT TO
APPLAUD THE ALTER. THE AUTHOR
FOR THIS BILL. MUCH, MUCH NEEDED
AGAIN. AND IT'S BEEN SAID TIME
AND AGAIN THAT TIME AND
CONSTRUCTION IS MORE VALUABLE
THAN MONEY ITSELF. AND SO A
QUESTION ON YOUR TIME
STIPULATION, IS IT ADDRESSING,
HOW MUCH TIME, AN AGENCY IS
GIVEN, FOR AN INSPECTION TO COME
OR IS IT ADDRESSING HOW FAST AN
INSPECTION HAS TO HAPPEN, THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. IT'S
SIMPLY STAYING AT THE LOCAL
AGENCY DOES NOT PERFORM THE
PLAN. CHECKING DUTIES WITHIN 30
DAYS. THEN THE, BUILDING
APPLICANT COULD SEEK A PRIVATE
PLAN CHECKER. OKAY, SO THAT'S
ACTUALLY IT'S NOTED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. THAT'S OUR
IN STATUTE AND HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE RIGHT NOW THAT AN EXCESSIVE
DELAY IS CONSIDERED 30 DAYS AND
THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY SHOULD
ALREADY BE OUTSOURCING THIS TO A
PRIVATE AGENCY THEMSELVES IF
THEY'RE NOT CAPABLE OF
PERFORMING. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE I DO
KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLANNING AND
PERMITTING AGENCIES OUT THERE
THAT ARE ALREADY OUTSOURCING AND
DOING THIS. I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE
ADDRESSING A VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE, FROM THE VOICE OF
OPPOSITION ABOUT MAKING SURE
THAT WE'RE NOT COMPROMISING OR
UNDERMINING THE SAFETY AND,
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ALIGNING
WITH THE COMPONENTS. SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. SOMETHING ELSE
THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT, WAS THAT
HAVING, THE THIRD PARTY BE THE
SAME PERSON THAT MIGHT BE THE
DESIGNER OR THAT MIGHT BE THE
ONE THAT PUT THE PLANS TOGETHER?
I WOULD DEFINITELY REVIEW THAT.
AND BECAUSE WE'VE ADDRESSED THIS
BEFORE, WHERE, POSSIBLY A HOME
INSPECTOR WAS ALSO THE ONE
TURNING AROUND AND DOING THE
WORK. IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A
LITTLE BIT OF COLLUSION THERE.
SO, WITH THAT, I APPLAUD YOU FOR
THE AND I MOVED TO, I'LL MAKE A
MOTION FOR THE BILL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. MOTION FOR MR. LEE.
I'LL TAKE THAT AS A SECOND. ANY
OTHER COMMENT ON THE BILL? WELL,
MISS QUIRK-SILVA, I ALSO WANT TO
THANK YOU TREMENDOUSLY FOR
WORKING ON THIS IDEA, SOMETHING
I KIND OF RESEARCHED INTO LAST
FALL BUT JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE
CHANCE AT CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO
PUT SOMETHING IN MOTION. SO I'M
VERY EXCITED FOR THE
OPPORTUNITIES THIS COULD
PRESENT, I AGREE THAT THERE IS
TECHNICAL WORK THAT'S IMPORTANT
THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT AS WELL.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EARLY WORK
TO TRY TO WORK ON SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES, ESPECIALLY, FACING OUR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, OUR
FIREFIGHTERS, TO GET THE DETAILS
RIGHT. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE
EXCESSIVE DELAYS, BUT WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S
NECESSARY TIME, THAT NEEDS TO
TAKE TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW SOME
OF THESE ISSUES. SO I THINK YOU
COULD BE A VERY, HELPFUL, LAW,
THAT WILL REALLY ESTABLISH SOME
GOOD GUIDELINES GOING FORWARD,
I'M SO EXCITED. IF YOU'D HAVE ME
ON AS A JOINT AUTHOR, I'D
APPRECIATE THAT. AND WITH THAT,
I INVITE YOU TO CLOSE. I WILL
TAKE THAT AS MY CLOSE AND WILL,
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON MAKING SURE
THIS BILL, COMPLEMENTS SAFETY
WITH URGENCY. THANK YOU, MISS
QUIRK-SILVA. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MOTION TO
PASS THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS WARD A WARD I
PATTERSON. GRAYSON. GRAYSON. I
CHOLERA. LEE. LEE I QUIRK-SILVA
I QUIRK-SILVA I REYES. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. I WILSON. THAT BILL
WILL BE OUT. I WILL HOLD IT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
WE ARE AT FIVE ZERO AND WE CAN
GO BACK AND TAKE A MOTION ON
FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE. SO MOVED
BY MR. GRAYSON, SECOND BY MISS
SANCHEZ, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL,
MOTION TO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
THE ASSEMBLY, COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A WARD I
PATTERSON. GRAYSON. GRAYSON. I
CHOLERA. LEE I LEE I QUIRK-SILVA
. NUMBER THREE QUIRK-SILVA I
REZ. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I WILSON
FIVE ZERO. IS THERE THAT BILL
WILL ALSO BE OUT. WE'RE
CURRENTLY AT 5 TO 0. WE'LL HOLD
IT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. I'LL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON OUR
CONSENT CALENDAR BY MR. GRAYSON
AND A SECOND BY MR. LEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NUMBER
FIVE, AB 2373. DO PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM NUMBER 12,
AB 2533, DO PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE AND APPROPRIATIONS
NUMBER 13 AB 2553 DO PASS AB 20.
ITEM 14 AB 2570 DO PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM 15 AB 2579
DO PASS 16 AB 2593 DO PASS AB
2903 DO PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE AND APPROPRIATIONS.
ITEM 23 AB 2934 DO PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. I AM 25 AB 3012
DO PASS THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. AB ITEM 27 AB
3057 DO PASS ITEM 28 AB 3276 DO
PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
AND APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM 29 H.R.
14 BE ADOPTED TO CONSENT
CALENDAR. WARD A, WARD I,
PATTERSON. GRAYSON AND GRAYSON,
I CHOLERA. LEE. LEE I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I REZ.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I, WILSON. ZERO
CONSENT. CALENDAR. WILL HAS FIVE
VOTES. IT WILL BE OUT. WE'LL
HOLD THE ROLLS OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. WE ARE BACK ON FILE TOP
OF THE ORDER WITH ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ADDIS. SO THIS IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER ONE AB 2022. AND
WHEN YOU ARE READY WITH YOUR
SUPPORT WITNESSES, YOU MAY BEGIN
YOUR PRESENTATION. WELL THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND STAFF AND OUR
ADVOCATES THAT ARE HERE TODAY.
TODAY I BRING YOU AB 2022, THE
MOBILE HOME EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS ACT. AND I WANT TO
BE CLEAR THAT I DO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AND I
THANK COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH US TO IMPROVE THIS
BILL. IN RECENT YEARS, NATURAL
DISASTERS SUCH AS STORMS AND
WILDFIRES HAVE BEEN INCREASING
IN FREQUENCY, MAKING
COMPREHENSIVE EVACUATION PLANS A
MUST IN ORDER TO PROTECT THOSE
LIVING IN CALIFORNIA. THE
CENTRAL COAST, ESPECIALLY MY
DISTRICT, WAS HIT PARTICULARLY
HARD BY LAST YEAR'S WINTER
STORMS, WITH MANY COUNTIES IN
THE REGION BEING DECLARED MAJOR
DISASTER AREAS BY PRESIDENT
BIDEN. AND IT WAS A PROBLEM THAT
I GRAPPLED WITH IN MY FIRST
MONTHS IN OFFICE. IN FACT, IT
WAS ALL ENCOMPASSED FROM ALMOST
THE MOMENT I STEPPED UP HERE,
WAS SEEING FOLKS THAT HAD TO
FACE THESE VERY INTENSE
EMERGENCIES DURING THESE STORMS,
AS WELL AS OTHER NATURAL
DISASTERS SUCH AS WILDFIRES
THAT, ACTUALLY CAUSED EXTENSIVE
LOSS OF LIFE. MOBILE HOME PARKS
WERE ESPECIALLY DEVASTATED,
LEADING TO SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY
DAMAGE AND LOSS OF LIFE, AS I
MENTIONED. SO THIS HAS BECOME
SEASONAL AND A RECURRING ISSUE
AS ROAD CLOSURES HAVE LEFT
PEOPLE CUT OFF AND UNABLE TO
ACCESS SAFETY. EXISTING LAW DOES
REQUIRE PARKS TO HAVE AN
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN IN
PLACE, BUT THEY DON'T ALWAYS
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SPECIFIC
NEEDS OF THEIR RESIDENTS. AS A
RESULT, WHEN EMERGENCIES OCCUR,
OUR MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS,
SUCH AS ELDERLY AND THOSE WITH
MOBILITY RELATED ISSUES, ARE
MORE LIKELY TO BE IN HARM'S WAY.
AND I PERSONALLY WITNESSED THIS
IN THE LAST STORMS WHERE FOLKS
HAD MAJOR ISSUES EVACUATING
DURING THOSE STORMS. SO WE DO
HAVE A SOLUTION DURING EMERGENCY
EVACUATION. WE KNOW THAT EVERY
SECOND COUNTS AND AB 2022 AIMS
TO MAKE SURE THESE SECONDS ARE
NOT LOST BY DOING THREE THINGS.
FIRST, REQUIRING A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS PLAN TO MAKE AND
MAKING SURE THOSE PLANS ARE
EASILY ACCESSIBLE AT ALL TIMES.
SECOND, ENSURING THAT RESIDENTS
HAVE ACCESS TO ENTRY AND EXIT
POINTS. UTILITY SHUT OFF
CAPABILITIES AND WORKING FIRE
HYDRANTS IN CASE PARK MANAGEMENT
IS OFF SITE. AS THEY MAY NEED TO
BE. AND FINALLY, THE BILL'S
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM DOES HOLD
MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR PROPER
IMPLEMENTATION, BUT DOES NOT
INCREASE LIABILITY. SO SO AGAIN,
I WANT TO THANK COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR WORKING WITH ME TO CRAFT
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO
LIABILITY AND OTHER ISSUES. THE
AMENDMENTS RESTRUCTURE THE
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO ONLY
AFFECT VIOLATORS WHO ARE
KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW, AND
HAVE BEEN GIVEN MULTIPLE CHANCES
TO RECORRECT WHERE THEY NEED TO.
SO AGAIN, THE BILL DOES NOT
PENALIZE HARDWORKING PARK OWNERS
WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT
THING FOR RESIDENTS, AND IT ALSO
GIVES PARK OWNERS AND DESIGNEES
A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF THE
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES DURING AN
EMERGENCY EVACUATION. ALL IN
ALL, WE DO BELIEVE THIS WILL
STRENGTHEN EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS WITHOUT ADDING
LIABILITY. WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OUR KENDALL JARVIS FROM
LEGAL AID SONOMA AND BEVERLY
PURCELL, REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN
STATE MANUFACTURER HOME OWNERS
LEAGUE. AND MAYBE WE'LL START
WITH YOU, BEVERLY. YOU GOOD
MORNING, BEVERLY PURCELL FOR
GSML IN SUPPORT OF AB 2022. THIS
BILL IS CRITICAL AND LIFE SAVING
. LIKE MANY CALIFORNIANS, MOBILE
HOME RESIDENTS HAVE SUFFERED
THROUGH NUMEROUS FIRES, OTHER
DISASTERS AND CONTINUE TO
EXPERIENCE LOSS OF LIFE AND
PROPERTY. IN 2022, THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, WITH
ASSISTANCE FROM UCLA AND SANTA
CLARA UNIVERSITY, PUBLISHED A
STUDY IN THE NATIONAL HAZARDS
REVIEW. THAT STUDY FOUND THAT
MOBILE HOMES HERE ARE MORE
LIKELY TO BE LOCATED IN AREAS
WITH GREATER HISTORICAL AND
PROJECTED EXTREME HEAT HAZARDS
AND DISASTER RELATED RISKS
COMPARED TO OTHER CALIFORNIANS
LIVING IN OTHER FORMS OF HOUSING
. THAT STUDY FURTHER FOUND THAT
MOBILE HOME PARKS ARE THE MOST
LIKELY OF ALL HOUSING TYPES TO
BE LOCATED IN AREAS THAT HAVE,
OR WILL BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY
WILDFIRES AND OTHER DISASTER
EVENTS. DESPITE STUDIES LIKE
THIS EXPRESSLY HIGHLIGHTING THE
INCREASED RISKS TO MOBILE HOME
PARK RESIDENTS, WE CONTINUE TO
LIVE IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS
WITHOUT ACCESS TO MEANINGFUL
EVACUATION PLANS, WITH POINTS OF
EXIT AND ENTRY THAT REMAIN
UNLOCKED OR INACCESSIBLE WITHOUT
WORKING OR TESTED FIRE HYDRANTS
AND WITHOUT ACCESS TO GAS SHUT
OFF VALVES IN THE EVENT OF AN
EMERGENCY, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING
THAT YOU APPROVE AB 2022 TO TAKE
A REASONABLE STEP TOWARDS
IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF MOBILE
HOME PARK RESIDENTS LIKE MYSELF
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU
ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND FOR
HAVING YOUR TEAM WORK SO HARD ON
ALL THESE AMENDMENTS. WE REALLY,
TRULY APPRECIATE THAT, MY NAME
IS KENDALL JARVIS AND I'M THE
LEAD DISASTER RELIEF ATTORNEY
FOR LEGAL AID OF SONOMA COUNTY.
AND I'M HERE TO EXPRESS LEGAL
AID, SINCERE SUPPORT FOR AB
2022. OBVIOUSLY, A LOT HAS BEEN
SAID ABOUT THIS, SO I'LL KEEP IT
BRIEF, BUT I AM HERE TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT
YOU MAY HAVE, GENERALLY, THE
INTENT OF AB 2022 IS TO IMPROVE
THE SAFETY OF MOBILE HOME PARKS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. OBVIOUSLY,
IN A DISASTER, MOBILE HOME PARK
RESIDENTS ARE AT A HIGHER RISK.
THEY'RE OFTEN ELDERLY AND OR LOW
INCOME AND FACE MOBILITY
CHALLENGES OR OTHER MEDICAL
ISSUES. SO AB 2022 WILL REALLY
REQUIRE MOBILE HOME PARKS TO
JUST IMPROVE THEIR EVACUATION
PLAN, SO IT'S SAFER FOR
RESIDENTS AND ULTIMATELY IT WILL
SAVE LIVES. AB 2022 IS NARROWLY
TAILORED TO REALLY ADDRESS THE
SPECIFIC NEEDS OF MOBILE HOME
PARK RESIDENTS, WITHOUT PUTTING
A SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL BURDEN
ON HCD OR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. SO FOR THESE
REASONS, WE URGE LEGAL AID URGES
YOU TO PLEASE VOTE YES FOR AB
2022. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS ITEM? HAVING A WORD WITH
YOU LATER GOES UP NEAR A MOBILE
HOME OWNER AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU LINDA AND I AM A HOMEOWNER
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ROGER JOHNSON, CITRUS HEIGHTS
900, MOBILE HOME OWNERS IN MY
PARK. ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. MORNING, MICHELLE
MONNING FOR THE GSML AND
HOMEOWNER. THE HOA PRESIDENT
INDEFINITE SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ROBIN MARKS, MOBILE
HOME OWNER IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO TESTIFY ON THIS
BILL?
IF YOU COULD, MA'AM. OR MAYBE
TRADE SEATS OVER HERE. THANK
YOU. THAT WE ALL HAVE A
MICROPHONE. I KNOW I POSE FOR
THE PICTURE. THAT'S RIGHT.
FEELING'S MUTUAL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS, THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, MY NAME IS CHRIS
WIECKOWSKI WITH W MÀ, AND WE ARE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO 2022. BUT
WE DO WANT TO FIRST THANK THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT FOR HER
HARD WORK ON THIS BILL. AND WE
DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS THAT PUT RESPONDERS
IN IN CHARGE OF EVACUATIONS AND
EMERGENCY AND EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS, AND MAKE SURE THAT
PARK OWNERS WON'T BE LIABLE
EXISTING MORRELL, ALREADY
REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE AN
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN, AND
IT'D BE DISTRIBUTED UPON REQUEST
TO THE RESIDENTS. WE NEED TO
REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS AND THE
ACTUAL LANGUAGE BEFORE WE
REEVALUATE OUR POSITION. BUT WE
STILL BELIEVE THIS BILL IS
UNNECESSARY. Kò HCD IS ALREADY
WORKING ON A CURRICULUM FOR
MANDATORY MANAGER EDUCATION
TRAINING AS REQUIRED BY SB 869
THAT PASSED IN 2021. THIS
TRAINING WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE
IN 2026, AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS IS ONE OF THE KEY
ELEMENTS FOR MANAGERS TRAINED TO
BE TRAINED ON, ACCORDING TO THE
LEGISLATION. FURTHER W.M.A HAS
ITS OWN MANAGER TRAINING PROGRAM
AND IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR
ABOUT 20 YEARS AND WE'VE TAUGHT
MANAGERS AND HCD INSPECTORS
ABOUT THE MRL WITH OVER 200
COURSES SO FAR. AGAIN, WE THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
ITS HARD WORK ON THIS, AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU, AS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD.
BUT FOR THE REASONS LISTED IN
OUR LETTER, W.M.A STILL REMAINS
OPPOSED, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
JASON EICHER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MOBILE HOME PARK
OWNERS ALLIANCE, ALSO OPPOSED TO
THE BILL, EVEN AFTER LISTENING
TO THE PRESENTATION TODAY, IT'S
UNCLEAR TO US WHY EXISTING LAW
IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTIVE
OF RESIDENTS. WE ULTIMATELY
BELIEVE THE BILL IS UNNECESSARY.
WE WANT TO ECHO MR. WHISKEY'S
APPRECIATION. WE HAVE A GENUINE
APPRECIATION OF THE COMMITTEE
STAFF'S WORK ON THIS ISSUE AND
THE COMMITTEE'S SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS. THE BILL, IN PRINT
TODAY, INCLUDES BOTH AN
ATTESTATION UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY WITH COMPLIANCE WITH
WITH THE PROVISIONS PROPOSED IN
THIS BILL, WHICH INCLUDE A
REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE AN
EVACUATION EVEN WHEN A FIRST
RESPONDER HASN'T CALLED FOR ONE,
AND THAT THAT IS A POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR
RESIDENTS, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT
EVERY SITUATION SHOULD INVOLVE A
PARK OWNER OR THEIR MANAGEMENT
BEING INCENTIVIZED TO EVACUATE
EARLY. SO WE APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
APPEAR TO BE AIMED AT RESOLVING
THIS AND A FEW OTHER ISSUES.
LIKE MR. WYSOCKY SAID, WHAT WE
LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THEM
CLOSELY SHOULD THE BILL PASS OUT
OF THE COMMITTEE TODAY. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? OKAY. SEEING NONE,
WE'LL TURN IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBER COMMENTS. MR. GRAYSON.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I
APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY ON BOTH
SIDES, TO THE AUTHOR, I KNOW
YOU'VE BEEN WORKING SUPER HARD
AT TRYING TO FIND A LANDING SPOT
FOR YOUR BILL. I REALLY WANT TO
EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR THE
MERE SENSE THAT WHEN THE FIRES
HIT SANTA ROSA, ONE OF THE
PLACES LOCATIONS THAT WAS
DIRECTLY WITHIN THAT PATH WAS A
MOBILE HOME PARK IN WHICH WE
LOST LIFE. AND SO ANYTHING THAT
WE CAN DO TO TRY TO ENHANCE
SAFETY, IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
TO ME. I DO HAVE A QUESTION WHEN
IT COMES TO, THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE UTILITIES AND ESPECIALLY
MAKING SURE THEIR MAINTENANCE
AND OPERABLE, I DON'T KNOW, I
THINK I MIGHT KNOW THE ANSWER,
BUT I JUST NEED A CONFIRMATION
THÀNH. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
WIDELY UNDERSTOOD WHO ACTUALLY
OWNS THE FIRE HYDRANTS OR THE
UTILITIES THAT ARE IN A MOBILE
HOME PARK. IS THAT THE UTILITY
ITSELF OR IS IT THE MOBILE HOME
PARK? SURE. THANK YOU, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, FIRE HYDRANTS ARE
REQUIRED, KIND OF LIKE IN A
SUBDIVISION. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO
BE PLACED WITHIN MOBILE HOME
PARKS, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER
OF UNITS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE AND
WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE, FIRE
HYDRANTS THAT ARE ON ADJACENT
STREETS THAT ARE PUBLIC. SO IF
THERE ARE FIRE HYDRANTS ON
PUBLIC STREETS, THOSE ARE PART
OF THE CITY COUNTY OR THAT
GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION, IF
THEY'RE INTERNAL, THEN THEY'RE
RESPONSIBLE. K¾T OF THE MOBILE
HOME PARK IN TERMS OF UPKEEP.
BUT THEY'RE THE TESTING IN TERMS
OF TESTING THE HYDRANTS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THEY'RE
WORKING AND THAT ALL THAT KIND
OF STUFF THAT GENERALLY FALLS TO
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, IF I
UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY, WAS
THAT ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE
THREE THINGS THAT YOU LISTED AS
RESPONSIBILITIES? BECAUSE TO ME,
THAT SHOW I HAVE A LITTLE
CONCERN OVER PUTTING THE MOBILE
HOME PARK OWNERS IN A POSITION
OF LIABILITY. IF THAT BECOMES
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO TEST THE
HYDRANTS AND MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE OPERABLE OR WORKING. DID
YOU WANT TO ANSWER THIS? OKAY,
WE'RE NOT PUTTING A
RESPONSIBILITY ON THEM. AND
MEANING THE PARK OWNER IS NOT
THE ONE THAT IS LITERALLY
TESTING THE FIRE HYDRANT
THEMSELVES. WE'RE REQUIRING THAT
THEY HAVE THEM TESTED, JUST LIKE
FIRE HYDRANTS WOULD BE TESTED IN
ANY LOCAL JURISDICTION. RIGHT?
THEY'RE TESTED BY THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT. WE'RE JUST SAYING
HERE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT TESTING IS OCCURRING. WE
HEARD A LOT OF INFORMATION FROM
A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN VARIOUS
PARKS THAT ESSENTIALLY THEY
WOULD HAVE FIRE HYDRANTS THAT
WERE LOCKED AND NOT, THEREFORE
NOT USABLE WHEN AN EMERGENCY DID
ARISE. SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'RE ACCESSIBLE AND
THEY'RE IN WORKING ORDER. BUT
WE'RE NOT ASKING THE PARK OWNER
TO GO AND BECOME A PROFESSIONAL
IN THE ARENA OF FIRE HYDRANT
MANAGEMENT BY ANY MEANS SPELLED
OUT IN THE BILL. YES. THAT,
OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE
BECAUSE I THINK THE AUTHOR MADE
A REALLY, GOOD STATEMENT AND
SENSE THAT YOU'RE NOT PUTTING
THE PARKS IN A POSITION OF
LIABILITY. RIGHT. WE'RE NOT
CREATING ADDITIONAL LIABILITY
THAT DOESN'T ALREADY EXIST UNDER
COMMON LAW. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHOLERA. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIR. AND I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I THINK IT'S COMMON
SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE IN
MOBILE HOME PARK COMMUNITIES,
PARTICULARLY WHEN OFTENTIMES THE
ROADS AND OTHER COMMON AREAS ARE
PRIVATELY OPERATED AND THERE'S
AN EXPECTATION, AN EXPECTATION
FROM RESIDENTS THAT THERE'S,
SOME RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
MANAGEMENT. BUT EVEN MORE
IMPORTANTLY, I THINK WE WE'RE
SEEING MORE AND MORE MOBILE HOME
PARKS BECOMING DE FACTO SENIOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND SO THESE
ARE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
OFTENTIMES. AND I THINK THIS
WILL JUST HELP IN THE OPERATIONS
. AND I THINK THE AMENDMENTS
MAKE IT BETTER IN TERMS OF
DEALING WITH SOME OF THE
CONCERNS REGARDING LIABILITY.
AND I'M SURE THERE'LL BE MORE
WORK DONE ON IT. BUT I THINK
THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
IMPORTANT AND TIMELY, GIVEN WHAT
WE'VE SEEN IN SO MANY OF OUR
JURISDICTIONS, HAPPENING AT
MOBILE HOME PARKS, I THINK THAT
THERE CAN BE IMPROVEMENTS TO
EXISTING LAW REGARDING EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS. SO I APPRECIATE
FOR BRINGING FORWARD AND I'D
LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS, VICE CHAIR. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, WELL, I THINK
THE AMENDMENTS ARE A BIG
IMPROVEMENT, OVER THE, EXISTING
TEXT. I AM. I'M LOOKING FORWARD
TO SEEING THE BILL IN PRINT. I'M
YOU KNOW, IF IT GETS TO THE
FLOOR, OBVIOUSLY, I WILL CHECK
IT BEFORE. AT THAT POINT, I
THINK, YOU KNOW, MY MAIN CONCERN
IN THE BILL BEFORE THE SUGGESTED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS IS CONFLICT
BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE PERSONNEL
AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND HOW
THE PARK MANAGERS, NO MATTER HOW
GREAT THEY MAY BE, YOU KNOW,
AREN'T NECESSARILY THEY'RE NOT
THE PEOPLE WE SHOULD BE RELYING
ON, FOR PROPER EVACUATIONS OF,
OF THAT. SO, BUT BUT
CONCEPTUALLY, I UNDERSTAND THE
IDEA OF, HEY, LOOK, LET'S MAKE
SURE THAT THERE'S SOME KIND OF
PLAN TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE,
ABLE TO AT LEAST KNOW WHAT TO DO
IN THE EVENT OF A, OF AN
EMERGENCY. SO TODAY I'M GOING TO
LAY OFF AND SORT OF WAIT FOR
FEEDBACK FROM, YOU KNOW, SO I
CAN SEE THE AMENDMENTS AND THEN
ALSO THE MOBILE HOME OWNERS AND
MAKE SURE IT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED
AND, AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF
THINGS. SO, SO WITH THAT, LIKE I
SAID, I'LL LAY OFF, BUT I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO HERE, AND I APPRECIATE YOU
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE I
DO THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT,
IMPROVEMENT. SO THANKS. THANK
YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. SEEING NO
OTHER MEMBERS WISHING TO COMMENT
ON THIS BILL. MISS ADAMS, I WANT
TO FIRST THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PERSONAL ATTENTION TO YOUR
DISTRICT AND MEETING WITH YOUR
CONSTITUENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
SUFFERING, SOME OF THE
CHALLENGES THAT THEY HAVE AT,
DUE TO THESE WINTER STORMS, AND
REALLY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
ENTIRE POPULATION STATEWIDE,
IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD TIME TO
REVIEW OUR EMERGENCY PLANNING
PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES. AND
YES, WE'VE GOT PLANNING PROCESS
AND WORK. THAT WAS A CAREFUL
NEGOTIATION FOR MORE THAN A
DECADE, BUT YOUR ATTENTION TO
THIS ISSUE, IS INTENDED TO BE
ABLE TO HELP SAVE LIVES. AND,
IMPORTANTLY, WORKING CLOSELY
WITH OUR COMMITTEE TO REALLY
MAKE THIS ACHIEVABLE, AND I
THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WORK
THAT WE'VE DONE TO I THINK ONE
OF THE EARLIER POINTS, YOU KNOW,
REMOVE LIABILITY UNDER PENALTY
OF PERJURY AND OTHER IMPORTANT
DETAIL, THAT'S IN HERE THAT,
THAT, THAT MAKE IT A COMMON
SENSE POLICY, THAT ACHIEVE THE
INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS THAT I
THINK YOU'RE SEEKING IN THE NAME
OF SAFETY FOR, FOR THESE
RESIDENTS, SO I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR THAT WORK WITH THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, I'LL
JUST SAY I THINK WE HAVE A LOT
OF COMMON GOALS, THE SHARED
GOALS. AND I'M SURE EVEN THE
OPPOSITION SHARES THE GOAL OF
KEEPING RESIDENTS SAFE, I THINK,
YOU KNOW, IF WE GET OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE OF COURSE, WE'RE
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATION IF NEEDED. AND,
LAND THIS IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT
PLACE. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL,
WE NEED A MOTION. SO MOVED BY
MR. LEE. SECONDED BY MR. KALRA.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MOTION TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A WARD I
PERSON, GRAYSON. GRAYSON, I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LI I LI I
QUIRK-SILVA I QUIRK-SILVA I
REYES SANCHEZ. WILSON FOUR FIVE.
AT THE MOMENT WE HAVE FIVE
VOTES, SO THAT BILL WILL BE OUT,
BUT WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU ALL.
NEXT, I THINK OF WHO'S HERE. I
SEE, MR. JONES-SAWYER. THIS IS
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AB 2338.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO. MEMBER
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. I'M PRESENTING AB 2338,
WHICH STRENGTHENS CALIFORNIA'S
RESPONSE TO THE HOMELESSNESS BY
ESTABLISHING A STATEWIDE
HOMELESSNESS COORDINATOR AS THE
LEAD ENTITY FOR ENDING
HOMELESSNESS IN CALIFORNIA.
DESPITE THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
INVESTED TO ASSIST GOVERNMENTS
AND SUPPORT HOUSING PROGRAMS, WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE THE NATION'S
LARGEST HOMELESS POPULATION.
THIS IS IN PART DUE TO THE
STATE'S DISJOINTED APPROACH TO
ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS. AB 2338
WILL ENSURE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION TO END HOMELESSNESS
BY REQUIRING THE GOVERNOR TO
APPOINT A STATEWIDE HOMELESS
COORDINATOR. THE COORDINATOR
WILL OVERSEE HOMELESS PROGRAMS,
SERVICES, DATA AND POLICIES
BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
AGENCIES. THIS BILL PROVIDES THE
COORDINATORS FLEXIBILITY TO
IDENTIFY A LOCAL LEADER AND THE
APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION TO
SERVE AS A LIAISON TO THE STATE,
AND THEN COLLABORATION WITH
LOCAL LEADERS. THE COORDINATOR
WILL PROVIDE ANNUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR. AB
2338 IS ABOUT PUTTING A PERSON
IN CHARGE THAT PEOPLE CAN LOOK
FOR GUIDANCE IS NOT ABOUT
CREATING A NEW BUREAUCRACY.
SECOND. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES, IN SUPPORT, IT WOULD
BE DOCTOR FAUCI. BUT YOU KNOW,
OKAY, THAT'S THE ONLY EXAMPLE.
NOT TODAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? OKAY.
SEEING NONE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM OR PEOPLE
THAT WISH TO STATE A POSITION,
SEEING NONE, WE'LL TURN IT BACK
TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. ANY
COMMENT OR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, WE'VE HAD A MOTION.
AND A SECOND. I WANT TO THANK
YOU, COORDINATION IS KEY FOR THE
WORK THAT WE'RE DOING TO BE ABLE
TO DELIVER BETTER ON
HOMELESSNESS PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES. AND DO YOU HAVE
ANYTHING FURTHER TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
MOTION TO PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
WORD A WORD I. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. GRAYSON. GRAYSON
AYE. CHOLERA. CHOLERA. AYE. LEE.
LEE. AYE. QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA. AYE. REYES.
SANCHEZ. WILSON SIX. THAT BILL
HAS SIX VOTES. IT WILL BE OUT.
WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. COMMITTEE AND CHAIR. THANK
YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE SPEAKER
MEREDITH RENDON WITH US. AND HE
HAS FILED ITEM NUMBER SIX AB
2399.
AND IF THERE'S ANY SUPPORT
TESTIMONY, YOU MAY ALSO JOIN MR.
RENDON AT THE PRESENTATION
TABLE. THANK YOU. YOU MAY BEGIN.
I DO IT ALONE. THANKS YES, SIR,
AB 2399 WOULD INCREASE AWARENESS
ABOUT THE MOBILE HOME RESIDENCY
LAW PROTECTION PROGRAM. MR. HELP
BY REQUIRING REQUIRING THAT
MOBILE HOME TENANTS RECEIVE AN
ANNUAL NOTICE OUTLINING THE
LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE THROUGH
MRP, EVERY YEAR, AN ANNUAL
NOTICE IS ISSUED TO MOBILE HOME
TENANTS OUTLINING THEIR RIGHTS
AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MOBILE
HOME PARK OWNERS. AB 2399 WOULD
ADD A PROVISION TO THAT ANNUAL
NOTICE EXPLAINING WHAT MRP IS,
HOW IT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF
MOBILE HOME TENANTS, AND
INFORMATION ON HOW TO UTILIZE
THE PROGRAM HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS MICHELLE
MONNING, A LEADER OF THE GOLDEN
STATE MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS
LEAGUE. SORRY, SORRY. GIVE AN
AWARD TO ADUS. SORRY. OKAY YEAH,
WELL, WE'LL HAVE YOU FIRST. AND
THEN LATER ON, WE'RE GONNA BE
JOINED BY LEGAL AID, KENDALL
DAVIS, WHO WILL BE HERE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
TAKE YOUR TIME SLOWLY. MICHELLE
MONNING NÓ. MICHELLE MONNING.
I'M REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN
STATE MOBILE HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, AND WE ARE IN VERY
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELEASED
AN ANNUAL REPORT BACK IN MARCH
OF 2023. THAT REPORT INCLUDED
DATA ON THE MOBILE HOME
RESIDENCY LAW PROTECTION PROGRAM
THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE
PUBLISHED UNDER THE LAW THAT WE
WORKED ON WITH GOVERNOR BROWN
BACK IN 2018. THE MRP IS A
PROGRAM THAT WE RESIDENTS PAY
FOR TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM
PARK OWNERS WHO VIOLATE THE
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCY LAW.
SORRY, I'M OUT OF BREATH RUNNING
THE HCD REPORT HIGHLIGHTED THE
NEED FOR EDUCATION AND OUTREACH,
ESPECIALLY OUTREACH TO THE
MOBILE HOME OWNERS REGARDING THE
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCY LAW
PROTECTION PROGRAM, ENSURING
THAT MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS ARE
EVEN AWARE OF THE PROGRAM. IT'S
CRITICAL STEP AT LEAST FOR THIS
OUTREACH. A LOT OF MOBILE HOME
OWNERS DO NOT KNOW AND ARE NOT
AWARE OF IT. THE ANNUAL NOTICE
WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED WITH OTHER
ANNUAL NOTICES THAT ARE ALREADY
REQUIRED UNDER EXISTING LAW. SO
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THAT
WAS A THAT WAS A SPRINT. DID
GREAT, HI AGAIN. THANK YOU GUYS
SO MUCH FOR ALSO HEARING THIS.
BILL OBVIOUSLY MY NAME IS
KENDALL JARVIS. I'M THE LEAD
DISASTER RELIEF ATTORNEY FOR
LEGAL AID OF SONOMA COUNTY. AND
WE ARE HERE LEGAL AID IS HERE TO
EXPRESS OUR SINCERE SUPPORT FOR
AB 2399. AND I'M REALLY HERE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR ADDRESS
ANY CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS ITEM? ROGER JOHNSON,
LAKEVIEW VILLAGE SET YOUR SIGHTS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. ROBIN MARKS, MOBILE HOME OWNER
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU ONCE
AGAIN. DEB PURCELL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND AGAIN LINDA NÓI
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
JOSEPH NYE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. AND IS THERE ANYBODY HERE
TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE BILL
.
HELLO. AND MR. CHAIR MEMBERS,
CHRIS WIECKOWSKI WITH MÀ AND A
SPEAKER EMERITUS. 2399. THE MRL
ALREADY REQUIRES A NOTICE BE
GIVEN TO RESIDENTS ABOUT THE TEN
MOST COMMON ISSUES INVOLVING
COMPLAINTS TO HCD ABOUT RIGHTS
AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
RESIDENTS AND PARKS. SINCE THE
MRP BECAME LAW, HCD REPORTS THAT
5047 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS HAVE
BEEN PROCESSED DESPITE AN
ANTICIPATED 4500 EVERY SINGLE
YEAR. HCD FURTHER NOTED IN ITS
LAST REPORT THAT OF THE MORE
THAN 5000 COMPLAINTS, OVER 30,
1556 INVOLVED ISSUES, TENANTS
ARE ALREADY NOTIFIED ABOUT UNDER
THE CURRENT LAW. THAT'S 95%
BELOW PROJECTIONS ON VALID
COMPLAINTS. ADDING AN 11TH
NOTIFICATION ABOUT THE MRP THAT
IS SET TO SUNSET IN 2027 SEEMS
UNNECESSARY. WHEN HCD S OWN DATA
CLEARLY SHOWS A LARGE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE FILING COMPLAINTS.
HAVEN'T READ THE LIST ALREADY
PROVIDED. IF THIS NOTIFICATION
IS REQUIRED W RMA HAS SOME IDEAS
ON OTHER ISSUES. WE BELIEVE
TENANTS SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF,
AS WELL AS TO REMIND THEM OF
THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE
MRL. AT SOME POINT, DISCLOSURES
BECOME MEANINGLESS. THE TOP TEN
LIST IN THE MRL IS GOING TO
START LOOKING LIKE A REAL ESTATE
DISCLOSURE FORM. WHEN YOU BUY A
PROPERTY, WMI IS OPPOSED TO
2399, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN OPPOSITION?
OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE CAN TURN
TO COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, VICE
CHAIR, I'M TRYING TO WORK MY WAY
UP. CAL MATTERS LIST OF MOST
TALKATIVE MEMBERS, SO I GOT A
LOT TO SAY TODAY, I WASN'T EVEN
THE TOP TEN. YOU KNOW, I DO
THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO
INFORMATION OVERLOAD, I MEAN,
I'M NOT GOING TO OPPOSE THIS
MEASURE, BUT, LIKE, WHEN I DO
THE, I COMPLAIN FREQUENTLY IN
PRIVACY ABOUT THE EVERY TIME I
GO TO A WEBSITE. HEY, YOU KNOW,
HERE'S ALL YOUR COOKIES WE'RE
TRACKING AND EVERYTHING. I'VE
NEVER READ THEM RIGHT. AND, BUT
I'M, I GUESS I'M BEING
PROTECTED, SO, SO WE DO HAVE TO
BE SENSITIVE TO EXPANSION OF THE
INFORMATION AND TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE CAN FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW,
JUST MAKE SURE WE HAVE A FOCUSED
APPROACH TO THIS. BUT OF COURSE,
I KNOW THE SPEAKER EMERITUS IS
TAKES US VERY SERIOUSLY. AND,
LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING, HOW
THIS BILL PROGRESSES. AND I
DON'T THINK INFORMATION IS A BAD
THING. I JUST GET CONCERNED
ABOUT INFORMATION OVERLOAD. OF
COURSE. SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WAS THE LEAST TALKATIVE
DEMOCRAT ON THAT LIST, SO I'LL
SIMPLY I'LL SIMPLY SAY THANKS.
IT TURNS OUT I WAS THE MOST
TALKATIVE DEMOCRAT ON THAT LIST
IN THE ASSEMBLY. IT WAS A GOOD
REASON, BECAUSE I HAD TO PRESIDE
OVER SESSION FOR A WHOLE YEAR OR
SO. EVERY WORD ADDED UP. ANY
OTHER MEMBER COMMENT OR
QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. I WOULD
ENTERTAIN A MOTION BY. WE HAVE
WE HAVE WE. I'M SORRY. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BRENNAN, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD, IT'S ALWAYS
CRITICAL THAT WE ARE BOOSTING
HOMEOWNERS AWARENESS OF THE
PROGRAM. AND I KNOW THAT WAS ONE
OF HCD'S RECOMMENDATIONS. YOUR
BILL, IS HELPFUL TO THAT END.
AND I INVITE YOU TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. MOTION IS TO PASS. WARD, A
WARD I PERSON PERSON NOT VOTING.
GRAYSON. CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LI
LI I QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I
REYES. SANCHEZ. WILSON THREE
FOUR. AND THE MOMENT WE HAVE
FOUR, AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. SO WE
WILL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. I SEE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WALLACE, OR I SAW HIM. I SEE HIM
AGAIN. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO
GO BACK AND FILE. THIS IS ITEM
NUMBER TWO. AB 2247. WORKS FOR
THE FOLLOWING. THEY WORK. THEY
WERE GOOD. AND WHEN YOU'RE
READY, AND IF YOU HAVE SUPPORT
AND WITNESSES, THEY MAY JOIN YOU
AT THE TABLE AS WELL. I DON'T
BELIEVE I DO. OKAY GREAT, GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
20 AB 2247, A SIMPLE MEASURE
THAT WILL EXTEND THE SUNSET OF
THE MOBILE HOME PARKS ACT FROM
JANUARY 1ST, 2025 TO JANUARY
1ST, 2030. THE BILL WILL ALSO
PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
MANUFACTURED HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
AND REVITALIZATION PROGRAM,
COMMONLY CALLED THE MOORE
PROGRAM, TO RESIDENTS AND PARK
OWNERS WHO RECEIVE A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE ANALYSIS AND
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
WHICH EXTENDS THE SUNSET IN ALL
PROVISIONS OF THE MOBILE HOME
PARKS ACT. IN THE SUMMER OF
2023, WE HAD TWO SERIOUS FIRES
IN MOBILE HOME PARKS IN MY
DISTRICT IN MEETING WITH
RESIDENTS WHOSE HOMES WERE LOST
AND DAMAGED IN THOSE FIRES, I
LEARNED THAT OFTEN RESIDENTS
DON'T KNOW WHERE TO TURN. EVEN
WHEN INSPECTIONS FIND THINGS
WRONG WITH THEIR UNITS, THEY
DON'T KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLACES
AND PROGRAMS THAT CAN HELP. THE
STATE HAS INVESTED SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCES IN THE MOORE PROGRAM,
YET RESIDENTS OFTEN DON'T KNOW
OF ITS EXISTENCE. AB 2247 WILL
REQUIRE HCD TO DEVELOP A LIST OF
ANY RESIDENT ORGANIZATIONS,
QUALIFIED NONPROFITS, AND LOCAL
PUBLIC ENTITIES THAT HAVE
RECEIVED FUNDING FROM THE MOORE
PROGRAM. WHEN HCD ISSUES A
VIOLATION UNDER THE MOBILE HOME
PARKS ACT, MY BILL WILL REQUIRE
THEM TO PROVIDE THIS LIST ALONG
WITH GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT
THE MOORE PROGRAM, THE MOBILE
HOME PARKS ACT PROTECTS THE
HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL
WELFARE OF MOBILE HOME PARK
RESIDENTS, AND THAT IS WHY THE
SUNSET EXTENSION IS IMPORTANT.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE
RESIDENTS DO NOT FACE THE
CATASTROPHIC LOSSES THAT SOME
SOME OF MY CONSTITUENTS DID
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. AND YOU HAVE NO
WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT?
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC IN SUPPORT OF THIS
ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS CHRIS WIECKOWSKI MÀ. AND
WE WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
INTRODUCING THIS BILL. THE
MOBILE HOME PARKS ACT IS
SOMETHING THAT OUR RESIDENTS OR
OUR PARK MANAGERS OR PARK OWNERS
DEAL WITH REGULARLY, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE LEGISLATION TO
EXTEND THIS TO 2030. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN OPPOSITION
, EITHER FOR TESTIMONY OR TO
STATE POSITION? OKAY. SEEING
NONE, WE CAN TURN THIS BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS.
SEEING NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION MOVED BY
VICE CHAIR, MOTION BY VICE CHAIR
AND A SECOND SECOND BY MISS
QUIRK-SILVA, MISTER WALLACE, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
FORWARD A CREATIVE IDEA TO HELP
CREATE SOME OF THE RESIDENT
AWARENESS THAT WE NEED, SOME OF
EXISTING RESOURCES, WITH THAT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION. DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A, WARD I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. I GRAYSON,
COLLURA LEE. LEE I QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA I REYES. SANCHEZ.
WILSON OKAY. AT THE MOMENT WE
HAVE FOUR VOTES IN AFFIRMATIVE,
BUT WE WILL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER POTENTIAL
AUTHORS WISHING TO PRESENT
MISTER LEE, WOULD YOU BE
PREPARED TO PRESENT A FILE ITEM
19 TÍNH.
THIS IS ASSEMBLY BILL 2881. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
TODAY I HAVE GREAT PLEASURE TO
BRING BACK ANOTHER VERSION OF
THE SOCIAL HOUSING ACT. BUT
SINCE I HAVE BEEN ABROAD IN MANY
PLACES OF THE WORLD, LIKE GOLDEN
EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL HOUSING
SINGAPORE. BUT YOU ALL HAVE NOT
BEEN ABLE TO GO WITH ME. I
THOUGHT I WOULD BRING A PIECE OF
SINGAPORE TO YOU. SO THIS IS A
MODEL OF THE PINNACLE AT DUXTON,
WHICH IS THE PREMIER SOCIAL
HOUSING COMPLEX THAT YOU SEE IN
MANY OF THE PICTURES IN THE
FOUNDING PRIME MINISTER'S
CONSTITUENCY. THIS IS A LITTLE
MODEL NOT TO SCALE, BECAUSE
THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE ENORMOUS
IF THERE WAS A SCALE. I CAN PASS
IT AROUND LATER ON THE DAIS, BUT
THIS IS THE GOLDEN EXAMPLE ON
THE ASIAN SOCIAL HOUSING WORLD
OF HOW THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES
MIXED INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TO ALL ITS RESIDENTS IN
SINGAPORE, 90, SORRY, 80% OF ALL
RESIDENTS LIVE IN SOCIAL
HOUSING. 90% OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE
HOMEOWNERS. THEY OWN THEIR
SOCIAL HOUSING FLATS, WHICH IS
ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BILL
TODAY. I'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE
PAST IN THIS COMMITTEE OF
VIENNA, WHICH IS A MORE LEFT
WING EXAMPLE, A REALLY GREAT
EXAMPLE AS WELL. BUT FOR SAKE OF
SOME OF OUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I
WANT TO FOCUS ON SINGAPORE,
WHICH HAS CONSISTENTLY RANKED
NUMBER ONE ON THE WORLD ECONOMIC
FREEDOM INDEX AND CONSISTENTLY
RANKS AS QUITE MORE CONSERVATIVE
OF A GOVERNMENT. BUT LEFT
GOVERNMENTS IN EUROPE, RIGHT
WING GOVERNMENTS IN ASIA HAVE
ALL ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION
THAT TO PROVIDE A STABLE
ECONOMIC FOUNDATION FOR THEIR
PEOPLE, THEY NEED TO HAVE BEEN
THE BUSINESS OF PROVISION OF
HOUSING, JUST AS WE DO IN
AMERICA WITH SCHOOLS AND OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY DO SO WITH
HOUSING. SO THIS BILL, AB 2881,
WILL EMBARK UPON CREATING OUR
OWN STATEWIDE SOCIAL HOUSING
DEVELOPER TO HELP LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FULFILL THEIR GOALS
OF HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES. IT IS TRUE,
WHEN YOU HEAR FROM OPPOSITION IN
OTHER CITIES THAT THEY DO NOT
ACTUALLY BUILD ANY HOUSING,
THEIR EXERCISE IS COLORING
THINGS ON A MAP, BUT THEY DO NOT
HAVE THE TOOLS DIRECTLY FULFILL
THOSE NEEDS THEMSELVES. JUST AS
A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS THE TOOL
TO FULFILL BUILDING NEW SCHOOLS
AND HIRING TEACHERS, THE CITY'S
COUNTIES, EVEN THE STATE, DO NOT
HAVE THE DIRECT JURISDICTION OR
TOOLS TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR
THEIR PEOPLE. SO WHAT WE ARE
PROPOSING IS TO CREATE A
STATEWIDE DEVELOPER TO CREATE
MIXED INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ACROSS THE STATE. AND THIS IS
BILL WAS SUPPORTED OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR, AND IT
PASSED WITH TWO THIRDS
MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES. AND
WAS SENT TO THE GOVERNOR. SO WE
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
GOVERNOR, OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND
CONTINUE TO TRY TO INNOVATE.
THIS PRACTICE IS CERTAINLY
SOMETHING NEW IN THE CALIFORNIA
CONTEXT, BUT SOMETHING NOT
SOMETHING NEW TO OUR ASIAN
EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS WHO'VE
BEEN DOING IT FOR OVER 100
YEARS. SO RESPECTFULLY, WE ASK
YOU FOR A VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS ALI
SAPIRMAN AND I'M SPEAKING IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL
2881. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION. HAC, A
MEMBER SUPPORTED NONPROFIT THAT
ADVOCATES FOR CREATING MORE
HOUSING FOR CALIFORNIANS OF ALL
INCOME LEVELS TO HELP ALLEVIATE
THE STATE'S HOUSING SHORTAGE,
DISPLACEMENT AND AFFORDABILITY
CRISIS ACROSS OUR STATE. MORE
THAN 97% OF CITIES AND COUNTIES
HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE
ENOUGH HOUSING UNDER AB 2881,
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD BE
ABLE TO BOTH PURCHASE EXISTING
HOMES AND BUILD NEW HOMES AT ALL
INCOME LEVELS. THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY, WHICH WOULD WORK ON A
MIXED INCOME HOUSING MODEL,
WOULD ALLOW THE STATE TO SCALE
UP AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION
WITHOUT REQUIRING ONGOING
APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE STATE OR
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AB 2881 IS
INFORMED BY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MODELS INCLUDING MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, MARYLAND, VIENNA, AND
SINGAPORE. WHAT IS MADE THESE
MODELS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SUCCESSFUL IS THEIR ABILITY TO
BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT
SCALE, AND BUILD MIXED INCOME
PROJECTS THAT ENJOY A FISCAL
SUSTAINABILITY. I'M ALSO HERE AS
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN DIRECTLY
IMPACTED BY OUR STATE'S HOUSING
CRISIS SINCE 2017, I HAVE HAD TO
MOVE 12 TIMES DUE TO RISING
COSTS OF RENT AND LACK OF
HOUSING SUPPLY. I WILL SOON BE
PRICED OUT OF SAN JOSE AND
FORCED TO MOVE ONCE AGAIN. NO
ONE SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE LIKE
THIS. CONSTANTLY MOVING WITH A
LOOMING THREAT OF EVICTION, ON
THE BRINK OF HOMELESSNESS. YET
MY STORY IS NOT UNUSUAL AMONG
LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE INCOME
RESIDENTS ACROSS THE BAY AREA.
IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR
STATE'S HOUSING CRISIS
SERIOUSLY, WE NEED TO USE EVERY
POSSIBLE TOOL TO BUILD MORE
HOUSING FOR PEOPLE OF ALL INCOME
LEVELS AND SOCIAL HOUSING IS
JUST ANOTHER TOOL THAT WE MUST
TAKE SERIOUSLY TO EXPLORE TO
HELP ALLEVIATE CALIFORNIA'S
HOUSING SHORTAGE AND
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. FOR ALL OF
THESE REASONS, AND MANY OTHERS,
I URGE YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT AB
2881 SO THAT OUR HARD WORKING
RESIDENTS ACROSS THE STATE CAN
AFFORD TO LIVE WHERE THEY WORK,
STUDY AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS ITEM? MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, RAND MARTIN, ON BEHALF
OF THE AIDS HEALTHCARE
FOUNDATION AND ITS HEALTHY
HOUSING FOUNDATION, IN VERY
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ZONGO WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
SUPPORT THIS ITEM, ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
ITEM? MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS.
BOB NEIL, REPRESENTING
FIELDSTEAD AND COMPANY. WE'RE
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. WE WANT
A BAN. EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT
WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN OTHER
LEGISLATION, NOTABLY, KAMLAGER
DOVES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY INCLUDES A BAR
ON USING FUNDS FOR EMINENT
DOMAIN, WE BASE THIS ON THE, THE
REPORT OF THE, OF THE COMMISSION
ON REPARATIONS, WHICH HAS A LONG
CHAPTER DETAILING EMINENT DOMAIN
ABUSE OVER THE YEARS IN
CALIFORNIA AGAINST MINORITY AND
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES. AND THE
PROBLEM WITH SETTING UP FINE
PLANS FOR HOW YOU'RE GOING TO
DEVELOP PROPERTY IS THAT VERY
OFTEN THE ECONOMY OR INTEREST
RATES OR THE DEVELOPER, CAN'T
FULFILL THOSE OBLIGATIONS. AND
SO YOU'VE TAKEN THE PROPERTY
FROM UNWILLING SMALL BUSINESSES
AND HOMEOWNERS, AND SET IT ASIDE
FOR USE FOR, FOR OTHER THAN,
ROADS, HIGHWAYS, SCHOOLS, READY
TO GIVE IT TO OTHER PRIVATE
PARTIES, AND, AND YOU HAVEN'T
ACCOMPLISHED THE PURPOSE. SO, I
MEAN, YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO A FEW
BLOCKS FROM HERE. I'LL BE
REPEATING THIS WITH ANOTHER
BILL. I'LL SHORTEN IT NEXT TIME.
BUT WE ASK FOR A NO VOTE UNLESS
THE EMINENT DOMAIN IS BARRED.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
BRADY GARDNER, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, I
BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
DID A GOOD JOB COVERING OUR
CONCERNS. SO WE DO HAVE AN
OPPOSING THIS AMENDED POSITION,
BUT LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NO
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO BE ADDRESSED, MISS
QUIRK-SILVA. I HAVE A QUESTION
FOR THE AUTHOR. IS THIS YOUR
SECOND TIME WITH THIS BILL
CONCEPT OR THIRD? IT'S
TECHNICALLY THIRD, BUT SECOND,
WHEN MOVING THROUGHOUT. WELL, I
APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I
BELIEVE I'VE BEEN ON THE
COMMITTEE THE ENTIRE TIME. AND
WHEN YOU FIRST PROPOSED THIS A
FEW YEARS BACK, I WAS, MILDLY
SURPRISED. NATIVE, IF YOU WANT
TO SAY IT THAT WAY. AND, PARTLY
BECAUSE THE CONCEPT, HAD A
BIGGER CONTEXT THAN I WAS AT
THAT POINT, WANTING TO ACCEPT,
MEANING THAT IT WAS HARD TO GET
MY ARMS AROUND US, SETTING UP A
WHOLE NOTHER STRUCTURE OF
GOVERNMENT. THAT BEING SAID, I
UNDERSTAND YOUR GOALS, MUCH
CLEARER AND, AS YOU NOTED THAT
WE AS GOVERNMENT DON'T ALWAYS DO
THE BEST JOB OF, PLAN LAYING AND
BUILDING HOUSING, WHETHER IT'S
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, COUNTY OR
EVEN STATE. BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE
THESE BIG IDEAS. WE HAVE TO HAVE
THESE ASPIRATIONS, PARTICULARLY
NOW IN A TIME THAT IT SEEMS SO
DIM RELATED TO HOUSING. WE HAVE
NOW GENERATIONS OF VERY YOUNG
INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T BELIEVE
THAT THERE'S A PLACE FOR THEM TO
CALL HOME IN CALIFORNIA, AND
SOMETIMES IT'S PLANTING THE
SEED, TO LOOK TOWARDS THE
FUTURE. AND SOMETIMES IT TAKES
THREE TIMES, SOMETIMES EVEN IN A
VERY DIFFICULT BUDGET, IT
DOESN'T ALWAYS MATCH THE
ASPIRATIONS. BUT IF WE DON'T
START THE PROCESS OF LOOKING
TOWARDS THE FUTURE, WE MAY VERY
WELL BE HAVING THE SAME
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE LIMITED
HOUSING, HOUSING PRODUCTION
PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE
ANY AFFORDABILITY AND TI¾N IN 20
YEARS FROM NOW. SO I DO SUPPORT
THIS BILL. YOU GOT ME WITH THE
LITTLE MODEL, SO MAKE SURE. NO,
I'M JOKING, BUT, NO, I'M I'M
REALLY HAPPY TO SEE YOU TAKE
THIS ON. AND LIKE I SAID, I WAS
LESS SUPPORTIVE THE FIRST TIME.
I KNOW I SUPPORTED IT LAST YEAR,
AND NOW I WILL MOVE THE BILL,
BUT I DON'T SEE OTHER MEMBERS
HERE. WELL, YEAH. THANK YOU, MR.
QUIRK-SILVA. VICE CHAIR. WELL,
THIS IS ALL RIGHT. I JUST RIP
THE MICROPHONE RIGHT OUT OF THIS
THING, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE
YOU. THIS ISN'T, LIKE A SMALL
IDEA. YOU KNOW, IT'S A PRETTY
BIG IDEA. AND, I THINK YOUR IDEA
GETS A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE YOU BRING IN OTHER
COMPONENTS THAT MAKE IT A LITTLE
BIT MORE, I GUESS, FROM A PERSON
WHO DOESN'T REALLY LIKE
GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, TAKING
OVER PRIVATE SECTOR INDUSTRIES,
YOU KNOW, YOU MAKE IT A LITTLE
BIT MORE TOLERABLE, YOU KNOW,
HOME OWNERSHIP. AND I DID
OWNERSHIP OF THESE FLATS. AND I
DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT,
HOW EXACTLY YOU KNOW, THEY'RE
OBVIOUSLY GOVERNMENT, VERY BIG
GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES THAT GO
INTO THESE PROJECTS. SO IF YOU
GO IN AND YOU OWN ONE, HOW DOES
THAT WORK IN THE COUNTRIES YOU
VISITED IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY GO
TO SELL OR WHATNOT? SURE. SO
SPEAKING STRICTLY IN THE
SINGAPOREAN STYLE MODEL. SO THE
GOVERNMENT CREATES ALL THEIR
HOUSING THROUGH THE HDB, THE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD. SO
ALL KIND OF IN A VERY CORPORATE
TONE AND EVERYTHING THEY DO, SO
LIKE I SAID, 80% OF THE
POPULATION LIVES IN SOCIAL
HOUSING, 20% OF THEM LIVE ON
PRIVATE HOUSING. SO THERE'S
STILL PLENTY OF REALTORS
MANSIONS, PENTHOUSES AND THINGS
LIKE EXIST ON THE MARKET AS
WELL. SINGAPORE IS A CITY NATION
OF 5 MILLION PEOPLE, ROUGHLY
HALF THE SIZE OF THE BAY AREA.
SO THEY'RE ALSO VERY, VERY RICH
PEOPLE AS WELL, BUT IN THE HOME
OWNERSHIP MODEL, WHERE BASICALLY
THE ENTIRE POPULATION CAN AFFORD
AND IS ELIGIBLE, THEY HAVE LOTS
OF DIFFERENT LIKE SCHEMES IN
WHICH YOU CAN AFFORD IT TO,
EVERYONE OWNS THEIR FLAT, WHICH
IS APARTMENT SLASH CONDO. THEY
DON'T OWN THE ENTIRE BUILDING,
BUT THEY OWN THEIR INDIVIDUAL
FLAT. RIGHT? AND AS AN OWNER,
YOU HAVE ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS
THAT YOU TYPICALLY ASSOCIATE.
YOU PASS ON TO HEIRS. YOU CAN
SELL IT. BUT JUST TO CAREFULLY
NOTE IS THAT THEY HAVE A MARKET
WHICH APPRECIATION OF THE ASSET
IS PRETTY MUCH EXPECTED AS WELL.
JUST LIKE IN OUR OUR MARKET, THE
MARKET IS DEFINED BY ELIGIBLE
RESIDENTS. SO THERE ARE NO HEDGE
FUNDS IN THERE. THERE ARE NO
CORPORATIONS, JUST OTHER
ELIGIBLE SINGAPOREAN CITIZENS.
AND THEY BUY THESE ASSETS FROM
ONE ANOTHER. AND THEY CAN TRADE
TO DO SO. OR THEY CAN SELL BACK
TO THE GOVERNMENT, SORT OF INTO
THE WEEDS ON THIS IS THAT
SINGAPORE PRACTICES 99 YEAR
LEASES ON THE LAND. SO THE
STRUCTURE YOU LIVE IN WILL ONLY
EXIST FOR 99 YEARS. IT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL
CAN ONLY LIVE IN THE COUNTRY FOR
99 YEARS. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS AS
A CLOCK GETS CLOSER AND CLOSER,
YOUR ASSET KIND OF HAS A BIT OF
A SMALL DEPRECIATION, BUT YOU
ALSO KNOW YOUR ASSET IS GOING
TO, YOU KNOW, GO AWAY SOMETIME.
SO THEY WOULD SELL THEIR HOUSE
AND TRADE UP TO A NEWER FLAT IS
WHAT THEY CONSTANTLY DO IS THEY
REJUVENATE THE STOCK. AND SO A
STARTING FAMILY OR MAYBE A
SINGLE PERSON, IT'S LIKE, WELL,
THIS ONE'S ONLY GOT 15 YEARS
LEFT AND IT'S GOING TO BE SOLD
AT A SLIGHT DISCOUNT. I GO TO
THAT ONE AND THEN THEY
APPRECIATE AND GROW THEIR WEALTH
AND THEY KEEP TRADING AND
BUYING. SO IT'S A SYSTEM IN
WHICH YOU DO HAVE ALL THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOME
OWNERSHIP. AND YOU STILL HAVE
APPRECIATION AND WEALTH
GENERATION TO. THIS IS A UNIQUE
MODEL THAT WE HAVE INCORPORATED
INTO THIS ONE WHERE THERE IS
SOME APPRECIATION, THERE IS A
MARKET IN WHICH YOU CAN TRADE
AND SELL OR PASS ON TO HEIRS, AS
WELL AS AN OPTION. DOES
SINGAPORE HAVE, VERY A BIG DELTA
BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR
THERE? I'VE NEVER BEEN THERE.
THEY'RE STILL IS INCOME
INEQUALITY THERE. CERTAINLY,
THEY STILL HAVE THEIR SHARE OF
BILLIONAIRES AND EVERYONE, BUT
GENERALLY THEIR POVERTY LEVELS,
I WOULD SAY ARE MUCH LOWER, TOO.
THERE STILL IS, YOU KNOW,
BETWEEN THE VERY, VERY RICH
PEOPLE AND THE MIDDLE CLASS
PEOPLE THAT STILL EXIST, THOUGH.
I MEAN, HONESTLY, I HOPE TO BE A
BILLIONAIRE SOMEDAY. SO SO ON,
ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL JUST SAY
THERE WHAT YOU DID AT ONE. LOOK,
I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL, BUT JUST A I'LL PUT THAT
OUT THERE. BUT YOU DID. ALMOST
GOT ME. NO, I'LL TELL YOU, THE
TWO COMPETING INTERESTS THAT I
HAVE. ONE IS YOU BROUGHT UP A
PRETTY. IT'S NOT A CRAZY THING
TO SAY. HEY, LOOK, WE INVEST AS
A STATE IN A LOT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT PEOPLE RELY
ON. YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT'S
ROADS OR SCHOOLS. AND, YOU KNOW,
YOU, AS YOU CAN SEE IN
CALIFORNIA, IT'S HARD TO DO A
LOT OF THINGS WITHOUT A PLACE TO
LIVE. AND SO AND ALSO, BY THE
WAY, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT, WE
SUBSIDIES AND UTILITIES, I MEAN,
THE LIST SORT OF GOES ON AND ON.
SO IT'S NOT AN IRRATIONAL THING
TO SAY. HOUSING SHOULD, SHOULD
BE A COMPONENT OF THAT. THAT
SAID, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK
THE GOVERNMENT, PARTICULARLY IN
CALIFORNIA, DOES THINGS
PARTICULARLY WELL. WE JUST HAD,
I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT
COMMITTEE THERE'S SO MANY
COMMITTEES THIS WEEK, BUT I
SUBBED ON NATURAL RESOURCES
WHERE THE, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE. I MEAN,
I DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF
CONFIDENCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
OF CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO CUT
RED TAPE AND GETTING PRODUCTION
OUT THERE. AND I DO HAVE THIS
PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW THAT IF ALL
WE DID IN CALIFORNIA, AND I
THINK I MAY HAVE SAID IT IN THIS
COMMITTEE BEFORE, IF ALL WE DID
WAS MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD
HOUSING IN PLACES THAT ARE
ALREADY INTENDED TO BE HOUSING,
WHERE THE ZONING ALREADY MATCHES
AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE DON'T
HAVE RED TAPE AFTER RED TAPE
AFTER RED TAPE TO JUST BUILD
APARTMENTS WHERE APARTMENTS ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE. THEN WE PROBABLY
SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS
TOMORROW. SO, SO I, I'M MORE OF
A FAN OF, HEY, I DO BELIEVE THE
PRIVATE MARKET CAN DELIVER
HOUSING ABUNDANTLY IF WE ALLOW
THEM TO. AND SO THOSE ARE MY
COMPETING INTERESTS. I DO LIKE
YOU ALWAYS KEEPING THE. YOU'RE
ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT THIS, AND
NOT JUST FROM. I THINK YOU USED
THE WORDS LEFT WING IN YOUR
PRESENTATION, NOT JUST FROM THAT
SORT OF PERSPECTIVE, BUT ALSO
CONSIDERING OTHER THOUGHTS. AND
I THINK JUST, YOU KNOW, KEEP
GOING WITH THAT. AND, YOU KNOW,
WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONE
DAY. BUT THANKS. JUST TO QUICKLY
NOTE ON THE PART ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, CUTTING THROUGH THE RED
TAPE AND APPLYING PRESSURE FOR
MORE APARTMENTS BEING BUILT,
WHAT THEY ARE, THE TWO THINGS IS
IN EVERY COUNTRY THAT HAS A
SOCIAL HOUSING TOOL, BECAUSE
WHEN THEIR GOVERNMENT HAS AN
INTEREST IN DEVELOPING, THEY
ALSO HAVE AN INTEREST IN MAKING
SURE THAT THE ZONING AND ALL THE
HOUSING REGULATIONS MAKE SENSE
TOO. SO WHEN THEY'RE A PLAYER,
THEY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN
MAKING SURE THE LANDSCAPE MAKES
SENSE. I WOULD ARGUE TODAY WHEN
CITY GOVERNMENTS, STATE
GOVERNMENTS DON'T HAVE A VESTED
INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENT, THEY
ALSO TAKE A MORE REMOVED
PERSPECTIVE. DON'T HAVE THE SAME
PERSPECTIVE. AND THAT'S WHY YOU
SEE ACTUALLY MORE PRODUCTION IN
BOTH LEFT WING AND RIGHT WING
PLACES. THANK YOU. SUMMER
CALLER, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
AND I'LL SECOND THE MOTION, AND,
YOU KNOW, TO THE LAST POINT, I
THINK THE STATE HAS BEEN TRYING
TO REMOVE OBSTACLES. I THINK THE
OBSTACLES TEND TO BE MORE AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL THAN THEY ARE AT THE
STATE LEVEL, WHEN IT COMES TO
HOUSING PRODUCTION, AND IF THE
VICE CHAIR INTENDS ON BEING A
BILLIONAIRE, I DON'T KNOW IF
SITTING IN ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES
ALL DAY IS THE WAY TO WEALTH
GENERATION, BUT I COMMEND YOUR
ASPIRATIONS, AND I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR CONTINUING, TO
BRING THIS ISSUE TO THE
LEGISLATURE, AND I DO THINK THAT
WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET
THERE. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE
PLENTY OF MODELS, AS THE, THE
AUTHOR HAS INDICATED THAT EXIST
THAT THAT MAKE SENSE, THAT CAN
PROVIDE, HOUSING IN A MANNER
THAT IS STABLE AND ACCESSIBLE,
AND HAS A LONG TERME VISION. AND
SO I'LL CERTAINLY BE SUPPORTING
IT. I'VE TRADITIONALLY BEEN A
COAUTHOR ON THIS. I'D LIKE TO
HAVE, AS A COAUTHOR, ONCE AGAIN,
AND THAT WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
BILL AS IT HOPEFULLY MOVES
FORWARD. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR.
KALRA. SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS
WISHING TO, COMMENT, SIMILARLY,
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING A
CHAMPION ON THIS ISSUE. I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE
EXPANDING OUR HORIZON ON A LOT
OF NEW MODELS AND LITERALLY, YOU
BROUGHT A MODEL TODAY. SO THANK
YOU FOR IT'S HELPFUL TO SEE THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IN
REAL WORLD PRACTICE AND NOT JUST
SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS
EXISTING, IN OTHER YOU KNOW,
VERY DEVELOPED, COUNTRIES TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE POPULATION'S
NEEDS. AND, YOU KNOW, WITH
RESPECT TO OUR VICE CHAIR, YOU
KNOW, JUST BECAUSE I THINK SOME
OF US CAN BE FRUSTRATED AROUND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES DOESN'T MEAN
THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO
DO BETTER, AND EXACTLY WHAT I
THINK A LOT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS
ARE ASKING US TO DO, TO DO MORE
TO, TO, TO, TO PERSONALLY GET
MORE INVOLVED IN SUPPLYING,
MIDDLE INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS MODEL TYPE,
WOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE, NOT
THAT I WOULD HOPE THAT IT WOULD
TAKE YOU THIS LONG, BUT I WOULD
BELIEVE THAT IF YOU, IN 12 YEARS
HERE, WOULD SPEND, YOU KNOW,
INTRODUCE 12 BILLS BECAUSE, THIS
IS DEFINITELY AN INCORPORATION
AND A NEEDED MODEL THAT WE HAVE
AS A COMPLEMENT TO ALL OF OUR
HOUSING TYPES HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. AND THE
OPPORTUNITIES HERE TO BUILD
WEALTH, FOR FUTURE MIDDLE INCOME
CALIFORNIANS AS WELL AS
CERTAINLY RIGHT THERE IN FRONT
OF US. SO THANK YOU FOR LEADING
ON THIS ISSUE. AND I INVITE YOU
TO I'D BE ALSO BE HONORED TO BE
A COAUTHOR OF THE BILL, I WOULD
INVITE YOU TO CLOSE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND I JUST WANT TO
THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR COMING
ALONG WITH ME ON THE JOURNEY OF
SOCIAL HOUSING. I KNOW BEFORE I
WAS ELECTED, WE DID NOT EVEN
TALK ABOUT THE TERMS SOCIAL
HOUSING, BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY A
TERME THAT WAS USED
INTERNATIONALLY, VERY WIDELY IN
ALL CONTEXTS. AND I KNOW
ASSEMBLY CHOLERA HAS ALSO HAD
THE HAS THE CHANCE TO VISIT
PARISIAN AND FRENCH SOCIAL
HOUSING PLACES AS WELL. SO AS WE
GET MORE ACCUSTOMED AND USED TO
IT, WE CAN KNOW THAT THINGS LIKE
THIS ARE NOT SCARY OR OPPRESSIVE
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IN FACT,
IT IS VERY COMMONPLACE IN MANY
PLACES IN THE WORLD. AND ONE
THING I JUST WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT, I FORGOT TO TALK
ABOUT IN MY INTRO, IS THAT THIS
IS A NEW MODEL THAT CAN ALSO BE
MUCH MORE FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE
TO THE IDEA OF
CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION, WHERE
PEOPLE WITH HIGHER INCOMES
SUBSIDIZE WITH LOWER INCOMES AND
THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT.
NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL IS SOMETHING
THAT WE BADLY NEED, ESPECIALLY
IN A TIME WHEN WE'RE MAKING SO
MANY CUTS TO HOUSING MONEY. SO I
REALLY DO THINK THIS IS A GREAT
MODEL THAT WE CAN INNOVATE ON
AND COMPLEMENT THE TOOLS. LIKE,
AS THE CHAIR SAID. AND I ALWAYS
REMIND PEOPLE THAT EVEN IN RED
VIENNA, THERE IS STILL REAL
ESTATE AGENTS. SO WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MOTION TO
PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
AND APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A, WARD
I PATTERSON. GRAYSON. CHOLERA
CHOLERA. I LI I LI I QUIRK-SILVA
. QUIRK-SILVA I REYES. SANCHEZ.
WILSON WE ARE AT FOUR VOTES. WE
WILL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
NEXT. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
MR. TING, THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER NINE, EB 2488. AND I
INVITE ANY OF YOUR WITNESSES TO
JOIN YOU AT THE TABLE TO
PRESENT. PERFECT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND FIRST, LET ME JUST
THANK YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE FOR
YOUR HELP ON AB 2488, 2040, 2488
WILL ALLOW SAN FRANCISCO TO
CREATE A DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
DISTRICT TO HELP FINANCE THE
CONVERSION OF EMPTY OFFICE
BUILDINGS INTO NEW HOMES, AS YOU
KNOW, SINCE COVID, SO MANY
DOWNTOWN IS REMAIN EMPTY,
LACKING WORKERS, WHICH USED TO
SUPPORT A VERY VIBRANT, SMALL
BUSINESS COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S
RESTAURANTS, CAFES, TAILORS, DRY
CLEANERS, A VARIETY OF SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT REALLY RELIED ON
WORKERS GOING INTO DOWNTOWN
EVERY SINGLE DAY, SINCE THEN,
WITH A VERY EMPTY DOWNTOWN, WE
HAVE ABOUT 32,000,000FT² OF
EMPTY OFFICE SPACE, MY CITY
LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN LOOKING AT
DIFFERENT WAYS TO BRING MORE
PEOPLE DOWNTOWN. AND ONE OF
THOSE WAYS, WE'VE DECIDED, IS TO
CREATE MORE HOUSING. AND SO THIS
BILL WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO
CREATE A DISTRICT TO CREATE SOME
INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE, OFFICE
BUILDING OWNERS TO CONVERT THEIR
OFFICES INTO HOUSING, THIS IS
WHILE GETTING MORE HOUSING IS
ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. THIS IS NOT
PRIMARILY A HOUSING BILL. I
WOULD SAY THIS IS REALLY ABOUT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION. AND
IT'S REALLY ABOUT TRYING TO GET
MORE PEOPLE INTO DOWNTOWN. AND
AS WE KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE AN
AREA THAT'S EMPTY AND YOU DON'T
HAVE VERY MANY PEOPLE, IT LEADS
TO CRIME. IT LEADS TO PEOPLE
FEELING VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. IT
ALSO REALLY HAS LED TO A NUMBER
OF BUSINESSES CLOSING DOWNTOWN.
SO AGAIN, REALLY APPRECIATE ALL
YOURS AND THE COMMITTEE'S HELP
ON AB 2488, I HAVE, LEWIS
MERANTE HERE FROM THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL AS MY WITNESS. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LUIS
MORANTE. I WORK ON HOUSING
POLICY FOR THE BAY AREA COUNCIL,
I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE MR.
TING'S POINT, AND THEN I'LL SORT
OF BE AVAILABLE FOR TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS THAT FOR MUCH OF THE
BAY AREA DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO
IS A BIG LIABILITY RIGHT NOW. WE
WANT TO GET EMPLOYERS WANT TO
GET FOLKS BACK DOWNTOWN. THEY
WANT PEOPLE ON THE STREET AND
THAT'S THE GOAL OF THIS BILL.
HOUSING IS JUST A STRATEGY, THIS
IS A HUGE PRIORITY FOR THE
COUNCIL'S MEMBERS, THE, THE
SITUATION IN DOWNTOWN SAN
FRANCISCO IS REGULARLY ON THE
NEWS, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
NEED DESPERATELY TO DEVELOP NEW
TOOLS FOR THAT. THE MAYOR OF SAN
FRANCISCO HAS A 2030 BY 30 PLAN
WHERE SHE'S TRYING TO GET 30,000
NEW PEOPLE DOWNTOWN BY 2030. WE
THINK A BILL LIKE THIS COULD
HELP US GET 14,000 NEW HOMES UP,
MAKE HUGE PROGRESS ON THAT 30 BY
30 GOAL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS.
CATHERINE CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING ACTION COALITION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
SKYLER WONACOTT, CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU MICHAEL
AND WHISPERING STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, SYLVIA
SOLIS SHAW ON BEHALF OF CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR
LONDON BREED AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO STATE A POSITION OF
OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. COMMENTS OR ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. SECOND MOTION BY MR. LEE
AND SECONDED BY MR. KALRA,
SOMETHING I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR WORK, OUR, I GUESS OUR
FAVORITE CITY AND COUNTY, IN OUR
STATE, I KNOW THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WILL BRING A LOT
OF BENEFIT, POTENTIAL BENEFIT,
WE'RE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR NEW
TOOLS AND WAYS TO BE ABLE TO
SPUR, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND THE CONVERSION, THAT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY HERE IN THE
REVITALIZATION THAT WE NEED. AND
YOUR DOWNTOWN IS, YOU KNOW,
CLEARLY APPARENT. I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR WORKING CLOSELY
WITH, I THINK, COMMITTEE AND
THEN ALSO WITH OUR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, BEFORE,
TODAY'S HEARING, TO BE ABLE TO
TRY TO MAKE THIS CONSISTENT WITH
THE WAY THAT WE ARE WORKING ON
OTHER KINDS OF, NEW STREAMLINING
TOOLS AND FINANCING TOOLS. SO I
THINK THAT THAT'S, KIND OF
STRIKES THAT GOOD BALANCE. AND
WITH THAT, I'D INVITE YOU TO
CLOSE, THANK YOU. JUST REALLY
APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HELP, THE
COMMITTEE'S HELP, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HELP. AND REALLY
MAKING THIS A GOOD BILL AND
HOPEFULLY ANOTHER TOOL FOR OUR
CITY TO BRING MORE PEOPLE BACK
DOWNTOWN. WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE VOTE ON
AB 2488. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION TO PASS WARD A WARD. AYE.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON NOT VOTING.
GRAYSON. CHOLERA CHOLERA. I LI
LI I QUIRK-SILVA. REYES. SANCHEZ
NOT VOTING. WILSON AND WE ARE AT
THREE VOTES. SO WE WILL HOLD A
ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. AND
THAT BILL WILL BE ON CALL
.
JUST A QUICK NOTE OF PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE, TODAY IS
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS DAY
, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO DO. NONE OF US WOULD BE
HERE, AND WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
ADVANCE THE HARD WORK THAT WE
NEED TO DO FOR HOUSING POLICY IN
OUR STATE. IF IT WASN'T FOR OUR
FANTASTIC COMMITTEE SECRETARY.
SO ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US, WE
WANT TO THANK YOU AND WISH YOU A
HAPPY, PROFESSIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS
DAY. DESPINA THANKS SO. THANK
YOU. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. THANK
YOU. OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO BE
CALLING FOR MORE AUTHORS TO COME
TO ROOM 437. IN THE MEANTIME, I
THINK ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THERE'S
MR. LOWENTHAL. DIDN'T SEE YOU
THERE. WELL, THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US, THIS WILL BE FILE
ITEM NUMBER 11, AB 2506. AND
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY BEGIN
PRESENTATION. IT RAINS, IT POURS
. WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.
GO GOOD MORNING. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AS WE ALL KNOW,
CALIFORNIA IS IN THE MIDST OF A
HOUSING CRISIS WHERE 52% OF THE
STATE'S RENTERS ARE HOUSING
BURDENED, MEANING THEY SPEND
MORE THAN 30% OF THEIR MONTHLY
INCOME ON RENT. JPA OWNED AND
GOVERNMENT OWNED RENTAL
PROPERTIES ARE FILLING A NEED TO
HELP PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED HOUSING
FOR CALIFORNIA'S DISENFRANCHIZED
COMMUNITIES. THE JPA'S HAVE BEEN
WILDLY SUCCESSFUL COLLECTIVELY
CONVERTING OVER 14,000 MARKET
RATE UNITS INTO HOUSING THAT IS
AFFORDABLE TO LOW, MEDIAN AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS FOR
OVER 40 YEARS, THE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION HAS CONSISTENTLY
OPINED THAT TENANTS OF PUBLICLY
OWNED, LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING DID NOT HAVE TAXABLE
POSSESSORY INTEREST IN OCTOBER
OF 2022. HOWEVER, THE BOARD
ISSUED AN AMBIGUOUS LETTER
CONTRADICTING THEIR EARLIER
ADVICE AND CLAIMING THAT TENANTS
DID HAVE A POSSESSORY INTEREST,
BUT THAT ASSESSORS SHOULD NOT
ASSESS THEM. THIS ENSUING
UNCERTAINTY AND CONTROVERSY
THREATENED THE VIABILITY OF THIS
MUCH NEEDED PARTIAL SOLUTION TO
THE AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
CRISIS, TO EXPOSE TENANTS TO
UNPLANNED AND UNPRECEDENTED
PROPERTY TAX BILLS, AND TO
COMPLICATE LOCAL TAX
ADMINISTRATION. IT ALSO
FRUSTRATES THE GOVERNMENT'S
PURPOSE IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING IN THE FIRST
PLACE. TO PREVENT THIS, AB 2506
AUTHORIZES A COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO EXEMPT FROM
PROPERTY TAXATION ANY POSSESSORY
INTEREST HELD BY A TENANT, A
PUBLICLY OWNED HOUSING WITH A
VALUE SO LOW THAT THE TOTAL
TAXES AND APPLICABLE SUBVENTIONS
OF THE PROPERTY WOULD AMOUNT TO
LESS THAN THE COST OF ASSESSING
AND COLLECTING THEM. IN
ADDITION, I'VE AGREED TO THE
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP CORPORATION
THAT I'LL BE TAKING IN THE REV
AND TAX COMMITTEE. I HAVE NO
WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY, BUT MY
STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT ASK.
THANK YOU, MR. LOWENTHAL. AND
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
ITEM? HI, MEG SNYDER, AXIOM
ADVISORS, ON BEHALF OF WATERFORD
PROPERTY COMPANY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANDREW DAWSON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP, WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF
AMENDED. AS SOME MEMBER
LOWENTHAL HAS STATED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY TREASURER
AND TAX COLLECTORS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND SEEING NO ONE
ELSE WISHING TO BE RECOGNIZED,
ARE THERE ANY IS THERE ANY
TESTIMONY HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? YOU SEE NONE OR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
STATE A POSITION OF OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL TURN THIS
BACK TO COMMITTEE. ANY MEMBER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WOULD
ENTERTAIN A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR
AND SECONDED BY MR. LEE, SENATOR
LOWENTHAL, I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD,
HAD A CHANCE TO WORK ON THIS
ISSUE AREA, RECENTLY IN A
PREVIOUS SESSION AND, THROUGH
THAT DISCUSSION HAD LEARNED
ABOUT THIS ISSUE THAT OUR
CURRENT STATUTE, IS,
INADVERTENTLY, POTENTIALLY
CAUSING, TENANTS TO PICK UP THE
BILL, AND SEE SOME OF THIS,
TAXATION OTHERWISE PASSED ON TO
THEM. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T WANT TO,
INADVERTENTLY AND TRAP THEM TO,
SO I APPRECIATE YOU ALSO
FLAGGING THAT AND OFFERING THIS
BILL HERE TO BE ABLE TO CORRECT
THAT. AND I INVITE YOU TO CLOSE,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ACTION. DO PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND
TAXATION AWARD. I, I HARRISON
HARRISON, I GRAYSON GRAYSON. I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I LI LEE I
QUIRK-SILVA REYES. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ I WILSON. WE THAT BILL
HAS SEVEN VOTES. IT WILL BE OUT,
BUT WE'LL HOLD A ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU. OH
OKAY. NOW, SEEING NO OTHER
AUTHORS READY TO PRESENT, WE'LL
ADD ON TO THE BILL. CAN YOU ADD
ON TO A BILL? SURE. YOU GOT TIME
FOR TÍNH, BILL? I'M GOING TO
CHANGE IT TO. AYE. OKAY. FOR
WHICH ITEM, NINE. OKAY. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL
ON ITEM NUMBER NINE. NUMBER
NINE. GRAYSON Ã GRAYSON. I
PERSON A PERSON I FROM
NON-VOTING. QUIRK-SILVA REYES
WILSON. DO WE HAVE ONE, TWO
THREE, FOUR, FIVE VOTES? NO, SIR
. TO ADD ON, THAT WILL NOW BE AT
FIVE ZERO. I'M ZERO. THAT BILL
WILL BE OUT, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE
TO HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. MR. KALRA IS HERE SO WE
CAN GO AHEAD AND PRESENT FILE
NUMBER 22. THIS IS AB 2926. AND
IF YOUR WITNESSES ARE HERE AS
WELL, THEY'RE WELCOME TO JOIN
YOU AT THE PRESENTATION TABLE.
THANK YOU. ANYONE THAT WORKS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, AB 2926 WOULD HELP
CALIFORNIA PROTECT OUR LIMITED,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK AND
PREVENT LOW INCOME TENANTS FROM
BEING DISPLACED. THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CRISIS IS A GROWING
ISSUE, AND OUR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING STOCK IS DISAPPEARING AT
RATES FASTER THAN WE CAN BUILD.
IN A REPORT PUBLISHED BY
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP,
CALIFORNIA LOST 19,249
AFFORDABLE HOMES DUE TO EXPIRED
REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS ON
GOVERNMENT ASSISTED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS AND OWNERS DECIDING
TO OPT OUT, SELL OR ALLOW THEIR
PROPERTIES TO BE CONVERTED TO
MARKET RATE HOUSING. THE
CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION NOTICE
LAW REQUIRES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OWNERS WITH EXPIRING
RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW BUYERS
INTERESTED IN PRESERVING THE
AFFORDABILITY, A YEAR'S NOTICE
TO MAKE A BONA FIDE PURCHASE
OFFER AND GIVE THEM THE RIGHT OF
FIRST REFUSAL TO MATCH ANY OTHER
OFFERS. HOWEVER BECAUSE OWNERS
ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SELL AT
ALL, THEY CAN INSTEAD HOLD THE
PROPERTY, COMMIT TO NOT SELLING,
AND CONVERT IT TO MARKET RATE,
DISPLACING EXISTING LOW INCOME
TENANTS IN THE PROCESS. AB 2926
WILL HELP PRESERVE EXISTING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY REQUIRING
OWNERS TO RECEIVE A BONA FIDE
PURCHASE, OFFER TO EITHER ACCEPT
THE OFFER OR RE RESTRICT THE
DEVELOPMENT AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. THIS BILL ALSO MAKES
TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE
PRESERVATION NOTICE LAW TO
INCLUDE RECENTLY ENACTED
STREAMLINING LEGISLATION,
PREVENT TENANTS FROM BEING
DISPLACED OR PRICED OUT WITHOUT
NOTICE, AND PROVIDE NOTICE TO
TENANTS THAT WILL INFORM THEM OF
RENT INCREASES AND ACCEPTANCE OF
SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS LEILA GIST
ANTHONY, STAFF ATTORNEY WITH
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT,
AND ANDREW DAWSON, POLICY
ADVISORY MANAGER AT CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON THIS
IMPORTANT BILL. MY NAME IS LEILA
CAETANI, AND I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE NATIONAL
HOUSING LAW PROJECT, A PROUD
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. AS
CALIFORNIA IS FACING A HOUSING
CRISIS, OUR STOCK OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS CRITICAL TO HOUSING
LOW INCOME TENANTS. THE LOSS OF
ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
DEVASTATING FOR TENANTS AND THE
COMMUNITY. AND WHILE YOU'LL HEAR
FROM OTHERS ABOUT PRESERVATION
PURCHASES, I HOPE TO HELP YOU
UNDERSTAND THE OTHER AMENDMENTS
WHICH JUST SEEK TO CLARIFY THE
LAW. CALIFORNIA'S PRESERVATION
NOTICE LAW IS A MODEL FOR THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT
PROVIDES FOR ROBUST NOTICE TO
TENANTS AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT
THE HOUSING IS LOSING ITS
AFFORDABILITY WITH PROPER
NOTICE, TENANTS AND THE
COMMUNITY HAVE TIME TO ORGANIZE,
CALL A LAWYER AND FIND A
PRESERVATION BUYER IN THE EVENT
THEY'RE UNABLE TO PRESERVE THE
AFFORDABILITY. TENANTS HAVE TIME
TO PREPARE FOR MASSIVE RENT
HIKES AND A POSSIBLE MOVE. THIS
BILL IS INFORMED BY LESSONS
LEARNED AND WILL ENSURE THAT
TENANT THAT THE INTENT OF THE
LAW IS HONORED. THESE AMENDMENTS
WILL ENSURE THAT TENANTS RECEIVE
NOTICE AT THE THREE YEAR, 12
MONTH AND SIX MONTH PERIOD PRIOR
TO THE CONTRACT ENDING IN ALL
CASES REQUIRE OWNERS TO INFORM
TENANTS IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT
TO REMAIN WITH A FEDERAL HOUSING
VOUCHER AND CLARIFY THAT TENANT
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
ENFORCE THIS LAW. THIS BILL WILL
HELP COMMUNITIES PRESERVE THIS
PRECIOUS HOUSING STOCK AND
PREVENT DISPLACEMENT, AND WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HELLO, I'M ANDREW DAWSON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP. THE PARTNERSHIP IS
A STATE CREATED PRIVATE
NONPROFIT WHOSE MISSION IS TO
INCREASE AND PRESERVE THE SUPPLY
OF AFFORDABLE AND SUSTAINABLE,
SUSTAINABLE HOMES IN CALIFORNIA.
THE PRESERVATION LAW WAS ENACTED
SO THAT PROPERTIES THAT ARE
AFFORDABLE STAY AFFORDABLE,
WHICH IS CRUCIAL AS WE HAVE A
MAJOR SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE
HOMES IN CALIFORNIA. HOWEVER DUE
TO THE ISSUES THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER KALRA MENTIONED,
FEW PRESERVATION BUYERS USED
THIS PATHWAY. THIS BILL REQUIRES
SELLERS TO RECEIVE A BONA FIDE
OFFER TO EITHER ACCEPT OR ACCEPT
OR RESTRICT THE PROPERTY. IN
THIS WAY, THE SELLER GETS A FAIR
PRICE FOR THE PROPERTY, AND THE
PROPERTY STAYS AFFORDABLE. IT'S
IMPORTANT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
PRODUCE MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES,
BUT IT'S ALSO VITAL TO ENSURE
THAT AFFORDABLE HOMES STAY
AFFORDABLE. AB 2926 HELPS MAKE
THAT HAPPEN. WE THANK
ASSEMBLYMAN ASSEMBLY MEMBER
KALRA FOR HIS LEADERSHIP HERE,
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? CATHERINE
CHARLES HERE ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MELVIN WILLIS, A LEAD
CAMPAIGN ORGANIZER WITH ALLIANCE
OF CALIFORNIANS FOR COMMUNITY
EMPOWERMENT, SPEAKING AS AN
INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER FROM
THE CITY OF RICHMOND IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GIOVANNA FAJARDO WITH
ACE ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT IN SUPPORT
. THANK YOU. ANNIE LAWLER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA RURAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION,
ANOTHER SPONSOR OF THE BILL, AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. KRISTEN
LOPEZ WITH ORGANIZER WITH ACE
ACTION AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. GRACIELA CASTILLO,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO TESTIFY
OR OTHERWISE TO STATE A POSITION
OF OPPOSITION? OKAY. SEEING
NONE, WE'LL BRING THIS BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. VICE CHAIR, JUST FOR
CLARIFICATION. SO THIS WOULD
REQUIRE THAT PURCHASE TO TAKE
PLACE AT MARKET RATE OR MARKET
VALUE? YES OKAY. AND, IF THAT
OFFERS GIVEN, IT HAS TO BE
WITHIN THAT ONE YEAR WINDOW.
CORRECT THAT THE OFFER HAS TO BE
GIVEN 270 DAYS, 270 DAYS. OKAY
AND IS THERE A TIME PERIOD ON
HOW LONG UNTIL THEY HAVE TO
ACCEPT THE OFFER OR IS. WELL,
THIS IS REQUIRED. SORRY IT'S
REQUIRED THAT THEY ACCEPT THE
OFFER. THE 270 PERIOD. THEY CAN
ONLY ACCEPT A PRESERVATION OFFER
. BUT AGAIN IT STILL WILL BE A
MARKET RATE. SO THEY'RE NOT
LOSING OUT ON ANY POTENTIAL
MONEY TO BE MADE OFF OF THEIR
PROPERTY. IS IT POSSIBLE? AND IF
NOT IN THIS BILL? ALRP AS IT
MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS, IF
THEY GET A BETTER OFFER, THAT'S
ALSO PRESERVATION, YOU KNOW WHAT
I MEAN? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS
ALLOWED HERE, BUT THERE COULD BE
TWO COMPETING OFFERS, RIGHT? OH
YEAH. THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT
REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE FIRST
OFFER OF SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO
PRESERVE IT, THOUGH. THEY JUST,
YOU KNOW, THOSE THAT ARE,
INTERESTED IN BUYING IT TO
PRESERVE THE AFFORDABILITY
ASPECT OF IT CAN BE COMPETING.
YOU CAN HAVE TWO DIFFERENT
INDIVIDUALS. YOU CAN HAVE MAYBE
TWO DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS,
WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. BUT AT THE
END OF THE DAY, IT'S STILL IT'S
STILL GOING TO BE A MARKET RATE
BARGAINING PROCESS, JUST TO
PRESERVE THE AFFORDABILITY
COMPONENT OF IT, THOUGH. WELL,
WHEN I'M A BILLIONAIRE, I'M
GOING TO GET IN ON THAT. SO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MOTION BY
MR. LEE, IS THERE A SECOND?
SECOND BY SECOND BY MISS
SANCHEZ? SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS
WISHING TO COMMENT SENATE-TV
RECALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR ONGOING ADVOCACY TO BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT THOSE THAT MIGHT BE
AT RISK OF LOSING THESE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. IT'S
THIS IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
BILL, AND YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS
IS GOING TO HELP ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE NEW TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO
PRESERVE, OUR DESPERATELY NEEDED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE HAVE,
YOU KNOW, PLACING VULNERABLE
TENANTS AT RISK OF EVICTION OR
HOMELESSNESS IS ANTITHETICAL TO,
I THINK, THE WORK ALL OF US ARE
Dð, ARE DOING IN SERVICE HERE,
AND SO THIS BILL WILL GO A LONG
WAY TO THAT END, I WOULD INVITE
YOU TO CLOSE. I APPRECIATE THAT,
AND I'LL TAKE YOUR COMMENTS TO
CLOSE, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ACTION TO
PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. WORD A WORD
I. PERSON. PERSON I GRAYSON
GRAYSON I CHOLERA, I CHOLERA I
LI I LI I QUIRK-SILVA REYES.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I WILSON. THANK
YOU. THAT HAS SIX VOTES. IT WILL
BE OUT. WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS THIS TIME. I
STILL SEE WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS.
POTENTIAL AUTHORS TO PRESENT IN
COMMITTEE. I INVITE ANY ONE OF
THEM TO COME DOWN AS SOON AS
THEY ARE ABLE. WE HAVE ONE BILL
LEFT THAT IF MR. PATTERSON IS
INTERESTED IN PRESENTING, WE
COULD TAKE UP AT THIS TIME. I
CAN HOLD MY. OKAY. EITHER WAY,
WE'RE GOOD. OKAY OTHERWISE WE'RE
JUST SIT DOWN. OKAY. WE WILL
PROCEED WITH FILE ITEM 18, AB
2729. AND AGAIN A CALL FOR
AUTHORS TO COME TO ROOM 437.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. I
KNOW SEVERAL OF MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE WERE PART OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT DISCUSSION, AND, WE
TOOK. AND I DO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE. I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK ON
THOSE. AND I STILL, I DO THINK
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE
CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THROUGH
THE PROCESS, SHOULD IT CONTINUE
TO GET OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE, I
THINK THE MOST INITIALLY WHAT
THE BILL DID WAS DEFER
ESSENTIALLY ALL IMPACT FEES TO
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. BUT
WHAT WAS EXPRESSED IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, WHICH
WHICH WERE SOME VALID POINTS IS,
MR. KALRA EXPLAINED SOME OF
THESE AS WELL AS, MISS WILSON,
IS THAT THERE ARE SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
POTENTIALLY THE TAXPAYERS COULD
BE ON THE HOOK IF, IF, CERTAIN
CONNECTION FEES OR IMPACT FEES
WEREN'T PAID UP FRONT. AND SO WE
MADE COMMITMENTS IN THAT
COMMITTEE. AND I THINK WITH
COMMITTEE STAFF AND APPRECIATE
THE TIME ON A FRIDAY, WORKING ON
THOSE THAT THERE WE I THINK WE
CAME UP TO WITH A SOLUTION THAT
SAID, HEY, YOU CAN MAKE
FINDINGS, WHICH WAS SUGGESTED IN
THAT COMMITTEE THAT SAID, HEY,
WE NEED TO COLLECT THESE FEES UP
FRONT TO COVER ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES AND TO ALSO COVER IMPACT
FEES THAT ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO
BE ATTRIBUTED TO THAT PROJECT UP
FRONT. AND SO WE'RE VERY
INTERESTED TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS, THIS ITEM, IF THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS. I THINK THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THIS IF
THE FEES ARE NOT NEEDED UP
FRONT, THEY SHOULD NOT BE
COLLECTED AT THAT TIME UNTIL WE
ACTUALLY KNOW THE PROJECTS GOING
TO HAPPEN. BECAUSE AS WE ALL
KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF
BARRIERS AND IF THERE'S NO
ACTUAL IMPACT FROM THE RESIDENTS
LIVING THERE, THEN IN MY VIEW,
IT'S A MAJOR FINANCIAL HURDLE IN
SOME CASES OF, BEING ABLE TO
ACTUALLY MAKE THE PROJECT
PENCIL. AND SO WITH THAT, I HAVE
WITH ME, MICHAEL LANE, WHO WILL,
HOPEFULLY TESTIFY AND SUPPORT.
THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD ME ANYWAY.
SO THANK YOU. IT'S A GREAT BILL,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS MICHAEL
AND WHISPER, PUBLIC POLICY THINK
TANK IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA. I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT
YOU DON'T HAVE TO FINANCE THOSE
IMPACT FEES AS PART OF YOUR
CONSTRUCTION LOAN, PARTICULARLY
IN A VERY DIFFICULT, INTEREST
RATE ENVIRONMENT, I THINK IT
WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE TO BUILD HOUSING IN THE
STATE AND CREATE GOOD
CONSTRUCTION JOBS AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? GOOD
MORNING, BROOKE PRITCHARD, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA. I'M IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SEAMUS
GARRITY FROM LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, ON BEHALF OF SPUR
SANDHILL BUCKEYE PROPERTIES AND
FIELDSTEAD IN SUPPORT. MEG
SNYDER, AXIOM ADVISORS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? YOU'RE
WELCOME TO COME TO THE
PRESENTATION TABLE OR YOUR
CHOICE.
IS THIS DISRESPECTFUL OPPOSITION
OR RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION? ALWAYS
RESPECTFUL. MR. LOYAL OPPOSITION
. MR. CHAIR, MR. VICE CHAIR I
FIND MYSELF, NANCY ESPINOZA, ON
BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR
ADEQUATE SCHOOL HOUSING. I FIND
MYSELF IN THE UNENVIABLE
POSITION OF NOT BEING COMPLETELY
CLEAR ON WHETHER THE INTENT IS
TO EXCLUDE SCHOOLS FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL, AND IF
THE AUTHOR OR THE CHAIR TELL ME
THAT THE INTENT IS TO EXCLUDE
SCHOOLS, I CAN SPARE YOU THE
REST OF MY TESTIMONY. SO, IF THE
CHAIR FINDS THAT APPROPRIATE,
I'LL ALLOW RESPONSE. IF THE
SCHOOL'S GOOD THE WAY THE
AMENDMENTS ARE WRITTEN IS THAT
IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPACT
, OVER THE TWO YEAR PERIOD
BEFORE THE CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY IS GRANTED, THEN THE,
THEN THEY CAN COLLECT THOSE
FEES. ANYBODY CAN. THE COUNCIL
CAN MAKE FINDINGS TO SAY THE
FEES ARE COLLECTED AT THAT
POINT. BUT IF THE SCHOOLS ARE
GOING TO BE BUILT, YOU KNOW, TEN
YEARS FROM NOW, THEN THAT WOULD
COME AT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
. Kò, I APPRECIATE THE
CLARIFICATION AND UNFORTUNATELY,
THAT MEANS I HAVE TO SUBJECT YOU
TO THE REST OF MY TESTIMONY, SO
I JUST WANT TO SAY ON BEHALF OF
CASH, WE ALSO ARE EAGER FOR MORE
HOUSING SOLUTIONS. WE
PARTICIPATE IN THIS. WE SUPPORT
SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT TRY TO
CONSTRUCT HOUSING AS WELL. BUT
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL OBLIGATION
AGENCIES DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION
ESTABLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE
CLASSROOM SPACE FOR EACH STUDENT
RESIDING IN OUR BOUNDARIES. THIS
IS THE FUNDING MECHANISM THAT
THE STATE HAS SELECTED FOR
CONSTRUCTION NEEDED DIRECTLY IN
RESPONSE TO NEW HOUSING. STATE
MATCHING FUNDS ARE AT THEIR
LOWEST LEVEL IN DECADES. IN A
DEPARTURE FROM THE HISTORICAL
PRACTICE OF HAVING BONDS EVERY 2
TO 4 YEARS, WE HAVE ONLY HAD ONE
SUCCESSFUL BOND IN THE LAST 17
YEARS, SO I THINK TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO
BELIEVE THAT THE BARRIERS TO
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION EXIST FOR
HOUSING AND NOT FOR THE
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDED BY THESE
IMPACT FEES. BUT EVERY FACTOR
THAT MAKES HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
A CHALLENGE EXISTS FOR SCHOOL
CONSTRUCTION, EXCEPT THAT COST
FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE IS HIGHER.
THE COST ESCALATION IS MORE
PRECIPITOUS, AND THE SUPPLY
CHAIN ISSUES ARE MORE VARIED.
THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCE IN
WHICH THE RIGHT TIME TO BEGIN
PLANNING TO BUILD SCHOOLS OR
EXPAND EXISTING SCHOOLS TO MEET
DEMAND CREATED BY NEW HOUSING IS
AFTER THE STUDENTS HAVE ARRIVED,
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE ATTEMPT
AT CARVE OUTS THERE. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NO
CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH IT'S
WORKABLE, WE NEED TO CONTINUE
COLLECTING SCHOOL IMPACT FEES AT
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE, NOT AT CERTIFICATE
OF OCCUPANCY. WE LEASE LOCAL
EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES NEED TO
KNOW WHAT THE FUNDING IS THAT'S
AVAILABLE IN ORDER TO PLAN,
DESIGN AND SEEK THE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING NECESSARY TO DELIVER
THESE PROJECTS. IMPACT FEES
COVER ONLY A PORTION OF THE
TOTAL COST AND THE PROCESS OF
BRINGING THESE PROJECTS TO
FRUITION TAKES YEARS. IT IS
CURRENTLY TAKING 3 TO 4 YEARS TO
RECEIVE STATE FUNDING ALONE, AND
YOU CAN ONLY APPLY WHEN YOU HAVE
RECEIVED ALL OF YOUR OTHER
APPROVALS AND SECURED YOUR LOCAL
FUNDING, THIS BILL,
UNFORTUNATELY, WOULD CONDEMN
STUDENTS TO BE IN OVERCROWDED
SCHOOLS DURING THAT ENTIRE
PERIOD, AND THAT WOULD APPLY
BOTH TO THE CHILDREN LIVING IN
THE NEW UNIT AND THE CHILDREN
LIVING IN NEARBY EXISTING,
AREAS. SO I RESPECTFULLY HAVE TO
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
IS THERE A SECOND WITNESS? YES.
THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS ANTHONY
TANNEHILL WITH THE CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION,
AS PART OF THE LOYAL OPPOSITION
AND I AND I'M HAPPY TO, TO
PHRASE IT THAT WAY BECAUSE WHAT
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE
COMMITTEE, AND, AND ALL POLICY
MAKERS TODAY IS THAT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
HOUSING, THE ACUTE NEED FOR IT
AND THE SERVICES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE NEED TO
BUILD A THRIVING, GROWING
COMMUNITY WITH EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTED SERVICES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE NEED NOT BE AN
ADVERSARIAL ONE. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S COMMENTS
THAT HE'S STILL LOOKING FORWARD
TO WORKING ON SOME OF THE
DETAILS OF IT, AS IF WE IF WE
KIND OF IMAGINE WHAT THESE
INSTITUTIONS ARE, A FIRE
DISTRICT OR COMMUNITY SERVICE
DISTRICT OR, A PARK, THESE
INSTITUTIONS MAY NOT BE THE
OBVIOUS PLACES TO SORT OF SHIFT
RISK, AND THERE'S NO DENYING
THERE IS RISK. BUT TO SHIFT IT
ONTO THESE ENTITIES, I DON'T
KNOW THAT THEY WERE DESIGNED OR
BUILT TO DO THAT. SO I JUST HOPE
THAT WE CAN ALL BE THOUGHTFUL
ABOUT HOW WE APPROACH THIS,
BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE, Ã
SOLUTIONS FOR THE ACUTE HOUSING
NEED. AND THOSE HOUSES NEED TO
COME WITH EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED,
HIGH QUALITY SERVICES,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES.
AND SO I DON'T FEEL I'M PREPARED
TO GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, JUST SIMPLY
DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO IT
JUSTICE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
READING THEM, GETTING FEEDBACK
FROM MY MEMBERS, SHARING WITH
THE AUTHOR AND THE STAFF, AND I
JUST I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME ON
LISTENING ON THIS. I THINK IN
THE END, WE'RE ALL KIND OF ON
THE SAME TEAM. AND I AND I HOPE
THAT THE CONVERSATION CAN
REFLECT THAT. AND WE'D LOVE TO
BE INCLUDED IN THIS, BECAUSE
REPRESENTING SPECIAL DISTRICTS,
WE'RE NOT THE LAND USE
AUTHORITY, BUT BUT WE DO WE DO
CONNECT TO THE TO THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES.
AND, AND I JUST APPRECIATE YOU
ALL FOR GIVING US THE TIME TO
WORK ON IT. AND WITH THAT, I'M
GOING TO HAVE TO RETAIN MY
OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE UNTIL
WE CAN TAKE A BETTER LOOK AT IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
OPPOSITION? ALYSSA SALEHI WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICTS IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. MARK NEWBERGER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S
AMENDMENTS. WE'RE STILL LOOKING
AT THEM, BUT WE ARE STILL
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
BRADY GARDNER, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, IN
RESPECT OF OPPOSITION. BUT LOOK
FORWARD TO REVIEWING THOSE
AMENDMENTS FURTHER. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF BETTE FRANK ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND THE FIRE
DISTRICT ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED, BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS.
MEMBER KALRA. HELLO AGAIN.
SENATOR PATTERSON, I KNOW WE HAD
A ROBUST CONVERSATION IN LOCAL
GOV ON THIS, AND SO I JUST WANT
TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE
AMENDMENTS ENTAIL. I HAVE SOME
NOTES ON IT, BUT I WANT TO GET
CLARITY. SO, THE FEES ASSOCIATED
WITH CERTAIN ENSURES THAT FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN FEES AND
COSTS FOR PUBLIC INPUT MINTS OR
FACILITIES CAN STILL BE
COLLECTED AT THE TIME OF
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO WHAT
DOES THAT MEAN? LIKE, YOU KNOW,
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT KINDS OF FEES
AND WHAT ARE THOSE THOSE,
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SURE
THANK YOU, WELL, JUST SO YOU
KNOW, THE AMENDMENTS CAME OUT OF
SOME OF THAT BACK AND FORTH. AND
SO THEY MAY NOT BE PERFECT AT
THIS MOMENT, BUT ALWAYS HAPPY TO
CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
BUT WE TRIED TO THINK OF THINGS
THAT PUT THE TAXPAYER ON THE
HOOK, AND THAT SEEMED TO BE A
PRETTY BIG CONCERN OF YOURS,
ESPECIALLY AS SOME OF THE
DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, MAY
ACTUALLY BE HAPPENING. RIGHT? OR
SOME OF THE PLANNING MIGHT BE
HAPPENING. SO ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE AGAIN, THE COUNCIL CAN
MAKE FINDINGS ON, THAT THERE ARE
CERTAIN EXPENSES AS A RESULT.
AND SOME OF THOSE FINDINGS CAN
BE THE AND THIS IS OUTLINED
SPECIFICALLY IN THE BILL. THESE
ONES, ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES.
RIGHT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE
TIME OF STAFF AND THINGS LIKE
THAT. THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE IF
A, IF A PROJECT OR SOME KIND OF
IMPACT IS GOING TO OCCUR WITHIN,
I THINK IT WAS 24 MONTHS IN
THIS, BUT WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN TO
THAT. THEN THEN THERE CAN BE
FINDINGS TO SAY, HEY, THIS
PROJECT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OR HAS
HAPPENED, AND WE NEED TO START
COLLECTING THOSE FEES NOW. AND
ANOTHER EXEMPTION WOULD BE, A
LOT OF THE UTILITY DISTRICTS,
ALSO IN THERE AS WELL. SO, SO
THOSE WERE ARE SOME OF THE
EXEMPTIONS, ALSO BONDS. RIGHT.
BECAUSE ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, THE
BONDS WANT I'LL JUST BE HONEST
WITH YOU, I HAD SOME DIFFICULTY
WITH THAT BECAUSE WHEN A CFD IS
CREATED, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER
IS PAYING INTO THAT AT THAT
TIME, WHETHER IT'S EVER
DEVELOPED OR NOT, SOMEBODY IS
PAYING THAT RIGHT NOW. SO WHEN A
NEW DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED,
THEY'RE JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW,
THE NEW THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER
STARTS PAYING INTO THAT CFD. BUT
BUT WE PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE
AGAIN, THAT IS A TAXPAYER
LIABILITY. AND WE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THOSE ARE COVERED. AND
WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN TO ADDITIONAL
IDEAS. OBVIOUSLY I THINK WELL, I
DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL ENTIRELY
EVER BRIDGE THE, THE GAP WITH MY
FRIENDS OVER HERE, BUT I AM
INTERESTED IN KEEPING THE
CONVERSATIONS, BECAUSE WHEN I
SAT ON A CITY COUNCIL AND I'M
SURE YOU HAD THE SAME
EXPERIENCE, WHEN YOU'RE COMING
UP WITH THINGS LIKE PUBLIC
FACILITY CHARGES OR YOU'RE
COMING UP WITH, YOU KNOW, PARKS
AND THOSE PLANS. I MEAN, YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT TEN YEAR WINDOW,
RIGHT? MAYBE EVEN LONGER, MAYBE
30 YEARS IN SOME CASES OF WHAT
THOSE ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
AND SO WHEN YOU THINK OF TRAFFIC
IMPACTS, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, I
MEAN, THE PROJECT MIGHT HAPPEN
20 YEARS FROM NOW, OR IT MAY BE
THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES IS A
SERIES OF IMPACTS THAT ARE GOING
TO HAPPEN. A STOPLIGHT HERE, YOU
KNOW WHY A TURN LANE HERE OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND YOU
KNOW, SO IT IS KIND OF
INTERESTING BECAUSE THE
JURISDICTION AT THAT TIME CAN
SAY, HEY, LOOK, WELL, WE'RE
GOING TO PUT IN THAT TRAFFIC
LIGHT THERE. YOU KNOW, EVEN
THOUGH THERE ARE 100 OTHER
PROJECTS THAT LED TO THAT
TRAFFIC LIGHT. BUT THIS
DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE TO
PAY IT AT THAT AT THAT
PARTICULAR TIME. SO I'M ALWAYS
INTERESTED TO KEEP THOSE
CONVERSATIONS GOING. TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE TAXPAYER AT THE
END OF THE DAY IS NOT ON THE
HOOK FOR THESE IMPACTS. YEAH, I
APPRECIATE IT. I'M NOT I'M NOT
SURE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRIDGE
THE GAP WITH YOUR FRIEND UP
HERE, BUT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE
THE FACT THAT YOU CLEARLY ARE
LISTENING. YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND
A PATH. YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY,
YOU KNOW, IT COMES DOWN TO WHO
SHOULD BEAR THE BURDEN OF RISK
THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
AND FROM THE TIME A BUILDING
PERMIT IS ISSUED TO THE TIME A
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS
ISSUED, A LOT CAN HAPPEN, YOU
KNOW, THERE CERTAINLY COULD BE
ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS OR WHAT HAVE
YOU. BUT ALSO AND WE'VE SEEN
THIS HAPPEN. I'VE CERTAINLY SEEN
IT IN SAN JOSE. A DEVELOPER
CHANGES THEIR MIND, DECIDES, YOU
KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT
ANYMORE, AFTER, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY
AMOUNT OF EXPENSES THAT HAVE
MADE. NOW, I APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT THERE CAN BE A FINDING BY A
CITY COUNCIL THAT THERE'S SOME
COSTS INVOLVED. BUT GUESS WHAT
WILL HAPPEN? THE DEVELOPER WILL
TAKE THEM TO COURT AND CHALLENGE
THOSE NUMBERS, AND IT'LL LEAD TO
EVEN MORE AND MORE COSTS. I KNOW
THIS BECAUSE YOU SEE THIS HAPPEN
ALL THE TIME. AT THE END OF THE
DAY, IF THE DEVELOPER DECIDES
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD,
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO BE
ON THE HOOK FOR ANYTHING. AND
ULTIMATELY, THESE ARE PROJECTS
IN MANY CASES THAT TAKE MANY,
MANY YEARS. AND I'VE SEEN THEM
COME TO FRUITION WHERE THE PARKS
AND THE ROADS AND SUCH ARE ALL
MADE AND BUILT FOR THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT. AND THEN IT CAN BE TWO,
THREE, 4 OR 5 YEARS AS SLOWLY
THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING GETS TO
BE BUILT. AND THAT'S ALL AGREED
UPON IN ADVANCE. LIKE THAT'S
THERE'S NO MYSTERY TO THAT. SO
THOSE THAT ARE SEEKING THOSE,
BUILDING PERMITS UNDERSTAND THAT
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE BUYING INTO.
AND THAT'S PART OF THEIR
CALCULATION IN THEIR FINANCING.
WHETHER IT PENCILS OUT. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, I DON'T I STILL FEEL
THAT THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS
THAT GO IN TO THE PLANNING
PROCESS IN TERMS OF COSTS AND
ULTIMATELY, IN CREATING THE
PUBLIC BENEFITS. WE WANT TO SEE
THE PUBLIC BENEFITS COME THERE
BEFORE THE HOUSING DOES. NOT
THAT OKAY. WELL, THE HOUSING IS
NOW BEING CONSTRUCTED OR THE
HOUSING IS BEING BUILT OR THE
OCCUPANCY HAS NOW BEEN GIVEN.
NOW LET'S START BUILDING THE
PARK OR LET'S START BUILDING THE
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S
NECESSARY. THAT'S PUTTING THINGS
BACKWARDS. AND SO THERE'S
ALREADY SO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON
CITIES AND COUNTIES TO, TO, TO
ENSURE THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO
BUILD THIS INFRASTRUCTURE. AND
REMEMBER THE BUILDING I DON'T
HAVE TO TELL YOU TO REMEMBER.
I'M SAYING GENERALLY SPEAKING,
REMEMBER THAT, THE BUILDING
PERMIT AND THAT'S, THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT HAS TO THAT, THAT
IS BID ON THAT'S THAT YOU MAY
HAVE MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS THAT
ARE BIDDING FOR THAT. THAT'S A,
THAT'S A PUBLIC GOOD IN ITSELF.
IF YOU'RE GIVING SOMEONE A
BUILDING PERMIT, THAT'S A HUGE,
YOU KNOW, DECISION THAT'S BEING
MADE BY THE, BY BY THE CITY
LOCAL JURISDICTION. AND I WOULD
ALSO BE WORRIED, QUITE FRANKLY,
THAT, YOU KNOW, CITIES, THERE'S
A LOT OF CITIES, BIG AND SMALL,
AND THERE COULD BE A LOT OF
PRESSURE PUT ON PARTICULARLY
SMALLER CITY COUNCILS, LIKE, YOU
KNOW WHAT? WE'RE HOW ABOUT HOW
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DO THIS OR DO
THAT. AND THAT'S JUST A REALITY
OF HOW THINGS ARE DONE
SOMETIMES. AND TO GIVE THOSE
LOCAL LOCAL PUT THE PRESSURE ON
LOCAL CITY COUNCILS TO MAKE A
DECISION AS TO WHETHER THEY'RE
GOING TO, FIND A SPECIAL FINDING
TO WHETHER TO CHARGE A DEVELOPER
THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A LOT
OF PRESSURE BEING PUT ON THESE
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, I JUST
THINK THAT I THINK THAT YOU'RE
MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
AND SOMETHING THAT YOU SAY TO
SAY TO US OFTEN, AND I AND I
APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE I THINK
THAT YOU, YOU REALLY LISTEN WHEN
THERE ARE OTHERS, WHEN WE'RE
SITTING AT THE DESK, THERE IS
THAT I DO WANT TO SEE WHERE IT
GOES AND SEE THE AMENDMENTS SO
FAR ARE AN IMPROVEMENT. AND I BE
MORE THAN HAPPY, YOU KNOW, TO
TALK MORE ABOUT FURTHER
CONCERNS. NOT QUITE THERE YET,
BUT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE
FACT THAT YOU'RE CLEARLY
LISTENING AND TRYING TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
GRAYSON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND, THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE
SITTING NEXT TO ME FOR HIS
COMMENTS. HOWEVER, I WANT TO
OFFER A CONVERSE OR A DIFFERENT
OPINION, HAVING HAD EXPERIENCE,
BOTH IN AUTHORING BILLS AND
CREATING THAT NEXUS OF AN IMPACT
FEE TO THE ACTUAL PROJECT,
BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN
IMPACT FEES ARE COLLECTED ON A
PROJECT THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT
DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT
DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO PAY FOR
THAT PROJECT ALL THE WAY ACROSS
THE CITY SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND
THERE IS ONE JURISDICTION THAT I
KNOW OF IN THE BAY AREA THAT
ACTUALLY HAS $108,000 IMPACT
FEES ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME,
BEFORE IT'S EVER THE DIRT, EVER
MOVES, AND WE ARE FACING A
HOUSING CRISIS IN THIS STATE,
NOT NEED TO BE SAID EVER AGAIN,
FOR US TO KNOW THAT, SO I DO
HAVE A QUESTION. AND THAT IS, IS
YOUR BILL THE INTENT OF YOUR
BILL, TO SOMEHOW FIND A WAY FOR
DEVELOPERS TO GET OUT OF PAYING
IMPACT FEES? NO. I MEAN, IS, AS,
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK AS OF
LATE, ACTUALLY, BY THE WAY, THAT
SUPREME COURT CASE IS IN ONE OF
MY COUNTIES, THE SCOTUS RULING,
JUST KIND OF. BUT THIS KIND OF
PREDATES ALL OF THAT. JUST TO
LET YOU KNOW. ABSOLUTELY NOT. I
MEAN, I THINK, I MEAN, I THINK
WE CAN DEBATE HERE WHETHER OR
NOT, I JUST WANTED. OKAY, GREAT.
YEAH, YEAH. NO, IT'S NOT OKAY.
SO THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
I DO HAVE CONCERNS. I WANT TO
MAKE SURE HAVING SET, HAVING
BEEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE PLANNING
DESK, PULLING A PERMIT AND THEN
ALSO SITTING ON THE COUNCIL AND
UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAPPENS ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DESK AND
HOW IMPORTANT IMPACT FEES ARE TO
PAYING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. AND
SO THERE ARE TIMES WHEN,
ADMITTEDLY, HAS BEEN STATED HERE
THAT THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE
COLLECTING IMPACT FEES FOR DON'T
HAPPEN FOR TEN YEARS DOWN THE
ROAD, AND MAYBE IN A COUPLE OF
CASES THAT I KNOW OF DIDN'T
HAPPEN AT ALL, NEVERTHELESS, THE
PROJECT WENT FORWARD, I THINK,
FOR US, TODAY, IT'S TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME FEES,
SOME FEES THAT DON'T NECESSARILY
NEED TO BE COLLECTED UP FRONT,
THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF
REPRIEVE OR RELIEF TO THE
CONTRACTOR OR THE DEVELOPER
THAT'S TRYING TO DEVELOP LAND TO
ACTUALLY MAKE THAT PROPERTY
WORTH MORE HIGHER PROPERTY TAX,
BRING IN MORE REVENUE, SO THAT
IS A GOOD THING. BUT THERE ARE
TIMES WHEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOLS,
WHERE WE NEED TO BE VERY MINDFUL
OF IMPACT FEES THAT CAN'T BE
DELAYED BECAUSE OF CERTAIN
THINGS THAT DO COME ALONG THAT
DO REQUIRE EXPENSES. NOW HAVING
SAID THAT, AS WAS TESTIFIED,
THOSE FEES ARE SMALL IN
PROPORTION TO WHAT A TOTAL COST
WOULD BE, MAYBE. POSSIBLY, IN
THE SCHOOL SITUATION, THEY COULD
USE THE FACT THAT THOSE IMPACT
FEES ARE NOT BEING DISMISSED OR
REMOVED, BUT THEY'RE JUST BEING
DEFERRED. AND THAT COULD STILL
BE USED AS LEVERAGE TO PULL OFF
STATE GRANTS AND ALL THAT. MAYBE
THAT'S A BILL FOR ANOTHER DAY.
AND WE COULD WE COULD FIX THAT
SOME OTHER WAY. BUT I DO
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THIS IS
DEFINITELY A CONVERSATION THAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN THAT PROBABLY
WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED
WITHOUT A BILL. SO WITH THAT,
I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT TODAY,
TO BE ABLE TO HELP YOU HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION ONGOING. BUT WE'LL
BE VERY MINDFUL OF THE DIRECTION
THAT YOU'RE GOING AND MAKING
SURE THAT WE FIND THAT RIGHT
BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT WE COLLECT
NOW VERSUS WHAT WE CAN AFFORD TO
COLLECT LATER TO MAKE A
DEVELOPMENT WORK. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LEE. THANK YOU. I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE ALL THE
COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES. YOU
KNOW, I DO NOT HAVE THE
PRIVILEGE TO SERVE IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT BEFORE, SO I HAVE NOT
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT
IT FROM THAT LENS BEFORE. I DO
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S INTENT
WITH THE BILL, AND I DO
APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE USING THE
POWER OF THE STATE TO GO AGAINST
LOCAL CONTROL. SO THAT'S REALLY
AN AWESOME, TOO, BUT SO, I MEAN,
LISTENING TO SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUE FROM SAN JOSE, WE BOTH
REPRESENT SAN JOSE, Tð, AND WE
ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE CONSTANT
ASPECT OF SOME OF THESE
TIMELINES ARE VERY, VERY LONG IN
DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S DEFINITELY
BUSINESS AND MARKET CHANGES THAT
HAPPEN. I JUST WANTED TO SEEK
SOME CLARITY ABOUT. SO IF THIS
BILL WERE TO BE ENACTED AND YOU
COLLECT THE IMPACT FEES UPON
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPATION, BUT
WHEN YOU ISSUE THE PERMIT AND
YOU SAY YOU HAD THIS SCALE OF A
PROJECT, HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE
THE IMPACT FEES OR WHEN WOULD
THOSE CHANGES HAPPEN? IF YOUR
PROJECT WAS ALSO TO CHANGE ALONG
THE WAY? YOU KNOW, THAT'S
SOMETHING I'M VERY FAMILIAR
WITH. WHAT PROJECT, NOT TO GET
TOO SPECIFIC. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, BY THE WAY, BUT WE HAVE
SEEN IN MY OWN COMMUNITY A
PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED GO
FROM X AMOUNT OF UNITS TO X
AMOUNT OF UNITS, AND THAT KIND
OF, THAT KIND OF CHANGES. BUT
THEY DO COME BACK FOR NEW
ENTITLEMENTS. AND SO TO BE
HONEST WITH YOU, I DON'T KNOW
HOW THE CITIES THEMSELVES SORT
OF, HEY, YOU ALREADY PAID THESE,
YOU KNOW, FEES AS A RESULT OF
PULLING PERMITS. AND THEN NOW
YOU'RE DOING THIS SIZE PROJECT.
SO HOW DO YOU HOW DO WE MITIGATE
THAT? I NEED TO GET I'LL GET
MORE CLARIFICATION FROM MY
CITIES ON THAT. BUT I THINK THE
POINT OF THE BILL IS IF THERE
ARE ACTUAL IMPACTS, IF THERE ARE
ACTUAL IMPACTS THAT ARE
HAPPENING DURING THAT TIME
PERIOD FROM PROJECT APPROVAL TO
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE
WANT THOSE TO BE PAID. AND BUT
IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S
HAPPENING WAY DOWN THE ROAD,
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE YOU
KNOW, THAT'S NOT SO I'M ALWAYS
INTERESTED IN KIND OF SEE THERE
ARE LITTLE DETAILS LIKE THAT
THAT WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF SO
WE CAN MAKE SURE THEY'RE
ADDRESSED, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT THE
CHAIR THROUGH THE CHAIR. I WAS
JUST GOING TO SAY, ALSO, AS A
FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, I THINK
JUST AS YOU COULD PHASE
PROJECTS, YOU COULD ALSO PHASE
SOME OF THE FEES THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO PAY TO HELP MAKE SURE
THAT YOU ARE MEETING THOSE
IMMEDIATE NEEDS. AND ALSO FOR
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
THAT THE CITY ADOPTS. THAT'S
MANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT GO IN TO
PAY FOR THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT ONE
PARTICULAR PROJECT. AND SO
OFTENTIMES YOU NEED SEVERAL
PROJECTS GOING TO BE ABLE TO
ACTUALLY BUILD OUT THAT ENTIRE
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM, OKAY.
WELL, I DEFINITELY, FOUND THE
DISCUSSION TODAY VERY
COMPELLING. AND I DEFINITELY,
YOU KNOW, I ALIGNED WITH A LOT
OF MY COMMENTS WITH SIMILAR
WORK. AND I DO WANT TO WATCH THE
BILL AS IT GOES FORWARD, BUT
I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT TODAY.
SO TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION
GOING FORWARD. BUT I DO WANT TO
SEE YOU CONTINUE TO REFINE THAT.
AND I THINK THE INTENT IS
SOMETHING I'M AGREEABLE WITH AND
MAKING SURE THAT THE IMPACT FEES
ARE NOT SO BURDENSOME, THAT WE
CAN NEVER HAVE ANY HOUSING OUT
THERE. BUT IT IS. I WANT IT TO
BE ACCURATE TO WHAT PROJECTS AND
WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS PLANNING
FOR BECAUSE, AS MY COLLEAGUES
SPOKE, RIGHT, RIGHT. WHEN WE
DEVELOP THESE BIG PROJECTS,
ESPECIALLY ON SOME BIG PIECES OF
LAND IN MY DISTRICT WHERE THEY
SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS
THING, AND THEN THE MARKET
CHANGES ALL THESE THINGS HAPPEN,
AND THEN SUDDENLY THE CITY AND
ALL TAXPAYERS ON THE HOOK
BECAUSE THE PROJECT CHANGED SO
RADICALLY, IS PROBLEMATIC TO ME.
BUT I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER
CONTINUE WORKING THIS, BUT I'LL
BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT TODAY. BUT I
RESERVED MY RIGHT ON THE FLOOR
TO CHANGE MY VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. I WAS SIMPLY ALIGNED
MY COMMENTS AS WELL WITH OTHERS,
I THINK, JUST VERY SIMPLY, WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
ON THAT, IS TO REALLY REVISIT,
THE NECESSITY AND THE TIMING,
BECAUSE TIME, MONEY, TIME IS
MONEY, WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT
THE IMPACTS AND THE BURDENS THAT
WE HAVE TO NEW HOME
CONSTRUCTION, AND SO THIS BEING
A VEHICLE HAS BEEN A WORK IN
PROGRESS. I APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO WORK CLOSELY WITH
ME, AND OUR STAFF FOR DRAFTING
SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
HERE TODAY AND APPRECIATE AS
WELL, OPPOSITION FOR BEING HERE
TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT AN
ISSUE THAT WE HADN'T TALKED
ABOUT YET OR LOCAL EDUCATION
AGENCIES. THAT'S CRITICAL THAT
WE GET ALL THESE THINGS RIGHT.
AND THIS IS REALLY THAT VEHICLE
FOR THAT CONVERSATION THAT, I
KNOW THE AUTHOR IS VERY
COMMITTED TO, YOU KNOW, RECEIVE
A LOT OF THIS NEW INFORMATION
AND THINK CRITICALLY, ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT IT SORT OF MEETS
THAT TEST, THAT BALANCE BETWEEN
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE FOR SOME OF
OUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, AND
THEN ALSO PRESERVING THE RIGHT
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO BE ABLE
TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THE TIMING
OF THAT MATTERS, TOO, SO WITH
THAT, I INVITE YOU TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, WELL, I
JUST REALLY APPRECIATE, MY
COLLEAGUES HERE ON THIS
COMMITTEE AND YOU AND ALSO STAFF
FOR WORKING SO HARD ON THIS. I
MEAN, IT IT REALLY ISN'T TOO
OFTEN THAT, YOU KNOW, I GET AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON A BILL THAT ISN'T FINAL, YOU
KNOW, ISN'T PERFECT AS I PRESENT
IT. AND SO I RECOGNIZE THAT I
RECOGNIZE THE I APPRECIATE THE
IMPORTANCE THAT THE COMMITTEE
SEES THAT, HEY, LOOK, THIS IS
SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE
A CONVERSATION ABOUT, I AM
REALLY SERIOUS WITH WORKING WITH
THE OPPOSITION AND, AND, YOU
KNOW, WE MAY NOT EVER GET TO A
POINT WHERE EVERYBODY'S, YOU
KNOW, VERY ALL TOTALLY ON BOARD
WITH THIS. BUT WE WANT TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE POINTS TO
MAKE SURE OUR SCHOOLS GET
FUNDED. AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY
THE IMPACTS AREN'T PUT ON TO THE
TAXPAYER AT THE END OF THE DAY.
I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
TO ME. I DO WANT TO SAY ONE LAST
THING. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, IS
THE INTENT OF THE LAW RIGHT NOW,
ACTUALLY, IS THAT IMPACT? IT'S
IN THE VERY FIRST SECTION OF MY
BILL. AND THIS IS EXISTING LAWS
THAT IMPACT FEES ARE INTENDED TO
BE PAID AT CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY, ACTUALLY. BUT THEN IT
GIVES A WHOLE LIST OF, YOU KNOW,
THIS CAN BE PAID UP FRONT, IF
SO, ON AND SO FORTH. SO THIS IS
ACTUALLY KIND OF GOING ALONG
WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAW. AND
I LOOK AT IT AS MORE OF A LET'S
BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ON
EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. AND TO
THE EXTENT, THAT EXTENT THAT I
CAN CONTINUE TO ENSURE THAT AS
THE ECONOMY CHANGES AND, YOU
KNOW, TAXPAYERS AREN'T OFF THE
HOOK, I WILL, YOU KNOW, WORK
WITH YOU AND THE OPPOSITION AND
ANY MEMBER, BECAUSE AT THE END
OF THE DAY, I NEED 41 VOTES ON
THE FLOOR. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR.
WE HAVE A MOTION. I NEED A
SECOND BY MR. GRAYSON. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ACTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED. WORD A WORD
I PERSON I PERSON I GRAYSON
GRAYSON I CHOLERA NOT VOTING.
LEE LEE I QUIRK-SILVA REYES
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I WILSON AT THE
MOMENT HAS FIVE VOTES. THAT BILL
WILL BE OUT, BUT WE'LL HOLD THE
RULE OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. AND
WE'LL BE BACK ON FILE. I SEE
SOME MEMBER HANEY HAS JOINED US.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 8AB
2479. AND WHEN YOU'RE READY, IF
YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES, THEY MAY
JOIN YOU AT THE TABLE. THANK
YOU. YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
THANK YOU TO YOUR STAFF. AND I'M
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, THIS BILL, I'M SURE,
LOOKS FAMILIAR TO THIS COMMITTEE
BECAUSE YOU PASSED OUT A VERY
SIMILAR BILL AUTHORED BY THE
CHAIR. AND I WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIR FOR HIS PARTNERSHIP. AND
WE PLAN TO WORK, HAND IN HAND ON
THIS ISSUE, MOVING FORWARD WITH
THESE TWO TO REALLY COMPANION
AND VERY SIMILAR BILLS, AB 2479
ALIGNS CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING
POLICY WITH FEDERAL GUIDELINES
BY RECOGNIZING THAT DRUG FREE
HOUSING IS CONSISTENT WITH
HOUSING FIRST POLICIES, THIS IS
REALLY ABOUT GIVING PEOPLE
OPTIONS SO THAT THEY CAN BE
SUCCESSFUL, THERE ARE OTHER
APPROACHES TO HOUSING THAT ARE
FOR PEOPLE RIGHT NOW THAT ARE
NOT QUITE READY FOR FULL
SOBRIETY. THOSE OPTIONS ARE
AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE AND WILL
CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE TO
PEOPLE. BUT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO
GET OFF OF THE STREETS AND AWAY
FROM DRUGS, AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO
ARE USING DRUGS AND BE A PART OF
A COMMUNITY OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
K¾T, OF SHARED COMMITMENT.
PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BACK
THEM UP, EVEN WHEN THEY FALL ON
THEIR PATH TOWARDS, FULL
SOBRIETY AND TO BEING A PART OF
A COMMUNITY THAT IS COMMITTED TO
THAT IS AN APPROACH THAT WORKS
FOR MANY PEOPLE. IT'S WORKING
FOR PEOPLE NOW. AND
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE NOT
ENOUGH OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO
WANT TO TAKE THAT PATH. ANYONE
WHO WANTS TO GET OFF OF DEADLY
ILLEGAL DRUGS AND AWAY FROM
THEM, WE SHOULD BE GIVING THEM
THAT OPPORTUNITY, RIGHT NOW
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO GO THROUGH
TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS
SIX MONTHS, 12 MONTHS, NINE
MONTHS. THEY FINISH THAT PROGRAM
AND THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THEM TO
TRANSITION TO. THAT'S PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING WHERE THEY
CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A DRUG FREE
RECOVERY ENVIRONMENT, THIS BILL
WILL ENSURE THAT, CALIFORNIA
CONTINUES TO PROVIDE HARM
REDUCTION OPTIONS, BUT ALSO,
ALLOWS SOME PERCENTAGE OF OUR
STATE FUNDING TO GO TOWARDS
THESE DRUG FREE RECOVERY
OPTIONS. THAT IS ALREADY
SOMETHING THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZING AS PART
OF HOUSING FIRST. IT SHOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT WE RECOGNIZE, AND
ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS
BILL CLEARLY, OUTLINES ÓRDENES
THAT, IF SOMEBODY RELAPSES, THIS
IS NOT A REASON FOR EVICTION,
BUT ACTUALLY THAT THERE'S
SPECIFIC STEPS OF SUPPORT THAT
THEY WILL RECEIVE. THIS IS IN A
VERY IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD IN
OUR FIGHT TO ENSURE EVERYONE HAS
HOUSING OPTIONS AND ALSO AGAINST
THE ADDICTION EPIDEMIC THAT
WE'RE FACING ACROSS OUR STATE.
AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND
PARTNERSHIP WITH ME TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. I HAVE
ADRIAN COVERT FROM THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL AND DANIEL MACLENNAN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR, MY
NAME AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HANEY. I'M ADRIAN COVERT WITH
THE BAY AREA COUNCIL. SUBSTANCE
ABUSE IS BOTH A CAUSE AND A
RESULT OF HOMELESSNESS. A RECENT
STUDY FOUND OVERDOSE DEATHS IN
CALIFORNIA AND OTHER WESTERN
STATES AMONGST PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS HAVE
INCREASED AN ASTONISHING 488%
BETWEEN 2011 AND 2020, AND IN
2023, 68% OF ALL OVERDOSE DEATHS
IN SAN FRANCISCO OCCURRED NOT ON
THE STREETS BUT IN A FIXED
ADDRESS WITHIN OUR PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS,
MORE TREATMENT OPTIONS ARE
NEEDED TO HELP ADDRESS THIS
URGENT PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS. AND
ACCORDING TO HUD RECOVERY
HOUSING. AND I QUOTE FROM HUD'S
GUIDANCE, CAN AND SHOULD BE A
COMPONENT OF ANY CONTINUED OF
CARE. AND ACCORDING TO THE
FEDERAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
ADMINISTRATION, I QUOTE RECOVERY
HOUSING CAN BE A CRITICAL ASSET
IN SUPPORTING AN INDIVIDUAL ON
THEIR JOURNEY TO RECOVERY.
DESPITE CLEAR FEDERAL GUIDANCE
UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.
THE RECOVERY HOUSING WHEN
PROVIDED AS AN OPTION ALONGSIDE
HARM REDUCTION FACILITIES, IS A
CORE COMPONENT OF A SUCCESSFUL
HOUSING FIRST MODEL.
CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING HOUSING
FIRST LAW PROHIBITS THE STATE
FROM FUNDING RECOVERY, HOUSING
PROJECTS, AND IS THEREFORE OUT
OF CONFORMITY WITH FEDERAL BEST
PRACTICES. ONE TRAGIC
CONSEQUENCE OF CALIFORNIA'S
EXISTING HOUSING FIRST LAW IS
THAT IT CAN HARM PEOPLE WITH
SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS WHO
SEEK TREATMENT AND RECOVERY BY
FORCING THEM INTO HOUSING, WHERE
DRUG USE IS OFTEN COMMONPLACE
AND WHERE THE DEALER IS WAITING
FOR THEM. OUTSIDE AB 2479 WOULD
BRING CALIFORNIA INTO CONFORMITY
WITH FEDERAL GUIDANCE BY
ALLOWING UP TO 25% OF STATE
GRANTS WITHIN INDIVIDUAL
COUNTIES TO SUPPORT RECOVERY
HOUSING PROJECTS. AND FOLLOWING
DISCUSSING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
CHAIR AS THE AUTHOR MENTIONED,
THE CHAIR AND THE SPONSORS ARE
ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD
TASK THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES WITH
DEVELOPING AND CERTIFICATION
PROCESS FOR RECOVERY HOUSING.
AND FOR THESE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
THANK YOU, CHAIR. WARD, MY NAME
IS DANIEL, I'M AN ADDICT IN
RECOVERY AND A CURRENT RESIDENT
OF A HARM REDUCTION FACILITY.
WHAT CAN BE SAID ABOUT MY TIME
IN THE SF HOUSING SYSTEM COULD
FILL A DENSE ACADEMIC RESEARCH
PAPER, BUT TWO MINUTES IS ALL I
HAVE. AND WE'LL DO MY BEST TO
PAINT A BROAD PICTURE. I, LIKE
SO MANY OTHERS, HAVE BEEN PLACED
IN A HOUSING UNIT WITH MANY OF
THE MOST MENTALLY UNWELL AND
DRUG ADDICTED INDIVIDUALS, WITH
WITH ZERO SUPERVISION OR
REHABILITATION SERVICES. THIS IS
AND HAS BEEN AN OBVIOUS RECIPE
FOR DISASTER. ALONG WITH THE
LACK OF CARE. IT ALL BUT
GUARANTEES. THIS TRAGEDY IS
PERPETUATED BY KEEPING RESIDENTS
LIKE ME CONTINUALLY DEPENDENT ON
THIS COSTLY SYSTEM, WITH NO HOPE
FOR TREATMENT GOALS OR GOALS TO
AIM FOR. THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES. 68% OF FATAL
OVERDOSES OCCUR BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS AT THESE PERMANENT HOUSING
FACILITIES, ACCORDING TO THE
CORONER'S WEBSITE. THESE
FACILITIES ARE PLACES WHERE THE
MOST RAMPANT DRUG USES TAKE
PLACE. THEY ARE OFTEN DIRTY,
LACK ANY MODICUM OF STRUCTURE,
AND ARE OFTEN HAVENS FOR ALL
MANNER OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
WITHOUT SERVICES, IT FEELS LIKE
THE END OF THE ROAD. IF THERE
ARE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE,
THEY ARE DIFFICULT TO FIND OR
ACCESS, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO
ARE MENTALLY ILL OR IN THE
THROES OF ADDICTION. WE DO NOT
NEED A HAND OUT. MANY OF US NEED
A HAND UP, BUT THERE ARE ALMOST
ZERO OPTIONS IN TERMS OF
REHABILITATION AND CLEAN AND
SOBER LIVING RESOURCES,
RESOURCES. PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE
DESPERATE FOR A CLEAN AND
POSITIVE LIVING ENVIRONMENT WITH
TREATMENT OPTIONS. AB 2479 WILL
HELP EXPAND THOSE OPTIONS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE. ARE THERE OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? GREAT.
WHEN I GOT THERE, I FELL OVER.
THANK YOU. DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON
BEHALF OF SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR
LONDON BREED IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM OR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
STATE OPPOSITION? OKAY. SEEING
NONE, WE'LL BRING THIS BACK TO
COMMITTEE, SOME MEMBER CHOLERA.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS SOMEONE
THAT REPRESENTED THOUSANDS OF
INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE CHARGED
WITH THE, DRUG OFFENSES THAT
THAT WERE ADDICTS AND WE DID OUR
BEST TO TRY TO GET HELP FOR
THEM. BUT OFTENTIMES, EVEN AFTER
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND THEN
NOT HAVING ANYWHERE TO GO, QUITE
OFTEN THOSE THAT RELAPSED OR GOT
REARRESTED OR WHAT HAVE YOU,
IT'S BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE
STABLE HOUSING. IF YOU DON'T
HAVE STABLE HOUSING, ANY ASPECT
OF YOUR HEALTH, WHETHER IT'S
MENTAL HEALTH, PHYSICAL HEALTH,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, IT'S A PRETTY
TALL TASK TO ASK SOMEONE TO BE
ABLE TO, BE SUCCESSFUL IN, IN
RECOVERY IF WE DON'T GIVE THEM
ALL THE TOOLS. AND HOUSING IS
PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT TOOL
WE CAN GIVE SOMEONE A STABLE
PLACE TO LIVE, WHERE THEY CAN
START TO HEAL AND START TO WORK
ON THEMSELVES. AND SO, VERY
GRATEFUL THAT YOU BROUGHT THIS
BILL FORWARD. I'D LIKE TO MOVE
IT IF IT HASN'T BEEN MOVED, AND
WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE BEING AT
IT AS A CO AUTHOR. APPRECIATE
THAT. MR. COLOR, VICE CHAIR. I
JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IS A
REALLY GREAT BILL, WE, YOU KNOW,
I THINK THIS ONE THING THAT THIS
MIGHT DO IS IT HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND PROGRAMS
THAT WE KNOW ARE SUCCESSFUL, BUT
NOT, BUT MIGHT NOT QUALIFY UNDER
EXISTING THING, YOU KNOW, STATE
RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THINGS
LIKE THAT. AND SO AND WHAT'S
GREAT IS IT'S LIMITED IN THE
SENSE OF WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO KNOW IF IT'S SUCCESSFUL OR
NOT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S ANY PROBABLY NOT. IT
MAKES IT WOULD PROBABLY DIE IN
APPROPRIATIONS IF YOU ADDED YOU
KNOW, TOO MUCH, EVALUATION, YOU
KNOW, LIKE A STUDY IN THERE OR
SOMETHING. BUT IT IS TRUE. WE
HAVE OTHER OTHER SORT OF STUDY
BILLS OUT THERE TO KIND OF SEE
HOW FUNDING IS WORKING. AND I
HOPE IT INCLUDES THIS BECAUSE I
THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT
THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF SUCCESS
OUT THERE. AND I'M REALLY
HOPEFUL FOR IT. SO THANKS FOR
KIND OF OPENING THAT UP. YEAH
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS
SOMETHING RADICAL TO SAY, BUT WE
SHOULD PROBABLY BE EVALUATING
EVERY PROGRAM THAT WE FUND IN
TERMS OF ITS SUCCESS. AND I
THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT IS
BROKEN NOW AS WE'RE FUNDING A
LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
HOUSING PROGRAMS AND SUCH, AND
WE'RE NOT ASSESSING WHETHER THE
PEOPLE THERE ARE NOT ONLY
SUCCESSFUL IN STAYING THERE, BUT
ALSO IN TAKING OTHER STEPS IN
THEIR LIVES, WHETHER THAT'S
BEING ABLE TO GO BACK INTO THE
WORKFORCE OR REACHING SOBRIETY,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEING REALLY
SHOCKING LEVELS OF OVERDOSES IN
MANY OF THESE STATE, RUN AND
FUNDED FACILITIES AND THAT
SHOULD BE A MEASURE AND A METRIC
AS WELL. CERTAINLY WE SHOULDN'T
BE FUNDING FACILITIES THAT ARE
HAVING ARE PLACES WHERE MANY
PEOPLE ARE DYING. THAT'S THE
WORST POSSIBLE FAILURE. AND SO
WE SHOULD BE ASSESSING AND
EVALUATING THESE TYPES OF
FACILITIES AS WELL. AND AGAIN, I
DO THINK THAT THEY WORK FOR MANY
PEOPLE. THEY MAY NOT WORK FOR
EVERYBODY, BUT IT'S ABOUT HAVING
A CHOICE. AND IF THE CHOICE THAT
SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE IS TO BE
AWAY FROM DRUGS, ENTIRELY, WE
HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT CHOICE.
THANK YOU. SEE, NO OTHER MEMBERS
WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING
WITH ME CLOSELY TO MAKE SURE OUR
BILLS ARE CONSISTENT IN THIS
SPACE, BUT I THINK YOUR
LEADERSHIP, ESPECIALLY FOR YOUR
CONSTITUENCY IN SAN FRANCISCO,
IS, APPRECIATED, AND I WOULD
INVITE YOU TO CLOSE. THANK YOU.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU TO
YOU AND YOUR STAFF. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ACTION DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A, WARD I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. I GRAYSON.
CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LEE I LI I
QUIRK-SILVA REYES. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ I WILSON. THAT BILL HAS
FIVE VOTES. IT'LL BE OUT AND,
WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU, NEXT,
I'M GOING TO EXTEND COURTESY TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER PELLERIN, WHO I
KNOW HAS A SCHEDULING, ISSUE. SO
WE'LL GO DOWN TO FILE ITEM 26,
AB 3035 WHEN YOU'RE READY, WITH
YOUR PRESENTERS, YOU MAY BEGIN
YOUR PRESENTATION. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH,
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB 3035,
WHICH EXPANDS AN EXISTING
STREAMLINED APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN
THE TWO COUNTIES IN MY DISTRICT,
SANTA CLARA AND SANTA CRUZ. AS
DISCUSSED IN THE ANALYSIS IN
2019, SPEAKER RIVAS AUTHORED
ASSEMBLY BILL 1783, WHICH
CREATED A STREAMLINED
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
QUALIFYING AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE
HOUSING PROJECTS. AB 3035 MAKES
TWO CHANGES TO BROADEN THE SITES
WHERE AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE
HOUSING CAN BE STREAMLINED AND
THE SCALE OF QUALIFYING PROJECTS
IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND SANTA
CRUZ COUNTIES. AND WITH ME TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB 3035 IS
SYLVIA ARENAS, WHO IS OUR FIFTH
DISTRICT SUPERVISOR FROM SANTA
CLARA COUNTY. THANK YOU. THE
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR WARD AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M
SYLVIA ARENAS, DISTRICT ONE
COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISOR. AND I'M
JUST REALLY HAPPY TO BE HERE TO
REPRESENT THE COUNTY, AS WE ARE
THE SPONSOR OF, JUST LIKE,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MENTIONED,
PROVIDING SAFE AND HEALTHY AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IS A TOP
PRIORITY FOR OUR COUNTY. THIS IS
AN ISSUE THAT IS DEEPLY
IMPORTANT TO ME PERSONALLY, AND
OUR COMMUNITY. I REPRESENT MY
DAUGHTER OF A BRACERO WHO WORKED
IN THE FIELDS, AND MY PARENTS
WORKED IN THE FIELDS AND IN THE
CANNERIES. EVENTUALLY,
PURCHASING A HOME THAT PROVIDED
THAT STABILITY TO MY BROTHERS
AND SISTERS. AS YOU JUST
MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS ITEM,
HOW IMPORTANT STABILITY IS FOR A
FAMILY. I'M DEEPLY HONORED TO
FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
WITH YOU TODAY. AND I FEEL LIKE
THERE'S AN ENORMOUS WEIGHT ON MY
SHOULDER, TO ASK YOU FOR A
SUPPORT FOR THIS LEGISLATION,
BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE HAVE A
SHORTFALL OF 1400 SEASONAL
WORKER HOUSING UNITS AND YEAR
ROUND, 700 HOUSING UNITS FOR
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS. AND AS YOU
KNOW, THESE ARE FAMILIES THAT
ARE OFTEN FORCED INTO
SUBSTANDARD LIVING CONDITIONS.
AND I WON'T MENTION ALL OF
THOSE, BUT JUST LAST WEEK, WE
FOUND A FAMILY THAT WAS LIVING
IN A TOUGH SHED, AND SO, YOU
KNOW, BUT THE PLACES JUST RUN
THE GAMUT FOR. SO FOR FAR TOO
LONG THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED TO
LANGUISH. BUT IN RECENT YEARS,
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS
JUMPED INTO ACTION, PRESSING THE
SHORTAGE OF HOUSING. AND IN
2020, THE BOARD VOTED TO
STREAMLINE THE PERMITTING
PROCESS TO FARMWORKER HOUSING,
INCLUDING PERMANENT, TEMPORARY
AND SEASONAL PROJECTS. AND IN
2023, AS A NEW BOARD MEMBER, I
INTRODUCED THIS AGRICULTURAL
WORKER HOUSING WORK PLAN, WHICH
INCLUDES TO OVERHAUL OUR
PERMITTING PROCESS BECAUSE WE
ARE ONLY ABLE TO ACTUALLY
APPROVE THREE UNITS IN THE LAST
FOUR YEARS. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO
PREPARE, TO DEVELOP, HOUSING ON
COUNTY OWNED LAND TO FUND THE
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING
HOUSING TO INSTITUTE A PILOT
PROGRAM TO INCENTIVIZE PRIVATE
PRODUCTION 10S ESTABLISH A HELP
CENTER, AND ADVOCATE REGIONAL
AND STATE LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM?
OKAY. SEEING NONE ANY WITNESSES
OR TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION OR
THOSE WISHES TO STATE A POSITION
OF OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE,
WE'LL TURN THIS BACK TO ANY
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I SWEAR I'M NOT
GOING TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL.
HOWEVER, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE MY
COUNTY SUPERVISOR HERE, SPEAKING
IN SUPPORT OF A VERY IMPORTANT
PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT, AS
MENTIONED BY SENATOR PELLERIN,
WAS INITIALLY LED BY OUR
SPEAKER. AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL
TO HAVE OUR COLLEAGUE, SENATOR
PELLERIN, EXPANDING ON IT TO
ENSURE THAT MORE OF OUR FARM
WORKERS HAVE ACCESS, TO, TO
DIGNIFIED, QUALITY HOUSING,
PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE IMPORTANT
WORK THAT THEY DO FOR ALL OF US,
AND SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL
AND I'D AND IF IT'S OKAY WITH
THE AUTHOR WOULD LOVE TO BE AT
IT AS A PRINCIPLE COAUTHOR.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND, MR. LEE, I JUST WANT
TO SECOND MY COMMENTS, A SECOND,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, CALLERS COMMENTS
ON THIS, AND I DO APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S WORK ON MAKING SURE
THAT OUR AGRICULTURE WORKERS IN
SANTA CRUZ AND OUR HOME COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ARE TAKEN
CARE OF. YOU KNOW, TOO OFTEN
PEOPLE THINK OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTY AS ONLY JUST FULL OF
TECHIES. AND THERE BUT YET THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN RURAL
COMMUNITIES WHO ARE FARM
WORKERS, WHO LIVE AND WORK IN
OUR OWN COUNTY OR THE ADJACENT
COUNTIES AS WELL. SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE IT TOO. AND I WOULD
LOVE TO ALSO BE ADDED AS A
PRINCIPLE COAUTHOR AS WELL. AND
THANK YOU FOR OUR COUNTY
SUPERVISOR. COME UP HERE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS
ITEM, I'LL LINE MY COMMENTS WITH
THOSE FROM THE COMMITTEE AND
I'LL ASK, INVITE YOU TO CLOSE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, MISS PELLERIN.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. YEAH. DO PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A WARD I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. I GRAYSON.
CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LEE LI I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I REZ
SANTA ORTEZ. SANCHEZ I WILSON
SIX. THAT, HAS SIX VOTES. IT
WILL BE OUT. WE'LL HOLD A ROLL
UP IN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. AND WE'LL GO BACK TO,
MISS FRIEDMAN, THIS IS FILE ITEM
17 AB 2712. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. I INVITE YOU AND ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TO JOIN YOU
AT THE PRESENTATION TABLE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS, AS AB 2712 IS A
DISTRICT BILL TO, TRY TO DEAL
WITH SOME UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF A BILL THAT I
DID LAST YEAR, 2097, THAT
REMOVED THE ABILITY OF A
LOCALITY TO PRESCRIBE ANY AMOUNT
OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT
TO HOUSING PROJECTS NEAR
TRANSIT. NOW, WHAT WE DIDN'T
ANTICIPATE WHEN WE DID THAT BILL
WAS A SITUATION THAT OCCURRED IN
PARTS OF LOS ANGELES WHERE
BECAUSE OF OTHER STATE BILLS
THAT OPENED UP COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS TO HOUSING FOR THE
FIRST TIME AND MORE INTENSIVE
HOUSING, THE WAY THAT THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES HAD DRAWN SOME OF
THEIR PREFERENTIAL PARKING
DISTRICTS WAS SEEN BY THE CITY
TO INCLUDE SOME SOME COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS THAT DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY
HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE
HOUSING. AND BECAUSE OF THAT,
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES FEELS
THAT THEY HAVE TO GIVE PARKING
PREFERENTIAL PARKING PASSES TO
THESE NEW MARKET RATE, NEW
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE
GOING IN LITERALLY SO THAT THE
PEOPLE IN THOSE BUILDINGS CAN GO
AND PARK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
NEXT DOOR TO THEM, TAKING AWAY
WHAT'S EXTREMELY RARE AND
VALUABLE CURB PARKING FOR
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE
VERY PARKING CONSTRAINED BECAUSE
THEY WERE BUILT IN THE 30S, 20S
AND 40S, AT TIMES WHEN PEOPLE
DIDN'T HAVE AS MANY VEHICLES.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE
PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE, FOR
CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO REDRAW
THE PARKING MAPS, WHICH THEY
REALLY SHOULD DO, WOULD TAKE
THEM QUITE A WHILE, BECAUSE IF
THEY'RE PUBLIC PROCESS, THEY'D
HAVE TO GO THROUGH. WE'RE
LOOKING AT 1 TO 2 YEARS TO
REDRAW SOME OF THE PUBLIC
PARKING. AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IS
DEVELOPERS ARE COMING IN,
BUILDING LUXURY APARTMENTS THAT
ARE HUNDREDS OF UNITS AND
TELLING EVERYONE THEY'RE GOING
TO GET PARKING PASSES TO GO AND
PARK IN THE ADJOINING
NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S GOING TO
PUT AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON
THE RESIDENTS IN THOSE AREAS.
WHEN WE DID THE PARKING BILL,
THE IDEA WAS THAT PEOPLE WOULD
USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IF
THERE WAS NO OTHER PARKING
AVAILABLE TO THEM OR SHARED
PARKING, BUT TO BURDEN THE
EXISTING RESIDENTS IN THESE
AREAS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE
BILL ANTICIPATED. AND SO WE HAVE
INTRODUCED THIS BILL TO DEAL
WITH THAT AMENDMENTS. TAKING AN
ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAST
WEEK LIMIT THE BILL TO THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES. EXEMPT RESIDENTS
IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT
ARE 20 UNITS OR LESS. SO THAT
THIS WOULDN'T BE IF SOMEONE
ADDED TWO OR 3 OR 4 UNITS,
EXEMPT Ã RESIDENTS IN DEED
RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENTS INTENDED
TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE VERY LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, EXTREMELY LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, OR LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLD DEVELOPMENTS
AND ALLOW THE CITY TO ISSUE A
PERMIT OR PERMITS TO RESIDENTS.
IF THE CITY CAN MAKE FINDINGS
THAT IT DOESN'T ADD TO A
OVERCROWDING SITUATION. NOW WE
ARE WILLING TO WORK ON THAT LAST
AMENDMENT WITH THE SPONSORS, YOU
KNOW, IN FUTURE COMMITTEES. THE
REASON WE DID THAT ACTUALLY WAS
FOR CERTAIN AREAS LIKE WHERE I
LIVE HERE IN SACRAMENTO, WHERE
THE ONLY REASON THERE'S
PREFERENTIAL PARKING ON MY BLOCK
IS BECAUSE THERE'S A HIGH SCHOOL
AND PEOPLE WOULD PARK THERE JUST
TO PICK UP THEIR KIDS FOR LIKE A
HALF AN HOUR A DAY. BUT THE REST
OF THE TIME, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY
NO PROBLEM WITH PARKING. SO IT'S
NOT A QUESTION OF IT BEING
OVERCROWDED. THEY'RE JUST TRYING
TO DEAL WITH A VERY SPECIFIC
SITUATION. SO WE WANTED TO GIVE
THE LOCALITY SOME FLEXIBILITY IN
THAT. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT
THAT'S OF CONCERN TO THE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE AREA. SO
WE'RE YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE OPEN TO
REMOVING THAT LAST PROVISION, SO
WITH WITH ME TODAY TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2712 IS NATALIE
BROWN WITH THE PLANNING AND
CONSERVATION LEAGUE. AND WITH
THAT I WOULD REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR WARD 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. THIS BILL
RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO SUPPORT
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT
OVERCROWDING THE CURB PARKING
THAT EXISTING RESIDENTS RELY ON.
BY EXCLUDING LOW AND NO PARKING
DEVELOPMENT FROM PREFERENTIAL
PARKING DISTRICTS IN LOS ANGELES
, 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 AND
BUSINESSES ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THEY'LL OVERCROWD NEARBY STREET
PARKING, MAKING IT EASIER TO GET
THESE PROJECTS OFF THE GROUND.
AND THREE, IT WILL ENSURE THAT
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IS
ACTUALLY TRANSIT ORIENTED. THESE
PROJECTS, AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN MENTIONED, SHOULD
SUPPORT CAR FREE TENANTS AND
CUSTOMERS, NOT SIMPLY PUSH
PARKING DEMANDS TO ALREADY
CROWDED STREETS. AB 2712 IS A
WIN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
EXISTING NEIGHBORS, AND FOR OUR
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, THIS BILL FOSTERS
INCLUSIVE AND RESILIENT
COMMUNITIES, AND BY CURBING
URBAN SPRAWL AND INDUCED CAR
USAGE, THIS BILL CONTRIBUTES TO
REDUCTIONS IN VEHICLE MILES
TRAVELED, THEREBY REDUCING AIR
POLLUTION, MITIGATING GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS, AND 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 CRISIS THAT SUPPORTS
BOTH EQUITY AND EXISTING
COMMUNITY NEEDS. THIS BILL IS
IMPORTANT AND THOUGHTFUL, AND I
URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? ARE YOU
SEEING NONE TODAY? ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION OR
POSITIONS OF OPPOSITION SEEING
NONE. I'LL RETURN THIS TO THE
DAIS FOR ANY COMMITTEE MEMBER
COMMENT OR QUESTIONS, VICE CHAIR
. SO I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
GOING AFTER YOU AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT A WEEK AGO. SO IT WAS
A SO I HEARD KIND OF THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION ON THAT, SO IT'S KIND
OF AN INTERESTING BILL, BECAUSE
I UNDERSTAND THE I GUESS WHAT
I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH THAT I
DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND IS
THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT THAT GETS,
DOESN'T, DOESN'T HAVE, PARKING
MINIMUMS AND, AND SO ON AND SO
FORTH. AND NOW WE'RE TAKING SOME
PARKING SPOTS OFFLINE, WHICH I
UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEN, YOU
KNOW, THEY WOULD GO INTO THE GET
PERMITS AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS
AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT
THAT ALL MAKES SENSE. DOES THIS
BILL SOLVE WHERE THOSE PEOPLE
WILL THEN PARK, OR DOES IT STOP
THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO PARK
SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THEIR HOME?
SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE WITH THESE
KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS IS THAT
THEY DO ONE OF THREE THINGS.
THEY EITHER ADD THE PARKING THAT
THEY FEEL THEY NEED FOR THEIR
TENANTS ON SITE, OR THEY MARKET
TO PEOPLE WHO ARE WANT TO LIVE
THERE, SELF-SELECT THERE BECAUSE
THEY'RE BECAUSE OF THEIR
PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT. AND SO
MAYBE THEY'RE OFFERING A UNIT
FOR A LITTLE BIT LESS MONEY THAT
DOESN'T HAVE SPACES. MAYBE THEY
HAVE A MIX IN THEIR BUILDING
WITH SOME WITH AVAILABLE SPACES
THAT YOU PAY FOR, SOME WITHOUT A
PARKING SPACE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
TAKING UBER, USING THE BUS,
RIDING THEIR BIKES. THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED IN SAN DIEGO WHEN THEY
REMOVED PARKING MINIMUMS OR THEY
CAN CONTRACT FOR SHARED PARKING
WITH NEARBY BUILDINGS. THERE'S A
LOT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. MY
GUESS IS THERE ARE A LOT OF
UNUSED COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES
IN THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR
DISTRICT. IT'S IN THE MIRACLE
MILE AREA, WHICH IS A REAL MIX
OF OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL. BUT
WHAT WE DON'T WANT THEM TO DO IS
TO TAKE IS TO GET AUTOMATICALLY
PARKING PASSES FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND THEM SO THAT
THEY CAN DISPLACE THE PEOPLE
THAT ARE RIGHT NOW PARKING AT
THAT CURB SPACE. YEAH. AGREED.
VERY INTERESTING. ALTHOUGH I
WOULD SAY IT WILL CREATE
SOMEWHAT OF A DETERRENT, TO SOME
INFILL HOUSING IF WE SAY, HEY,
LOOK, THEY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
WHERE, BECAUSE ISN'T THAT THE
WHOLE POINT OF THE PARKING? NO
PARKING MINIMUMS IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, SOME, SOME AREAS THAT ARE
GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
REDUCED PARKING, ACTUALLY HAVE
PARKING IN THE AREAS, YOU KNOW,
I CAN SHOW YOU SOME PLACES, FOR
INSTANCE, NEAR TRAIN STOPS IN
BURBANK WHERE THERE ACTUALLY IS
STREET PARKING, BECAUSE THOSE
ARE AREAS THAT DON'T HAVE A LOT
OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE FORMERLY INDUSTRIAL
AREAS, THERE'S A LOT OF UNUSED
LAND. THERE'S ONE SITE, FOR
INSTANCE, THAT WAS AN IKEA THAT
NOW IS JUST SITTING VACANT, THAT
HAS A GIANT PARKING LOT ALONG
WITH IT. SO WHY FORCE THEM TO
SORT OF BUILD NEW PARKING? SO,
YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT
DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT PARTS
OF THE STATE AND IN DIFFERENT
LOCALITIES IN THIS PARTICULAR
AREA. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
DENSE PARTS OF LOS ANGELES. IT'S
NEAR THE MUSEUMS NEAR LACMA,
NEAR THE TAR PIT MUSEUM. AND
WHAT I BELIEVE HAPPENED IS THAT
THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR WAS
NEVER REALLY ZONED FOR HOUSING
IN THAT AREA. WE CHANGED THAT
AND CITY OF L.A. CHANGED THAT.
BUT THERE WAS A THE PARKING LINE
FOR THE PREFERENTIAL ZONE IS
RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF, OF
WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SO
DEVELOPERS ON THAT SIDE ARE
BUILDING. IN THIS CASE, WE SAW A
ABOUT A 300 UNIT LUXURY
BUILDING. IT'S BEING MARKETED AS
LUXURY. AND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING
IS THAT THEY WILL HAVE VALETS
THAT WILL TAKE YOUR CAR AND USE
AND GET YOU A PARKING PERMIT,
AND THEN GO PARK IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND AND THEN
WALK BACK. WE FEEL THAT THAT'S A
GET AROUND OF WHAT WE WERE
HOPING FOR WITH THE WITH THE
PARKING MINIMUMS, WHICH WAS YOU
KNOW, LET'S START BUILDING,
BUILDINGS NEAR TRANSIT FOR
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO USE THAT HIGH
QUALITY TRANSIT. LET'S NOT
INVITE EIGHT, 800 NEW CARS INTO
THIS ALREADY VERY CONGESTED AREA
BY CONSTANTLY ADDING MORE AND
MORE PARKING SPACES. SO SO, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S A NEGATIVE IMPACT
FOR THE PARKING PERMITS ON THE
RESIDENTS NEARBY. LÀ CAN GO
THROUGH THEIR PROCESS AND CHANGE
WHERE THEIR PARKING MAP IS
DRAWN, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE
THEM A TOO LONG TO DO THAT FOR
SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS,
BECAUSE THEY MOVE REALLY SLOWLY
WITH THEIR PROCESS, WELL, I
APPRECIATE YOU LIMITING THE BILL
IN THE LOT BECAUSE THESE ARE
STATEWIDE IMPLICATIONS,
OBVIOUSLY, TO A RELATIVELY BRAND
NEW POLICY THAT WAS JUST,
BROUGHT IN. SO I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THIS TODAY AND, YOU
KNOW, SEE, SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN
LA, AND SORT OF GO FROM THERE.
SO THANKS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS WISHING
TO COMMENT ON THE BILL, DO WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE
DO, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING CLOSELY. I AGREE, I
WOULD JUST ALIGN MY COMMENTS
WITH THE VICE CHAIR, YOU KNOW,
WE HAD BEEN YOU HAD BEEN LEADING
ON THIS EFFORT TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT, THE OPPORTUNITIES TO
REDUCE COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT, AND
ALSO GIVE A MODEL THAT THE
MARKET WAS, WAS MEANT TO BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO
WANTED A PLACE THAT WOULD RENT
FOR A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER. BUT
WOULDN'T HAVE THAT GUARANTEED
PARKING AS A PART OF IT. THAT
WAS A CHOICE BY FUTURE USERS
THAT THEY WOULD MOVE INTO A
SPACE THAT WAS MEANT TO BE
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO WHEN WE GET INTO THESE
NOW VERY LOCALIZED SITUATIONS
WHERE SOMETHING IS IN A
PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE IN SAN
DIEGO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE
PARKING PERMIT AREAS THAT ARE
MORE TIED TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
BECAUSE NOT JUST LIKE A HIGH
SCHOOL, POTENTIALLY A HOSPITAL
OR A UNIVERSITY ALSO COMES WITH,
SORT OF, YOU KNOW, PART PARTIAL
DAY ACTIVITY THAT CAN IMPEDE
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. AND SO I
THINK THESE ARE THE KINDS OF
CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU'RE
THINKING ABOUT AS WELL, BUT WITH
THAT, I INVITE YOU TO CLOSE JUST
I WOULD, REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. SO
THAT WE CAN SOLVE THIS
UNANTICIPATED PROBLEM THAT THAT,
IS HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN LOS
ANGELES. AND THANKS SO MUCH FOR
THE HEARING. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ACTION IS TO PASS,
WARD I PATTERSON. PATTERSON, I.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON I CHOLERA. LEE
I LEE I QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA.
I REYES SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING.
WILSON THANK YOU. THAT BILL HAS
FIVE VOTES. IT WILL BE OUT, AND
WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. NEXT FILE ITEM
21 WITH MR. SANTIAGO. THIS WILL
BE ASSEMBLY BILL 2909. AND AFTER
THAT, WE HAVE TWO BILLS LEFT ON
FILE. I INVITE AUTHORS TO COME
DOWN TO COMMITTEE. ROOM 437.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HELPING US
ON THIS BILL TO MAKE IT BETTER.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SIMPLY
PUT, 2909 WOULD EXPAND THE MILLS
ACT TO EMPOWER CITY OF LOS
ANGELES TO INCENTIVIZE THE
CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL USE.
SPECIFICALLY, 2909 WOULD EXPAND
THE DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED
HISTORIC PROPERTIES TO INCLUDE
BUILDINGS THAT ARE AT LEAST 30
YEARS OLD AND LOCATED WITHIN
COMMERCIAL ZONES, MAKING
PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR THE MILLS
ACT CONTRACTS, WITH US, WE HAVE
ONE WITNESS, MICHAEL SHILSTONE
OF CENTRAL CITY ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M MICHAEL
SHILSTONE, VICE PRESIDENT OF
POLICY AND RESEARCH WITH CENTRAL
CITY ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES,
CA REPRESENTS 300 BUSINESSES,
INSTITUTIONS AND NONPROFITS WHO
ARE COMMITTED TO ENHANCING
DOWNTOWN LA AS VIBRANCY AND
INCREASING OPPORTUNITY IN THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION.
WE'RE STRONG ADVOCATES FOR
POLICIES THAT SUPPORT ADAPTIVE
REUSE, AND WE'RE PROUD TO
SPONSOR AB 2909. THIS BILL WOULD
PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR LA
TO EXPAND ITS MILLS ACT PROGRAM
TO SUPPORT OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL
CONVERSIONS. IT REQUIRES THAT
PROPERTY TAX SAVINGS BE
REINVESTED IN RETROFITTING AND
REPURPOSING EXISTING BUILDINGS
TO CREATE HOUSING, AND IT WOULD
BE A TARGETED EXPANSION OF A
PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO
BE SUCCESSFUL AND CAN BE
INSTRUMENTAL IN UNLOCKING THE
BENEFITS OF ADAPTIVE REUSE IN
LA. I'LL LEAVE IT THERE TO KEEP
IT BRIEF, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS, AND WE WOULD BE
VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. SECOND, THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC IN SUPPORT OF THIS
ITEM TODAY? GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. CHRIS, WITH LA BISFED IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND IS THERE
ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION THROUGH
TESTIMONY OR INTERESTED IN
STATING A POSITION OF
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL
TURN THIS BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE, MR. SANTIAGO, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THINKING
ABOUT, CREATIVE, APPROACH, TO BE
ABLE TO WORK ON SOME OF THIS,
ADAPTIVE REUSE, PROJECTS THAT
ARE, VERY PRESENT. I THINK, IN
YOUR DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, AND, CERTAINLY ENJOYS
SUPPORT OF THE CHAIR, WITHOUT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR. AND I
VOTE, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. THANK
YOU, MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL AUCTION. DO PASS
TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS WARD I BOUGHT I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. I GRAYSON,
GRAYSON, I COLLURA LEE LI I
QUIRK-SILVA I QUIRK-SILVA I
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ WILSON.
THAT BILL HAS SIX VOTES. IT WILL
BE OUT AND WE'LL HOLD A ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. YOU WILL GO BACK ON FILE TO
FILE ITEM NUMBER TEN BY MR.
ZUBER. THIS IS ASSEMBLY BILL
2498. AND AGAIN I INVITE ONE
MORE MEMBER TO COME DOWN TO
COMMITTEE TO PRESENT OUR FINAL
BILL. IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU
HAVE, ANY SUPPORT WITNESSES,
THEY CAN JOIN YOU AT THE
PRESENTATION TABLE. Ó READY?
OKAY. MEMBERS, CHAIR MEMBERS,
I'M PROUD TODAY TO PRESENT AB
2948 ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUE AND
JOINT AUTHOR OF THE BILL,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK-SILVA, ONE
OF THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE AND
COMPASSIONATE WAYS OF REDUCING
THE NUMBER OF CALIFORNIANS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IS
PREVENTION, EMPOWERING PEOPLE
WHO ARE CURRENTLY HOUSED TO STAY
IN THEIR HOMES. AND MY
COLLEAGUE, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA, HAS BEEN ONE OF THE
LEADING VOICES REALLY ADVOCATING
FOR MORE MORE FOCUS ON
PREVENTION TO ADDRESS
HOMELESSNESS. THE STATE'S 2023
TO 2024 MASTER PLAN FOR AGING
IDENTIFIES RENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
AS A KEY STRATEGY FOR INCREASING
HOUSING STABILITY FOR OLDER
ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES. IT WAS THEIR
SECOND THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE MASTER PLAN. BETWEEN 2022
AND 2023, APPROXIMATELY 10,000
PEOPLE BECAME NEWLY UNHOUSED IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND OUR
RESPONSE HAS RESULTED IN FEWER
INDIVIDUALS MOVING FROM THE
STREETS AND INTO HOUSING THEN
THAT NUMBER. SO WE'RE LOSING THE
BATTLE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING
ENOUGH TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS.
AB 2498. THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
SECURITY ACT, WHICH IS THE
PRODUCT OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA AND I'M URGING VERY
SIMILAR BILLS, WILL INCREASE
HOUSING SECURITY BY PROVIDING
HOUSING SUBSIDIES TO LOW INCOME
FORMER FOSTER YOUTH, OLDER
ADULTS, VETERANS, ADULTS WITH
DISABILITIES, PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING UNEMPLOYMENT OR
HOMELESSNESS, AND RECENTLY
INCARCERATED INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT REGARD TO AN
INDIVIDUAL'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
VARIOUS HOUSING SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
CURRENTLY EXIST AT THE LOCAL AND
STATE LEVEL, BUT THEY'RE
ISOLATED AND UNDERFUNDING AND
NOT SUFFICIENTLY FUNDED TO HAVE
A MEANINGFUL IMPACT. DESPITE
CALIFORNIA BEING A HOUSING FIRST
STATE, THERE ARE AT LEAST
170,000 PEOPLE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS, A STAGGERING AND
DISPROPORTION FIGURE THAT
AMOUNTS TO 30% OF THE OF THE
NATION'S HOMELESS POPULATION.
THROUGH OUR COLLABORATIVE
EFFORTS, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA AND I HAVE CRAFTED A
BILL THAT IS NOT ONLY STRATEGIC,
BUT ALSO EMPATHETIC AND
PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS. AB 2498
REQUIRES THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO
ESTABLISH A TWO YEAR PILOT
PROGRAM IN EIGHT COUNTIES ACROSS
THE STATE, SPANNING NORTHERN,
SOUTHERN AND CENTRAL REGIONS,
WHILE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT URBAN,
RURAL AND SUBURBAN
REPRESENTATION TO PREVENT AN
ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL FROM FALLING
INTO HOMELESSNESS. THE PILOT THE
PROGRAM WILL ALLOW, AN AMOUNT
NECESSARY TO COVER A PORTION OF
THE OF THE PERSON'S HOUSING, NOT
TO EXCEED $2,000 AS A ONE TIME
SUBSIDY, OR $2,000 A MONTH FOR
THE DURATION OF A TWO YEAR
PROGRAM AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA AND I ARE STILL
WORKING OUT SOME OF THE DETAILS
ON HOW TO STRUCTURE AND SHAPE
THAT PROGRAM, WHICH IS ONGOING.
THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND AB 20 2498
IS THAT IT IS MORE COMPASSIONATE
AND MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO
PREVENT HOMELESSNESS THAN TO
INTERVENE AFTER AN INDIVIDUAL OR
FAMILY BECOMES UNHOUSED. AB 2498
WILL REDUCE HOMELESSNESS BY
HELPING THE MOST THE MOST
HOUSING INSECURE CALIFORNIANS
REMAIN IN THEIR HOMES WHEN
THEY'RE FACING CHALLENGING
ECONOMIC TIMES, FURTHERING
CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT TO
PUTTING HOUSING FIRST BY
PROVIDING SHORT AND MEDIUM TUM
HOUSING SUBSIDIES TO OUR MOST
HOUSING INSECURE PEOPLE, I'D
LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MY CO,
MY JOINT AUTHOR. I'M GOING TO
MAKE IT VERY QUICK. THIS IS
ABOUT PREVENTION IN, AB 2498
SIMPLY ADDRESSES WHAT WE HAVE
NOT BEEN DOING AS A LEGISLATIVE
BODY, WHICH IS FOCUSING ON
KEEPING PEOPLE IN THEIR
APARTMENTS. CGRTS, WE ARE GOING
TO PAY EITHER WAY, WHETHER WE
PAY ON THE FRONT END OR THE BACK
END. WE KNOW THAT WHEN PEOPLE
ARE EVICTED AND BECOME HOMELESS,
THAT WE PAY, WHETHER IT'S IN
EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS, WHETHER
IT'S IN, JAIL TIME. WE ALSO KNOW
THAT ONCE SOMEBODY HAS AN
EVICTION ON THEIR RECORD, IT IS
VERY HARD TO GET THEM HOUSED
AGAIN. SO PROVIDING A SUBSIDY
THAT CAN KEEP THEM HOUSED, WE
HAVE SEEN STUDIES WHERE THIS
WORKS. WE KNOW IT'S A TOUGH
BUDGET TIME, BUT WE AGAIN, A BIG
IDEA THAT WE BELIEVE CAN MAKE A
DIFFERENCE AND KEEP PEOPLE
HOUSED IN CALIFORNIA. VÀ. THANK
YOU, MISS QUIRK-SILVA. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM?
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. SYLVIA SOLIS SHORE HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA, TO PUT MY GLASSES ON.
SORRY, WE'RE CO-SPONSORS OF THE
BILL, AND WE'RE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT AB 2498. THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA HAS PRIORITIZED
CREATING NEW HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR CITY,
PRESERVING EXISTING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND HELPING OUR
RESIDENTS KEEP THEIR HOUSING.
THE HOUSING SUBSIDIES TO BE
PROVIDED FOR IN THIS BILL WOULD
ASSIST THE CITY IN ACHIEVING
THESE PRIORITIES AND PREVENT
HOMELESSNESS. AT THE SAME TIME,
WE THANK THE AUTHORS OF THIS
MEASURE FOR THEIR WORK AND URGE
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NAME
ORGANIZATIONS AND POSITION
VANESSA CADENA ON BEHALF OF CAL
PACE, THE STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION
OF PROGRAMS OF ALL INCLUSIVE
CARE FOR THE ELDERLY HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HARRISON
LENDER WITH LEADING AGE
CALIFORNIA HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU KIM LEWIS REPRESENTING
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
YOUTH AND SUPPORT AND APPRECIATE
THE DEFINITION OF CLARIFICATIONS
FOR FORMER FOSTER YOUTH AND
HOMELESS YOUTH. MARTHA GUERRERO,
REPRESENTING THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CO-SPONSOR, APPRECIATE THE
ADDITION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
AND WE URGE YOUR VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SEAMUS KENNEDY,
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ON
BEHALF OF POWER, CALIFORNIA AND
THE SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL OR MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WISHING TO STATE A
POSITION OF OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE, WE'LL TURN THIS BACK TO
COMMITTEE. MEMBER COMMENT BY
MISS REYES. I JUST HAVE ONE
COMPLAINT. WHY ISN'T SAN
BERNARDINO INCLUDED? SAM? JUST
CONSIDER IT. YES, SAN BERNARDINO
HAS THE OPTION OF BEING
INCLUDED. SO THE WAY THE BILL
WORKS IS THERE ARE, TWO,
COUNTIES IN THE NORTH, TWO IN
THE CENTRAL REGION AND FOUR IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND IT'S
BASICALLY BASED ON POPULATION,
AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNTIES IS
STILL AN OPEN ONE. SO THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WOULD BE
ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO AND LA AND
ONE MORE COUNTY. SO I WOULD LIKE
TO NOMINATE SAN BERNARDINO, AS
YOU'RE CONSIDERING. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO, MEMBER LEE, THANK
YOU SO MUCH TO OUR AUTHORS FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I'D
LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR
AND IN SUPPORT OF YOUR MEASURE,
TOO. AND I KNOW A LOT OF OUR
COLLEAGUES THINK THIS MEASURE IS
SO IMPORTANT, EVEN DURING A
REALLY TOUGH BUDGET TIME. AS IT
IS, IT IS TRUE THAT WE HAVE TO
MAKE A LOT OF PRIORITY CHOICES.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS,
THERE ARE BILLS OUT THERE THAT
ARE TRYING TO CORRECT OUR
PRIORITIES, LIKE THE CHAIR'S
PRIORITY RIGHT NOW TO STOP
SUBSIDIZING VACATION HOMES. AND
THAT COULD BE 200 TO $400
MILLION A YEAR. THERE ARE
CHOICES THAT WE CAN MAKE TO
PRIORITIZE PEOPLE FOR INCLUSION
OF OLDER FOLKS AND FOSTER YOUTH,
TO REALLY CONCENTRATING ON,
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. AND THIS
IS SOMETHING, OF COURSE, THAT WE
KNOW WORKS WHEN WE GET MONEY,
ESPECIALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC,
FROM BOTH RESIDENTIAL
ADMINISTRATIONS, WHEN THEY GAVE
OUT DIRECT MONEY TO KEEP PEOPLE
HOUSED, OR WE HAD THE EVICTION
MORATORIUMS OR DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS THAT KEEP PEOPLE
SUBSIDIZED, EVEN. WE DID, OF
COURSE, DO A, A RENT
STABILIZATION PROGRAM, A RENT
SUBSIDY PROGRAM DURING THE
PANDEMIC. AND THAT WAS A MAJOR
GAME CHANGER FOR A LOT OF
PEOPLE, TOO. AND, I THINK THE
AUTHOR OR ASSEMBLY IS RIGHT IN
THE SENSE THAT THE PUBLIC THINKS
WE'RE LOSING THE BATTLE TO GET
PEOPLE HOUSED WHEN THE SENSE
THAT MORE AND MORE PEOPLE FALL
INTO HOMELESSNESS THAN MORE
PEOPLE COULD REHOUSE. THE FACT
IS, OUR APPROACH TO REHOUSING
PEOPLE WORKS. IT'S JUST NOT
WORKING FAST ENOUGH TO KEEP PACE
WITH THE PEOPLE THAT FALL INTO
HOMELESSNESS. AND IT BECOMES
SUCH A BIG COST BURDEN. IF YOU
THINK ABOUT THE FINANCIAL
SITUATION, WHICH IS ONE THING I
WANT TO PUT INTO CONSIDERATION
AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THIS BILL
IS I KNOW RIGHT NOW CONSTRUC HCD
TO CREATE THE PROGRAM AND THE
COUNTIES ADMINISTER IT. I WONDER
BASED ON OUR OUR EXPERIENCE IN
THE PANDEMIC AND HOW COUNTIES
CAN VARY IN THEIR PERFORMANCE
FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY, IT MIGHT
BE MORE EFFICIENT TO HAVE HCD OR
THE STATE TO ADMINISTER IT, BUT
TO ADMINISTER TO THOSE COUNTIES,
THERE'S SOMETHING FOR YOU TO
CONSIDER. I KNOW THERE'S
DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, ELEMENTS TO
THIS, BUT I DO. I DON'T WANT IT.
SO THAT ONE PERSON WHO LIVES IN
ORANGE COUNTY HAS A DIFFERENT
EXPERIENCE THAN SOMEONE IN SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT, JUST BECAUSE THEIR
COUNTY IS SET UP DIFFERENTLY.
BUT HAPPY TO REALLY SUPPORT THIS
BILL TODAY. AND I KNOW A LOT OF
COLLEAGUES WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS BILL. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. LEE. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING VICE CHAIR, I, I
HAVE SOME SMALL CONCERNS WITH
THE BILL THAT MAY. WE CAN.
SORRY, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. BUT, SO WE
CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THOSE, I
THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HEADED IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I THINK WE
GOT TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF THE ISSUES
WITH FOSTER YOUTH, YOU KNOW,
THINGS LIKE THAT. SO SO I THINK
IT'S A IT'S A GOOD BILL TO KEEP
THINKING. I THINK WE GOT A
LITTLE BIT OF A BUDGET PROBLEM
THAT MIGHT, BUT YOU PUT UPON
APPROPRIATIONS, SO, YOU KNOW,
BUT IF YOU PUT STUFF IN STATUTE
NOW, WHEN THE BUDGET TURNS
AROUND, MAYBE SOMETHING WILL
HAPPEN. SO, BUT ANYWAYS, THANKS
FOR CONSIDERING THIS. I'M
PROBABLY GOING TO LAY OFF TODAY,
BUT, YOU KNOW, LET'S HAVE SOME
CONVERSATIONS. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING TO BE ADDRESSED,
JUST WOULD ALIGN MY COMMENTS
WITH MR. LEE, CERTAINLY THE
EVIDENCE IS OUT THERE AND IT WAS
CERTAINLY HEIGHTENED DURING
DURING THE PANDEMIC WHEN WE HAD,
THE EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM MONEY. SO WE'VE BEEN
ABLE TO MEASURE TO THE JOINT
AUTHOR'S POINT. YOU KNOW, A LOT
OF THESE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO SHOW JUST THAT LITTLE
BIT OF SUBSIDY, THAT LITTLE BIT
OF QUICK ASSISTANCE KEEPS PEOPLE
STABILIZED AND HOUSED, STOPS
ADDING PEOPLE TO THE NUMBERS,
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ON OUR
STREETS. THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE
WAY TO BE ABLE TO GET OUR HANDS
AROUND THIS SITUATION, AND
REALLY DESERVES TO BE A
PERMANENT PROGRAM, THAT WE CAN
HAVE IN OUR TOOLBOX TO BE ABLE
TO HELP CALIFORNIANS IN THE
TOTALITY OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
AND WE'LL HAVE THOSE BUDGET
CONVERSATIONS AS WELL, THIS
REALLY IS ESSENTIAL THING. I
WANT TO THANK YOU, AS WELL AS, I
THINK ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALANIZ AS
WELL, WHO HAVE CONSOLIDATED
EFFORTS AROUND THIS, BECAUSE WE
KNOW THAT IT WILL BE A COST
EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING
OUR NUMBER ONE CRISIS IN OUR
STATE. AND I INVITE YOU TO CLOSE
, SIR, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION. WE NEED A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SAY SOMETHING.
JUST YES. JUST RESPOND, SO ON,
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK ON THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK-SILVA AND
I ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON THE
GUIDELINES THAT SHAPE THIS
PROGRAM THAT I THINK WOULD BE
RESPONSIVE TO, TO I THINK SOME
OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED, I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, WE
HAD SORT OF TWO SETS OF IDEAS
THAT WERE MERGING. AND I THINK
ASSEMBLY QUIRK-SILVA HAS IDEAS
ACTUALLY WERE SORT OF BETTER
THAN MY INITIAL ONES IN TERMS OF
LOOKING AT CERTAIN BUCKETS OF,
OF, DIFFERENT KINDS OF BUCKETS,
YOU KNOW, SOME ONE TIME
ASSISTANCE IN SOME CASES,
SMALLER AMOUNTS OF ASSISTANCE
FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME, FOR
EXAMPLE, FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS
THAT ARE NOT GOING TO COME OUT
OF A CHALLENGING SITUATION AND
THEN HIGHER AMOUNTS FOR SHORTER
PERIODS OF TIME. SO JUST SO
WE'RE WORKING ON THOSE KINDS OF
GUIDELINES AND LISTENING TO
THAT, AND SO I THINK WE'LL BE
WORKING AT THAT AS IT MOVES
FORWARD. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A
MOTION BY MR. LEE AND SECOND, BY
MISS REYES, WITH THAT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
AUCTION. DO PASSES AMENDED TO
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WORD A WORD, A
PERSON NOT VOTING. GRAYSON HI,
GRAYSON. HI. CHOLERA A CHOLERA I
LI I LI I QUIRK-SILVA. HI.
QUIRK-SILVA. HI. REYES REYES I
SANCHEZ NOT BORING. WILSON ARE.
THAT HAS FIVE, SIX, SIX VOTES,
IT WILL BE OUT AND WE'LL HOLD
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR
OUR FINAL AUTHOR FOR JOINING US,
WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND,
OPEN THE ROLLS FIRST. I THINK
OUR VICE CHAIR HAS A SCHEDULING
CONFLICT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT EVERYBODY WHO IS HERE HAS A
CHANCE TO ADD ON. AND THEN WHEN
WE TAKE UP OUR FINAL BILL, WE'LL
BE GOOD TO GO TO LUNCH, WITH
THAT, WE'LL JUST START WITH THE,
TOP OF THE AGENDA AND, FIRST
WITH THE CONSENT ITEM, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL.
THANK YOU, PATTERSON. PATTERSON
I CHOLERA, CHOLERA. I REYES
REYES I WILSON. CURRENT COUNT IS
EIGHT ZERO. WE WILL HOLD THE
ROLL OPEN, ITEM NUMBER ONE.
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ
NO. 123456. CURRENT COUNT IS 6
TO 1. WE'LL HOLD A ROLL OPEN.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, GRAYSON GRAYSON
, I CHOLERA, CHOLERA. I REYES
REYES I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I A Þ
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. WE'LL GIVE YOU
A FEW MOMENTS. WE ARE ON ITEM
NUMBER TWO. ITEM NUMBER TWO AND
22. 47. I GOT TWO LAUREATES, AND
I. THE CURRENT COUNT IS 8 TO 0,
PROBABLY I YEAH, I'LL GO OUT ON
THE LEAD FOR NO. WE CAN DO I
WILSON I THAT BILL WILL BE OUT
NINE ZERO. LET'S GO BACK TO ITEM
ONE. ITEM ONE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON. THAT'S 2022. ADDIS. OH,
I KNOW THAT BILL IS OUT 7 TO 1.
AND THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON I THANK
YOU. CONSENT CALENDAR IS
ADOPTED. FILE ITEM THREE. PERSON
A PERSON I CHOLERA. CHOLERA I
REYES REYES I WILSON. ITEM
NUMBER THREE. CORRECT I WILL BE
THAT BILL IS OUT NINE ZERO ITEM
NUMBER. ITEM NUMBER FOUR REYES
REYES I SANCHEZ I SANCHEZ I
WILSON. WILSON I THAT BILL IS
OUT 9090 ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER SIX,
GRAYSON I GRAYSON, I REYES I REZ
I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NÓ WILSON. Ã
WILSON. I THAT BILL IS OUT. 567
7 TO 1 WITH ONE MEMBER NOT
VOTING. BILL IS OUT, ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN, PERSON. THAT'S 2433
QUIRK-SILVA, I CHOLERA. CHOLERA.
I REYES REYES I WILSON WILSON I
BILL IS OUT 90I ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT AB 2479 GRAYSON GRAYSON I
QUIRK-SILVA I QUIRK-SILVA I
REYES I REYES I WILSON I WILSON
I AND BILL IS OUT NINE ZERO,
ITEM NUMBER NINE AB 2488,
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I REYES
I REYES I WILSON I WILSON I BILL
IS OUT 801 MEMBER NOT VOTING.
ITEM NUMBER TEN. SEVERAL MEMBER
WILSON I BILL IS OUT 702 MEMBERS
NOT VOTING. ITEM 11 QUIRK-SILVA
I QUIRK-SILVA I REYES REYES I
WILSON WILSON I BILL IS OUT NINE
ZERO. ITEM 17. ITEM 17. CHOLERA
CHOLERA I REYES I REYES I,
WILSON I WILSON, I. BILL IS OUT
EIGHT ZERO WITH ONE MEMBER NOT
VOTING. ITEM 18 QUIRK-SILVA NOT
VOTING. NOT VOTING. REYES I
REYES I WILSON I WILSON I THAT
BILL IS OUT 702 MEMBERS NOT
VOTING ITEM 19 PERSON 18
CORRECT. ÁP 2881 MEMBER LEE.
MEMBER PATTERSON. IT'S A NO. I
NO, GRAYSON. GRAYSON I, REYES I
REYES I SANCHEZ. NO. SANCHEZ.
NO. WILSON NOT VOTING. THAT BILL
IS OUT 6 TO 2 WITH ONE MEMBER
NOT VOTING. ITEM 21. CHOLERA.
THIS IS A SANTIAGO CHOLERA. I
SANCHEZ I SANCHEZ I WILSON.
WILSON. I90. THE BILL IS OUT.
ITEM 22 QUIRK-SILVA I
QUIRK-SILVA I, REYES REYES I
WILSON I WILSON. I THE BILL IS
OUT NINE ZERO AND I'M 26. DO YOU
WANT TO SPEAK TO GRAYSON
GRAYSON? I REYES REYES. I WILSON
WILSON. I BILL IS OUT 9 TO 0.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VICE
CHAIR. MR. ALVAREZ, OUR FINAL
ITEM. THIS WILL BE NUMBER 24 AB
2945. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. AND I INVITE ANY
PRESENTERS TO JOIN YOU AT THE
TABLE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I'D
LIKE TO THANK. SAVE THE BEST FOR
LAST. I DON'T KNOW WHERE MR.
PATTERSON'S GOING. MISSING OUT
ON THIS CONVERSATION. I ACTUALLY
AM REALLY EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT
ASSEMBLY BILL 2945 AND PRESENT
THAT TO YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION TODAY, ASSEMBLY
BILL 2945 IS A REINTRODUCTION, A
VERSION OF A REINTRODUCTION OF
ASSEMBLY BILL 1476, WHICH PASSED
THIS COMMITTEE LAST YEAR AND
WOULD ALLOW CITIES AND COUNTIES
TO CREATE A COMMUNITY AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REINVESTMENT
AGENCY TO FUND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING. THAT IS
WHAT THE FOCUS OF LAST YEAR'S
BILL WAS, THOSE OF YOU WHO HAD
THE CHANCE TO SERVE IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, LIKE I DID,
REMEMBER HOW IMPORTANT
REDEVELOPMENT WAS AS A TOOL FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT
AND PARTICULARLY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION IN MY OWN
COMMUNITY. WHILE I WAS ON THE
CITY COUNCIL, I SAW FIRSTHAND
THE POSITIVE IMPACTS, THAT RDA
HAD ON DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
AGAIN, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT CAME
TO BUILDING OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE
NOT SEEN, BUILD AND, LIKE THAT
IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SINCE THEN. UNFORTUNATELY,
PREVIOUS RDA'S LACKED SOME
OVERSIGHT, STATE OVERSIGHT AND
FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS RESULTED
IN IF, SOME, FINDING
INEFFICIENCIES AND EVENTUALLY
THEIR DISSOLUTION, AS YOU ALL
PROBABLY NOW KNOW, BY 2012,
FOLLOWING THE 2008 RECESSION,
WHICH THE STATE DEEMED A COST
SAVING MEASURE TO BALANCE BUDGET
ASSEMBLY BILL 2945, WHICH YOU
HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY,
RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF
RDAS AND ADDRESSES THEIR
PREVIOUS FLAWS BY REESTABLISHING
THEM WITH STRONGER OVERSIGHT
PROVISIONS FOR THE COMPTROLLER,
OUR STATE COMPTROLLER, INCLUDING
PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT
AND A NEW, LARGER REQUIREMENT OF
30% OF FUNDS BEING DEDICATED TO
BUILDING LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING. IMPORTANTLY, THE
OVERSIGHT PROVISIONS INCLUDE THE
STATE'S APPROVAL OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RDAS. THIS
WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT EXISTED
IN THE PREVIOUS PROCESS, AND THE
COMPTROLLER'S ANNUAL REVIEW OF
AGENCIES TO DETERMINE THE STATE
FISCAL IMPACT OF THE RDAS.
AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT NOT EXISTS
PREVIOUSLY. THIS BILL ALSO
REQUIRES RDAS TO BE LOCATED NEAR
A FREEWAY WITH A RECONNECTING
COMMUNITIES PROJECT AS DEFINED,
THEREBY LIMITING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN
LOCATIONS. THIS IS PROBABLY THE
MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE
BILL, IN 2022, BOTH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENT
LAUNCHED GRANT PROGRAMS TOTALING
WELL OVER $3 BILLION THAT AIM TO
FUND INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS
FREEWAY LIDS OR CAPS THAT
RECONNECT COMMUNITIES DIVIDED BY
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
TO DATE, THERE ARE TEN PROJECTS
IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE RECEIVED
FUNDING THROUGH EITHER STATE OR
FEDERAL PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE
CITY OF PASADENA, FOR CONVERTING
THE ABANDONED I-710 NORTH
NORTHERN STUB, THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE FOR CONVERTING MONTEREY
ROAD HIGHWAY. THE CITY OF
OAKLAND FOR THE I 980 CORRIDOR.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR THE 101
FREEWAY. AND IN SAN DIEGO FOR
THE I-5. AB 2945 CAN SERVE AS A
FRAMEWORK TO DEVELOP THESE
PROJECTS AND LEVERAGE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED
IN ORDER FOR THESE PROJECTS TO
EVER BECOME A REALITY. FOLLOWING
THE DISSOLUTION OF RDAS, THE
LEGISLATURE CREATED SOME TOOLS
FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES TO
CREATE AGENCIES THAT WOULD
UTILIZE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
AS A WAY TO CREATE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, THE
ANALYSIS AND ANALYSIS FROM 2021
BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH SAYS THAT
EXISTING TOOLS SUCH AS ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE, FINANCE
DISTRICTS KNOWN AS IFDS AND
NIFTY, WHICH ARE NEIGHBORHOOD
INFILL FINANCE AND TRANSIT
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, HAVE
FAILED TO MAKE A DENT IN OUR
HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEFICIT BECAUSE, QUOTE,
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, THEY
HAVE LIMITED REVENUE POTENTIAL
TO MAKE DISTRICT FORMATION EVEN
WORTHWHILE. THAT MEANS THAT
DISTRICTS AREN'T BEING FORMED,
AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE, TO
DATE, WE'VE IDENTIFIED ONLY SIX
APHIDS. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
THE RESPONSE TO REDEVELOPMENT.
THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE
TOOL, YET ONLY SIX HAVE BEEN
CREATED IN CALIFORNIA. ZERO
NIFTIES HAVE BEEN CREATED IN
CALIFORNIA, I, WAS ABLE TO
CREATE ONE IN SAN DIEGO, I
BELIEVE IS MAYBE THE FIRST ONE
IN THE ENTIRE STATE. ABOUT EIGHT
YEARS AGO OR SEVEN YEARS AGO,
AND IT HAS BEEN A WORTHWHILE
TOOL, BUT IT'S ONLY REALLY
BENEFICIAL. APHIDS ARE ONLY
REALLY BENEFICIAL WHERE YOU'VE
GOT A LOT OF LAND TO DEVELOP,
NOT FOR INFILL, NOT FOR URBAN
AREAS, I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERN. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER
THEY WILL BE HERE OR NOT, BUT WE
HAVE HEARD SOME CONCERNS THAT WE
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE. I KNOW WE
ARE EXCHANGING LANGUAGE AND
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT
LANGUAGE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE
OPPOSITION. I CAN GET MORE INTO
THAT IN YOUR QUESTIONS. BUT FOR
RDAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, I BELIEVE
THEY SHOULD HAVE HAVE ACCESS TO
GREATER SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
GENERATED WITHIN THE PROJECT
AREA, CERTAINLY WILLING TO HAVE
A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THIS
LOOKS LIKE AND WILL WORK WITH
THOSE WHO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE BILL, ON THE ISSUE OF,
EMINENT DOMAIN, THE SAME THE
SAME GOES, WE HAVE SOME LANGUAGE
THAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO THE
OPPOSITION ON THAT. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME ON THIS. I HOPE WE
ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION. I
ACTUALLY REALLY ENJOY THIS
TOPIC, AND I HOPE YOU, FIND IT
INTERESTING AS WELL. BUT NOW
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MISS MARY
ELLEN SHEA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
LOCAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES,
FOR SOME TESTIMONY. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. HONORABLE MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
MARY ELLEN SHEA, AND I AM
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES, ALSO KNOWN AS
CAL ALPHA. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
THAT IN THIS CONTEXT IS THAT
MANY, MANY OF OUR MEMBERS ARE
FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES,
AND WE ARE THE HOUSING
SUCCESSOR. THE SUCCESSOR
AGENCIES, IN MANY CASES FOR
THESE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
THAT WERE DISSOLVED IN 2012, A
LOT OF THE REASONS FOR, THE
DISSOLUTION OF REDEVELOPMENT ARE
ADDRESSED IN THIS BILL. THE SOME
OF THE MISTAKES THAT WERE MADE
IN FORMER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREAS AND ADMINISTRATION ARE
ADDRESSED IN THE EFFORTS BEING
PUT FORTH IN THIS BILL, AND IT'S
FOR THAT REASON THAT WE ARE
REALLY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IT, IT
HURT A LOT WHEN WE LOST $1
BILLION A YEAR OF RELIABLE LOCAL
FUNDING TO BUILD OUR HOUSING. IT
WASN'T OUR FAULT. BUT, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE BIG KIDS. AND THAT WAS
THEN. THIS IS NOW. AND WHILE WE
RECOGNIZE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO
GET $1 BILLION AGAIN, EVERY
LITTLE BIT COUNTS. AND THIS IS A
BILL THAT NOT ONLY WILL PROVIDE
A LIMITED, VERY TARGETED PROJECT
AREA, IT ALSO WILL REMEDIATE
SOME SOCIAL INJUSTICES THAT WERE
UNINTENTIONALLY, I THINK,
CREATED BY THE DIVISION OF SOME
OF OUR PROJECT AREAS, BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS. SO WE
LIKE THIS BILL BECAUSE WE'VE
LEARNED FROM OUR MISTAKES, THE
PROVISIONS ARE VERY SPECIFIC.
IT'S A SMALL PROJECT AREA, JUST
A HALF A MILE IN CIRCUMFERENCE
FROM THE, THE HIGHWAY THAT'S
BEING ADDRESSED. AND WE JUST
THINK THAT EVERY LITTLE BIT
COUNTS. SO THIS IS THIS IS A WAY
TO BRING BACK A BIT OF THE GOOD
PART OF REDEVELOPMENT. AND WE'RE
LOOKING FORWARD TO BRINGING THAT
BACK. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS.
KIARA ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF PASADENA IN SUPPORT AND
VERY THANKFUL TO THE AUTHOR FOR
HIS EFFORTS ON THIS ISSUE. THANK
YOU. SEAMUS. SCAREDY LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY MEMBERS HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL FOR TESTIMONY?
SURPRISE, SURPRISE. NOT
SURPRISED. BOB NAYLOR,
REPRESENTING FIELDSTEAD AND
COMPANY, WE HAVE NOT SEEN
LANGUAGE ON THE EMINENT DOMAIN
ISSUE AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO LOOK
AT SOME OF THE ONE CARVE OUT
THAT WOULD APPEAL TO US IS IF
THE EMINENT DOMAIN WERE LIMITED
TO, TAKING PROPERTY FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE AND 90% OF THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING CAN BE USED.
AND THE BONDS CAN BE USED IN THE
BILL, SEEM TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD
INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THAT WOULD BE
BUT THE TAKING OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY FROM UNWILLING SELLERS
TO GIVE TO OTHER PRIVATE PARTIES
, IS WHAT WE OBJECT TO ALMOST ON
MORAL GROUNDS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE,
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, SO MANY
OF THESE PROJECTS END UP NOT
GOING FORWARD, AND THEN YOU'VE
GOT, A GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN
DONE, AND I WON'T GO THROUGH THE
REPARATIONS REPORT, THERE ARE
SOME REFORMS IN HERE. THERE'S
PROGRESS IN THIS BILL. BUT ON
THAT EMINENT DOMAIN, PRIVATE TO
PRIVATE, THAT'S THAT'S A BRIDGE
TOO FAR FOR US. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. AFTERNOON.
WHATEVER IT IS, KATIE HARDIMAN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION. UNFORTUNATELY, IN
OPPOSITION, OF COURSE, OUR
MEMBERS CARE DEEPLY ABOUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IMPACT
THEM. BEING ABLE TO FIND HOUSING
IN THEIR IN THE AREAS IN WHICH
THEY TEACH, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT
SUPPORT THIS APPROACH AS IT
WOULD DIVERT LOCAL PROPERTY TAX
FUNDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE GO
TO SCHOOLS, TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, SO THAT IMPACTS THE
OVERALL PROPOSITION 98 FUNDING
FOR SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY
COLLEGES. SO WE MUST OPPOSE.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN,
WITH THE POSITION OF OPPOSITION?
OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING
THIS BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBER
COMMENT, MISS REYES. I KNOW THAT
THEY ELIMINATED THESE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES. I MEAN,
EVERY CITY WAS IMPACTED, AND I
WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING WE
COULD DO. AND MAYBE WE'RE GOING
TO BE CREATIVE, AND SOMEDAY
WE'LL WE'LL DO SOMETHING. MY
BIGGEST CONCERN HAS TO DO WITH
THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE MONEY
THAT WOULD GO FOR OUR SCHOOLS,
FOR OUR STUDENTS IS BEING, IS
BEING USED FOR THIS. THAT IS
PROBABLY MY ONLY CONCERN,
SOMETHING THAT I THINK, I'D LIKE
TO SEE IF YOU WILL ADDRESS IT IN
THE VERY LEAST, I TO KNOW THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE
CONVERSATIONS WITH CTA TO TRY TO
FIND IT'S A DIFFICULT BILL, A
VERY AMBITIOUS, BUT WE ALL LIKE
AMBITIOUS BILLS. BUT WHEN YOU
HAVE CTA REPRESENTING OUR
SCHOOLS AND OUR STUDENTS IN
OPPOSITION, THEN IT MAKES IT
MORE DIFFICULT. SO YOUR THOUGHTS
ON THAT? THANK YOU, WE'VE I KNOW
WE'VE, HAVE ASKED AND I'M SURE
WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ACTUALLY SIT DOWN. WE HAVE NOT
HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS
THEIR CONCERNS. I WOULD SAY TWO
THINGS. ONE, IT IS VERY LIMITED
IN SCOPE. SO WE'VE ONLY BEEN
ABLE TO IDENTIFY TEN EVEN
POTENTIAL PROJECTS THAT ARE
BEING STUDIED OR AREAS REALLY
IT'S SMALL AREAS THROUGHOUT THE
ENTIRE STATE. I LISTED SOME OF
THEM EARLIER IN MY TESTIMONY, SO
TO THE, IN TERMS OF IMPACT, IT
WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN
WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. YOU CAN'T
HAVE AN ENTIRE CITY. YOU CANNOT
HAVE AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD BE A
PROJECT AREA, AS WAS THE CASE
BEFORE, AND, AND SO IT'S
LIMITED. IT'S ONLY HALF A MILE
FROM THOSE AREAS. SO AGAIN, EVEN
FURTHER LIMITING THE IMPACT. AND
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE'LL TALK DETAILS, BUT IN TERMS
OF THIS IS ABOUT FUTURE TAX
GROWTH AND INCREMENT OF THAT'S
WHAT THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THIS
IS. AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT
THESE PROJECTS LIKE IN A
COMMUNITY THAT YOU'RE BUILDING A
LID OR A COVER AND YOU'RE
REPAIRING SO MUCH OTHER, SO MANY
OTHER INJUSTICES WHICH WHICH AS
YOU STATE, I THINK WE'RE ALL IN
SUPPORT OF, THAT MIGHT CREATE AN
INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX, WHICH
THEN THAT INCREASE IN PROPERTY
TAX WOULD THEN GO TO PROPOSITION
PROPOSITION 90 OR TO SCHOOL
FUNDING, BUT THAT ONLY HAPPENS
IF YOU BUILD THESE PROJECTS. IF
YOU DON'T BUILD THESE PROJECTS,
YOU WILL NOT HAVE THAT INCREMENT
IN THAT LOSS. THERE WILL BE NO
LOSS BECAUSE NOTHING WAS CREATED
TO CREATE CREATE THAT INCREMENT.
AND SO, WE DEFINITELY WANT TO
TALK ABOUT IS THERE A WAY TO
FINESSE THAT TO LIMIT THE
EXPOSURE. BUT BUT I DO THINK IN
THE LIMITED AREAS THESE ARE ALL
BY THE WAY, ALL MOST IF YOU LOOK
AT THE MAP OF WHERE THESE
PROJECTS ARE, THEY ARE IN THE
COMMUNITIES THAT YOU WOULD
IMAGINE, DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES, THE ONES THAT ARE
THE RED ZONES AND OUR SCREEN,
THOSE ARE THE COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE IMPACTED BY THE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM THAT WENT IN AND DIVIDED,
DEMOLISHED DISPLACED COMMUNITIES
WHO WERE PRIMARILY POOR
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. AND SO
WE'RE TRYING TO STRIKE THAT
BALANCE, TRYING TO BE CREATIVE,
AS YOU SAID, WITH SOME TOOL TO
TRY AND ALLOW THESE PROJECTS TO
ACTUALLY EVER HAPPEN, BECAUSE
THESE ARE GOING TO BE
MULTI-MILLION, HUNDREDS MILLION
DOLLAR PROJECTS THAT THE STATE'S
NEVER GOING TO HAVE THE MONEY TO
DO. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PROBABLY WILL NEVER HAVE THE
MONEY TO DO. AND SO HOW CAN WE
FINANCE THESE PROJECTS? WE'RE
TRYING TO CREATE THAT FINANCING
TOOL THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT
FOR TODAY. I AM GOING TO VOTE
FOR IT, BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY,
FULLY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE
FLOOR. I WILL WANT TO KNOW CGRTS
POSITION ON IT. AND I APPRECIATE
THAT YOU WILL BE REACHING OUT TO
THEM. YEAH. IN THAT REGARD.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MISS QUIRK-SILVA AND I CONCUR
WITH MY COLLEAGUES REMARKS, BUT
SERVING ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MYSELF FROM 2004 TO 2012, AND
SEEING WHAT I CALL THE GOOD, BAD
AND UGLY OF REDEVELOPMENT,
MEANING THAT, IT ALLOWED OUR
CITY TO DO THINGS WE COULD NOT
DO BEFORE, WITH THESE GENERATED
FUNDS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE
WERE QUITE A FEW ABUSES,
THROUGHOUT, DIFFERENT CITIES WHO
WOULD TAKE THE TAX INCREMENT AND
ABSOLUTELY NOT BUILD ANY TYPE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR TAKE THE
TAX INCREMENT AND, TAKE IT OUT
OF THE UNDERSERVED AREA AND USE
THOSE THAT FUNDING TO BUILD
PROJECTS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE
CITY THAT WERE NOT IN THE
UNDERSERVED. SO I SAW FIRSTHAND,
SOME OF THIS. AND THEN, OF
COURSE, I CAME UP HERE IN 2012
WHEN THE, THE, WE SAW THE WIND
DOWN AND WITH, REDEVELOPMENT AND
, AND THE IMPACT ON CITIES. SO
THE NARROWNESS THAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT, I THINK IS A GOOD
START. THERE'S STILL STEPS TO
MAKE, BUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID
RELATED TO THERE WOULDN'T BE NO
TAX INCREMENT TO EVEN TALK ABOUT
UNLESS SOME OF THIS BUILDING
OCCURS, I THINK IS SOMETHING
THAT WE SHOULD, BE NOTING, AS,
AS WE WANT TO HAVE EVERY TOOL IN
THE BOX. THIS IS A VERY SMALL,
TOOL TO BE ABLE TO USE. IT'S NOT
GOING TO GENERATE WHAT WE THINK
IN THE PAST AS REDEVELOPMENT,
BUT IT'S ANOTHER TOOL. SO I'LL
SUPPORT IT TODAY. BUT I DO HOPE
THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WITH CTA. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND SEEING NO
OTHER MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS
THIS BILL. NO, I'M SORRY WE'RE
CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK
YOU, MR. ALVAREZ, I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR, INTRODUCING THIS,
LIKE YOU, WE HAD A CHANCE TO
SERVE TOGETHER ON THAT. AIFD
LOCAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY. AND SO
WE KNOW THE GOOD THAT THESE
MECHANISMS CAN DO FOR MAKING
INVESTMENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHTFULLY TARGETING
THIS TOWARDS NOT JUST HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES, BUT ALSO THE
COMMUNITIES THAT THAT NEED THAT
INVESTMENT AS WELL. AND TRYING
TO READ, DEVELOP, REDEVELOP,
REDEVELOP. AND I GUESS, IS A
MONUMENTAL TASK THAT I APPLAUD
YOU FOR UNDERTAKING BECAUSE
SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DO IT, THIS
WAS INCREDIBLE SOURCE FOR THE
RESOURCES THAT WE NEEDED FOR
WHEN WE HAD GOOD PROJECTS, NOT
THE BAD OR THE UGLY, THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR LOCAL HOUSING
DOLLARS. AND SO WE APPLAUD FOR
THAT. I WOULD ALIGN MY COMMENTS
AND I DO SHARE, WITH MISS REYES
AND MISS QUIRK-SILVA THE NEED AS
YOU ARE ALREADY DOING, TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR,
EDUCATIONAL PARTNERS, THE SCHOOL
FUNDING AND THEIR PREDICTABILITY
FOR THAT IS ALSO KIND OF A
CRITICAL NEGOTIATION, THAT IS
ALSO AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR
COMMUNITY, CONNECTIVITY. SO BUT,
YOU YOU'VE ALREADY, STATED YOUR
INTENT AND, AND, AND I KNOW YOU
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THESE ISSUES
AS WELL, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND I WOULD INVITE YOU TO CLOSE.
YEAH THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THOSE
WITH FEEDBACK, CERTAINLY CLEARLY
THERE'S SOME WORK TO BE DONE. I
APPRECIATE THAT THOSE THAT HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AND HAS
SEEN THE VALUE OF THIS WANT TO
SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN. WE'RE
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A PATHWAY
FORWARD. AND HOPEFULLY THIS IS
ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS THAT
ACTUALLY GETS IF WE ARE
SUCCESSFUL, ACTUALLY GETS
UTILIZED. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. I'D ENTERTAIN A
MOTION AS WELL BY MR. GRAYSON
AND A SECOND BY MISS REYES,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ACTION TO PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A, WARD I
PATTERSON. GRAYSON GRAYSON I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LEE LI I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I REYES
REZ I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NØ.
WILSON WILSON I BILL IS OUT 7 TO
1 WITH ONE MEMBER NOT VOTING.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND WITH
THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. OH. I'M
SORRY. WE'LL ENTERTAIN A VOTE
CHANGE, MISS WILSON, ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN. ADJOURN I'LL RESCIND MY
ADJOURNMENT. I HAVE TO, WE ARE.
WE'RE ADJOURNED. OKAY, WE ARE
ADJOURNED. YES. YEAH. OKAY WELL,
I COULDN'T GET MY. I'VE HAD TO
WORK BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WAS
ANOTHER ONE THAT I WAS NOT
VOTING ON. AND. WELL I'M SORRY
FOR THAT. IT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. OKAY. 2533. FOR HOUSING,
FOR. YES. YES WHICH SHOWS,