AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHAIR, WE
WILL BEGIN TODAY'S HEARING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE HEARING. I WOULD LIKE
TO REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT THIS,
THAT FOR THIS AND FUTURE
HEARINGS, TESTIMONY WILL BE IN
PERSON AS WE ARE NO LONGER USING
A MODERATED TELEPHONE SERVICE.
WE ALSO ACCEPT WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THROUGH THE POSITION LETTER
PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO GO
OVER OUR GROUND RULES FOR
APPROPRIATE CONDUCT. THE
ASSEMBLY HAS EXPERIENCED A
NUMBER OF DISRUPTIONS TO
COMMITTEE AND FLOOR PROCEEDINGS
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS, DISTURBS, OR
OTHERWISE IMPEDES THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF THE HEARING IS
PROHIBITED. SUCH CONDUCT MAY
INCLUDE TALKING OR MAKING LOUD
NOISES FROM THE AUDIENCE,
UTTERING LOUD, THREATENING OR
ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. SPEAKER LONGER
THAN THE TIME ALLOTTED. EXTENDED
DISCUSSION OF MATTERS NOT
RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THE
HEARING OR BILL, AND ANY OTHER
DISRUPTIVE ACTS TO ADDRESS ANY
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I WILL TAKE
THE FOLLOWING STEPS. IF AN
INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR HEARING
PROCESS, I WILL DIRECT THEM TO
STOP AND WARN THEM THAT
CONTINUED DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. I WILL ALSO DOCUMENT
ON THE RECORD THE INDIVIDUAL
INVOLVED AND THE NATURE OF THE
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I MAY
TEMPORARILY RECESS THE HEARING
IF THE CONDUCT DOES NOT STOP, I
WILL REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE. THE
ASSISTANCE OF THE SERGEANTS IN
ESCORTING THE INDIVIDUAL FROM
THE CAPITOL BUILDING. I WOULD
LIKE TO NOTE THAT TODAY IS
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS DAY
AND RECOGNIZE MARISSA
LANCHESTER, OUR COMMUNITY
SECRETARY, FOR ALL OF HER HARD
WORK AND DEDICATION. MARISSA
WORKS DILIGENTLY BEHIND THE
SCENES AND HERE ON THE DAIS, SO
THAT OUR HEARINGS RUN
EFFICIENTLY AND SMOOTHLY. THANK
YOU. MARISSA. LET'S GIVE HER A
ROUND OF APPLAUSE. I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO NOTE THAT ASSEMBLY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AZALI WILL BE
ABSENT TODAY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HANEY WILL ALSO BE ABSENT,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER VALENCIA WILL BE
REPLACING ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY
FOR TODAY'S HEARING. WE HAVE 30
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS
AFTERNOON. EIGHT OF THESE ITEMS
ARE PROPOSED FOR CONSENT. ITEM
EIGHT AB 2117 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
JOEL PATTERSON. ITEM NINE AB
2192 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER JUAN
CARRILLO. ITEM 13 AB 2482 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PAPIN. ITEM 1420
AB 2485 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER JUAN
CARRILLO. ITEM 19 ASSEMBLY
MEMBER I'M SORRY AS AB 2728 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GABRIEL. ITEM 23
AB 2939 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RENDON. ITEM 25 AB 2962 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PAPIN. ITEM 29
AB 3122 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CARRA. WE WILL HEAR ALL OTHER
BILLS IN THE ORDER SHOWN ON OUR
AGENDA, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED,
WE WILL TAKE UP TO TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND UP TO
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. THESE WITNESSES WILL
HAVE THREE MINUTES EACH TO
PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY. ALL
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES SHOULD
STATE THEIR NAME, THEIR
ORGANIZATION, AND THEIR POSITION
ON THE BILL. ONLY THE FIRST ITEM
THAT WE WILL TAKE UP IS AB 1807
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CERVANTES
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. PRECEDE WHEN
YOU ARE READY.
GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 1807
TODAY, WHICH WILL MAKE UPDATES
TO THE EXISTING RIVERSIDE COUNTY
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION IN
2022. GOVERNOR NEWSOM SIGNED MY
BILL, AB 1307 INTO LAW, WHICH
CREATED THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CITIZENS REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION, WHICH IS EMPOWERED
TO REDRAW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. THE INTRODUCTION OF
AB 1307 KICKED OFF THE CURRENT
WAVE OF COUNTY REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION BILLS THAT WE ARE
CURRENTLY SEEING IN RECENT
YEARS, THIS COMMITTEE HAS
APPROVED INDEPENDENT
REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS FOR
FRESNO, KERN, ORANGE AND
SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, AND THE
GOVERNOR HAS SIGNED ALL OF THOSE
BILLS INTO LAW. HOWEVER, AB 34
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER VALENCIA AND
SENATE BILL 314 BY SENATOR ASHBY
, INCLUDED USEFUL INNOVATIONS
THAT NONE OF THE PREVIOUS COUNTY
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION BILLS
INCLUDED, WHICH WAS ALSO SIGNED
INTO LAW BY THE GOVERNOR. SO
THIS BILL, 1807, WOULD ACTUALLY
IMPORT MANY OF THOSE PROVISIONS
TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITIZENS
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. THIS
INCLUDES UPDATING THE
REDISTRICTING CRITERIA TO
REFLECT CHANGES MADE BY THE
ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR MAP ACT OF
2023, WHICH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ISAAC BRYANT AND MYSELF
AUTHORED. AB 1807 WOULD ALSO
IMPOSE STRONGER PROHIBITIONS ON
THE ABILITY OF COMMISSIONERS TO
HAVE COMMUNICATION ABOUT
REDISTRICTING ISSUES OUTSIDE OF
THE PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE
COMMISSION. IT WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO
TRANSLATE BOTH ON ITS WEBSITE
AND MANY OF ITS WRITTEN MATERIAL
. IT DISTRIBUTES INTO LANGUAGE
SPOKEN BY AT LEAST 3% OF THE
TOTAL VOTING AGE POPULATION OF
RESIDENTS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
IT WOULD ALSO IMPOSE MORE
RESTRICTIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES
OF COMMISSIONERS, FOR INSTANCE,
THREE YEARS AFTER BEING
APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION,
COMMISSIONERS WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT FROM A
CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE OR AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY. AND FINALLY, WHILE
SERVING ON THE COMMISSION,
COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE BARRED
FROM ENDORSING, WORKING FOR, OR
MAKING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE CAMPAIGN OF A CANDIDATE
FOR AN ELECTED OFFICE OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. THESE UPDATES
WILL MAKE THE REDISTRICTING
PROCESS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY
MUCH MORE FAIRER, ACCESSIBLE,
AND MORE TRANSPARENT. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. DO YOU HAVE A WITNESS THAT
WILL BE TESTIFYING? NO. OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HERE WISHING TO, SUPPORT
THIS BILL? ANYBODY WANT TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION? ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION SEEING NONE,
YOU MAY CLOSE, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE. OKAY. WE WILL TAKE
UP YOUR BILL ONCE WE HAVE A
QUORUM. THANK YOU.
NEXT UP, I SEE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PEPIN AB. 1827. OH, PERFECT. YOU
MAY PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY.
OKAY. GREAT THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MADAM CHAIR, SO I'M HERE TODAY
TO PRESENT AB 1827, WHICH WILL
HELP PRESERVE WATER PROVIDERS
ABILITY TO FAIRLY ALLOCATE
COSTS, THEREBY PROTECTING LOWER
WATER USERS FROM HIGHER WATER
BILLS. IN EVERY COMMUNITY, THERE
ARE WATER USERS WHO USE MORE
THAN THAN OTHERS, AND WATER
USERS WHO USE LESS. IT'S JUST A
FACT OF LIFE. WATER CUSTOMERS
WHO USE MORE WATER THAN OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED CUSTOMERS
INCREASE Ã WATER SUPPLIES.
OVERALL COST OF PROVIDING WATER
SERVICE. DUE TO THE HIGHER COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING AND
OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A
LARGER WATER SYSTEM THAT CAN
MEET THE DEMANDS OF THE LARGER
USERS, PROP 218 ALLOWS WATER
SUPPLIERS TO RECOUP THE
LEGITIMATE COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THAT HIGHER WATER USE FROM THOSE
HIGHER WATER USING CUSTOMERS.
RECENT LAWSUITS, HOWEVER, HAVE
SOUGHT TO CALL THIS INTO
QUESTION. TRIAL COURTS HAVE
SOUGHT TO IMPOSE NEW AND
INCREASINGLY GRANULAR
REQUIREMENTS BEYOND THOSE
REQUIRED BY PROP TWO, 18 ON
WATER SUPPLIERS, WHO SEEK TO
JUSTIFY CHARGING HIGHER WATER
USERS FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THEIR HIGHER WATER USE. IF
THESE LEGAL CHALLENGES ARE
UPHELD BY THE APPELLATE COURT,
WATER SUPPLIERS WOULD LIKELY BE
REQUIRED TO SPREAD THE COST
ASSOCIATED WITH SERVING THESE
HIGHER WATER USE CUSTOMERS
ACROSS ALL OF THEIR CUSTOMERS,
WHICH WOULD FORCE THE LOW WATER
USER. CALIFORNIANS TO PAY MORE
FOR WATER. ARE YOU GETTING THE
EQUITABLE PICTURE HERE? ALL
RIGHT. AB 1828 SIMPLY REAFFIRMS
THAT CALIFORNIA'S WATER
SUPPLIERS CAN CONTINUE TO
INCLUDE THE INCREMENTALLY HIGHER
COSTS OF WATER SERVICE DUE TO
THE HIGHER WATER USERS WITHIN
THE WATER RATES CHARGED TO
CUSTOMERS WHO DRIVE THOSE COSTS.
THE BILL ALSO REAFFIRMS THAT
THOSE COSTS CAN BE ALLOCATED
AMONG THOSE HIGHER USE
CUSTOMERS, USING ANY METHOD THAT
REASONABLY ASSESSES THE COST OF
SERVING THOSE PARCELS, INCLUDING
BY USING METER SIZE AND PEAKING
FACTORS. AB 1828 DOES NOT PERMIT
A WATER SUPPLIER TO VIOLATE PROP
TWO. 18 SET WATER RATES ABOVE
THE COST OF SERVICE, OR
SUBSIDIZED LOWER WATER USERS
WITH WATER BILL CHARGES PLACED
ON HIGHER USE CUSTOMERS. IT
SIMPLY PRESERVES PROP 218
PROPORTIONALITY AND COST OF
SERVICE PRINCIPLES, AND ALLOWS
WATER SUPPLIERS TO CONTINUE
USING THE REASONABLE METHODS
THEY HAVE USED FOR DECADES TO
ALLOCATE COST AMONG CUSTOMERS
AND SET WATER RATES. WITH ME
TODAY I HAVE CHRISTINE COMPTON
WITH THE IRVINE RANCH WATER
DISTRICT AND CODY PHILLIPS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER
ALLIANCE TO SPEAK FURTHER ON THE
IMPORTANCE OF AB 1827. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING US TO JOIN
YOU TODAY. I'M CHRISTINE
COMPTON, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF
STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS AND
ADVOCACY IN THE DEPUTY GENERAL
COUNSEL FOR IRVINE RANCH WATER
DISTRICT, WHERE RETAIL WATER
AGENCY THAT SERVES 20% OF
CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY WATER
SUPPLIERS, AS WAS MENTIONED,
MAINTAIN AND INVEST IN WATER
SYSTEMS AND SUPPLIES CAPABLE OF
MEETING THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
DEMAND OF THEIR CUSTOMERS ON ANY
GIVEN DAY, AT ANY GIVEN HOUR.
THE IDEA IS WHEN YOU TURN ON
YOUR TAP AND SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE WATER
COMING OUT OF IT. AND SO WHEN WE
HAVE CUSTOMERS THAT USE MORE
WATER, THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO
BUILD A LARGER WATER SYSTEM TO
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT AND TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS
WATER COMING OUT OF THEIR TAP
WHEN THEY WANT IT. BECAUSE OF
THIS, THERE ARE LARGER COSTS.
THE COSTS ARE A REALITY. AND SO,
AB 1827 IS FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT
WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THOSE COSTS
AND WHAT TOOLS A WATER SUPPLIER
CAN USE FOR ALLOCATING THOSE
COSTS AMONG THE CUSTOMERS THAT
DRIVE THEM. AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS STATES, LOCAL AGENCIES
DO SET WATER RATES IN MANY
DIFFERENT WAYS, AND WE ALL USE
TOOLS TO HELP US APPROPRIATELY
ALLOCATE THOSE COSTS AMONG OUR
CUSTOMERS. IN FACT, ALMOST
UNIVERSALLY, WE ALL USE METER
SIZE AND PEAKING FACTORS IN
SETTING OUR RATES. AB 1827 IS
SIMPLY ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE
REAFFIRMING THAT WE CAN CONTINUE
USING THOSE TOOLS. WE DON'T
ANTICIPATE THIS WILL RESULT IN
HIGHER WATER RATES OR LEAD TO
INCREASES IN RATES, BECAUSE
THESE ARE THE TOOLS THAT WE ALL
ALREADY USE. IT'S SIMPLY ABOUT
PROVIDING HELPFUL CLARIFICATION
IN THE WATER CODE, AND WE HOPE
THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT IT TODAY.
CODY PHILLIPS WITH CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE, SO PROP
218 MANDATES THAT WATER RATES
AND THE QUOTE IS SHALL NOT
EXCEED THE PROPORTIONAL COST OF
SERVICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
PARCEL. AND THIS BILL ATTEMPTS
TO CLARIFY WHAT IT MEANS TO
ATTRIBUTE A COST TO A PARCEL.
AND LET ME TRY TO BUILD MORE ON
WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR PUBLIC
UTILITIES. WATER RATE DESIGN CAN
TAKE MANY SHAPES AND IS AN
IMPORTANT CONSERVATION AND
EQUITY TOOL. UNIFORM RATES, FOR
EXAMPLE, ARE LIKE GAS PRICES YOU
PAY PER GALLON TIERED RATES. BY
COMPARISON, YOU PAY MORE THE
MORE WATER YOU USE. ONCE YOU HIT
A CERTAIN THRESHOLD. IN BOTH
SITUATIONS, YOU PAY MORE THE
MORE WATER YOU USE. BUT WITH
TIERED RATES AS THE EXAMPLE,
THERE'S A REALLY CLEAR SIGNAL OF
WHEN YOU'RE GOING ABOVE AND
BEYOND AND THAT WATER IS GOING
TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE RATE
STRUCTURES, WHEN DESIGNED
CORRECTLY, NOT ONLY INCENTIVIZE
CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY, BUT
THEY ALSO HELP TO ALLOCATE THE
INCREMENTAL COSTS OF HIGHER
WATER USE ON THOSE CUSTOMERS
THAT DRIVE THE NEED FOR A SYSTEM
CAPABLE OF MEETING THAT HIGHER
WATER USE. IN OTHER WORDS, BACK
TO PROP 218. THEY ASSIGNED TO
PARCELS THE PROPORTIONAL COST OF
SERVICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THOSE
PARCELS. NOW, UNDER THAT
PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENT, A
PERFECT COMPLIANCE SCENARIO
WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE
THAT YOU TRACK EVERY MOLECULE OF
WATER AND IN THE EXACT TIME WHEN
THOSE MOLECULES ARE USED TO
REALLY PERFECTLY MAP OUT THE
EXACT COST THAT EACH PARCEL
PLACES ON THE SYSTEM. AND THAT
PERFECT SCENARIO IS REALLY AN
IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD, WHICH IS
WHY CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE
REPEATEDLY SAID THAT PROP 218
DOES NOT REQUIRE PERFECTION. AND
THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING THAT
METHODS THAT REASONABLY ASSESS
THE COST OF SERVICE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO A PARCEL COMPLY WITH THAT
PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENT. BUT
WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT SOME
COURTS HAVE LEANED MORE INTO
THIS PERFECT SCENARIO
REQUIREMENT, WHERE RATE
STRUCTURES HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED
ON THIS REALLY SPECIFIC, ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE DATA, ELSE WATER
SUPPLIERS ARE VIOLATING
PROPOSITION 218, ESPECIALLY WHEN
THEY'RE TRYING TO SET WATER
RATES THAT ARE HELPING WITH THIS
CONSERVATION AND EQUITY ISSUES
THAT OTHERWISE ARE FINE. SO THIS
BILL JUST TRIES TO CLARIFY THAT
PROP 218 PROPORTIONALITY
REQUIREMENT IS NOT SO STRINGENT,
AND THAT WATER SUPPLIERS MAY USE
METHODS THAT REASONABLY NOT
PERFECTLY ASSESS THE COST OF
SERVICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PARCEL
. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. JASON CARD, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES ASSOCIATION. HAPPY TO
BE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE GOOD
BILL. SEAMUS GARRITY, LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ON BEHALF OF THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT AND SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHRIS ANDERSON. ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES AND
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, CYRUS
DEVERS FOR THE LAS VIRGENES
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. FRANCO,
ON BEHALF OF THE CONTRA COSTA
WATER DISTRICT, IN SUPPORT.
ALYSSA SALEHI, ON BEHALF OF THE
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MOYAMOYA. ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MARCUS
DETWILER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M
ERIC LARA WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES.
APOLOGIES. WE DID NOT GET A
LETTER IN ON TIME, BUT WE'RE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SARAH
MUSIKER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA WATER EFFICIENCY
PARTNERSHIP, ALSO IN SUPPORT,
AND JENNIFER CAPETILLO WITH THE
CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE, I AM NOW GOING TO
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WHICH IS ONLY ONE? IS
THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. AND WE
STILL DO NOT HAVE QUORUM. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, BOTTOM LINE IS
THIS BILL ALLOWS US, ALLOWS
WATER AGENCIES TO AVOID
AMBIGUITY. IT ALLOWS THEM TO
REMAIN REASONABLY FLEXIBLE IN
ORDER TO BE AS EQUITABLE AS
POSSIBLE AND STILL BE COMPLIANT
WITH PROP 218. RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
AND WE WILL TAKE UP YOUR BILL
ONCE WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU
. AND IF THERE'S ANY AUTHORS OUT
THERE THAT NEED TO PRESENT IN
LOCAL GOV, PLEASE MAKE IT OVER
TO COMMITTEE. WE ARE WAITING FOR
YOU.
ARE YOU COMING? YES. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CALDERON PRESENTED HIS
BILL, AND THEN HE WILL ALSO
PRESENT FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HANEY. AB 3068. THAT'S FINE.
MAYBE 3060. YES. BUT YOU'LL DO,
ITEM NUMBER 18 FOR YOUR BILL. AB
2682. GO FIRST, MR. CHAIR. YEAH,
THAT'S OKAY. YOU CAN GO AHEAD
AND PRESENT FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HANEY AB 3068. WHEN YOU'RE READY
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR NOW. ALL RIGHT, THERE WE GO.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBER, AB 3068, THE OFFICE
TO HOUSING CONVERSION ACT IS A
DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS OF
CALIFORNIA'S EMPTY DOWNTOWN
BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND THE NEED
TO CONVERT UNDERUTILIZED OFFICE
BUILDINGS WITHIN PRIME LOCATIONS
INTO NEW HOUSING. DOWNTOWNS ARE
STRUGGLING AS OUR WORK CULTURE
SHIFTED TOWARDS REMOTE AND
HYBRID WORK POLICIES. WITH FEWER
EMPLOYEES WORKING FULL TIME IN
THE OFFICE, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
IN DOWNTOWNS ACROSS THE STATE
ARE EXPERIENCING THE EFFECTS OF
HIGH VACANCY RATES. THIS SHIFT
HAS LEFT DOWNTOWNS IN TROUBLE
AND IN DESPERATE NEED OF
CATALYTIC AND INNOVATIVE
TRANSFORMATIONS THAT WILL CREATE
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. WHILE
DOWNTOWNS ARE CURRENTLY FACING
THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF EMPTY
OFFICE BUILDINGS AND SLOW
ECONOMIC RECOVERY, WE DON'T NEED
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE IDEA OF THE
URBAN DOOM LOOP. THERE ARE WAYS
WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE NOW. A
STUDY FROM UC BERKELEY SHOWED
THAT CITIES THAT DON'T INCLUDE
HOUSING IN THEIR DOWNTOWNS
EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANTLY SLOWER
RECOVERY FROM ECONOMIC CRISES
THAN DOWNTOWNS THAT PRIORITIZE
LIVABILITY. AND WHILE THERE IS
CERTAINLY A NEED FOR HOUSING IN
OUR DOWNTOWNS, WE ALSO HAVE TO
PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR
CREATIVE, MIXED USE PROJECTS,
WHICH IS IMPORTANT WHEN WE ARE
REIMAGINING WHAT OUR CITIES
SHOULD LOOK LIKE POST THE COVID
19 PANDEMIC, AB 3068 WILL
ACCELERATE OFFICE TO HOUSING
CONVERSION PROJECTS BY CREATING
A PATHWAY FOR BY RIGHT
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF OFFICE
CONVERSION PROJECTS, ENSURING
MORE PREDICTABILITY AND FEWER
BARRIERS TO AN ALREADY DIFFICULT
BUILDING PROCESS. IT WILL ALSO
PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY TO ENSURE
THAT HISTORIC BUILDINGS ARE MORE
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
CONVERSION FOR CONVERSION
MEANING WE CAN PRESERVE OUR
BUILDINGS FOR HOUSING WHILE
MAKING SURE THE DOWNTOWN'S
DIVERSE CHARACTER
CHARACTERISTICS ARE KEPT INTACT.
WITH ME IN SUPPORT TODAY IS RAFA
SONNENFELD FROM YIMBY ACTION AND
CINDY HEITZMAN FROM THE
CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION, PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, RAFA SONNENFELD,
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS
YIMBY ACTION IN OUR CHAPTER'S
FIGHT FOR BETTER HOUSING
POLICIES, BECAUSE WE WANT TO
REDUCE POVERTY AND HOMELESSNESS,
ELIMINATE RACIAL SEGREGATION,
CREATE JOBS AND STOP CLIMATE
CHANGE. CONVERTING VACANT
COMMERCIAL SPACE INTO
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING THROUGH
ADAPTIVE REUSE CAN REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF UNDERUTILIZED AND
VACANT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN
DECREASING IN VALUE, THEREBY
HELPING TO STABILIZE THE
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET
AND FILLING THOSE SPACES WITH
MORE VALUABLE TAX GENERATING
USES. ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS
CAN ALSO INCREASE ACTIVITY AND
FOOT TRAFFIC IN NEIGHBORHOODS
ACROSS THE STATE, WHICH HELP
LOCAL BUSINESSES AND ENHANCE THE
CULTURAL LIFE OF CITIES AND
TOWNS. UNFORTUNATELY, LOCAL
DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL PROCESSES
AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. FOR
HOUSING CAN CAN CAUSE YEAR LONG
YEARS LONG DELAYS INCREASE RISK
TO DEVELOPMENTS, MAKING HOUSING
PROJECTS INFEASIBLE, AND
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CHALLENGES IN
RESOLVING THE STATE'S HOUSING
SHORTAGE. AB 3068 THE OFFICE
HOUSING CONVERSION ACT PROVIDES
A STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR ADAPTIVE
REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS INTO
RESIDENTIAL USES IN INFILL AREAS
IN ALL ZONES. THE ACT
FACILITATES THE CONVERSION OF
UNDERUTILIZED SPACE IN OFFICE
AND OTHER COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS INTO
RESIDENTIAL USES. IF AT LEAST
50% OF THE CONVERTED SPACE IS
USED FOR RESIDENTIAL, WHILE
OTHERWISE ALLOWING THOSE
BUILDINGS TO MAINTAIN THEIR
CURRENTLY ALLOWED USES WITHOUT
THE NEED FOR A LENGTHY, RISKY
DISCRETIONARY REZONING. THE ACT
ALSO INCENTIVIZES ADAPTIVE REUSE
PROJECTS BY ELIMINATING BY
LIMITING LIMITING IMPACT FEES,
AND PROTECTS HISTORIC
PROPERTIES, ENSURING THAT THEIR
ADAPTIVE REUSE IS DONE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL BEST
PRACTICES. FOR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. ADDITIONALLY, AB
3068 AUTHORIZES LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES TO CREATE A
PROPERTY TAX REBATE INCENTIVE
PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE ADAPTIVE
REUSE PROJECTS. THANK YOU. I'M
AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN CARILLO AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
CINDY HEITZMAN. I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO
PROTECTING CALIFORNIA'S RICH,
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
THROUGH ADVOCACY AND EDUCATION.
I SEEK YOUR SUPPORT FOR AB 3068
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, COMMUNITIES
HAVE ADAPTED EXISTING BUILDINGS
FOR NEW FUNCTIONS TO MEET THE
CHANGING NEEDS OF SOCIETY.
TODAY, ADAPTIVE REUSE OF
BUILDINGS TO HOUSING, OFFICES
AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO
HOUSING IS A IS A CRITICAL
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY ACROSS CALIFORNIA. MANY
BUILDING TYPES FROM FUNERAL
HOMES AND FLOUR MILLS HAVE BEEN
REPURPOSED INTO HOUSING THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES. ADAPTIVE REUSE
ORDINANCE STIMULATED THE
DEVELOPMENT OF OVER 12,000
HOUSING UNITS SINCE ITS ADOPTION
IN 1999. A LOCAL EXAMPLE IN
SACRAMENTO IS THE CAPITAL PARK
HOTEL, LOCATED ONE BLOCK FROM
HERE FROM THE STATE CAPITOL,
WHICH NOW HOUSES 134 UNITS OF
PERMANENT HOUSING FOR THE
HOMELESS. OLDER BUILDING STOCK
IS ARE THE MOST LIKELY
CANDIDATES FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE
AND WHAT SETS AB 3068 APART IS
ITS STREAMLINED REVIEW OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES,
INCENTIVIZING CONVERSION OF
COMMERCIAL SPACES INTO HOUSING
WHILE PRESERVING THOSE PORTIONS
OR FEATURES THAT CONVEY ITS
HISTORIC CULTURAL, OR
ARCHITECTURAL VALUES. THE REVIEW
PROCESS CONSIDERS FACTORS LIKE
AGE OF THE BUILDING, LANDMARK
STATUS AND UTILIZATION OF
FEDERAL AND STATE HISTORIC TAX
CREDITS. FURTHERMORE IT MANDATES
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES, ENSURING THAT
PRESERVATION STANDARDS ARE MET.
THOUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS
OFTEN CAST AS AN OBSTRUCTION TO
THE CREATION OF HOUSING, THE
FACTS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY. AB
3068 IS A CATALYST FOR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION, ALLEVIATING
HOUSING SHORTAGES AND
SAFEGUARDING THE CHARACTER OF
OUR HISTORIC DOWNTOWNS. THIS
BILL IS A BLUEPRINT FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,
HARMONIZE ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
HISTORIC PRESERVATION, SHAPING A
VIBRANT FUTURE WHILE HONORING
OUR PAST. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT OF
AB 3068. THANK YOU. ANY, MEMBERS
IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANT OUT IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION,
AND POSITION ON THE BILL. MARK,
ON BEHALF OF STREETS FOR ALL IN
SUPPORT. SEAMUS GERARDI WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF BUCKEYE PROPERTIES,
SAND HILL PROPERTIES AND SPUR
AND SUPPORT. BOB MILLER FOR
FIELD SAID THAT'S HOWARD
AHMANSON JR IN ORANGE COUNTY.
PRO YIMBY, PHILANTHROPIST.
REBECCA MARQUEZ, REPRESENTING
LEADING AGE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COREY
SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING
ACTION COALITION IN SUPPORT.
BROOKE PRITCHARD, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN SUPPORT.
ADAM BRIONES, CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BUILDERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. HOW
ABOUT ANY MEMBERS IN THE
AUDIENCE IN OPPOSITION OF THE
BILL? SEEING NONE. I TAKE IT TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HEANEY? YEAH. ON
BEHALF OF SUMMER, HEANEY
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. WE STILL
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, BUT ONCE WE
DO, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE NEXT
STEP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALVAREZ,
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, SIR. Ó,
ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT YOUR
BILL? YEAH, I WAS HOPING TO.
IT'S UP. IT'S UP TO YOU, MR.
CHAIR. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU,
MR. ALVAREZ. GO AHEAD AND
PROCEED, MR. CARL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. AB 2682 WOULD AMEND THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE
AUTHORITY'S ENABLING ACT TO
IMPROVE ITS IMPROVE ITS
FUNCTIONS AND ALIGN THEM WITH
SIMILAR JURISDICTIONS. FIRST,
THE BILL WOULD ALLOW THE
AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE LANDS AND
FEE TITLE FROM WILLING SELLERS
IN EAST OF THE WESTERNMOST
RIDGELINE OF THE DIABLO RANGE,
IN THE SAME MANNER THAT IT
ALREADY ACQUIRES LAND THROUGHOUT
THE REST OF ITS JURISDICTION.
SECOND, THE BILL ALLOWS THE
AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE THE
GENERAL MANAGER TO BIND THE
DISTRICT TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.
LIKE OTHER REGIONAL AND OPEN
SPACE DISTRICTS ARE ABLE TO DO.
THIRD, THE BILL INCREASES THE
CONTRACTING THRESHOLD FOR
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT EXISTING
LAW IN THIS SECTION IS A BIT
UNCLEAR, AND WE'RE WORKING ON
AMENDMENTS TO EXPLICITLY
SEPARATE THE BIDDING THRESHOLDS
FOR MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION.
OUR INTENT HERE IS ONLY TO SHIFT
THE THRESHOLD FOR MATERIALS.
FOURTH, THE BILL WOULD ENABLE
THE AUTHORITY TO FINANCE
FACILITIES AND ISSUES BONDS
PURSUANT TO THE MELLO-ROOS
COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF
1982. LASTLY, AB 2682 AMENDS THE
AUTHORITY'S UNIFORMITY CLAUSE TO
ALLOW THEM TO CHARGE LOWER TAX
RATES TO SENIORS. THIS IS THE
SAME ABILITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
HAVE WITH THESE UPDATES FOR
THEIR ENABLING ACT. AB 2682 WILL
PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY AND GREATER
EFFICIENCIES TO THE AUTHORITY
AND HELP FACILITATE THEIR
MISSION TO CONSERVE THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT, TO SUPPORT
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND
CONNECT PEOPLE TO NATURE WITH
BIÂU. TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
MARK LANDGRAF, ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER WITH THE OPEN SPACE
AUTHORITY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MARK LANDGRAF,
SANTA CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE
AUTHORITY AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER
KALRA PRETTY MUCH SAID IT ALL,
THIS LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE VERY
GRATEFUL TO HIM FOR WOULD ENABLE
US TO DO OUR WORK TO PRESERVE
NATURAL RESOURCES, TO CONNECT
PEOPLE TO NATURE, AND TO SUPPORT
AGRICULTURE MUCH MORE
EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY, I
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALLOWING
US TO ACQUIRE LAND IN FEE FROM
WILLING SELLERS IN THE DIABLO
RANGE WOULD ALLOW US TO HELP
MEET STATE 30 BY 30 GOALS. IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT TO US TO PROTECT
HABITAT AND WILDLIFE
CONNECTIVITY CORRIDORS IN THAT
AREA, WHICH WOULD AUGMENT WORK
THAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING. ALSO,
THE ADJUSTMENT TO GENERAL
MANAGER AUTHORITY FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
ALLOWS US ALLOWS US TO WORK MORE
EFFICIENTLY WITHOUT MAKING ANY
CHANGES TO THE THRESHOLD FOR
BIDDING FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS, SO WE ARE VERY
GRATEFUL TO THE AUTHOR AND URGE
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE
WANTED TO IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON. ABIGAIL.
SMASH. THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
ABIGAIL SCHMIDT. ON BEHALF OF
THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK
DISTRICT AND SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MARCUS DETWILER WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. SHEAMUS
GATTI WITH LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, SANTA CLARA VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. ANYBODY
IN THE ROOM? PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, JEREMY SMITH HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
WE'VE HAD PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION
PART OF THIS COMING OUT OF THE
BILL. HE'S ASSURED US THAT
THAT'S HIS GOAL. HE JUST
MENTIONED IT. WE APPRECIATE
THAT. SO WE'LL KEEP THOSE
CONVERSATIONS GOING. WE DID HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THAT PART OF THE
BILL. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ON
THE RIGHT TRACK. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I TAKE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS
QUESTIONS? NO WE STILL DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM. AS SOON AS WE DO.
WE'LL PROCEED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALVAREZ, ITEM
NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA AB
1886. WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU
ABOUT ASSEMBLY BILL 1886, WHICH
AIMS TO CLARIFY THAT THE HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
DETERMINES WHETHER A LOCAL
JURISDICTION IS HOUSING ELEMENT
IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING
ELEMENT LAW AND THAT IF A
PROJECT IS SUBMITTED DURING THIS
PERIOD OF NONCOMPLIANCE, IT IS
ELIGIBLE FOR THE BUILDER'S
REMEDY. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
THE CITY REACHES COMPLIANCE
BEFORE IT IS APPROVED. SO FOR A
LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, THE
BUILDERS REMEDY IS A HOUSING
TOOL THAT THE LEGISLATURE
ESTABLISHED THREE DECADES AGO.
THE LEGISLATURE ENVISIONED THAT
IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO SUBMIT THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENT, THAT PLAN FOR
ENOUGH HOUSING AT EACH OF THEIR
CITIES AND JURISDICTIONS.
UNFORTUNATELY THE PROVISION
DIDN'T GO USED FOR DECADES, IN
INCLUDING BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF
CLARITY IN THE CODE, WHICH
PROVIDED LITTLE PRACTICAL
GUIDANCE. YET ANOTHER CAUSE IS
SIMPLY BECAUSE DEVELOPERS WERE
AFRAID TO USE THE TOOL AND THEIR
FEAR OF ANGERING LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
THAT THEY KNEW THEY WOULD THEN
NEED THEIR SUPPORT IN ORDER TO
APPROVE THEIR FUTURE PROJECTS.
SO, GIVEN THE SHIFT IN SUPPORT
FOR MORE HOUSING AT THE STATE
LEVEL, MORE RECENTLY IN THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS, DEVELOPERS HAVE
BEEN EMBOLDENED TO DUST OFF THIS
FORGOTTEN CODE AND BEGAN TO
SUBMIT BUILDERS REMEDY PROJECTS
AS THE LAW. OVER 30 YEARS AGO
INTENDED TO. DESPITE THE
INCREASE IN PROPOSED PROJECTS
DUE TO THE LACK OF CLARITY, MANY
CITIES HAVE USED THE ARGUMENT
THAT SELF-CERTIFYING THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENT IS ENOUGH TO
COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENTS
LAW. THIS HAS LED TO A MULTITUDE
OF APPLICATIONS NOT BEING
PROCESSED OR DENIED, AND VARIOUS
COURT CASES THAT HAVE SLOWED
DOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN
AREAS THAT NEED IT THE MOST. AT
ITS CORE, AB 1886 IS A GOOD
GOVERNANCE BILL THAT DOESN'T
ESTABLISH ANY NEW TOOLS, BUT IT
FIXES AND CLARIFIES AN EXISTING
ONE THAT THE LEGISLATURE ALREADY
ESTABLISHED DECADES AGO. AB 1886
IS WRITTEN TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY
AND CLEAR UP ANY AMBIGUITY IN
THE LAW. WITH AB 1886, IT WILL
BE CLEAR THAT THE BUILDERS
REMEDY CAN BE USED AS INTENDED,
TO BUILD MORE HOUSING IN CITIES
THAT ARE NOT DOING THEIR PART IN
SOLVING THE STATE'S HOUSING
CRISIS. THERE WILL BE NO MORE
THREAT OF LENGTHY LEGAL DELAYS
CAUSED BY THOSE WHO DON'T WANT
TO BUILD MORE HOUSING. I
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND TO
TESTIFY WE HAVE, MICHAEL LANE
FROM SPUR AND CORNELIUS BURKE
FROM CBIA. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MIKE LAMIS FOR A PUBLIC
POLICY THINK TANK IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA. AND WE'RE
PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION. ALSO WANTED TO
COMMEND THE COMMITTEE STAFF AND
THE ANALYSIS. IT'S REALLY
EXCELLENT. GIVES THE BACKGROUND
ON BOTH THE STATE OF THE STATUTE
AND LEGAL CASES. AND WE'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE IS JUST
ADDITIONAL CLARITY. OBVIOUSLY,
THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS FOR ALL
JURISDICTIONS TO HAVE A
CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT BY BY
THE STATE. IN FACT, IT'S THE
ONLY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
THAT THE STATE REQUIRES THAT IT
BE CERTIFIED, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW
IMPORTANT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'VE GOT, ADEQUATE SITES TO BE
ABLE TO BUILD THE HOUSING THAT
WE NEED FOR OUR GROWING
POPULATION. WE DO SEE THIS AS A
GOOD GOVERNMENT BILL. IT
ACTUALLY PROVIDES ADDITIONAL
CLARITY, BOTH FOR JURISDICTIONS
AND FOR DEVELOPERS TO KNOW WHEN
THE BUILDERS REMEDY IS IN
EFFECT. AND IT JUST IT AFFIRMS
THAT HCD OR A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION ARE THE ONES WHO
DETERMINE IF IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY
COMPLIANT WITH STATE HOUSING
LAW, AND THAT THE ELEMENT IS
INDEED CERTIFIED. AND THEN THAT
MEANS THAT THE SITES CAN GO
FORWARD, THAT THE JURISDICTION
IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE BUILDERS
REMEDY. BUT IF THEY DON'T, IF
THEY MISS THE DEADLINES AND THEY
DON'T HAVE A CERTIFIED HOUSING
ELEMENT, THAT'S THAT'S AFFIRMED
BY HCD, THEN THOSE APPLICATIONS
MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE
JURISDICTION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
CORNELIUS BURKE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE YOUR HOME
BUILDERS. WE ARE PROUD TO
CO-SPONSOR AB 1886, I'LL BE
BRIEF. I JUST THIS IS A SUCH A
SMART AND A GOOD GOVERNMENT
BILL. IT REALLY CLARIFIES WHEN
THE BUILDER REMEDY KICKS IN ON A
PERSONAL NOTE, I'M A PLANNER BY
BACKGROUND. I'VE WORKED FOR
THREE CITIES. THE TENSION
BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL IS VERY
TOUGH RIGHT NOW, AND THIS BILL
HELPS TO CLARIFY WHY THOSE RULES
AND REGULATIONS AND MAKE SURE
THAT CITIES FOLLOW THE LAW. SO
THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. WE SUPPORT THE BILL AND
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM
WHO WANTS TO ADD IN SUPPORT.
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. RAFA
SONNENFELD WITH THE NBA ACTION
ON BEHALF OF CHAPTERS. EAST BAY
YIMBY. MOUNTAIN VIEW, YIMBY.
NORTHERN NEIGHBORS. PENINSULA
FOR EVERYONE, SAN FRANCISCO
YIMBY. SANTA CRUZ, YIMBY. SANTA
ROSA, YIMBY. SLOCUM URBAN
ENVIRONMENTALIST, GROW, THE
RICHMOND VENTURA COUNTY PEOPLE,
OR VENTURA COUNTY AND STREETS
FOR PEOPLE. SOUTH SIDE FORWARD
PROGRESS, NÓI VALLEY, SOUTH BAY,
YIMBY AND NAPA SOLANO FOR
EVERYONE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
BOB NAYLOR FOR FIELDSTEAD AND
COMPANY. STRONGLY SUPPORTING MR.
ALVAREZ'S EXCELLENT BILL.
THANKS. MARK STIVERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
IN SUPPORT. BROOKE PRITCHARD, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. COREY SMITH, ON BEHALF
OF THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION
IN STRONG SUPPORT. GRACIELA
CASTILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM
AND SUPPORT. ON LAWLER, ON
BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
LAW PROJECT AND THE CALIFORNIA
RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOUNDATION, REALLY APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR WORKING WITH US ON
SOME TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS MOVING
FORWARD. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ADAM
BRIONES, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
BUILDERS IN STRONG SUPPORT
SEAMUS GARRITY, LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR CIVIC WELL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
PARAMETER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR MEMBERS. BRADY GIRTON, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, JUST
WANTED TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. THEY'VE BEEN VERY
FORTHCOMING ABOUT WORKING WITH
US AND THE SPONSORS ON THE BILL,
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS. BUT I
DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE
OF CONCERNS THAT WE'RE SEEING. I
THINK THE BIG ISSUE THAT WE NEED
TO FOCUS ON IS HELPING OUR
CITIES GET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
HOUSING ELEMENT LAW. THERE'S
BEEN SEVERAL CITIES THAT I'VE
TALKED WITH THAT ARE MEMBERS
THAT HAVE EXPRESSED HOW LONG IT
TAKES FOR THAT PROCESS TO GET
THROUGH. AND I THINK THE CITY,
THE STATE NEEDS TO WORK AND
PARTNER WITH OUR CITY SO WE CAN
DO THAT SO WE CAN AVOID BUILDERS
REMEDY IN THE FIRST PLACE. ONE
OF THE CITIES I TALKED TO TOOK
UP TO FOUR YEARS TO GET A
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE, AND
THE CONCERN WITH THIS BILL, TOO,
IS IF THERE'S A, AN ACTUAL
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE
AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, WE
DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
SELF-CERTIFY. SO WHILE WE'RE
WAITING FOR A COURT TO DETERMINE
THAT COMPETENCY, THIS BILL IS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN WOULD ALLOW
THE BUILDERS REMEDY TO KICK IN.
SO EVEN IF WE'RE DOING THE
PLANNING AND ZONING THAT WE NEED
TO DO TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW,
GOOD FAITH ACTORS WOULD STILL BE
PUNISHED IN THEIR ABILITY TO,
NOT ZONE AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR
THEIR COMMUNITIES. THAT SAID,
WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS AND
APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS OF
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND LOOK
FORWARD TO THAT AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WANTED TO ADD
IN OPPOSITION OF THE BILL? STATE
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION, PLEASE. HI, ALYSSA
SALEHI, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
CORONA, IN OPPOSITION, BUT ALSO
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, WITH AN OPPOSING
SUBMITTED POSITION, THEY WOULD
ASK THAT ALL CITIES NOT BE
PAINTED WITH THE SAME STROKE.
AND FOR PRO HOUSING DESIGNATED
JURISDICTIONS TO BE EXEMPT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE. THANK YOU. BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SO,
THANK YOU, THE AUTHOR, FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. BUT
I ALSO HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS
THAT THAT WAS MENTIONED BY
OPPOSITION. SOME OF MY CITIES
WITHIN MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
HAVEN'T HAD THEIR HOUSING
ELEMENT APPROVED. IT'S TAKEN
THEM, SEVERAL YEARS, THE BIGGEST
CITY IN MY DOWNEY. THEY
FORTUNATELY, THEY HAD THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENT APPROVED, BUT
THERE ARE CONCERNS LIKE WAS
MENTIONED BY OPPOSITION OF LIKE
SOME OF MY CITIES WITHIN THE
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT AND I'M
ASSUMING THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE BEEN
EXPERIENCING DELAYS IN HAVING
THEIR HOUSING ELEMENT APPROVED.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
DIALOG. I APPRECIATE THAT THESE
CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING, BUT
I ALSO JUST WANTED TO FLAG FOR
YOU THAT THIS IS OCCURRING IN MY
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT. THANK YOU
SIR. MAYOR PACHECO, MR. WARD
WILL TAKE IT BACK TO YOU. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU,
ACKNOWLEDGING. CERTAINLY THE
OPPOSITION LIKE LIKE WAS STATED
WHERE WE ARE HAVING
CONVERSATIONS. I THINK ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT, HAS BEEN
HELPFUL FOR, FOR ME IS TO
UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE PROCESS,
AND, AND WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE
HOUSING ELEMENTS LAW HERE. WE
ARE ONLY, CLARIFYING AND
DEFINING, THE BUILDER'S REMEDY
PORTION, WHICH IS THE VERY SMALL
SECTION, OF COURSE,
CONSEQUENTIAL BUT SMALL SECTION
TO AVOID LITIGATION AND DELAYS.
I THINK SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE
AND MAYBE EVEN HOUSING COMMITTEE
AND OUR CHAIRS HERE WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THE PROCESS OF, THE
HOUSING ELEMENT, THAT THAT MIGHT
BE A WORTHWHILE DISCUSSION, I
ONLY HAVE, THE INFORMATION THAT
I HAVE FROM THAT WE REQUESTED
FROM HCD ON WHAT THAT PROCESS
TYPICALLY LOOKS LIKE. AND AS THE
HOUSING ELEMENTS LAW, IDENTIFIES
, AS YOU KNOW, THERE IS A BACK
AND FORTH THAT THAT OCCURS AND,
THERE IS A SUGGESTED TIME FRAME
OF WHEN TO BEGIN THE
CONVERSATION WITH HCD SO THAT
THERE IS THAT EXCHANGE OF
INFORMATION THÀNH, ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT THERE ARE CASES WHERE MAYBE
THERE'S A FOUR YEAR SITUATION,
BUT BUT WE'RE NOT TOUCHING ANY
OF THAT. AND CERTAINLY, AGAIN,
MAYBE WORTHWHILE A CONVERSATION
WHEN WE ARE JUST WANTING TO
CREATE THE CLARITY ON THE
BUILDER'S REMEDY. AND WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING
TODAY. I WILL BE VOTING AYE WHEN
WE GET A QUORUM AND PROCEED WITH
THE PROCESS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU AND YOU HAVE A SECOND BILL
TODAY. I DO, MR. CHAIR. AB 2430.
WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
, WE NOW HAVE, ASSEMBLY BILL
2430, WHICH WOULD EXEMPT A LOCAL
DEVELOPER FROM PAYING AN EXTRA,
UNNECESSARY MONITORING FEE ON A
100% AFFORDABLE, AFFORDABLE
PROJECT, AGAIN, THANK THE STAFF
FOR THEIR WORK ON THE ANALYSIS
ON THIS BILL, I THINK IT
PRESENTS THE ISSUE QUITE, QUITE.
WELL, ONLY PROJECTS THAT USE A
STATE INCENTIVE KNOWN AS A STATE
DENSITY BONUS LAW. AND ARE
SUBJECT TO REGULATORY AGREEMENTS
WITH EITHER THE TAX CREDIT
ALLOCATION, CDLAC OR HCD THAT
HAVE PROVISIONS TO MONITOR WOULD
BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS EXEMPTION
OF THIS BILL TO ENSURE THAT THE
BILL ONLY TARGETS DUPLICATIVE
MONITORING. WE HAVE ALSO ADDED
FURTHER SAFEGUARDS THAT WOULD
EXEMPT PROJECTS, ONE THAT USE
LOCAL DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT
REQUIRES DEEPER AFFORDABILITY TO
ACCEPTS A LOCAL FUNDING SOURCE
THAT REQUIRES DIFFERENT LEVELS
OF AFFORDABILITY, AND THREE HAS
FUNDING SOURCE THAT OBLIGATES
THAT LOCAL JURISDICTION TO
MONITOR THAT PROJECT. IF IT
ISN'T ALREADY BEING MONITORED.
AGAIN BY TCAC, CDLAC OR HCD, AS
MANY OF YOU KNOW, ALL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN
CALIFORNIA THAT RECEIVE STATE
FUNDING ARE SUBJECT TO
COMPLIANCE MONITORING TO ENSURE
THAT THOSE UNITS ARE OCCUPIED BY
TENANTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY
ELIGIBLE TO LIVE THERE, BECAUSE
OF THEIR INCOME. TÊ. CÁC, FOR
EXAMPLE, PERFORMS ROUTINE
PHYSICAL SITE INSPECTIONS OF
UNITS IN THEIR CONDITION.
PROPERTY STANDARDS ON A
DEVELOPMENT, AN ANNUAL FILE
MONITORING OF TENANT INCOME OVER
THE 55 YEAR SPAN OF THE HOUSING
PROJECT, AND PHYSICAL
INSPECTIONS ON AN AS NEEDED
BASIS WHEN THEY DISCOVERS OR
RECEIVES REPORTS OF PROBLEMS,
THE FEES THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO
EXEMPT AREN'T TRIVIAL, ALTHOUGH
THEY CAN VARY MOST OF THE FEES
CHARGED ANNUALLY CAN BE ABOUT
$400 PER UNIT, THAT RESULTS IN
COSTS OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS A YEAR IN FEES AND
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
OVER THE LIFESPAN OF THE
PROJECT. SO A 50 UNIT COMPLEX
WITH ALL DEED RESTRICTED FOR LOW
AND VERY LOW INCOME, THAT MAY
CHARGE $400 PER UNIT, IS AN
ADDITIONAL $20,000 PER YEAR OVER
THE SPAN OF 50 PLUS YEARS, WELL
OVER $1 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL
COSTS. THE DURATION OF
MONITORING FEES AND THE SORRY
THE DUPLICATION OF MONITORING
FEES ADDS UNNECESSARY COST TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE HOPING TO
BRING DOWN THE COST OR KEEP THE
COST DOWN OF PROJECTS. AB 2430
PROVIDES RELIEF BY REMOVING THIS
DUPLICATIVE FEE AND THEREFORE
LOWERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT COSTS, EVEN IF IT'S
JUST A BIT. EVERYTHING COUNTS
AND TRYING TO BRING CALIFORNIA
CLOSER TO MEETING OUR HOUSING
PRODUCTION GOALS FOR LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS. WITH THAT, I'D ASK
GRACIELA CASTILLO, WHO, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM AND NATALIE SPIVAK ON
BEHALF OF HOUSING CALIFORNIA, AS
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS. GRACIELA CASTILLO, I AM
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM, ONE OF THE
SPONSORS OF THE BILLS. AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WAS SAYING, THIS
IS A CRITICAL PIECE OF
LEGISLATION FOR A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE HOUSING, THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM,
IT IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
THAT ADVOCATES FOR THE
PRESERVATION AND FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR BOTH LOW INCOME AND MODERATE
INCOME FAMILIES. TACKLING THE
HOUSING CRISIS WILL REQUIRE
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT
SCALE, BUT OUR ABILITY TO DO SO
DEPENDS ON THE COST TO PRODUCE
ADDITIONAL UNITS, AS THE COST TO
DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCREASES, SO DOES THE
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
SUBSIDIES. GIVEN THE SITUATION
THAT OUR STATE BUDGET IS FACING
RIGHT NOW, THE FACT THAT WE DO
NOT HAVE A SUSTAINED FUNDING
SOURCE, ENSURING THAT WE HAVE
LEGISLATION THAT TAKES INTO
CONSIDERATION THE COST OF
PRODUCTION AND MAINTAINING THESE
UNITS, IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL
FOR THAT REASON ALONE, AND FOR
EVERYTHING THAT THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HAS ALREADY STATED, WE
ARE HAPPY TO SPONSOR THIS BILL.
GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
NATALIE SPIVAK AND I'M WITH
HOUSING CALIFORNIA, A STATEWIDE
NONPROFIT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
THAT ADVOCATES FOR THE
PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ENDING
HOMELESSNESS. AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
, ALVAREZ AND GRACIELA HAVE
EXPLAINED, AB 2430 WILL PLAY AN
IMPORTANT ROLE IN TACKLING THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS BY
LOWERING DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I'D LIKE TO
BRIEFLY DISPEL SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BILL. FIRST, AB 2430
ONLY APPLIES TO 100% AFFORDABLE
DENSITY BONUS DEVELOPMENTS THAT
A STATE AGENCY IS ALREADY
MONITORING. FOR EXAMPLE, A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CAN CONTINUE TO
MONITOR AFFORDABLE UNITS
PRODUCED THROUGH A LOCAL
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE
IF THE STATE ISN'T MONITORING
THEM. SO SECOND, THIS BILL
DOESN'T COMPROMISE THE ABILITY
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO COMPLY
WITH MONITORING ACTIVITIES
REQUIRED OF THEM BY A STATE,
REGIONAL OR LOCAL OR STATE
REGIONAL OR FEDERAL AGENCY. IF
THE REQUIRED MONITORING
ACTIVITIES ARE NOT BEING
CONDUCTED BY TCAC OR HCD, THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN CARRY THEM
OUT. FINALLY, SOME LOCAL
AGENCIES USE MONITORING FEES TO
PROVIDE SERVICES UNRELATED TO
MAINTAINING THE AFFORDABILITY
AND HABITABILITY OF UNITS. WE
DON'T INTEND TO SUGGEST THAT
THOSE SERVICES ARE NOT VALUABLE,
BUT RATHER THAT THEY SHOULDN'T
BE PLACED ON THE BACKS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
UNDER THE GUISE OF MONITORING
FEES. IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PAYING FOR ANYTHING THAT'S GOOD,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL NOT BE
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AT A TIME
WHEN IT'S ALREADY VERY DIFFICULT
TO MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
PENCIL. AND WHEN CALIFORNIA IS
FACING POTENTIAL BUDGET CUTS TO
Kò AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION
PROGRAMS, IT'S EVEN MORE
CRITICAL TO ELIMINATE
DUPLICATIVE COSTS FACED BY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS.
AB 2430 WILL PLAY AN IMPORTANT
ROLE TOWARD THAT END. HOUSING
CALIFORNIA THINKS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ALVAREZ FOR AUTHORING
THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTS YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANYBODY IN THE
AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO ADD ON,
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION. MARK
STIVERS, CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPORT. REBECCA
MARCUS REPRESENTING, LEADING AGE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT ANY
PROMINENT WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE ANY
OTHER MEMBERS IN THE PUBLIC
WANTS TO COME OUT IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NONE. TAKE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ALVAREZ WITH THAT? JUST
RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE WHEN YOU HAVE A
QUORUM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND NEXT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WENDY CARRILLO
PRESENT IN AGREEMENT WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WIX AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SHABO. OKAY. THANK YOU.
AND THAT'S ITEM FIVE ON THE
AGENDA AB 1890. I'M SORRY, NOT
NOT AT A US AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER
SIX AB 1950 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WENDY CARRILLO.
GREAT THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I AM PROUD TO PRESENT
AB 2986, WHICH ESTABLISHES A
DEDICATED TASK FORCE UNDER THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY
OF INCORPORATING EAST LOS
ANGELES INTO BECOMING A SPECIAL
DISTRICT WITH LOCAL ELECTED
REPRESENTATION THAT WORKS IN
COLLABORATION WITH THE COUNTY OR
POSSIBLY ITS OWN MUNICIPALITY.
EAST LOS ANGELES HAS THE LARGEST
POPULATION OF ANY UNINCORPORATED
UNINCORPORATED AREA IN L.A.
COUNTY, AND WOULD BE THE 10TH
LARGEST CITY IN THE COUNTY. EAST
L.A. IS CALIFORNIA'S MOST
POPULATED CENSUS DESIGNATED
AREA, WITH OVER 118,000
RESIDENTS, 95.5 OF WHICH ARE
LATINO MEMBERS. I AM PROUD TO BE
FROM EAST L.A. AND PROUD TO BE A
PRODUCT OF EAST LOS ANGELES.
EAST LOS ANGELES IS THE HEART OF
CALIFORNIA'S LATINO COMMUNITY,
WHOSE CULTURE HAS INFLUENCED THE
WORLD AND CULTIVATED GENERATIONS
OF POLITICAL LEADERS,
ENTERTAINERS, ACTIVISTS AND
SCHOLARS. YET THIS VIBRANT
COMMUNITY IS WITHOUT A CITY
COUNCIL OR A MAYOR, LEAVING
RESIDENTS WITHOUT A LOCAL VOICE
IN GOVERNMENT. EAST L.A.
RESIDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY A
COUNTY SUPERVISOR WHO REPRESENTS
2 MILLION PEOPLE. THE STATE
ASSEMBLY AND THE STATE SENATE.
EAST L.A. IS AN ISLAND
SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF
MONTEREY PARK, THE CITY OF
COMMERCE, MONTEBELLO, MAYWOOD,
VERNON, AND, OF COURSE, THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, TO NAME A FEW.
UNLIKE OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, WHICH HAS
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD
COUNCILS WITH CITY APPROVED
BUDGETS FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS OR
MEETINGS RELATED TO PROJECTS IN
THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, EAST L.A.
DOES NOT HAVE THE EQUIVALENT.
WHAT IT DOES HAVE ARE GREAT
COMMUNITY LEADERS, TWO OF WHOM
YOU WILL HEAR FROM TODAY, WHO
VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME TO TRY TO
HAVE A BETTER CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
WITH THE COUNTY AND ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS OF MANY RESIDENTS.
TODAY. YOU WILL ALSO HEAR FROM
OUR WITNESSES RELATED TO THE
CHALLENGES RESIDENTS IN EAST LOS
ANGELES FACE, AND YOU WILL HEAR
THE OPPOSITE THÀNH AS TO WHY ALL
THE REASONS EAST LOS ANGELES
CANNOT SUSTAIN ITSELF. OVER THE
YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN RESOURCES
REYES BE STRIPPED AWAY FROM EAST
LOS ANGELES. IN PREVIOUS
REDISTRICTING, EAST LOS ANGELES
COLLEGE BECAME A PART OF
MONTEREY PARK. YET THE HOUSING
PROJECTS RIGHT NEXT TO THE
COLLEGE WERE LEFT IN EAST L.A.
OUR FAMOUS WHITTIER BOULEVARD,
WHERE EAST L.A. RESIDENTS SHOP,
AND A LARGE RETAILERS ON
WHITTIER BOULEVARD WERE THEN
DESIGNATED TO THE CITY OF
COMMERCE. I WANT TO BE CLEAR IN
SAYING THAT AB 2096 IS A
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON WHAT IS
POSSIBLE FOR EAST LOS ANGELES.
THE STUDY DOES NOT, CREATE A
MANDATE FOR CITYHOOD NOR SPECIAL
DISTRICTS. AND IT OF COURSE, IT
IS NOT TO DISCREDIT THE WORK
THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS
CONSTITUENTS THAT I REPRESENT
HAVE ASKED ME TO CARRY THIS
POLICY SO THAT EAST L.A.
STAKEHOLDERS AND ACTUAL
RESIDENTS HAVE A BETTER
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY.
THEY WANT TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THEY WANT TO
KNOW WHERE THEIR TAX DOLLARS ARE
BEING USED. THE COMMUNITY OF
EAST L.A. WANTS A STRONGER CIVIC
VOICE. YESTERDAY. I JUST WANT TO
CLEAR UP SOME THINGS THAT WERE
SAID IN THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. IT WAS DISCUSSED
THAT THE COUNTY BUDGET, HAS A
VERY IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE STATE. THAT WOULD BE US. THE
STATE PARTNERS. YET IN THE SAME
MEETING, THE SUPERVISOR SAID
THAT AB 2096 WAS A CUT AND AMEND
BILL DONE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT
AND IMPLIED THAT I WAS HIDING
SOMETHING. LET ME BE CLEAR I AM
NOT HIDING ANYTHING. THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS INCLUDES THE
INTRODUCTION OF WHAT WE KNOW ARE
SPOT BILLS, WHICH THEN ARE VERY
DEDICATED STAFF WORKED WITH
VILLAGE COUNCIL TO THEN INCLUDE
THAT POLICY INTO AMENDMENT INTO
THE BILL, WHICH ARE THEN PUT
INTO RULES COMMITTEE AND THEN
DISTRIBUTED TO THE VARIOUS
COMMITTEES IN THE LEGISLATURE.
UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS IS
IMPORTANT. SO THE NOTION THAT
THIS BILL WAS A CUT AND AMEND
AND DONE IN SECRET IS SIMPLY NOT
TRUE. AND I WOULD URGE THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS TO AVOID
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC, WHICH
WOULD THEN CREATE JUST SIMPLY A
DISTRUST IN GOVERNMENT.
SECONDLY, A PRESS RELEASE DONE
BY SUPERVISOR SOLIS OF THE FIRST
DISTRICT YESTERDAY SAID AB 2986
PLACES THE NEEDS OF EAST LOS
ANGELES VULNERABLE AND LOW
INCOME POPULATION WHO RELY ON
L.A. COUNTY SAFETY NET FOR
RESOURCES IN THE HANDS OF
SPECIAL INTERESTS. THE BILL
LOOKS TO CREATE A TASK FORCE
MADE UP OF STAKEHOLDERS TO AIM
TO DROWN OUT THE VOICES OF
RESIDENTS POSING A SIGNIFICANT
RISK OF GENTRIFICATION AND
DISPLACEMENT IN THE AREA. THIS
IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. SECTION
TWO OF SECTION 56 387 OF THE
POLICY READS AS FOLLOWS. LAFCO
SHALL ESTABLISH THE EAST LOS
ANGELES TASK FORCE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING AND
EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
OF INCORPORATION, THÀNH, OR
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL
DISTRICTS WITHIN EAST LOS
ANGELES, AND WOULD REQUIRE THE
TASK FORCE TO BE COMPOSED OF 11
MEMBERS APPOINTED BY LA LAFCO IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES. THIS BILL REQUIRES
THE TASK FORCE TO MEET
QUARTERLY, INCORPORATING ROBUST
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO DISCUSS
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF
INCORPORATION OR ESTABLISHING A
SPECIAL DISTRICT IN EAST L.A. AS
SPECIFIED. THIRDLY, LAFCO AND
L.A. COUNTY, THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS SUGGESTS THAT THERE
IS NO MONEY TO COVER THE COST OF
THIS POLICY OR THE STUDY.
HOWEVER HOWEVER, THE BILL VERY
FIRMLY STATES THAT THIS POLICY
IS, UPON APPROPRIATION OF THE
LEGISLATURE, AND ON THIS POINT I
WILL FINAL. I WILL FINALLY SAY
THAT THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN LOS ANGELES VOTED
TO OPPOSE AB 2986 BECAUSE IT
WOULD BE COSTLY. IT'S
UNFEASIBLE. THERE'S NO TAX
REVENUE. YET AT THE SAME TIME,
SIMULTANEOUSLY APPROVE DIRECTING
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
L.A. COUNTY TO ACTUALLY DO THE
VERY STUDY OR A SIMILAR VERSION
OF IT THAT IS DUE WITHIN 120
DAYS, TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY
OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT OR
POTENTIAL MUNICIPALITY FOR THE
CITY OF LOS, FOR EAST LOS
ANGELES. AND SO MEMBERS I'VE
DISTRIBUTED, I'VE ASKED THE
SERGEANTS TO DISTRIBUTE IT, TO
DISTRIBUTE LETTERS OF SUPPORT
THAT CAME IN JUST A COUPLE DAYS
AGO, AND WITHIN THE LAST FEW
DAYS TO THIS COMMITTEE. AND I
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR IN SAYING
THIS IS SIMPLY A STUDY BILL THAT
LOOKS TO SEE THE FUTURE OF EAST
LOS ANGELES AND I THINK
MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC AND
TRYING TO ENGAGE, IN PRACTICES
THAT ARE UNTRUE ABOUT THE POLICY
IS HOW WE LOSE CREDIT WITHIN OUR
COMMUNITIES AND HOW WE DISCREDIT
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. SO
AGAIN, THIS IS SIMPLY A STUDY
BILL HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT,
IS CHRISTY HERNANDEZ, CHAIR OF
THE MARAVILLA COMMUNITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. AND ISAIAS HERNANDEZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE EASTMONT
COMMUNITY CENTER. THANK YOU.
BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH YOUR
WITNESSES, I WANT TO CORRECT AN
ERROR ON MY PART, YOU SAID YOU
WERE PRESENTING AB 20, AB 1950,
BUT INDEED, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER
26 ON THE AGENDA, AB 2986. JUST
WANTED TO MAKE THAT CORRECTION.
WE ALSO ACHIEVED QUORUM NOW. SO
WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE ROLL FOR
QUORUM. AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED
WITH YOUR WITNESSES. OKAY. MADAM
CHAIR, PLEASE, MADAME CARILLO
CARILLO PRESENT. WALDRON.
WALDRON PRESENT. SALLY VALENCIA.
CORRE, CORRE. PRESENT PACHECO.
PACHECO. PRESENT. RAMOS WARD.
WARD PRESENT. WILSON WE HAVE A
QUORUM. PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR
FIRST WITNESS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS CHRISTY HERNANDEZ. AND
AS WE SAY AT GARFIELD HIGH
SCHOOL, I WAS HOMEGROWN IN EAST
LOS ANGELES. I'M A THIRD
GENERATION HOME HOMEOWNER IN
UNINCORPORATED EAST LOS ANGELES.
AND I'M ALSO THE CHAIRPERSON, AS
MENTIONED, OF THE MARAVILLA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
MKEK. HERE, WE CONVENE MEETINGS
BETWEEN EAST L.A. RESIDENTS AND
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS. I DO
THIS ON A VOLUNTEER BASIS, AS
DOES OUR WHOLE BOARD. WE ARE A
FULL TIME. WE WORK FULL TIME,
AND WE DO THIS ON OUR FREE TIME
BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT THE
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR LOCAL
RESIDENTS AND WANT TO INCREASE
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT. YOU SEE, AS
RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED AREA
, WE HAVE NO MAYOR, NO CITY
COUNCIL OR GOVERNING BOARD. OUR
MOST LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL IS
OUR L.A. COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISOR
, WHO, AS MENTIONED, REPRESENTS
2 MILLION PEOPLE. EVEN WITH THE
SUPERVISOR DOING THEIR BEST,
IT'S A LARGE DISTRICT TO COVER.
OUR COMMUNITY ALONE IS MADE UP
OF NEARLY 120,000 RESIDENTS.
EAST L.A. LACKS A LOCAL VOICE
SOLELY REPRESENTING OUR
COMMUNITY'S INTERESTS, NEEDS AND
PRIORITIES. AND THAT IS WHY I AM
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2986. THIS
BILL WOULD REQUIRE A FINANCIAL
STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED FOR
CALIFORNIA'S LARGEST
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY TO
DETERMINE OUR FISCAL HEALTH. AND
FOR THE FIRST TIME, CONSIDER THE
PROSPECT OF EAST L.A. BECOMING A
SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE LAST TIME
LAFCO CONDUCTED A FISCAL STUDY
FOR EAST LA, WE WERE RECOVERING
FROM THE GREAT RECESSION OF
2008. I WAS INVOLVED IN THAT
EFFORT, AND THOSE NUMBERS ARE
STILL BEING REFERRED TODAY,
REFERENCED TODAY. AND THAT'S
ECONOMIC DATA FROM 16 YEARS AGO.
THE SUPERVISOR DURING THAT TIME
PROMISED THE EAST L.A. COMMUNITY
ANNUAL UPDATES, WHICH WAS NEVER
FULFILLED. WE NEED CONSISTENCY
AND WANT TO BE GUARANTEED ANNUAL
FISCAL UPDATES REGARDLESS OF WHO
IS WHO THE L.A. COUNTY
SUPERVISOR IS, WE NEED A LEGACY
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
AS TAXPAYERS, WE DESERVE TO KNOW
WHERE AND HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS
ARE BEING SPENT. AND AS A
COMMUNITY, WE CURRENTLY DO NOT
AND HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO THAT
INFORMATION, LET ALONE A DIRECT
VOTE OR COUNCIL TO INFLUENCE THE
MATTER WITHOUT UNOFFICIAL,
UNOFFICIAL GOVERNING BODY OR ANY
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE FOR EAST
L.A, WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE
EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL DECISIONS
OVER COUNTY ORDINANCES,
INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO
HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT. I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY,
TO EXAMINE THE FISCAL HEALTH OF
EAST L.A. AND WHAT OPPORTUNITIES
ARE AVAILABLE TO CREATE A
DEDICATED ENTITY OR LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY MADE UP OF RESIDENT
STAKEHOLDERS, TO REPRESENT THE
BEST INTERESTS AND PRIORITIES OF
THE COMMUNITY. AND BEFORE I
FORGET, HAPPY BIRTHDAY MOM.
THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY NICE OF
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
MY NAME IS ISAIAS HERNANDEZ. I
AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
EASTMONT COMMUNITY CENTER, A
COMMUNITY BASED NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION ESTABLISHED IN EAST
L.A. SINCE 1968. SINCE ITS
INCEPTION, EASTMONT COMMUNITY
CENTER HAS PROVIDED DIRECT
SOCIAL SERVICES TO EAST LOS
ANGELES RESIDENTS AND THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. THIS
YEAR, THE ORGANIZATION
DISTRIBUTED OVER HALF 1 MILLION
POUNDS OF FOOD TO FAMILIES
EXPERIENCING FOOD INSECURITY.
WE'VE DISTRIBUTED OVER $200,000
IN DIRECT FINANCIAL PAYMENTS TO
ASSIST WITH UTILITY AND RENTAL
ASSISTANCE, AND WE'VE RETRIEVED
OVER $1.5 MILLION IN FEDERAL AND
STATE REFUNDS BY WAY OF OUR LOW
INCOME TAX PREPARATION PROGRAM.
AS YOU HEAR, EASTMONT HAS BEEN
DEEPLY ENTRENCHED IN THE
UNINCORPORATED EAST LOS ANGELES
COMMUNITY FOR 56 YEARS. WE ARE
AT THE FOREFRONT. WE ARE THE
BOOTS ON THE GROUND, PROVIDING
ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO OUR
RESIDENTS. WE ARE ALSO THOSE
SAME BOOTS ON THE GROUND WHO SEE
THE POTENTIAL OF EAST LOS
ANGELES SELF-DETERMINATION
AFFORDED BY AB 2986. HAVE YOU
HEARD OUR ROADS, OUR ROADS LEAD
TO ROME. WE SAY ALL ROADS LEAD
TO EAST LOS ANGELES WITH FIVE.
WITH FIVE HIGHWAYS TRAVERSING
OUR COMMUNITY. EAST EAST LOS
ANGELES IS SURROUNDED AND CUT
THROUGH BY AN EXTENSIVE FREEWAY
SYSTEM UNLIKE ANYWHERE ELSE IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, THE
COMMUNITY HAS PAID THE HIGHEST
PRICE, BOTH ECONOMICALLY,
SOCIALLY AND WITH OUR HEALTH. I
FOCUS ON THE FREEWAYS BECAUSE
THIS LEGACY HAS BEEN LEFT TO US
DUE TO THE LACK OF LOCAL
CONTROL. EAST LOS ANGELES IS A
VIBRANT COMMUNITY WITH ECONOMIC
DRIVERS REQUIRING STRATEGIC
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
THAT COULD ONLY BE REALIZED WITH
LONG RUNNING LOCAL CONTROL.
CONTROL OF OUR REVENUES MEANS
CONTROL OF PUBLIC POLICY, OF
INVESTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE,
LAND USE, PUBLIC SERVICES AND
PUBLIC SAFETY. HOW CAN EAST LOS
ANGELES BUILD SUSTAINABLE,
SUBSTANTIAL AND DIVERSIFIED
REVENUE SOURCES IF IT CANNOT
MAKE ECONOMIC, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS FOR
ITSELF? A DECADE AGO, WHEN LAFCO
REJECTED THE INCORPORATION OF
EAST LOS ANGELES, THEY NOR L.A.
COUNTY PROVIDED A PATH FORWARD
TO THE COMMUNITY TO EVER BECOME
FINANCIALLY STABLE, A COMMUNITY
LEFT WITHOUT DIRECTION OR
CONSIDERATION. OAN. NOT ONLY DO
WE SUPPORT AB 286, BUT WE ALSO
WOULD LIKE TO LET THE RECORD
REFLECT THAT WE OFFER A
FEASIBILITY STUDY TO BE
CONDUCTED BY AN INDEPENDENT
THIRD PARTY UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE EAST LOS ANGELES TASK
FORCE AND A ROBUST COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT FROM THE RESIDENTS OF
EAST LOS ANGELES. LASTLY,
ALTHOUGH EASTMONT HAS FOMENTED A
VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
LA COUNTY FIRST DISTRICT
SUPERVISORS OVER THE LAST FEW
DECADES, WE UNDERSTAND THE
LIMITATIONS TO THIS ELECTIVE.
OFFICIALS COME AND GO, BUT
RESIDENTS ARE THE ONES THAT
REMAIN. WE NEED A LAYER OF
GOVERNMENT SOLELY INVESTED IN
EAST LOS ANGELES. IT'S TIME.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
ROOM WANTS TO ADD IN SUPPORT?
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION, AND POSITION.
SHANNON SKERRY LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
WAY OF GREATER LOS ANGELES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? YOU CAN
STAY.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
HONORABLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS TAMI OMOTO FRIAS, AND I
AM THE SENIOR BUDGET DEPUTY FOR
SUPERVISOR HILDA SOLIS OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. ON BEHALF OF
SUPERVISOR SOLIS, I'M HERE TO
OPPOSE AB 2986, WHICH SEEKS TO
ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE TO
DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF
INCORPORATING EAST LOS ANGELES.
YESTERDAY, AS THE AUTHOR
MENTIONED, THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED SUPERVISOR
SOLIS'S MOTION A LEGISLATIVE
ACTION TO OPPOSE AB 2986 AND
DIRECT THE COUNTY TO ENGAGE
LAFCO, OUR LABOR PARTNERS, AND
ALL OF THE EAST LOS ANGELES
COMMUNITY, AND DEVELOP AN
ANALYSIS ON THE FISCAL VIABILITY
OF EAST LOS ANGELES
INCORPORATION. AND FINALLY, THE
MOTION DIRECTED THE COUNTY TO
LOOK INTO FORMING A MUNICIPAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL, OR TOWN
COUNCIL TO FURTHER EXPAND THE
LONG STANDING COMMUNITY ADVISORY
COUNCILS. OVER 22 RESIDENTS
ATTENDED THE MEETING IN PERSON
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
SUPERVISOR SOLIS MOTION, WITH 16
MORE CALLING IN AND TWO SUPPORT
LETTERS RECEIVED AND NOW,
ALTHOUGH AB 2986 IS BEING
AMENDED TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT
TO LAFCO, THERE ARE STILL
FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS WITH WHAT
THE TASK FORCE IS BEING
INSTRUCTED TO DO. THE BILL
REQUIRES THE TASK FORCE, NOT
LAFCO, TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS
AND REPORT BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE. THE BILL DOES NOT
DESCRIBE ANY ROLE OR ENGAGEMENT
FOR LAFCO OR THE COUNTY. OTHER
THAN ESTABLISHING THE MEMBERS OF
THE TASK FORCE. WE BELIEVE THIS
WAS THE INTENT OF THE BILL AND
WHY IT WAS NOT SHARED WITH
LAFCO, THE COUNTY OR SUPERVISOR.
SOLIS, WHO IS THE GOVERNING BODY
OF EAST LA. ANY ANALYSIS TO
INCORPORATE OR CREATE A SPECIAL
DISTRICT SHOULD BE LED BY LAFCO
AND INCLUDE COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDER INPUT, NOT THE OTHER
WAY AROUND. LAFCO WAS
ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE TO VET
THESE TYPES OF JURISDICTIONAL
PROPOSALS AND AS PER LAFCOS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL NOVAK,
AB 2986 PUTS LAFCO IN THE
POSITION OF PROPOSING FORMATION,
MAKING LAFCO BOTH AN APPLICANT
AND THE APPROVING AUTHORITY, AND
THE COUNTY MUST BE INCLUDED IN
THE ANALYSIS, SINCE IT IS THE
COUNTY THAT COLLECTS THE TAXES
AND PROVIDES THE SERVICES. AND
IF WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES, OUR LABOR
PARTNERS MUST ALSO BE AT THE
TABLE, BECAUSE THIS WOULD HAVE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OUR
WORKFORCE AND THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS, OUR COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE ENGAGED
AND ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE,
HEARD AND KEPT UPDATED. BUT AS
STATED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, LAFCOS RECENT STUDY,
MOST RECENT STUDY IN 2012 SHOWED
THAT EAST L.A. DOES NOT GENERATE
SUFFICIENT TAX REVENUE TO
SUSTAIN CITYHOOD AS REQUIRED BY
STATE LAW. THIS WOULD MEAN EAST
L.A. RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES
WOULD NEED TO EITHER INCREASE
TAXES OR REDUCE SERVICE LEVELS,
WHICH WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO
THE MOST VULNERABLE LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE
COMMUNITY. A CITY COULD ALSO
CONSIDER OUTSOURCING THESE
SERVICES TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT
A REDUCTION IN THE QUALITY OF
SERVICES SINCE THEY WOULD NO
LONGER BE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY
WORKFORCE, AND FOR THESE REASONS
, SUPERVISOR SOLIS STANDS WITH
LAFCO. THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, OUR LABOR PARTNERS,
CAPE, SEIU 721, LOCAL 1014 AND
ALEJO'S AND AFSCME, AS WELL AS
SEVERAL LOS ANGELES EAST LOS
ANGELES COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AND
TOGETHER WE OPPOSE AB 2986.
THANK YOU. SECOND WITNESS. MR.
MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS WILLIE
PELOTE AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING
MY CLIENT, ASKED ME LOCAL 685
DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICE OF L.A.
COUNTY. AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT
OPPOSED TO THE BILL AS WELL.
BASED ON WHAT MY COLLEAGUE HERE
STATED BASED ON THAT'S HAPPENING
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHAT OUR
CONCERN IS, IS THAT WHEN WE TAKE
A LOOK AT WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE
OVER THE YEARS, THERE'S BEEN AT
LEAST TWO TIMES THAT THE VOTERS
HAVE SAID NO TO THIS. WE BELIEVE
STRONGLY THAT IF THAT'S NOT
ENOUGH, WHY SHOULD THE
LEGISLATURE GET INVOLVED IN THE
FIRST PLACE? WHY SHOULD WE BRING
IT TO SACRAMENTO? AND EVEN
KNOWING THAT THE TAX BASE IS NOT
THERE TO SUPPORT A CITY AND THEN
HAVING LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAKING
SURE THAT THOSE SERVICES, WHICH
ARE THE MEMBERS THAT I REPRESENT
AND LIVE IN EAST L.A, THOSE ARE
OUR JOBS, WHETHER WE PREPARE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE STREETS, THE
ROAD, THE BRIDGES, THE SCHOOLS,
THE PARKS, THE LIBRARIES, ALL OF
THAT, THOSE SERVICES ARE
AVAILABLE TO THE 119,000 MEMBERS
IN EAST L.A, WHICH ARE MY
MEMBERS AS WELL. AND SO I'VE
JOINED WITH 7 TO 1 TO COME HERE
TODAY TO SAY THAT WE'RE OPPOSED.
WE DON'T THINK THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED
IN THIS, BECAUSE LEAVE IT TO THE
VOTERS. TAKE IT BACK TO THE
VOTERS. THEY'VE ALREADY SAID NO
TWICE. LET THEM MAKE THE CHOICE
IF THEY WANT TO INCORPORATE INTO
A CITY AND THEN IF THEY NEED TO,
BECAUSE IF THAT HAPPENS, THEY
MAY NEED TO RAISE REVENUES IN
ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE
SERVICES THAT ARE NOW BEING
PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES ARE BEING PROVIDED
UNDERNEATH THIS NEW INCORPORATED
CITY. WE HAVE TO TAKE THOSE
THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION. WHEN
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I HAVE
SYMPATHY WITH EVERYTHING THAT
I'VE HEARD HERE FROM THE
PROPONENTS, BUT I THINK IN THE
END OF THE DAY, IT SHOULD BE THE
VOTERS THAT GET TO DECIDE IF
THEY WANT TO. AND SO LET TAKE IT
BACK TO THEM AGAIN, LET THEM
DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO PUT IT ON
THE BALLOT AND HAVE A VOTE OF
THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, THE
RESIDENTS THERE THAT INCLUDE
WORKING FAMILIES. YOU KNOW,
OFTENTIMES WHEN THESE TYPE OF
THINGS HAPPEN, WHAT HAPPENS IS
PRETTY SOON WE HAVE A CITY COME
IN THAT CAN'T THEN GENERATE THE
REVENUES. WHAT HAPPENED TO MY
WORKERS CONTRACTING OUT,
PRIVATIZATION, OUTSOURCING. THEY
LIVED THERE. WE DON'T NEED TO DO
THIS BECAUSE THE VOTERS SHOULD
HAVE THE FINAL SAY. AND LET'S
JUST LET IF THEY WANT TO PUT IT
ON THE BALLOT, LET THEM PUT IT
ON THE BALLOT. BASED ON THAT,
WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE BILL. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM
THAT WANTS TO ADD ON IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MARCIE, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. KIRA
BARNETT, ASSISTANT DEPUTY
DIRECTOR REPRESENTING DIRECTOR
MARK PETRELLA WITH L.A. COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE
LEADERSHIP OF SUPERVISOR SOLIS,
WE'VE ENHANCED CENTRAL SERVICES
AND UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES,
INCLUDING EAST LOS ANGELES. AND
ON BEHALF OF L.A. COUNTY, I
OPPOSE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER COLLURA. THANK
YOU. AND CLEARLY, THIS IS A AN
ISSUE THAT'S NOT IN MY PHYSICAL
JURISDICTION, BUT YOU KNOW, I
CERTAINLY AM ALWAYS ONE THAT
BOTH CARES ABOUT WORK AND
WORKERS AND THE ABILITY FOR
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. BUT
ALSO DEEPLY CARE ABOUT
RESIDENTS. AND, YOU KNOW, HAVING
BEING EMPOWERED IN THEIR OWN
COMMUNITY. AND I JUST WANT TO I
NOTICED YOU WERE SHAKING YOUR
HEAD WHEN THERE WAS COMMENTS
ABOUT IT BEING PUT UP FOR A
VOTE, DO YOU HAS IT SO IT'S BEEN
PUT UP FOR A VOTE A COUPLE OF
TIMES IN THE PAST. SO THERE HAVE
BEEN FIVE DIFFERENT ATTEMPTS, I
WAS REALLY INVOLVED IN THE LAST,
TRYING TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT
WHAT CITYHOOD COULD LOOK LIKE IN
2012. BUT 2012 WAS THE LAST,
2012 WAS THE LAST WAS THE LAST
EFFORT. IT NEVER GOT AS FAR AS
TO GET ONTO THE BALLOT. SO FOR
THEM TO SAY THAT IT WENT TO THE
VOTERS, THAT'S NOT TRUE, BECAUSE
LAFCO THE COMMISSION, WAS VOTED
DOWN. THERE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON
WHO VOTED IN FAVOR, SO IT
STOPPED THERE. AND IT NEVER WENT
FORWARD TO THE BALLOT SO THAT
THE RESIDENTS COULD MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION. OKAY, AND TO THE
AUTHOR, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS,
ASKING, LAFCO TO ESTABLISH THIS
TASK FORCE TO IDENTIFY AND
EVALUATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM
CORPORATE. SO IT'S BASICALLY
LIKE THEY'LL DO THE DEEP DIVE
AND COME OUT WITH A REPORT THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEN LAFCO
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY CAN LOOK AT THAT
AND THEN MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO
WHETHER WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, IF
ANYTHING AFTER THAT IS THAT
CORRECT? YES. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THAT IS
CORRECT. WE'RE ASKING LAFCO TO
LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY, LOOK AT
A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE
TWO THINGS. THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
EAST LOS ANGELES TO BECOME A
SPECIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS A
VERY DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN ITS
OWN MUNICIPALITY. WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME STUDYING IF IT EVEN
HAS THE ABILITY TO BECOME A
MUNICIPALITY. WE'RE ASKING FOR
FINANCIAL DATA. SO ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES AND SOME OF THE
OBSTACLES THAT HAVE BEEN SAID IS
THAT EAST LOS ANGELES DOES NOT
HAVE IT'S A LARGE TAX BASE.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE A LOT OF
COUNTY BUILDINGS THAT ARE TAXED
EXEMPT IN EAST LOS ANGELES. SO
THAT ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO THE
REALITY THAT WE'RE NOT
GENERATING ANY REVENUE OR
ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN TAXES AND
IN SEVERAL REDISTRICTING
EFFORTS, AREAS THAT WOULD
GENERATE A TAX BASE FOR EAST LOS
ANGELES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO OTHER
CITIES THAT ARE ALREADY
INCORPORATED. SO WE ARE SEEING
THE COMMUNITY OF EAST LOS
ANGELES SLOWLY BE CHIPPED AWAY
OF ITS POTENTIAL TAX REVENUE. WE
WANT TO STUDY THAT SAYS, HERE'S
WHAT'S POSSIBLE, NOT A STUDY
THAT SAYS, HERE'S ALL THE
REASONS WHY YOU CAN'T DO IT, WHY
DON'T YOU WORK WITH THE
RESIDENTS AND SAY, HERE'S HOW
IT'S POSSIBLE, HERE'S HOW WE CAN
POTENTIALLY INCREASE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, ADD ADDITIONAL TAX
BASES, WORK WITH THE RESIDENTS
WHO, BY THE WAY, THAT 11 PERSON
TASK FORCE IS IN COLLABORATION
WITH LAFCO, APPOINTED BY LAFCO
IN COLLABORATION WITH L.A.
COUNTY. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO,
YOU KNOW, NOT WORK WITH THE
ALREADY EXISTING GOVERNING BODY.
WE SIMPLY ARE SAYING THE PEOPLE,
THE RESIDENTS OF EAST LOS
ANGELES DESERVE TO HAVE A SEAT
AT THE TABLE TO ESTABLISH
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND
ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES AND SEE
A FINANCIAL TRANSPARENT REPORT
ANNUALLY, AS WAS PROMISED, AND
HAS NEVER BEEN FULFILLED FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION,
THEIR OWN DETERMINATION AND
FINALLY PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
MR. POLOTE, I 100% AGREE WITH
YOU. I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH
YOU. LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. BUT
IF THE VOTERS DON'T HAVE THE
INFORMATION, THE DATA, THE
STUDY, HOW WILL IT EVER GET TO
THE VOTERS? AND THE IT'S
ACTUALLY AN INTERESTING POINT ON
THE TAX BASE, BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT'S AN ARGUMENT USED AGAINST
STATEHOOD FOR D.C. IS THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF A TAX BASE.
WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S SO
MANY FEDERAL BUILDINGS THERE
THAT THEY DON'T GET PROPERTY TAX
OR OTHER KINDS OF TAXES FROM,
AND, AND A REPORT OUT OR A TASK
FORCE STUDY WITH THE REPORT OUT
COULD SHOW THAT MAYBE THERE
ISN'T ENOUGH TAX BASE AND THAT
COULD BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT
AGAINST A BALLOT INITIATIVE,
TOO. SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT LIKE
THE RESULTS FROM THIS ARE
NECESSARILY GOING TO LEAD TO,
INCORPORATING AS ITS OWN
MUNICIPALITY. IT COULD VERY WELL
GIVE OTHER INFORMATION ON HOW
YOU CAN LIKE, LIKE REVITALIZE
THE ECONOMY OF THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY THERE WHILE IT REMAINS
WHILE IT DOESN'T GET
INCORPORATED LIKE THERE'S A LOT
OF OPTIONS HERE, I PRESUME THAT
THAT COULD BE THE OUTCOME. AND I
JUST WANT TO GIVE THE AUTHOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS ON THIS. I KNOW
THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW
, WE ALL WORK WITH THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES IS AN IMPORTANT
PARTNER, NOT JUST FOR THOSE IN
L.A, BUT FOR THE STATE. SO THIS
IS NOT A MATTER OF CHOOSING
SIDES. I THINK IT'S MORE OF A
MATTER OF LIKE, YOU KNOW,
ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU
TO, IN MY OPINION, MOVE THIS
FORWARD, HAVE HAVE MORE VETTING,
HAVE MORE OPPOSITION CRITIQUES
OF IT, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS A BAD
THING, BUT AT LEAST ALLOWS THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE THAT LIVE
THERE, THAT THAT WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THIS HAPPEN, BE HEARD AS
WELL, AND SO I'LL CERTAINLY
SUPPORT IT TODAY TO ALLOW YOU
THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND MOVE THE BILL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD. THANK YOU,
SO ONE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT
TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
ASKING, THE SUBJECT AREA THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITHIN EAST
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITIES, IS THAT
WHOLLY WITHIN YOUR ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT OR DOES THAT CROSS
BOUNDARIES TO ANY OTHER
COLLEAGUE? GREAT QUESTION.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. IT'S ONLY
WITHIN MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT. IT
DOES NOT IMPACT ANYONE ELSE IN
AN AREA OF INFLUENCE, SAY LIKE,
YOU KNOW, MAYBE AS A RIGHT ON
THE BORDER, ARE THERE OTHER
COLLEAGUES? I KNOW YOU'RE THE
ONLY AUTHOR, TO DATE, ON THIS.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE MIGHT BE SOME KIND OF,
LIKE, REGIONAL AWARENESS, MAYBE,
OR AT LEAST NO OPPOSITION THAT
YOU'RE AWARE OF. I'M SORRY. HAVE
YOU CONSULTED ANY COLLEAGUES
THAT, LIKE, MIGHT BE, MIGHT,
MIGHT FIND THIS OF INTEREST,
GIVEN THAT IT'S A VERY
HYPERLOCAL, LONG STANDING ISSUE
FROM THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I
HAVE HAD WITH COLLEAGUES, ONE,
THERE HAS BEEN A SURPRISE
REACTION THAT EAST L.A. IS NOT A
CITY, THAT EAST L.A. TWO IS NOT
PART OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
THAT EAST L.A. HAS NO LOCAL
REPRESENTATION OUTSIDE OF THE
SUPERVISOR, THE STATE ASSEMBLY
AND THE STATE SENATE. SO
OVERALL, THERE'S BEEN A GENERAL
AWARENESS CAMPAIGN. AND EVEN
WITHIN THE RESIDENTS OF EAST LOS
ANGELES, SOME THINK THAT THEY
ARE A PART OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, BECAUSE OFTENTIMES WE
HAVE OTHER ELECTED LEADERS FROM
WITHIN THE CITY OF L.A. COME TO
EAST LA TO ASK FOR SUPPORT, TO
GET THE VOTE OUT, TO GET LATINO
VOTER ENGAGEMENT, SINCE WE ARE
VERY HYPER, HYPER LOCAL LATINO
COMMUNITY WITH A LOT OF
HISTORICAL POLITICAL BACKGROUND.
AND SO SOMETIMES THERE IS
CONFUSION, EVEN WITHIN EAST L.A.
RESIDENTS, THAT THEY ARE A PART
OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. AND
THEN THERE'S A BIG SURPRISE IS
WHEN, NO, YOU DON'T HAVE A CITY
COUNCIL MEMBER. AND NO, YOU'RE
NOT VOTING FOR MAYOR. YEAH, I
CERTAINLY A STUDY. AND THAT'S
ALL THAT THIS DOES, HELPS TO
PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
ULTIMATELY, ANY DECISION ON
INCORPORATING WOULD HAVE TO GO
BEFORE VOTERS SO THAT CAN BE
HELPFUL JUST TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE. BECAUSE
CLEARLY THIS IS A CONVERSATION
THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR MORE
THAN A DECADE. AND I'M WONDERING
TO THOSE THAT ARE HERE IN
TESTIMONY RESIDENTS, SORT OF
WHAT WHAT ARE YOU HOPING TO
MAYBE ACHIEVE THAT YOU'RE NOT
FEELING THAT YOU'RE GETTING
RIGHT NOW? LIKE, WHY THIS LONG
STANDING SORT OF STALEMATE IN
THIS, THIS DRIVE TO INCORPORATE?
THANK YOU. SO, I'VE BEEN, LIKE I
MENTIONED, LONG TIME RESIDENT
AND, I THINK ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ASPECTS IS THAT THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES, BUT THERE'S NO
CENTRALIZED LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
WHERE WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND
SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE DON'T
HAVE A COMMUNITY PLAN IN PLACE.
FOR EXAMPLE, COMMUNITY PLAN THAT
SAYS, HEY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
WE, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING OF TAX
BASE, WE'RE SEEING A NUMBER OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND JUST
DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL, WHICH WE
KNOW ARE SUBSIDIZED, WE HAVE NO
SAY IN THAT A NUMBER OF THE
ORDINANCES THAT ARE PASSED
THROUGH L.A. COUNTY, THEY'RE
MAKING DECISIONS FOR ALL
UNINCORPORATED AREAS BECAUSE,
AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A CITY
COUNCIL OR A MAYOR AND MANY
TIMES, YOU KNOW, WE DO TRY AND
MAKE OUR VOICE HEARD AND LET
THEM KNOW THAT WE ARE IN SUPPORT
OR OPPOSITION OR IN OPPOSITION
OF A CERTAIN ORDINANCE, AND WE
FEEL LIKE OUR VOICES ARE SORT OF
DROWNED OUT BECAUSE, THEY, WE
JUST FEEL MARGINALIZED. AND
THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR
DECADES, YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO
OTHER FOLKS ON OUR BOARD AND IT
JUST SEEMS TO BE, A VERY COMMON,
SENTIMENT. SO WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT THERE IS
ENGAGEMENT, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, AS
WE MENTIONED, IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW
WELL THE SUPERVISORS ARE DOING,
BUT IT'S THE FACT THAT THEY
REPRESENT 2 MILLION PEOPLE.
WE'RE 120,000 RESIDENTS. THERE
ARE OTHER CITIES, WHICH MUCH
LESS, SMALLER POPULATIONS THAT
ARE CITIES. AND IT'S ABOUT BEING
ABLE TO COME TOGETHER AND, YOU
KNOW, THE OTHER FOLKS ARE MAKING
DECISIONS FOR US ON OUR BEHALF.
AND I THINK IT'S ONLY RIGHT THAT
WE AS RESIDENTS ARE INVOLVED.
AND PART OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
AND THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.
YEAH, AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF I'M
BEING HONEST, THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE'VE HAD OUR MEETINGS AND WE'VE
ASKED, SUPERVISOR TO ATTEND OUR
MEETINGS AND WE'VE ASKED THE
STAFF, AND WE STILL HAVEN'T SEEN
HER OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. SO
THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WE WANT
THAT DIRECT ACCESS TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS. BUT OUR OUR
RESIDENTS, HOMEOWNERS, BUSINESS
OWNERS FEEL LIKE VOICELESS AND
POWERLESS. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
WORST FEELINGS YOU COULD EVER
FEEL THAT YOU CANNOT GO TO YOUR
LOCAL BODY AND ENTITY AND FEEL
LIKE YOU'RE BEING HEARD. WHEN
OUR QUALITY OF LIFE IS BEING
IMPACTED ON A DAILY BASIS. WELL,
AND I JUST, AGAIN, ALL THIS, YOU
KNOW, CAN CERTAINLY, COME FROM
DISCUSSION THAT THAT'S BASED ON
INFORMATION THAT SUCH A STUDY
WOULD PRODUCE, BUT, YOU KNOW,
BEING CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
SOMETIMES IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE
DIFFICULT TO FULLY HAVE
EVERYTHING, WITHIN MAYBE COMING
DOWN TO A TAX BASE ISSUE, AS
OPPOSED TO WHAT COUNTY SERVICES
CAN OTHERWISE. I'M THINKING IN
MY COUNTY FOR EXAMPLE, A LOT OF
OUR UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
HAVE GREAT LIBRARIES, HAVE GREAT
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE SHERIFF'S,
OUTPOST. I GUESS, OR DIFFERENT
DIFFERENT, SUBSTATIONS, VERSUS,
YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FORM THE TAX
BASE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT
FOR YOURSELF. BUT AGAIN, ALL
THAT COMES THROUGH, I THINK, YOU
KNOW, THE INFORMATION THAT THIS
COULD AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT
TOO. AND WE AND WE FEEL, YOU
KNOW, IT'S SORRY I'D ENCOURAGE
THE, THE AUTHOR TO JUST CONTINUE
TO MAKE SURE THERE'S, YOU KNOW,
KIND OF GROWING SUPPORT LOCALLY,
FOR, FOR THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
SEE THE STUDY ALL THE WAY
THROUGH TO MAYBE GIVE OTHER
COLLEAGUES IN SUBSEQUENT VOTES,
YOU KNOW, MORE CONFIDENCE THAT
THIS IS THE, YOU KNOW, WORTHY TO
GET BEHIND BECAUSE OF THAT LOCAL
POWER. AND FOR THAT REASON, I
WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF YOU
TODAY AS WELL, TO SORT OF SEE
WHERE THIS GOES, AND YOU
MENTIONED ONE OTHER QUESTION.
YOU MENTIONED THAT POSSIBLY AN
OUTCOME OF THE STUDY COULD BE A
SPECIAL DISTRICT, VERY DIFFERENT
OUTCOME THERE. WHAT A SPECIAL
DISTRICT FOR WHAT? FOR
UTILITIES, FOR THEIR CARE. SURE.
THERE IS A SPECIAL DISTRICT
ASSOCIATION ACTUALLY THAT IS
HERE TESTIFYING ON OTHER BILLS.
IT'S A SECONDARY WAY OF HAVING
LOCAL LOCAL ELECTED
REPRESENTATION THAT CAN ALSO
WORK WITH THE COUNTY, WITHOUT
THE AREA BECOMING ITS OWN CITY.
IF IT'S TOO FAR FETCHED BASED
ON, TAX TAX REVENUE, WE HAVE A
SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR A VERY
PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH A VERY
NARROW MISSION, RIGHT. AS
OPPOSED TO FORMING A
MUNICIPALITY. BUT I'LL LOOK
FORWARD TO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF
SEEING WHERE THIS CONVERSATION
GOES. AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
YOU TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER. I'M SORRY. OH,
YES, SO, I FIND THIS VERY
INTERESTING. IT'S NOT WITHIN.
IT'S NEAR MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT,
BUT NOT I DON'T BORDER THIS AREA
, WHAT WHAT I ALWAYS FOUND
INTERESTING IS EAST LA IS
UNINCORPORATED, YET YOU HAVE
BOYLE HEIGHTS, WHICH IS PART OF
CITY OF LA. SO I ALWAYS FOUND
THAT VERY INTERESTING. AND I
KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
CONFUSED ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M
CURIOUS TO KNOW, THE LAST TIME
THIS WAS TRIED WAS IN 2012. IT
NEVER ACTUALLY WENT BEFORE THE
VOTERS PRIOR TO THAT, DID IT GO
BEFORE THE VOTERS THE FIRST TIME
AROUND? IF YOU RECOLLECT IT,
BECAUSE TWO TIMES WERE MENTIONED
TWICE, THERE'S IN FIVE TIMES FOR
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S BEEN
PROPOSED FOR INCORPORATION, BUT
ONLY ONE TIME, I THINK IN 1963
IS WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY REJECTED
BY VOTERS. THAT WAS THE ONLY
TIME FROM ITS HISTORY ALL THE
OTHER TIMES IT HASN'T GONE UP
FOR VOTE, AND THEN JUST TO
REITERATE SOME COMMENTS EARLIER,
THE FROM THE LAST FISCAL STUDY,
I THINK THIS IS I THINK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WARREN MADE A PERFECT
POINT IS WE WANT TO SEE THE
FINANCIAL REVENUE AND EXPENSES,
IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT EAST
UNINCORPORATED EAST LOS ANGELES
COULD BE PAYING A HIGHER
PROPORTION OF FEES FOR CONTRACT
SERVICES THAN ANY OTHER CITY.
CITIES ARE ALLOWED TO CONTRACT
AND NEGOTIATE THAT. DOES IT
INCORPORATE EAST L.A, HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY? WE DON'T KNOW, SO
WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR A FISCAL
ANALYSIS THAT IT'S FAIR. AND I'M
PERSONALLY REQUESTING AN
INDEPENDENT FISCAL ANALYSIS,
THAT ALLOWS EAST L.A. RESIDENTS
TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS, SOME OF
THOSE RECEIPTS, WITH,
UNFORTUNATELY LAFCO. SO, BUT
YES, I FROM MY UNDERSTANDING,
IT'S ONLY GONE UP ONCE. AND IN
THE CONVERSATION, WE'RE
CONVERSATIONS, HELD WITH
SUPERVISOR SOLIS PRIOR TO THE
INTRODUCTION OF THIS BILL,
STAKEHOLDERS HAVE BEEN
ATTEMPTING TO SPEAK TO THE
SUPERVISORS FOR MANY YEARS. PART
OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS POLICY ASKED HER
TO DO IT FIVE YEARS AGO, AND
THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL TRACTION
DONE TO THAT. I SPOKE WITH THOSE
SAME STAKEHOLDERS AT A EAST LA
CHAMBER BREAKFAST, WHICH WE
SHOULD ALL ATTEND IN OUR
COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT WE
REPRESENT. AND I WAS ASKED TO
CONSIDER IT. I WAS A, YOU KNOW,
A VOLUNTEER IN 2012, ALONGSIDE
WITH CHRISTY AND SEVERAL DÍAS
AND SEVERAL OTHERS, TO GATHER
THE SIGNATURES IN 2012 TO SEE
THE FINANCIAL STUDY AND
FEASIBILITY FOR EAST LOS
ANGELES, I I'VE CONNECTED WITH
THE SUPERVISOR, IN PERSON AND WE
HAVE NOT HAD THE CONVERSATION.
I'VE REACHED OUT TO HER MULTIPLE
TIMES, LEFT HER VOICEMAILS. SHE
HAS NOT RETURNED MY CALL. AND
I'M JUST CURIOUS FROM THE
OPPOSITION, SO YOU'RE AGAINST
HAVING THIS STUDY DONE? NONE AT
ALL. NO, IT'S NOT THE STUDY.
IT'S THE WHO IS DOING THE STUDY
AND WHAT THE STUDY IS ACTUALLY
LOOKING AT. IT'S NOT THAT LAFCO
IS IN THE BILL TO DO THE STUDY.
THE TASK FORCE IS THE ONE THAT'S
RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THE
ANALYSIS OR SOMEHOW DOING THE
ANALYSIS AND REPORTING IT TO THE
LEGISLATURE. THE PEOPLE THAT
NEED TO BE AT THE TABLE WHEN WE
DO THE ANALYSIS IS THE COUNTY,
BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS ALL THE
DATA AND LAFCO WHO IS ACTUALLY
RESPONSIBLE AND ESTABLISHED BY
THE STATE TO DO THE VETTING OF
THESE TYPE OF PROPOSALS. BUT THE
WAY THAT THIS HAS COME FORWARD,
WHERE A TASK FORCE IS GOING TO
BE DRIVING ALL OF IT, IT MAKES
IT PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T ENSURE THAT THE
APPROPRIATE PEOPLE ARE AT THE
TABLE. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT
THIS DATA, THE STUDY THAT COMES
TO THE LEGISLATURE IS ONLY AS
GOOD AS THE DATA THAT THEY
RECEIVE. AND THAT'S WHY WE THINK
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT IT
NOT BE LED BY THE TASK FORCE,
BUT THAT THE TASK FORCE DOES
HAVE A ROLE. WE DEFINITELY WANT
TO HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY. THAT
IS NOT THE CASE. I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION
EARLIER ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES IT
WAS VOTED DOWN. THIS IS THE
FIFTH ATTEMPT. THE FIRST TWO,
THERE WERE TWO ATTEMPTS THAT
WERE VOTED DOWN BY THE VOTERS.
ONE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT
SIGNATURES AND DID NOT MOVE
FORWARD. AND THE LAST ONE WAS
DETERMINED BY LAFCO TO NOT HAVE
SUFFICIENT FUNDING BASE A
REVENUE BASE. JUST TO MAKE THE
RECORD CLEAR. AND THEN, SO THE
TWO TIMES IT'S, IT'S SUPPOSEDLY
WENT TO THE VOTERS, BUT ONE OF
THEM, IT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH
SIGNATURES TIMES. IT WAS VOTED
DOWN ONE TIME IT DIDN'T GO TO
THE VOTERS BECAUSE IT DIDN'T
HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES. AND THE
MOST RECENT TIME IN 2012, LAFCO
DETERMINED THERE WAS NOT A
SUFFICIENT TAX BASE. WAS THERE
EVER, SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT
WHERE ACTUALLY VOTERS VOTED FOR
IT? YES TWICE IS VOTED DOWN
TWICE, BUT SO IT WAS ON THE
BALLOT TWICE. IT WAS VOTED ON.
AND THIS IS FROM THE 1960S AND
THROUGH THE DECADES AHEAD.
RIGHT. THE MOST RECENT TIME THAT
THIS CAME UP WAS IN 2012 WITH
LAFCO. AND IT DID NOT COME TO
THE VOTERS BECAUSE LAFCO
DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS
INSUFFICIENT FUNDING. ALSO I
JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO SUPERVISOR SOLIS
ALWAYS. AND SO NO MATTER WHAT
THE PROCESS, WERE IT TO BE WITH
A COUNTY STUDY AND WE WILL GO
FORWARD WITH THE COUNTY STUDY,
WE WILL ALWAYS INCLUDE THE
STAKEHOLDERS. IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE HEAR FROM OUR RESIDENTS.
SO I JUST WANT TO ALSO,
ACKNOWLEDGE ONE OF THE OTHER
QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS WHETHER OR
NOT THE AUTHOR HAD HAD
APPROACHED OUR OFFICE AND THE
AUTHOR HAD NOT AT THAT TIME,
WHEN THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED OR
WHEN THE BILL WAS AMENDED, NOT
THE LAFCO OR THE COUNTY OR THE
SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE HAD BEEN
ADDRESSED OR HAD BEEN HAD SHARED
THE BILL AHEAD OF AHEAD OF TIME.
AND I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THE
APPROPRIATE PEOPLE ARE AT THE
TABLE WITH THE COUNTY. BE OKAY
WITH HAVING THIS STUDY DONE?
WELL, WE ARE. WE ARE. THE
SUPERVISOR DID A MOTION TO DO
THE STUDY, TO DO A STUDY AND
ANALYSIS. SO WE WILL BE AT THE
AT THE TABLE OBVIOUSLY, AND
LAFCO. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
WE ARE DOING SEPARATE AND APART
FROM THE BILL. SO THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WAS DECIDED AT
THE LAST NIGHT'S MEETING. AT THE
BOARD MEETING AT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS MEETING. YES AND
MAYBE I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE
AUTHOR. SINCE YOU WATCHED THE
BOARD MEETING LAST NIGHT, I KNOW
YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS BILL WAS
OPPOSED AND THAT THERE WAS GOING
TO BE A STUDY IF I'M CORRECT.
THAT IS CORRECT. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. SO LET ME JUST CLARIFY
THE RECORD. LAFCO AND L.A.
COUNTY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH
OUR OFFICE AND CONVERSATIONS
SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS
POLICY. WE CAN SHOW YOU THE
EMAILS. WE CAN SHOW YOU THE
RECEIPTS, WHETHER THAT
INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CHANNELS AT YOU
KNOW, THE WAY THAT SACRAMENTO
WORKS WITH LA COUNTY, THAT'S A
WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION.
WHETHER YOU KNOW THE SUPERVISOR
DOES NOT WANT TO ENGAGE IN
CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT,
THAT'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION AS
WELL. YESTERDAY'S BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, MOTION, SUPERVISOR
SOLIS MADE A MOTION TO OPPOSE
THIS POLICY, WHILE AT THE SAME
TIME, WORKING ON HER OWN POLICY,
WHICH I READ, IN MY EARLIER
REMARKS, THAT ACTUALLY DOES A
PORTION OF THE BILL. AND WE'RE
ACTUALLY THANKFUL THAT THE
SUPERVISOR IS LISTENING TO THE
VOICES OF RESIDENTS THAT WANT TO
SEE THE FEASIBILITY STUDY. WE'RE
GRATEFUL FOR THAT. AND I THINK
THAT'S A GOOD A GOOD DIRECTION.
BUT SHE'S DIRECTING THE CHIEF
OFFICE, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICE, MUNICIPAL AND
UNINCORPORATED AREA SERVICES TO
ENGAGE LAFCO LABOR PARTNERS AND
RELEVANT COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO
REPORT WITHIN 120 DAYS IN
WRITING. THE COUNTY AND
CONSULTANT COSTS RELATED TO THE
PAST TWO LA INCORPORATION
STUDIES, WITH ESTIMATED
PROJECTED COST IN 2024. IMPACTS
AND DIVERSIONS TO OTHER
RESOURCES. REYES UNDER LAFCO
PURVIEW. IMPACTS ON RESOURCES,
STUDIES, PROGRAMS, AND COUNTY
PURVIEW SUMMARY OF FINDINGS,
ETC. SO THERE IS A PORTION OF
THE BILL THAT THE COUNTY IS
MOVING FORWARD WITH. HOWEVER FOR
THE VOICES OF RESIDENTS IN THIS
PROCESS IS STILL MISSING. IT IS
STILL A TOP DOWN STRUCTURE THAT
DOES NOT ALLOW THE INCORPORATION
OF LOCAL RESIDENTS TO BE A PART
OF THE PROCESS. RESIDENTS ARE
ASKING AND HAVE BEEN BEGGING THE
COUNTY TO HAVE A VOICE AND A
SEAT AT THE TABLE. EVERY
GOVERNING BODY DESERVES TO HAVE
THAT. EVERY DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
DESERVES TO HAVE THAT. WHAT I'M
HEARING THE COUNTY SAY IS THAT
THEY'RE BOTHERED OR FRUSTRATED
THAT POTENTIALLY IT APPEARS THAT
LAFCO IS NOT PART OF THE
PROCESS. THAT TO ME SOUNDS LIKE
A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT, WANT TO
WORK ON THE BILL, BUT WE HAVE
NOT HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS ON
WHAT'S POSSIBLE, ONLY COMPLETE
OBJECTION. AND THAT'S NOT HOW WE
REPRESENT OUR COMMUNITY. SO IF
THERE'S A POSSIBILITY FOR US TO
FIGURE IT OUT, I'M MORE THAN
HAPPY TO MEET WITH ANY
STAKEHOLDER TO MOVE THE PROCESS,
TO HEAR THE VOICES OF
UNINCORPORATED EAST L.A.
RESIDENTS, TO BE A PART OF THE
TABLE. IF THE TASK FORCE. WE
HAVEN'T DECIDED. THERE'S NOTHING
IN THE BILL THAT SAYS WHO NEEDS
TO BE ON THE 11 PERSON TASK
FORCE. I WELCOME LABOR TO BE A
PART OF THAT TASK FORCE. WELCOME
BUSINESS OWNERS TO BE A PART OF
THE TASK FORCE, HOMEOWNERS TO BE
A PART OF THE TASK FORCE.
DEFINITELY. L.A. COUNTY STAFF
AND LAFCO STAFF TO BE A PART OF
THE TABLE, TO FINALLY REALLY
HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EAST LOS
ANGELES, INCREASING TAX REVENUE
AND HAVING A LOCAL VOICE IN SELF
DETERMINATION FOR EAST LOS
ANGELES AND THE EFFORTS FROM THE
1960S TO THE 2012 SHOWCASE, THAT
THERE IS A CONSTANT NEED FOR
RESIDENTS OF EAST LA THAT HAVE
BEEN FIGHTING THE COUNTY FOR A
LOCAL VOICE. THAT'S ALL WE'RE
ASKING FOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. AND I DO THINK, THOUGH,
THAT THAT CONVERSATION NEEDS TO
BE HAD AND HOPEFULLY BOTH SIDES
CAN MEET AND HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS. I JUST REALIZED
OR FOUND OUT THAT THERE'S
119,000 RESIDENTS IN EAST LA,
WHICH I WAS NOT AWARE OF, THERE
ARE CITIES WITHIN MY ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT THAT HAVE FAR LESS
RESIDENTS THAN THAT, AND THEY
DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN POLICE
DEPARTMENTS. THEY DON'T HAVE
THEIR OWN FIRE DEPARTMENTS, THEY
CONTRACT OUT WITH THE SHERIFFS.
THEY CONTRACT OUT WITH L.A.
COUNTY FIRE, AND THEY'RE ABLE TO
DO IT. SOME OF THE CITIES THAT I
HAVE, LIKE CUDAHY AND BELL,
PROBABLY HAVE AROUND MAYBE
20,000 OR LESS RESIDENTS. AND
THEY HAVE A CITY COUNCIL THAT
REPRESENTS THEM. AND OF COURSE,
THEY ALSO RELY ON THE COUNTY. SO
THE COUNTIES BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, FOR ME AND MY
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, IT WOULD BE
SUPERVISOR HAHN, THAT'S A GREAT
ALLY TO MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT AND
TO THE CITIES THAT I REPRESENT.
SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE
COUNTY IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE
CITIES, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT,
CONVERSATIONS OBVIOUSLY NEED TO
BE HELD HERE, AND I'M HOPEFUL.
I'M HOPING THAT WE GET TO A
PLACE WHERE MAYBE EVERYBODY
FEELS HEARD AND A DIALOG, IS
HAD. AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TODAY JUST TO HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BECAUSE IT
IS ESSENTIAL. I WOULD RECOMMEND
MAYBE REACHING OUT LIKE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WARD HAD MENTIONED, MAYBE
REACHING OUT TO SOME OF THE
MEMBER, MIGUEL SANTIAGO. SO THAT
WAY HE'S AWARE, MAYBE MIKE FONG,
BECAUSE THEY THEY REPRESENT
AREAS THAT ARE SURROUNDING THIS
DISTRICT AND I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
WITH THEM AS WELL BECAUSE
THEY'RE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, BUT
HOPEFULLY EVERYONE JUST SITS
DOWN, HAS CONVERSATIONS, MAYBE
FIGURE THIS OUT. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL. AND I'LL
SEE HOW IT GOES ONCE IT GETS TO
THE FLOOR. AND I'LL RESERVE MY,
MY VOTE FOR THEN. BUT, I
APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU FOR BEING
HERE. TO THE RESIDENTS FROM EAST
LA, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND
BEING SO CIVICALLY ENGAGED.
THANK YOU. I SEE NO OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANTING TO
COMMENT, AND YOU'VE ACCEPTED THE
AMENDMENTS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WENDY CARRILLO, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
EAST LOS ANGELES RESIDENTS WANT
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AS TO HOW THEIR TAX DOLLARS ARE
BEING SPENT AND HOW THEY CAN BE
MORE INVOLVED AND ENGAGED IN
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SMALL
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT, WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT AND OVERALL
BETTERMENT OF COUNTY SERVICES.
EAST LOS ANGELES RESIDENTS,
MYSELF INCLUDED, ARE SIMPLY
TIRED OF BEING CALLED A DIS
ENFRANCHISED COMMUNITY. WE WANT
TO SEE PROSPERITY. WE WANT TO
THRIVE. WE WANT LOCAL, AUTONOMY
TO BE ABLE TO BE AT THE TABLE TO
MAKE DECISIONS. AND I LOOK, I
REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO ACTUALLY
HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE
SUPERVISOR AS WELL AS OUR LABOR
PARTNERS AS TO WHAT THIS COULD
POTENTIALLY LOOK LIKE, AND
REALLY ESTABLISH A WAY IN WHICH
WE SAY, YES, IT'S POSSIBLE. YES,
WE CAN DO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
YES, WE CAN INCREASE OUR TAX
BASE. YES WE CAN DO ALL THESE
THINGS. AND WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR
ALL THE SERVICES THAT THE COUNTY
HAS PROVIDED. BUT IT IS TIME. IT
IS TIME FOR LOCAL REPRESENTATION
IN EAST LOS ANGELES AND ALL OF
THE PREVIOUS EFFORTS SHOULD
SHOWCASE THAT THERE IS A DESIRE
FOR IT. 2012 IS A VERY DIFFERENT
YEAR THAN 2023. LET'S SEE THE
STUDY. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS
AND REALLY GIVE VOICE TO THE
PEOPLE OF EAST LOS ANGELES. AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. I BELIEVE
WE HAVE A MOTION BY SENATE-ROOM.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND?
THERE'S A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER PACHECO, I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THIS. AND I'LL
TELL YOU WHY, SOME OF YOU MAY
KNOW THAT I'M A CITY PLANNER BY
PROFESSION. FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS,
I ACTUALLY PROCESS ANNEXATIONS
FOR THE CITY OF PALMDALE. THOSE
ANNEXATIONS IN THE CITY WERE,
SOMETIMES INITIATED BY RESIDENTS
BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THEY LACK
THE SERVICES THAT THEY NEED FROM
THE COUNTY. SOME OTHER TIMES
THERE ARE, INITIAL MADE BY
CITIES, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY
OF PALMDALE AND, KNOWING THAT,
INCORPORATING A NEW CITY TAKES A
LOT OF, TAX BASE, A LOT OF
SERVICES THAT HAVE TO BE
PROVIDED POLICE, FIRE, HEALTH
CARE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT
INDEPENDENT CITIES PROVIDE. AND
SOME CITIES HAVE TO CONTRACT FOR
THOSE SERVICES, BUT THERE HAS TO
BE A TAX BASE OF INTEREST TO THE
COUNTY NOT TO WANT TO LET THAT
PORTION OF THE COUNTY GO,
TYPICALLY, RESIDENTIAL AREAS,
DON'T PROVIDE A TAX BASE
NECESSARY FOR THE ECONOMICS OF
THE CITY IN THIS CASE. I DO
BELIEVE WITH THE COMMENTS MADE
BY MY COLLEAGUES THAT IT IS
FEASIBILITY STUDY. IT'S GOING TO
BE A CHOICE. THE FEASIBILITY
STUDY MAY SHOW THAT IT'S STILL
NOT POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, IT MAY
SHOW THAT NOW THERE IS ENOUGH,
TAX BASE, SALES TAX BASE AND
OTHER RESOURCES THAT THE AREA
COULD PROVIDE FOR ITS AREA TO BE
INDEPENDENT, TO BE A NEW CITY. I
BELIEVE IT WAS 1991, THE LAST
CITY THAT INCORPORATED IN L.A.
COUNTY. I THINK THAT WAS THE
CITY OF MALIBU. THEY DID THAT IN
1991. MY SMALLER CITY, DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES, OBVIOUSLY, BUT
AGAIN, HAVING THAT EXPERIENCE
AND PROCESS IN ANNEXATIONS,
KNOWING THE REASONS WHY CITIES
WANT TO DO THAT AND KNOWING WHY
OTHER CITIES DO NOT WANT TO GIVE
UP THE TAX BASE THAT THEY HAVE,
BUT AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE
WHAT THE BILL WILL DO IS JUST A
FEASIBILITY STUDY. AND AGAIN, IF
IT SHOWS THAT IT'S STILL NOT
FEASIBLE FOR EAST L.A. TO
INCORPORATE, THAT MAY STILL BE
THE CASE. BUT VERY WELL, IT MAY
BE THE OPPOSITE THIS TIME THAT
NOW THE TAX BASE EXISTS FOR IS
TO BE INCORPORATED SO THAT THE
RESIDENTS HAVE A VOICE AND THAT
THEY CAN HAVE THE SERVICES THAT
CITIES, INDEPENDENT CITIES CAN
PROVIDE. SO WITH THAT, MY
RECOMMENDATION IS AND I, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CARILLO I. WALDRON. HI WALDRON.
AYE. EASILY VALENCIA. CORRE.
CORRE. AYE PACHECO. CHECO. AYE.
RAMOS WARD. WILSON. THE. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS, IT IS FOUR ZERO
RIGHT NOW. WE STILL HAVE OTHER
MEMBERS THAT NEED TO ADD ON, AND
WE'LL LEAVE. THEY'RE ALL OPEN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PASSES A
MINUTE TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAU
OKAY. SORRY, I DIDN'T. TAKES A
LONG TIME. YEAH, BUT SHE HAS TO
DO THIS. FAST. WE'RE GOING TO
FAST. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB
1820 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHABOT.
WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT AB 1820. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TODAY. AB 1820, WHICH
PASSED OUT OF THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE WITH BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT, IS A SIMPLE
TRANSPARENCY MEASURE THAT ALLOWS
HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO HAVE
KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENT FEES
PRIOR TO COMMITTING SHOVELS TO
THE GROUND. HIGH Ã 2021 STUDY
CONDUCTED BY THE TERNER CENTER
FOR HOUSING INNOVATION AT UC
BERKELEY FOUND INCONSISTENT
COMPLIANCE WITH AB 1483 FROM
2019, WHICH REQUIRED CITIES AND
COUNTIES TO POST THESE FEES AND
SCHEDULES ON THEIR WEBSITES.
MANY JURISDICTIONS HAD
INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE FEES OR
HARD TO FIND INFORMATION.
KNOWLEDGE OF THESE FEES ARE
CRITICAL BECAUSE MANY OF THESE
FEES ADD UP TO 20% OF THE COST
OF A HOME, WHICH IS THE TIPPING
POINT FOR MANY PEOPLE. HAVING
ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AB
1820 PROVIDES GUARDRAILS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO
HAVE PREDICTABILITY. MY MEASURE
TAKES THE SURPRISE OUT OF
UNKNOWN EXORBITANT FEES THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY THREATEN AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT FOR WORKING ON THIS
MEASURE. SHE'S BEEN WORKING HARD
ON AMENDMENTS UP TO THE LAST
MINUTE AND AFTER HOURS, AND
THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND
FORTH. AND SO WE APPRECIATE THAT
WORK, FROM THE STAFF AND
STAKEHOLDERS, I KNOW THAT WE
HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL FINE TUNING
TO WORK ON, AND WE'LL CONTINUE
THAT DIALOG WITH COMMITTEE
CONSULTANTS AS THE MEASURE MOVES
FORWARD. AND, HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT. I HAVE SPONSOR MICHAEL
LANE FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA PLANNING AND URBAN RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION, OR SPUR AND MAYBE
WEST STAGE WATCHER WALKER. WE
DON'T KNOW. HE LEFT. OKAY. NEVER
MIND, SO WE GOT WE GOT MICHAEL
THOUGH, WHICH IS GREAT. GLAD TO
BE HERE. MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS
MICHAEL WEISBERG, PUBLIC POLICY
THINK TANK IN THE SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA. AS MENTIONED, I'M
CALLING THIS KIND OF A NO
SURPRISES BILL. THE IDEA IS IF
WE CAN HAVE THE DEVELOPERS
ENGAGE EARLY WITH THE LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS, THEY CAN GET A
SENSE OF WHAT THOSE FEES ARE
BECAUSE THEY CAN BE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, AND IT CAN REALLY MAKE
A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF A
FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT. AND
WE DON'T WE DON'T TOUCH HOW
THOSE FEES ARE DETERMINED OR THE
FORMULAS USED, ETC. NEXUS
STUDIES. WE DON'T TOUCH ANY OF
THAT IN THE BILL. WE JUST WANT
TO MORE CLARITY AND EARLIER IN
THE PROCESS SO WE CAN ACTUALLY
CATCH ERRORS OR THERE ARE
DISCREPANCIES AND AVOID THE
POTENTIAL FOR LITIGATION. WE'VE
BEEN WORKING WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AND PLEASED TO DO
SO. AND WE'VE GOTTEN TO A REALLY
GOOD PLACE. WE'VE DEMONSTRATED,
I THINK, WITH THESE AMENDMENTS,
THAT THE AUTHOR IS ACCEPTING THE
INTENT OF THE BILL, WHICH IS
REALLY TO CLARIFY AND GET THE
INFORMATION OUT THERE, BUT IT
DOES DOES NOT TOUCH VESTING
RIGHTS, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER SB
330, FOR HOUSING PROJECTS. BUT
THE IDEA IS JUST TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE'VE GOT THAT THE
TRANSPARENCY NEEDED TO MAKE TO
MAKE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AS
FEASIBLE AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY IN
THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO ADD IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. RAFA SONNENFELD WITH
IMB ACTION. IN THE INTEREST OF
BREVITY, I WON'T LIST THE NEARLY
TWO DOZEN, LOCAL CHAPTERS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA THAT SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, CORNELIUS BURKE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
THE BILL AND STRONG SUPPORT.
IT'S GOOD GOVERNMENT BILL. THANK
YOU. SEAMUS GARRITY WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF SPUR HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF CALIFORNIA AND SAND
HILL PROPERTIES. COREY SMITH, ON
BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
BOB NAYLOR ON BEHALF OF
FIELDSTEAD, IN SUPPORT. NATALIE
SPIVAK WITH HOUSING CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. ADAM BRIONES,
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BUILDERS IN
SUPPORT. BROOKE PRITCHARD ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY AS
THE OTHER CO-SPONSOR. NICO
MOLINA, ON BEHALF OF THE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. VANESSA
CHÁVEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS IN
SUPPORT, APOLOGIZE FOR NOT
GETTING OUR LETTER AND ON TIME.
THANK YOU. ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? PRIMARY WITNESSES.
MARK NEUBERGER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES AND THE RURAL COUNTY
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES,
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE REALLY CLOSE
ON AMENDMENTS FROM THIS ONE.
THERE'S JUST KIND OF JUST SOME
VERY MINOR TWEAKS TO MAKE ON THE
DISCLAIMER LANGUAGE ON THIS ONE,
BUT I BELIEVE WE'RE REALLY
CLOSE. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH US ON
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS.
AUTHOR, PROPONENTS. ANTHONY
TANNEHILL WITH CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION,
ALSO WITH PORTFOLIO TODAY FOR
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REC
AND PARK DISTRICTS. I TOO FEEL
THAT WE'RE A LITTLE CLOSE, JUST
A COUPLE OF TWEAKS REGARDING THE
, DISCLAIMER LANGUAGE, THE
TIMING OF THE FINAL FEE,
SCHEDULE AND CLARIFICATION ON
EXACTLY WHAT DEVELOPMENTS THEY
THEY DO INVOLVE. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE MOVEMENT ON THIS,
GETTING VERY CLOSE, REALLY GOOD
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
PROPONENTS TODAY. I APPRECIATE
THE GRACE THAT, FROM THE AUTHOR
AND STAFF. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THE REST OF THE SPEAKERS, PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. I'M FRANCO ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA.
SORRY, THE, FIRE DISTRICTS OF
CALIFORNIA, AND CURRENTLY
OPPOSITION. BUT WE ARE WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE. WE'VE
HAD SOME PRODUCTIVE AND POSITIVE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HOPE WILL
REMEDY OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. BRADY GARRETT, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES RESPECTFUL
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED, BUT HAVE
APPRECIATED THE HARD WORK AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. JASON EICHER, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES ASSOCIATION, EXTREMELY
QUICKLY, WITH THE AMENDMENTS
TAKEN EARLIER THIS MONTH, WE'RE
HAPPY TO BE MOVING TO A NEUTRAL
POSITION ON THE BILL, APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR'S HARD WORK WITH US
AND THE REMAINING OPPONENTS.
THANK YOU, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ON
WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US? SEEING
NONE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHABOT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
YOU DID TAKE THE AMENDMENTS? YES
THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THIS
BILL TODAY WITH THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WILL BE VOTING AYE. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OH, I'M SORRY, IS THERE NOW WE
HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND. THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. WHAT?
YES. AS AMENDED, DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. CHAIRMAN. PASTOR
CARILLO Ã CARILLO. I WALDRON.
WALDRON I AND SALLY VALENCIA.
CORRE CORRE I. PACHECO. JACOB I.
RAMOS. WARD. WILSON. 4040. WE
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SHABO. WITH
THAT, WE MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, AB 1893 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WICKS. THANK YOU FOR
BEING PATIENT. HELLO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE A
COUPLE BILLS IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY. WE'LL START WITH AB 1893.
THIS IS A BILL TO MODERNIZE
BUILDER'S REMEDY. FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR WORKING
WITH US ON THIS. I'M ACCEPTING
ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS TODAY, AND
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR AND
STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
US ON SOME OF THESE TRICKY CITY
PLANNING ISSUES THAT REMAIN. I
HAVE NO DOUBT, MR. CHAIR, YOU'LL
BE VERY INVALUABLE AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD, EVEN OUT OF YOUR
COMMITTEE. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL
YOUR HELP. LET ME START OFF BY
DESCRIBING WHAT THE BUILDER'S
REMEDY IS. THEN I CAN SHARE WHY
IT NEEDS MODERNIZING. AND THEN
I'LL FINISH WITH THE DESCRIPTION
OF HOW WE'RE PLANNING ON
MODERNIZING IT. THE BUILDER'S
REMEDY IS PART OF A HOUSING
ELEMENT LAW THAT SAYS IF A CITY
OR COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE A
HOUSING ELEMENT, THAT IS
COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW, THAT
CITY OR COUNTY CANNOT DENY A
HOUSING PROJECT MERELY BECAUSE
IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
LOCAL GENERAL PLAN OR ZONING.
ESSENTIALLY, IN JURISDICTIONS
WITHOUT A COMPLIANT HOUSING
ELEMENT, IT ALLOWS A DEVELOPER
TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT CAN BE
OF ANY SIZE, ANYWHERE IN THE
JURISDICTION. IF THAT SOUNDS
SCARY, THAT'S ON PURPOSE,
BECAUSE IT'S MEANT TO COMPEL
CITIES AND COUNTIES TO COMPLETE
THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS, WHICH WE
REALLY, REALLY WANT. CITIES AND
COUNTIES TO DO. WE WANT CITIES
AND COUNTIES TO HAVE COMPLIANT
HOUSING ELEMENT. WHY? BECAUSE WE
HAVE A MASSIVE HOUSING CRISIS.
AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE THAT
SHOWS HOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IS GOING TO HELP SOLVE OUR
HOUSING CRISIS. IT SHOWS HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO ZONE TO ALLOW
HOUSING AT ALL LEVELS OF
AFFORDABILITY. IT SHOWS HOW THEY
ARE REMOVING CONSTRAINTS FROM
THE HOUSING APPROVAL PROCESS,
AND IT SHOWS HOW THEY ARE GOING
TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR
HOUSING. WHEN A CITY OR COUNTY
HAS A COMPLIANT HOUSING ELEMENT,
THAT MEANS THAT THE STATE THINKS
IT IS DOING ITS PART TO ADDRESS
A COLLECTIVE SOCIETAL PROBLEM.
UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE OVER 200
JURISDICTIONS, 40% OF THE TOTAL
IN THE STATE THAT ARE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING ELEMENT
LAW. TODAY, THOSE JURISDICTIONS
ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT
SOLVING THE HOUSING CRISIS IS
NOT THEIR PROBLEM, BUT IT IS IN
FACT THEIR NEIGHBOR'S PROBLEM.
THIS IS WHERE THE BUILDERS
REMEDY COMES INTO PLAY.
THEORETICALLY IN A NON-COMPLIANT
CITY AND COUNTY, WE'D BE SEEING
LOTS OF BUILDERS REMEDY PROJECTS
THAT RESULT IN LOTS OF HOUSING.
SO THAT IGNORING STATE LAW DID
NOT MEAN AN END TO HOUSING
PRODUCTION. UNFORTUNATELY WE,
THE BUILDERS REMEDY, HAS NOT
FUNCTIONED IN THAT WAY. YES,
THERE ARE NOW AT LEAST 100
BUILDERS REMEDIES PROJECTS
PROPOSED IN THE STATE, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF THOSE
DEVELOPERS TO GET HOUSING BUILT
IN THESE JURISDICTIONS, BUT NOT
ONE HAS YET TO BE APPROVED.
WE'VE OBSERVED THAT THOSE
PROJECTS HAVE A HARD TIME
GETTING TO THE FINISH LINE,
BECAUSE THE LAW INCLUDES ENOUGH
AMBIGUITIES THAT MAKE THE
PROJECTS DIFFICULT TO PROCESS
AND EASY TO DELAY THIS RISKINESS
IS ALSO A TURNOFF TO A LOT OF
DEVELOPERS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD
LIKE TO BUILD IN THESE CITIES.
THE LAW ALSO INCLUDES AN
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT OF 20,
WHICH SOUNDS NOBLE AND LOFTY,
BUT ACTUALLY MAKES MOST HOUSING
PROJECTS ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE
. THE RESULT IS THAT THE CURRENT
BUILDERS REMEDY ISN'T ENOUGH OF
A CREDIBLE THREAT TO GET THOSE
200 PLUS JURISDICTIONS INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, WHICH
IS WHY WE NEED TO MODERNIZE THE
LAW. WORKING WITH OUR SPONSOR,
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA, WE
HAVE CRAFTED A BILL THAT REMOVES
ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHERE THE
BUILDERS REMEDY WOULD APPLY, HOW
MUCH DENSITY WOULD BE ALLOWED,
AND WHAT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
WOULD APPLY. IT ALSO ENHANCES
FEASIBILITY BY REDUCING THE
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT TO
SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT RENDER
PROJECTS INFEASIBLE. NOW I KNOW
THOSE. THERE ARE THOSE WHO DON'T
LIKE THE REDUCTION IN REQUIRED
AFFORDABILITY. AND TO THAT I SAY
20% OF NOTHING IS NOTHING. WE
NEED SOMETHING THAT IS FEASIBLE
AND THAT WILL RESULT IN ACTUAL
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN
NON-COMPLIANT JURISDICTIONS. WE
ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE CITIES
AND COUNTIES WHO MIGHT BE
CONCERNED THAT THIS BILL
OVERRIDES THEIR ZONING TO
FACILITATE TOO MUCH HOUSING. TO
THAT, I SAY, PLEASE COMPLETE
YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT. BUT I'LL
ADD, I KNOW THAT THE SIXTH CYCLE
WAS VERY CHALLENGING AND I'M
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE
CITIES AND HCD TO MAKE A BETTER
PROCESS FOR ALL. WE WANT 100% OF
CITIES AND COUNTIES TO HAVE
COMPLIANT HOUSING ELEMENT AND TO
BE DOING THEIR PART TO ADDRESS
THE HOUSING CRISIS, BUT WHAT
CITIES AND COUNTIES, IF YOU
REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW,
THERE SHOULD BE A CONSEQUENCE.
AND I CAN THINK OF NO BETTER
CONSEQUENCE TO STOPPING HOUSING
THAN TO ALLOWING A LOT OF
HOUSING. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THE BILL. ARE GIANNA
STANFORD, REPRESENTING THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND ADAM
BRIONES, EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BUILDERS. WE ARE ALSO
JOINED BY ADAM FISCH, SPECIAL
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO
CAN HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M JANICE
STANFORD WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE AS A
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE. AND I HAVE
WITH ME ALEX FISCH HERE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA. I
WANT TO FIRST START BY THANKING
THE AUTHOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL. THE BUILDER'S
REMEDY HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS
SINCE 1990. IT WAS INTENDED TO
SERVE AS A COMPLIANCE TOOL TO
ENCOURAGE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
ADOPT THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS AND
TO PROVIDE A PATH FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, EVEN WHEN LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FAIL TO DO SO.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE LACK OF
CLARITY IN THE EXISTING
BUILDER'S REMEDY STATUTE HAS LED
TO A LOCAL DISPUTES AND
LITIGATION, WHICH IS DELAYING
HOUSING PROJECTS. AB 1893 WOULD
CLARIFY THE BUILDERS REMEDY AND
BRING IT INTO THE 21ST CENTURY.
A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 1990.
THIS BILL WOULD ALIGN THE
BUILDERS REMEDY WITH A PLETHORA
OF OTHER STATE LAWS THAT HAVE
BEEN PASSED SINCE THE BUILDERS
REMEDY WENT ON THE BOOKS 30 PLUS
YEARS AGO, LIKE AB 2011, SB 35,
AND FOR 23 AND RECENT REVISIONS
TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT AND DENSITY BONUS LAW. THE
BILL ALSO ALIGNS THE BUILDERS
REMEDY WITH OTHER STATE
PRIORITIES THAT HAVE EMERGED
SINCE THE BUILDERS REMEDY WAS
ADOPTED, LIKE SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITY STRATEGIES PROMOTING
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN
INFILL, AND NEAR TRANSIT
CENTERS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS LIKE
KEEPING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AWAY
FROM INDUSTRIAL USES. WE WANT
CITIES TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE,
BUT IF THEY WON'T, THE BUILDERS
REMEDY SHOULD PROMOTE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT IN PLACES WHERE IT
MAKES SENSE TO DO SO. BY MODERN
DAY STANDARDS, AB 1893 WOULD
ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY HAS SPIRALED OUT
OF CONTROL. HARDWORKING
CALIFORNIANS AT ALL INCOME
LEVELS ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND
AND AFFORD HOUSING. WE NEED MORE
AFFORDABLE AND MIXED INCOME
HOUSING TO BE BUILT AND WE NEED
MANY MORE SMALL PROJECTS TO BE
BUILT LIKE TOWNHOMES, WHICH TEND
TO HAVE LOWER PRICE POINTS THAN
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AB 1893
WOULD MAKE THE BUILDERS REMEDY
WORK BETTER. WOULD PROVIDE
CLARITY FOR DEVELOPERS, CITY
PLANNERS AND COURTS, AND WOULD
UNLOCK ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
TO BUILD HOUSING TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF HARD WORKING
CALIFORNIANS. WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ADAM
BRIONES AND I'M CEO OF
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BUILDERS, A
NONPROFIT WORKING TO CLOSE THE
RACIAL WEALTH GAP FOCUSING ON
HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERSHIP. I'M
HERE TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
AB 1893, WHICH WILL MODERNIZE
AND STRENGTHEN THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BUILDERS BELIEVES THAT
AB 1893 IS ESSENTIAL. COMMON
SENSE LEGISLATION TO AN ADDRESS
TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT,
FRANKLY, SHOULD NOT EVEN EXIST.
CITIES THAT DON'T FOLLOW THE
RULES WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING
FOR HOUSING, WHICH MEANS THEY
DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES WHEN IT
COMES TO ENSURING THAT ALL
FAMILIES HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.
WHEN THE ACT WAS FIRST PASSED,
THE MEDIAN HOME COST FIVE TIMES
THE ANNUAL AVERAGE ANNUAL
SALARY. BY 2020, THAT SAME HOME
COST NINE TIMES THE AVERAGE
SALARY. AND OVER THE PAST 20
YEARS, MODERATE INCOME
CALIFORNIANS HAVE SHRUNK AS A
PORTION OF THE POPULATION BY A
WHOPPING 35. IN SHORT, AB 1893
WILL BRING THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT INTO THE 21ST
CENTURY. I'M ALSO. I'D ALSO LIKE
TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT A
MODERNIZED ACT WOULD INCENTIVIZE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL
DEVELOPMENTS UP TO TEN UNITS BY
MAKING THESE PROJECTS MORE
FEASIBLE. THESE SMALL
MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS LIKE
DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES, ARE MORE
AFFORDABLE THAN SIMILARLY
LOCATED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND
SERVE THE NEEDS OF MORE
ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE HOUSEHOLDS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
SMALLER DEVELOPERS FROM THE
COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY SMALL
DEVELOPERS OF COLOR, ARE
UNLIKELY TO BUILD LARGE
RESIDENTIAL TOWERS. BUT PROJECTS
OF UNDER TEN UNITS ARE FEASIBLE
FOR BUILDERS THAT DON'T HAVE
DEEP POCKETS AND DO ONE PROJECT
IN ONE COMMUNITY AT A TIME.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BUILDERS
LOOKS FORWARD TO A FUTURE WHERE
HOUSING UNAFFORDABILITY AND THE
RACIAL WEALTH GAP HAVE BEEN LEFT
IN THE PAST. BUT UNTIL THEN, WE
NEED LEGISLATION LIKE AB 1893 TO
ENSURE THAT, TO ENSURE THAT WHEN
CITIES DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES,
THERE ARE CLEAR, CONSISTENT AND
REASONABLE CONSEQUENCES. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS IN THE ROOM THAT WANT TO
ADD IN SUPPORT? PLEASE STATE
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN,
CORY SMITH, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. BOB MUELLER FROM
FIELDSTEAD IN SUPPORT KEITH
COOLIDGE ON BEHALF OF AARP
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. WITH
INNER CITY LAW CENTER SKID ROW
WITH PRO BONO LEGAL PROVIDER AND
STRONG SUPPORT. BROOKE PRITCHARD
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. SEAMUS GARRITY WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
OF CALIFORNIA TO SAND HILL BUILD
CASA BUCKEYE PROPERTIES SPUR AND
UNITED WAY OF GREATER LOS
ANGELES. THANK YOU. RAFA
SONNENFELD ON BEHALF OF NBA
ACTION AND THE NBA LAW, WE
CURRENTLY HAVE NO POSITION. WE
APPRECIATE, CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR AND SPONSOR AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. ANGIE
MINETTI WITH CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GRACIELA CASTILLO ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, CORNELIUS BURKE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. WE DON'T HAVE A
FORMAL POSITION, BUT WE HAD
GREAT CONVERSATION WITH THE
AUTHOR. THE ROCK STAR, HOUSING
CHAMPION AUTHOR, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IT'S
FUNNY, REBECCA MARCUS, ON BEHALF
OF LEADING AGE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY PRINCIPLE WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION?
GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. BRADY. GIRTON, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES. GOOD TO SEE
EVERYONE. IT'S BEEN A BUSY, BUSY
AFTERNOON BUT WANTED TO SAY WE
FIRST APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WICKS, IT'S BEEN
VERY PRODUCTIVE AND WE ALSO
APPRECIATE THE APPROACH OF
PUTTING GUARDRAILS ON THE
BUILDER'S REMEDY. WE THINK
THAT'S A POSITIVE SITUATION.
THAT SAID, WE DO STILL HAVE AN
OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED POSITION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OUR CITIES
GET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING
ELEMENT LAW. BUT I THINK WE NEED
TO SPECIFY HOW WE CAN DO THAT.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT
WE HEAR FROM OUR CITIES HAS BEEN
HCD DOESN'T TELL US EXACTLY WHAT
WE NEED TO DO TO GET IN
COMPLIANCE, OR IT VARIES BY
REVIEWER AND WHETHER THAT'S
STAFFING RESOURCES OR SOMETHING
ELSE. I THINK THE STATE AND
CITIES REALLY NEED TO WORK
TOGETHER ON FINDING WAYS TO DO
THAT, SO WE CAN AVOID THINGS
LIKE THE BUILDER'S REMEDY FIRST,
AND THIS IS A GOOD RAMP TO DO
THAT. SO WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO
THOSE CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS
AND APPRECIATE ALL THE
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD. AND FOR
THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO ADD IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? SEEING NONE. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CALDERON. THANK
YOU. I CERTAINLY SUPPORT, THE
PREMISE OF THIS BILL, ESPECIALLY
BECAUSE WE'RE FINDING FAR TOO
MANY JURISDICTIONS, AS WE SEE,
EVEN LIKE WITH STATE LITIGATION
OCCURRING ON A PRETTY REGULAR
BASIS, ESPECIALLY WITH CITIES
THAT JUST REFUSE TO BE PART OF
THE SOLUTION WHEN IT WHEN IT
COMES TO, OUR HOUSING CRISIS,
WHAT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE,
I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THE LAST
COMMITTEE WAS KIND OF LIKE THE
HAVING SOME MINIMUM DENSITY. I
DON'T KNOW, THOSE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS OCCURRING. YEAH,
WE DISCUSSED AS WE DISCUSSED
LAST WEEK, WE'RE HAVING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND IT'S ONLY BEEN
A WEEK, SO I DON'T EXPECT. YEAH.
SO WE DON'T HAVE AMENDMENTS ON
THAT YET, BUT, I'M OPEN TO IT.
AND OBVIOUSLY WANT TO I KNOW YOU
AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER LEE BOTH
FLAGGED THAT IN HOUSING
COMMITTEE. YEAH. THE THING IS
THAT, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE
BUILDER'S REMEDY, YOU KNOW, IT'S
A WIN WIN IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S
A WIN FOR THE NEED TO BUILD MORE
HOUSING. BUT IT'S ALSO A WIN FOR
DEVELOPERS. I MEAN, THEY'RE
GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD
IN A SITUATION WHERE OTHERWISE
THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT OPPORTUNITY IS
MAXIMIZED FOR THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT. AND, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS
OF GETTING THE AMOUNT OF
HOUSING, AS MUCH HOUSING AS WE
CAN, WITHIN REASON, AND THE
OTHER THING IS THAT I KNOW THAT
UNDER THE UNDER DENSITY BONUS
LAW, DEVELOPERS GET TO I GET 30
TO 35% INCREASE IN DENSITY. THEY
BUILD IT 20% AFFORDABLE. AND I
KNOW THERE'S A REDUCTION IN
AFFORDABLE HERE WITH SOME I, I
ASSUME, PRESUMPTION THAT THEY
CAN'T PENCIL OUT 20. AND I JUST
I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE
BECAUSE AGAIN, JUST LIKE TO YOUR
POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, 20%
OF NOTHING IS ZERO. WELL IF
THEY'RE GETTING 80, YOU KNOW,
80% OF NOTHING IS ZERO AS WELL.
AND WITHOUT THIS, THEY WOULDN'T
BE GETTING THAT EITHER. RIGHT
AND SO IT KIND OF GOES BOTH
WAYS. AND SO I JUST YOU KNOW,
I'M STILL I'M CERTAINLY
SUPPORTIVE. I'M GOING TO VOTE
FOR IT. THERE'S NO WAY I
WOULDN'T. BUT ESPECIALLY WITH
YOU LEADING THE EFFORT. BUT I
JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST CURIOUS
AS TO WHY WE FEEL THAT THAT WE
CAN'T PUSH MORE ON AFFORDABLE.
YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S BORNE
OUT OF DATA THAT WE'VE, YOU
KNOW, TURNER CENTER AND OTHERS
HAVE OPINED ON THIS, AND THIS IS
ALWAYS, I THINK, WITH
INCLUSIONARY ZONING, THE RUB OF
LIKE, HOW MUCH CAN YOU INCLUDE
VERSUS AND STILL HAVE IT PENCIL
OUT AND MAKE IT WORK? AND I
THINK THAT'S ALWAYS THE
BALANCING ACT WE'RE REALLY
STRUGGLING WITH ON THIS. ONE OF
THE THINGS WE DID IN HOUSING
COMMITTEE WAS, WHEN WE DID THE
REDUCTION FROM 20 TO 10, MAKE
THE 10% VERY LOW INCOME, BECAUSE
I THINK THOSE ARE THE FOLKS THAT
ARE ARE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE HELPING THE MOST.
RIGHT ARE VERY LOW INCOME FOLKS
WHO ARE EITHER EXPERIENCING
HOUSING INSECURITY, ON THE BRINK
OF EXPERIENCING EXPERIENCING
HOUSING AND SECURITY TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE REALLY TARGETING THAT
POPULATION, SO THAT WAS ONE OF
THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE MADE. I
KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS. THE
CHAIR AND I HAD AROUND SEEING IF
WE COULD INCREASE AND THE
REALITY WHERE I'M AT IS I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS AN
ACTUAL CREDIBLE THREAT. YOU
KNOW, I SAY THREAT, BUT OR
CONSEQUENCE RATHER FOR CITIES
THAT AREN'T, YOU KNOW, DOING
THEIR WORK. AND AGAIN, IF YOUR
CITY OR COUNTY IS ADHERING TO A
HOUSING ELEMENT IS INTACT AND
IT'S APPROVED BY HCD, THIS BILL
DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR CITY OR
COUNTY. AND IT IS. AND IT IS MY
HOPE THAT THIS NEVER APPLIES
BECAUSE EVERYONE'S DOING THEIR
PART, SO I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATIONS ON THE
INCLUSIONARY AND ON KIND OF
MIXING THE TWO KIND OF QUESTIONS
TOGETHER, IF THERE IS SOME KIND
OF SPECTRUM OF, YOU KNOW, OF
DENSITY THAT'S ALLOWED, AND IF
WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF FLOOR
THROUGH YOUR CONVERSATIONS, THAT
MAY BE LIKE THE, THE, THE LOWER
THEY ARE ON THE SPECTRUM, ON THE
NUMBER OF UNITS, THE HIGHER THE
PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE AND THE
MORE THEY BUILD, THEY CAN REDUCE
THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
LIKE SO IT GIVES THEM MORE
INCENTIVE TO BUILD MORE. AND
YOU'RE STILL GETTING A LOT OF
AFFORDABLE OUT OF IT, EVEN IF
THAT PERCENTAGE KIND OF DROPS ON
A SLIDING SCALE, THE MORE UNITS
THEY BUILD. SO YOU'RE KIND OF
GETTING AGAIN, ANOTHER WIN WIN
TYPE SITUATION JUST YOU KNOW,
WELL, AND WE'LL CERTAINLY BE
MAKING MORE AMENDMENTS ON THE
BILL. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND
AS I MENTIONED LAST WEEK, I WANT
TO MAKE SURE YOU AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LEE ARE PART OF
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PACHECO, MAY I ADD
SOMETHING? I'M SORRY, FROM AN
ENFORCEMENT ANGLE. ALEX FISH
FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE. YOU KNOW, IT'S
IMPORTANT. IS THAT ME? WELL,
WELCOME. IT'S CONSTRUCTION.
YEAH. THIS IS AN ENFORCEMENT
PROVISION, SO IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT
MEANT TO BE A CONSTRUCTION
PROVISION. THE DENSITY BONUS LAW
MAKES SENSE TO TWEAK IT. AND YOU
HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK
AND GET IT JUST RIGHT. THE
QUESTION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
WHAT WE LIKE IS THAT THE
BUILDER'S REMEDY IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO
LITIGATE. TYPICALLY, WE DON'T
HAVE TO GO TO A CITY THAT
HASN'T, COMPLIED, HASN'T
PREPARED A HOUSING ELEMENT. AND
DO BUILDERS REMEDY. IT'S
SELF-ENFORCING AND IT'S SORT OF
THE IT'S CROWDSOURCED
ENFORCEMENT. SO THE QUESTION YOU
KIND OF HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF AS
A POLICY MAKING BODY, I THINK
IS, DO WE WANT YEARS IN DOWN
MARKETS WHERE THERE WON'T BE ANY
EFFECTIVE THIS ENTIRE COMPONENT,
OUR MOST POWERFUL INCENTIVE TO
GET HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE?
DO YOU WANT IT TO NOT WORK,
BECAUSE IF PROJECTS DON'T PENCIL
CITIES KNOW THAT IT'S NOT A
CREDIBLE REMEDY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PACHECO, TO THE AUTHOR. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING MULTIPLE BILLS
REGARDING HOUSING FORWARD. I
KNOW THIS IS YOUR SPACE, BUT I
DO WANT TO MENTION THAT I KNOW
THERE'S BAD ACTORS, BUT THERE'S
ALSO CITIES THAT TRY TO COMPLY
WITH THEIR HOUSING ELEMENT, AND
THEY THEY CAN'T. SO I JUST WANT
TO REITERATE WHAT I HAD SAID
BEFORE, BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE
CITIES MORE SPECIFICALLY WITHIN
MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, I HAVE A
COUPLE OF CITIES THAT THEY
SUBMIT THEIR PLANS TO HCD AND
THEY GET REJECTED. THEY GET
COMMENTS, THEY COMPLY AND THEY
SUBMIT AGAIN. THEY GET REJECTED
AGAIN AND MAYBE A STAFF
SHORTAGE, BUT IT'S NOT THROUGH
THEIR FAULT. THEY'RE NOT BAD
ACTORS. THEY'RE TRYING THEIR
BEST. THEY REACH OUT TO MY
OFFICE, THEY'RE SEEKING FOR HELP
, SO I JUST WANTED US TO BE
MINDFUL OF THOSE CITIES THAT ARE
TRYING TO COMPLY AND ARE ABLE
TO. BUT I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO
BE WORKING WITH OPPOSITION AND,
YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY CAL CITIES
WILL GET TO A NEUTRAL POSITION.
SO I'M I'M REALLY OPTIMISTIC,
ESPECIALLY KNOWING YOU. YOU
ALWAYS WORK WITH OPPOSITION
THÀNH. BUT I DID WANT TO MENTION
THAT. YEAH. AND SOME OF MY
CITIES AREN'T COMPLIANT EITHER
IN MY DISTRICT. SO I AND I'VE
HEARD SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS AS
WELL AROUND JUST THE CHALLENGES
WITH HCD, WHICH IS DEFINITELY
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO FIX
FOR SURE. AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME
CITIES THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, WERE
THREE YEARS INTO THIS PROCESS
AND THEY'RE THEY HAVE NO
INTENTION OF, YOU KNOW, AND SO I
THINK IT'S FIGURING OUT HOW DO
YOU ENSURE THAT THE CITIES THAT
ARE REALLY TRYING TO GET THERE
AND TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING
AND ARE GENUINELY TRYING TO WORK
TOWARDS BEING IN COMPLIANCE, ARE
ABLE TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT'S
PRODUCTIVE. AND I KNOW ALSO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
CONSTRAINED IN TERMS OF STAFF,
RESOURCES AND ALL THE OTHER KIND
OF CHALLENGES THAT OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES ARE FACED WITH. BUT
I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION TO SEE IF THERE'S
WAYS THAT WE CAN HELP FIX THAT,
SEEING NO ONE ELSE WANT TO HAVE
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? JUST RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
AND YOU STATED THAT YOU ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENTS, THANK YOU. OF
YOUR STAFF, FOR WORKING WITH US
IN THE COMMITTEE, I WANT TO SAY
THAT, YOU ARE TRULY A CHAMPION
IN THIS, CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE,
I MENTIONED IT WHEN I FIRST GOT
ELECTED. FIRST CAME IN LAST
YEAR, COMING FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, BEING A CITY PLANNER
, KNOWING THE CHALLENGES OF
GOING THROUGH THE ENTITLEMENT
PROCESS, AND NOT ACTUALLY SEEING
THOSE PROJECTS BEING BUILT
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FUNDING,
I DO BELIEVE STILL, AND I WILL
SAY IT AGAIN, THAT WE NEED TO
START THINKING OF SOME FORM OF
REDEVELOPMENT IN THE HOUSING
SPECTRUM SO THAT WE CAN
INCENTIVIZE THOSE DEVELOPERS
THAT WANT TO BE PARTNERS WITH
CITIES IN THE STATE IN BUILDING
THE HOUSING UNITS THAT WE NEED,
AND I ALSO THINK THAT WE ALSO
NEED TO START LOOKING AT SEQUA
REFORM. THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS
THAT ARE TOUGH TO HAVE, BUT I
BELIEVE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO
BUILD THE HOUSING UNITS THAT WE
NEED. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH YOU, VIRTUAL
CHAMPION, ON THIS ISSUE. WITH
THAT, I WILL DO HAVE A MOTION
FIRST AND A SECOND, THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, I'LL RECOMMEND AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATION. CARILLO Ã
CARILLO I WALDRON. NICELY
VALENCIA. CORRE, CORRE. I
PACHECO I CHICO I RAMOS. WARD
WILSON THREE ZERO. IT IS THREE
ZERO. I WILL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON. AND
YOU HAVE ANOTHER BEALL AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER 11 AB 2343. WHEN
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, I'M
HERE TO PRESENT AB 2243, A BILL
TO CLARIFY AND EXPAND AB 2011 AB
2011, ALSO KNOWN AS THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HIGH ROAD
JOBS ACT OF 2022, WAS THE BILL I
AUTHORED IN 2022. IT ALLOWS THE
DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY
INFILL HOUSING IN AREAS ZONED
FOR PARKING, RETAIL AND OFFICE
IN RETURN FOR MAKING THESE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS BY RIGHT
DEVELOPERS NEED TO PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON SITE AND
ENSURE THAT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
ARE PAID THE PREVAILING WAGE.
SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF AB 2011,
THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES TO THE ECONOMY,
INCLUDING THE COLLAPSE OF DEMAND
FOR OFFICE SPACE. THERE WERE
THEIR REDUCED DEMAND FOR BRICK
AND MORTAR RETAIL AND AN
INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES.
THOSE CHANGES HAVE CREATED BOTH
A DEMAND AND OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN
UP SITES WHERE HOUSING MIGHT BE
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
ADDITIONALLY, SINCE AB 2011
ENACTMENT, HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTS
HAVE IDENTIFIED ASPECTS OF THE
LAW'S LANGUAGE THAT ARE SUBJECT
TO AN OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.
THE SUBJECTIVITY HAS LED TO
PROJECT DELAYS AND DISSUADED
UTILIZATION OF THE LAW. IT HAS
ALSO LED TO INCONSISTENT
APPLICATION ACROSS JURISDICTION
AND CREATED THE POTENTIAL FOR
UNNECESSARY LAWSUITS. AB 2243
WOULD ADDRESS BOTH OF THESE
ISSUES BY EXPANDING AB 2011
GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY AND
CLARIFYING ASPECTS OF THE LAW
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
INTERPRETATION. THE TERMS OF
GEOGRAPHIC IN TERMS OF
GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION, AB 2243
WOULD APPLY AB 2011 TO THE
FOLLOWING TYPES OF PROJECTS ONE.
THE CONVERSION OF OFFICE TO
HOUSING, EVEN IF THE SITE IS NOT
ALONG A MAJOR COMMERCIAL
CORRIDOR, TWO REGIONAL MALLS
THAT EXCEED 20 ACRES IN SIZE,
THREE SITES WITHIN 500FT OF
FREEWAYS, AND 3200FT OF OIL
EXTRACTIONS. AS LONG AS THOSE
PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED AND USE
REQUIRED AIR FILTRATION AND
NUMBER FOUR TO EXISTING HIGH
RISE DISTRICTS, EVEN IF THE SITE
IS NOT ALONG A COMMERCIAL
CORRIDOR. ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE
EXPANDING THE LAND WHERE THE
WHERE THE PROJECTS CAN BE BUILT
IN TERMS OF THE LAND IN TERMS OF
REMOVING SUBJECTIVITY. AB 2243
INCLUDES A SERIES OF
CLARIFICATIONS, INCLUDING ONE
CLARIFYING THAT ALL ASPECTS OF
AB 2011 PROJECTS ARE MINISTERIAL
AND NOT SUBJECT TO SEQUA TWO.
CLARIFYING HOW AB 2011
INTERSECTS WITH DENSITY BONUS
LAW, AND THREE SPECIFYING THAT
ANY SITE REMEDIATION NEEDS TO
OCCUR AFTER PROJECT APPROVAL BUT
BEFORE THE SITE CAN BE OCCUPIED.
IMPORTANTLY, AB 2243 DOESN'T
TOUCH AB 2011 LABOR STANDARDS OR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS,
WHICH IS WHY IT'S STILL
SUPPORTED BY 2011 DIVERSE
COALITION OF CONSTRUCTION, LABOR
, SEIU, CA, AFFORDABLE MARKET
RATE DEVELOPERS AND OTHER PRO
HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS. AB 2011
HAS ONLY BEEN AROUND FOR 20
MONTHS. DURING THIS PERIOD, HIGH
INTEREST RATES HAVE DAMPENED THE
WHOLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
MARKET, AND WHILE THE USE OF AB
2011 HASN'T GONE AS GANGBUSTERS
AS WE WOULD HAVE LIKED AT THIS
POINT, WE NOW HAVE ENOUGH
EVIDENCE FROM PROJECTS THAT ARE
USING AB 2011, OR WOULD LIKE TO
USE AB 2011 TO NÓ. SOME FIXES
ARE NECESSARY TO ALIGN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL WITH ITS
INTENT, AND MY GOAL HERE WITH
THIS BILL IS TO ENSURE THAT WITH
WITH CERTAINTY THAT AB 2011 CAN
BE USED. AND, YOU KNOW, I SAID
THIS LAST WEEK AND MR. KOLLER
HEARD ME SAY THIS, YOU KNOW, I'M
I'M NOW LEGISLATIVELY MIDDLE
AGED, RIGHT? I'M ON MY SIXTH
YEAR IF I'M HERE FOR 12 YEARS.
AND SO I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF
WISDOM ABOUT, JUST ENOUGH TO BE
DANGEROUS ABOUT THIS PROCESS AND
HOW IT WORKS. AND OFTEN WE PASS
ALL THESE BILLS AND THEN THEY GO
OFF INTO THE WILD, AND WE HAVE
NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENS. RIGHT? BUT
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, REALLY
UNDERSTANDING ESPECIALLY THESE
BIG MARQUEE BILLS LIKE IS IT
WORKING, WHAT'S WORKING, WHAT'S
NOT WORKING, HOW DO WE MAKE IT
WORK THE BEST? HOW DO WE REALLY
TRACK THE IMPLEMENTATION THÀNH
TO, TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE? I
MEAN, I HAVE SCARS FROM THIS
BILL, YOU KNOW, SO YOU REALLY
WANT TO MAKE IT WORTH IT THAT
EVERYTHING YOU WENT THROUGH IS
ACTUALLY MATERIALIZING IN THE
HOUSING THAT WE WANT BECAUSE
THAT THAT IS THE TRUE VICTORY.
IT'S NOT PASSING THE BILL, IT'S
ACCOMPLISHING THE GOAL. IT'S THE
OUTPUT. THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE
MEASURED ON AS LEGISLATORS, SO
WITH THAT, MY WITNESSES HERE TO
TESTIFY ARE CORY SMITH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION, AND
GOOD OLD DANNY CURTIN FROM THE
CARPENTERS. I'LL PASS MY MIDDLE
AGE. YEAH. DANNY'S A BOOMER.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, CORY SMITH, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION. WE ARE A HOME
BUILDING, INDUSTRY FUNDED
NONPROFIT THAT ADVOCATES FOR
BUILDING MORE HOMES FOR
RESIDENTS AT ALL INCOME LEVELS
ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AND WE'RE PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
ASSEMBLY BILL 2243, BECAUSE WE
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF
CREATING MORE HOMES FOR
CALIFORNIANS. AND THIS BILL DOES
EXACTLY THAT. THE PASSAGE OF THE
LANDMARK BILL, AB 2011, HAS BEEN
CRITICAL IN EXPEDITING HOUSING
PRODUCTION AT ALL INCOME LEVELS
ACROSS THE STATE, AND WE HAVE
MEMBERS WHO ARE USING THE BILL.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES
TO STRENGTHEN THE BILL TO
DELIVER MORE HOUSING, AND THAT'S
WHERE TWO, TWO, FOUR, THREE
COMES INTO PLACE. THE
CLARIFICATIONS WILL IMPROVE THE
LAW AS WRITTEN TO ALLOW FOR
ADDITIONAL SITES TO BE DEVELOPED
FOR MORE HOUSING SITES THAT WERE
PREVIOUSLY INELIGIBLE FOR
STREAMLINING WILL NOW WORK, AND
THIS WILL EXPAND PRODUCTION
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, ESPECIALLY
LOOKING AT INFILL HOUSING
LOCATIONS. AND THE TIME SINCE AB
2011 WAS PROPOSED, WE'VE HAD A
NUMBER OF MEMBERS WHO HAVE
WANTED TO USE THE LAW, BUT THEY
WERE UNABLE TO DUE TO ITS
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. SO THESE
CLARIFICATIONS, AS THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS SAID, WILL ADD
ADDITIONAL SITES TO BE ELIGIBLE,
CLEARING THE WAY FOR MUCH NEEDED
HOUSING, AND REALLY KEY
LOCATIONS WITH AMENITIES NEAR
JOBS, NEAR SERVICE, NEAR
TRANSIT. AND WE THANK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AGAIN FOR HER
VISIONARY SUPPORT ON THIS, AND
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS
WELL. PLEASURE TO SEE YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AGAIN MEMBERS DANNY
CURTIN, CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF
CARPENTERS, FIRST THING I WANT
TO DO IS THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
KEEPING HER FOOT ON THE GAS
PEDAL HERE. AND ALSO, I WANT TO
SAY WELCOME TO THE ITERATIVE
PROCESS OF LEGISLATION, WHICH
CAN GO ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
HOPEFULLY THIS IS THE FIRST OR
2.0 2011 2.0. AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET IT
DONE, I'M GOING TO KEEP IT VERY
BRIEF. YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL
THE CONVERSATIONS ON 2011. THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T LIKE THAT
WHO ARE FINDING WAYS TO KEEP IT
FROM GOING INTO PLACE. AND THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO DID LIKE IT WHO
ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING
THESE ISSUES, THESE PROJECTS
BUILT. THIS BILL WILL DO A LOT
IN MOVING BOTH OF THOSE BARRIERS
OUT OF THE WAY. AND I CAN ONLY
SAY THANK YOU AGAIN FOR KICKING
THIS INTO GEAR. FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, THE LABOR ISSUES
INVOLVED IN THIS BILL HAVE THE
POTENTIAL TO CHANGE THE
LANDSCAPE IN THE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION WORLD, BRINGING A
VERY LOW WAGE, CONSTRUCTION
WORKFORCE INTO A BLUE COLLAR,
MIDDLE CLASS WORKFORCE, WHICH IS
GOOD FOR ALL OF US. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANYBODY IN
THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO ADD IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? BOB
NIELSEN, RAFEAL, SAID, WE
SUPPORTED THE FIRST BILL. WE
LOVE THIS BILL TOO. THANK YOU.
RAFA SONNENFELD WITH ENP ACTION
AND STRONG SUPPORT. SÐNG LARA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
. CHAIR AND MEMBERS JAMES THÀNH
WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
COUNCIL OF LABORERS IN SUPPORT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR A SECOND, YES.
THE CARPENTERS HEARD THAT BUFFY
WAS PRESENTING A BILL HERE TODAY
AND THEY DON'T SHE DOESN'T GO
ANYWHERE WITHOUT CARPENTERS
SUPPORT. OKAY EUGENE MOORES
CARPENTERS LOCAL 152,
REPRESENTING STANISLAUS, SAN
JOAQUIN, MERCED, MARIPOSA,
TUOLUMNE, CALAVERAS, AMADOR AND
CONTRA COSTA IN SUPPORT. BIG
LOCAL MATTHEW BEESTON, NOR-CAL,
CARPENTERS UNION, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY IN STRONG SUPPORT. MARK
O'FARRELL, CARPENTERS LOCAL 180,
IN VALLEJO IN SUPPORT. ALEXANDER
HAMPTON, LOCAL 46, NORTH CAL
CARPENTERS, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
STRONG SUPPORT. ARMANDO MURILLO,
LOCAL 4405, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
STRONG SUPPORT. PRITCHARD, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
STRONG SUPPORT. GRACIELA
CASTILLO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM IN
SUPPORT. MARTINEZ CARPENTERS
LOCAL 152, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,
IN SUPPORT JEFF SANDERS,
CARPENTERS LOCAL ONE, 52, IN
SUPPORT STANISLAUS COUNTY.
GIOVANNI OTTOLINI, PROUD MEMBER
OF LOCAL 9109 OUT OF SACRAMENTO
COUNTY. I STRONGLY SUPPORT YOU.
NOTICE THEY STOPPED THEIR JUST
FOR THAT SEAMUS GARRITY WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF SPUR SAND HILL
PROPERTIES, BUCKEYE PROPERTIES
AND FIELDSTEAD IN SUPPORT. ANGIE
MINETTI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT.
CORNELIUS BURKE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. NO FORMAL POSITION,
BUT WE APPRECIATE PROVIDING
FEEDBACK AND THOUGHT LEADERSHIP
TO THE ALRP AND HER STAFF. THANK
YOU. MATTHEW MUNJI WITH INNER
CITY LAWCENTER, SKID ROW, SKID
ROW WITH PRO-BONO LEGAL LIVE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. PRETTY IF YOU GUYS
DIDN'T KNOW ME, MY NAME IS BRADY
GIRTON. I'M WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES. WE HAVE A
RESPECTFUL OPPOSED POSITION ON
THIS ONE, APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S INTENT WITH THE BILL.
OUR CONCERNS IS THAT 2011 WAS
JUST IMPLEMENTED AND OUR CITIES
ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT
PROCESS. IN ADDITION TO UPDATING
THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS
ACCORDINGLY. AND WE JUST FEEL
LIKE WE NEED SOME TIME TO
IMPLEMENT THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS
BEFORE WE START EXPANDING IT TO
OTHER GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPES. AND
WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS ON THIS
ONE. BUT THAT'S OUR MAJOR
CONCERN WITH THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NOBODY ELSE?
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PACHECO, SO I KNOW THE
CAL CITIES, IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
OF THE, THEY FEEL LIKE THEY NEED
TO ADAPT TO THE PREVIOUS BILL.
IS THAT TRUE OR I MEAN, I WOULD,
I WOULD ASK THEM, BUT I THINK
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. AND
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
LEARNING AS WE GO WITH
IMPLEMENTATION, SORT OF LIKE
WHAT HAS HAPPENED. AND WE DID IT
A LITTLE BIT OF A DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION ON THE BILL TO
BEGIN WITH TO GIVE CITIES TIME.
IT WENT INTO EFFECT LAST JULY,
BUT WE'VE ALSO NOTICED THAT
THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE,
CERTAIN ACTORS HAVE USED THEIR
OWN RATIONALES TO HOW TO OPPOSE
2011 PROJECTS. AND SO WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLARITY
ON THAT. YOU KNOW, SO THIS BILL,
I THINK, PROVIDES MORE CRYSTAL
CLEAR CLARITY ON WHERE IT CAN BE
USED, IN ADDITION TO EXPANDING
SOME OF THE FOOTPRINT OF LIKE,
FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, LARGE
MALLS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY
VACANT USING AB 2011 ON PROJECTS
LIKE THAT OR PLACES LIKE
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO, RIGHT,
WHERE MAYBE THE WIDTH OF THE
STREETS DIDN'T MATCH UP WITH THE
ORIGINAL, BILL, IN TERMS OF
WHERE IT CAN BE USED, SO
ALLOWING IT TO BE USED ON, ON
MORE PLACES, MORE FOOTPRINTS TO
EXPAND ITS SCOPE. AND THEN I
NOTICED IT'S AN OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. SO THAT MEANS THERE'S A
WAY TO LIKE GET TO WE ARE HAPPY
TO KEEP CHATTING. YES. FOR SURE,
YOU KNOW, AND WE HAD A VERY
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS THE
FIRST TIME AROUND WITH THIS BILL
, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO SO.
AND ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY, I
THINK THE ANALYSIS WAS INCORRECT
ON THE OPPOSITION. IT LISTED
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. THE ONLY
OPPOSITION IS THE LEAGUE OF
CITIES Þ, WHICH IS SORRY, UNLESS
AMENDED. YEAH, THE OTHER ONES
AREN'T OPPOSED THAT ARE ON THE
ANALYSIS, FIRE CHIEFS AND NØ
THAT IT'S A TYPO. OH, OKAY. GOOD
TO KNOW. YEAH. OKAY THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. I NEED A FIRST AND A
SECOND BEFORE MR. RELIEFS. YOU
DID SECOND. OKAY WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE? THANK YOU. I'LL
JUST TAKE A MINUTE ON SEEING ALL
THE MEMBERS COMING TO THE MIC IN
SUPPORT. TOOK ME BACK TO 2019 AT
THE CITY COUNCIL IN PALMDALE,
WHERE WE HAD A PROPOSAL TO BUILD
312 UNITS MULTIFAMILY, GOING
THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND IT
GOES BACK TO MY PREVIOUS
COMMENTS WHERE IT TAKES A LONG
TIME TO GO THROUGH THE
ENTITLEMENT PROCESS AND THAT'S
ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT DIDN'T
GET BUILT, THERE MAY BE MANY
REASONS WHY, BUT AGAIN, ONE OF
THOSE, I BELIEVE, IS THE LACK OF
FUNDING MECHANISMS, IT WAS LATE
AT NIGHT AND WE WENT TO 1 A.M, A
LOT OF WORK WAS PUT INTO IT, AND
THE PROJECT JUST NEVER GOT
BUILT, ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO
TAKE A MINUTE TO, TO SAY THAT WE
TOOK ME BACK TO, AND BASED ON
YOUR COMMENTS BEING, MIDDLE AGED
LEGISLATOR, I THINK I'M A BABY
LEGISLATOR. I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE THE WORK WITH YOU, THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MADAM SECRETARY. DO
PASS THE APPROPRIATION. CARILLO.
I CARILLO I WALDRON. SALIH
VALENCIA. CORRE CORRE I PACHECO
PACHECO I RAMOS. WARD. WILSON.
THE BILL IS ON CALL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. THIS ONE, I THINK,
WILL BE THE LAST ONE. MY LAST
ONE? YEAH. AND IT SHOULD BE
QUICK. FAMOUS LAST WORDS, BUT I
SWEAR IT SHOULD BE QUICK. I
THINK WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION ON
FILE, SO. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT MY THIRD
BILL IN FRONT OF YOUR COMMITTEE
TODAY. AB 2580. THE PURPOSE OF
AB 2580 IS TO INCREASE
ACCOUNTABILITY. THE INTERSECTION
OF HOUSING POLICY AND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, HISTORIC DISTRICTS
AND BUILDINGS DESIGNATED AS
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT
RECEIVED SPECIAL PROTECTIONS
THAT SUBJECT NEW DEVELOPMENTS,
BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND DESIGN
CHANGES TO A MORE RIGOROUS AND
THOROUGH REVIEW PROCESS TO
PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF
HISTORIC ELEMENTS. THESE
PROTECTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL TO
PRESERVING OUR STATE'S RICH
PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE.
HOWEVER THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PROCESS CAN
ENCOURAGE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO
WEAPONIZE IT AGAINST HOUSING
PRODUCTION, PARTICULARLY IN
WEALTHY SINGLE FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE NOT
WILLING TO ACCEPT GENTLE
INCREASES IN DENSITY FROM
DUPLEXES AND ADUS. THIS ABUSE OF
THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS
IMPEDES OR BLOCKS URGENTLY
NEEDED HOUSING WITHOUT
PROTECTING OUR IMPORTANT
RESOURCES. THERE ARE CURRENTLY
NO MEASURES IN PLACE TO ENSURE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REVIEW ALL NEW
HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS WITHIN
THEIR JURISDICTION, AND
BALANCING THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS
TO PRESERVE HISTORIC PROPERTIES
AND NEIGHBORHOODS AGAINST THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE
COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO MEET ITS
HOUSING NEEDS. AB 2580 SEEKS TO
ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCY IN TWO
VERY SIMPLE WAYS ONE, IT WILL
REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
DISCUSS IN THEIR HOUSING
ELEMENTS HOW HISTORIC
PRESERVATION POLICIES AND
PRACTICES COULD COULD CONSTRAIN
NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND TWO
IT ALSO REQUIRES LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO LIST ALL NEW
HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS IN THEIR
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. TOGETHER,
THESE CHANGES WOULD INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOUSING
POLICY AND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. WE HAVE NO KNOWN
OPPOSITION ON FILE. A LOT OF
SUPPORTERS, AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. THANK YOU. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? HOW ABOUT
ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WANTS TO ADD IN SUPPORT? SHAMUS
GETTY FROM WHITE HOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR AND
SUPPORT. RAFA SONNENFELD WITH
KI¾M ACTION AND SUPPORT. LORI
SMITH, HOUSING ACTION COALITION
IN SUPPORT. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE JORDAN PINEDA,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR
CALIFORNIA YIMBY HERE AS A PROUD
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION SEEING
NONE ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO ADD ON IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NONE. DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? NO. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU FOR
PRESENTING THIS BILL TODAY, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. AND I
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. OH, YOU
MOVED THE BILL, SO I'LL DO
SECOND. IT'S ONLY TWO OF YOU. SO
IN THE SECOND. YES THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED. APPROPRIATION
CARILLO Ã CARILLO I WALDRON AND
SALINE. VALENCIA CARRA. PACHECO.
CHECO. AYE. RAMOS. WARD ALL
BILLS ON CALL. THANK YOU. AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
AB 19. AB 2023. SHARON
QUIRK-SILVA. WHAT? ARE YOU READY
? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. ASSEMBLY BILL 2023
CREATES PARITY IN THE HOUSING
ELEMENT REVIEW PROCESS. CURRENT
LAW REQUIRES CITIES AND COUNTIES
TO UPDATE THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS
EVERY EIGHT YEARS FOR LARGER
POPULATIONS. AND EVERY FIVE
YEARS FOR SMALLER POPULATIONS.
THE HOUSING ELEMENT MUST BE
TIMELY AND REFLECT THE
COMMUNITIES PLAN TO ADDRESS
THEIR SHARE OF THE REGION'S
HOUSING NEEDS. UPON THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE LAW, A LOCAL HOUSING
ELEMENT IS GRANTED A PRESUMPTION
OF VALIDITY AND LEGAL
CHALLENGES. THIS MEANS THAT
HCD'S FINDING OF COMPLIANCE
RECEIVES DEFERENCE IN COURT, AND
ANY PARTY CHALLENGING THE
VALIDITY OF THE ELEMENT HAS A
HIGH BAR TO MEET TO PROVE TO. TO
PROVE THAT HCD WAS INCORRECT.
HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT
IF A CITY OR COUNTY DOES NOT
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET BY HCD
OR DOES NOT TAKE ANY ACTION
REGARDING ITS ADOPTED HOUSING
ELEMENT. THIS LOOPHOLE ALLOWS
CERTAIN CITIES TO DISREGARD
HCD'S EXPERTS FINDINGS AND
BYPASS RECOMMENDATIONS AIMED AT
STRENGTHENING THEIR HOUSING
ELEMENTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE.
THIS OVERSIGHT UNDERMINES THE
STATE'S EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT
ALL UNDERSCORE ALL
JURISDICTIONS. JURISDICTIONS
ADOPT AND ENFORCE ROBUST,
LEGALLY COMPLIANT HOUSING
ELEMENTS. WHILE THE MAJORITY OF
CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS DO
ADOPT HOUSING ELEMENTS THAT HCD
DEEMS COMPLIANT, THERE ARE
EXCEPTIONS. AND AGAIN, I DO WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE HAVE SOME
VERY GOOD ACTORS ACROSS THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOING THEIR
BEST TO MEET HCD'S HOUSING
COMPLIANT EFFORTS. AND SO WE
KNOW THIS IS THERE IS A SMALL
PART OF BAD ACTORS, AND THESE
ARE THE OUTLIERS. AND WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THESE OUTLIERS
SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO A
LOWER LEGAL STANDARD THAN THOSE
IN COMPLIANCE. I BELIEVE WE ALL
NEED TO TAKE A ROLE IN OUR
ADDRESSING OUR STATE'S HOUSING
CRISIS. CRISIS, AND WITH ME
TODAY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.
TESTIMONY IS ON A LAWLER
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT AND
RAFA SONNENFELD POLICY DIRECTOR
WITH YIMBY ACTION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, ANGIE LAWLER, ON BEHALF
OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
PROJECT. PLP IS A NONPROFIT
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FORM THAT
FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS HAS BEEN
ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING NEEDS OF LOWER INCOME
CALIFORNIANS. THEY HAVE, FILED
OVER 100 OR SO, HOUSING ELEMENT
CASES TO ENSURE THAT CITIES AND
COUNTIES ARE TAKING SERIOUSLY
THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO PLAN FOR
THE HOUSING NEEDS OF LOWER
INCOME PEOPLE AND TO ADVANCE
FAIR HOUSING GOALS, THIS BILL
ADDRESSES REAL ISSUES THAT HAVE
COME UP IN THEIR WORK, AND WE
THINK WILL ENSURE THAT MORE
CITIES GET IN COMPLIANCE IN A
TIMELY MANNER SO THAT WE CAN DO
THE IMPORTANT WORK OF MAKING
SURE THAT LOWER INCOME
CALIFORNIANS HAVE HOMES. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR
MEMBERS RAFA SONNENFELD,
REPRESENTING CO-SPONSORS INB LAW
YIMBY LAW IS THE LEGAL ARM OF
THE NATIONWIDE PRO HOUSING
MOVEMENT AND AFFILIATE OF VRB
ACTION, AND ALSO AN IMPACT
LITIGANT IN NUMEROUS HOUSING
ELEMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. I'M
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY IN THE
ROOM THAT WANTS TO RIDE IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION. MARK
STIVERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP. NATALIE
SPIVAK WITH HOUSING CALIFORNIA.
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MATTHEW
BENJI WITH INNER CITY LAW CENTER
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
PARAMETER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS.
BRADY GIRTON, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES,
FIRST WANTED TO APOLOGIZE. WE
DIDN'T GET A LETTER IN. WE'VE
BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY
INTERNALLY ON PROVIDING
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AND ARE
WORKING. AND THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
HAS BEEN VERY OPEN TO DISCUSSING
OUR CONCERNS. SO WE'RE JUST
WORKING INTERNALLY ON FINE
TUNING WHAT WE WANT TO PRESENT
TO REMOVE OR MOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S A
LITTLE DELAYED. SO WE APOLOGIZE
AND APPRECIATE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND LOOK FORWARD
TO IT. SO THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
BEEN WORKING HARD. I'VE SEEN YOU
AT SO MANY COMMITTEES, TOO MANY
BILLS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TOO MANY
BILLS. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE
IN THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO ADD IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PACHECO. ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS? NO BILL, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, JUST WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL
SECOND THAT MOTION, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATION. CARILLO
Ã CARILLO I WALDRON. EASILY
VALENCIA. CARRA. PACHECO
PACHECO. AYE. RAMOS. WARD.
WILSON. WITHERELL HOPING FOR
OTHERS. STEWART. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WENDY
CARRILLO. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX
AB 1950. OH YOU'RE WELCOME.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE
TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
AND I THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK
ON THIS BILL TODAY. I AM PROUD
TO PRESENT AB 1950, THE CHAVEZ
RAVINE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. THIS
BILL ACKNOWLEDGES THE HISTORICAL
DISPLACEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY OF
PALO VERDE, LA LOMA, AND BISHOP,
KNOWN TODAY AS CHAVEZ RAVINE,
SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND OUR
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, RICARDO
LARA. WE HAVE BEEN IN
COMMUNICATION WITH OUR
CONSTITUENTS RELATED TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS POLICY. AB
1950 IS A CRITICAL STEP FORWARD
AND AIMS TO CORRECT AN INJUSTICE
THAT DISPLACED FAMILIES AND HAS
LINGERED IN THE SHADOWS OF LOS
ANGELES EAST SIDE HISTORY FOR
FAR TOO LONG. AMID THE 1950S,
THE VIBRANT COMMUNITIES OF PALO
VERDE, LA LOMA AND BISHOP, HOME
TO MOSTLY MEXICAN AMERICAN
FAMILIES, AS WELL AS ITALIAN
AMERICAN AND CHINESE AMERICAN,
SAW AN UPHEAVAL AS FAMILIES WERE
UPROOTED AND DISPLACED IN THE
NAME OF PROGRESS. FAMILIES WERE
PROMISED A RETURN TO BETTER
HOUSING, BUT INSTEAD THEY WERE
LEFT DESTITUTE. DURING THIS
TIME, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
EMPLOYED VARIOUS TACTICS TO
PRESSURE HOMEOWNERS TO SELL
THEIR PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE
USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN,
SPECIFICALLY, AB 1950 WOULD
RESULT IN HISTORICAL
ACCOUNTABILITY BY CREATING A
PUBLIC AND SEARCHABLE DATABASE
DETAILING EVENTS SURROUNDING THE
LAND ACQUISITION AND WILL FOSTER
TRANSPARENCY AND EDUCATION ABOUT
THIS PIVOTAL MOMENT IN OUR
COMMUNITY'S HISTORY. IT WOULD
BRING ABOUT REPARATIVE MEASURES
BY PROPOSING VARIOUS FORMS OF
COMPENSATION, INCLUDING OFFERING
OFFERING CITY OWNED REAL ESTATE,
COMPARABLE TO THE ORIGINAL
CHAVEZ RAVINE LANDOWNERS, OR
PROVIDING FAIR MARKET VALUE
COMPENSATION ADJUSTED FOR
INFLATION. AND LASTLY, IT WOULD
ESTABLISH A PERMANENT MEMORIAL.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MEMORIAL ON
CHAVEZ RAVINE OR ADJOINING
PROPERTY TO HONOR THE DISPLACED
RESIDENTS OF THOSE THREE
COMMUNITIES AND THEIR LEGACY.
FOR GENERATIONS, CHAVEZ RAVINE
STOOD AS A BEACON OF HOPE AND
RESILIENCE, EMBODYING THE DREAMS
AND ASPIRATIONS OF FAMILIES WHO
BUILT THEIR LIVES WITHIN ITS
EMBRACE. WITH THIS LEGISLATION,
WE ARE ADDRESSING THE PAST,
GIVING VOICE TO THIS INJUSTICE
AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE PAIN OF
THOSE DISPLACED, OFFERING
COMPENSATION MEASURES AND
ENSURING THAT WE HONOR THE
LEGACY OF PALO VERDE, LA LOMA
AND BISHOP. COMMONLY REFERRED TO
AS CHAVEZ RAVINE. AS WE MOVE
FORWARD, I URGE TO LEND YOUR
SUPPORT TO ESTABLISH THE HEALING
OF THE DESCENDANTS WHO STILL
LIVE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES AND
WHO HAVE COME TO REALLY LEARN TO
UNDERSTAND THE TRAUMA RELATED TO
BEING FORCIBLY DISPLACED WITHIN
OUR COMMUNITY. THIS BILL HAS NO
OPPOSITION, AND I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS JOSEPHINE FIGUEROA,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO FOR
POLICY AND LEGISLATION AT THE AT
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR,D MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, JOSEPHINE FIGUEROA,
THE DEPUTY Þ, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AND LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP
OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
RICARDO LARA, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO
THANK ON BEHALF OF INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER LARA, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CARRILLO FOR CARRYING
THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, THROUGHOUT
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER LARA'S
CAREER AND PUBLIC SERVICE, HIS
FOCUS HAS BEEN ON SERVING THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN UNDERSERVED FROM
HEALTH CARE TO ALL FOR PROMOTING
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AS PART OF
A FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE.
HIS GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND
CONTINUES TO BE TO CONFRONT
HISTORICAL INJUSTICES, TO BUILD
A FAIRER SOCIETY FOR US ALL.
WHAT WE SEEK TO ADDRESS WITH AB
1950 IS KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING
AND HEALING THE PALO VERDE, LA
LOMA AND BISHOP NEIGHBORHOODS IN
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES STOOD AS
SOME OF THE FEW AREAS ACCESSIBLE
TO HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED
POPULATIONS SEEKING HOUSING
SECURITY IN THE FACE OF
SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION. THÀNH
WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW?
BECAUSE IT IS PAST TIME FOR THE
FAMILIES WHO HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN
THE TRAUMA OF BEING DISPLACED TO
BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND REDRESS THIS
INJUSTICE. THE LONG STANDING
RESIDENTS OF THESE COMMUNITIES
WERE NEVER ADEQUATELY
COMPENSATED FOR THEIR PROPERTY.
BOTH LANDOWNERS AND TENANTS,
SOME OF WHOM HAVE LIVED THERE
FOR DECADES, WERE NEVER GIVEN A
CHOICE ABOUT LEAVING THEIR
HOMES. AND WHILE MANY RESISTED
BUT EVENTUALLY ALL WERE FORCED
TO RELOCATE. WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS, AND
WE SHOULD, WE BELIEVE THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD NOT ONLY
PROVIDE LONG OVERDUE
COMPENSATION FOR RESIDENTS OF
THESE THREE COMMUNITIES, BUT
WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A VEHICLE FOR
RECONCILIATION AND HEALING FOR
ALL. AB 1950 PAVES THE WAY FOR A
MORE EQUITABLE LOS ANGELES BY
ADDRESSING PAST WRONGS AND
PROMOTING RECONCILIATION. IT
WILL HELP EDUCATE ANGELENOS
ABOUT WHAT WE NOW CALL CHÁVEZ
ÓRDENES THROUGH HISTORY,
FOSTERING TRANSPARENCY AND
UNDERSTANDING. NOTHING CAN BRING
BACK WHAT THEY ONCE HAD. WE
MUST, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THEIR
ANGER AND FRUSTRATION. AB 1950
IS THE NEXT STEP IN THIS JOURNEY
OF FINDING SOME MEASURE OF
JUSTICE FOR THESE FAMILIES. THE
ONLY WAY TO GET THERE IS TO
LISTEN TO ALL VOICES AND LISTEN
WITH COMPASSION AND
UNDERSTANDING. WE AIM TO ADDRESS
THE ERASURE OF THEIR HOMES,
THEIR IDENTITY FROM THEIR LAND,
AND WRITE A NEW CHAPTER IN THE
HISTORY OF LOS ANGELES, ONE THAT
ACKNOWLEDGES THIS INJUSTICE AND
REMEMBERS THEIR LEGACY WITH A
MEMORIAL IN THE LAND THAT THEY
ONCE CALLED HOME ON BEHALF OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER RICARDO
LARA, I ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
ROOM THAT WANTS TO ADD IN
SUPPORT? SEEING NONE. ANY
PARAMETER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? NONE. SEEING NONE.
ANY OTHER MEMBER IN THE ROOM
THAT WANTS TO ADD IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PACHECO. ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS
NØ WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WENDY CARRILLO
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO
CLOSE BY SHARING A STORY OF A 79
YEAR OLD FORMER RESIDENT OF THE
LA LOMA NEIGHBORHOOD, MISS IRENE
MURILLO IS 79 YEARS OLD NOW, AND
SHE WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD WHEN HER
FAMILY WAS FORCIBLY RELOCATED
AND THEY LOST EVERYTHING. SHE
NOW WORKS IN OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITY, HELPING OTHER
FAMILIES AND SHE IS EXCITED TO
SEE THAT THIS HISTORY IS FINALLY
BEING TOLD AND RECOGNIZED BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SHE IS
LOOKING FORWARD TO HOW WE MOVE
THIS POLICY AND REALLY RECOGNIZE
THE HISTORICAL INJUSTICE THAT
HAPPENED WITHIN HER COMMUNITY IN
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, FOR A
PROMISE OF HOUSING THAT WAS
NEVER FULFILLED. SHE CALLED OUR
DISTRICT OFFICE TO THANK US FOR
THIS BILL, AND I KNOW THAT SHE
IS WATCHING, AS ARE OTHERS, AND
ARE HOPING THAT THE LEGISLATURE
DOES THE RIGHT THING BY THESE
FAMILIES TO HELP ACKNOWLEDGE THE
PEOPLE AND FAMILIES THAT HAVE
BEEN AFFECTED FOR FAR TOO MANY
DECADES TO THIS HISTORY THAT
OCCURRED. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE A
MOTION? SO MOVED A SECOND. THAT
MOTION. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CARRILLO FOR BRINGING
THIS ISSUE FORWARD AND STARTING
THIS DISCUSSION IN THE
LEGISLATURE. I APPRECIATE YOU
TAKING THE COMMITTEE'S TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS, WHICH YOU AGREED TO
TAKE. AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP,
MOMENTS IN HISTORY THAT I CANNOT
IMAGINE GOING THROUGH THAT
EXPERIENCE FOR THOSE KIDS, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY. THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS DO PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATION.
CARILLO A CARILLO I WALDRON AND
SALLY VALENCIA. CORA PACHECO,
CHICO I. RAMOS. RAMOS I WARD.
WILSON. HILLSIDE. THE BILLS ON
CALL. AND WITH THAT WE MOVE TO
THE SECOND PAGE OF THE AGENDA. I
SEE ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL.
SHE HAS ONE MORE. WAIT. NO,
SORRY. YOU DO TOO. OH, I
APOLOGIZE, I THOUGHT YOU ONLY
HAD TWO. PLEASE, SORRY,
ASSEMBLYMAN. SHE HAS ONE MORE.
WHEN YOU'RE READY. THAT'S AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER 30, AB 3177. GO
AHEAD. THERE WE GO. CHECK,
CHECK. ONE, TWO. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I AM PROUD TO PRESENT
AB 3177 PLACING GUIDELINES ON
SPOT WIDENING A PRACTICE IN
WHICH DEVELOPERS CEDE A PORTION
OF THEIR LAND ADJACENT TO THE
ROADWAY TO WIDEN OUT
COMPENSATION. I BELIEVE THAT THE
ASSEMBLY SERGEANTS HAD GIVEN,
SOME DOCUMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AS WELL. FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION. THIS PRACTICE IS
DONE IN A HANDFUL OF
JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA, OFTEN RESULTING IN
ROADS THAT ESSENTIALLY ZIGZAG
PARCEL BY PARCEL, FAILING TO
MEET THE INTENDED PURPOSE TO
TRAFFIC MITIGATION, AND
FREQUENTLY INDUCING FASTER AND
MORE DANGEROUS DRIVEWAY ALONG
THE ROADWAYS. SPOT WIDENING
REQUIRES SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASING HOUSING COSTS, ADDING
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10,000 TO
$50,000 PER HOUSING UNIT IN LOS
ANGELES ALONE, AMOUNTING TO
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
PER PROJECT. THIS ADDITIONAL
COST TRANSLATES DIRECTLY INTO
HIGHER RENTS AND UNDERCOUNT
UNDERCUTTING HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY. MOREOVER, THESE
REQUIREMENTS REDUCE THE AMOUNT
OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING,
REDUCING THE NUMBER OF FEASIBLE
UNITS ON A PROPERTY. LIKEWISE,
THE DEMANDS IMPOSED BY SPOT
WIDENING CAN MAKE MANY POTENTIAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS UNFEASIBLE
AND WAS THE CASE WITH THE
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
PROJECT IN LÀ THAT FOUGHT FOR
ALMOST TWO YEARS TO RECEIVE A
WAIVER. THIS BILL LIMITS THE
PRACTICE OF STOP WIDENING BY
PROHIBITING A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FROM IMPOSING A LAND DEDICATION
REQUIREMENT FOR A ROADWAY,
WIDENING ON A HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT IN A TRANSIT
PRIORITY AREA, OR FOR
DEVELOPMENTS WITH STREET
FRONTAGE OF LESS THAN 500FT.
THIS BILL PROVIDES THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MAY STILL IMPOSE A
LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT ON
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR STREET
WIDENING IF THE LOCAL AGENCY
MAKES SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT THE
DEDICATION IS NECESSARY TO
PRESERVE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND
WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. PROVIDING
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH
FLEXIBILITY. ADDITIONALLY, AB
3177 REPLACE THE REFERENCE TO
TRANSIT STATION WITH TRANSIT
PRIORITY AREAS WITHIN THE
MITIGATION FEE ACT. PROVIDE
REDUCED MITIGATION FEES FOR
HOUSING NEAR BUS STOPS AND
PLANNED TRANSIT STOPS NOT
COVERED UNDER THE LIMITED
DEFINITION OF TRANSIT STATIONS.
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL ARE
WELL ALIGNED WITH THE STATE'S
GOALS AND PRIORITIZES THE
INCENTIVE FOR NEW HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE SMART
PLACES. THIS BILL IS SPONSORED
BY STREETS FOR ALL AND SUPPORTED
BY A COALITION OF HOUSING
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ADVOCATE FOR
BOTH MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AS WELL AS
ENVIRONMENTAL AND STREET SAFETY
ORGANIZATIONS. MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION AND
HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB 31. 77
IS MARK VUKOVICH, DIRECTOR OF
STATE POLICY FOR STREETS FOR ALL
AND UCLA PROFESSOR MARCO MICHAEL
MANVILLE. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE VOTE
. THANK YOU EVERYBODY, MY NAME
IS MICHAEL MANVILLE. I AM THE,
I'M A PROFESSOR OF URBAN
PLANNING AT UCLA AND THE CHAIR
OF OUR UCLA'S URBAN PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
THIS BILL, I HAVE STUDIED THE
ORIGINS AND OUTCOMES OF THE
LAWS. THIS BILL TARGETS. I AM
THE AUTHOR OF THE PAPER THAT'S
BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO I GUESS, AND
I CAN SAY THAT THAT THESE
REGULATIONS ARE AMONG THE MOST
UNUSUAL AND LEAST EFFICIENT
REGULATIONS I'VE EVER
ENCOUNTERED, THEY HAVE VERY FEW
BENEFITS, THEY DO NOT. THEIR
NOMINAL GOAL IS TO REDUCE
CONGESTION, WHICH THEY DO NOT
DO. AND IN MANY INSTANCES, THEY
EXACERBATE CONGESTION BY
CREATING BOTTLENECKS IN
IRREGULAR STREET ALIGNMENTS AND
THEY DO EXACERBATE THE HOUSING
CRISIS BECAUSE THE COSTS OF
THESE WIDENINGS, REMOVES LAND
FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND
MAKES OUR AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
WORSE. A FURTHER POINT IS THAT
THE THESE LAWS, ONCE PUT IN
PLACE EXPERIENCE, SHOWS US THAT
THEY ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO
REFORM OR REMOVE. AND SO I'LL
JUST VERY QUICKLY DESCRIBE THE
PROBLEM WITH THE LAW. THE
NOMINAL GOAL HERE IS TO REDUCE
CONGESTION BY WIDENING THE
STREETS. AND DECADES OF RESEARCH
OVERWHELMINGLY SUGGEST THAT THAT
WON'T WORK, THAT WIDER STREETS
DO NOT MAKE VEHICLES MOVE FASTER
AT PEAK HOURS. BUT THAT'S NOT
EVEN THE PROBLEM WITH THIS RULE.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS RULE IS
THAT YOU ACTUALLY NEVER GET A
WIDER STREET, BECAUSE YOU NEVER
WIDEN THE WHOLE STREET, YOU JUST
WIDEN IT. ONE SORT OF PIECEMEAL,
INCREMENTAL PARCEL AT A TIME.
AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT
ACTUALLY CREATES BOTTLENECKS BY
GIVING SORT OF JUST THESE LITTLE
INCREMENTAL BUMP OUTS IN THE
STREET, THESE IT CREATES
BOTTLENECKS, IT CREATES SAFETY
PROBLEMS, IT CREATES DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS, MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
AND SO ON, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
IT, EVEN THOUGH ADDING ROAD
SPACE INCREMENTALLY DOESN'T
REDUCE CONGESTION, TAKING SPACE
INCREMENTALLY FROM LAND FOR
HOUSING DOES IMPINGE
AFFORDABILITY, RIGHT? BECAUSE
THAT SPACE IS ACTUALLY VERY
IMPORTANT TO THE FEASIBILITY OF
A MARKET RATE OR AN AFFORDABLE
DEVELOPMENT. AND SO AT BEST, THE
COSTS OF THIS WIDENING MAKE IT
SO THAT, THE DEVELOPER CANNOT
BUILD AS MANY UNITS AS THEY
WOULD PREFER. AND AT WORST, IT
MAKES THE REDEVELOPMENT OF A
PARCEL COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE.
AND WHEN THE REDEVELOPMENT IS
COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE, NOT ONLY
DO YOU LOSE HOUSING, BUT IT ALSO
GUARANTEES THAT THE LAW IS NEVER
ACTUALLY GOING TO DO WHAT IT'S
SUPPOSED TO DO, WHICH IS WIDEN
AN ENTIRE STREET. SO EVEN ON ITS
OWN TERMS, THE LAW BECOMES
SELF-DEFEATING. SO I THINK A
FAIR QUESTION IS WHY, IF THIS
LAW DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT
ALL, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN'T
SIMPLY STOP DOING IT THEMSELVES,
I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER
TO THAT, BUT EXPERIENCE SHOWS
THEY CAN'T, THE LOS ANGELES HAS
HAD A LAW LIKE THIS FOR 60
YEARS. MY CONVERSATIONS WITH
PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH THIS LAW
SUGGEST THAT OVER TIME, IT HAS
JUST BECOME LIKE A PLANE FLYING
VERY QUIETLY ON AUTOPILOT. THE
LAW IS BURIED IN THE HOUSING
APPROVAL PROCESS. ITS AUTHORITY
OVER IT IS DISPERSED OVER
MULTIPLE AGENCIES. IF YOU TALK
TO PEOPLE IN THOSE AGENCIES,
THEY ALL SORT OF ACKNOWLEDGE
THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH IT. BUT
NONE OF THEM REALLY FEEL LIKE
THEY'RE THE PEOPLE TO SOLVE THAT
PROBLEM. AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS
A SITUATION WHERE DECISIONS MADE
A LONG TIME AGO ARE CREATING A
DILEMMA FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS
TODAY, AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T
FEEL LIKE THEY CAN SOLVE IT,
THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO PUSH
THAT DILEMMA FORWARD ONTO LOCAL
OFFICIALS IN THE FUTURE. AND SO
I THINK ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF
THIS BILL, IT WOULD STEP IN AND
SHORT CIRCUIT THIS PROCESS AND
END A LAW THAT IS SORT OF
QUIETLY MAKING BOTH THE
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
SYSTEMS MORE DYSFUNCTIONAL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE.
MARK SAVAGE STREETS FOR ALL.
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. WELL SAID
BY PROFESSOR MANVILLE. SO I'LL
BE BRIEFER. THIS PRACTICE TAKES
PRIVATE LAND WITHOUT
COMPENSATION, FROM HOUSING TO
PUBLIC ROADS ON A PER PROJECT
BASIS, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE
MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY. IT
DOES NOT ACHIEVE ITS PURPORTED
GOALS, SPOT WIDENING IS BASED ON
THE ANTIQUATED AND DISPROVEN
IDEA THAT WE CAN WIDEN OUR WAY
OUT OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON A
PROJECT BY PROJECT, A PARCEL BY
PARCEL, OFTENTIMES BASIS, AND
OFTENTIMES WHAT THIS DOES ON,
ON, ON STREETS FRAWLEY'S END IS
IT MAKES THE STREET LESS LIVABLE
AND MORE DANGEROUS, FRANKLY,
BECAUSE IT DOES THE OPPOSITE OF
KIND OF TITAN IN CERTAIN AREAS.
IT WIDENS IT IN CERTAIN AREAS.
THAT LETS PEOPLE REALLY SPEED IN
FRONT OF THIS BRAND NEW HOUSING
WHERE KIDS AND PARENTS ARE
LIVING NOW, OFTENTIMES THIS ALSO
RIPS UP SIDEWALKS AND EVEN
MATURE STREET TREES, WHICH ARE
WE HAVE A DEARTH OF IN LOS
ANGELES, ROAD WIDENING TYPICALLY
ACHIEVES NOTHING MORE THAN JUST
WIDENING THE EXISTING LANES.
RARELY. BUT SOMETIMES DOES ADD
ADDITIONAL LANE CAPACITY. BUT
USUALLY IT'S JUST WIDENING
EXISTING LANES. SO ON THE
HOUSING SIDE, ONE PROJECT IN LOS
ANGELES LOST OVER 6000FT² TO
ROAD WIDENING, WHICH MEANS THEY
LOST THE ABILITY TO BUILD OVER
30 DWELLING UNITS BECAUSE OF THE
FA AND ADDITIONAL OTHER, OTHER
REASONS. ON TOP OF THAT, ANOTHER
PROJECT CONSISTING OF 100%
HOMELESS HOUSING BY A NONPROFIT
DEVELOPER WAS DELAYED FOR ALMOST
TWO YEARS WHEN THEY APPEALED
THIS REQUIREMENT AS THEIR
PROJECT WOULD NOT PENCIL
OTHERWISE, AND IN IN THE TIME IT
TOOK FOR THE DEVELOPER TO GET
THE WAIVER, AN ADDITIONAL 12,000
PEOPLE FELL INTO HOMELESSNESS IN
CALIFORNIA. IN SOME GOOD
GOVERNANCE, PEOPLE SUPPORT OUR
BILL BECAUSE OF OUR GROWING
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE INDEX AND
THE BACKLOG THAT IS BANKRUPTING
RURAL AND SUBURBAN CITIES.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUPPORT THIS
BECAUSE SPOT WIDENING RIPS UP
MATURE TREES, INDUCES MORE CAR
TRIPS, WORSENS THE URBAN HEAT
ISLAND EFFECT MARKET RATE, AND
AFFORDABLE DEVELOPERS SUPPORT
THIS POLICY BECAUSE IT MAKES
THEIR PROJECTS CHEAPER TO
FINANCE AND PENCIL. AND LASTLY,
STREET SAFETY GROUPS LIKE US ARE
THE SPONSORS BECAUSE THIS SORT
OF WIDENING JUST INDUCES
DANGEROUS SPEEDING THROUGH WIDER
LANES NEXT TO BRAND NEW HOUSING.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT WANTS
TO ADD IN SUPPORT, PLEASE STATE
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ON. SEAMUS GARY FROM
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF CIVIC WELL IN SUPPORT.
MARK STIVERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT
CATHERINE CHARLES HERE WITH
HOUSING ACTION COALITION AND
SUPPORT. REBECCA MARCUS ON
BEHALF OF LEADINGAGE CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT. PRITCHARD ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY PARAMETER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION SEEING
NONE. ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO GO ON THE RECORD IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? NO. YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE AND YOU DID SAY
THAT YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES. HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH
THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS. WE
ALSO WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR
BILL. THE MOTION A MOTION. I
NEED A MOTION FIRST AND A
SECOND. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATION.
CARILLO I CARILLO I WALDRON.
SALLY VALENCIA. CHOLERA.
PACHECO. CHICO I. RAMOS. RAMOS.
I WARD. WILSON THE BILL IS ON
CALL. AND WITH THAT WE MOVE ON
TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TEN AB
2235 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWENTHAL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I HOPE EVERYBODY
SURVIVING. I THINK MY LUNCH IS
STILL WAITING FOR ME ON MY DESK.
HOPE TO HAVE IT BEFORE DINNER. I
WANT TO START OFF BY ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AS
SUGGESTED IN THE ANALYSIS. AND
THANKS AND APPRECIATION TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
PATIENCE AND WILLINGNESS TO WORK
WITH US. THE PORT OF LONG BEACH
IS EMBARKING ON AN AMBITIOUS
PLAN TO BUILD THE LARGEST OFF,
WIND TURBINE FACILITY AT ANY US
PORT. THIS FACILITY WILL HELP
CALIFORNIA MEET ITS GOAL OF
PRODUCING 25GW OF OFFSHORE WIND
POWER BY 2045, AND HELP LOWER
THE NATIONAL COST OF OFFSHORE
WIND POWER BY 70% BY 2035.
OFFSHORE WIND WILL PLAY A
CRITICAL ROLE IN CALIFORNIA'S
RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO,
HELPING CALIFORNIA ACHIEVE ITS
SB 100 GOALS WHILE DELIVERING
THE RENEWABLE ENERGY TO SUPPORT
DECARBONIZATION ACROSS MULTIPLE
SECTORS, INCLUDING THE PORT OF
LONG BEACH'S TRANSITION TO ZERO
EMISSIONS. AB 2235 PROVIDES FOR
AN EXPRESS ABILITY FOR THE CITY
OF LONG BEACH TO PROCURE
CONTRACTS SPECIFICALLY RELATING
TO THE PIER WIND PROJECT, AND
DESCRIBES THE PROJECT DELIVERY
METHODS BY WHICH THOSE CONTRACTS
CAN BE PROCURED. AB 2235 ALSO
PROVIDES SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
FOR BUSINESS ENTITIES ENTERING
INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE PIER WIND
PROJECT RELATING TO BONDING A
SKILLED AND TRAINED WORKFORCE,
AND INSURANCE TIME IS OF THE
ESSENCE TO DEVELOP A PORT
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO ENABLE
OFFSHORE WIND AND TACKLE THE
CLIMATE CRISIS. DUE TO THE
COMPLEXITY AND AGGRESSIVE
DELIVERY SCHEDULE OF PIER WHEN
NEEDED TO MEET CALIFORNIA'S
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY GOALS, IT
WOULD BE EXPEDIENT TO PASS AB
2235 TO PROVIDE AN EXPRESS
ABILITY FOR THE CITY OF LONG
BEACH TO PROCURE CONTRACTS USING
A PLETHORA OF PROJECT DELIVERY
METHODS RELATING TO THE PIER
WIND PROJECT. THE PORT OF LONG
BEACH IS EXCEPTIONALLY PLACED.
THAT IS, THE CENTER OF THE
STATE'S SUPPLY CHAIN, WITH AN
ESTABLISHED INFRASTRUCTURE AND
WORKFORCE. IT WOULD BE KEY TO
THE SUCCESS OF OUR STATE'S AND
EVEN OUR NATION'S LONG TIME
OFFSHORE WIND GOALS. THIS
PROJECT IS ALSO VITAL TO THE
LOCAL ECONOMY AND IN THE
TRANSITIONING OF THE LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO GOOD, HIGH PAYING,
GREEN JOBS. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS NOELLE HASEGAWA,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
PORT OF LONG BEACH, AND GARY
HERRERA, PRESIDENT OF THE ILWU
LOCAL 13. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR CARRILLO, VICE
CHAIR WALDRON AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS NOELLE
HASEGAWA. I'M THE CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER FOR THE PORT
OF LONG BEACH, WHICH IS THE
PREMIER US GATEWAY FOR TRANS
PACIFIC TRADE AND A TRAILBLAZER
IN INNOVATIVE GOODS MOVEMENT,
SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY.
NEARLY 40% OF THE CONTAINER
CARGO ENTERING THE US COMES
THROUGH THE PORT OF LONG BEACH
AND OUR NEIGHBOR, THE PORT OF
LOS ANGELES, WORKING IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THE STATE'S GOALS
OF DEVELOPING 25GW OF OFFSHORE
WIND ENERGY BY 2045. THE PORT OF
LONG BEACH DEVELOPED A
CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR WHAT WE CALL
PIER WIND THAT'S THE NATION'S
LARGEST FACILITY SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED TO ASSEMBLE OFFSHORE
WIND TURBINES. ONCE ASSEMBLED,
THESE TURBINES WOULD BE TOLD BY
SEA FROM THE PORT OF LONG BEACH
TO WIND LEASE AREAS IN CENTRAL
AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA THAT
WILL GENERATE RELIABLE RENEWABLE
POWER FOR THE GRID. IN ADDITION
TO PUTTING CALIFORNIA IN THE
UNITED STATES AT THE FOREFRONT
OF FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND
TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT, PIER
WIND WOULD ALSO HELP THE STATE
MEET CLIMATE GOALS. WHILE
CREATING JOBS AND ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES, AND AS WELL AS
ESTABLISHING A NEW GREEN ENERGY
INDUSTRY THAT WOULD AID IN THE
JUST TRANSITION TO THE GREEN
ECONOMY. CURRENTLY, THE PORT IS
REQUIRED TO UTILIZE DESIGN, BID
BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS
FOR ITS PUBLIC WORKS
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. BUT
BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE
AGGRESSIVE DELIVERY SCHEDULE
NEEDED TO SUPPORT CALIFORNIA'S
OFFSHORE WIND GOALS, THE PORT IS
SEEKING ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERMINAL
THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PORT TO
EMPLOY ALTERNATIVE PROJECT
DELIVERY MODELS AND TO CONSIDER
MULTIPLE OPTIONS TO DESIGN AND
BUILD PURE WIND. TIME IS OF THE
ESSENCE TO DEVELOP THE PORT
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO ENABLE
OFFSHORE WIND AND TACKLE THE
CLIMATE CRISIS. WITHOUT THIS
LEGISLATION, THE PIER WIND
PROJECT WOULD BE DELAYED AT
LEAST ONE YEAR WITH COSTS FOR
THE $5 BILLION PROJECT
INCREASING BY ANOTHER $250
MILLION. FOR THIS REASON, WE
URGE THE COMMITTEE TO PASS AB
2235 TO PROVIDE AN EXPRESS
ABILITY FOR THE CITY OF LONG
BEACH TO PROCURE CONTRACTS USING
A PLETHORA OF PROJECT DELIVERY
METHODS RELATING TO THE PIER
WIND PROJECT. THE PORT OF LONG
BEACH IS PROUD TO SERVE AS A
SPONSOR FOR THIS BILL. I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWENTHAL FOR CARRYING
THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, AND FOR BEING A
CONSTANT CHAMPION OF THE PORT OF
LONG BEACH. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU
TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY
TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
HAVING US HERE TODAY. I'M HERE
IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL
2235. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF ILWU, THE MEN AND
WOMEN OF LOCALS, 1363 AND 94, IN
SUPPORT OF THIS THIS BILL THAT
WE WORK TOGETHER WITH OTHER
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVE
THAT THIS IS A HISTORIC MEASURE
FOR CLEAN, GREEN JOBS. WE WANT
TO BE ON THE FOREFRONT OF
WORKING TOGETHER. WE WANT TO
HELP THIS PROCESS MOVE ALONG,
AND WE'RE READY FOR THIS
MOVEMENT, FOR THIS CLEAN, GREEN
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE'RE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE NOT ONLY FOR
OUR WORKERS, BUT FOR THE WHOLE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, POSSIBLY
THE UNITED STATES, EVEN
WORLDWIDE. SO I JUST WANTED TO
SHOW OUR SUPPORT THAT, YOU KNOW,
THAT THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE
ILWU ARE HERE TO SUPPORT AND
WORK WITH ANY TYPE OF
LEGISLATION, ANY AMENDMENTS, AND
MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE
ROOM THAT WANTS TO ÓRDENES
SUPPORT? STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION, AND POSITION?
MAUREEN PINEDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION IN SUPPORT. SEAN
FARLEY, CHAIR OF THE OFFSHORE
WIND COMMITTEE FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE WHARF
COMMITTEE ITSELF, AND WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. TIM
CAMPBELL PRESIDENT, LOCAL 18.
WE'RE IN STRONG SUPPORT. DAVID
GONZALEZ, ILWU LOCAL 34, SAN
FRANCISCO. WE'RE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. AND I'D LIKE YOU TO
KNOW THAT THIS WIND THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS GOING TO BE SO
MUCH BETTER THAN THIS COLD WIND
YOU GOT BLOWING IN HERE. THIS
PLACE IS FREEZING. MELVIN MCKAY,
LOCAL TEN OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO.
I SUPPORT THIS AS WELL. JADEN
TRUJILLO, LOCAL 34, SAN
FRANCISCO MARINE CLERKS I SPEAK
IN SUPPORT CÁC EDWARDS, LOCAL
18, IN SUPPORT DANIELLE
SCHAEFER, LOCAL 18 IN SUPPORT.
BAILER RODD LOCAL 18 JUST
SHOWING FULL SUPPORT. DANIELLE
LOPEZ, LOCAL 18 I SUPPORT THE
BILL. DAVID LOPEZ, LOCAL 18. I
SUPPORT THE BILL. STEPHANY
FLORES, ILWU LOCAL 54. I SUPPORT
THE BILL. TROY LANGAN, LOCAL 18,
IN SUPPORT. DANNY OFER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PORT
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 64. YEAH.
MIKE CARRANZA, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION
LOCAL 63 MARINE CLERKS. WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. DANNY VILA,
PRESIDENT, ILWU LOCAL 63. WE'RE
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT. ANTHONY PALLOTTA,
LOCAL 18, FULL SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ASHLEY MCCARTHY, LOCAL 18,
FULL SUPPORT. HALEY POWELL,
LOCAL 18, IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, EMILY PETERSON, ILWU
LOCAL 18. WE'RE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? THANK YOU. MISTER
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
JEREMY SMITH, YOU'RE ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, IN, RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TODAY, FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND
STAFF AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR MISSING THE LETTER
DEADLINE BY, I BELIEVE, EIGHT
MINUTES ON FRIDAY, WE DID GET A
LETTER IN, THOUGH. WE ARE
OPPOSED, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT WE
ARE IN FAVOR OF, WE ARE IN FAVOR
OF THE PARTS OF THE BILL THAT
DEAL WITH, PROJECT DELIVERY
METHODS BEING EXPANDED TO THE
PORT OF LONG BEACH, WE ARE,
TREMENDOUS SUPPORTERS OF THIS
OFFSHORE WIND INDUSTRY, THIS
NASCENT INDUSTRY THAT'S COMING
IN, WE SUPPORT SENATOR
LOWENTHAL'S EFFORTS, WE'RE WE
HAVE A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
ON A ON AN OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT
UP IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, HUMBOLDT
BAY, SO WE ARE WE STAND READY
TO, TO HELP WITH THAT AND HELP
HELP THE PORT OF LONG BEACH AS
WELL. BUT THIS IS REALLY TWO
BILLS IN ONE. THE SECOND PART OF
THE BILL, IS, WAS AMENDED ON
APRIL 15TH. IT WENT TO PRINT
APRIL 15TH, AND IT DEALS WITH
SOME JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
BETWEEN THE ILWU AND THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL AND THE
LOCAL BUILDING TRADES,
PARTICULARLY, AT SECTION 22190,
THE DEFINITION OF CONSTRUCTION
THAT WAS ADDED TO THE BILL ON
THAT DAY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT
WAS NOT SHARED WITH ME, OR
MEMBERS OF THE BUILDING TRADES,
BEFORE IT WAS PUT INTO THE BILL.
AND SECONDARILY, 22194 SECTION
22194 DEALING WITH PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS AND WHAT A PROJECT
LABOR AGREEMENT SHOULD COVER,
THAT WAS NOT SHARED WITH US
EITHER, SO WE SAW THAT FOR THE
FIRST TIME ON THE 15TH, WE HAD
OUR FIRST, STAFF LEVEL MEETING.
I REFER TO MYSELF AS STAFF. NON
PRINCIPALS MEETING. IT'S CHRIS
HANNON WAS NOT THERE. FOR
EXAMPLE, ON FRIDAY WITH THE
COMMITTEE, THE YOUR COMMITTEE
CONVENED THAT ALONG WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOWENTHAL STAFF,
AND WE HAD A NICE CONVERSATION
IN THE HALLWAY WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOWENTHAL
EARLIER, HE HAS ASSURED ME THAT
WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TALKING
ABOUT THIS, WORKING THROUGH
THESE ISSUES, WE SUPPORT AS THE
LABOR MOVEMENT OF COURSE, OUR
BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE TWU
AS THEY ATTEMPT TO, ACTUALLY
WORK TOGETHER WITH US TO FIGURE
OUT THIS NASCENT INDUSTRY AS IT
STARTS TO EXPAND OUT HERE,
MAKING SURE THIS INDUSTRY TAKES
CARE OF WORKERS, BOTH THE ILWU
WORKERS AND OUR MEMBERS WHO ARE
GOING TO BE BUILDING A LOT OF
THESE, STRUCTURES. SO WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER. HE'S ASSURED ME
HE'S GOING TO KEEP WORKING WITH
US, AS WELL AS THE PORT AND THE
ILWU, BUT TODAY WE UNFORTUNATELY
HAVE TO BE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO BE ADDED IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NONE, COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? NO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL, WOULD
YOU LIKE. OH, YEAH. PLEASE
CLOSE. YES NO COMMENTS, SIR,
OKAY. YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO
SAY HOW, APPRECIATIVE AND
GRATEFUL I AM TO HAVE THE HOUSE
OF LABOR HERE, SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF THIS BILL, THE
BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE ILWU
AND THE BUILDING TRADES ARE BOTH
GOING TO BE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN
THIS PROJECT. AND WE ARE
COMMITTED. EVERYONE IS COMMITTED
TO THE WIN WIN SITUATION. IF I
COULD USE A BASEBALL ANALOGY,
THIS BILL IS IN THE SECOND OR
THIRD INNING. WE STILL HAVE A
WAYS TO GO AND WE WILL GET THERE
TOGETHER. WE WILL LAND THIS
PLANE TOGETHER FOR, TO
EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT. AND
EVERYBODY HAS ASSURED ME OF THE
SAME THING. SO, WITH YOUR AYE
VOTE TODAY, WE WILL CONTINUE TO
HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS BILL
AND MOVE IT FORWARD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND YOUR SPONSOR FOR WORKING
WITH, COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
WHICH YOU DO ACCEPT. YEP THE
PIER WIND PROJECT IS AN
EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO HELP US
ACHIEVE OUR GHG REDUCTION GOALS
FOR THE ENTIRE STATE AND SPUR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN IN AND
AROUND THE PORT. I'M PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND YOUR
BILL. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? A
SECOND, FIRST AND A SECOND. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS THIS AMENDMENT
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATE THÀNH CARILLO I
CARILLO I WALDRON AND SALLY
VALENCIA. KALRA PACHECO. CHECO I
RAMOS. RAMOS I WARD. WILSON. THE
BILL IS UNCLE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. NEXT ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE
ITEM NUMBER 16 AB 2583 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERMAN.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES,
TO TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. TRAFFIC
ACCIDENTS ARE THE LEADING CAUSE
OF DEATH FOR SCHOOL AGED
CHILDREN IN CALIFORNIA. AND I'VE
HEARD FROM TOO MANY PARENTS
CONCERNED ABOUT CLOSE CALLS IN
FRONT OF SCHOOLS. OR TRAGICALLY,
KIDS BEING HIT BY CARS AND
SERIOUSLY INJURED OR EVEN
KILLED. SCHOOL ZONES. THE AREAS
AROUND SCHOOLS SHOULD BE SAFE
HAVENS FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS.
THAT'S WHY I'M AUTHORING AB 2583
TO UPDATE OUR POLICIES TO
ADVANCE SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY,
PUTTING KIDS AND ADULTS
WELL-BEING FIRST SCHOOL ZONE
SIGNS IN CALIFORNIA LOWER THE
SPEED LIMIT. QUOTE WHEN CHILDREN
ARE PRESENT, WHICH IS A STANDARD
THAT IS DIFFICULT FOR DRIVERS TO
KNOW HOW TO COMPLY WITH. IT'S
DIFFICULT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
ENFORCE, AND IT DOES NOT
APPROPRIATELY PROTECT PARENTS,
CAREGIVERS, TEACHERS, OR SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES. AB 2583 ALIGNS
CALIFORNIA WITH THE MAJORITY OF
OTHER STATES UTILIZING SET TIME
FRAMES WITH THIS CHANGE, WE'LL
ACHIEVE HIGHER COMPLIANCE WITH
THE LAW, WHICH IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT FOR STUDENT SAFETY. AB
2583 THE SAFER SCHOOL ZONES ACT
WILL ALSO LOWER SCHOOL ZONE
SPEED LIMITS TO 20MPH OR LESS.
OF THE 39 STATES THAT SET A
MAXIMUM SCHOOL ZONE SPEED BY
STATUTE, CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF
JUST NINE STATES IN THE COUNTRY
WITH A SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMIT
GREATER THAN 20MPH. THE RESEARCH
IS AS INTUITIVE AS IT IS TRUE,
WHICH IS THAT THE FASTER YOU
DRIVE, THE MORE DANGEROUS YOU
BECOME. LASTLY THIS BILL ADDS
SCHOOL WALK ZONES WHERE THE MOST
PEOPLE ARE WALKING OR BIKING
NEAR SCHOOLS TO CITY'S
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS. AT THEIR
NEXT UPDATE TO ENSURE THAT
CITIES MORE INTENTIONALLY PLAN
FOR THESE HIGH FOOT TRAFFIC
AREAS. AB 2583 WILL PRIORITIZE
THE SAFETY OF EVERY CHILD
WALKING AND BIKING TO SCHOOL,
AND TODAY, I'M GRATEFUL TO BE
JOINED BY MARK VUKOVICH,
DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICY AT
STREETS FOR ALL, AND DOCTOR LENA
VANDERLEEST, PEDIATRICIAN AT UC
DAVIS HEALTH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MARK VUKOVICH. STREETS FOR ALL.
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, WHAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BERMAN SAID IS
TRUE IS IT'S NOT DISEASE, IT'S
NOT GUNS. IT'S NOT DROWNING.
IT'S GETTING HIT BY A CAR THAT'S
KILLING OUR CHILDREN. IT'S THE
NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH. AND
FOR CONTEXT, THE SOCIETAL COST
OF CAR CRASHES IS MORE THAN THE
COST OF WILDFIRES. IT'S MORE
THAN THE COST OF CANCER.
PEDESTRIAN DEATHS ARE UP IN THIS
COUNTRY 77% SINCE 2010. AND IT'S
EVEN WORSE IN CALIFORNIA. AND I
ACTUALLY JUST WANT TO CORRECT
THE RECORD. TRAFFIC VIOLENCE IS
ACTUALLY THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF
DEATH FOR ALL PEOPLE FROM THE
AGE OF 5 TO 44 YEARS OLD AND
THAT FACT ALIGNS WITH WHAT OUR
INTENT IS. SCHOOLS ARE COMMUNITY
HUBS WHERE CHILDREN, PARENTS,
CROSSING GUARDS, TEACHERS,
GRANDPARENTS ALL COEXIST IN
EFFORT IN AN EFFORT TO EDUCATE
AND SUPPORT OUR YOUNG PEOPLE.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN
CHILDREN ARE PRESENT, THAT
SCHEMA IS VAGUE. CHP DOESN'T
LIKE THE STANDARD LOCAL POLICE
OFFICERS IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT
HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
OF THAT STANDARD. IT LEADS TO AN
UNCONTROLLABLE MESS. IT ALSO
DOES NOT PROTECT PEOPLE LIKE 72
YEAR OLD GRANDPARENT PANCHO RIOS
IN DINUBA. HE DIED WHILE GETTING
HIT BY A CAR WHILE PUSHING HIS
FOUR YEAR OLD GRANDDAUGHTER OUT
OF THE WAY TO SAVE HER. SO WHAT
WE WERE PROPOSING IS A TIME
BASED STANDARD AND LOWERING THE
SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMIT. TEXAS
AND NEVADA RECENTLY MAKE THIS
CHANGE TO A TIME BASED STANDARD,
BECAUSE IT LEADS TO A HIGHER
LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE. YOU'LL NOTE
THAT OUR BILL IS NOT A LOCAL
CONTROL BILL. IT IS. IT IS A
STATE MANDATE. BUT I WANT
EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT WE SEE
THIS AS AN ESSENTIAL PIECE BY
CREATING AS A STANDARD THAT IS
THE SAME ACROSS THE STATE FROM
SHASTA, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SAN
DIEGO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO RELY
ON DRIVERS TO EVEN LOOK AT THE
SIGNAGE OR SEE IF THEIR CHILD IS
PRESENT, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING
TO KNOW THAT BEFORE AND AFTER
SCHOOL THEY NEED TO SLOW DOWN. I
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMITTEE
CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. I'M
DOCTOR LENA VANDERLEEST. I'M A
COMMUNITY PEDIATRICIAN. I'M A
MOM, AND I'M HERE TODAY
REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS. CHAPTER
ONE AND CALIFORNIA AND 5000
PEDIATRICIANS IN OUR STATE. SO
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY AND
TO SPEAK ON MY SUPPORT FOR AB
2583, A BILL DESIGNED FOR SAFER
SCHOOL ZONES. SO JUST TWO MONTHS
AGO, I SAW A TEENAGER IN MY
OFFICE FOR FOLLOW UP AFTER HE
HAD BEEN DISCHARGED FROM THE
HOSPITAL. HE HAD BEEN ADMITTED
BECAUSE HE SUSTAINED MULTIPLE
INJURIES, INCLUDING A LIVER
LACERATION WHEN HE WAS THE
VICTIM OF A HIT AND RUN WHILE
RIDING HIS BIKE JUST OUTSIDE OF
HIS HIGH SCHOOL. AS
PEDIATRICIANS, PARENTS AND
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WE KNOW THESE
TYPES OF ACCIDENTS ARE
UNACCEPTABLE AND WE WANT SCHOOLS
TO BE THE SAFEST ENVIRONMENT
POSSIBLE FOR OUR KIDS. AB 2583
IS A CRITICAL STEP IN ADDRESSING
THIS RESEARCH BY THE NATIONAL
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
UNDERSCORES THAT EVEN SMALL
REDUCTIONS IN VEHICLE SPEED CAN
SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF SEVERE INJURY OR
DEATH IN THE EVENT OF A
COLLISION. THE RISK OF DEATH IS
THREE TIMES HIGHER AT THE
CURRENT SPEED OF 25MPH THAN AT
THE 20 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT
PROPOSED BY THE BILL. EVERY DAY
I GET TO TALK WITH FAMILIES
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF EXERCISE
AND SPENDING TIME OUTDOORS. SO
MANY FAMILIES TELL ME THEY WOULD
LOVE TO HAVE THEIR KIDS WALK AND
BIKE TO SCHOOL TO HELP PROMOTE
INDEPENDENCE AND PHYSICAL
ACTIVITY. UNFORTUNATELY MOST
FAMILIES DO NOT FEEL SAFE WITH
THE COMFORTABLE OR THE CURRENT
SAFETY STANDARDS OF OUR STREETS.
AB 2583 IS AN IMPORTANT STEP IN
MOVING CALIFORNIA CLOSER TO THE
GOAL OF SAFE SCHOOL ZONES FOR
ALL, AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE YES
ON AB 2583. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO ARE IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
A POSITION ON LARA WITH THE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION. WE'RE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE,
ARE THERE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERMAN, JUST
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR
SUPPORT AND MAKING OUR STREETS
SAFER FOR ALL YOUTH WHO ARE
TRYING TO GET TO SCHOOL, BUT
ALSO EVERYONE WHO WORKS OR
INTERACTS AT THE SCHOOL. THANKS
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, FIRST AND A
SECOND. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING
THIS BILL TODAY, I WILL BE
VOTING AYE. AND SUPPORTING THE
MEASURE. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATION. CARILLO Ã
CARILLO I. WALDRON. WALDRON AYE.
IS SALLY VALENCIA. KALRA
PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE. RAMOS.
RAMOS. AYE WARD. WILSON IT'S ON
CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. NEXT ITEM, NUMBER 17, AB
2667 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER SANTIAGO
. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF, FOR
HELP US TO WORK ON THIS BILL,
VERY BASIC, PLAIN AND SIMPLE AND
STRAIGHTFORWARD. THIS, AB 2667
STRENGTHENS CALIFORNIA'S
AFFIRMATIVELY FAIR HOUSING LAWS
BY PROVIDING STAKEHOLDERS WITH
MORE TOOLS TO ENSURE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE TAKING
MEANINGFUL ACTION TO FURTHER
FAIR HOUSING LAWS, SPECIFICALLY,
IT WOULD REQUIRE HCD TO DEVELOP
A STANDARD REPORTING, FOR THE
FOR THESE, FOR A, A F H. I
ALWAYS GET STUCK SAYING THAT. SO
I SAY THE LONG WAY AND IT WOULD
REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
DRAFT INVENTORY OF SITES
AVAILABLE TO HCD, IT ALSO
REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF UNITS
APPROVED AND DISAPPROVED IN HIGH
OPPORTUNITY AREAS FOR THE ANNUAL
PROGRESS REPORT. IN THE INTEREST
OF TIME, I WILL PRESENT MY TWO
WITNESSES, IF YOU'RE OKAY, WE'LL
SELF INTRODUCE AND BEGIN MR.
CHAIR, AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THAT WILL BE MY
CLOSING. THANK YOU. HONORABLE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, AMY HÌNH
SHEK, REPRESENTING ABUNDANT
HOUSING, LA CALIFORNIA HAS A
LONG WAY TO GO IN FULFILLING THE
PROMISE OF THE FEDERAL FAIR
HOUSING ACT PASSED OVER 50 YEARS
AGO. AND WHERE THE FIRM
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING OR AF, ORIGINALLY
APPEARED. HISTORIC PATTERNS OF
SEGREGATION PERSIST, AND MANY
PEOPLE OF COLOR LIVE IN
NEIGHBORHOODS WITH SEVERE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BURDENS AND
LACK OF ACCESS TO NECESSITIES
SUCH AS RELIABLE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION. SINCE THE
ENACTMENT OF AB 686 AND AB 1304,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE
STATE HAVE DEVELOPED A MYRIAD OF
NEW HOUSING PROGRAMS. HOWEVER
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED
PROGRAMS SUGGESTS THAT MOST,
MOST OF THEM WILL LIKELY HAVE
MINIMAL IMPACT. PROPOSED
PROGRAMS OFTEN HAD LONG OR
UNCLEAR TIMELINES, VAGUE
OBJECTIVES, AND IN MANY CASES
REPRESENT MINIMAL COMMITMENTS OF
STAFF, TIME OR RESOURCES. MANY
PROPOSED AF PROGRAMS DO NOT
FOCUS ON THE LAND USE AND ZONING
POLICY CHANGES THAT WOULD MAKE
PROGRESS TOWARD THE SPIRIT OF
FAIR HOUSING LAW. MOST CITIES
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL SITES FOR LOW
INCOME HOUSING IN THEIR LESS
AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR
EXISTING MULTIFAMILY ZONES, THUS
EXACERBATE THE STATUS QUO OF
SEGREGATION. RATHER THAN
FACILITATING INTEGRATION, THE
WAY IN WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
PRESENT THEIR AF PROGRAMS IN
HOUSING PLANS IS ALSO
INCONSISTENT AND INCOMPLETE,
MAKING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
IMPACT CHALLENGING. AB 2667
WOULD ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND
ADVANCE FAIR HOUSING BY
REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A
STANDARDIZED REPORTING FORMAT
FOR AF PROGRAMS AND ACTIONS, AND
REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
MAKE A DRAFT INVENTORY OF SITES
AVAILABLE TO HCD AND THE PUBLIC.
AT LEAST 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF ITS HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE, AND TO COMPLETE THEIR
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING PRIOR
TO RELEASING A DRAFT INVENTORY
OF SITES. FOR THESE REASONS AND
MANY MORE, WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS MATTHEW BENJI AND I'M
WITH INNER-CITY LAWCENTER. WE'RE
THE ONLY PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDER BASED IN SKID ROW IN
LOS ANGELES. AND WE SERVE FOLKS
WHO ARE HOMELESS AND AT RISK OF
HOMELESSNESS THROUGHOUT LA
COUNTY. SKID ROW IS A COMMUNITY
FORMED FROM A GOVERNMENT POLICY
TO EXCLUDE POOR PEOPLE FROM THE
REST OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
BUT EVERY DAY, PEOPLE FROM SKID
ROW AND LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA COMMUTE
LONG DISTANCES TO JOBS IN
WEALTHIER COMMUNITIES. WEALTHY
COMMUNITIES REQUIRE LOW INCOME
WORKERS TO THRIVE, BUT FAIL TO
ADEQUATELY PLAN FOR HOUSING FOR
LOW INCOME WORKERS, FORCING MANY
OF OUR CLIENTS TO ENDURE LONG
COMMUTES. THIS DEPRIVES OUR
CLIENTS OF THEIR FREE TIME TO
SPEND WITH THEIR CHILDREN, THEIR
FAMILIES, AND THEIR FRIENDS.
HOUSING PROJECTS AND MIXED
INCOME PROJECTS IN WEALTHY
COMMUNITIES CONSISTENTLY HAVE
SLOWER APPROVALS THAN HOUSING,
AND LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES AND
LOCALITIES CONSISTENTLY ALLOW
THE CONCERNS OF HIGH INCOME
COMMUNITIES TO BLOCK, SLOW DOWN,
OR DOWNSIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND MIXED INCOME PROJECTS AND
WEALTHY COMMUNITIES, THAT THAT
CAN IN WEALTHY COMMUNITIES THAT
WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING, FAILING TO BUILD
HOUSING CLOSE TO JOBS AND HIGH
INCOME COMMUNITIES CONTRIBUTES
TO DISPLACEMENT AND
GENTRIFICATION AND ADJACENT LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES. ONE EXAMPLE
IS A CITY, A WEALTHY CITY IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CALLED CULVER
CITY. BETWEEN 2016 AND 2020,
CULVER CITY ADDED 10,000 JOBS.
YET IN THE ENTIRE TWO DECADES
FROM 2000 TO 2020, CULVER CITY
ONLY ADDED 689 HOMES. THIS
CAUSES GENTRIFICATION AND
DISPLACEMENT, AND HISTORICALLY
BLACK NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES IN
SOUTH LOS ANGELES, INCLUDING
INGLEWOOD, WEST ADAMS AND
LEIMERT PARK AB 267 WOULD
REQUIRE THAT HCD DEVELOPS A
STANDARDIZED REPORTING PROCESS,
AS WELL AS REQUIRE CITIES TO
PREPARE A SITE INVENTORY PRIOR
TO THE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS
IS AN IMPORTANT STEP TO ENSURE
THAT CITIES DO AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHER FAIR HOUSING AND THAT
THEY CAN ASSESS THEIR PROGRAMS
TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE MEETING
THEIR GOALS. I WANT TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SANTIAGO FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE, AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
ON AB 267. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT? GOOD
AFTERNOON. IT'S BROOKE PRITCHARD
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. CATHERINE CHARLES, ON
BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANY PROMINENT WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. ANYBODY
ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO
BE ADDED IN OPPOSITION. SEEING
NONE, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS NO. THANK
YOU FOR DOING YOUR CLOSING IN
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, I THANK
YOU FOR PRESENTING THE BILL
TODAY. I WILL BE VOTING AYE.
ONCE WE GET A MOTION A SECOND,
FIRST AND A SECOND, THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION. DO PASS THE
APPROPRIATION. CARILLO Ã
CARILLO I. WALDRON. WALDRON. NOT
VOTING EASILY. VALENCIA. CARRA.
PACHECO CHECO I RAMOS. RAMOS I.
WARD HI. WARD I WILSON. THE
BILLS ON CALL. THANK YOU. AND I
DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE A SECOND
BILL TO PRESENT. I DO, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AGAIN AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR HELPING US WITH THIS
BILL. I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AND
THANK THE PREVIOUS CHAIR, THE
CHAIR OF HOUSING, WHO'S ON THIS
COMMITTEE, WHO HELPED US WITH
THIS, AS WELL. IT'S A VERY
STRAIGHT, STRAIGHTFORWARD AND
SIMPLE. IT WOULD THIS BILL WOULD
JUST GIVE THE CITIES
FLEXIBILITY, AND THE NUANCE
NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO AMEND THEIR
LOCAL BUILDING CODES TO BETTER
ENABLE ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS,
WHILE ENSURING THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS APPROPRIATE LEVEL
OF OVERSIGHT AND DISCRETION IN
THE PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY, WOULD
ENABLE CITIES WITH A POPULATION
OF 400,000 PEOPLE OR OVER, TO BE
ABLE TO USE ADAPTIVE REUSE.
SORRY TO BE OR MORE FOR AN
ADAPTIVE TO ADOPT AN ADAPTIVE
REUSE ORDINANCE, OR TO ADOPT
ALTERNATIVE BUILDING REGULATIONS
TO FACILITATE THE CONVERSION OF
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, MR. CHAIR, I
WILL I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE, AND WE'LL ASK THAT AS
MY CLOSING STATEMENT, AND WE'LL
HAND IT OVER TO Ã WITNESS IF
YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, 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'S 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 2910. THIS BILL WOULD
ALLOW LARGER CITIES WITH
ADAPTIVE REUSE POLICIES TO ADOPT
ALTERNATIVE BUILDING REGULATIONS
TO FACILITATE CONVERSIONS TO
HOUSING AFTER REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY STATE AGENCIES. THIS
WOULD CREATE A PROCESS FOR
NUANCE NEEDED IN LOCAL BUILDING
CODES TO FOSTER ADAPTIVE REUSE,
BALANCED WITH THE APPROPRIATE
OVERSIGHT OF THE STATE. AB 2910
IS A CRUCIAL TOOL TO MAKE
PROGRESS ON THE ISSUE OF
ADAPTIVE REUSE. I'LL LEAVE IT
THERE TO KEEP IT BRIEF, BUT
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS,
AND WE WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM WANTS
TO BE ADDED ON SUPPORT? PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. MR. CHAIR CHRIS WILSON
WITH L.A. COUNTY BUSINESS
FEDERATION AND SUPPORT. GOOD
NEWS FOR YOU, BRADY GUERTIN. THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CATHERINE
CHARLES HERE ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. HELLO, NATALIA WITH
CRUZ STRATEGIES ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANY PARAMETER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE, TAKING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS SEEING NONE. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I ALREADY HAVE,
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. NGUYEN,
THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THIS
BILL TODAY. I WILL BE VOTING AYE
ON THIS BILL. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND? WE HAVE A
FIRST AND A SECOND. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. CARILLO
Ã CARILLO I. WALDRON. WALDRON,
I AND SALLY VALENCIA. CORA
PACHECO. CHICO I. RAMOS. RAMOS
I. WARD WARD I. WILSON GONZALEZ.
THE BILL IS UP. I WILL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
SANTIAGO. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 21.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AGUIAR-CURRY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT?
SECOND. EVERYBODY'S TIRED.
ALRIGHTY. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS. I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK
ON THIS BILL. I'M HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
TODAY. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH YOU AND
THE STAFF ON CLARIFYING THE
PROVISION ON MEMBERSHIP OF THE
CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. AB
2813 IS A COMPANION MEASURE TO
ACA ONE, WHICH THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED LAST YEAR IN EXCHANGE FOR
THE INITIATIVES LOWERING OF THE
VOTE THRESHOLD FOR LOCAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INITIATIVES TO 55. I
BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE A ROBUST
GUARDRAILS TO PROTECT VOTERS TO
AND ENSURE FISCAL OVERSIGHT,
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
FOR THIS REASON, WE EQUIPPED ACA
ONE WITH HISTORIC ACCOUNTABILITY
MEASURES AND WE ALSO MADE SURE
WE COULD COME BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO ADD ADDITIONAL OR
CLARIFY ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
THROUGH FUTURE LEGISLATION. AB
2813 DOES JUST THAT. IT BUILDS
UPON THE EFFORTS TO INCREASE
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND ENSURE THAT VULNERABLE
GROUPS ARE PROTECTED. FOR
EXAMPLE, WE ARE EXEMPTING LOW
INCOME SENIORS AND THOSE ON SSI
AND SSDI WITH FIXED INCOMES. WE
FURTHER DEFINE THE SIZE, MAKEUP
AND ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS ON
THE CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
REQUIRED UNDER ACA ONE. IN
ADDITION, WE CLARIFY ELIGIBLE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.
MEMBERS AB 2813 SIMPLY SUPPORTS
OUR EFFORTS TO INCREASE
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH
THE INITIATIVE, THIS BILL IS
ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE AND
RESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICY.
SHOULD ACA ONE BE APPROVED BY
THE VOTERS? I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING WE ALL CAN AND SHOULD
SUPPORT WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS DOUG SUBERS FROM THE
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FOR THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS, AND GRACIELA
CASTILLO FROM REPRESENTING
ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS.
THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS,
DOUG SUPERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS CPF, WAS PLEASED TO
CO-SPONSOR ACA ONE AND IS
PLEASED TO BE HERE AND SPONSOR
AND SUPPORT AB 2813. AS NOTED BY
THE AUTHOR, AB 2813 INCLUDES
SEVERAL PROVISIONS THAT WILL
ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
OVERSIGHT, THAT IS INCLUDED IN
ACA ONE ARE IMPLEMENTED
CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT AND THE LEGISLATURE'S
INTENT. LAST YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE,
THIS, THE MEASURE INCLUDES
DIRECTION TO THE CITIZENS
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, IT
SPECIFIES, SPECIFIC TYPES AND,
PERIODIC REVIEWS OF THE AUDITS
THAT ARE REQUIRED BY ACA. ONE.
AND IT ENSURES WE HAVE, USEFUL
LIFE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND
HOUSING, HOUSING PROJECTS THAT
COULD BE, ADOPTED UNDER ACA ONE
MEASURES IN THE FUTURE. WE, WE
BELIEVE THAT THESE PROVISIONS
WILL PROTECT AND ENSURE
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANKS GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. GARCIA LÀ CASTILLO
HERE ON BEHALF OF ENTERPRISE
COMMUNITY PARTNERS, ENTERPRISE
IS A NATIONAL NONPROFIT
DEDICATED TO INCREASING THE
HOUSING SUPPLY AND ADVANCING
RACIAL, RACIAL EQUITY, AND
BUILDING RESILIENCE AND UPWARD
MOBILITY WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES.
ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS TECHNICAL
AND CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMS,
ADVOCATES FOR POLICIES, AND
DELIVERS THE CAPITAL TO CREATE
AND PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. ENTERPRISE WAS A
VERY STRONG SUPPORTER OF ACA
ONE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT
MEASURE IS GOING TO HELP
COMMUNITIES REALLY MEET SOME OF
THE NEEDS THAT THEY HAVE AND
MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO
HAVE FUNDING FOR THAT. WHILE WE
DO NOT HAVE A YET HAVE AN
OFFICIAL POSITION ON THE BILL,
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY
CLOSELY WITH THE AUTHOR AND HER
STAFF AND ARE EXTREMELY
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MEASURE AND
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE WHAT
THE CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED TO
FULLY IMPLEMENT THE VISION OF
ACA. ONE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO SEE IS
THAT AB 2813 WILL ENSURE THAT
ADDITIONAL CLARITY EXISTS IN
TERMS OF HOW THE EXPENDITURES
ARE GOING TO BE CARRIED OUT. THE
BILL ALSO INCLUDES ADDITIONAL
MECHANISMS TO INCREASE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION, MAKING THE
PROCESS MORE TRANSPARENT AND
LAYS OUT ROBUST FINANCIAL,
FISCAL GUARDRAILS. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT
ON THE MEASURE. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM WANTS
TO BE ADDED IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. HI, GOOD EVENING. I'M
ERIC LAWYER, SPEAKING ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES. WE
SUPPORTED ACA ONE LAST YEAR AS A
MOVE TO THE LEGISLATURE AND JUST
LAST WEEK, OUR BOARD VOTED TO
SUPPORT THE BALLOT MEASURE. I'M
PROUD TO SUPPORT AB 2813. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. JULIE SNYDER,
REPRESENTING THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA
GOVERNMENTS. WHILE WE DON'T YET
HAVE AN OFFICIAL SUPPORT
POSITION ON THE BILL, WE DO WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER
INCREDIBLE LEADERSHIP ON ACA ONE
AND FOR WORKING WITH US THIS
YEAR ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
GOING INTO THE BILL IN YOUR
COMMITTEE AND WOULD URGE YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. BROOKE PRICHARD,
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY
AND SUPPORT. HELLO. SEAMUS
GERARDI FROM LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF CALIFORNIA, THE
POWER CALIFORNIA, THE SAN DIEGO
HOUSING COMMISSION AND THE
UNITED WAY OF GREATER LOS
ANGELES AND SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MARK LANDGRAF, SANTA
CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE
AUTHORITY, AND APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S WORK ON ACA ONE AND AB
2813. AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. WE NEED PARAMETER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, SEEING
NONE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM
THAT WANTS TO BE ADDED IN
OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE. BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WARD. YES. THANK YOU. I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR ALL
OF HER LEADERSHIP OVER MANY
YEARS, TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
THIS ISSUE AND THAT'S
UNDERSCORED, I THINK, BY YOUR
COMMITMENT, AS YOU STATED LAST
YEAR, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION DETAIL WHICH YOU
BROUGHT BEFORE US TO HERE TODAY,
IF YOU'D HAVE ME, I'D BE HONORED
TO JOIN YOU AS A COAUTHOR ON
THIS MEASURE AND HAPPY TO MOVE
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE COMMITTEE?
NOBODY ELSE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE THE CEMETERY? MEMBER OF
THE ARCURI, YOU KNOW ME. I LIKE
TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
IMPLEMENTATIONS. NUMBER ONE, AND
I THINK THIS REALLY PUTS SOME
GREAT GUARDRAILS IN THERE, YOU
KNOW, I THE THING THAT I JUST
LOVE ABOUT THIS BILL IS THAT
WE'RE REALLY TAKING CARE OF OUR
LOW INCOME PEOPLE. AND I THINK
THAT, WE'RE EXEMPTING THE LOW
INCOME SENIORS AND THOSE ON SSI
AND SSDI WITH FIXED INCOMES.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY THINGS
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE
WE ARE INCLUSIVE IN THIS. SO I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. I SUPPORT ACA
ONE LAST YEAR AND I APPRECIATE
THE WORK YOU ARE DOING TO ENSURE
THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACA
ONE, IF ADOPTED BY THE BORDERS,
GOES AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE.
ALSO, THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH
THE COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENTS.
I KNOW THAT QUESTIONS OF WHO CAN
SIT ON THE CITIZENS OVERSIGHT
BOARD HAVE COME UP, AND I'M
WILLING TO CONTINUE WORKING ON
THIS ISSUE OF WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO
SIT ON THESE BOARDS, WITH THAT
AMENDMENT, I WILL BE VOTING.
AYE. ONCE WE HAVE WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND ALREADY,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATION.
CARILLO I CARILLO I WALDRON.
WALDRON. NOT VOTING IS SALLY
VALENCIA. YES. VALENCIA I CORA
PACHECO. CHICO I RAMOS. RAMOS
NOT VOTING WARD. WARD I WILSON.
THE VOTES ON CALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
AS WEIRD BEING ON THIS SIDE, IS
IT LIKE DEJA VU? TIÂU ASSEMBLY
MEMBER VALENCIA WOULD YOU LIKE
TO PRESENT? THANK YOU. THIS IS
ITEM NUMBER 24 ON THE AGENDA AB
2946 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER VALENCIA
. BUENOS TARDES. AND THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. OH, NO,
I SAID, WHEN I START THIS Ó.
BUENAS TARDES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO
START BY THANKING THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE TEAM FOR
DILIGENTLY WORKING ON THIS BILL,
AND ACKNOWLEDGE MY LEGISLATIVE
TEAM MEMBER, KATIE GUTHRIE, WHO
WILL BE HERE FOR SOME TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS IF ASKED FOR HER WORK
ON THIS BILL AS WELL, I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AB 2946 WILL
ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND
CRITERIA FOR APPROPRIATING
DISTRICT DISCRETIONARY FUNDS IN
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. IT HAS
BEEN REPORTED IN SEVERAL MEDIA
OUTLETS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THAT A NONPROFIT IN ORANGE
COUNTY RECEIVED MILLIONS IN
DISTRICT DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
FROM A SUPERVISOR ON THE BOARD,
THE NONPROFIT WAS ALLEGEDLY LED
BY A SUPERVISOR FAMILY MEMBER,
THIS EXAMPLE HIGHLIGHTS NEED THE
NEED FOR MORE OVERSIGHT ON THE
DISCRETIONARY FUNDS, HOW THEY'RE
BEING USED, AND HOW THEY'RE
BEING AWARDED TWO NONPROFITS IN
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. I THINK
IT'S IMPERATIVE, CONSIDERING A
BUDGET DEFICIT, THAT EVERY TAX
DOLLAR, IS ACCOUNTED FOR AND
THERE IS SOME SORT OF OVERSIGHT
COMPONENT, OUR TEAM HAS ACTIVELY
BEEN WORKING WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS BILL AND
WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO TO
ADDRESS ANY REMAINING CONCERNS
MOVING FORWARD, WITH THAT, HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE
ROOM THAT WANTS TO BE ADDED IN
SUPPORT SEEING NONE. ANYBODY IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME UP. YOU
HAVE. GOOD EVENING. I'M ERIC
LARA SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CSAC,
THE URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
WE SUBMITTED A CONCERNS LETTER
AND JUST WANT TO THANK COMMITTEE
STAFF AND THE AUTHOR FOR
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS. I
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM WANTS
TO BE ADDED IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NONE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS? SEEING
NONE. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND DID WE.
THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING TODAY
AND FOR WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENTS,
WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE
SUPPORTING YOUR BILL TODAY. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATION.
CARILLO Ã CARILLO I. WALDRON.
WALDRON I IS SALLY VALENCIA.
YES. VALENCIA I CARRA PACHECO.
CHECO I RAMOS. RAMOS I WARD.
WARD I WILSON. SIX ZERO THE BILL
IS OUT. SIX ZERO WILL LEAVE THE
ROLE OPEN FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER VALENCIA. GARCIA. NEXT
ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA. AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER 28, AB 3116.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. THANK YOU. I
JUST DIDN'T RECOGNIZE YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. I DIDN'T I DIDN'T KNOW
IF I WAS IN THE RIGHT COMMITTEE.
MUSTACHE. AND SO BUT WE'RE IN
THE RIGHT COMMITTEE. GOOD TO SEE
YOU AND GOOD TO SEE YOU MEMBERS.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL
JUST SAY THANK YOU TO COMMITTEE
FOR THE ANALYSIS. WE WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS. AND WE
HAVE TWO STUDENTS WHO WILL BE
TESTIFYING ON THE IMPORTANCE OF
STUDENT HOUSING AND MAKING SURE
THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD
THE NECESSARY HOUSING FOR OUR
STUDENTS HERE IN CALIFORNIA. I
WANT TO RECOGNIZE ALSO THE WORK
OF THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS IN
THE HOUSING COMMITTEE WHO HAVE
DONE SOME AMAZING WORK, BUILDING
TOWARDS THIS PARTICULAR HEARING
AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, JOSHUA
SMITH, UC DAVIS STUDENT, AND
RUTH SOSA MARTINEZ, SACRAMENTO
STATE STUDENT, THEY WILL BE OUR
WITNESS EXPERTS ON THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PLEASE,
WHEN YOU'RE READY, WELL, GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, AS YOU
MENTIONED, MY NAME IS RUTH SOSA
MARTINEZ. I'M A MASTER'S OF
PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION STUDENT AT SAC
STATE, AND I ALSO SERVE AS THE
ENGAGEMENT COORDINATOR FOR YOUNG
INVINCIBLES. YOUNG INVINCIBLES
IS THE LARGEST NATIONAL YOUNG
ADULT LED POLICY AND ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION, AND WE'RE
COMMITTED TO EXPANDING ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG ADULTS
AGES 18 TO 34. AND WE'RE PROUD
MEMBERS OF THE STUDENT HOMES
COALITION. AB 3116 IS A CRITICAL
STEP FORWARD IN ADDRESSING
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING CRISIS,
WHICH UNIQUELY IMPACTS STUDENTS
PURSUING HIGHER EDUCATION. THE
COST OF HOUSING IS CLOSE TO AND
OFTEN EXCEEDS THE COST OF
TUITION, IN MANY CASES MAKING
HOUSING THE LARGEST BARRIER TO
HIGHER EDUCATION IN OUR STATE.
THE HARSH REALITY IS THAT THE
MAJORITY OF STUDENTS WILL FACE
HOUSING INSECURITY AT SOME POINT
THROUGHOUT THE ACADEMIC YEAR. AS
AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT, I
OFTEN STRUGGLE TO FIND ADEQUATE,
SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IN
THE FALL OF 2019, HOMELESSNESS
BECAME MY REALITY WHEN I WAS
UNABLE TO FIND, HOUSING BEFORE
CLASSES BEGAN, I SPENT SEVERAL
WEEKS HOUSED IN AIRBNBS AND
HOSTELS UNTIL I WAS ABLE TO FIND
A PLACE TO LIVE. NOW I HAVE TO
WORK FULL TIME TO PURSUE MY
SECOND DEGREE. UNFORTUNATELY, MY
EXPERIENCE IS NOT UNIQUE. IN
FACT, MANY HAVE IT WORSE. MANY
STUDENTS ARE UNABLE TO FIND
HOUSING ENTIRELY, WITH 1 IN 4
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS, 1 IN
10 CSU STUDENTS, AND 1 IN 20 UC
STUDENTS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS IN A GIVEN YEAR.
YOUNG INVINCIBLES WORKS WITH
YOUNG PEOPLE FROM HISTORICALLY
UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITIES,
AND WE HEAR FIRSTHAND ABOUT THE
BARRIERS THEY FACE TO ACCESSING
HIGHER EDUCATION AND HOUSING IS
THE NUMBER ONE ROADBLOCK THAT WE
HEAR STUDENTS ALREADY FACE MAJOR
HURDLES IN DURING THEIR COLLEGE
TENURE, SO ADDRESSING HOUSING
WILL ENSURE THAT WE DO OUR PART
TO SET THEM UP FOR SUCCESS. AB
3116 ESTABLISHES A NEW FRAMEWORK
FOR THE STUDENT HOUSING DENSITY
BONUS THAT ACCOUNTS FOR
CALIFORNIA'S UNIQUE STUDENT
HOUSING NEEDS, ENSURING WE
INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS THAT
INVEST IN OUR FUTURE WORKPLACE
WORKFORCE. SORRY IS A STEP IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THE IMPACT THAT 3116,
CAN HAVE ON CALIFORNIA STUDENTS.
AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND CONSIDERATION TODAY. WE URGE
A YES VOTE. GOOD AFTERNOON, AND
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TO FOR
THIS HEARING TODAY. AGAIN. MY
NAME IS JOSHUA SMITH AND I AM A
TRANSFER STUDENT AT UC DAVIS.
AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF AB
3116 AS VICE CHAIR OF UC DAVIS'S
STUDENT HOUSING AND
TRANSPORTATION ADVOCACY
COMMITTEE. I UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE ARE MANY FACTORS TO
CONSIDER WHEN FINDING SOLUTIONS
AND RESOURCES FOR STUDENTS
SEEKING HOUSING ON AND OFF
CAMPUS. HOWEVER, FOR MANY
STUDENTS I INTERACT WITH,
HOUSING INSECURITY BEGINS WITH A
LACK OF OPTIONS. WHILE MY HOME
INSTITUTION, UC DAVIS,
GUARANTEES ON CAMPUS HOUSING TO
TRANSFER STUDENTS LIKE ME. FOR
MY FELLOW STUDENTS AT DAVIS,
WITHOUT ON CAMPUS HOUSING
GUARANTEES, THE HOUSING HUNT IN
THE SPRING IS A MUCH DIFFERENT
STORY. CLASSMATES, ACQUAINTANCES
, AND FRIENDS OF MINE WILL OFTEN
SOLICIT AND SUBMIT SEVERAL
APARTMENT APPLICATIONS
SIMULTANEOUSLY ACROSS THE CITY,
HOPING THAT THERE'S A FALLBACK
IF THEY DON'T GET AN ON CAMPUS
APARTMENT. SOME STUDENTS AT
DAVIS WORKED THROUGH AS MANY
OVER RENTAL APPLICATIONS BEFORE
GETTING AN OFFER, LET ALONE
ACCEPTING ONE. AS A RESULT, IT'S
NOT UNCOMMON FOR SOME STUDENTS
TO FIND THEMSELVES STUCK ON
MULTIPLE HOUSING WAITLISTS, BOTH
FOR OFF CAMPUS AND ON CAMPUS.
FOR UNIVERSITY HOUSING. AND IT'S
ADDING UNDUE PRESSURE ON
STUDENTS AS THEY'RE JUST TRYING
TO ACCESS HIGHER EDUCATION
DURING A PERIOD OF LIFE WHERE
STUDENTS SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON
LEARNING AND SELF-GROWTH TO,
MANY OF US HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
THE POTENTIAL OF CONSIDERING HOW
MUCH MORE WE HAVE TO PAY TO
SETTLE FOR WORSE HOUSING
CONDITIONS THAN WHERE WE LIVE
RIGHT NOW. THE MORE THAT I AND
MY PEERS HAVE TO FOCUS ON
HOUSING, THE WORSE IT IS FOR OUR
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE. THE
TIGHTER ONES BUDGET IS, THE MORE
ACUTE THIS PROBLEM KIND OF
BECOMES IN THE WAKE OF THIS
CURRENT SITUATION. WHAT STUDENTS
NEED MORE IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND ABUNDANT HOUSING OPTIONS AT
THAT, AB 3116 IS A SIGNIFICANT,
SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARDS THIS
GOAL, ENABLING THE CREATION OF
MORE STUDENT HOUSING BEDS AND
PROVIDING A PATH TO CREATE BELOW
MARKET RATE OFF CAMPUS HOUSING
FOR A FUTURE WHERE STUDENTS CAN
PLACE LESS FOCUS ON AFFORDING A
PLACE TO LIVE AND FOCUS MORE ON
BEING STUDENTS, I STRONGLY URGE
YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF AB 3116.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO
BE ADDED IN SUPPORT? SEEING
NONE. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS WE'LL MOVE THE BILL IN
A SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. I
APPRECIATE THE STUDENTS BEING
HERE TO PROVIDE THE TESTIMONY
THAT THEY HAVE TODAY. AND AS
YOU'VE HEARD, THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE, STATEWIDE. AND
WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE HOUSING
CRISIS ACROSS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR WORKING FAMILIES.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
WE THINK ABOUT ALSO OUR
STUDENTS. AND YOU HEARD DIRECTLY
FROM THEM TODAY. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THIS
BILL TODAY. AND THANK YOU FOR
TAKING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
WHICH YOU'VE ACCEPTED. YES, SIR,
YOU'RE RIGHT. SOMETIMES WE
FORGET THAT STUDENTS ALSO NEED
HOUSING, WHILE I WAS GOING TO
SCHOOL, I DID KNOW A COUPLE OF
STUDENTS THAT, UNFORTUNATELY
WERE STAYING IN THEIR CAR. AND
OFTENTIMES WE JUST FORGET
DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. AND THE
STUDENT POPULATION IS SO
IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT. I KNOW
THAT COMMUNITY COLLEGES ARE ALSO
LOOKING TO, STUDENT HOUSING,
SOMETHING THAT I'M VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF. AND I THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS IN FRONT OF
US. AND THANKS TO THE STUDENTS
FOR BEING HERE, WE HAVE A PERSON
A SECOND. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATION.
CARILLO Ã CARILLO. I WALDRON.
HI. WALDRON. I IS SALLY VALENCIA
. YES. VALENCIA I KALRA. PACHECO
I PACHECO I RAMOS. RAMOS I WARD.
WARD I WILSON. SIX ZERO THE BILL
IS UP. I WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND I
BELIEVE WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM ON
THE AGENDA LEFT. AND THAT IS,
ITEM NUMBER 20, AB 2735 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BLANCA RUBIO, IF
YOU ARE LISTENING, OR, THE
STAFFERS FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RUBIO, PLEASE LET HER KNOW THAT
WE'RE WAITING.
WHILE WE WAIT, FOR, SOMEONE ELSE
TO PRESENT FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RUBIO, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON
AND DO THE REST OF THE ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA. WE CAN START WITH
CONSENT. OKAY OUT OF 2727. OKAY.
I'M GOING TO DO THAT, BUT I NEED
TO GET THIS ONE OUT BECAUSE WE
WON'T BE DOING THAT CONSENT
CALENDAR MOTION. WE NEED A
MOTION FOR CONSENT CALENDAR.
FIRST AND SECOND, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. CARILLO. Ã. CARILLO.
AYE. WALDRON. WALDRON AYE.
SALLY. VALENCIA YES. VALENCIA.
AYE. KALRA. PACHECO CHECO. AYE.
RAMOS. RAMOS. AYE. WARD WARD.
AYE. WILSON 16. CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS ARE OUT SIX ZERO. BUT
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
THE MEMBERS TO ADD ON. AB 1807
DO PASS TWO APPROPRIATIONS. OH,
WE DIDN'T DO MOTIONS. CAN WE GET
A FIRST AND A SECOND? SECOND,
FIRST AND A SECOND. DO THAT ON
ALL OF THEM. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATION. CARILLO.
Ã. CARILLO. AYE. WALDRON. NO
WALDRON. NO. SALLY VALENCIA.
VALENCIA. AYE. CORA PACHECO. AYE
CHECO. AYE. RAMOS. RAMOS. AYE.
WARD WARD. AYE. THE BILL WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR THE
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. AB 1820, WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM CORA AND
PACHECO. THE MOTION IS TO PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATE
THÀNH. SALLY VALENCIA. VALENCIA.
AYE. RAMOS. RAMOS AYE. WARD.
WARD. AYE. WILSON THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY SEVEN ZERO. IT'S OUT,
BUT LEAVE IT OPEN. THE VOTE IS
CURRENTLY SEVEN ZERO. THE BILL
IS UP. I BELIEVE THEY'RE ALL
OPEN. AB 1827. WE NEED A MOTION
AND A SECOND. WE HAVE A FIRST.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE
HAVE A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
THE FLOOR. CARILLO. AYE. CARILLO
AYE. WALDRON. NO. WALDRON. NO.
SALLY VALENCIA. VALENCIA. AYE.
CORA PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE.
RAMOS. RAMOS AYE. WARD. WARD.
AYE. WILSON THE BILL IS. I WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. AB 1886 AND
NEED A MOTION. WE HAVE A FIRST
AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATION. CARILLO. AYE
CARILLO. AYE. WALDRON. WALDRON.
NOT VOTING EASILY. VALENCIA.
VALENCIA. AYE CORA. PACHECO.
PACHECO. AYE RAMOS. RAMOS. AYE.
WARD. WARD. AYE WILSON. FIVE
ZERO BILLY. SALIBA. FIVE ZERO
WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN. AB
1893. THE MOTION WAS BY CORA AND
PACHECO, IT WAS A Dð PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATION.
WALDRON AND WALDRON NOT VOTING
AS SALLY VALENCIA. YES.
VALENCIA. AYE. RAMOS RAMOS. AYE.
WARD. WARD. AYE WILSON. 6060.
THE BILL WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN. AB 1950. THE MOTION WAS BY
PACHECO, SECOND BY CARRILLO. IT
WAS A Dð PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATION. WALDRON HÌNH.
WALDRON. AYE. AS SALLY.
VALENCIA. VALENCIA. AYE. CORA
WARD. WARD. AYE WILSON. SIX
ZERO. OUT SIX ZERO. THE BILL
WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN. AB
2023. MOTION WAS BY PACHECO,
SECOND BY CARRILLO. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATE
THÀNH. WALDRON. NÓ. WALDRON. NÓ
AS SALLY. VALENCIA. VALENCIA.
AYE. CORA RAMOS. RAMOS. AYE.
WARD. WARD. AYE. WILSON 050. THE
BILL WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN.
AB 2235 FIVE. THE MOTION WAS BY
PACHECO, SECOND BY RAMOS. IT'S A
Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATION. WALDRON HI.
WALDRON. AYE. AS SALLY VALENCIA.
YES. VALENCIA. AYE. CORA. WARD
WARD. AYE. WILSON 6060. THE BILL
WILL LEAVE. THEY'RE ALL OPEN. AB
2243. THE MOTION WAS BY CORA
CZECH, SECONDED BY PACHECO. IT'S
A Dð PASS APPROPRIATION.
WALDRON. WALDRON. AYE. AS SALLY
VALENCIA. VALENCIA. AYE. RAMOS.
RAMOS AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE.
WILSON 731070. THE BILL WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN. AB 2430.
NEED A MOTION? WE NEED A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? WELL,
FIRST AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. AB 2430. IT'S A Dð
PASS TO APPROPRIATION. CARILLO.
AYE. CARILLO. AYE. WALDRON.
WALDRON AYE. IS SALIH? VALENCIA.
VALENCIA. AYE CORA. PACHECO.
CHICO. AYE. RAMOS. RAMOS. AYE.
WARD. WARD. AYE WILSON SIX ZERO.
THE VOTE IS SIX ZERO. THE BILL
IS OUT. WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN. AB 2580. THE MOTION WAS BY
PACHECO, SECONDED BY CARILLO.
IT'S A Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATION.
WALDRON 25, 2580. NO. 2580
WICKS. WALDRON AYE. AND SALIH.
VALENCIA. VALENCIA AYE. CORA.
RAMOS. RAMOS AYE. WARD. WARD.
AYE. WILSON VOTED SIX ZERO. THE
BILL IS OUT. WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLE OPEN. AB 2583. THE MOTION
WAS BY PACHECO, SECONDED BY
WARD. IT'S A DO PASS THROUGH
APPROPRIATION EASILY. VALENCIA.
VALENCIA. AYE, CORA. CORA. AYE.
WARD. WARD AYE. WILSON. THE VOTE
IS 2470. THE VOTE IS SEVEN ZERO.
THE BILL SAU WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN. AB 2667. THE MOTION WAS BY
PACHECO, SECONDED BY WARD. WARD
Dð. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
EASILY. VALENCIA. VALENCIA AYE.
CORA. CORA. AYE. WILK THÀNH. THE
VOTE IS 61. THE VOTE IS SIX
ZERO. THE BILL. THE BILL WILL
LEAVE THEIR ROLE OPEN. HB 2682
NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.
FIRST AND A SECOND, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. IT'S A Dð PASS TO THE
FLOOR. CARILLO AYE. CARRILLO.
AYE. WALDRON. WALDRON NOT VOTING
EASILY. VALENCIA. YES. VALENCIA
AYE. CORA. CORA. AYE. PACHECO
CHICO. AYE. RAMOS. RAMOS. AYE.
WARD WARD. AYE. WILSON SIX ZERO
VOTE IS SIX ZERO. THE BILL SAU
WILL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN. AB
2813, I HAVE A MOTION BY WARD,
BUT I DIDN'T GET THE SECOND. IS
THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND
BY PACHECO IS A Dð PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. WHAT
NUMBER IS IT? 28, 13, 28? 13.
CORA CORA. AYE WILSON. WILSON
AYE. THAT'S SIX ZERO. VOTE IS
SIX ZERO. THE BILL WILL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN. WE ARE CLOSING
THIS PARTICULAR ONE. AB 2910.
THE MOTION WAS BY PACHECO,
SECONDED BY RAMOS. THE MOTION IS
Ã Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. A
SALIH VALENCIA. YES. VALENCIA.
AYE. CORA CORA. AYE. WILSON.
WILSON AYE. EIGHT ZERO. OUT FOR
GOOD, EIGHT ZERO. THE BILL IS
OUT. AB 2946. THE MOTION WAS
PACHECO AND RAMOS. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS AS SALLY CORA.
CORA. AYE. WILSON. AYE WILSON.
AYE. THE VOTE IS EIGHT ZERO.
IT'S NOW THE VOTE IS EIGHT ZERO.
THE BILL IS OUT AB 2986. THE
MOTION WAS BY CORA, SECONDED BY
PACHECO. DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SL VALENCIA.
YES. VALENCIA. AYE. RAMOS. RAMOS
AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE. WILSON.
AYE WILSON. AYE. EIGHT ZERO.
EIGHT ZERO. THE BILL IS OUT. AB
3068. I NEED A MOTION AND A
SECOND. SO MOVED. SECOND. WE
HAVE A PERSON. A SECOND. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS A
DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATION.
CARILLO. AYE. CARILLO AYE.
WALDRON. 3068. HANEY. OH, NO.
WALDRON. NO SALIH. VALENCIA YES.
VALENCIA. AYE. CORA CORA. AYE.
PACHECO. CHECO. AYE RAMOS.
RAMOS. AYE. WARD. WARD AYE.
WILSON. WILSON. AYE. SEVEN ONE.
THE VOTE IS SEVEN ONE. THE
BILL'S OUT. AB 3116. THE MOTION
WAS BY VALENCIA, SECONDED BY
PACHECO. DO PASS AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATION. CORA CORA. AYE.
WILSON. AYE. WILSON AYE. THAT'S
EIGHT ZERO. IT'S AN EIGHT ZERO.
THE BILL IS OUT. AB 3177. THE
MOTION WAS BY PACHECO, SECONDED
BY RAMOS. DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATION. WALDRON. 31.
NO. 3177. YES. IT IS 3177. NO
WALDRON. NO AC VALENCIA.
VALENCIA AYE. CORA. CORA. AYE.
WARD WARD. AYE. WILSON. AYE.
WILSON AYE. THE VOTE IS SEVEN
ONE. THE VOTE IS SEVEN ONE. THE
BILL IS OUT. CAN WE HAVE TO
START ALL OVER? ARE YOU. AND THE
LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR
TODAY IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO ON
BEHALF OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER RUBIO.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BLANCO RUBIO'S,
ASSEMBLY BILL 2735, SECOND, I'LL
SHORTEN THE MY TALKING POINTS.
THEN I WANT TO BEGIN BY
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AND I THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
MEASURE, THIS BILL ARISES OUT OF
CLEAR NEED, OUT OF A CLEAR NEED
TO PROTECT BOTH CONSUMERS AND
THE INSURANCE MARKET FROM
UNCERTAINTY POSED BY THE CURRENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S, INSURANCE
MARKET. I'M JUST GOING TO GO
AHEAD AND HAND IT OVER TO, MY
WITNESSES WHO WILL BE SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF THIS BILL. GREAT.
THANK YOU. JENNIFER CAPETILLO I
AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION.
WE'RE THE STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION
FOR ALL OF THE WATER UTILITIES
REGULATED BY THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, THERE ARE
89 MEMBERS OF OUR ASSOCIATION.
EIGHT OF THEM ARE VERY LARGE
WATER UTILITIES, AND 81 OF THEM
ARE VERY SMALL UTILITIES. WE'RE
SPONSORING THIS BILL BECAUSE WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RISING
COST OF INSURANCE FOR THOSE
SMALL UTILITIES, BUT THERE ARE A
LOT OF PUBLIC AGENCIES OUT
THERE, AS WELL AS MUTUAL WATER
COMPANIES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO
PARTICIPATE IN AN ALTERNATIVE TO
THE TRADITIONAL INSURANCE MARKET
CALLED RISK POOLS. AND OUR
MEMBERS DON'T HAVE THAT ACCESS.
IF THEY DID HAVE THIS ACCESS,
WE'D BE ABLE TO DROP OUR
INSURANCE COSTS AND WE WOULD
PASS THOSE SAVINGS DIRECTLY ON
TO OUR RATEPAYERS, THERE ARE A
COUPLE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED
IN THE ANALYSIS THAT I'M HAPPY
TO ANSWER, BUT I'LL TAKE THOSE
AS QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD. SUSAN, MY NAME IS
SUSAN ALLEN AND I'M HERE WITH
THE CO-SPONSOR, CAL MUTUALS
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL
WATER COMPANIES AND ITS SISTER
ORGANIZATION, CAL MUTUALS, J.
PRIMA, WHICH IS A JPA. AND I
WILL ALSO CUT TO THE CHASE.
FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT WE'RE ABOUT
IS SUPPORTING SMALL WATER
SYSTEMS, AND WE SEE ACCESS TO
INSURANCE AS A VITAL NEED FOR
ALL SMALL WATER SYSTEMS AND IT'S
ONE THAT RIGHT NOW IS A BIG AT
RISK IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF
WILDFIRE AND CLIMATE CHANGE. FOR
THE IOUS, WE, DON'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH INCLUDING THEM IN
OUR JPA. WE HAVE BEEN, WE WERE
FORMED BY LEGISLATION SIX YEARS
AGO WITH CHRISTINA GARCIA. AND
THE BILL THAT IS BEFORE YOU NOW
IS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION, WE HAVE NOT SEEN
ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THE
CONCERNS RAISED IN THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS OR THE
OPPOSITION. AND WE HAVE BEEN,
ENJOYING, SUCCESS WITH 500
MEMBERS OF ALL SIZES IN THE
WATER INDUSTRY. STATEWIDE. AND
WE'VE BEEN REINVESTING THE
PROFITS THAT WE MAKE IN SUPPORT
FOR TECHNICAL, MANAGERIAL AND
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL
SYSTEMS. SO WE THINK THIS IS
IMPORTANT, AND WE ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
THAT. ANYBODY WANTS TO BE ADDED
IN SUPPORT, PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. EDUARDO
MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. DANNY MERKLEY WITH THE
GOCO GROUP, ON BEHALF OF SAN
JOSE WATER COMPANY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME UP.
YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT OR WHATEVER
YOU PREFER. I'LL BE QUICK. GOOD
EVENING. CHAIR, KEVIN PHILLIPS,
AQUA JPA, WITH, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSING AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
BUT WE ARE, IN CONTACT WITH THE
AUTHOR AND, AND THEIR OFFICE,
AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO
HAVING SOME FRUITFUL
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, THIS
CURRENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO BE ADDED IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NONE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS NO. SEEING
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PACHECO? YES. ON BEHALF
OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER BLANCA RUBIO,
THIS IS A COMMON SENSE, BILL,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR.
I VOTE. OR SHE ASKS FOR YOUR
IPHONE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO FOR
PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RUBIO AND FOR WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE ON
AMENDMENTS, WITH THAT, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING YOUR BILL AND ON
BEHALF OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER RUBIO,
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS. YES THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION WAS BY RAMOS AND
SECONDED BY WILSON. IT'S A DO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATION. CARILLO Ã
CARILLO I. WALDRON. WALDRON I.
ISELIN. VALENCIA. VALENCIA. NOT
VOTING. CORA CULVER I. PACHECO
I. PACO I. RAMOS I. RAMOS I
WARD. WARD I WILSON I WILSON I.
THE VOTE IS SEVEN TO THE VOTE IS
SEVEN ZERO. THE BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. EVERYBODY'S HERE ON
AB 2813 AGUIAR-CURRY. THE MOTION
WAS WRONG. SO WE NEED TO REDO
THE MOTION AND THE VOTE ON THAT.
AGUIAR-CURRY 2813 I HAVE WARD AS
GIVING THE MOTION, BUT I NEED A
SECOND, SECOND. WILSON IS THE
SECOND, AND I NEED TO. AND I
NEED TO RECALL THAT VOTE AGAIN.
CARILLO I CARILLO I WALDRON.
WALDRON NOT VOTING AS SALLY
VALENCIA. AGUIAR-CURRY SMITH.
RIGHT. BUT WE NEED TO DO IT OVER
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A SECOND
PICKED UP ON IT. YES VALENCIA. I
CORA, CORA I PACHECO PACHECO I
RAMOS. RAMOS NOT VOTING. WARD.
WARD I WILSON I WILSON I QUÊ
466060. THE BILLS OUT. NEED TO
CHANGE A VOTE ON AB 3068. HANEY
IT WAS A DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATION. VALENCIA IS
CHANGING HIS I VOTE TO A NOT
VOTING. SO TAKES US TO A61 THAT
TAKES IT TO A61. STILL, THE BILL
IS OUT. OKAY, WE HAVE SOME MORE
CLEANUP TO DO FOR MISSY MEMBERS.
I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLL AGAIN
. AB 1807 THÀNH IS A DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS, WILSON A WILSON.
I THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT A MORE
BUREAUCRACY FOR OUR GOVERNMENT.
DID I GET I THOUGHT I GOT HIM OH
I'M SORRY CORA. 20. OH 1807
1807. THAT'S 246881 FINAL VOTE
IS RIGHT. YEAH. BECAUSE WALDRON
WAS KNOWN EIGHT ONE GORHAM VOTE.
HE SAID ONE. THE BILL IS OUT AB
1820. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
WILSON I WILSON I8080. THE BILL
IS OUT AB 1827. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED TO THE FLOOR. CORA
CORA I. WILSON WILSON I THAT IS
SEVEN ONE. THE VOTE IS SEVEN
ONE. THE BILL IS OUT. AB 1886
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. ÓRDENES CORA
CORA I. WILSON, WILK. I7070.
BILLS OUT AB 1893. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATION. WILSON I WILSON
I7070. THE BILL IS OUT AB 1950.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATE THÀNH
CORA LARA I WILSON I WILSON I80.
THE VOTE IS EIGHT ZERO. THE BILL
IS OUT. AB 2023. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
THÀNH. CORA. CORA I WILSON. HI.
WILSON. I SEVEN ONE. THE VOTE IS
SEVEN ONE. THE BILL IS OUT AB
2235. THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATION. CORA
CORA I WILSON I WILSON I800. THE
VOTE IS EIGHT ZERO. THE BILL IS
OUT AB 2243. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS THÀNH
WILSON. WILSON I8080. THE BILL
IS OUT AB 2430. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CORA CORA I WILSON. WILSON
I80880. THE BILL IS OUT AB 2580.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THÀNH. CORA.
CORA I WILSON. I WILSON I80. THE
VOTE IS EIGHT ZERO. THE BILL IS
OUT AB 2583. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATION WILSON I
WILSON I8080. THE BILL IS OUT.
AB 2667. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS ON WILSON I
WILSON. I THE VOTE IS 7070. THE
BILL IS OUT AB 2682. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE FLOOR WILSON
WILSON I7070. THE BILL IS OUT.
GET ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
CORA CORA I WILSON. WILSON I
THAT IS GOING TO BE AN EIGHT
ZERO. THAT'S AN EIGHT ZERO FOR
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS. THE
BILLS ARE OUT. OH YEAH. BECAUSE
I WASN'T HERE. IT WENT SHORTER
BECAUSE I DIDN'T ASK ALL THE
QUESTIONS. WITH THAT, WE
ADJOURNED THIS COMMITTEE
HEARING. THANK YOU. EDUCATE ME
ON THAT. I'D BE. OH, YEAH. YEAH
FOR SURE. NO, WE'LL DO IT. WE'LL
DO IT. WE'LL DO IT. THE FUNNIEST
PART OF THE VOTE CHANGE. I WAS
LIKE, YOU REALLY MEANT IT. OH
HECK YEAH. NO POINT. I'M LIKE,
YOU KNOW. YEAH.