WHAT. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.
WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED, WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET. WE WILL
START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE FIRST.
WE'LL DO SOME HOUSEKEEPING
ITEMS. WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND
THE PUBLIC THAT FOR THIS AND
FUTURE HEARINGS, TESTIMONY WILL
BE IN PERSON AS WE'RE NO LONGER
USING 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, SPEAKING
LONGER THAN THE ALLOTTED TIME,
EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS AND
MATERIAL RELATED TO THE SUBJECT
OF THE HEARING OR BEALL AND ANY
OTHER DISRUPTIVE ACTS TO ADDRESS
ANY DISRUPTIVE ACTS, I WILL TAKE
THE FOLLOWING STEPS. IF AN
INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR HEARING
PROCESS, I WILL DIRECT HIM TO
STOP AND WARN THEM THAT
CONTINUED DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITAL
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 OF
THE SERGEANTS IN ESCORTING
INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CAPITOL
HEARING. WE DO HAVE FIVE ITEMS
ON THE AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON.
TWO OF THESE ITEMS ARE PROPOSED
FOR CONSENT. ITEM THREE SB 1169
BY SENATOR STERN. ITEM FIVE SB
1405 BY SENATOR BORG. IN
ADDITION, SENATOR WEINER WILL BE
PRESENTED ITEM FOUR SB 1251, ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR STERN, 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 SUPPORTING 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
AS I SAID EARLIER, WE DO NOT
HAVE A QUORUM AND WE DON'T HAVE
ANY SENATORS YET BE PRESENT. SO
THE SENATORS AND STAFF ARE
HEARING YOU. PLEASE ASK YOUR
SENATORS TO COME TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ROOM 447, SO THAT WE
CAN START HEARING BILLS ON THE
AGENDA. THANK YOU. WE'LL WAIT A
FEW MINUTES.
THANK YOU, SENATOR CABALLERO.
YOU'RE READY TO GO. WE'RE READY.
AND AGAIN, WE ARE PROCEEDING AS
A SUBCOMMITTEE. SINCE WE DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM YET. OKAY.
SENATOR, FOR YOUR HELP ON THIS
BILL. AND I'LL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT FROM THE
EARLY 1950S UNTIL THE STATE
DISSOLVED THEM IN 2011,
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ARE. RDAS
USE PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING TO PAY FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN CITIES
AND COUNTIES TO REMOVE BLIGHT
AND DETERIORATING NEIGHBORHOODS.
AFTER THE DEMISE OF RDAS, LOCAL
OFFICIALS SOUGHT OTHER METHODS
TO RAISE THE CAPITAL NEEDED TO
FUND CRITICAL PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. IN
RESPONSE, THE LEGISLATURE
ENACTED SB 628 TO ALLOW LOCAL
OFFICIALS TO CREATE ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
DISTRICTS, OR IFDS, TO FINANCE
PUBLIC CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS
OR OTHER SPECIAL SPECIFIED
PROJECTS IN ORDER TO BENEFIT
DISTRICTS OR SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES THAT RESULT IN A
USEFUL LIFE OF 15 YEARS OR MORE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S GOT TO BE,
IT CAN'T BE TEMPORARY,
SIMILARLY, SB 852, ENACTED EIGHT
YEARS LATER, USE THIS MODEL TO
CREATE CLIMATE RESILIENCE
DISTRICTS, OR CRDS, TO RAISE
REVENUE, PLANT CLIMATE
MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION
PROJECTS WITH A SIMILAR FUNDING
MECHANISM. EFD AND CRDS ARE
VITAL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
TOOLS TO FUND AND FINANCE PUBLIC
FACILITIES OR PROJECTS OF
COMMUNITY WIDE SIGNIFICANCE.
UNFORTUNATELY, SOME CITIES AND
COUNTIES HAVE FOUND THESE TOOLS,
WITH LIMITED STAFF AND RESOURCES
AND FORMING THESE DISTRICTS
REQUIRE DUPLICATIVE PROCESSES
AND ARE CUMBERSOME TO INITIATE.
SB 1140 WILL REFORM AIFD AND CRD
LAW TO STREAMLINE AND CREATE
EFFICIENCIES IN THE FORMATION
PROCESS AND EXPAND THE TYPES OF
PROJECTS THESE TOOLS CAN FINANCE
, ALL WHILE PROTECTING PUBLIC
INPUT AND PARTICIPATION. IT WILL
REDUCE THE MANDATORY MEETINGS
FROM 4 TO 3. IT BROADENS THE
ALTERNATIVE MAILING AND
NOTIFICATION METHODS, AND IT
ELIMINATES THE MANDATE AND
INSTEAD ENABLES THE FORMING
DISTRICT TO ELECTRONICALLY
SUBMIT ITS RESOLUTION OF
INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE
DISTRICT TO OTHER TAXING
ENTITIES, ELIMINATING THE NEED
FOR MAILING. FURTHERMORE, IT
REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT TO MAIL
ANNUAL REPORT NOTICES VIA FIRST
CLASS MAIL. FINALLY, THE BILL
SPECIFIES THAT NOTICES SHALL BE
PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH AND ALL
OTHER LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY AT
LEAST 20% OF THE POPULATION OR
MORE. SB 1140 EXPANDS THE TYPE
OF PROJECTS IFDS AND CRDS CAN
FINANCE, TO INCLUDE PROJECTS TO
IMPROVE AIR QUALITY, AND IT HAS
NO NO OPPOSITION WITH ME TO
TESTIFY AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. IS GURBAX SAHOTA,
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTIVE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA
ACADEMY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
, AND CHRISTINA SOLBERG,
COMMUNITY RELATIONS SENIOR
MANAGER FROM CENTRAL VALLEY
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. CHAIR VICE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M CHRISTINA SOLBERG
, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SENIOR
MANAGER AT THE CENTRAL VALLEY
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION. AND ON
BEHALF OF THE FOUNDATION, I'M
GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK IN STRONG SUPPORT OF SB
1140 SB. SORRY WE BELIEVE THAT
IF THIS LEGISLATION IS PASSED,
IT WILL MOTIVATE COUNTIES AND
CITIES TO WORK TOGETHER TO RAISE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CAPITAL FOR
LARGE SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS. THE CENTRAL VALLEY
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION IS THE
JOB'S FIRST CONVENER FOR OUR
FOUR COUNTY REGION, WHICH
INCLUDES FRESNO, MADERA, KINGS
AND TULARE COUNTIES AND
RESOURCING CALIFORNIA'S CLIMATE.
ECONOMY IS CENTRAL TO OUR PLAN.
WE KNOW THAT THE STATE CANNOT
REACH ITS CLIMATE GOALS WITHOUT
WORKING WITH US IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY, AND WE KNOW THAT LARGE
SCALE, CLEAN ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED IN OUR
REGION IN ORDER FOR US TO REACH
THE STATE'S CLIMATE AND CLEAN
ENERGY GOALS. THAT MEANS
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL NEED TO
BE INVESTED IN OUR REGION IN BIG
TIME INVESTMENT REQUIRED AS A
REGIONAL STRATEGY AND OFFICIAL
PARTNERSHIPS ACROSS CITY AND
COUNTY LINES. AS YOU KNOW,
FORMING PARTNERSHIPS IS HARD
WHEN WORKING WITH DIFFERENT
BODIES OF GOVERNMENT. BUT THIS
BILL WILL STREAMLINE THE PROCESS
SO THAT LOCAL LEADERS ARE
MOTIVATED TO PARTNER WITH ONE
ANOTHER. THIS LEGISLATION IS
ULTIMATELY ABOUT IMPROVING THE
LIVES OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY. WE ARE
FINALLY, IN A MOMENT IN TIME
WHERE OUR REGION HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HARNESS BIG
INVESTMENT THAT COULD IMPACT THE
NEXT GENERATION IN A WAY THAT
GIVES ALL PEOPLE ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY FOR FROM ENSURING
ACCESS TO QUALITY, GOOD PAYING
JOBS TO IMPROVING AIR QUALITY
FOR ALL. THIS BILL WILL HELP TO
UNLOCK MONEY FOR A REGION THAT'S
READY FOR LARGE SCALE
INVESTMENT. FOR THESE REASONS,
THE CENTRAL VALLEY COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION IS PLEASED TO SUPPORT
SB 1140. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THÀNH GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS GURBAX SAHOTA. I'M THE
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WE
REPRESENT OVER 800 LOCAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPERS THAT ARE
HELPING COMMUNITIES THRIVE AND
BUSINESSES THRIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
AND THAT EQUATES TO ABOUT 300
JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE STATE.
WE'RE REALLY PLEASED TO BE HERE
TO SUPPORT SENATE BILL 1140,
BECAUSE COMMUNITIES MORE AND
MORE ARE LOOKING TO APHIDS AS
POTENTIAL TOOLS TO HELP THEM
ADDRESS THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE
NEEDS, AS THE SENATOR SAID, THE
FORMATION PROCESS IS BOTH
CUMBERSOME, IT'S COMPLEX AND
IT'S COSTLY, AND WE BELIEVE THAT
STREAMLINING IS NOT ONLY
APPROPRIATE, WE'RE REALLY
EXCITED TO SEE THAT SHE'S BEEN
ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS THAT I
THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY
, NOT JUST THE PUBLIC, BUT YOU
ALL AS WELL. WE THINK BY
STREAMLINING THE BILL, THE
FORMATION, EXCUSE ME, BY
STREAMLINING THE FORMATION
PROCESS, THE BILL WILL ALSO MAKE
THE TOOL MORE AVAILABLE TO
SMALLER COMMUNITIES THAT DO HAVE
A STAFF CAPACITY ISSUE. SO WE'RE
HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT AND WE
HOPE THAT YOU SUPPORT THE BILL
AS WELL TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE IN
THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT, SEEING NO ONE, ANY
PARAMETRIC WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION OF MEASURE, SEEING NO
BUDDY I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS ON WHAT'S IN
FRONT OF US. MR. SALIH, THANK
YOU, WHAT IS THE, WHAT KIND OF
PROJECTS ARE CLIMATE RESILIENT
DISTRICTS DO? LIKE WHAT DOES
THAT MEAN? WHAT WILL THEY DO? SO
SOME OF THE, DISCUSSIONS THAT
I'VE HEARD ARE, PROJECTS THAT
PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN SONOMA COUNTY, THEY
HAVE A ROAD THAT IS, THAT HAS
NEVER REALLY HAD PROBLEMS WITH
FLOODING, EXCEPT FOR VERY
PERIODICALLY AND WITH SEA LEVEL
RISE, THE ROAD WILL BE
UNDERWATER. AND THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF ROADWAYS IN, IN THAT
PART OF THE STATE THAT WERE
BUILT ACROSS WATERWAYS. AND
THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEED
REGIONALLY TO COME UP WITH A TAX
INCREMENT TO RAISE THE ROAD,
BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJOR ROUTE,
THE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTE
FOR PEOPLE WORKING ON ONE ON ONE
SIDE OF THE WATERWAY, GOING TO
THE OTHER. SO THAT'S, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS ONE IS ONE PROJECT
THAT I SEE FOR WHICH YOU, YOU
WOULD WANT TO HAVE A TAXING
ENTITY TO BE ABLE TO, TO DO IT.
OKAY. AND THEN MY UNDERSTANDING,
I'M JUST READING THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY HERE IS THAT PRIOR TO
2019, THESE DISTRICTS REQUIRED
55% VOTER APPROVAL TO ISSUE
BONDS. BUT THAT WAS REPLACED BY,
AB 116, WHICH REPLACED VOTER
APPROVAL WITH A PROTEST PROCESS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT TODAY IS REDUCING THE
PROTEST PROCESS OR THE MEETINGS
TO FORM THE DISTRICT FROM FOUR
DOWN TO TWO, CORRECT? NO, WE
DON'T CHANGE THE VOTING PROCESS
AT ALL IN THIS BILL, NOT THE
VOTING PROCESS, BUT THE NUMBER
OF MEETINGS IT WOULD TAKE BEFORE
IT'S FORMED FOR THE COMMUNITY TO
BASICALLY PROTEST IF THEY WANTED
TO. IT'S GETTING RID OF ONE OF
THE, ONE OF THE MEETINGS TO TWO
OF THE MEETINGS. SO WE'RE
CUTTING WE'RE CUTTING IT FROM 4
TO 2. NO, ACTUALLY MY ORIGINAL
BILL WAS FROM 4 TO 2, BUT I, I
WAS FORCED TO TAKE AN AMENDMENT.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY JUST ONE. IT'S
ONE. OH, IS THAT ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS? YES, THE AMENDMENT
IN THE SENATE WAS TO ELIMINATE
ONE OF THE MEETINGS IN, SENATE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. OKAY. I MEAN,
EXCUSE ME TO PUT BACK ONE OF THE
MEETINGS IN OTHER WORDS, FROM MY
ORIGINAL BILL WAS 4 TO 2 AND,
THE SENATE, THE SENATE AMENDMENT
I ACCEPTED WAS 4 TO 3. SO THE
CURRENT TEXT OF THE BILL IS 4 TO
3 OKAY. YES. AND THEN, I'M JUST
CURIOUS IF THE TAXPAYER
PROTECTION INITIATIVE IS ALLOWED
ON THE BALLOT AND PASSES, WOULD
THAT IMPACT THESE DISTRICTS AS
WELL? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
I'M JUST ASKING. YEAH. MY GUESS
IS IT WOULD, IT WOULD IT WOULD
IMPACT AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF
IT, IS THAT IT WOULD IMPACT ANY,
ACTUALLY, I'M NOT SURE IN TERMS
OF BONDS. I'M JUST NOT SURE.
YEAH, I'M NOT SURE. I HAVE TO
SAY I APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING
MY QUESTION. THANK YOU, SENATOR,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE
IT, BEFORE WE GO TO MORE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WE REACH A
QUORUM. MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CARILLO. PRESENT. PRESENT WALTER
. THANK YOU. HERE. SORRY HERE. A
PRESENT. CHOLERA. HERE A
PRESENT. CATO. RAMOS. HERE.
GÓMEZ. PRESENT OR NOT. PRESENT
OR PRESENT. ROSA HERE. PRESENT
WE HAVE A QUORUM FOR THOSE
MEMBERS WHO ARE IN ITEM NUMBER
TWO. WE'RE ON, QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FOR THE SENATOR. WE GOT
A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? WE
HAVE A PERSON, A SECOND, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, SENATOR
CAVALLERO, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR. AYE. VOTE. THANK YOU.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. WELL,
BEFORE YOU CALL THE ROLL, I'M
SORRY, I FORGOT ONE STEP. I DID
HEAR YOU SAY THAT YOU ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, RIGHT?
THAT IS CORRECT. WELL, THANK YOU
FOR PRESENTING YOUR BILL TODAY.
I AM SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR EFFORTS
TO IMPROVE THIS INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT TOOLS FOR OUR LOCAL
AGENCIES. WITH THE AMENDMENTS, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL
TODAY. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
WITH AMENDMENTS TO PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. THANK YOU. DO PASSES
AMENDED TO THE FLOOR CARILLO I
CARILLO I WALDRON I WALDRON I
ISSERLEY NO. MESSERLY NO. HANEY.
HANEY I CORA. CORA I PACHECO.
RAMOS RAMOS I WARD. WARD. I.
WILSON I WILSON. I. THE VOTE IS
SEVEN ONE. THE VOTE IS SEVEN
ONE. THE BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CONGRATULATIONS THANK YOU. AND
WE'RE GOING TO PAUSE FOR A
LITTLE BIT UNTIL WE GET OTHER
PRESENTERS TO COME IN, NOT
SEEING ANY OTHER, BILLS. WE CAN
DO A CONSENT ITEM THAT WE HAVE
ON THE AGENDA, CAN I GET A
MOTION FOR CONSENT? SECOND?
WELL, FIRST AND SECOND, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THE CONSENT ITEMS
ARE DUE. ARE ARE SB 1169 DO PASS
RECOMMENDED CONSENT TO THE FLOOR
. THE SECOND ITEM IS SB 1405,
WHICH IS RECOMMENDED. DO PASS
RECOMMENDED CONSENT TO THE
FLOOR. CARILLO Ã CARILLO I,
WALDRON A, WALDRON I AND SALLY A
SALLY I HANEY. HANEY I CORRE
CORRE I PACHECO RAMOS RAMOS I
WARD WARD I WILSON WILSON I IT'S
A TENNESSEE BILL. THOSE TWO
BILLS ARE OUT OF A0 AND WE CAN
GET, SENATOR STERN, AND SENATOR
WIENER, PLEASE SIT UP TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT A ROOM FOUR, FOUR,
SEVEN, WITH THAT, WE'LL PAUSE
FOR A LITTLE BIT UNTIL WE GET
SOMEONE TO COME UP TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. THANK YOU.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE SENATOR
WIENER. AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
A BRIEF RECESS, FOR ABOUT FIVE,
TEN MINUTES JUST TO WAIT FOR HIM
TO COME UP. THANK YOU.
SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE
HEARING TO DO THE UNKNOWN.
BECAUSE HE'S ON HIS WAY FROM THE
SOME STATES. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN
IT BACK UP ON THE SAME SPACE WE
DO THE ADD ONS. AND SHOULD I DO
THAT AGAIN OR. NO, DON'T DO IT,
WE HEARD THAT SENATOR WIENER IS
ON HIS WAY FROM THE SWING SPACE.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE GOING TO
DO THE ADD ONS FOR THOSE THAT
THOSE THAT NEED TO BE ADDED ON
TO AGENDA ITEMS. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM.
CONSENT CALENDAR SB 1160. THEY
DO PASS RECOMMENDED CONSENT TO
THE FLOOR. PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE
NINE ZERO FOR CONSENT FOR
CONSENT. CALENDAR. BILL. THOSE
TWO BILLS ARE UP NINE ZERO. SB
1140 IS A DO PASS AS AMENDED, TO
THE FLOOR. PACHECO PACHECO. AYE.
AND THAT BRINGS IT TO EIGHT ONE.
AND THAT BRINGS THAT TO EIGHT
ONE. AND THE BILL IS OUT AND
THAT'S IT FOR ADD ONS. AND
AGAIN, SENATOR WINTERS ON HIS
WAY. HE'LL BE HERE SHORTLY.
APOLOGIES. THANK YOU, SENATOR
WIENER. THANK YOU. IF YOU'RE
READY, YOU WANT TO START WITH,
SB 937, YOUR BILL? I WILL DO
THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU, ARE YOU READY? OKAY. THANK
YOU. MR. CHAIR, FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU TO YOU AND YOUR
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH US.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S, AMENDMENTS, SB 937,
DOES TWO THINGS. IT TEMPORARILY
EXTENDS ENTITLEMENTS, THAT ARE
AT RISK OF EXPIRING, DURING THIS
HIGH INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT,
WHICH HAS MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR
PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD. SO IT
PROVIDES A TEMPORARY EXTENSION,
IT ALSO, MOVES US, NOT ALL, BUT
SOME IMPACT FEES, COLLECTIONS
FROM PULLING THE PERMIT TO THE
END OF THE PROCESS AT
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE
KNOW THAT, FOR PROJECTS
ESPECIALLY THAT ARE STRUGGLING
WITH FINANCING, HAVING TO FIND,
UP FRONT THOSE, THOSE, IMPACT
FEES CAN MAKE A DIFFICULT
PROJECT EVEN HARDER, IN
ADDITION, CITIES TYPICALLY HAVE
TO REFUND IMPACT FEES THAT THEY
RECEIVE IF A PROJECT FALLS APART
, AND SO IF CITIES ARE GOING TO
GET EVERY PENNY OF THEIR IMPACT
FEES, THEY'LL JUST GET IT AT THE
END, NOT THE BEGINNING. WE MADE
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
IN THE SENATE THAT IF CITIES ARE
ACTUALLY PAYING MONEY OUT OF
POCKET, THAT WOULD BE REIMBURSED
BY THESE FEES. THEY CAN COLLECT
THOSE, UP FRONT. AND SO I THINK
THIS IS A THE BILL IS A SOLID
APPROACH TO HELP PROJECTS
SUCCEED WITHOUT HARMING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. SO I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. AND WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IS GRACIELA
CASTILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM
AND MUHAMMAD ALAMEDDINE WITH THE
UC BERKELEY TERNER CENTER FOR
HOUSING INNOVATION. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. GRACIELA CASTILLO. I'M
HERE REPRESENTING ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM, THE HOUSING THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM IS
A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT
ADVOCATES FOR THE PRODUCTION AND
PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
AND WE ARE VERY PROUD TO BE A
CO-SPONSOR ON THIS BILL. SB 937,
AS THE SENATOR WAS SAYING, DOES
NOT PREVENT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FROM COLLECTING THE FEES. IT
BASICALLY CHANGES WHEN THOSE
FEES ARE COLLECTED OR WHEN
IMPACT FEES ARE COLLECTED IN THE
EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT,
SUCH AS WHEN BUILDING PERMITS OR
BEFORE BUILDING PERMITS ARE
ISSUED. THE ACTUAL COST A
DEVELOPER PAYS IS A LOT MORE. A
LOT OF THE TIMES THEY HAVE TO
BASICALLY RELY ON EQUITY, AND
THAT TYPE OF FINANCING CAN
ACTUALLY PREVENT A PROJECT FROM
MOVING FORWARD BY ACTUALLY
COLLECTING AT THE END, WHEN YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE A BUILDING, IT IS
EASIER TO FINANCE. RIGHT NOW
WHEN THE STATE IS UNCERTAIN
ABOUT THE FISCAL VIABILITY OF
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING
PROGRAMS. SOLUTIONS LIKE THIS
WHERE THE STATE IS NOT PROVIDING
FUNDING, THIS JUST MAKES A LOT
OF SENSE. WE ARE HOPING THAT
THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO
PRODUCE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE'RE A PROUD SPONSOR. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU, CHAIR CARRILLO AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON SB
937. MY NAME IS MOHAMED EL
MALDINI. I SERVE AS THE POLICY
ASSOCIATE FOR UC BERKELEY'S
TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING
INNOVATION. THE TURNER CENTER,
IF YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW, IS A
RESEARCH CENTER FOCUSED ON A
RANGE OF HOUSING ISSUES RANGING
FROM LAND USE AND ZONING REFORM
TO ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS AND
EXPLORING THE NEXUS BETWEEN
CLIMATE CHANGE AND HOUSING. MY
AIM TODAY IS TO SHARE A RELEVANT
INSIGHTS FROM OUR RESEARCH ON
THE EFFECTS OF IMPACT FEES ON
NEW SUPPLY, OUR WORK CONFIRMS
THAT A LARGE MAJORITY OF
LOCALITIES IMPOSE IMPACT FEES AT
THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT
SUBMISSION, ONLY A QUARTER OF
JURISDICTIONS DEFER TO IMPACT
FEES TO FINAL INSPECTION OR
CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY.
OCCUPANCY SO WHY IS THIS
IMPORTANT? SIX MONTHS AGO, WE
RELEASED A PAPER MAKING IT
PENCIL THE MATH BEHIND HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, WHERE WE ANALYZED
THE CURRENT FEASIBILITY OF
BUILDING NEW HOUSING IN THREE
MAJOR CALIFORNIA MARKETS USING
THIS MODELING, WE SUBSEQUENTLY
ASSESSED THAT THE IMPACT OF THE
DEFERRING FEES IS A SAVINGS
EQUIVALENT TO 1% OF TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT. FURTHERMORE,
REQUIRING FEES TO BE PAID LATER
IN THE PROCESS CAN BE EXPECTED
TO REDUCE THE OVERALL
DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR DEVELOPERS
OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, REQUIRING
FEWER SUBSIDY DOLLARS PER UNIT
AND THUS FREEING SOME AMOUNT OF
SUBSIDY FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS
THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE
FUNDED IN CONCLUSION, OUR
ANALYSIS DOES IMPLY THAT THIS
BILL WOULD HAVE A LIKELY EFFECT
OF INCREASING SUPPLY OF BOTH
MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN MOST CALIFORNIA
JURISDICTIONS. THANK YOU FOR
THAT. ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR.
MEMBERS. KATHERINE CHARLES, ON
BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR IN
SUPPORT. BIXEL LESLIE RODRIGUEZ,
ON BEHALF OF HOW HOUSING TRUST
SILICON VALLEY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. BROOKE PRITCHARD ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IS A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR. CHAIR MEMBERS
MICHAEL GUNNING, LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WE'RE IN A
SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED POSITION,
HERE ON BEHALF OF SPUR, HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY CALIFORNIA. YIMBY
ACTION, WE'D LIKE TO SEE
APPLICABILITY OF THE EXTENSION
TO ALL PROJECTS. THANK YOU. ANY
WITNESSES? PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. HOW ABOUT I SEE ONE
COMING? YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT HERE
IF YOU LIKE. IT'S UP TO YOU.
SURE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. ANTHONY TANNEHILL
WITH CALIFORNIA SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION. WE ARE IN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED, I DON'T
THINK WE NEED TO LEAN ON THAT
TOO HARD, WITH THE AMENDMENTS I
SEE IN THE ANALYSIS. VERY
ENCOURAGING. AND A WILLINGNESS,
BY THE AUTHOR AND THE PROPONENTS
TO CONTINUE TO WORK OUT SOME OF
THE OTHER DETAILS, I'D BE REMISS
IF I DIDN'T EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE
FOR THAT. AND SO WE LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING THE AMENDMENTS IN
PRINT AND REPORTING BACK. OKAY.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION
OF THE BILL. YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS SILVIO FERRARI, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
WE'RE ALSO IN OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION, ACTUALLY,
IRONICALLY, FOR THE SAME REASON
THAT THE SUPPORT IF AMENDED.
COMMERCENTRE JUST SAID, WHICH IS
WE WANT TO SEE APPLICABILITY
ACROSS THE STATE TO ALL
PROJECTS. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS. SASHA HOROWITZ WITH THE
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT. ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOL
HOUSING OR IN OPPOSITION, THIS
BILL IS CONSTRUCTED IN A WAY
THAT ADDRESSES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
RELATIONSHIP WITH BUILDERS AND
CITIES, BUT FORGETS ABOUT
SCHOOLS. AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE
THAT ADDRESS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF BETH FRANCO
WITH THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND FIRE DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA. I
JUST LIKE TO ECHO OUR FRIENDS AT
CSEA'S COMMENTS, WE'RE VERY
APPRECIATIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS
TAKEN. WE'D LIKE TO SEE THEM AND
THEN APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS. BRADY GUERTIN, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSING THIS AMENDED POSITIONS,
BUT THINK THE BILL IS MOVING IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. LOOK
FORWARD TO FINISHING UP THE
FINAL TECHNICAL STUFF. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MARK
NEWBERGER WITH CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES. WE WERE
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. LAST
HOUSE, WE HAVE A CONCERNS
POSITION NOW, AND WE HAVE HAD
VERY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND THE
SPONSORS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
THE COMMITTEE, FOR THE TIME AND
HEARING THIS BILL AND FOR
WORKING WITH US. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, WITH THAT
COMMITTEE MEMBERS QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF
US, ASSEMBLY MEMBER KALRA, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. AND I THINK, OUT OF
CONSISTENCY, I RAISED SOME
CONCERNS, ON A BILL BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER JOE PATTERSON. REGARDING
KIND OF CONCERNS FOR, FOR
JURISDICTION THAT, INVEST,
WHETHER IT'S PLANNING RESOURCES
OR WHAT HAVE YOU ON
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PREPARATION
FOR A DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW THAT,
CITIES OFTENTIMES WILL HAVE
CERTAIN TYPES OF, OTHER PUBLIC
WORKS OR PARKS OR WHAT HAVE YOU,
THAT OFTENTIMES ARE BUILT
BEFORE, A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED, NOW,
THAT BEING SAID, THIS BILL IS
MORE NARROW, THAN ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, PATTERSON'S BILL, IN
THAT IT, IT FOCUSES ON PRIORITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
, AND, IT I JUST WANT TO SHARE
THAT SAME CONCERN THAT I, THAT
I, THAT I HAD WITH SENATOR
PATTERSON AND SEE IF THERE ARE
WHAT OTHER DISTINCTIONS THERE
MIGHT BE. YEAH. SO AND THANK YOU
FOR THE BILL IS MORE NARROW,
WHICH, YOU KNOW, HAS CAUSED SOME
CONSTERNATION, AND I'M
SYMPATHETIC WITH THAT
CONSTERNATION FOR THE, FOR THE
RECORD. BUT WE ALL, YOU KNOW, WE
WORK WITH COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND
WORK OUT AMENDMENTS, AND I DID
THAT IN SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
SO, ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS WE
TOOK IN THE SENATE WERE AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THE, OPPONENTS
HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE'VE
WORKED VERY COLLABORATIVELY AND
HAVE MADE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS.
AND ONE OF THEM WAS THAT IF THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS PUTTING OUT
THE MONEY UP FRONT, THIS BILL
WILL NOT PRECLUDE THEM FROM
COLLECTING THAT, THOSE FEES UP
FRONT. SO WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO
DO IS CREATE A CASH FLOW PROBLEM
FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. THIS
IS ABOUT IMPACT FEES THAT ARE
COLLECTED AND GO INTO A FUND FOR
FUTURE USE. THEY'LL STILL GET
THE MONEY, BUT IT'LL BE AT THE
END OF THE PROJECT. NOT THE NOT
THE BEGINNING. AND SO THAT
THAT'S THE DISTINCTION. AND WE
DID THAT AMENDMENT IN THE, IN
THE SENATE. YEAH. THAT'S A
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION,
BECAUSE I THINK HAVING, MAKING
SURE THAT THE CITIES AND LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS ARE MADE WHOLE WAS
ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD WITH
SENATOR PATTERSON'S BILL, I WANT
TO I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TAKE A LITTLE DEEPER DIVE AND
MAYBE OFFLINE BECAUSE I'M ALSO
ON HOUSING COMMITTEE. I THINK
THAT THIS, WHEN IT GETS THROUGH,
WE'LL GO TO HOUSING. AND SO I'LL
SUPPORT THIS TODAY. AND IF I
HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS,
I'LL LET YOU KNOW. YEAH. I WOULD
LOVE TO. YEAH. THANKS. THANK
YOU, MR. GÂY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, AS
IT PERTAINS TO HOUSING AND, YOU
KNOW, MAKING IT EASIER TO
PRODUCE, AS WE STILL CONTINUE TO
HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS AND
PRODUCTION IS NECESSARY AND
WHATEVER BARRIERS WE COULD DO
THAT NOT ONLY AS IT RELATES TO,
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, BUT ALSO
HOUSING ATTAINABILITY, FOR THOSE
THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE NOT IN THAT
LOW INCOME RANGE, I TOO, ALONG
WITH MY COLLEAGUE, BROUGHT UP
CONCERNS WHEN A SIMILAR BILL
CAME BEFORE US, TO THIS
COMMITTEE. AND SOME OF THOSE
HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, AND SO I'M,
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL.
IT'S LIKE I SUPPORTED THAT ONE
AS A COURTESY TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION, ONE OF THE
CONCERNS I STILL, HAVE, IT'S
ACTUALLY A COMMITTEE AMENDMENT.
IT'S A GOOD AMENDMENT, BUT I
JUST WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THIS,
THAT HAVING BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY
RECOGNIZING THAT SOMETIMES, WHEN
PEOPLE HAVE A PROJECT, THEY WILL
PULL PERMITS TO FREEZE, THE, THE
COST, THE IMPACT FEES, THE
BUILDING FEES, BECAUSE THERE IS
A RATE STUDY IN PROCESS AND
RECOGNIZING THAT THIS STILL
DOESN'T KIND OF ADDRESS THAT,
THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CHANGING
COST. AND IF SOMEONE CAN HOLD
IT, AT THIS TIME, IT'S NARROWED
TO FIVE YEARS, WHICH I THINK IS
GOOD. IT WAS THERE WAS NO END
BEFORE, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE
SOME LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION, FOR
CITIES THAT ARE IN THAT PROCESS.
AND THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE
PULLING, INTENTIONALLY KNOWING
THAT THERE COULD BE A HIGHER
COST AND THAT HIGHER COST IS
INTENTIONAL BECAUSE THERE ARE
HIGHER COSTS AND THE WHOLE
COMMUNITY NEEDS TO, BE ABLE TO
SHARE THE BURDEN OF THAT. AND
THERE'S THIS THING, YOU KNOW, IN
LOCAL GOV, HAVING YOU HAVE
SERVED IN LOCAL GOV IS NEW
DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PAY FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. THE NEW THE
NEW NEIGHBORS PAYS FOR IT AND SO
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
PROTECTING CITIES WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME STREAMLINING HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE CITIES YOU
KNOW, ARE ARE THE PEOPLE THEY
SHARE THE COST OF IT. IT'S NOT
SOME MYTHICAL GOVERNMENT, IT'S
THE PEOPLE. RIGHT. AND SO I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WILL BE
MINDFUL OF THAT. AND I, LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING
THIS A SECOND TIME. GREAT THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
SALIH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
GOOD AFTERNOON SENATOR, I'M NOT
A ZOMBIE, BUT I'M A FREE MARKET
GUY, AND I DO SUPPORT THIS
CONCEPT OF GETTING SORT OF RED
TAPE AND BARRIERS TO BUILDING,
BUT MY QUESTION IS, BECAUSE WE
HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE AND WE
NEED ALL TYPES OF HOUSING, LOW
INCOME HOUSING AND REGULAR
HOUSING TO HELP STABILIZE THE
MARKET. SO WHY WHY ONLY PROVIDE
THIS BENEFIT TO, QUOTE UNQUOTE,
PRIORITY HOUSING PROJECTS IF WE
REALLY, TRULY HAVE THIS HOUSING
CRISIS AND WE JUST NEED TO SPUR
HOUSING PROJECTS, WHY ARE WE
ONLY GIVING THIS, RELIEF TO WHAT
WE DESIGNATE AS PRIORITY
PROJECTS? SO TWO THINGS THAT
WHEN I FIRST INTRODUCED THE
BILL, IT APPLIED TO ALL HOUSING.
AND SO I THINK THAT SHOULD
EXPRESS TO YOU WHERE YOU WHERE I
STAND, AND, SENATE, SENATE,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAD A DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE, AND I THINK
INITIALLY DID WANT TO LIMIT IT
POTENTIALLY TO ONLY 100%
AFFORDABLE, WHICH I, WAS NOT
GOING TO ACCEPT THAT IDEA, AND
SO WE NEGOTIATED, AND SO THAT IT
CAME IT WAS A COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT. AND I'M JUST BEING,
YOU KNOW, TRANSPARENT ABOUT
THAT. BUT WITH THAT SAID, THE
BILL IS NOT LIMITED TO ONLY 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, FIRST OF
ALL, ANYTHING THAT'S TEN, TEN
UNITS OR LESS. THE BILL APPLIES
TO PERIOD. NO MATTER WHAT, AND
THEN, IF IT IS, IF IT IS, IF
IT'S ENTITLED TO A DENSITY
BONUS, WHICH BASICALLY ALL
MULTI-UNIT NOW IN CALIFORNIA ARE
USING A DENSITY BONUS, OR IF IT
USES, VARIOUS MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL LAWS LIKE SB 423 THAT
WE PASSED LAST YEAR, SB 20, AB
2011, SB FOUR, AND SO THIS, OR
IF IT'S 100% AFFORDABLE. SO
THESE CATEGORIES WILL CAPTURE, I
THINK, A HUGE MAJORITY OF
MULTI-UNIT CONSTRUCTION, I THINK
THE CONCERN IS PROBABLY MORE
ABOUT SOME OF THE SINGLE FAMILY
CONSTRUCTION. AND AGAIN, MY
ORIGINAL BILL WOULD HAVE COVERED
THAT. SO I MY PREFERENCE WOULD
BE TO GO WITH WHAT YOU'RE
SUGGESTING. BUT I DID ACCEPT
THAT AMENDMENT AND SENATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. BUT IT'S NOT ONLY
100% AFFORDABLE. THAT'S COVERED.
OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I
APPRECIATE THAT, THE OTHER THING
THAT'S PROBABLY MORE OF A
COMMENT THAN A QUESTION IS, I AM
CONCERNED WITH THE TREND ON ALL
THIS NEW BUILDING WE'RE DOING.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY THING
PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN
BUILDING ARE LIKE APARTMENT
UNITS AND CREATING THIS, LIKE
PERMANENT CLASS OF RENTERS. AND
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME
INCENTIVES FOR BUILD TO OWN LIKE
FOR OWNERSHIP, WHETHER THEY'RE
CONDOS, SMALL CONDOS. BUT NOW
I'M SEEING THEY'RE EVEN BUILDING
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR RENT.
AND I AM WORRIED ABOUT SORT OF
GENERATIONAL WEALTH ISSUES. I
MEAN, IF YOU'RE JUST A PERMANENT
RENTER FOREVER, YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO ACCUMULATE ANY WEALTH OR
EQUITY. SO I JUST THROW THAT OUT
THERE, SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
I'D LOVE TO INCENTIVIZE HOME
OWNERSHIP AND GIVE PEOPLE SOME
SOMETHING THEY OWN. AND I THINK
THAT'S FAIR. AND I THINK IN
TERMS OF CONDOS VERSUS
APARTMENTS, THAT TENDS TO BE
VERY CYCLICAL, DEPENDING ON
WHERE THE MARKET IS. AND I KNOW
IN SAN FRANCISCO THERE ARE TIMES
WHEN THEY'RE ONLY BUILDING
CONDOS OR TIMES WHEN THEY'RE
ONLY BUILDING, APARTMENTS IN
TERMS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY, WE
ARE SEEING SOME OF THE CORPORATE
OWNERSHIP OF SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES. THAT'S SORT OF A BROADER
ISSUE, BUT I DO AGREE THAT WE
WANT TO MAKE ROOM FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP. THANK YOU, MR.
SALIH. ANY OTHER, COMMITTEE
MEMBER? NO. WITH THAT, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE? THANK YOU FOR
PRESENTING TODAY. AND THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
THE COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENTS.
AND JUST TO YOU'VE SAID SEVERAL
TIMES THAT YOU DO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS. YES. YEAH. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSING SPACE,
AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO ADDRESS THE
HOUSING CRISIS AFFECTING OUR
STATE WITH THE AMENDMENTS. I
WILL SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY.
THE MOTION I NEED A MOTION.
MOTION AND A SECOND. THANK YOU.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE HOUSING AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO HOUSING. CARILLO Ã
CARILLO I. WALDRON. WALDRON I
EASILY NOT VOTING. NOT VOTING.
HANEY HANEY I CORRE CORRE I
PACHECO. CHACO I RAMOS RAMOS I
WARD. WILSON I WILSON I SEVEN
THE BILL IS SOLD AT SEVEN ZERO.
THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS
AND THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA,
SB 1251 BY SENATOR STERN. BUT
YOU WILL BE PRESENTED ON HIS
BEHALF, PLEASE. YES. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, PRESENTING SB 1251 ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR STERN, THIS
BILL WILL COMPEL ELECTRICAL
CORPORATIONS TO ENTER INTO
JOINTLY DEVELOPED, DEVELOPED
VECTOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM VECTOR
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS UPON
REQUEST OF THE MOSQUITO CONTROL
AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF MOSQUITO
SURVEILLANCE, TREATMENT AND
POST-TREATMENT INSPECTIONS. UTIL
VAULTS ARE WIDELY REPORTED BY
MOSQUITO CONTROL PROFESSIONALS
TO BE ONE OF THE MOST
PROBLEMATIC SOURCES OF MOSQUITO
PRODUCTION DUE TO ACCESS ISSUES
FOR MANY PEOPLE, MOSQUITO BITES
ARE SIMPLY IRRITATING. HOWEVER,
THESE TINY PESTS CAN TRANSFER
SERIOUS DISEASES WITH A SINGLE
BITE AND CAN RESULT IN SEVERE
AND DEBILITATING ILLNESSES. THIS
BILL PROVIDES BEST PRACTICE
GUIDELINES FOR ELECTRICAL
CORPORATIONS AND MOSQUITO
CONTROL AGENCIES TO WORK
COLLABORATIVELY TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. AND WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IS ED MANNING
ON BEHALF OF THE EXCUSE ME, ED
MANNING AND JODY HOLMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE MOSQUITO VECTOR
CONTROL ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA. THANKS, SENATOR. MR.
CHAIR, MEMBERS, MANNING WITH
CAPE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF
THE MOSQUITO VECTOR CONTROL
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA. SO,
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT I KNOW
MANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH ON
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT ISSUES. SO
JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND, WHY
ARE WE DOING THIS BILL NOW? LAST
SEVERAL YEARS DUE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE, WE HAVE INVASIVE
MOSQUITOES IN CALIFORNIA WE'VE
NEVER HAD BEFORE, ONE PARTICULAR
TYPE OF AEGYPTI, THAT CARRIES,
DISEASES THAT WE'VE NEVER HAD IN
CALIFORNIA BEFORE, LIKE,
CHIKUNGUNYA, YELLOW FEVER,
DENGUE FEVER, SAINT LOUIS
ENCEPHALITIS. THESE ARE THINGS
THAT I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH
FIVE, TEN YEARS AGO, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, I'M AWARE OF NOW,
BECAUSE OF THAT, WE HAVE A
HEIGHTENED CONCERN OVER THE
SPREAD OF DISEASES THAT ARE MUCH
WORSE THAN WEST NILE VIRUS,
CARRIED BY MOSQUITOES THAT CAN
BREED VERY EASILY ALL YEAR ROUND
AND ARE HAVE SPREAD ORIGINALLY
IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, NOW
THROUGHOUT THE STATE UNDER
EXISTING LAW, UTILITIES ARE
UNDER AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE
UTILITIES CODE TO NOT HAVE ANY
STANDING WATER IN UTILITY VAULTS
, UNFORTUNATELY, MOST VAULTS DO
LET WATER IN, AND OFTEN IN
IRRIGATED AREAS, WATER GETS IN
AND THEN MOSQUITOES CAN BREED,
MOSQUITO VECTOR CONTROL AGENCIES
HAVE ABATEMENT AUTHORITY
NUISANCE ABATEMENT AUTHORITY,
MEANING THEY CAN ORDER SOMEONE
TO TAKE A REMEDY, GO THROUGH A
SEMI-JUDICIAL PROCESS, GET,
ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANTS, ETC.
IT'S A LENGTHY, COSTLY PROCESS.
THEY GET TO RECOVER THOSE COSTS
ULTIMATELY, BUT IT ISN'T A GOOD
SOLUTION FOR THIS BECAUSE WE
DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER
THERE'S A PROBLEM AND PEOPLE ARE
GETTING BIT AND INFECTED TO TAKE
ACTION. SO THE IDEA OF THIS BILL
IS IF WE NEED TO, WE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO ASK A UTILITY TO COME TO
AN AGREEMENT. IT'S A SIX MONTH.
WE GIVE THEM SIX MONTHS TO COME
TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT SO WE
CAN HAVE THEM INSPECT THEIR
VAULTS AND WORK WITH US TO
ACCESS THEM, EITHER EXTRACT THE
WATER THAT'S IN THEM OR TREAT
THEM TO PREVENT, PREVENT DISEASE
ON THE FRONT END. IF WE ASK FOR
WHERE THE VAULTS ARE, WE HAVE TO
PROTECT THAT INFORMATION UNDER A
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. THE
MEASURE IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE IN
THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY HAVE TO
GIVE US ACCESS. IT JUST SAYS A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. IT'S
NOT A MANDATE THAT EVERY
MOSQUITO VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
DO THIS. IT'S JUST A TOOL THAT'S
AVAILABLE IN CASE WE NEED IT.
AND WE CANDIDLY HOPE WE WON'T.
BUT IN THE CASE THAT WE DO, WE
WANT TO HAVE A PROCESS THAT
FORCES THE UTILITY TO HAVE TO
WORK WITH US TO COME UP WITH A
PLAN AND, WITH ME IS JODI
HOLMAN, WHO IS ON THE FRONT
LINES OF DEALING WITH THIS
ISSUE. AND SHE'LL TESTIFY ABOUT
WHY THE BILL IS IMPORTANT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JODI HOLMAN.
I AM THE DISTRICT MANAGER OF THE
CONSOLIDATED MOSQUITO ABATEMENT
DISTRICT. WE ARE A SPECIAL
DISTRICT IN FRESNO COUNTY THAT
COVERS JUST OVER 1000MI². MY
DISTRICT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
MITIGATING THE RISK FOR OVER
HALF A MILLION CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS FROM MOSQUITOES AND
MOSQUITO BORNE DISEASES. I ALSO
HOLD A POSITION ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AT THE MOSQUITO AND
VECTOR CONTROL ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, AND ACT AS THE SOUTH
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE. MY DISTRICT AND
MANY OTHERS IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
HAVE IDENTIFIED BELOW GROUND
UTILITY VAULTS AS A SOURCE OF
MOSQUITO PRODUCTION UTILITY
VAULT LIDS ARE DESIGNED WITH A
VENT TO ALLOW AIR TO ESCAPE.
HOWEVER UNFORTUNATELY, THESE
VENTS ALSO ALLOW WATER TO ENTER
IN WATER FROM PRECIPITATION
EVENTS OR MORE COMMONLY,
LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CAN
ACCUMULATE IN VAULTS AND CREATE
IDEAL CONDITIONS FOR MOSQUITO
DEVELOPMENT. A SINGLE VAULT CAN
PRODUCE HUNDREDS OF MOSQUITOES
THAT WILL EXIT THE ENCLOSURE
ONTO A RESIDENT'S FRONT LAWN.
WHILE VAULTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO
HOLD WATER, MORE THAN 50% OF THE
VAULTS WE'VE INSPECTED HOLD
ENOUGH WATER TO PRODUCE
MOSQUITOES OUT OF THE
APPROXIMATELY 2200 VAULTS
INSPECTED IN MY DISTRICT EARLY
IN THE SEASON, 10% WERE FOUND TO
BE BREEDING MOSQUITOES. THERE IS
NO DOUBT THAT RESIDENTS ARE
AFFECTED BY UTILITY OF VAULTS
THAT BREED MOSQUITOES. THE REAL
ISSUE IS WHETHER DISTRICTS HAVE
THE ABILITY TO ACCESS, MONITOR
AND TREAT THESE SOURCES PROMPTLY
IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD PUBLIC
HEALTH. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO
NOT. MY DISTRICT HAS WORKED WITH
PG AND E SINCE 2014, BUT
CONSTANT STAFF CHANGES AND A
LACK OF FORMAL PLANS HAS
RESULTED IN DELAYED TREATMENTS.
THE LOSS OF STAFF TIME FOR BOTH
AGENCIES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
AVOIDED. THIS WILL CONTINUE
WITHOUT A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS FOR
ADDRESSING THESE UTILITY VAULTS.
THIS PROBLEM IS WIDESPREAD
ACROSS THE CENTRAL VALLEY AND
MUCH OF THE STATE. IN SOME
CASES, IT'S EVEN WORSE, WITH
UTILITY VAULT ACCESS BEING
COMPLETELY DENIED. EVEN WHEN A
LEVEL OF SUPPORT IS ACHIEVED, IT
FALLS BELOW AN ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC
HEALTH MOSQUITO CONTROL
STANDARD. DESPITE SIGNING A
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT TO
OBTAIN UPDATED DATA SETS ON
VAULT LOCATIONS TO ADDRESS NEWLY
BUILT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, WE
CONTINUE TO WAIT FOR THE UTILITY
COMPANY TO PROVIDE DATA. THEY
AGREED TO PROVIDE. OUR DISTRICT
HAS ROUTINELY OUTLINED THE
NUMBER OF VAULTS THAT NEED TO BE
TREATED, WHERE THE TREATMENTS
NEED TO BE MADE. ADDITIONAL
AREAS WE NEED DATA FOR, AND A
SCHEDULE FOR TIMELY TREATMENT
BASED ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION.
HOWEVER, YEAR TO YEAR THESE
REQUESTS ARE NOT CONSISTENTLY
ADDRESSED. FOR THOSE REASONS,
HAVING A REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP
A COOPERATIVE PLAN WITH INVESTOR
OWNED UTILITY COMPANIES WITHIN
SIX MONTHS OF A MOSQUITO CONTROL
DISTRICT REQUEST TO DO SO IS A
COMMON SENSE MEASURE TO PREVENT
WHAT COULD BE A PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT WANTS
TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE
MEASURE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND, POSITION ON THE
BILL. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BETSY ARMSTRONG, ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING LOCAL
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS IN SUPPORT.
OPHELIA SZIGETI, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE, ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CATHERINE
BORG FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
EDISON, NOBODY LIKES MOSQUITOES,
AND WE AREN'T HERE TO DEFEND
THEM TODAY. WE ARE HERE TO
DEFEND THE RIGHT TO KEEP OUR
DATA AND FACILITIES SAFE AND
SECURE, WE MUST OPPOSE SB 1251
BY STERN, WHICH WOULD FORCE
ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS INTO
VECTOR MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
WITH VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICTS
AND OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
SERVICE TERRITORY COMPRISES FIVE
50,000MI² ACROSS CENTRAL,
COASTAL, AND SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA. 184 CITIES, 15
COUNTIES, AND 13 NATIVE AMERICAN
TRIBES. SB 1251 CREATES A
COSTLY, ADMINISTRATIVELY
BURDENSOME PROCESS UNDER THE
EXISTING MOSQUITO ABATEMENT AND
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT LAW,
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICTS HAVE
THE RIGHT TO TAKE ANY AND ALL
NECESSARY ACTIONS TO PREVENT,
SURVEY, AND ABATE MOSQUITOES,
INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO DECLARE
A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND TAKE
ESCALATED ACTION. SB 1251
PRESENTS VECTOR MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENTS AS A TOOL TO
STREAMLINE THE ABILITY TO ACCESS
AND ABATE MOSQUITOES IN ELECTRIC
VAULTS, BUT IN PRACTICE CREATES
UNNECESSARY PROCESS THAT
PROVIDES NO FURTHER BENEFIT THAN
EXISTING LAW. SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON SERVICE AREA
INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 400,000
UTILITY VAULTS IN NUMEROUS
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICTS. BY
COMPELLING ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS
INTO THREE YEAR MINIMUM
AGREEMENTS SIMPLY UPON REQUEST
OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ELECTRIC
CORPORATIONS MAY FACE A
SUPERFLUOUS AMOUNT OF VECTOR
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS. THIS BILL
WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF
RESOURCES, AND TECHNOLOGY TO
PRODUCE, ADMINISTER, AND ACT
UPON THE TERMS OF NUMEROUS
AGREEMENTS LEADING TO HIGHER
OPERATIONAL COSTS THAT MAY BE
PASSED ON TO RATEPAYERS.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
VALUES SAFETY AND HAS BEEN
COMMITTED PARTNER IN RESPONDING
TO VECTOR CONTROL REQUESTS AND
EDUCATING EMPLOYEES ON MOSQUITO
BITES AND PREVENTION. IN FACT,
THE BILL SPONSOR HIGHLIGHTS A
SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN
THE GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,
WHERE BOTH PARTIES WERE ABLE TO
SAFELY AND PROPERLY ABATE
MOSQUITOES IN A SANTA CLARITA
NEIGHBORHOOD, SB 1251 FALLS
SHORT OF COMPREHENSIVELY
ADDRESSING A MOSQUITO ISSUE BY
ONLY REQUIRE ACTION FROM ONE
STAKEHOLDER AS WRITTEN. THE BILL
TARGETS UNDERGROUND VAULTS
BELONGING TO INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES AND EXCLUDES VAULTS
FROM BELONGING TO PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES OR OTHER ENTITIES WITH
UNDERGROUND EQUIPMENT. BY
FAILING TO REQUIRE ACTION FROM
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. THIS BILL
PREVENTS A SCENARIO WHERE
MITIGATION EFFORTS IN AN IOU
VAULT MAY BE LESSENED BY
ADJACENT UNDERGROUND EQUIPMENT
THAT MAY ALSO HOUSE MOSQUITOES,
BUT WOULD NOT BE MANDATED TO ACT
THEREBY PROLONGING A COMMUNITY'S
EXPOSURE TO A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK
. SB 1251 STRONG ARMS IOUS TO
SHARE SENSITIVE INFORMATION,
WHICH POSES SEVERAL SAFETY RISKS
AND LIABILITY CONCERNS. WHILE
THE BILL INCLUDES PROTECTIONS TO
MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIAL IOU DATA,
THE BILL WILL INCREASE THE RISK
OF DATA BREACHES OR INCIDENTS.
DATA MANAGEMENT THAT CAN LEAK
SENSITIVE INFORMATION, SUCH AS
VAULT LOCATIONS. SB 1251 IS A
SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM
AND INVITES A SLEW OF SECURITY
AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ASK YOU TO OPPOSE
THE BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM
THAT WANTS TO ADD ON OPPOSITION
SEEING NONE, COMMITTEE MEMBERS
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS MR. SALIH,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO WHY
THE, PUBLIC UTILITIES AREN'T
COVERED? JUST IOUS. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE AUTHOR
IS GOING TO BE ADDING PUBLIC
UTILITIES IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON. THAT WAS
MY SAME QUESTION. OKAY. THANK
YOU. SO THERE'S 180 DAY
NEGOTIATING TIMEFRAME. CORRECT.
AND I SORRY, I WAS NOTICING IN
THE ANALYSIS THAT IT SAYS THAT
IF THE UTILITY DECIDES NOT TO
FOLLOW IT, THERE'S NO PENALTY OR
IS. YES. I MEAN THAT'S THE IRONY
OF THE COMPLAINT HERE. I MEAN,
SO JUST TO START WITH THE PUBLIC
UTILITY, THE UTILITIES CODE
ALREADY SAYS YOU CANNOT HAVE
STANDING WATER IN A VAULT. AND
AS WAS TESTIFIED TO BY MISS
HOLMAN, WE KNOW THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF CERTAIN TYPES OF
VAULTS ALREADY HAVE A PROBLEM
AND HAVE STANDING WATER. THE
LEGISLATION DOESN'T SAY PUT IN
NEW VAULTS THAT DON'T KEEP OUT
WATER. RIGHT. THAT WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO BE DRACONIAN, NOR DOES
THE BILL HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM. WE COULD HAVE PUT ONE
IN, BUT WE'RE TRYING NOT TO PUT
ONE IN DESPITE NOT BEING
REWARDED FOR THAT, EVIDENTLY.
SO. SO THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM. AND THE REASON FOR
THAT IS ULTIMATELY WE HAVE
ABATEMENT AUTHORITY. BUT ONE,
THE BILL IS NOT A MANDATE. THAT
MOSQUITO VECTOR CONTROL
DISTRICTS ASK FOR THE AGREEMENT.
THEY MAY, AND HOPEFULLY THEY
ONLY WILL IF THEY ABSOLUTELY
NEED TO. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
MANDATE IT. AND SIMILARLY, WE'RE
HOPEFUL THAT IT'LL BE
COOPERATIVE, THAT WE CAN REACH
AN AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE WE
DON'T HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM IN THERE AT THIS TIME
BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING NOT TO MAKE
THIS A HAMMER. WE'RE TRYING TO
MAKE IT A COOPERATIVE PROCESS.
OKAY ANY MORE QUESTIONS? DID YOU
WANT TO RESPOND? I JUST WANTED
TO RESPOND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S
NOT A MANDATE THAT THEY ASK US,
BUT IT IS A MANDATE UPON US.
UPON RECEIVING A REQUEST FROM
THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
THAT WE SHALL ENTER INTO A
VECTOR MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE REPEATEDLY
ASKED THE SPONSOR FOR ANY ISSUES
WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,
AND THEY HAVE NOT COME UP WITH
ANY. SO THAT'S WHY WE JUST DON'T
FEEL THE BILL IS NECESSARY.
MAYBE IT'S NEVER GOING TO AFFECT
US BECAUSE WE ARE YOU KNOW, WE
OPERATE IN A WAY THAT ARE
HOPEFULLY GOING TO TAKE CARE OF
THESE MOSQUITOES, BUT WE JUST
DON'T LIKE LEGISLATION THAT IS
SO PROACTIVE THAT IT DOESN'T
ALLOW US TO. YOU KNOW, DO THINGS
ON OUR OWN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
SAY IN THE BILL THAT THE UTILITY
HAS BEEN DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
IT JUST SAYS UPON RECEIVING A
REQUEST, WE SHALL ENTER INTO A
VECTOR MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WILL SHARE A
FOLLOW UP. YEAH. ONE FOLLOW UP.
YOU SAID EXISTING LAW, SAYS THAT
IN WITHIN A VAULT THAT THERE
CANNOT BE STANDING WATER.
CORRECT. AND THERE IS NO
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAT'S
CORRECT FOR THAT PARTICULAR LAW.
SO YOU ALL CAN'T CITE THEM. NO
CODE ENFORCEMENT AND A CITY
CAN'T CITE THEM? YEAH. NONE OF
THAT. OKAY. NO, WE DON'T HAVE
THE ABILITY TO GO TO THE PUC OR
DO ANY OF THAT. NO. OKAY AND NOR
ARE WE ASKING FOR THAT IN THIS
BILL. BUT AS A SPONSOR OF THE
BILL, DID YOU CONSIDER OTHER
MECHANISMS TO, TO MAKE IT SO
THAT THERE IS SOME EXTRA THING
IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE
DESIGN? I MEAN, BECAUSE REALLY
THEY CAN DESIGN SOMETHING THAT
DOESN'T ALLOW FOR WATER TO GO IN
. SO YEAH, AND IF YOU GET ENOUGH
OF THOSE KIND OF, AND NOT TO SAY
THAT THE OPPOSITION THAT'S
SPEAKING TODAY HAS THAT ISSUE,
BUT ANY OF THEM, INCLUDING
PUBLICLY OWNED, IF YOU GET
ENOUGH OF THOSE CITATIONS, IT
SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD MAKE YOU
FIX YOUR DESIGN OF YOUR VAULT.
YEAH. AND THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY
TO DO IT. THE OTHER WAY TO DO IT
IS THEY NEED AIR IN THE VAULTS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ACCESS THE
VAULTS. THERE'S ELECTRIC
EQUIPMENT AND WE'RE SENSITIVE TO
THAT. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO
BALANCE THAT WITH TRYING TO KEEP
WATER OUT. AND SO WHAT WE
THOUGHT THE BEST THING TO DO WAS
RATHER THAN CREATE A PENALTY FOR
HAVING WATER IN THERE, WAS TO
TRY TO CREATE A COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT WHERE WE HAVE THEM
AGREE TO SOME SORT OF INSPECTION
MECHANISM. THEY CAN DO THIS ON
THEIR OWN IF THEY WANT TO
INSPECT THE VAULTS AND SEE IF
WATER'S IN THERE, AND IF WATER
IS IN THERE, YOU CAN EITHER GET
IT OUT OR TREAT IT, SPRAY IT SO
MOSQUITOES WON'T BE THERE. AND
THEN THE PROBLEM SOLVED, AS
OPPOSED TO GOING DOWN THE PATH
OF CREATING SOME SORT OF PENALTY
REGIME, I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE
PELLETS IN MY FOUNTAIN. I FEEL
LIKE MAKE EVERYBODY PUT PELLETS
THERE AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ANY OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBER WITH QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS SEEING NONE. SOUNDS
LIKE THERE'S A WILLINGNESS FROM
THE AUTHOR TO KEEP ON WORKING,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE FOR THE
ORPHALI ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR STERN. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR PRESENTING
THIS BILL TODAY ON SENATOR
STERN'S BEHALF. I WILL BE VOTING
AYE ON THIS BILL. THE MOTION IS,
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? IS THERE A
SECOND? SECOND? BUT FIRST AND A
SECOND. THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
THE UTILITIES AND ENERGY
COMMITTEE. SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL MOTIONS. DO PASS
THE UTILITIES AND ENERGY CARILLO
A CARILLO I WALDRON I WALDRON I
IS SALLY A SALLY I HANEY I HANEY
I CORA CORA I PACHECO CHACO I
RAMOS RAMOS I WARD, WARD I
WILSON. GREAT WILSON I THANK
YOU, BILL. NINE ZERO THANK YOU
AND CONGRATULATIONS. WE DO HAVE
A COUPLE OF ADD ONS FOR A COUPLE
OF BILLS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL FOR THE ADD ONS.
SB 937. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED
AS AMENDED TO HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WARD. WARD
I. I KNOW THAT'S GREAT, BUT I
KNOW. WE'RE ALSO MAKING. BUT YOU
KNOW WHAT THE FINAL VOTE THE
FINAL VOTE ON THIS ONE IS EIGHT
ZERO. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR
HEARING FOR TODAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. 128 DAYS.