GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE ON THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HEARING COMMITTEE. WE
DO HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA. WE STILL DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM, BUT I'M GOING TO GO
THROUGH SOME HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
BEFORE WE BEGIN. AND HOPEFULLY
WE'LL GET COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
THANK YOU, SENATOR CABALLERO,
FOR BEING PROMPTLY ON THE
COMMITTEE. AGAIN, 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 ARE NO LONGER USING A
MODERATED TELEPHONE SERVICE. WE
ALSO ACCEPT WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO
THE POSITION LETTER PORTAL ON
THE COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. AGAIN,
I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER SOME
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 TIME
ALLOTTED, EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS
ON MATTERS NOT RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT OF THE HEARING OR BEALL,
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
HIM TO STOP AND WARN THEM THAT
CONTINUED DISRUPTION 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, AND 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
BUILDING. AS I SAID, WE DO HAVE
FOUR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS
AFTERNOON. NO, NONE OF THESE
ITEMS ARE PROPOSED FOR CONSENT.
SO WE WILL BE HEARING ALL BILLS
IN THE ORDER SHOWN IN OUR AGENDA
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. IN
ADDITION, ASSEMBLY MEMBER KATE
SANCHEZ WILL REPLACE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BILL EASILY FOR TODAY'S
HEARING. ONLY AS SOON AS SHE
COMES IN AND WILL WELCOME HER,
WE WILL TAKE UP THE TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND UP TO
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. THESE WITNESSES WILL
HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES EACH TO
PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY. ALL
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES SHOULD
STATE THEIR NAME, THEIR
ORGANIZATION, AND THEIR POSITION
ON THE BILL. AS STATED EARLIER,
WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM AT THIS
TIME, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE
ACTING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND
AGAIN, I SEE, SENATOR CABALLERO,
YOU READY TO PRESENT WHENEVER
YOU ARE READY, PLEASE. THANK YOU
. AND THAT'S THE FIRST ITEM ON
THE AGENDA, SB 1134, PLEASE
PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1134. SB 1134
REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT OF
GOVERNMENT TO FOLLOW THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
GUIDELINES WHEN PROMULGATING
SURPLUS LAND ACT GUIDELINES.
LAST YEAR, I AUTHORED SB 747 TO
CLARIFY AND IMPROVE THE SLA
PROCESS BY ADDING A DEFINITION
OF SURPLUS LAND DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL, CREATING ADDITIONAL
CATEGORIES OF EXEMPT SURPLUS
LAND, AND ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES
THAT CONTINUE THAT CONSTITUTE AN
AGENCY USE. ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE DISCOVERED IS THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WAS HAVING A REALLY
HARD TIME DETERMINING WHETHER
THE PROPERTY THAT THEY SOUGHT
TO, GET RID OF WAS SUBJECT TO
THE SURPLUS LAND ACT. AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE, THEY WERE JUST
SITTING ON PROPERTY THAT COULD
BE MOVED AND UTILIZED EITHER FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
COMMUNITY. THIS BILL AND ITS
PARTNER, AB 480, BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TING, STRUCK A BALANCE TO
PROVIDE NECESSARY CLARITY TO
ENSURE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
DISPOSING OF LAND WERE DOING SO
CORRECTLY. UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SLA, THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DRAFTING GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT
THIS, INCLUDING CHANGES THAT
WERE RECENTLY MADE. THE
DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY ENJOYS AN
EXEMPTION FROM THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
WHEN PROMULGATING THE SLA
GUIDELINES, AND WE LEFT IT.
ALTHOUGH THIS WAS AN EXTENT OF
NEGOTIATION PROCESS, WE
CONTINUED TO ALLOW THEM TO DO
THEIR REGULATIONS THROUGH AN
EMERGENCY REGULATIONS. THE APA
IS AN INTEGRAL DEMOCRATIC TOOL
REQUIRING REGULATION TO UNDERGO
A THOROUGH PUBLIC REVIEW
PROCESS. IT ALSO REQUIRES THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TO
REVIEW THE REGULATIONS FOR
CLARITY AND LEGAL CONFORMITY
WITH THE LAW. AFTER THE PASSAGE
OF SB 747 AND AB 480, THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED
DRAFT REVISIONS TO THEIR SURPLUS
LAND ACT GUIDELINES. THE DRAFT
GUIDELINES. UNFORTUNATELY GO
BEYOND THE STATUTE IN NUMEROUS
WAYS TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT POLICY
CHANGES NOT CONSISTENT WITH
RECENT LEGISLATION. IN SOME
CASES, THE CHANGES ARE PLAINLY
CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE OR THE
EXPLICIT, EXPLICIT LEGISLATIVE
INTENT THAT WE HAD IN OUR BILLS
OVER THE FALL. I MET WITH HCD TO
DISCUSS THIS CONCERN THAT THE
GUIDELINES WERE NOT REFLECTIVE
OF WHAT WE INTENDED. DISCUSSIONS
CONTINUED INTO THE SPRING, BUT
BASED ON THE DRAFT GUIDELINES
THAT WERE RELEASED, I'M
CONCERNED THAT THE FINAL
GUIDELINES WILL NOT BE
REFLECTIVE OF OUR LEGISLATIVE
INTENT. I HAVE BEEN TRANSPARENT
THIS YEAR WITH THE SENATE
COMMITTEE, AND SB 1134 WAS TO
SERVE AS THE VEHICLE TO MONITOR
THE FINAL GUIDELINES PROPOSED BY
HCD TO ENSURE THAT THE
AGREEMENTS REACHED BETWEEN THE
TWO, BILLS THAT WE PASSED AND
THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE FAITHFULLY
ADOPTED. HOWEVER, GIVEN
LEGISLATIVE DEADLINES, I BELIEVE
THE BEST OPTION FOR ENSURING
THAT HCD DOES WHAT THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO IS TO REQUIRE IT
TO GO THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT BY REQUIRING THEM
TO DO THIS, SB 1134 ENSURES THAT
THERE IS AN UNBIASED THIRD PARTY
OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND
HCD, THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TO REVIEW
THESE GUIDELINES FOR THEIR LEGAL
VALIDITY. THE APA PROCESS WOULD
ALSO ENSURE A THOROUGH PUBLIC
REVIEW PROCESS IN WHICH ALL
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS WITH THE
GUIDELINES ARE HEARD AND
ADDRESSED BEFORE THEY ARE
ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAS THE INPUT TO LOOK
AT THESE. SO I'M GOING TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THESE
ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A
SUPPORTIVE, IF AMENDED, POSITION
FOR BECAUSE OF A DRAFTING ERROR.
AND I'LL ALSO WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE TO CLARIFY, WHICH
GUIDELINES WOULD BE IN EFFECT IF
THE BILL BECOMES LAW. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH
YOUR WITNESSES, SUCH AS WELCOME
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SANCHEZ TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, WELCOME,
PLEASE. YOUR FIRST WITNESS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS
AARON AVERY. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF
STATE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION. CAÑADA REPRESENTS
OVER 1000 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
USING THEIR LANDS TO PROVIDE
ESSENTIAL SERVICES, FROM WATER
TO WASTEWATER TO ELECTRICITY,
FIRE PROTECTION, LIBRARIES AND
PARKS, WE CURRENTLY HOLD A
SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED POSITION ON
THE BILL, AND WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S INTENTION TO CORRECT AN
ERROR, A DRAFTING ERROR IN
SECTION TWO OF THE BILL. WITH
THAT SAID, WE THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS
IMPORTANT BILL AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY, AS
THIS REPRESENTS TWO PRIORITIES
THAT WE BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE
SHARES. FIRST, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FUNDAMENTALLY DEPENDS ON
AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND
AFFORDABLE SERVICES TO
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS. LOCAL
AGENCIES NEED ACCURATE,
CONSISTENT, PREDICTABLE
IMPLEMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SECONDLY,
THE SLA IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT DESERVES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN
A TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE
MANNER. SB 1134 PROMOTES THESE
TWO PRIORITIES, AND I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND HER STAFF
FOR HER COMMITMENT TO THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND MISS
RIOS AS WELL FOR THEIR TIME AND
ATTENTION. THE SLA SERVES AN
IMPORTANT PURPOSE, BUT IT IS
HYPER TECHNICAL AND COMPLEX.
BECAUSE OF THIS, STAKEHOLDERS
FROM BOTH SIDES HAVE CAREFULLY
CRAFTED GOOD FAITH COMPROMISES
THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE.
NOTWITHSTANDING THESE EFFORTS,
THE CHANGES TO THE SLA OVER THE
PAST FIVE YEARS HAVE IMPOSED A
SIGNIFICANT AND EVOLVING CHANGE
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.
IMPLEMENTATION OF A LAW AS
IMPORTANT AND SWEEPING AND
TECHNICAL AS THE SLA MERITS IN
OPEN AND PUBLIC PROCESS, WITH
STANDARD RULES OF THE ROAD, WE
WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE
APPLICATION OF THE APA TO THE
SLA RULEMAKING PROCESS, AND WE
BELIEVE THIS CHANGE WILL FOSTER
GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS,
COLLABORATION, TRANSPARENCY, AND
LESS CONFLICT. HOPEFULLY, AGAIN,
WE WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND
HER STAFF FOR THEIR HARD, HARD
AND TIRELESS WORK ON THIS ISSUE
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. I
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
GENE HEARST, HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA, REPRESENTING THE
STATE'S 14 LARGEST COUNTIES,
ALSO, TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT ON
BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES AT THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES AND THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA,
HERE TODAY, AS MY COLLEAGUE
MENTIONED, WITH THE SUPPORT OF
AMENDED POSITION ON SENATE BILL
1334, LOCAL AGENCIES CONTINUE TO
BE CHALLENGED BY THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CAREFULLY
NEGOTIATED LANGUAGE IN THE
SURPLUS LAND ACT AND NUMEROUS
BILLS OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS
REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT TO UTILIZE THE APA
PROCESS WILL PROVIDE IMPORTANT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR STAKEHOLDER
INPUT IN THE SPIRIT OF
TRANSPARENCY AND CLARITY OF THE
LAW, AND IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING
OF IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS,
URBAN COUNTIES AGREE THAT
CLARITY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE SLA STATUTES ARE CRITICAL
TO ENSURING THE EFFECTIVE
DISPOSITION OF LOCAL AGENCY LAND
AND APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION OF
THE POTENTIAL TO BUILD MUCH
NEEDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE
GREATLY APPRECIATE SENATOR
CABALLERO'S STEADFAST COMMITMENT
TO GETTING THIS RIGHT AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE
CONTINUE WITH MORE WITNESSES, WE
REACH A QUORUM. SO, SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL CARILLO
PRESENT. CARILLO. PRESENT.
WALDEN. HERE. WALDEN PRESENT.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. PRESENT HANEY.
CORRE. CORRE. PRESENT PACHECO.
RAMOS. HERE. RAMOS. PRESENT.
WARD WILSON. THANK YOU, WITH
THAT, WE'LL CONTINUE WITH,
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME. ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION ON THE BILL. THANK
YOU. MISTER CHAIR. MEMBERS
MICHAEL GUNNING, LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS HERE IN SUPPORT
ON BEHALF OF HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY, CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SEEN NO OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. ARE THERE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. I SEE SOMEONE COMING
THIS WAY. NO. NO ONE IN
OPPOSITION, WITH THAT, I TAKE IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS AND WHAT'S
IN FRONT OF US? SORRY. HE WANTED
TO JUST AS A. OH, I'M SORRY. I
THOUGHT YOU SAID NO. GO AHEAD,
THANK YOU. JT HERSCHBACH WITH
NONPROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE BILL
WOULD IMPACT THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF CURRENT HCD GUIDELINES AS
THEY ARE BEING DRAFTED RIGHT
NOW. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE
REALLY APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND
HER STAFF, THEIR OPEN LINE OF
COMMUNICATION AND DISCUSSING THE
IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE? WE HAD A MOTION TO MOVE
THE BILL AND I BELIEVE WE HAD A
SECOND, MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE. OH.
I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, SENATOR CAVALLERO,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. AYE.
VOTE SO THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING
YOUR BILL TODAY. AND THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF FOR MAKING A
COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE WORKING
WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND
COMMITTEE MOVING FORWARD. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SB 1134 IS A Dð PASS Tê
APPROPRIATION CARILLO Ã CARILLO
. AYE. WALDEN. WALDEN. AYE.
SANCHEZ. AYE SANCHEZ. AYE.
HANEY. CORA. HI CORA. AYE.
PACHECO. RAMOS HI. RAMOS. AYE.
WARD. WILSON. LOOKS LIKE THE
BILL IS OUT, 504 NOW, BUT WE'LL
LEAVE THAT ROLL OPEN FOR OTHERS
TO ADD ON. THANK YOU, SENATOR,
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, SB
1174, SENATOR, MEAN ELECTION
VOTER IDENTIFICATION. WHEN YOU
ARE READY, SENATOR. LET'S NOT
HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON
ANYBODY TODAY. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
CARILLO. AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
SB 1174 WOULD ENSURE THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS CANNOT IMPLEMENT
THEIR OWN UNIQUE VOTER
IDENTIFICATION LAWS AND LOCAL
ELECTIONS AND REINFORCES THAT
ELECTION REQUIREMENT ARE A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.
RECENTLY, HUNTINGTON BEACH,
WHICH I REPRESENT, PASSED A
CHARTER AMENDMENT IMPLEMENTING
VOTER ID LAWS IN THEIR LOCAL
ELECTIONS. NOW, MY READ OF THE
LAW IS THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT
ANY LOCAL ID LAWS THAT MIGHT
IMPACT STATE, FEDERAL, OR COUNTY
ELECTIONS ARE PER SE ILLEGAL.
BUT I BELIEVE IT IS AN AMBIGUOUS
QUESTION WHETHER A LOCAL
JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTING THEIR
OWN VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS ON
THEIR OWN ELECTIONS HELD IN A
DIFFERENT TIME AND PLACE THAN
OTHER ELECTIONS, WHETHER THAT
MIGHT BE PERMISSIBLE OR NOT. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY
OF STATE, I SHOULD NOTE, HAVE
TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THIS IS
ALSO ILLEGAL. BUT THIS BILL, SB
1174, WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS
IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPTABLE,
THAT ANY VOTER IDENTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS OR ANY ELECTION
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS IN GENERAL
WOULD BE UNDER STATE
JURISDICTION EXCLUSIVELY. WHILE
CHARTER CITIES ARE GIVEN CERTAIN
PRIVILEGES, THEY ARE NOT IMMUNE
TO STATE LAW. THERE ARE 125
CHARTER CITIES IN CALIFORNIA,
AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT A
SITUATION WHERE EACH OF THESE
CITIES IS IMPLEMENTING THEIR OWN
UNIQUE VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS,
WHICH WILL SERVE TO CONFUSE THE
PUBLIC AND DIMINISH TRUST IN OUR
ELECTIONS PROCESS. NOW WE HAVE
THESE COMPETING GOALS WE'VE
ALWAYS HAD IN ELECTIONS IN A
DEMOCRACY AS VIBRANT AS THE
UNITED STATES HAS, WE WANT TO
ENSURE ROBUST VOTER
PARTICIPATION. THAT'S THE HEART
OF ANY DEMOCRACY. AT THE SAME
TIME, WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT
ELECTION INTEGRITY IS THERE,
THAT WE MAINTAIN TRUST IN OUR
ELECTIONS. I HAVE TOLD THE
PEOPLE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
MULTIPLE LEGISLATORS HERE THAT I
BELIEVE IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF
VOTER FRAUD, THAT WE SHOULD
ADDRESS IT WITH HEIGHTENED
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, PERHAPS
INCLUDING VOTER ID, BUT TO DATE,
I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY EVIDENCE
FROM THE MEMBERS OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH THAT ARE PUSHING THIS
PROCESS FORWARD OF ANY VOTER
FRAUD WHATSOEVER. I WILL ALSO
NOTE THAT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL,
WHO'S KIND OF KNOWN FOR BEING
TOUGH ON CRIME, ETC. AND IN FACT
RAN LAST CYCLE ON A CAMPAIGN OF
NØ LÀ AND OC. YOU CAN DETERMINE
WHAT THAT MEANS FOR YOURSELF, HE
HAS PUBLICLY STATED THAT EACH
ELECTION CYCLE HE GETS 10 TO 15
COMPLAINTS ABOUT VOTER ID FRAUD
OR VOTER FRAUD OF SOME KIND. HE
LOOKS INTO EACH ONE OF THEM AND
TO DATE, HE HAS NEVER FOUND ANY
EVIDENCE OF ANY VOTER FRAUD
INTENTIONAL THAT COULD BE
PROSECUTED. NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO ME, OR I
BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE
DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE'S
WIDESPREAD CONCERN ABOUT VOTER
FRAUD IN THE STATE. CALIFORNIA
RUNS ONE OF THE BEST, VOTER
SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTRY. AND
ORANGE COUNTY, WHICH I
REPRESENT, IS KNOWN FOR HAVING
PRISTINE ELECTIONS. WE HAVE
CAREFULLY CRAFTED OUR ELECTION
REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE SYSTEM
INTEGRITY WHILE BALANCING THAT
PRIORITY WITH THE RIGHTS OF
ELIGIBLE VOTERS. SB 1174 WOULD
ENSURE THAT VOTERS DO NOT FACE
UNNECESSARY BARRIERS WHILE
TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE
UNIFORM STATEWIDE REGULATIONS
AROUND OUR ELECTIONS PROCESSES
HERE TO TESTIFY WITH ME IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL, I HAVE RUTH
DAWSON, LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
WITH THE ACLU, AND JOEY FLAGEL
MISHLOVE WITH AFSCME CALIFORNIA,
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS JOEY FLAGEL MISHLOVE,
AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
MORE THAN 200,000 WORKING PEOPLE
WHO MAKE UP THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, NHÀ AFSCME MEMBERS
WORK AT ALL LEVELS OF STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WE WORK AT OUR
UCS, AT STATE HOSPITALS, IN OUR
WATER AND UTILITY DISTRICTS, AND
OPERATE AT ALMOST EVERY FUNCTION
OF CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ACROSS CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
MANY COUNTIES WHERE OUR MEMBERS
WORK IN ELECTIONS OFFICES,
MAINTAINING, FAIR, HONEST AND
EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE ELECTIONS IN
COUNTIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA EVERY
YEAR. AND SO ALL OF AFSCME'S
MEMBERSHIP IS DEEPLY INVESTED IN
OUR STATE'S ELECTORAL APPARATUS
BECAUSE IT IS THEIR DUTY TO
CARRY OUT THE PLANS AND POLICIES
ENACTED BY ELECTED OFFICIALS.
AND OUR MEMBERS KNOW THAT THEY
ARE BEST ABLE TO SERVE THEIR
COMMUNITIES WHEN THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS THEY THEY WORK FOR ARE
TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR
COMMUNITIES. RIGHT NOW, WE
RECOGNIZE THAT CALIFORNIA IS A
NATIONAL LEADER IN DESIGNING
ELECTION SYSTEMS THAT ARE FAIR
AND ARE JUST. BUT WE ALSO KNOW
THAT WE'RE NOT IMMUNE TO SOME
NATIONAL CURRENTS THAT PULL OUR
ELECTORAL PROCESSES TOWARDS
SOMETHING THAT IS MORE ARDUOUS
AND ULTIMATELY MORE EXCLUSIVE OF
WORKING PEOPLE. CITIES
IMPLEMENTING VOTER ID LAWS COULD
TAKE A MAJOR STEP BACKWARDS BY
ENFORCING POLICIES THAT ACTUALLY
MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO VOTE,
AND SPECIFICALLY TEND TO EXCLUDE
BLACK, LATINO AND INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITY MEMBERS FROM OUR
ELECTORAL SYSTEM. MEMBERS OF OUR
UNION WHO ARE LONG TERM CARE
WORKERS HAVE ALSO POINTED TO
MANY STUDIES SHOWING THAT VOTER
ID LAWS HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE
IMPACT ON PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES, AND OUR ELDERLY
COMMUNITIES, AND SO WE KNOW THAT
THESE LAWS ARE A REAL THREAT TO
A THRIVING DEMOCRACY AND WOULD
ALLOW OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS TO
MISREPRESENT OR IGNORE
COMMUNITIES THAT OUR MEMBERS
WORK IN, LIVE IN, AND ARE PART
OF. AND THE STEP BACKWARDS,
REPRESENTED BY VOTER ID LAWS
CAN'T BE JUSTIFIED BY CLAIMS OF
VOTER FRAUD, WHICH HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO BE
OVERBLOWN AND ULTIMATELY, OUR
DOG WHISTLES THAT SERVE TO
EXCLUDE TARGETED POPULATIONS
FROM OUR VOTING PROCESS. AND SO
TO MAINTAIN A FAIR AND JUST
ELECTORAL SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA,
AFSCME MEMBERS STRONGLY AND
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND AN AYE
VOTE ON SB 1174. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS RUTH JOSTEN. I'M A
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY WITH ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION, AND I AM
PLEASED TO TESTIFY IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB 1174 BY SENATOR
MIN. THIS BILL WOULD DO TWO
THINGS. ONE, IT WOULD REAFFIRM
THAT VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION
INTEGRITY, INCLUDING VOTER
VERIFICATION, ARE MATTERS OF
STATEWIDE CONCERN. AND TWO, IT
WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT CHARTER
CITIES ARE PROHIBITED FROM
ENACTING VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS
FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. VOTER
ID LAWS PERPETUATE THE MYTH OF
VOTER FRAUD AND DO NOTHING TO
IMPROVE ELECTION INTEGRITY.
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS STUDIES,
EXPERTS AND COURTS HAVE
REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED THAT
INSTANCES OF VOTER FRAUD ARE
EXCEEDINGLY RARE. HOWEVER AFTER
NUMEROUS STUDIES AND DATA SHOW
THAT VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS DO
IMPOSE SEVERE AND DISPARATE
BURDENS ON VOTERS, PARTICULARLY
ON VOTERS OF COLOR, THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HAS LONG
UNDERSTOOD THE HARMS OF VOTER ID
REQUIREMENTS AND STATE LAW DOES
NOT IMPOSE A VOTER ID
REQUIREMENT AT THE BALLOT BOX.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND
COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS
VERIFY VOTER ELIGIBILITY AND
ENSURE ELECTION INTEGRITY FOR
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
ELECTIONS AND A MANNER THAT IS
MINIMALLY BURDENSOME ON VOTERS
AND SUPPORTS A STRONG DEMOCRACY
IN OUR STATE. DESPITE
CALIFORNIA'S CAREFULLY BALANCED
SYSTEM. LAST YEAR, THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
PLACED A VOTER ID MEASURE ON THE
MARCH 2024 BALLOT, WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY ERRONEOUSLY ARGUING
THAT HUNTINGTON BEACH MAY IMPOSE
A VOTER ID REQUIREMENT BECAUSE
IT IS A CHARTER CITY WITH HOME
RULE AUTHORITY OVER MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS. HUNTINGTON BEACH'S
POSITION IGNORES CASE LAW THAT
MAKES THE VOTER ID MEASURE
INVALID BECAUSE ONE VOTING
RIGHTS AND ELECTION INTEGRITY
ARE MATTERS OF STATEWIDE
CONCERN, AND TWO BECAUSE THE
MEASURE CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW
AND BURDENS VOTING RIGHTS. THE
LEGAL CHALLENGE TO HUNTINGTON
BEACH'S MEASURE WILL NO DOUBT BE
SUCCESSFUL, AND IN THE MEANTIME,
SB 1174 WILL STOP ANY OTHER
CITIES FROM ATTEMPTING TO PASS
SIMILAR MEASURES THAT SPREAD
MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. SO
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
IMPORTANT BILL TO PREVENT THE
CHIPPING AWAY OF DEMOCRATIC
INTEGRITY IN OUR STATE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN
THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO ADD ANY
SUPPORT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. ETHAN NAGLER, ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN
SUPPORT. ANNE MARIE TROUT, ON
BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE. DOCTOR
SHIRLEY WEBER IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? HOW ABOUT NO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE. TAKE IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS SEE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE, GIVEN OUR THE LONG
HISTORY OF, HOW VOTER ID LAWS
AND POLL TAXES AND WHAT HAVE YOU
HAVE BEEN PERPETRATED,
PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE AFRICAN
COMMUNITY, AFRICAN AMERICAN
COMMUNITY THAT ON JUNETEENTH,
THIS IS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE US,
AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE
MENTION OF THAT BECAUSE THAT
CAME TO MIND AS YOU WERE
DISCUSSING, ESPECIALLY KIND OF
THE FRAUD, THE REAL FRAUD THAT
GETS PERPETRATED IS THOSE THAT
CLAIM THERE'S A LOT OF VOTER
FRAUD GOING ON, AND IT'S USED AS
A POLITICAL TOOL TO CREATE
CYNICISM AS OPPOSED TO THE
OPPOSITE OF CREATING TRUST IN
OUR VOTING SYSTEM. SO I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO
MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND JUST IN RESPONSE, I'D
NOTE THAT WHILE IN CALIFORNIA, I
DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE SEEN A LOT
OF DOCUMENTED INSTANCES OF VOTER
FRAUD THAT WERE SUCCESSFUL, THE
INSTANCES WE'RE SEEING AROUND
THE COUNTRY ARE TYPICALLY THOSE
WHO BELIEVE THAT ELECTIONS ARE
RIGGED, SO THEY WANT TO RIG IT
BACK THE OTHER WAY BY VOTING
MULTIPLE TIMES. AND THEY TEND TO
BE PEOPLE WHO ARE ADVOCATES OF
DONALD TRUMP'S VIEW THAT ALL
ELECTIONS ARE STOLEN. AND SO WE
ARE FACING A SERIOUS DISTRUST OF
OUR ELECTIONS PROCESSES AT THIS
TIME. ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBER
, I BELIEVE? YES, MISS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. THANK YOU. SORRY TO WALK
INTO PRESENTATION. OBVIOUSLY
SUPPORT THIS VERY STRONGLY FOR
THE GOALS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE. BUT, COULD YOU MAYBE
RESTATE AS WELL I NEVER
UNDERSTOOD WHERE I THINK YOU
KNOW, SOMETHING LOWER THAN THE
STATE GOVERNMENT THOUGHT THAT IT
EVER HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE
ABILITY TO REGULATE ELECTIONS
CODE. YEAH. AND AGAIN, I AND I
THINK MY WITNESS AND I HAVE
DIFFERENT REASONS. I THINK ONE
CAN MAKE A STRONG CASE AS THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAVE, THAT ALL MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY
STATE. ELECTION INTEGRITY, I
THINK IS VERY CLEAR THAT COUNTY,
STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS
CANNOT BE TOUCHED BY ANY LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS. THE OPEN QUESTION,
WHICH I JUST NOTE, THE HB THING
DOESN'T ADDRESS BECAUSE HB
PURPORTS TO HAVE ITS ELECTIONS
AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE AS
STATE AND FEDERAL AND COUNTY
ELECTIONS. SO THAT WOULD BE PER
SE ILLEGAL. BUT THE WHAT THE
OPEN QUESTION IS, IS IF YOU HELD
YOUR ELECTIONS AT A DIFFERENT
PLACE IN TIME AND YOU WERE
CHARTER CITY, WOULD YOU BE ABLE
TO DO THAT? AND I THINK THERE'S
SOME AMBIGUITY THERE IN READING
THE LAW. I DON'T THINK THERE'S
LIKE SPECIFIC CASE LAW ON POINT.
I DON'T THINK THE STATUTES
ADDRESS IT. SO THIS PARTICULAR
BILL IS MEANT TO JUST SAY, HEY,
THIS THERE'S THERE IS NO
JUSTIFICATION AT ALL FOR A
CHARTER CITY PURPORTING TO DO
ITS OWN VOTER ID OR ANY KIND OF
ELECTION SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.
YEAH. I MEAN, CONSISTENCY ACROSS
OUR STATE AND HOW WE PROCESS
ELECTIONS, I THINK IS KEY TO THE
CONFIDENCE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR
ELECTIONS. SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THIS BILL. HAPPY TO
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO ANYBODY
ELSE SEEING NONE. WE DO HAVE A
MOTION BY SAMMY MCILROY. NEED A
SECOND. ANYONE WANT TO SECOND
THE MOTION SECOND WE HAVE A
SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING
YOUR BILL TODAY AND THANK YOU
FOR WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SB 1174. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
THE FLOOR. CARILLO A CARILLO I
WALDRON. NO. WALDRON NO.
SANCHEZ. NOW! SANCHEZ. NO HANEY.
HI. HANEY. I CHOLERA. CHOLERA I
PACHECO. RAMOS. RAMOS I. WARD.
WARD. I. WILSON THE BILLY SOUTH
FIVE. BUT WE'LL LEAVE THERE ALL
OPEN FOR OTHERS TO ADD ON. THANK
YOU. WE DO HAVE TWO OTHER ITEMS
ON THE AGENDA, ONE BY SENATOR
CORTESE AND ONE BY SENATOR
ASHBY. NOT SEEING THEM HERE YET,
WE'RE GOING TO JUST TAKE A
LITTLE RECESS. THANK YOU.
WHILE WE WAIT, WE'RE GOING TO DO
ADD ONS TO SB 1134 AND SB 1174.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO BE OUT ON
SB 1134. THE MOTION IS TO Dð
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS HANGING
HANEY. AYE. PACHECO. WARD A
WARD. AYE. WILSON THANK YOU.
WE'RE STILL LEAVE IT OPEN. WE'LL
STILL EAT THE ROLL OPEN FOR THAT
ITEM.
WE ARE BACK WITH SENATOR CURTIS.
PRESENTED ITEM NUMBER THREE ON
THE AGENDA, SB 1209. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. SENATOR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB 1209,
WHICH WOULD EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSIONS LAFCOS TO INDEMNIFY
THE PURPOSE OF LAFCO COMMISSIONS
. INCLUDE DISCOURAGING URBAN
SPRAWL, PRESERVING OPEN SPACE
AND PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS,
ENCOURAGING THE ORDERLY
FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
LOCAL AGENCIES, AND ENSURING THE
EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT
SERVICES. AS I THINK MOST OF YOU
KNOW, LAFCO èC USES THESE
PRINCIPLES FOR VARIOUS LOCAL
AGENCY APPLICATIONS TO MODIFY
BOUNDARIES, ESTABLISH NEW
SERVICES, AND EVALUATE AGENCIES
THROUGH THE PREPARATION OF
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS AND
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE. FOR MOST
OF THOSE APPLICATIONS, SUCH AS
THOSE FOR LAND USE, PRIVATE
PARTIES INDEMNIFY BY THE
INVOLVED CITY OR COUNTY LAFCOS
ALSO WERE INDEMNIFIED BY
APPLICANTS UNTIL THE SECOND
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
DETERMINED THAT LAFCO COULD NOT
REQUIRE INDEMNIFICATION BECAUSE
IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IN
THE COURT'S KNOX HERTZBERG LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2000, WITHOUT
THE ABILITY TO INDEMNIFY, LAFCO
WILL NECESSARILY HAVE TO
CONSIDER WHETHER TO MAKE
CONCESSIONS TO THE APPLICANT OR
NOT TO DEFEND ITS ACTIONS.
FUNDING FOR EACH LAFCO IS
PROVIDED BY THE RESPECTIVE
COUNTY, CITY AND SPECIAL
DISTRICT MEMBERS PURSUANT TO A
STATUTORY DEFINED FORMULA THAT
SHARES THE COSTS PROPORTIONALLY,
ALLOWING LAFCO TO USE
INDEMNIFICATION WILL PREVENT THE
EXPENSE OF ONE ENTITY FROM BEING
SHIFTED TO ALL REPRESENTATIVE
AGENCIES THAT FUND LAFCO. THAT,
IN TURN, WILL PROTECT THE
COUNTY, CITY, AND SPECIAL
DISTRICT TAXPAYERS AND
RATEPAYERS FROM INCURRING THE
EXPENSES OF LAFCO APPLICANTS WHO
STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION.
AFTER EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, WE AGREED
TO LIMIT INDEMNIFICATION TO
APPLICATIONS OF LAFCO ACTUALLY
APPROVES WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT,
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSIONS. AS GENE HEARST AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I'M GENE HEARST HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, CAL
LAFCO. AND WE'RE THE SPONSORS OF
SENATE BILL 1209. THIS IS A
RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD BILL
THAT AUTHORIZES LAFCOS
EXPLICITLY TO REQUIRE AN
INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION IN
APPLICATIONS THAT ACHIEVE
APPROVAL, THE STATUTORY CHANGE
IS NECESSARY, AS SENATOR
MENTIONED, AS THE COURTS HAVE
RECENTLY RULED THAT LAFCOS MAY
NOT REQUIRE NOR RELY UPON
INDEMNIFY THÀNH BECAUSE IT ISN'T
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IN THE
COURT'S HERZBERG LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2000, EVEN
THOUGH CITIES, COUNTIES, AND
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ROUTINELY
REQUIRE INDEMNIFICATION WHEN
CONSIDERING LAND USE
APPLICATIONS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS
DELEGATED THE POWER TO REGULATE
THE BOUNDARIES AND SERVICES OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO
LAFCOS. LAFCOS ARE TASKED WITH
DISCOURAGING URBAN SPRAWL,
PRESERVING OPEN SPACE AND PRIME
AGRICULTURE LANDS, ENCOURAGING
THE ORDERLY FORMATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL AGENCIES,
AND ENSURING THE EFFICIENT
DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
ON THE STATE'S BEHALF. WITHOUT
THE ABILITY TO INDEMNIFY ANY
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
LITIGATION, WOULD BE BORNE BY
THE LOCAL AGENCIES THAT FUND THE
LAFCO. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LAFCO
WILL NECESSARILY HAVE TO
CONSIDER WHETHER TO MAKE
CONCESSIONS TO THE APPLICANT OR
TO NOT DEFEND ITS ITS ACTIONS,
UNDERMINING THEIR FUNDAMENTAL
STATUTORY CHARGE. WE WANT TO
EXTEND OUR APPRECIATION FOR THE
COMMITTEE STAFF, FOR THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND WORKING SO
CLOSELY WITH US, AND TO SENATOR
CORTESE FOR HIS WILLINGNESS TO
CHAMPION THIS ISSUE, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN
THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO ADD ON,
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON. MARCHESE,
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE, ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. MARK FENSTERMAKER FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS,
RESPECTFULLY AND REGRETFULLY
OPPOSED TO SB 1209, CALIFORNIA
IS HOME TO 95 RCDS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES BY IMPLEMENTING
PROJECTS AND PROVIDING TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
LANDOWNERS TO MEET LOCAL
CONSERVATION NEEDS. RCDS SERVE
AS A VITAL LINK BETWEEN FEDERAL,
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS,
HELPING THESE AGENCIES MEET
THEIR CONSERVATION GOALS,
INCLUDING WATERSHED PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT, FOREST HEALTH AND
WILDFIRE RESILIENCE, SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND
CONSERVATION EDUCATION, AMONGST
OTHERS. MORE AND MORE IS BEING
ASKED OF RCDS AS THE EFFECTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE DEMAND GREATER
LEVELS OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RESTORATION. THE SERVICES
RCDS PROVIDE ARE LARGELY FUNDED
BY GRANTS AND AGREEMENTS WITH
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
PARTNERS. ONLY ABOUT ONE THIRD
OF THE 95 RCDS IN CALIFORNIA
RECEIVE SOME FORM OF ANNUAL
LOCAL TAX BASE, AND OF THOSE,
THE AVERAGE IS LESS THAN
$300,000. FOR THE OTHER 60 SOME
ODD RCDS THEY REALLY OPERATE OFF
OF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF OVERHEAD
FROM THESE GRANTS AND FROM THESE
FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS. THERE IS
NO BASE FUNDING. ARCS ARE REALLY
GOOD AT OPERATING ON A BOOTSTRAP
BUDGET AND LEVERAGING FUNDS
ACROSS OUR LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
WITH THIS BILL, THE SENATOR
NOTED THE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT
THAT COST THE LOCAL LAFCO THAT
THAT LAWSUIT WAS ABOUT $400,000.
THAT'S MORE THAN THE AVERAGE
ANNUAL TAX BASE FOR RCDS. SO
WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
ABILITY FOR US TO FINANCIALLY
COMPLY IF WE HAVE TO DEFEND OR
INDEMNIFY A LAFCO IN A LAWSUIT,
OR SIMPLY HOW WE BUDGET TO
ACCOMMODATE THE FACT THAT WE MAY
HAVE TO PUT THAT MONEY ASIDE.
RCDS DO NOT COME TOO OFTEN TO
LAFCOS TO REQUEST ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGES, BUT THEY ARE DOING SO
TO AGAIN, KEEP UP WITH THE
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND
MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE SERVING
THE COMMUNITIES AND THE COUNTIES
IN WHICH THEY SERVE, I'M AWARE
OF TWO CURRENTLY ONE IN SOLANO
AND ONE IN SAN DIEGO, WHERE THE
RCDS ARE CONSIDERING EITHER
EXPANDING THEIR SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE OR ANNEXING
TERRITORIES. THERE ARE A LOT OF
DONUT HOLES THAT EXIST WITHIN
THE SERVICE TERRITORIES OF RCDS.
SO WE'RE WE'RE CONCERNED WITH
THE POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECT
THIS MAY HAVE ON RCDS COMING
FORWARD AND REQUESTING THESE
TYPES OF CHANGES AND ENSURING
THAT THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THEY
SERVE GET THE SERVICES THEY NEED
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE ARE
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO ADD ON ON THE RECORD IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NO ONE COMING
TO THE MICROPHONE I TAKE IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS SEEING
NOBODY, HOW ABOUT A MOTION? NØ
SECOND SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? LET ME JUST SAY WE
APPRECIATE, THE CONCERNS OF THE
OPPOSITION THAT YOU HEARD HERE
TODAY. AND WE'VE GONE BACK AND
FORTH TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOME
KIND OF ELEGANT SOLUTION FOR
THAT. THERE'S THUS FAR NOT BEEN
ONE, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN A
CARVE OUT, WHICH WOULD, OF
COURSE, CONTINUE AND CONTINUE TO
CONTINUE RIGHT ON DOWN THE LINE.
GIVEN THE NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT
HAVE TO COME IN BEFORE LAFCO. SO
WE WILL KEEP IN COMMUNICATION
AND SEE IF THERE'S STILL
SOMETHING THAT CAN BE WORKED
OUT. AND WITH THAT, I'D
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING YOUR
BILL TODAY. I WILL BE VOTING.
AYE. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS.
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SB 1209, MOTION IS DUE. PASS THE
FLOOR. CARILLO Ã CARILLO I
WALDRON. HI WALDRON. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE HANEY.
HANEY. I CORA. KALRA. AYE.
PACHECO. RAMOS. AYE RAMOS. AYE.
WARD A. WARD. AYE. WILSON THE
BODY'S SEVEN BEALL SAD. WE WILL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR OTHERS
TO ADD ON THE LAST ITEM ON THE
AGENDA, SB 1439 BY SENATOR ASHBY
. SENATOR, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY
.
HERE'S. HI, COLLEAGUES. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US TODAY.
APPRECIATE IT. LET ME START. ALL
RIGHT, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I AM
HERE TODAY. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO
PRESENT SB 1439. SB 1439 IS AT
ITS HEART A DISTRICT BILL. IT
WILL ALLOW SUTTER HOSPITAL HERE
IN SACRAMENTO TO BUILD A STATE
OF THE ART CANCER CENTER ON A
FORMER REGIONAL TRANSIT LOT IN A
TWO BLOCK RADIUS OF MY DISTRICT.
SUTTER HAS ESTABLISHED
THEMSELVES AS A REPUTABLE
PROVIDER OF QUALITY HEALTH CARE
IN MANY OF OUR DISTRICTS RIGHT
HERE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, IN
THE BAY AREA, IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY, AND IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, IN FACT, MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES AND MYSELF HAVE
RELIED ON SUTTER HEALTH TO
PROVIDE CRITICAL, LIFE SAVING
CARE FOR OURSELVES AND OUR
FAMILIES. CANCER IS THE SECOND
LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN OUR
STATE, WITH 189,000 NEW CASES
AND OVER 60,000 DEATHS EACH YEAR
, ACCORDING TO A STUDY FROM UC
DAVIS. SAC COUNTY HAS A HIGHER
CANCER MORTALITY RATE THAN THE
STATE AVERAGE, INDICATING A NEED
FOR THIS FACILITY. IN MY
DISTRICT, THERE IS ALSO A GREAT
NEED FOR INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY
TO CRITICAL LIFE SAVING CARE FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE MEDI-CAL OR
MEDICARE OF ITS 3.2 MILLION
PATIENTS SERVED ANNUALLY, SUTTER
SERVES OVER 1.2 MILLION MEDI-CAL
AND MEDICARE PATIENTS. AND AS
SENATE DISTRICT EIGHT POPULATION
GROWS SO TOO WILL THOSE NUMBERS.
SUTTER HEALTH IS HEAVILY
INVESTED IN OUR LOCAL FEDERALLY
QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS, SUCH
AS WELL SPACE AND THE SAC NATIVE
AMERICAN HEALTH CENTER, WHO WILL
PROVIDE CARE FOR CANCER PATIENTS
AND ALREADY DO FOR SOME OF OUR
MOST UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS.
THEY ARE SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL
. THROUGH THESE PARTNERSHIPS,
SUTTER HEALTH HAS PROVIDED LOW
COST MEDICAL CARE TO 440,000 LOW
INCOME PATIENTS SINCE ABSORBING
THE UNREIMBURSED COST OF THAT
CARE. THIS BILL WAS HEAVILY
AMENDED. THAT'S AN
UNDERSTATEMENT. HEAVILY AMENDED
IN THE SENATE TO INCLUDE
SAFEGUARDS THAT ENSURE THAT THE
LAND IS USED FOR CRITICAL HEALTH
CARE REMAINS ACCESSIBLE FOR
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, AND
PROVIDES A POSITIVE COMMUNITY
BENEFIT. I AM PROUD TO HAVE THE
SUPPORT OF, WELL SPACE HEALTH
SACRAMENTO NATIVE AMERICAN
HEALTH CENTER, SACRAMENTO CITY'S
MAYOR STEINBERG, THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL, AIR, RAIL, AND
TRANSPORTATION. THE PIPE TRADES,
THE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION IN THE STATE
BUILDING, AND TRADES MY LOCAL
BUILDING AND TRADES, THE
SACRAMENTO LGBTQ COMMUNITY
CENTER, THE STEINBERG MENTAL
HEALTH INSTITUTE, CALIFORNIA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AND DOZENS
OF LOCAL BUSINESSES, TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS, AND COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATIONS, SOME OF WHICH I AM
SURE YOU WILL HEAR FROM TODAY. I
KNOW THAT THE ISSUE OF PRECEDENT
HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. I WANT TO
FACE IT HEAD ON. I WANT TO
ASSURE MY COLLEAGUES THIS BILL
IS SO NARROW THAT IT ONLY
APPLIES. TO ONE LANDLOCKED
HOSPITAL IN A TWO BLOCK NON
RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MY DISTRICT,
AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO CREATE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET A VERY
SPECIFIC NEED. TREATING CANCER
IN A COUNTY WITH A HIGHER CANCER
MORTALITY RATE THAN THE AVERAGE
OF THE STATE THAT WE ALL SERVE.
AND WHILE I AM ALSO A HOUSING
ADVOCATE AND IN FACT, AS A YOUNG
SINGLE MOM LIVED IN LOW INCOME
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS CITY
THAT I NOW SERVE, I TOO AM AN
ADVOCATE FOR HEALTH CARE,
PARTICULARLY LIFE SAVING HEALTH
CARE. I'M A SENATOR THAT SERVES
1 MILLION PEOPLE, AND THOSE
MILLION PEOPLE LACK ACCESS TO
CRITICAL, LIFE SAVING CANCER
TREATMENT. WHILE THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT IS A VERY GOOD TOOL FOR
HOUSING, IT ALSO PUTS GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONS IN LINE AHEAD OF
HEALTH CARE. IT PRIORITIZES
CORP. YARDS, ADMINISTRATION
BUILDINGS, FIRE STATIONS AND
CIVIC BUILDINGS AHEAD OF HEALTH
CARE. THOSE OF YOU IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT KNOW THAT WE USE THAT
TO GET PIECES OF LAND IN
SACRAMENTO. OUR HOUSING
AUTHORITY HAD A RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL TO THIS LAND. LET ME SAY
THAT AGAIN. THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY FOR SACRAMENTO HAD A
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO THIS
LAND. THEY TURNED IT DOWN,
STATING THAT IT WAS ECONOMICALLY
INFEASIBLE FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. SAC IS A GOOD ACTOR ON
HOUSING STOCK. SRA HAS 25,000
LOW AND VERY LOW AFFORDABLE
UNITS IN THEIR PORTFOLIO. LAST
YEAR ALONE, THEY ADDED 640 MORE
UNITS, AND IN THE IMMEDIATE
PIPELINE, THERE ARE 2218 MORE
UNITS. I AM ASKING YOU, MY
COLLEAGUES, TO PLEASE ALLOW ME
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD MY
MILLION CONSTITUENTS A CRITICAL
PROJECT TO HELP THEM ADDRESS THE
HEALTH CARE NEEDS THAT THEY FACE
IN SACRAMENTO. I AM ASKING YOU
FOR AN AYE VOTE ON SB 1439 WITH
ME TODAY AS MY LEAD WITNESSES
ARE JOE GREGOREK ON BEHALF OF
SUTTER HEALTH, AND SCOTT WETCH
ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JOE GREGOREK, VICE PRESIDENT OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS FOR SUTTER
HEALTH. ACCESS TO ACROSS OUR
SYSTEM. SUTTER HEALTH CURRENTLY
SERVES MORE THAN 3.2 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS, AND JUST LAST
YEAR, IT HAD MORE THAN 200,000
INPATIENT ADMISSIONS IN OUR
ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS. WITH OUR
STATE OF THE ART, FACILITIES
ACROSS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND
IN THE CENTRAL COAST, WE WORK
DAY IN AND DAY OUT TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF OUR LOCAL PATIENTS, ON
DAY TO DAY CARE AND WITH SERIOUS
ILLNESS THROUGHOUT THE LAST
YEAR, WE HAVE INITIATED PLANS TO
OPEN MORE THAN TWO DOZEN
AMBULATORY CARE CENTERS AND
BEGUN WORK TO ADD MORE THAN 160
ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. OVER
THE NEXT THREE YEARS. WE'VE
HIRED 700 NEW PHYSICIANS AND
ADVANCED PRACTICE CLINICIANS
WITH THE EYE TOWARDS INCREASING
CLINICAL STAFF. WE, WE NEED MORE
SPACE, BUT SO. BUT IN SACRAMENTO
, AS THE SENATOR HAS ALLUDED TO,
OUR SUTTER MEDICAL CENTER,
SACRAMENTO, WHICH HAS BEEN HERE
FOR 100 YEARS, WE ARE LIMITED
AND LANDLOCKED TO THE EAST OF
SUTTER MEDICAL CENTER. WE ARE WE
ARE BLOCKED BY A FREEWAY TO THE
WEST. WE ARE BLOCKED BY A STATE
HISTORIC PARK. AND TO THE EAST
AND TO THE NORTH, WE ARE BLOCKED
BY, PRIVATE LAND. SO OUR ONLY
REAL ABILITY TO GROW WOULD BE TO
THE SOUTH, WHICH IS CURRENTLY
OCCUPIED BY REGIONAL TRANSIT,
WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT BY PASSING SB 1439.
THIS WOULD ALLOW SUTTER HEALTH
THE CERTAINTY THAT WE NEED TO
PLAN FOR OUR FUTURE, KNOWING
THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSIT
PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE ONLY LAND
THAT WE COULD REASONABLY
DEVELOP, IS VIABLE FOR US, WOULD
ALLOW US TO EXPAND OUR, OUR
MEDICAL CENTER AND MEET THE
NEEDS OF OUR PATIENTS. THE
SERVICE WE PROVIDE AND WILL
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE IS MUCH
NEEDED FOR OUR COMMUNITIES. WE
PROVIDE LIFE SAVING AND
ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO OUR OUR 3
MILLION PATIENTS. SO WITH THAT,
I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE, MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, SCOTT
WETCH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
STATE PIPE TRADES COUNCIL, THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS, THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
AND THE ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS
UNION, OBVIOUSLY I'M HERE TODAY
BECAUSE THIS IS A WORLD CLASS,
PROJECT. A PROJECT THAT COMES
ALONG IN A COMMUNITY LIKE
SACRAMENTO. ONCE IN A
GENERATION, PERHAPS, THAT'S
GOING TO PROVIDE HUGE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS TO THE CITY OF
SACRAMENTO AND TO THE MEN AND
WOMEN THAT I REPRESENT WHO WHO
LIVE HERE. I'VE ALSO, IN THIS
BUILDING, BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE
SURPLUS, SURPLUS LAND ACT SINCE
GOING BACK TO 1990, 91, WHEN I
WAS A CONSULTANT TO THE SENATE
HOUSING COMMITTEE. AND, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S HUNDREDS, TENS OF
THOUSANDS, IF NOT HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF PARCELS OF STATE
LAND IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THROUGHOUT ALL OF YOUR DISTRICTS
, THOUSANDS OF THOSE ARE
CURRENTLY SURPLUS LAND, OR ONE
DAY WILL BE SURPLUS LAND. AND
WHILE THE SURPLUS LAND ACT AND
ITS PROVISIONS ARE THERE FOR
GOOD REASON TO SUGGEST THAT
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE
INSTANCES IN PROBABLY EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF YOUR DISTRICTS
WHERE THERE'S A PIECE OF SURPLUS
LAND THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE
NEXT TO A USE THAT IT'S MORE
CONDUCIVE FOR, FOR A PURPOSE.
OTHER THAN HOUSING, IT COULD BE
CULTURALLY SENSITIVE LAND, IT
COULD BE AN EXISTING COMMUNITY
CENTER. IT COULD BE A, YOU KNOW,
IT COULD BE A SOME OTHER TYPE OF
HOUSING FACILITY, A SENIOR HOME
OR WHATNOT THAT WOULD, WOULD
BENEFIT FROM A DIFFERENT USE.
AND THAT'S WHY THE SURPLUS LAND
ACT HAS THAT OVERALL PROTECTION.
BUT THEN IT COMES TO COMMITTEES
LIKE THIS TO LOOK AT THE
SPECIFICS OF THE OF THE PROJECT
AND DETERMINE IF THAT'S REALLY
WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THE
BREADTH OF THE SUPPORT THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR AND THAT
YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT, CLEARLY
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE COMMUNITY
OF SACRAMENTO BELIEVES THAT THIS
IS AN ESSENTIAL, AN ESSENTIAL
PROJECT. AND I JUST WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A DISPROPORTIONATE
SHARE HOSPITAL. SO THIS IS A
JEWISH HOSPITAL THAT ALREADY IS
SERVING A DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. SO WITH ALL OF THE
WITH FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I
WOULD URGE AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN
THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO BE ADDED
ON IN SUPPORT? PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR MEMBERS. ROSS BUCKLEY, ON
BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO MAYOR
DARRELL STEINBERG IN SUPPORT
JOHN DREBINGER WITH THE
STEINBERG INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT.
HI, DANIEL CONWAY HERE AS A
PRIVATE RESIDENT AND FORMER
CHIEF OF STAFF TO MAYOR KEVIN
JOHNSON IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. I ALIGN MY
COMMENTS. CRYSTAL STRAIGHT,
SACRAMENTO RESIDENT, FORMER
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE MAYOR.
THANK YOU. I'M DOCTOR JONATHAN
PORTEOUS. I'M THE CEO OF
WELLSPACE HEALTH. I SERVE
130,000 MEDI-CAL BENEFICIARIES
IN THIS AREA AND 10,000
UNINSURED PEOPLE. I'M ALSO THE
CHAIR OF THE HUD CONTINUUM OF
CARE ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE
REGION. I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
DOUG SUBERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS IN STRONG SUPPORT,
DAN SEAMAN, ALSO ON BEHALF OF
WELLSPACE HEALTH AND STRONG
SUPPORT. AND THANK YOU TO THE
SENATE FOR BRINGING FORWARD.
KELLY HIT ON BEHALF OF THE
SACRAMENTO NATIVE AMERICAN
HEALTH CENTER IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, ALLISON RAIMI. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AMBULATORY SURGERY ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT MICHAEL ALT,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO PARTNERSHIP
HERE IN SACRAMENTO'S DOWNTOWN
CORE, IN STRONG SUPPORT. KEVIN
FERRER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE SACRAMENTO SIERRA BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
IN STRONG SUPPORT. VANESSA
GONZALEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MIKE
MONNING, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES IN SUPPORT,
GEORGE SOROS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
CHARLES WRIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE
SACRAMENTO ASIAN CHAMBER AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASIAN CHAMBER IN
SUPPORT. MICHELLE SCHMIERER, ON
BEHALF OF THE R STREET
SACRAMENTO PARTNERSHIP IN
SUPPORT. DEON DWYER ON BEHALF OF
THE SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. SUPPORT
JAMIESON PARKER ON BEHALF OF THE
MIDTOWN ASSOCIATION, IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND WITH
THAT, WE TAKE IT TO ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS NOOR
COSTA. I'M A BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER WITH THE
NONPROFIT Â HOUSING. I'M ALSO A
LONG TIME RESIDENT OF SACRAMENTO
AND I LIVE ABOUT FIVE BLOCKS
FROM THE SITES IN QUESTION, AND
I'M ALSO ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO
HOUSING ALLIANCE AND
REPRESENTING THEM. SO FOR OVER
55 YEARS, Â HAS DEVELOPED AND
OPERATED AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR
LOWER INCOME CALIFORNIA. Â IS
CURRENTLY IN A SURPLUS LAND ACT
PROCESS IN SACRAMENTO. FOR THE
SITES LISTED IN SB 1439, WE ARE
EXERCISING OUR RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL. THESE SITES ARE IN A
HIGH RESOURCE AREA NEAR PARKS,
GROCERY, GOOD SCHOOLS, HIGH
QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSIT AND HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK CAP AND
TRADE INVESTMENTS IN THE TENS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO CREATE
MORE BIKE, PEDESTRIAN AND
TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY. ALONGSIDE
THE PROPOSED HOUSING, THESE
SITES COULD EVEN WORK FOR
CO-LOCATING HOUSING WITH A
HEALTH CARE SPACE ON THE GROUND
FLOOR OR ADJACENT WITH HOUSING
ABOVE WHICH IS AN EFFICIENT USE
OF PUBLIC LAND FOR PUBLIC GOOD,
THE REASON NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS LIKE MYSELF
SEEK OUT SURPLUS LAND IS ONE IS
BECAUSE ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IN
BUILDING NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES IS
ACQUIRING LAND SUITABLE FOR
HOUSING. THE STATE LEGISLATURE
RECOGNIZES THIS AS A BARRIER AND
HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB TRYING
TO REDUCE THOSE BARRIERS AND
STRENGTHEN THE SURPLUS LAND ACT
SO THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CONTINUES TO BE PRIORITIZED.
THIS CURRENT SACRAMENTO SLA
PROCESS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF
THE SLA FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED.
WE SUBMITTED OUR PROPOSAL WITHIN
THE TIME FRAME THE SLA ALLOWS
AND WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION
FROM THE PUBLIC AGENCY THAT OWNS
THE SITES. THEY CAN CHOOSE NOT
TO PROCEED WITH US IF WE CAN'T
MEET THEIR PRICE IN THEIR TERMS,
AND THEY CAN SELL TO ANY OTHER
PARTY, THAT'S WHY SB 1439 TO US
IS UNNECESSARY. THIS PROCESS
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE
COMPLETED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION.
THIS BILL SETS A BAD PRECEDENT
FOR ONE OFF EXEMPTIONS AND
NOTHING IN THIS BILL REQUIRES
ANY KIND OF PREFERENCE FOR LOW
INCOME PATIENTS BEYOND EXISTING
LAW. WHILE THE SLA OFFERS
PRIORITY TO HOUSING IN EXCHANGE
FOR A STRICT AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENT, AND INDEED FOR
THESE SITES, Â HAS PROPOSED
PROPOSED MORE THAN 200 UNITS FOR
SENIORS AND FAMILIES AT VERY LOW
INCOME IN SACRAMENTO. THAT MEANS
ONE PERSON HOUSEHOLD EARNING 24
TO 40,000 A YEAR, OR A FAMILY OF
FOUR EARNING 35 TO 59,000 A
YEAR. THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO IS
VERY LOW INCOME REGIONAL HOUSING
NEED FROM 2021 TO 2029 IS 10,000
UNITS, AND SO FAR WE'VE ONLY
PERMITTED 1000, SACRAMENTO, LIKE
ALL CITIES IN CALIFORNIA, HAVE
TO DO A LOT OF WORK TO INCREASE
HOMES AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE
TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS,
AND CONTINUING EXEMPTIONS TO THE
SLA MEANS FEWER OPPORTUNITIES
FOR AFFORDABLE HOMES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. JT HERSCHBACH WITH
THE NONPROFIT HOUSING
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, OR MPH. MPH, IS A WE
REPRESENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS ACROSS THE NINE
COUNTY BAY AREA REGION. MANY OF
OUR MEMBERS, LIKE Â, ARE
STATEWIDE OR LARGER. WE ARE ALSO
PART OF A STATEWIDE COALITION TO
STRENGTHEN, IMPROVE, AND
STREAMLINE THE SURPLUS LAND ACT.
OVER THE LAST 5 OR 6 YEARS. NOW,
A BIG EFFORT IN THAT WAS AB 480
AND SB 747, WHICH YOU HEARD
MENTIONED EARLIER FROM SENATOR
CABALLERO. OUR GOAL THERE WAS TO
MAKE IT EASIER FOR AGENCIES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO COMPLY. AND
ONE OF THE MAJOR UPDATES, THERE
WAS AN EXEMPTION FOR SITES AT A
HALF ACRE OR LESS, WHICH COVERS
A NUMBER OF THE SITES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WITH
1439. THIS IS AN UPDATE THAT
WENT INTO EFFECT BEFORE THIS
BILL WAS FILED. IT WENT INTO
EFFECT ON JANUARY FIRST,
MEANWHILE, HCD HAS BEEN WORKING
HARD TO FINISH GUIDELINE UPDATES
FOR THIS NEW VERSION OF THE SLA
IN WHICH THEY WILL BE, SPEAKING
A LOT ON HOW WHAT THESE
EXEMPTIONS ARE AND HOW TO
QUALIFY FOR THEM. THEY'VE BEEN A
VERY STRONG PARTNER IN THIS
PROCESS, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO
SEE EASE OF COMPLIANCE, AND THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE AFFORDABLE
UNITS COME OUT OF THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT. BUT HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS REMAIN ONE AND TWO
ON SO MANY OF THE OPINION POLLS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA STILL PICKS
RECENT ONE. IN JUNE FOUND THIS
AS WELL. HCD OR THE SLA WAS
CREATED TO BE ANOTHER TOOL IN
OUR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THESE TOP
ISSUES. WHEN WE TALKED WITH HCD
LAST YEAR, THEY HAD RESUMED.
THEY HAD REVIEWED 237
DISPOSITIONS OF LAND, AND IN 11%
OF THOSE CASES, THE LOCALS
DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO
PURSUE DOING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT IN 89% OF THOSE TIMES, THE
LOCALS DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD
LIKE TO DO WHATEVER ELSE THEY
WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THAT LAND.
AND SO SAC RT NOW HAS THIS
WINDOW SOCIETY CAN DECIDE IF
THEY WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THIS
LAND OR AS THEIR PREROGATIVE.
THEY CAN DECIDE TO DO ANYTHING
ELSE WITH THIS LAND THAT THEY
WOULD SO CHOOSE, THEY HAVE A
WINDOW HERE, THAT IS CLOSING ON
THEIR NEGOTIATIONS WITH Â AND
WITH OTHERS. AND IF SUTTER'S
PROPOSED USE IS WHAT SAC RT
ACTUALLY WANTS, THEN NOTHING IN
THE CURRENT SLA PRECLUDES THEM
FROM DOING THIS. AND WE REALLY
HAVEN'T HEARD A REASON WHY THIS
EXEMPTION IS GOING TO MAKE OR
BREAK THIS PROJECT, BUT WE
BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL IS NOT
JUST SUPERFLUOUS. WE BELIEVE
THAT IT SETS ALARMING
PRECEDENTS, THREE OF THEM. FIRST
IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS OKAY
WITH ALLOWING A CORPORATION TO
BE THE ONE THAT ATTEMPTS TO
EXEMPT A LOCAL AGENCY OR A LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS LAND FROM THE SLA.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS
HAS HAPPENED. IT'S USUALLY THE
LOCAL AGENCY THAT APPROACHES YOU
ALL ASKING FOR THIS, SECOND, OR
AS AND ALSO AS A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, I THINK
THIS IS A CONCERN FOR YOU ALL
CONCERNING ABOUT YOUR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS BEING EXPOSED TO NEW
PRESSURES FROM OTHER HIGH
POWERED ACTORS THAT ARE
CONSIDERED, THAT ARE INTERESTED
IN THEIR LAND, SECOND, THE
LEGISLATURE IS OKAY WITH
ALLOWING THESE SINGULAR
EXEMPTIONS TO THE SLA, WHICH
INVITES THE CONTINUATION OF THIS
PARADE OF SINGLE EXEMPTION BILLS
YEAR AFTER YEAR. AND IT'S A
PARADE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO
STOP WITH THE MAJOR UPDATES WE
MADE LAST YEAR TO THE BILL. AND
THEN THIRD, THIS IS INTERVENING
IN AN ONGOING NEGOTIATION. THANK
YOU. FINALLY, HOUSING AND HEALTH
CARE ARE TWO CRITICAL ASPECTS,
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK
TOGETHER ON THIS. THE SLA DOES
ALLOW FOR THINGS LIKE A CLINIC
WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT
WANTS TO ADD ON AN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. I'LL BE THE FIRST. HI,
CATHERINE CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING CALIFORNIA AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, RACHEL
MUELLER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR RURAL
HOUSING AND PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
PROJECT, IN OPPOSITION, MARY
ELLEN SHEA, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES, POST. JONATHAN
COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
SACRAMENTO HOUSING ALLIANCE,
REPRESENTING THE SACRAMENTO
HOUSING ALLIANCE AND PUBLIC
ADVOCATES IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MARK STIVERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP,
ALSO OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE.
TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SENATOR, YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS FORWARD, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR
DISTRICT, AND, AND THE COMMENTS
AROUND, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO
NARROW AND TAILOR, IT TO YOU,
NOT, WITHSTANDING PRECEDENT, AND
, AS I'VE SHARED MY OFFICE, I
KNOW I'VE SHARED, YOU KNOW, MY
CONCERNS ABOUT PRECEDENT. AND,
BEFORE I GET INTO MY FOLLOW UP
QUESTIONS, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT
, YOU KNOW, HAVING NOW BEING
ABLE TO CATEGORIZE MYSELF AS A
CANCER SURVIVOR, RECOGNIZING
THAT CANCER CENTERS ARE
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GO RECEIVE
SERVICES THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT
HOSPITAL INSTITUTIONS, MAINLY
BECAUSE MY HOSPITAL INSTITUTION
HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH SOMEBODY
ELSE WHICH WORKED BETTER FOR MY
SCHEDULE AND SO I WAS REALLY
HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO GET CARE,
GET QUALITY CARE FROM TWO
DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, AND BOTH OF
THOSE BEING CANCER CENTERS. SO I
KNOW THE TYPE OF CARE THAT THEY
PROVIDE IN THOSE SPACES. I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF
PROJECTS PRIORITIZING, WORKERS
TO GIVE THEM A QUALITY OF LIFE,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. SO I
THINK THE COMMENTS THAT WERE
MADE THAT YOU MADE, NO, NO REAL
CONCERN WITH UNDERSTAND, YOU
KNOW, THE INTENTION OF THE BILL.
I THINK EVEN FROM THE TESTIMONY
THAT WAS PROVIDED, AGREE WITH.
RIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, MY
CONCERN REALLY DOES STILL CENTER
AROUND PRECEDENT AND, TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHY THE CARVE OUT IS
NEEDED AND NOT GOING THROUGH THE
PROCESS, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING
I MEAN, IF WE'RE DOING THESE
TYPES OF CARVE OUTS, AND WHAT'S
TO SAY, I MEAN, I SERVED AS A
LOCAL LEADER FOR SUCH A LONG
TIME, AND IT WAS FRUSTRATING
WHEN WE KNEW WE HAD A REALLY
GOOD PROJECT THAT COULD GO RIGHT
HERE, BUT WE HAD TO GO TO THE LÀ
PROCESS, BUT WE FELT LIKE THIS
WAS A BETTER, BEST AND HIGHEST
USE FOR THIS SITE. WAS NOT
HOUSING WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING
ELSE. AND BUT WE STILL HAD TO GO
THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND SO,
ALTHOUGH THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT
AT NO FAULT ON THE PROJECTS, BUT
I GOT TO SET THE PROJECT ITSELF
ASIDE AND LOOK AT, FROM THE
POLICY POINT OF VIEW, THIS
STANDARD OF PRACTICE AND WHAT
WE'RE DOING. SLA WHY NOT GO
THROUGH THE PROCESS? WHY NOT LET
IT PLAY OUT? WHAT IS THE DANGER
THERE? IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
AND FIRST OF ALL, LET ME START
BY SAYING I AM EVER SO GLAD
THERE WAS A CANCER CENTER OR TWO
THERE TO SERVE YOU. AND I KNOW I
AM NOT THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATURE WHO HAS CALLED YOU
PANICKED FROM A FROM A TEST
MYSELF. ASKING YOU OUT OF FEAR
THROUGH TEARS IS THIS GOING TO
BE OKAY? SO THANK YOU FOR BEING
THAT FOR ALL OF US. I KNOW YOU
KNOW HOW SPECIAL YOU ARE TO ALL
OF US, AND I DON'T WANT ANY OF
THIS TO LAND ON YOUR SHOULDERS
BECAUSE YOU ARE A SURVIVOR. I
KNOW YOU'RE A CHAMPION OF THIS
CAUSE. LET'S LET THAT BE CLEAR.
RIGHT. BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS
THE QUESTION. SO WHILE I, I
DEEPLY RESPECT THE OPPOSITION'S
POSITIONS, THEY ARE DOING THEIR
JOB. THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR
HOUSING. I'M A SACRAMENTO
PERSON, AND YOU ALL KNOW I HAVE
A CHIP ON MY SHOULDER ABOUT
SACRAMENTO AS IT IS, BUT THE BAY
AREA CONSORTIUM DOESN'T MOVE ME.
THE PERSON WHO'S WILLING TO
ACTUALLY INVEST AND SPEND MONEY
IN SACRAMENTO DOES. AND I'M VERY
GRATEFUL TO THEM. HOWEVER, THIS
IS REALLY IMPORTANT. NOTHING
ABOUT THIS BILL STOPS THAT
PROCESS. SHE GETS TO SEE IT ALL
THE WAY THROUGH. YOU ALL KNOW
THIS BETTER THAN I DO. YOU'VE
BEEN HERE LONGER THAN ME. THIS
BILL, AFTER WE VOTE IT THROUGH,
DOESN'T EVEN GO INTO EFFECT
UNTIL AFTER LONG AFTER HER
PROCESS IS OVER WITH. WHICH BEGS
THE QUESTION, THEN WHY I SUBMIT
TO YOU ALL A BEAUTIFUL LOW
INCOME HOUSING PROJECT THROUGH
THE SURPLUS LAND ACT FROM I AND
15TH IN MY DISTRICT. WHAT'S
THAT? SIX BLOCKS. SEVEN BLOCKS
UP FROM YOU. GREAT PROJECT. I
LOVE THIS PROJECT. IT'S 70
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, HALF
OF THE LAND IS SURPLUS LAND ACT.
THE OTHER HALF THE DEVELOPER
PURCHASED, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF
INVESTMENT TO MAKE THESE THINGS
WORK. THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF
THE SURPLUS LAND ACT, HAS BEEN
IN PURGATORY FOR TWO YEARS, AND
THE DEVELOPER IS ABOUT TO LEAVE
SACRAMENTO. I'VE SPENT THE LAST
TWO WEEKS FIGHTING WITH DGS AND
HCD ABOUT HELPING ME GET THIS
PROJECT OUT THROUGH THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT, SO THAT THESE 70 UNITS
CAN BE BUILT. IF SHE IS
SUCCESSFUL IN HER BID TO BUILD
HOUSING ON THESE SITES, THEN
THAT'S WONDERFUL. BUT THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY THINKS THAT
THAT IS GOING TO BE COST
PROHIBITIVE. I'M ALL FOR HER. IF
SHE MAKES IT THROUGH AND SHE'S
THE TOP BIDDER, THAT'S GREAT. IF
NOT, THOUGH, I DON'T WANT A
SURPLUS LAND ACT BUREAUCRACY
THAT TAKES TWO YEARS BEFORE
SUTTER CAN BUILD A CANCER CENTER
ON THOSE PIECES OF PROPERTY. AND
THAT IS WHY THE BILL IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. ONE OTHER
THING I DID MEET WITH HCD, THE
DIRECTOR DIRECTOR GUSTAVO
VELASQUEZ, AND HIS TEAM AND I
TALKED ABOUT THE NARROW
TAILORING OF THIS BILL. GUSTAVO
SAID TO ME HIMSELF OF COURSE,
THE SAME POSITION WE ALL HAVE,
THAT IF THERE WERE SOMETHING
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, IT WOULD
BE A CANCER TREATMENT SERVICE
CENTER. SO I SUBMIT TO YOU ALL
THAT IF THIS IS SOME KIND OF
BAR, IT'S A REALLY HIGH BAR TO
CLEAR A LAND LOCKED HOSPITAL
NEEDING TO BUILD CANCER
TREATMENT SERVICES IN AN URBAN
CORE, IN A MULTI BLOCK AREA
WHERE HOUSING REALLY IS NOT
FEASIBLE, ONE OTHER THING,
OBVIOUSLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT
REGIONAL TRANSIT'S BIDS ARE. WE
ALL KNOW ONE NOW WE KNOW THERE
ARE A FEW. I KNOW ONE MORE. I
KNOW IT BECAUSE THE CITY OF
SACRAMENTO TOLD ME THAT IT IS
THEM. THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO HAS
BID ON THIS PROPERTY, NOT FOR
HOUSING, NOT FOR MOVING HEALTH
CARE FORWARD, BUT FOR A CIVIC
BUILDING. THOSE THINGS ALSO
SHORTCUT SUTTER HEALTH BECAUSE
OF THE SURPLUS LAND ACT. THAT IS
WHY THIS BILL IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT. IF HER PROPOSAL IS
SUCCESSFUL, GREAT. BUT IF IT'S
NOT, I DON'T WANT A TWO YEAR
DELAY AND I DON'T WANT A FIRE
STATION OR A CORP YARD. I WANT A
CANCER CENTER. AND THAT'S WHY
I'M ASKING YOU FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. SO IN ESSENCE, YES, YOU
YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE CANCER
CENTER GETS A CUT, GETS TO CUT
IN FRONT OF THE LINE, AND YOU
ARE SAYING THAT IF, SACRAMENTO
WANTED A FIRE STATION OR A CIVIC
BUILDING THERE, THAT THEY CAN'T
HAVE IT, THEY CAN'T EXERCISE
THEIR RIGHT AND ACTUALLY, THEY
COULD WIN Tê THEY COULD WIN.
RIGHT NOW, THAT PROCESS WILL BE
OVER WITH. THEY COULD WIN. SHE
MIGHT LOSE AND I MIGHT LOSE TOO.
AND HE MIGHT LOSE AND ALL OF
SACRAMENTO MIGHT LOSE. IT MIGHT
BE A FIRE STATION. WHAT THAT
PROCESS WILL BE OVER WITH AS
WELL. WHAT I BUT WHAT I'M SAYING
IS, IS THERE'S A 12 PARCELS.
RIGHT. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT,
WITHIN THAT, THAT YOU WANT
SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO CUT THE
LINE IN ADVANCE OF, LET'S GO TO
THE LAND ACT. RIGHT, SINCE YOU
BROUGHT IT UP, LOW AND MODERATE
INCOME HOUSING, PARK AND
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE,
SCHOOL FACILITIES OR FOR INFILL
OPPORTUNITY ZONES OR TRANSIT
VILLAGE PLANS OR ANOTHER AGENCY
PUBLIC USE. SO YOU'RE SAYING FOR
THE PURPOSES OF LAND THAT ISN'T
IN THE SURPLUS LAND, OR THAT
WOULD POTENTIALLY BE IN THE
SURPLUS LAND ACT, THAT WOULD BE
TRUE. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THESE PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY IN
THE SURPLUS LAND ACT AND ALREADY
MAKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THAT
PROCESS, WHICH WILL BE OVER
WITH. WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T
WANT THEM TO GET STUCK AFTER
THAT. AFTER THAT'S OVER WITH,
SUTTER COULD BID AGAINST ANYBODY
ELSE, AND PT HAS THE RIGHT, EVEN
DURING THE SURPLUS LAND ACT, TO
ASK FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR
THE PROPERTY. SO ANY HOUSING, IF
THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT AND NEED,
WHICH I BELIEVE THEY DO BECAUSE
THEY HAVE TO BUILD A NEW
FACILITY RIGHT WHEN THEY LEAVE
THIS LAND. ANYBODY THAT BID THAT
DIDN'T OFFER FAIR MARKET VALUE
PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO BE
SUCCESSFUL. SO I'M NOT REALLY
SEEKING THEY ACTUALLY WON'T BE
CUTTING A LINE, BUT WHAT THEY
WILL BE DOING IS NOT HAVING TO
ENTER BACK INTO WHATEVER
OVERSIGHT AND PROCESS HCD HAS IN
PLACE. AFTER THE SURPLUS LAND
ACT RFP HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED AND
THERE IS A PROCESS AFTER. BUT
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING AFTER. SO
YOU'RE SAYING THAT INSTEAD OF
WAITING, RIGHT. THAT'S I'M
SAYING THAT THEY THEY'RE THEY'RE
IN LINE RIGHT NOW INSTEAD OF
WAITING INSTEAD OF WAITING IN
LINE, ADVANCING FORWARD. SO
HERE, HERE'S HERE'S MY CONCERN
WITH THAT, AFTER HEARING THE
EXCHANGE AND APPRECIATE THE
DISCOURSE. AND I HATE THAT WE
DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO TALK IN
ADVANCE AND WE'RE IN THAT PERIOD
WHERE THINGS ARE CRAZY. IS
REALLY CENTERED AROUND, YOU KNOW
, UPENDING A PROCESS BECAUSE
ALTHOUGH YOU SAY IT'S NOT
PRECEDENT SETTING BECAUSE IT'S A
HIGH BAR, EVERY SINGLE LOCAL
AGENCY AND THE LOCAL AGENCY IS
NOT HERE ASKING FOR IT. SO BUT
EVERY MAYOR WAS HERE. OKAY. SO I
USED TO BE A MAYOR. YEAH. RIGHT.
AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT
COUNCIL. I HAD MY OWN OPINION ON
A LOT OF THINGS, BUT IF I'M
SHARING MY OPINION WITHOUT THE
COUNCIL, IT'S LAURIE SHARING HER
OPINION. C¢M OUT. BUT. RIGHT.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO? SO IT'S NOT SPONSORED BY THE
CITY OF SACRAMENTO. YEAH. OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, AND SO, WHAT
I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT MY
CONCERN CENTERS AROUND THE THAT
ONCE YOU OPEN THE DOOR FOR WHAT
ISN'T ELIGIBLE, USE THAT IT
HASN'T ALREADY BEEN DONE RIGHT.
YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW
SOMEONE ELSE COULD THEN USE
THAT. AND I ARE LOTS OF
WONDERFUL THINGS ACROSS OUR
STATE THAT LOCAL AGENCIES WILL
SAY THAT IS, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED
THAT. AND THIS DOESN'T STOP THEM
FROM DOING IT. IT JUST MAKES
THEM WAIT, AND THAT'S THAT'S
WHERE MY THAT'S WHERE MY RUB IS,
I'M STILL NOT THROUGH THIS
CONVERSATION. I CAME IN AND AS
YOU WERE AWARE, AND EILEEN NÓ
POSITION, I'M STILL NOT SURE
WHERE I'LL END UP BEING BY THE
TIME WE GET TO VOTE. I'D LOVE TO
HEAR ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES HAS
ISSUES, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
UPENDING IT WHERE I CAN JUST SEE
THIS, YOU KNOW, LITERALLY, I CAN
THINK OF THREE PROJECTS THAT I
WOULD BE LIKE, HEY, CITIES,
Y'ALL SHOULD GET THESE EXEMPT
FROM SLA, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT
TO I'LL CARRY THAT BILL BECAUSE
I THINK THAT THEY'RE IMPORTANT
AND ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT CANCER
CENTER, THEY ARE VERY VITALLY
IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY AND
TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF MY
CONSTITUENTS. AND SO I FEEL LIKE
IF WE'RE ERODING IT FOR THAT,
THAT THAT CONCERNS ME. SO I'LL
LEAVE IT WITH THAT. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WARD. GREAT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, AND I, HAVE, A LOT OF
DEEP THOUGHT ON THIS. I THINK A
LINE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE
CRITICAL EYE THAT OUR COLLEAGUE
FROM SUSAN CITY IS LOOKING AT IT
AS WELL, BECAUSE WE TRY TO HOLD
VERY, STRONG ORPHALI TO THE HARD
WORK THAT HAS DEVELOPED UNDER
SURPLUS LANDS ACTS. AND, OF
COURSE, ADDRESSING THE NEED WE
HAVE FOR HOUSING. I YOU KNOW,
RESPECTFUL OF CERTAINLY YOUR,
REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY. I
GUESS I AM VERY CURIOUS ABOUT
YOUR STATEMENT THAT HOUSING IS
NOT FEASIBLE HERE ECONOMICALLY.
THEY'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH
WHAT THE COSTS WILL BE BECAUSE
IT'S ALONG A FREEWAY, BECAUSE
THERE'S MITIGATION. THE SITE WAS
PREVIOUSLY USED FOR BUSSES AND
TRAINS AND THINGS THAT THERE'S
GOING TO BE A LOT OF THESE
PARCELS THOUGH ARE USED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS, YEAH.
BUT YOU WOULD NEED MORE THAN
THAT TO BE THE ONLY ONES LARGE
ENOUGH FOR HOUSING ARE GOING TO
REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
FUNDING. I'M GOING TO JUMP AHEAD
IN MY LINE OF THOUGHT REALLY
QUICK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OF THE
NINE PARCELS THAT ARE SUBJECT
HERE, THREE OF THOSE ARE NOT YET
DECLARED SURPLUS FOR. RIGHT?
RIGHT, THOSE ARE THE THREE THAT
HOUSE THE CURRENT BUS TRANSIT
BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITIES.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OKAY,
THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY ONES. YES,
BUT THERE ARE OTHER SITES TO BE
CONTIGUOUS WITH THE MEDICAL
CAMPUS. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT
YOU ACTUALLY NEED. THE ONES THAT
WE ARE THE FIRST SIX THAT WE ARE
EXEMPTING, ONE OF WHICH IS AT
LEAST ONE OF WHICH IS THE
SUBJECT OF A CURRENT BID THAT'S
UNDER REVIEW. SURE WILL BE UNDER
REVIEW. IT'S ALREADY UNDER
REVIEW. IT'S PART WAY THROUGH
THE PROCESS. BE OVER WITH BEFORE
THE BILL IS RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M
SAYING IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW,
TO, TO DO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
DO FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES,
YOU'VE GOT TO HOP OVER A NON A
PARCEL THAT'S NOT YET DECLARED
SURPLUS. WE'RE GOING TO EXEMPT
IT. WE WOULD EXEMPT IT THROUGH
THIS BILL AS, AS AS EXEMPT FROM
SURPLUS. BUT IT'S NOT YET ON THE
TABLE. THERE ARE. YEAH THERE ARE
THREE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO
ACHIEVE ULTIMATELY YOU KNOW.
WELL THAT'S WHY WE GROUPED ALL
OF FACILITIES. THAT'S WHY WE
GROUPED ALL OF THEM OKAY. SO
WE'RE GROUPING ALL OF THEM. AND
I GUESS FOR SUTTER, YOU KNOW, IN
YOUR LONG RANGE PLANNING, YOU
KNOW, COMING, COMING, COMING
LATER TO THIS CONVERSATION.
WHERE, WHERE WAS THIS LAST YEAR?
IF THIS IS, SOMETHING THAT THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR, YOU KNOW,
FUTURE, VISION, IT JUST IT ONE
OF THE HARDSHIPS. I'VE GOT
SEVERAL ON THIS, BUT ONE OF THE
HARDSHIPS IS THAT WE'RE ALREADY
UNDERWAY. YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY
THAT'S MADE INVESTMENTS, THAT'S
DONE THE PLANNING, THAT'S
WORKING ON HOUSING NEED, OF
COURSE, FOR THE COMMUNITY, TOO.
AND IT'S FOLLOWING A PROCESS.
AND SO THAT'S GOING TO THROW
SOME OF THAT, THAT INTO DOUBT.
AND IF THIS IS A CRITICAL
ELEMENT TO SOMETHING THAT'S, OF
CONSEQUENCE TO YOUR LANDLOCKED
NATURE, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT? WHY
NOT ADDRESS THIS EARLIER, TO BE
HONEST, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
ORIGINAL BILL, I THINK THIS
PROJECT WAS A LEARNING AND WE
WERE USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE,
AS TO WHY HEALTH FACILITIES MEET
THE NEED OF BEING EXEMPTED
BECAUSE OF HOW DIFFICULT THIS
PROJECT HAS BEEN TO GET OFF THE
GROUND BECAUSE OF THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT. AND TO BE CLEAR, THE
CANCER CENTER IS NOT THE OR THE
BUS DEPOT WILL BE THAT IS GOING
TO BE ONE OF THE ONES THAT IS
NOT IS NOT DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR.
RIGHT. SO, SO OUR LEARNING WAS
NOT UNTIL LATE LATER IN 2023. SO
THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT THIS
YEAR. AND WE HAD A BIGGER BILL
BECAUSE THIS WAS OUR LEARNING.
AND NOW WE ARE NARROWED DOWN TO
NEEDING HELP ON THIS PROJECT.
AND I'M I THINK HE MEANS
LEARNING IS IN PART LEARNING
THAT ARTS, LEARNING THAT ARTS
PROCESS WAS IN PLAY AND LEARNING
THAT ART WAS MOVING OUT. THIS IS
NEW FOR I MEAN, OUR TEAM HAS
MUST HAVE BEEN INITIATED SEVERAL
PORTIONS OF THEM. BUT THAT'S WHY
YOU SEE THREE ADDITIONAL PARCELS
. NOT YET. RIGHT. BECAUSE ART
HAS NOT BEEN REALLY FORTHCOMING
ABOUT THAT WHOLE LONG PLAN FOR
THEM. SO THIS IS WHEN SUTTER
LEARNED THAT THE PARCELS WOULD
BE AVAILABLE. THE SURPLUS LAND
ACT, AND RAISED THEIR HAND TO
SAY, WE NEED SOME HELP. I'M
GOING TO ALSO STATE PROBABLY
FAVORABLY TO YOUR POSITION THAT,
YOU KNOW, AS I'M TRYING TO THINK
ABOUT WHAT USES ARE APPROPRIATE
AND HOW WE'RE CATEGORIZING THEM,
RECOGNIZING THAT WE DO NEED
WORLD CLASS HEALTH CARE
FACILITIES IN ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY A MAJOR
CITY LIKE HERE. AND SO I'M
SENSITIVE TO THAT SORT OF AS A
QUASI PUBLIC USE, ALBEIT THROUGH
A PILOT. IF THIS WAS YOU KNOW,
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER. RIGHT.
THAT WAS PUBLICLY OWNED LAND AND
MAYBE WOULD ADVANCE IT THEN TO A
POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC
PURPOSE. I'M TRYING TO ALMOST
RATIONALIZE APPLES TO APPLES
HERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M
WEIGHING THAT, YOU KNOW, ALSO
WITH IN PART AN UNFAIRNESS FOR
ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY,
YOU KNOW, BEEN INVESTED. AND
THAT'S THAT MAY BE A DIFFICULT
DECISION. WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO
WE HAVE TO MAKE WE HAVE WE HAVE
GOT TO MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL ON
THAT, LIKE RIGHT NOW HERE AND IN
THE MOMENT, YOU KNOW, THE
UNFAIRNESS ASIDE, I'M, I'M
WRESTLING WITH, WITH WITH
PRECEDENT. I FEEL THIS RIGHT FOR
ME MIGHT RISE TO A LEVEL WHERE,
IT'S EXCEPTIONAL AND DESERVES,
YOU KNOW, A RARE EXCEPTION, BUT,
I'M ALSO WONDERING HOW THIS
ACTUALLY COULD IMPLEMENT. SO,
AGAIN, BACK TO THE TIMING OF IT.
THIS WOULD IT BECOME LAW
WOULDN'T EVEN BECOME IN EFFECT
UNTIL JANUARY 1ST. THIS PROCESS
WILL HAVE CONCLUDED. YES. SO SHE
WON'T LOSE ANY INVESTMENT.
SHE'LL EITHER BE SELECTED OR SHE
WON'T. AND SO IF SHE IS
SELECTED, THEN THEY MOVE FORWARD
WITH THEIR PROJECT. IT DOESN'T.
THEN THIS IS THIS IS MOOT. SO
SHE DOESN'T KNOW. AND NOT JUST
HER. ANYBODY THAT HAS APPLIED
FOR THAT LAND. IF THEY'RE STILL
SENDS A SIGNAL THOUGH TO OUR TÊ
LIKE, HEY, LIKE MAYBE YOU SHOULD
LIKE NOT SELECT THEM BECAUSE
WE'LL GIVE YOU. I DON'T THINK SO
BECAUSE OUR A PRICE TAG IS A
PRICE TAG. THEY'RE GOING TO GET.
YOU KNOW HOW THIS WORKS. FAIR
MARKET VALUE IS WHAT THEY'VE
ASKED FOR. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO GET. IF THEY THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO GET ADDITIONAL
RESOURCE. THEY'RE GOING TO GET
FAIR MARKET VALUE. THEY'VE ASKED
FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE. IF SHE
BID FAIR MARKET VALUE, SHE'S
VIABLE. IF SOMEBODY ELSE BID
FAIR MARKET VALUE, THEN THEY'RE
GOING TO BE COMPETING. THAT WILL
BE RESOLVED. THERE IS POTENTIAL.
SAME WITH THE CITY OF
SACRAMENTO'S. WHATEVER IT IS,
FIRE STATION OR CORP YARD OR
WHATEVER. IF THEY OFFERED FAIR
MARKET VALUE AND THEY MAKE IT
THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THEY'RE
THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO GET THIS
PIECE OF LAND AHEAD OF HIM THAT
WILL BE RESOLVED. THERE IS NO NO
DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPENDED
BY A BIDDER THAT WOULDN'T SEE
THEIR PROCESS ALL THE WAY
THROUGH AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BE SELECTED BEFORE THIS
HAPPENS. LIKE I SAID, THE REASON
I'M DOING IT IS, FIRST OF ALL,
BECAUSE THERE'S ADDITIONAL
PIECES OF LAND WHICH YOU CLEARLY
UNDERSTAND. AND SECOND OF ALL,
BECAUSE THERE'S A BUREAUCRACY
THAT EXISTS AFTER THE SURPLUS
LAND PIECE IS OVER WITH, THAT
CAN BE QUITE CUMBERSOME, AND I
DON'T WANT SUTTER TO HAVE TO
WAIT THROUGH THAT PROCESS,
UNDERSTAND, WELL, I KIND OF LAID
MY ISSUES OUT. I APPRECIATE IT,
AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE OFFERING
COURTESY. THIS WILL BE COMING
BEFORE SHOULD IT GET OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE. THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE, WHICH I SHARE IN
SHORT TIME AND WANT TO CONTINUE
THAT CONVERSATION. IT'S I KIND
OF WORK ON SOME OF THESE
ELEMENTS BECAUSE THIS IS BOTH,
DEEPLY APPRECIATED BY ME. WHAT
INVESTMENTS, AND VISION ARE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
ARE TRYING TO MAKE? YES, AND
IT'S ALSO A PRINCIPLE THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO HOLD ON TO SO THAT WE
DON'T RUN DOWN A, YOU KNOW, LIST
OF 100 BILLS WHERE, I MEAN, WE
HAD A PIECE OF LAND IN MY
REGION. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY MY
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, THAT THE CITY
WAS WRESTLING WHETHER OR NOT TO
TRY TO ACHIEVE AN EXEMPTION FROM
THE SURPLUS LANDS ACT. YEAH, FOR
A VERY BIG PROJECT. I MIGHT ADD.
THAT ACTUALLY IN PART
INCORPORATES A LOT OF HOUSING,
BUT THEY DECIDED THEY WERE GOING
TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS,
BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT. AND
ALL THE WORK THAT HAD GONE INTO
SLA WASN'T, WASN'T WAS IMPORTANT
TO IT WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT
AND, TROUBLESOME, I THINK, TO,
TO TRY TO LOOK FOR EXEMPTIONS.
SO BUT I AGAIN GET THE SPECIAL,
NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY HERE FOR,
FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES,
THAT, THAT, THAT REALLY DOES
ALSO GO, SIT WITH ME STRONGLY
TODAY, SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT
GOING FORWARD FOR THE MOMENT,
BUT I WANT TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION AS WE WRESTLE WITH
SOME OF THESE ISSUES. SURE.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMAN WARD.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARVER, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND I THANK MY
COLLEAGUES FOR ASKING AND THE
CONVERSATION ON SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT I'VE
HAD ON THIS AS WELL. OBVIOUSLY,
IT'S NOT THE UNDERLYING USE AND
PURPOSE, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE
THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION BEFORE
US. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS,
IS AN EXEMPTION, AND I SHARE THE
CONCERNS REGARDING THE PRECEDENT
SETTING, WHETHER A PRECEDENT,
ETC. IS SET OR NOT IS NOT BASED
UPON THE INTENTION, YOU KNOW, OF
WHETHER WE WANT A PRECEDENT SET
OR NOT, WANT TO SET IT SET. AND
I THINK THAT THERE REALLY COULD
OPEN UP, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER,
YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE TO GO
FORWARD AND BECOME SUCCESSFUL,
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYONE
THAT WOULD COME FORWARD BE
SUCCESSFUL. BUT WHAT IT DOES
MEAN IS WE'LL PROBABLY SEE
DOZENS AND DOZENS OF THESE EVERY
SINGLE YEAR, BECAUSE IN MY
DISTRICT, IF FOLKS IN MY
DISTRICT COME TO ME AND SAY,
HEY, WE HAVE THIS REALLY GREAT
PROJECT, I HAVE MY COMMUNITY,
THEY'RE SAYING, WE WANT IT. I'M
GOING TO BRING A BILL AND MAYBE
2 OR 3 OF THEM, AND MAYBE EVERY
OTHER LEGISLATOR WILL BRING 1 OR
2 BILLS ONCE THIS PRECEDENT IS
SET. AND I THINK THAT'S THAT IS,
I THINK THE SENSE OF DISCOMFORT
IS REALLY THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE WITH BUILDING A
CANCER CENTER. I THINK THAT
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE
WOULD SUPPORT, BUT THE SLA AS
PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS
CUMBERSOME, IS A PROCESS THAT
IT, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, EVEN IF
IT'S MORE WORSE THAN BETTER, YOU
KNOW, FOLKS HAVE TO GO THROUGH
AND THAT VETTING HAS TO OCCUR
BECAUSE OF THE DIRE NEED, FOR
HOUSING AND, AND THE LACK OF
ABILITY TO FIND APPROPRIATE
SPACES FOR IT. MÐI. AND JUST TO
FOLLOW UP ON A SOME REWARDS
QUESTIONS, THERE'S NINE PARCELS
THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THE
PROCESS, THREE OF WHICH RIGHT
NOW ARE BEING USED BY TT FOR
MAINTENANCE. OR ARE THERE 12
PARCELS? 12 PARCELS? YES, NINE
GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. THREE
NOT IN A PROCESS YET. THREE NOT
IN PROCESS. OKAY. AND THOSE ARE
THE ONES THAT ARE BEING USED FOR
MAINTENANCE OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND THE NINE ARE ALREADY GOING
THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND SO IF
THE PROCESS IS ALREADY GOING
THROUGH THIS IS TO WHAT I
UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE ONE OF MY
QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, WHY ARE
YOU GOING? WHY IS THIS NECESSARY
IF IT'S ALREADY GOING THROUGH
THE PROCESS FROM WHAT YOU'VE
SAID, IS THAT SO THAT IF SUTTER
WINS THE BID, THEN THEY DON'T
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LENGTHIER
NÓ SO THAT WHEN IF, IF A
DIFFERENT BIDDER IS SELECTED IN
THE PROCESS, THAT'S FINE. IT'S
OVER WITH. SUTTER'S OUT. IF
THEY'RE NOT AND SOME PORTION OF
THOSE PARCELS, BY THE WAY, IT'S
POSSIBLE, I DON'T KNOW. I WON'T
SPEAK FOR IT. PROBABLY DIDN'T
BID ON ALL NINE. I'M GUESSING.
CHOSE A FEW BID ON THOSE, YOU
KNOW, SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOME
COULD COME THROUGH AND SOME
DON'T. WHATEVER VERSION OF THAT
AFTERWARDS HAS TO GO BACK TO
HCD, BECAUSE THIS IS SURPLUS
LAND AND THEN BE DISCUSSED. IT'S
NOT A NEW RFP, BUT THERE ARE
SOME CLEARANCES, SOME
DISCUSSIONS. THAT IS THE PIECE
THAT THIS BILL WOULD PROTECT
SUTTER FROM BEING GETTING STUCK
WHERE THIS HOUSING PROJECT IS.
IN A TWO YEAR DEBATE AROUND A
PIECE OF SURPLUS LAND SO THAT IS
HER PROCESS WILL BE OVER WITH BY
THEN. THAT WILL BE DONE, AS WILL
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO. AND THAT
WILL HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. AND
THEY'LL EITHER BE BUILDING
HOUSING OR THEY WON'T. AND IT IS
POSSIBLE AS ASSEMBLYMEMBER WARD
HAS SAID, THAT SOME PIECES WILL
GET AWARDED AND SOME WOULDN'T.
AND THEN SUTTER COULD TRY TO
PURCHASE THE ONES THAT WEREN'T.
AND THEN ALSO WOULD HAVE THE
ABILITY TO PURCHASE THE THREE,
WHICH SOME ALSO ACCURATELY
POINTED OUT ALLOWS THEM TO BE
CONTIGUOUS SPEAK, POTENTIALLY
DEPENDING ON WHICH OF THE NINE
PARCELS THEY ARE, WHICH IS WHY
WE GROUPED THEM SO I THINK
THAT'S SORT OF TO THE POINT. AND
I WOULD JUST SAY TWO OTHER
THINGS ABOUT YOUR YOUR POINTS.
ONE, I WOULD ARGUE THAT YOU'RE
RIGHT. WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER
WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT. WE'RE
NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT. DOESN'T
MATTER WHAT THE UNDERLYING ITEM
IS. BUT I WOULD ARGUE IT HAS
EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE
UNDERLYING ITEM, IS BECAUSE THE
CANCER TREATMENT SERVICE CENTER
IN A COUNTY WITH A HIGH HIGHER
THAN AVERAGE STATEWIDE MORTALITY
RATE FOR CANCER IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT. SO IS HOUSING. I'VE
BEEN A BIG HOUSING CHAMP, 11 LOW
INCOME INCLUSIONARY APARTMENT
COMPLEXES IN THE CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT I REPRESENTED ALONE.
I'VE USED THE SURPLUS LAND ACT
TO BUILD HOUSING IN SACRAMENTO,
AS I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE
DONE IN YOUR DISTRICTS. I
WOULDN'T BRING THIS FORWARD, AND
I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU WOULD
BRING FORWARD A BILL FOR
SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T THINK WAS
SO RIGHTEOUS THAT YOU COULD GO
THROUGH THIS. AND LET ME SUGGEST
TO YOU, IF YOU THINK THIS IS AN
EASY PROCESS, LET ME ASSURE YOU
IT IS NOT. I WOULD HIGHLY
RECOMMEND YOU TELL PEOPLE TO
COME TO YOU FROM YOUR DISTRICT.
DON'T DO IT BECAUSE THIS IS
EASILY MY HARDEST BILL THIS
YEAR, BECAUSE OF HOW SERIOUS YOU
ARE ALL TAKING IT. THIS IS
TAKING ALL OF MY EFFORTS. AND
THEN SECONDLY, I KNOW THIS HAS
ALREADY BEEN DONE. UC DAVIS
AGGIE SQUARE IN SACRAMENTO WAS A
KEVIN MCCARTY BILL THAT WAS
FOLDED INTO A BUDGET WHERE WE
TOOK SURPLUS LAND AND GAVE IT TO
UC DAVIS FOR AGGIE SQUARE, WHICH
IS IN PART FOR A PUBLIC
HOSPITAL, BUT ALSO IN PART FOR
PUBLIC ENTITIES THAT ARE ALSO
BUILDING ON THAT SPACE. YOU
HEARD KEVIN FRAYER TODAY FROM
SAC BUILDING AND TRADES, WHO'S
THE LEADER OF THAT PLA FOR THAT
DEAL? SO THIS HAS BEEN DONE
BEFORE. THANK YOU, SENATOR, DO
YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
YEAH. NO, I'LL JUST SAY THAT
LIKE I'M ALSO ON THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE AND WE HAVE OUR TWO
ESTEEMED CHAIRS HERE, AND I'LL,
I'LL ALLOW THE I'LL VOTE FOR THE
STATE TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS AND TO ALLOW FOR A
LITTLE DEEPER DIVE AS WE GO TO
THE HOUSING COMMITTEE AND SEE
WHAT THE HOUSING COMMITTEE FROM
THAT ANGLE, WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO
THE CONVERSATION AND WE'LL TAKE
IT UNDER DEEPER CONSIDERATION AT
THAT TIME. BUT FOR TODAY, I'LL
VOTE. I'LL VOTE TO ALLOW IT, AT
LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, TO
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
FORWARD, AND WILL BE VERY KEEN
TO SEE, HOW MUCH, WHAT WHAT WE
CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IN
HOUSING. DEEPLY APPRECIATE THAT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RAMOS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR, I JUST HAVE
A FEW QUESTIONS, KNOWING THAT
THE HEALTH CARE FACILITY IS
ALREADY THERE AND YOU'RE LOOKING
TO EXPAND, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT
THAT'S PART OF THE LOCAL GENERAL
PLAN AS FAR AS THE USES IN THOSE
AREAS. AND SO IT ACTUALLY
COMPLEMENTS THAT WITHIN THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION, AND THAT'S A FACT.
IS THAT TRUE? IT IS. IT'S
ACTUALLY CALLED THE SUTTER
DISTRICT. THAT WHOLE AREA. THANK
YOU. AND THE EXPANSION THAT
YOU'RE WISHING TO DO IS WITHIN
THAT GENERAL PLAN OF THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION THAT HAS BEEN
APPROVED BY THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION IN THE AREA THAT IS
CORRECT. IT WOULD BE A
PERMISSIBLE USE UNDER THE
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN. YES. AND
AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN I WAS ON THE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, LOMA
LINDA UNIVERSITY HEALTH CARE WAS
MOVING FORWARD WITH AREAS THAT
WERE ZONED MOVING FORWARD, THE
EXEMPT STATUS GAVE THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO RAISE
FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT WHAT THAT
EXPANSION IS. THAT IS ALSO AN
OPTION THAT'S HERE. THAT'S WHY
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF
THESE THINGS THAT SUTTER WOULD
HAVE THE ABILITY TO RAISE FUNDS
BECAUSE THEIR INVESTORS WOULD
THEN KNOW THAT THEY'RE MOVING
FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK WHAT
WE ALSO SEE HERE IS, SOME OF
THOSE CONSTRAINTS OF WHAT IS
TRULY IMPORTANT TO HERE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. VÀ IS
HEALTH CARE. HEALTH CARE IS
IMPORTANT. HOUSING IS IMPORTANT.
SO WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT TWO
VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS REGION. FOR
AREAS OF TREATMENT, THAT NEED TO
, TO BE ABLE TO BE DONE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE START TO TALK
ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE
UNDERSERVED, THOSE THAT HAVE TO
GO CERTAIN AREAS, OUT OF THE
AREA TO LOOK FOR THIS SERVICE IN
PARTICULAR, IN PARTICULAR. SO I
THINK THESE AREAS IT'S A TOUGH
BILL TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT
KNOWING THAT THERE'S PARAMETERS
THAT ARE THERE GENERAL PLAN,
LOCAL JURISDICTION VOTED ON
THAT, THAT'S MOVING FORWARD.
YOU'RE STAYING WITHIN THOSE
THOSE GUIDELINES THAT ARE THERE
AND SERVICING. ANOTHER IMPORTANT
ISSUE, TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
PARTICULARLY THE RESIDENTS HERE
IN THIS LOCAL AREA OF HEALTH
CARE, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING, AND
WE'LL MOVE THE BILL. MR. CHAIR,
WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO. THANK
YOU. AND, THANK YOU FOR
ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS, BUT
I, I ALSO I'M TRYING TO GET MY,
MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND, THIS
BILL, SO 13 PARCELS, THREE OF
WHICH, I'M SORRY, 12, 12
PARCELS, THREE OF WHICH ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO, THE SLA PROCESS, BUT
NINE ARE. AND I HAVE IT THROUGH
THE RIGHT THAT THREE THAT AREN'T
IN THE SURPLUS LAND ACT RIGHT
NOW AND THEN NINE THAT ARE GOING
THROUGH THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT PROCESS WILL BE OVER
WITH BEFORE THE BILL IS
IMPLEMENTED. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. WHY DO WE
NEED THIS LEGISLATION IF NINE OF
THOSE PARCELS ARE COMPLICATED?
BECAUSE AS PART OF WHY WE NEED
IT IS AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER AWARD
SUGGESTED, THAT IN ORDER FOR THE
PIECES TO BE CONTIGUOUS, THE
THREE THAT ARE AVAILABLE ARE NOT
NECESSARILY CONTIGUOUS WITHOUT
SOME OF THE NINE. SO THAT'S ONE
PIECE. IN ORDER FOR SUTTER TO
BUILD A CANCER CENTER, IT HAS TO
BE ADJACENT TO THE HOSPITAL.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS
I'M SURE, THAT THE STATE PUT IN
PLACE. AND SO IF WE CAN'T DO
THIS, THEY'LL HAVE TO BUILD THIS
CANCER CENTER, NOT IN SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, BUT AT A DIFFERENT
HOSPITAL SOMEWHERE ELSE. I DON'T
WANT THAT TO HAPPEN BECAUSE TOO
MANY PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO A CANCER CENTER.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS.
AND THEN THE OTHER REASON IS
BECAUSE ONCE SHE'S THROUGH HER
PROCESS, WHICH THIS DOESN'T
INTERFERE WITH HER PROCESS, IF
SHE GETS IT, SHE MOVES FORWARD.
AND IF SHE DOESN'T, HCD HAS TO
SIGN OFF TO ALLOW TT TO GO AHEAD
AND SELL TO WHOMEVER. AND I
DON'T WANT THE PROJECT TO GET
HUNG UP LIKE OTHER PROJECTS HAVE
FOR SEVERAL YEARS, BECAUSE I
WANT EITHER HER OR HIM TO BUILD
OUT IMMEDIATELY. WE DON'T HAVE
TIME IN SACRAMENTO TO SIT. I'M
SURE WE COULD ALL AGREE ON THAT.
AND THIS CANCER RESEARCH CENTER
HAS TO BE BUILT ADJACENT. WELL,
SO IT'S A FUNCTIONAL
REQUIREMENT. SO LIKE IN TERMS OF
PATIENT MOBILITY AND PHYSICIAN
MOBILITY, IT NEEDS TO BE NEXT TO
AN ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BECAUSE
OF THE WAY THAT PATIENT MOVEMENT
AND PHYSICIAN MOVEMENT, IF IT'S
NOT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE,
WE ARE BUILDING, ARE NEXT TO ONE
OF OUR MEDICAL CENTERS. SO IF WE
CAN'T BUILD IT NEXT TO A MEDICAL
CENTER, WE WILL NOT BUILD IT
HERE. WE WILL BUILD IT BY
ANOTHER MEDICAL CENTER IN OUR
SYSTEM. AND WHAT IS THE NEAREST
BESIDE SACRAMENTO? WHAT IS THE
NEAREST ROSEVILLE? SO WE CAN'T
BUILD IN ROSEVILLE BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE ROOM THERE. SO WE ARE
WE ARE, WE ARE. WE WILL BE
BUILDING ONE IN MODESTO, BUT
THAT WILL BE SERVING THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. THE PATIENTS IN THE
SACRAMENTO REGION WILL NOT
RECEIVE ONE OF THESE. IF WE
DON'T BUILD IT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON, YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP.
JUST ONE FOLLOW UP, IN REGARD TO
THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE ABOUT
RAISING FUNDS AND NEEDING TO
SIGNAL FOR RAISING FUNDS, AND I
JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT A
LITTLE BIT. YEAH, I HEARD I
HEARD YOUR I HEARD YOUR VOICE IN
THE BACK, I THINK WHAT HE WAS
ASKING ME OR THE WAY I TOOK THE
QUESTION WAS IT'S VERY HARD FOR
SUTTER TO GO TO THEIR. FOR
EXAMPLE, IF YOU GO DOWN TO
SUTTER HOSPITAL RIGHT NOW,
YOU'LL SEE ON THE SIDE OF THE
WALL, LUCHETTI, ANDERSON, AN OB
GYN MATERNITY UNIT OR WHATEVER
MASSIVE RIGHT MULTI MILLIONAIRES
IN OUR REGION WHO HELPED SUPPORT
A NEW OB GYN FACILITY. BE OPEN
UP A BIRTHING CENTER IN ORDER
FOR HIM TO GO TALK TO DAVE
LUCHETTI AND JIM ANDERSON. HE
NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT
THERE'S A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S
BEEN IDENTIFIED AND THEY'RE
MOVING FORWARD. OTHERWISE HE
CAN'T RAISE THE MONEY BECAUSE
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BUILT HERE.
THAT THAT IS HIS POINT. OKAY. SO
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RAISING
DONATIONS TO CERTAINTY, BUT THEN
THAT GOES TO FOR THE BILL, EVEN
IF IT GETS LET'S SAY IT SELLS
THROUGH, YOU KNOW, IN SOME FORM
THAT IS FAVORABLE, THEN, BUT
IT'S STILL GOING THROUGH THE
PROCESS OVER THE NEXT FEW
MONTHS. HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
DO THAT. CAN'T DO THAT ANYWAY.
NO NO NO NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
BUT IF THE BILL DOESN'T PASS SHE
DOESN'T GET IT. CITY OF SAC
DOESN'T GET IT. IT MIGHT BE TWO
YEARS BEFORE HE CAN DO THAT.
WHICH I THINK IS A SOME RAMOS
POINT. OKAY. AND SO AND I'LL
JUST NOTE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, MY
FINAL COMMENTS IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, I FIRST OF ALL TRUST MY
CHAIR FOR LOCAL GOV WHO HAS DONE
THIS AT LOCAL LEVEL IN TERMS OF
PLANNING AND BEEN IN THAT. AND
SO THE FACT THAT HE WAS AN I,
YOU KNOW, WEIGHED HEAVILY ON ME,
HEARING FROM MY CHAIR OF HOUSING
BECAUSE I ALSO SIT ON THAT AND I
TRUST HIM BEING A LOCAL LEADER
AND RECOGNIZING THESE ISSUES AS
IT RELATES TO LOCAL GOV. AND
PUTTING THE LAYER ON HOUSING.
AND I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MY TWO
LEADERS RIGHT ON THE COMMITTEES
THAT I SIT ON AND SUPPORT THIS
TODAY, BUT I JUST WANT FOR BOTH
OF, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS IS REALLY
FOR MY CHAIR IS, YOU KNOW, BEING
MINDFUL OF THE PRECEDENT SETTING
AND THINKING HOW WE NAVIGATE
THIS WILL BE TOP OF MIND FOR ME
BEFORE IF THIS MAKES IT THROUGH,
THE NEXT COMMITTEE AND GETS TO
THE FLOOR, THAT WILL BE TOP OF
MIND TO WHETHER I SUPPORT IT ON
THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, I
APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU ALL
FOR THE, DISCUSSION BRINGING UP
REALLY VALUABLE POINTS, I'LL
GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE IF
YOU LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT IT ENOUGH, BUT I WOULD SAY
THIS IS THE MOST LOCAL GOVT
LOCAL GOV CAN GET IN A LOCAL GOV
COMMITTEE IN THE LEGISLATURE. SO
THANK YOU FOR RUNNING THROUGH
LOCAL GOV 101 WITH ME ON A VERY
SACRAMENTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PROJECT. I APPRECIATE YOU. YEAH,
YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I URGE AND
I VOTE I HAD A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RAMOS. IS THERE
A SECOND, SECOND A SECOND BY THE
VICE CHAIR. I APPRECIATE YOU
PRESENTING THIS BILL. YOU AND I
HAD CONVERSATIONS BEFORE WE GOT
TO THIS POINT AND I EXPRESS HOW
CONCERNED I WAS UP TO THIS POINT
WITH THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD
AND WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT
PRECEDENT. AND YOU MENTIONED THE
HIGH BAR, IF THERE IS ONE. I'M
VERY CONCERNED STILL WITH, THE
MANY DIFFERENT NEEDS THAT WE
HAVE IN THE STATE, NOT ONLY IN
YOUR DISTRICT BUT THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, HOUSING BEING BEEN ONE OF
THEM. AND SO MANY OF THE
CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE, I
APPRECIATE YOUR ATTEMPT TO
PROVIDE MORE ACCESS TO HEALTH
CARE IN YOUR DISTRICT, AND I'M
SURE THAT WE ALL WISH WE COULD
DO THAT. I MYSELF, WISH I WAS
ABLE TO DO THAT THROUGH THE
DIFFERENT MECHANISMS. FINANCIAL,
YOU KNOW, MECHANISMS ARE
DIFFICULT THIS TIME. NOT ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF THE
BUDGET THAT WE HAVE, BUT SO MANY
OTHER DIFFERENT CHALLENGES, THE
PRICE OF LAND IN MORE URBANIZED
AREAS AND THE LACK OF ACCESS.
AND I'M TALKING NOT ONLY ABOUT
MY DISTRICT, AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH
IT'S A VERY CLEAR CONCERN THAT I
HAVE IN MY DISTRICT, THE HIGH
DESERT. WE HAVE TO TRAVEL. DOWN
TO LA, DOWN TO SAN BERNARDINO,
TO RIVERSIDE, SO THAT WE'RE ABLE
TO HAVE ACCESS THAT WE DON'T
HAVE, THE HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE
HAVE, AGAIN, FULLY UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE BIG CONCERNS WE HAVE,
BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO
EXPRESS ON THE RECORD THAT, I
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS WE
HAD AND WHAT A DIFFICULT
DECISION THIS HAS BEEN FOR ME,
HAVING ALSO LOST MY DAD TO
CANCER, HAVING KNOWN OTHER
PEOPLE THAT WE'VE LOST, AND I'M
SURE THAT WE ALL KNOW SOMEBODY,
WE KNOW SOME SURVIVORS AND ARE
HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE. AND I
ALSO KNOW THAT THIS CENTER, AND
I'M REALLY HOPING THAT IT GETS
BUILT, THAT THERE'S NO OTHER
CHALLENGES, THAT FINANCIAL
CHALLENGES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE
TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IT. SHOULD
THIS PASS, WITH THAT, I ALSO
WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE
THE AMENDMENTS YOU TOOK IN THE
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT THE
LAND REMAINS DEDICATED FOR USE
BY A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE
HOSPITAL OR A HEALTH FACILITY
THAT USES A 340 BE DRUG PROGRAM,
I DO HAVE CONCERNS, AGAIN, WITH
THE PRECEDENT, THAT WE MIGHT BE
SETTING WITH A SURPLUS LAND ACT,
EXPANSIVE REFORM OF THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT WAS PASSED JUST LAST
YEAR, AS IT WAS DISCUSSED
THROUGH AB 480 AND SB 747, TO
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ONE OFF
EXEMPTIONS TO THE SURPLUS LAND
ACT THAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEN IN
RECENT YEARS. IN THIS INSTANCE,
THE PRIVATE ENTITY IS SEEKING AN
EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC LAND THAT
HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED
SURPLUS. THIS BEGS THE QUESTION
AS TO THE NEED FOR THESE BEALL
FOR THOSE PARCELS. SINCE THE
PARCELS ARE ALREADY GOING
THROUGH THE DISPOSITION PROCESS
AS IT WAS DISCUSSED, PLENTY,
THEY COULD BE ELIGIBLE TO AN
OPEN BID BEFORE THE END OF THE
YEAR. AGAIN, IT WAS PLENTY OF
DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, BEFORE
THE BILL WOULD BE ENACTED, IF IT
WERE TO BECOME LAW. SECONDLY,
ADDING THE THREE ADDITIONAL
PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY STILL
IN THE USE OF ANOTHER POINT OF
USE, ANOTHER POINT OF CONCERN
FOR ME, AS WE DISCUSSED, LOCAL
AGENCIES HAVE SOLE DISCRETION ON
WHAT THE LAND THEY CHOOSE TO
DISPOSE OF AND WHAT THEY CHOOSE
TO DISPOSE OF THE LAND AS WELL.
IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PARCELS THAT
THE LOCAL AGENCY IS ACTIVELY
USING COULD PUT THE LOCAL AGENCY
IN AN AWKWARD POSITION AT BEST.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN
SUPPORTIVE OF INCREASING ACCESS
TO HEALTH CARE THROUGH
STREAMLINING THE PERMITTING OF
CLINICS THAT PROVIDE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
HEALTH CARE, WHILE INCREASING
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE IS
IMPORTANT, IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT
THAT WE AS A COMMITTEE THINK
ABOUT WHO MIGHT BE GETTING FIRST
PASS AT PUBLIC LAND. AGAIN,
PLENTY OF DISCUSSION AT THAT
POINT. TWO HOW MIGHT THIS IMPACT
SCHOOLS, PARKS AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WHEN THEY HAVE TO
COMPETE AGAINST ENTITIES WITH
MORE CAPITAL AND BETTER
FINANCIAL POSITIONS TO COMPLETE
THE JOBS, COMPLETE THE PROJECTS,
THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS
WHETHER A THIS THIS
PROPORTIONATE SHARE HOSPITAL OR
ENROLLMENT IN THE 340 B DRUG
PROGRAM IS HIGH ENOUGH OF A BAR
TO AVOID THE SLA PROCESS. AGAIN,
ANOTHER POINT OF DISCUSSION THAT
WE HAD THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ALSO
WITH THAT SAID, GIVEN THAT THIS
BILL IS NARROWLY, NARROWLY
TAILORED TO SPECIFIC PARCELS IN
A SINGLE JURISDICTION IN YOUR
DISTRICT, I AM COMFORTABLE
SUPPORTING IT AND THE UNDERLYING
GOALS IT IS ATTEMPTING TO
ACHIEVE. THE HEALTH CARE, THE
CANCER CENTER THAT YOU ARE
PROPOSING. BUT I HOPE THAT THIS
DOES NOT BECOME A PLAYBOOK FOR
BILLS IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER OR
NOT THIS PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET
BEFORE, AS YOU MENTIONED, UC
DAVIS, WITH YOUR COMMITMENT TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH RELEVANT
POLICY COMMITTEES AND
STAKEHOLDERS, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING YOUR BILL, THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE HOUSE AND THE
COMMITTEE. DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
SB 1439 TO PASS THE HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CARILLO Ã
CARILLO I. WALDRON WALDRON I.
SANCHEZ A, SANCHEZ I, HANEY I
HANEY I CORA CORA I PACHECO I
CHACO I RAMOS, RAMOS I WARD.
WARD I WILSON I WILSON I THANK
YOU SO MUCH, COLLEAGUES. THANK
YOU. THE VOTE IS NINE ZERO. THE
BILL IS OUT. CONGRATULATIONS.
THANK YOU, BEFORE WE ADJOURN
THIS MEETING, THERE'S A COUPLE
OF, COUPLE OF, ADD ONS THAT WE
NEED TO TAKE CARE OF FOR THOSE
THAT WERE ABSENT. MADAM
SECRETARY, TAKE CARE. SB 1134
CABALLERO. THE MOTION IS Dð.
PASS TO APPROPRIATION. PACHECO
I, PACHECO I WILSON I. WILSON I
THE BILL IS SAU NINE ZERO SB
1174. MEN THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO THE FLOOR. PACHECO I,
PACHECO I WILSON I WILSON I 72.
THE BILL IS OUT SB 1209
COURTESY. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO THE FLOOR. PACHECO CHICO
I WILSON I WILSON. I BEALL SAU
NINE ZERO. THANK YOU, THANK YOU
ALL. AND WITH THAT, WE ADJOURN
THIS MEETING.