ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING,
EVERYBODY. I WANT TO WELCOME YOU
TO THE ASSEMBLY HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
HEARING. WE HAVE 11 ITEMS ON OUR
AGENDA TODAY, AS, ITEM NUMBER
12, SB. SB 1339 ALLEN HAS BEEN
PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF THE
AUTHOR. AND THAT LEAVES US WITH
FIVE ITEMS ON CONSENT. ITEM FOR
SB 1108. ITEM FIVE SB 552
NEWMAN. ITEM SIX SB 1187
MCGUIRE. ITEM EIGHT SB 1512 THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND ITEM
NINE SB 1361 BLAKE SPEER. AND
WHILE I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A
QUORUM YET AT THE TIME, WE'LL BE
ABLE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. EACH BILL
CAN HAVE TWO MAIN WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT IN OPPOSITION AND EACH
MAIN WITNESS GETS TWO MINUTES
EACH, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SUBMIT
WRITTEN TESTIMONY THROUGH THE
POSITION PORTAL ON THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. THIS WILL
BECOME, OF COURSE, A PART OF OUR
OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE BILL. OUR
HEARING ROOM WILL BE OPEN FOR
THE ATTENDANCE OF THIS HEARING.
THIS MORNING. WE ARE IN ROOM 437
AT THE CAPITOL, AND ALL ARE
ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE HEARING
FROM THE LIVE STREAM ON THE
ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE, WITH THAT, I
THINK WE ARE AWAITING SENATE
AUTHORS, SO I WOULD WELCOME
ANYBODY ON THE AGENDA. WE, OF
COURSE, HAVE AN ORDER, BUT, WE
WILL BEGIN AS SOON AS WE HAVE AN
AUTHOR PRESENT. WE'LL GIVE IT
FIVE MINUTES.
YEAH.
AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE WE HAVE
A QUORUM. I'M GOING TO ASK MADAM
SECRETARY TO PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL WARD HERE. WARD HERE. HERE.
A PERSON HERE. PERSON HERE.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON HERE. CHOLERA.
CHOLERA. HERE LEE. QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA HERE. REYES SANCHEZ.
WILSON FOUR FIVE. WITH THAT, WE
HAVE A QUORUM, I'D BE HAPPY TO
ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR BY MR. GRAYSON.
SECOND BY MR. CALL. ROLL MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SB 1108, ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 552. ITEM NUMBER
SIX, SB 1187. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT,
SB 1512. MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSENT. ITEM
NUMBER NINE, SB 1361, MOTION DO
PASS TO CONSENT. WARD I, WARD I,
PATTERSON. PATTERSON I GRAYSON.
GRAYSON I CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I
LEE REYES. SANCHEZ. WILSON. I'M
SO SORRY. YES. QUIRK-SILVA. I'M
SO SORRY. AYE. AND WITH THAT, WE
HAVE FIVE VOTES. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS ADOPTED, AND WE'LL
HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. IT'S MISSING HERE. YEAH
. THANK YOU.
I FEEL LIKE.
OR NO.
OKAY, SO I KNOW. IT'S VERY.
TIGHT.
I.
MAYBE AT THIS TIME, WE CAN
ACTUALLY ADD, A FEW MEMBERS ON
TO OUR CONSENT CALENDAR, MISS
REYES, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ON,
ADD ONS FOR THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. MADAM SECRETARY LEE
REYES. Ã, REYES I WILSON, I
WILSON, I THANK YOU CONSENT
CALENDAR. WE'RE UP TO SEVEN
ZERO.
ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
WE ARE AT 920, WE ALL HAVE BUSY
SCHEDULES. THERE'S A LOT GOING
ON, BUT WE ALSO HAVE SIX BILLS
AND FIVE AUTHORS THAT COULD BE
PRESENTING RIGHT NOW, IN THE
INTEREST OF RESPECTING
EVERYONE'S TIME, THIS COMMITTEE
WILL ADJOURN AT 930. IF WE HAVE
NO AUTHORS PRESENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. APPRECIATE
IT, YOU ARE OUR MEMBER PRESENT,
SO WE WOULD INVITE YOU WHEN
YOU'RE COMFORTABLE AND READY TO
BEGIN PRESENTATION ON FILE ITEM
SEVEN. THIS IS SB 735. YOU ARE
THE SAVIOR OF THE DAY. I'LL TAKE
IT. THANK YOU, IN ALL
SERIOUSNESS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
SB 735. THIS IS A BILL THAT'S
CRITICAL TO THE SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DELETE
THE PROVISIONS LIMITING THE
PROGRAM PROJECTS OF 40 OR MORE
UNITS BY STRIKING PAGE SIX,
LINES EIGHT THROUGH 12. SB 735
WILL PLACE LABOR REQUIREMENTS IN
THE BAY AREA REGIONAL HOUSING
FINANCE ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS BAFA.
BAFA IS A NINE COUNTY HOUSING
FINANCE AUTHORITY THAT WAS
CREATED IN 2019 BY THE
LEGISLATURE TO FUND HOUSING
PRODUCTION IN THE BAY AREA. THIS
NOVEMBER, THERE WILL BE A
HISTORIC 10 TO $20 BILLION
HOUSING BOND ON THE BALLOT IN
THOSE NINE COUNTIES. THIS IS NOT
SETTING NEW PRECEDENT IN 2022.
AB 679 WAS PASSED BY THE
LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE A SIMILAR
AUTHORITY TO THE LOS ANGELES TWO
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHICH IS
COMPARABLE IN SIZE AND
POPULATION TO THE NINE COUNTY
BARRIER REGION. AB 679 INCLUDED
AN IMPORTANT LABOR STANDARD
PROJECT, LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR
PROJECTS FUNDED FROM LA COUNTY'S
LOCAL BOND, WHICH TWO WILL BE
BEFORE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER OF
THIS YEAR. PL A'S ARE TRULY A
WIN WIN WITH A MASSIVE BACKLOG
AT THE STATE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, IT SIMPLY
ISN'T REALISTIC TO EXPECT THE
STATE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE
LEVEL ENFORCEMENT THAT WILL BE
NEEDED WITH SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT
OF PUBLIC DOLLAR INVESTMENT. IN
FACT, A RECENT AUDIT FOR THE
STATE AUDITOR FOUND THAT THE
LABOR COMMISSIONER'S BACKLOG OF
UNRESOLVED CASES IS MORE THAN
DOUBLED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
FROM 22,000 CLAIMS IN FISCAL
YEAR 2017 18 TO 47,000IN FISCAL
YEAR 20 2223. A PLA PROVIDES FOR
ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS WITHOUT HAVING TO
WAIT FOR POTENTIALLY WHAT OFTEN
IS YEARS. IF EVER, FOR AN
INVESTIGATION TO BEGIN AND BE
COMPLETED. PLAS ARE BENEFICIAL
TO CONTRACTORS BY THE INCLUSION
OF NO STRIKE OR LOCKOUT
PROVISIONS, WHICH MEANS
CONTRACTORS DO NOT HAVE TO FEAR
WORK STOPPAGES, NOR DOES ANYBODY
ELSE INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT.
PLAS ALSO PROVIDE FOR LOCAL HIRE
PROVISIONS AND ENSURE THAT THE
WORKERS WHO WORK ON THESE
PROJECTS ARE FROM THE
COMMUNITIES WHERE THE PROJECTS
WILL ARE BEING BUILT, AND THAT'S
SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO
FOLKS IN THE BAY AREA DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH
THIS. IN ADDITION, PLAS INCLUDE
APPRENTICESHIP REQUIREMENTS THAT
CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW
WORKERS TO REACH THE MIDDLE
CLASS THROUGH A CAREER IN
CONSTRUCTION. AND I THINK MOST
HERE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
PLAS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE
EQUITY ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
THIS BILL REQUIRES THE USE OF AN
EXISTING BART PLA THAT HAS BEEN
IN PLACE SINCE 2016, AND HAS
COVERED A NUMBER OF SUCCESSFUL
BAY AREA HOUSING PROJECTS.
EQUITY IS A KEY COMPONENT OF
THIS PLA, AND ITS USE ON BOFFO
PROJECTS WILL ENSURE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, VETERANS,
AND PEOPLE OF COLOR,
SPECIFICALLY THE PLA. I'M
REFERRING TO AS PERCENTAGE GOALS
FOR FEDERALLY TARGETED WORKERS,
WHICH INCLUDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
MINORITY AND WOMEN WORKERS, A
25% REQUIREMENT OF ALL
APPRENTICE HOURS WORKED ON THE
PROJECT SHALL BE DONE BY THE
NATIONAL TARGETED WORKERS, AND A
REQUIREMENT THAT A MINIMUM OF
10% OF ALL NATIONAL TARGETED
WORKER HOURS SHALL BE PERFORMED
BY DISADVANTAGED WORKERS. SOME
HAVE ARGUED THAT PLAS HAD COST.
THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS
LACKING. THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
POINTS TO A RAND STUDY THAT
STATED PLAS ADD PER UNIT COST TO
HOUSING PROJECTS FUNDED BY LA'S
PROPOSITION H-H-H. HOWEVER, A
RECENT STUDY BY UC BERKELEY
CONTRADICTED THIS ANALYSIS WHEN
ACCOUNTING FOR TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
COSTS FOR COMPLETED PROJECTS, IT
SHOWS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PLA
CAUSED AN INCREASE IN PER UNIT
COSTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS. UNDER PROP H H H. THE
BERKELEY STUDY ALSO CONCLUDED
THAT PROJECTS BUILT UNDER PLAS
ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE COMPLETED
ON TIME WITHIN BUDGET, A FACTOR
THAT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN
STUDIES COMPARING PROJECTED
VERSUS ACTUAL COSTS. AGAIN,
APPRECIATE THE HELP OF THE CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE, AND WORKING
THROUGH THIS AND GETTING US THE
AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE TAKING AND
NOW I'D LIKE TO TURN OVER THE
MICROPHONE TO MY WITNESS. FROM
THE STATE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL, JEREMY SMITH.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, WHEN THE
OPPORTUNITY IS RIGHT AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. YOU GOT IT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
JEREMY SMITH HERE, ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, SENATOR CORTEZ TOOK
A LOT OF MY TOOK A LOT OF MY
HITS IN HIS STATEMENT, WHICH IS
GREAT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF
GREAT THINGS TO TALK ABOUT WHEN
IT COMES TO PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS, HE MENTIONED
APPRENTICESHIP UTILIZATION. I
WANTED TO NOTE FOR EVERYBODY
THAT BETWEEN 2005 AND 2021,
ACCORDING TO THE DIVISION OF
APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS, NEARLY
140,000 APPRENTICES COMPLETED
THEIR PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA,
THOSE ARE DUE IN NO SMALL PART
TO PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS, AND
APPRENTICESHIP UTILIZATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PREVAILING WAGE ACT. I WANT TO
SHARE A FEW FACTS ABOUT, PLAS AS
WELL, THE BART PLA AND THE
PROJECT. IT'S ACTUALLY A PROJECT
STABILIZATION AGREEMENT, IS A
PUBLIC PLA AND ALL PUBLIC PLAS.
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC CONTRACT
CODE, SECTION 2500 MUST CONTAIN
FIVE FIVE. ITEMS. FIRST, A
PROHIBITION ON, DISCRIMINATION
ON ALL THE PROTECTED CLASSES
THAT WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THAT
EXISTS IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE
BART PSR, PERMITTING ALL
QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS, CONTRACTORS TO
BID AND BID FOR AND BE AWARDED
WORK ON A PROJECT WITHOUT REGARD
TO WHETHER THEY, ARE PARTIES TO
A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT THAT IS ALSO AN
ARTICLE SIX OF THE BART PSR,
CONTINGENT AGREEMENT AGREED UPON
PROTOCOL FOR DRUG TESTING. ALSO,
IN ARTICLE 17 OF THE BART PSA
AND THEN CONTAINING GUARANTEES
FROM WORK STOPPAGES, LOCKOUTS
AND STRIKES. AND ARTICLE FOUR OF
THE PSA, MAKE NO MISTAKE, IT IS
UP ENTIRELY UP TO A CONTRACTOR
WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO BID ON A
PROJECT WITH A PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT, THEY DO WORK, WE ARE
IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT
TRIPLE H DONE IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. THERE HAVE BEEN 6817
AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOMES
BUILT SINCE 2016, LEADING TO
8669 AFFORDABLE UNITS. THIS IS
ALL BUILT UNDER A PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT. THIS ALSO LED TO 4.1
MILLION WORK HOURS, EMPLOYING
17,610 WORKERS, WITH 1 MILLION
OF THOSE HOURS BEING
APPRENTICESHIP HOURS, THE BART
PSA GOALS HAS SIMILAR GOALS AS
THE SENATOR LAID OUT. I WON'T GO
OVER THOSE AGAIN. I'LL JUST SAY
THAT, THE SAME THING. IT'S AN
ANALOG. WHAT? WE'RE VOTING ON
TODAY IS AN ANALOG TO WHAT'S
EXISTING IN LA COUNTY. NOW, WE
THINK THAT PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS WORK. WE KNOW THEY
WORK. WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN THE
PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE IN SUPPORT
FOR NAME AND POSITION? GOOD
MORNING. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MARTIN
VAN D¯ÚI, ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY
EMPLOYEES, THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PIPE TRADES COUNCIL, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AND THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS. WE'D LIKE TO
ALIGN OUR COMMENTS IN SUPPORT
WITH THE STATE BUILDING TRADES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS
OF YVONNE FERNANDEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. KEN FERREIRA, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF SACRAMENTO COR
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MITCHELL, BACK TO LÀ ON BEHALF
OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
IRONWORKERS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NO OTHERS
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE, ARE
THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN OPPOSITION FOR
TESTIMONY?
YOU'RE WELCOME. YOU HAVE UP TO
TWO MINUTES EACH, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS. SCOTT. GOVERNOR, ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, THEY ARE
THE LARGEST SIGNATORY BUILDING
CONTRACTORS IN CALIFORNIA. THEY
BUILD QUITE A BIT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE BAY AREA. KIND OF
TWO ITEMS I WANT TO SPEAK TO IS
THIS NOTION OF PLAS AS A
PANACEA. PLAS CAN BE GOOD, YOU
KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE NEGOTIATED
PROPERLY, THEY CAN WORK. THE
PROBLEM IS OFTENTIMES THEY
IGNORE THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. THE
LEGISLATURE TELLS OUR MEMBERS,
WE WANT YOU TO NEGOTIATE WITH
UNIONS. WE WANT YOU TO DO THAT.
THOSE CBAS CONTAIN, KIND OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES AS TO WHO
CAN DO WHAT. WELL, PLAS
SUPERSEDE THAT. SO YOU CAN
IMAGINE WHEN WE HAVE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE CARPENTERS OR
LABORERS AND THE PLA SAYS
SOMETHING DIFFERENT, IT PUTS US
IN A BIND. CBA SHOULD SUPERSEDE
PLAS, IT SHOULDN'T GO THE OTHER
WAY AROUND. WE NEGOTIATE IN GOOD
FAITH. WE SHOULD HONOR THOSE
AGREEMENTS AS IT RELATES TO
COST. I'M JUST GOING TO TALK
ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE
REAL WORLD IN THE BAY AREA TODAY
ON ON PROJECTS THAT MY MEMBERS
WORK ON. AS YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS
HAVE TO APPLY FOR THE TAX
CREDITS WITH CTFA. CTFA IS A
COMPETITIVE PROCESS BASED ON
PROJECT COST. IN PRACTICE TODAY,
DEVELOPERS OFTEN TELL MY MEMBERS
IT'S DIFFICULT TO USE SIGNATORY
MEPS BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE
EXPENSIVE. THESE ARE PREVAILING
WAGE JOBS. THE WAGES ARE THE
SAME, BUT THE MARKUP IS
DIFFERENT. SO THEY TELL US WE
CAN'T USE THEM BECAUSE IF WE DO,
WHAT THEY SAY IS WE'RE NOT GOING
TO QUALIFY FOR THE TAX CREDITS,
IN WHICH CASE THE PROJECTS WON'T
GET BUILT. OUR CONCERN HERE IS
IF YOU LIMIT THE POOL OF
QUALIFIED BIDDERS, THOSE COSTS
WILL GO UP AND THOSE PROJECTS IN
THE BAY AREA WON'T COME TO
FRUITION. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
DONE A LOT OF GREAT THINGS OVER
THE PAST FEW YEARS TO INCREASE
THE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BY INCREASING PRICES. IN
THIS SEGMENT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY
GOING TO DECREASE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT. I THINK IF THE
AUTHOR, HAS ISSUES WITH THE
PROCESS AND THAT COMPETITIVE
PROCESS THAT EXISTS TODAY, KIND
OF DISADVANTAGING UNION
SUBCONTRACTORS, THEN WE SHOULD
FIX THAT. BUT SIMPLY INCREASING
THE COST FOR THESE PROJECTS
WON'T HELP, AND IT WILL RESULT
IN A DECREASE IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PRODUCTION. SO FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ARE OPPOSED. MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBER DANNY KIRTON
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE
OF CARPENTERS. I WANT TO START
OFF BY THANKING THIS COMMITTEE
AND THE SENATOR FOR THE WORK
YOU'RE DOING ON HOUSING, WHICH
IS THE NUMBER ONE CRISIS IN
CALIFORNIA. PROBABLY THE MOST
DISRUPTIVE ISSUE IN THE STATE
ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND MORE
AND MORE POLITICALLY. I ALSO
WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR AND
ALL OF YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT
A PORTION OF THE HOUSING CRISIS
HAS TO DO WITH THE WAGE ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOUSING
INDUSTRY, HOUSING INDUSTRIES,
HALF OF ALL CONSTRUCTION,
ESSENTIALLY. AND THAT'S WHERE
MOST OF THE CRIME, THE WAGE
THEFT, ALMOST HALF OF THAT
WORKFORCE IN THE HOUSING
INDUSTRY IS CERTIFIED AS POVERTY
WAGES. IT'S LOW, VERY LOW OR
EXTREMELY LOW WAGES. SO WE ARE
HERE FIGHTING FOR BETTER WAGES
AND BETTER CONDITIONS. AND I
THANK ALL OF YOU FOR THAT. I DO
WANT TO POINT OUT OUR CONCERNS
WITH THIS ISSUE THOUGH. PLA ARE
VERY, VERY HELPFUL WHEN THERE'S
AN AGREED UPON, MUTUALLY AGREED
UPON PROGRAM, THERE'S TWO ISSUES
HERE THAT, WE ARE CONCERNED
WITH. ONE IS THE CARPENTERS ARE
THE LARGEST CRAFT, PARTICULARLY
IN THE HOUSING INDUSTRY. WE ARE
NOT IN THE BUILDING TRADES A
MANDATORY BUILDING TRADES. PLA
GIVES US NO LEGAL STANDING. WE
CAN SIGN AN AGREEMENT IF WE FIND
THAT IT'S. IT'S USEFUL OR
HELPFUL, BUT NOT BEING AT THE
NEGOTIATING TABLE IN THE
PROCESS, REALLY MAKES IT VERY
COMPLICATED FOR A PLA TO
REPRESENT OUR INTEREST. AND A
LOT OF THESE THINGS HAVE TO DO
WITH DISPUTES ON THE JOB. SCOTT
MENTIONED SOME OF THE ISSUES,
PLAS ARE GOING TO BE DECIDED BY
A GROUP THAT THE DISPUTES ARE
NOT WE'RE NOT IN THAT GROUP. SO
WE ARE VERY, VERY ANXIOUS ABOUT
THAT, THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ISSUE IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE
WORKED OUT IN THE LONG RUN, BUT
NOT WITH A MANDATORY SITUATION
THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW. AND I
ALSO WANT TO SAY THE MANDATORY
PLA IS THE REFERENCE TO LÀ WAS
INTERESTING. THEY HAVE A PLA
DOWN IN LOS ANGELES, BUT THIS IS
NINE COUNTIES. MAYBE IT'S THE
SAME SIZE AS LA BUT IT'S NOT THE
SAME AS LA. THERE ARE COUNTIES
THAT HAVE A VERY, VERY SMALL
PRESENCE OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT
IN THOSE COUNTIES, PARTICULARLY
IN HOUSING. WE FIND OURSELVES IN
AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDING
TRADES. MORE ON THE INDUSTRIAL
AND COMMERCIAL SIDE THAN WE DO
IN THE HOUSING SIDE. THERE IS
VERY, VERY LITTLE PENETRATION,
MARKET PENETRATION BY UNIONS IN
THE HOUSING. AM I GETTING CLOSE?
OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. A COUPLE
OF QUICK POINTS. BRINGING UP ONE
FINAL SENTENCE. OKAY. WE DID
WORK OUT SOME LABOR STANDARDS IN
THE HOUSING AREA BECAUSE THINGS
COULDN'T GO FORWARD. WE ARE
SAYING THAT THOSE ARE THE
STANDARDS YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING
AT. WE'RE WE'RE WILLING TO WORK
FURTHER ON THIS BILL, BUT WE
DEFINITELY ARE NOT HAPPY WITH
THE SITUATION AS A MANDATORY
SITUATION. WE DON'T THINK THAT'S
GOOD FOR GOVERNMENT EITHER.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN OPPOSITION FOR A NAME
AND POSITION STATEMENT, GOOD
MORNING, EVERYBODY. HONORED TO
BE HERE. JAY BRADSHAW, EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OF THE NOR-CAL
CARPENTERS UNION. REPRESENTING
JUST UNDER 38,000 HARD WORKING
MEN AND WOMEN THROUGHOUT THE
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, INCLUDING
RESIDENTIAL, OPPOSED TO THE PLA
MANDATE IN THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MELANIE PERRON ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. CATHERINE CHARLES, ON
BEHALF OF HOUSING CALIFORNIA, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM. MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, GRACIELA CASTILLO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ANDREW DAWSON, THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. YOU
SEE, NO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WISHING TO BE RECOGNIZED.
I'LL TURN IT BACK TO THE DAIS
FOR ANY MEMBER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. MISS WILSON. THANK
YOU, TO THE AUTHOR. AS PART OF
THE NINE COUNTY BAY AREA
DELEGATION, I RECOGNIZE WHY
YOU'RE, PURSUING THIS ENDEAVOR.
SO HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THE
COMMENTS MADE BY OPPOSITION? IN
REGARD, HOW DO YOU RECONCILE
THAT WITH WITH THE BILL? WELL,
WE'RE STILL TRYING TO RECOGNIZE,
I'M SORRY TO RECONCILE THOSE, WE
HAVE, MET WITH, MR. KURT AND MR.
BRADSHAW, WE'VE HAD SOME
COMMUNICATIONS. THEY'VE HAD SOME
COMMUNICATIONS. SIT DOWN WITH,
BUILDING TRADES. THEY HAVEN'T
BEEN PRODUCTIVE ENOUGH YET, TO
GET US THE AMENDMENT THAT WE
WOULD NEED TO GET THEIR SUPPORT
OR TO GET THEM TO NEUTRAL. BUT
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING ON
THAT. AND I KNOW THEIR LETTER
SAYS OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. SO
THAT'S A GREAT CHALLENGE FOR US
ALL, ESPECIALLY SINCE, THE END
GAME HERE THAT I MENTIONED IN MY
COMMENTS. AND I WON'T GET DEEP
INTO THIS, OBVIOUSLY, IN THE
BUILDING, BUT WHEN YOU'RE GOING
TO GO OUT ON THE BALLOT, IN THE
BAY AREA, AS YOU WELL KNOW,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WE HAVE TO HAVE
A UNITED LABOR FRONT. AND SO
REALLY, THE CHALLENGE HERE IS TO
TRY TO FIND, ENOUGH COMMON
GROUND HERE TO, TO MOVE FORWARD
SO THAT WE HAVE BUILDING
STANDARDS. BUT WE'RE NOT, YOU
KNOW, ESSENTIALLY CREATING AN
OPPOSITION GROUP. AND LATER ON,
AS THIS THING IS MOVING TOWARD
THE BALLOT, WHICH IS COMING VERY
QUICKLY, AND WE HAVE A SHORT
TIME TO DO THAT, SO, YEAH, NOT
NOT CONSOLIDATED YET, THE REASON
WE PICKED THE BART PLA AS A
STARTING POINT, IS TO TALK TO,
EVERYBODY ELSE ABOUT, INCLUDING
THE CARPENTERS IS BECAUSE THE
CARPENTERS ARE SIGNATORY TO THAT
ONE, AND IT HAS, WHAT IS TO ME
FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY PERSON A
LITTLE BIT OF, WHAT IS THE
UNUSUAL AS BASICALLY AN OFF RAMP
IN IT, ALREADY FOR FOLKS THAT
ARE NOT SIGNATORIES. SO YOU
DON'T CREATE THIS PROBLEM WHERE,
YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
SIGNATORY WORKERS, THAT'S BUILT
RIGHT INTO THE BART PLA, IT
DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY THAT
THE OPPOSITION, LIKES THAT OR
NOT. WE NEED TO KEEP TALKING
ABOUT THAT. BUT WE THINK IT'S A
GREAT STARTING POINT. AND ONE
THING WE DO KNOW IN THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE IS
THAT ALL SIDES HERE ARE
INTERESTED IN THINGS LIKE LOCAL
HIRE, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO HEALTH
CARE, THINGS THAT THEY'VE BEEN
FIGHTING FOR THEMSELVES. CAN BE
INCLUDED IN AN AGREEMENT THAT
WOULD GOVERN ALL OF THIS, WE
NEED TO FIGURE OUT, JUST HOW TO
GET THERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
WEEKS. SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS
SOME OF YOUR QUESTION. THANK
YOU. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLINGNESS. AND I KNOW YOU AS
AN AUTHOR, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, NAVIGATE
DIFFICULT ISSUES AND, AND WORK
WITH THE OTHER SIDE TO GET
THERE. MY CONCERN, AROUND IT IS,
WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING, HOW
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH UNIONIZED
LABOR WITH WITHIN HOUSING IN
GENERAL. AND IT'S SUCH A BIG,
BOND AND IT'S SO, YOU KNOW, KEY
FOR OUR AREA, THAT WE MIGHT BE
HINDERING OURSELVES IN SOME WAY,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAN FIGHT AT
A COUNTY LEVEL TO GET PLAS RIGHT
. AND I KNOW THERE'S THAT EFFORT
AND I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THAT
EFFORT. AND SO, I WORRY THAT IT
MIGHT BE TOO MUCH, TOO SOON AND
IN THE SENSE THAT NOT HAVING
THAT AND THEN I ALSO WORRY ABOUT
THE FACT THAT THIS IS A PRIMARY
AREA WHERE THE CARPENTERS WHO
ARE UNIONIZED, UNIONIZED, UNION
ARE PRIMARILY WORKING. AND THEN
TO THE POINT OF THEM NOT HAVING
A SEAT AT THE TABLE IS REALLY
CONCERNING TO ME. SO, I'LL GIVE
YOU THE VOTE TODAY. I TRUST YOU
AS AN AUTHOR TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
THOSE DISCUSSIONS, I THINK
THEY'RE IMPORTANT IN Kò. AND I
WOULD SAY IF THEY IF THEY DON'T
COME TO THE TABLE, IT'D BE HARD,
AS IT GETS TO THE FLOOR, BECAUSE
THIS IS A BIG THING AND I THINK
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE
UNITED. AND IF WE'RE NOT UNITED,
I THINK THEN THERE'S NO POINT
FOR ALL OF THIS. RIGHT. AND SO I
THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, MISS WILSON. SO MÀ
REYES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
THINK RECOGNIZING YOU AS A
CHAMPION FOR LABOR, MAKES IT
EASIER TO GO THROUGH THIS AND TO
TRY TO FIND A WAY THAT IS GOING
TO MAKE IT WORK. BUT THE
ANALYSIS DOES TALK ABOUT THE
INCREASED COST PER UNIT IN LÀ
THAT HAD THE, THE COVERED BY THE
PLA. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS
A BERKELEY STUDY, WE DON'T HAVE
WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THAT. WE HAVE
JUST THE WHAT THE ANALYSIS HAS
SHARED WITH US. THE, THE, THE,
THE POOL OF GOOD UNION WORKERS
IN LA IS MUCH GREATER. AND THAT
WAS NOTED ALSO IN THE ANALYSIS
COMPARED TO THE BAY AREA, WHICH
HAS A SMALLER, LABOR POOL, IN
COMPARISON, THERE'S NO QUESTION
WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS WE HAVE
TO BUILD. AND WITH THIS BOND
COMING UP TO SET EVERYTHING UP,
THAT NEEDS TO BE SET UP SO THAT
WE CAN GET EVERYBODY WHO CAN
WORK TO WORK ON THESE PROJECTS
AND TO BE PAID AT THE HIGHEST
RATE. THAT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. NOW, OUR COLLEAGUE,
THE FORMER AUTHOR OF FOR THE
FORMER HOUSING CHAIR, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WICKS, DID AUTHOR A BILL
2011, NOT TOO LONG AGO. WITHOUT
A DOUBT. I'M GOING TO VOTE. AS
MY COLLEAGUE HAS MENTIONED, I'M
GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS,
TO ALLOW THAT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO
CONTINUE. BUT THE OPPOSITION'S
COMMENTS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
IN FINDING A BALANCED APPROACH
AND FINDING AN INCLUSIVE
APPROACH IS GOING TO BE KEY TO
THIS, BUT I'M CERTAIN THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT WAY TO
BRING EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY,
SPECIFICALLY HERE, THAT THE
CARPENTERS AND THE BUILDING
TRADES ARE BOTH WORKING ON, ON
THIS PROJECT AND WE DON'T
EXCLUDE THOSE. WE DON'T EXCLUDE
A POOL FROM SUCH A SMALL POOL.
SO I WOULD THAT I WOULD MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU, MISS REYES.
MEMBER KALRA I'LL SECOND, I WANT
TO FOLLOW UP. I THINK THAT
THERE'S ALREADY BEEN SOME
CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE BY MY COLLEAGUES. AND,
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, I'VE, OF
ALL PEOPLE TO AUTHOR THIS TO, TO
TRY TO FIND A PATH TO, TO
COLLABORATION AND DEAL WITH SOME
OF THE ISSUES. YOU KNOW, I'VE
SEEN YOUR WORK FOR OVER TWO
DECADES, AND THAT'S HOW YOU
OPERATE, AND SO I'M CONFIDENT
THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT
HERE. LOOK, THERE IS THERE'S
TRADITIONALLY BEEN A LACK OF
INCENTIVE OF LABOR WORKFORCE IN
THE HOUSING SPACE. AND IN RECENT
YEARS IT WAS MENTIONED OR
PREVIOUS HOUSING CHAIRS, BILL
AND OTHERS, SENATOR WIENER'S
BILL AND WHAT HAVE YOU, YOU
KNOW, THE BILLS THAT REQUIRE
PREVAILING WAGE PROVIDE A HEALTH
CARE BENEFITS, MUCH OF IT
SPEARHEADED BY OUR CARPENTER
FRIENDS, HAS REALLY LAID A GREAT
FOUNDATION, I THINK, TO BUILD
UPON, AND THIS PARTICULAR BOND
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
IT BEING AS MUCH AS $20 BILLION,
THIS IS NOT HOUSING THAT'S GOING
TO BE BUILT IN 1 OR 2 YEARS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MANY, MANY,
MANY YEARS. AND THIS WILL BY THE
MOMENT, THE BOND IF IT PASSES,
IF IT WERE TO PASS, THE MOMENT
IT PASSES, PARTICULARLY IF IT
HAS A PLA ELEMENT IN IT, WILL
INSTANTLY CREATE GREATER
INCENTIVES. WE ALREADY HAVE
WONDERFUL APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS, WONDERFUL TRAINING
SITES, WHETHER IT'S OUR
ELECTRICIANS, OUR PLUMBERS, OUR
CARPENTERS, WE HAVE SOME OF THE
BEST STATE OF THE ART TRAINING
SITES IN THE BAY AREA THAT YOU
CAN FIND ANYWHERE. AND SO I
THINK WHEN THE BOND OF THIS SIZE
IS PASSED, THAT IN ITSELF, JUST
IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMICS AND
THE INCENTIVES, IS GOING TO PUSH
FOR EVEN MORE FOLKS TO GO
THROUGH THESE APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS AND CREATE MORE JOBS
FOR ALL OF THE TRADES AND SO ON.
SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE
RAISED, YOU KNOW, I'M CONFIDENT
YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WORK. AS
WAS MENTIONED, THERE'S NOTHING
IN THIS THAT PREVENTS OUR
CARPENTER FRIENDS FROM GETTING
THESE JOBS. BUT I THINK THAT
THERE ARE SOME LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS ABOUT BEING AT THE
TABLE AND BEING ABLE TO HAVE A
VOICE IN TERMS OF HOW THE PLA
MAY BE SET UP, BUT I THINK THAT
THIS WILL ABSOLUTELY THIS CAN
ABSOLUTELY LEAD TO GREATER LOCAL
HIRE, ABSOLUTELY LEAD TO KIND OF
A FLOURISHING IN OUR
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS. YOU
KNOW, YOU HAVE TO CREATE THAT
INCENTIVE. AND $20 BILLION IS A
HECK OF AN INCENTIVE TO GET
FOLKS INTO THESE TRAINING
PROGRAMS. AND OVER THE NEXT
SEVERAL YEARS, MANY YEARS, THAT
I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY
TO CREATE JOBS FOR ALL OF OUR
WONDERFUL UNION BROTHERS AND
SISTERS. AND SO I LOOK FORWARD
TO THE CONTINUING CONVERSATION
AND HEARING UPDATES AS IT GETS
TOWARDS THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. BUT
WE'LL CERTAINLY SUPPORT IT TODAY
WITH YOUR CONTINUED WORK. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CARMEN. MR.
VICE CHAIR, GREAT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. APPRECIATE IT, THE
UNDERLYING POLICY IN THE FIRST
PLACE, I HAD CONCERNS WITH, I'M
FROM, FROM NAPA, I DON'T KNOW,
IS THAT CONSIDERED A BAY AREA?
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE FROM NAPA SAY
NO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, BUT,
YEAH, IT'S, IT KEEPS GETTING
FURTHER OUT NOW, LIKE VACAVILLE
IS, TOO. SO, BUT, BUT ANYWAYS,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS SORT OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNDERLYING
POLICY AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
STATEMENTS YOU MADE WAS, YOU
KNOW, OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO BRING
PEOPLE TOGETHER. SO BECAUSE THAT
WILL FACILITATE THE PASSAGE OF
THE POLICY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND I LOOK AT THE OPPOSITION AND
IT'S NOT INSIGNIFICANT, YOU
KNOW, A COLLECTION OF BOTH,
CONTRACTORS AND, AND THE
CARPENTERS AS WELL, AND, AND
OTHERS AND SO, YOU KNOW, I HOPE
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THIS, I GUESS WE'RE ALL KIND OF
SAYING THE SAME THING, BUT BEING
FROM WHAT I GUESS IS PART OF THE
BAY AREA, A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM
NAPA WOULD COMMUTE TO BECAUSE
WOULD COMMUTE TO THE ACTUAL BAY
AREA, SAN FRANCISCO AND, AND
OTHER PLACES. AND BUT I
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A LACK
OF, LABOR THERE IN THAT AREA,
AND IT MAKES THINGS DIFFICULT
FOR THE ENTIRE ECONOMY OVER
THERE. BUT ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE
PUTTING IN MANY, MANY, MANY
DOLLARS, INTO HOUSING TO MAKE IT
HAPPEN. SO HOPEFULLY YOU CAN
WORK THIS OUT. PROBABLY LAY OFF
TODAY, BUT I'M HOPEFUL THAT, YOU
CAN COME TOGETHER. SO WHEN THIS
DOES GO ON THE BALLOT, THAT
IT'LL BE SMOOTH SAILING FROM
THERE. SO AND FEEL FREE TO
RESPOND. BUT, NO NEED TO. I JUST
GET ON MY SOAPBOX. SO THAT'S
WHAT I GET PAID TO DO, I GUESS.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
VICE CHAIR, WELL, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION HERE
TODAY, CALLING FOLLOWING THE
LEAD OF OUR BAY AREA MEMBERS AND
THOSE THAT ARE BAY AREA
ADJACENT, I APPRECIATE THE THIS
CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE HOLD
VERY STRONGLY, YOU KNOW, THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN NEED TO HAVE
VERY RESPONSIBLE LABOR STANDARDS
AND THE HOUSING WORK THAT WE'RE
DOING. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION,
AND THAT IS WITH THE I THINK,
ABAG IS THAT THE ASSOCIATION OF
BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS, AND THEY
HAVE A ADOPTED BOND MEASURE THAT
IS OUT FOR POTENTIALLY OUT FOR
VOTERS THIS NOVEMBER WITH LABOR
STANDARDS INCLUDED. HOW MIGHT
THESE INTERSECT OR CONFLICT
ANYTHING? TO MY KNOWLEDGE,
ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, ABAG
AND MTC HAVE A JOINT LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE AND THEIR THEIR STAFFS
ARE MERGED NOW THANKS TO SOME
WORK WE DID A FEW YEARS AGO. SO
THAT ORGANIZATION Þ TOGETHER.
BOFFA IS THE BAY AREA FINANCE
AUTHORITY IS, YOU KNOW, PUT
TOGETHER UNDER THAT STAFF WITH A
ANOTHER JOINT GOVERNING BOARD.
SO THEY SHOULD BE ALL ON THE
SAME PAGE. THERE SHOULD BE ONE
BAY AREA HOUSING BOND, AT UP TO
20. UP TO 20 BILLION AT THIS
POINT, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY
MORE PER COUNTY DIVIDED BY THE
NINE COUNTIES THAN ANYTHING THAT
WE'VE DONE, EVEN IN SANTA CLARA,
WE GOT CLOSE TO A $1 BILLION
BOND, BUT THIS IS RAREFIED AIR,
SO EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE
THERE, ULTIMATELY, WE NEED THAT
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO ENDORSE
WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE NEED ALL
THE FOLKS IN THIS ROOM, YOU
KNOW, TO ENDORSE WHAT WE'RE
DOING. SOME OF THAT WILL COME
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE EFFORT.
AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, I'M
MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THE FOLKS
SITTING AT THIS TABLE IN
OPPOSITION. AND THE FOLKS
SITTING AT THIS TABLE IN
SUPPORT, BRINGING THEM TOGETHER.
AND THEN I THINK THE REGIONAL
ENTITY AND THE AND THE POLITICAL
FOLKS WHO ACTUALLY RUN
CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOW, IT'S THEIR
JOB TO PULL THE REST OF EVERYONE
TOGETHER. BUT BUT WE NEED TO FIX
THIS ISSUE FIRST. IF IT CAN BE
FIXED. OTHERWISE THE WHOLE HOUSE
OF CARDS COMES DOWN. OKAY. I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOR
A BOND THAT HAS LANGUAGE, WHICH
IS PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN
ADOPTED, WILL BE OUT THERE, THAT
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE SOME
KIND OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION AND WHAT
VOTERS MIGHT BE VOTING ON RIGHT
NOW. AND SO ALL THAT TO BE
RECONCILED, ALSO VERY SUPPORTIVE
OF THE DIRECTION THAT'S GOING. I
UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN VERY
GOOD CONVERSATIONS UNDERWAY. AND
SO I EXPECT THAT THOSE WOULD
CONTINUE AS WELL. ULTIMATELY, I
THINK WHERE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
BREAK THROUGH, I THINK SOME PAST
CONVERSATIONS AS WELL THAT HAVE
RESULTED IN POSITIVE LEGISLATION
HAVE BEEN, FINDING THE WAYS THAT
MAKE SURE THAT OPTIONS ARE
AVAILABLE, SO I DO HAVE
TENTATIVE CONCERN WITH THE
MANDATE THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE
BEST SITUATION FOR EACH ONE OF
THE NINE COUNTIES THERE. AND
GIVEN SOME OF THOSE VERY
LOCALIZED DYNAMICS THAT MIGHT GO
INTO WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE IN
THEIR DECISION MAKING, AND AS
WELL SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS
THIS IS UNLIKE, LOS ANGELES, A
NINE, AREA, NINE COUNTY AREA
THAT JUST MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL. IT'S
ALMOST APPLES TO APPLES, BUT BUT
NOT NOT TRULY. AND SO I KNOW
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THAT THROUGH CONVERSATIONS
AND NEGOTIATIONS, NEGOTIATIONS
AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
WITH THAT, I DO SUPPORT THE BILL
MOVING FORWARD TODAY AND INVITE
YOU TO CLOSE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH AGAIN, MR. CHAIR.
AND ALL THOSE WHO SPOKE AND WHO
PUT SOME TIME INTO CONSIDERING
THIS BILL AND THE CONFIDENCE,
ENTRUSTED IN ME BY, YOU KNOW,
THOSE WHO EXPRESS THAT TO GO
FORWARD HERE, THAT YOU'VE THROWN
DOWN THE CHALLENGE. WE KIND OF
KNEW WHAT IT WAS BEFORE WE CAME
IN HERE. OBVIOUSLY TODAY. BUT I
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE. YOU
KNOW, ELEVATING THAT SOME MORE
AND INDICATING WHAT YOU ALL FEEL
NEEDS TO BE DONE, I THINK WE'RE
IN AGREEMENT ON THAT, WE'LL SEE
IF WE CAN PULL IT OFF HERE. I DO
WANT TO JUST MAKE TWO REAL QUICK
POINTS IN THE CLOSE, AND I'LL
MAKE THOSE QUICK, THIS THESE
LABOR STANDARDS ATTACH TO THE
$20 BILLION. THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT IN THIS BILL THAT
THE NINE COUNTIES ADOPT. PLAS,
MY UNDERSTANDING IS SEVEN OF THE
NINE COUNTIES HAVE PLAS RELATIVE
TO WHATEVER PUBLIC WORK THAT
THEY'RE DOING. SANTA CLARA
COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS PUT $1
BILLION OUT ON HOUSING BONDS.
ELY HOUSING BONDS, ALL UNDER,
LABOR STANDARDS. SO, IF YOU
DON'T HAVE THAT IN SOME PART OF
THE BAY AREA, IT'S JUST THAT
YOUR, BUILDERS NONPROFIT OR FOR
PROFIT AND YOUR LABOR TEAM WOULD
BE COMING IN BUILDING THESE
PARTICULAR PROJECTS WITH WITH
THE LABOR STANDARDS IN THIS
BILL, BECAUSE WE'RE ATTACHING
THEM TO THE MONEY, YOU KNOW, NOT
FORCING THEM OR MANDATING THEM
ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT OR, OR CITY
GOVERNMENT. LASTLY, YOU KNOW, I
KNOW THERE'S BEEN FIRST OF ALL,
I SUPPORTED, 2011, THE WICKS
BILL THAT'S BEEN REFERENCED HERE
A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND I WAS
LABOR CHAIR IN THE SENATE AT THE
TIME. SO I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR
I'M NOT, I HAVEN'T PICKED SIDES
HERE, AS FAR AS WHO'S RIGHT OR
WHO'S WRONG, WE'RE JUST TRYING
TO GET TO THE RIGHT POINT. AND
LASTLY, AT LEAST IN THE BAY
AREA, AND I THINK ALL SIDES
AGREE TO THIS LABOR UNION LABOR
SHORTAGES HAVE NOT BEEN A
PROBLEM. THE PROJECTS THAT BART
HAS BUILT UNDER THIS PLA, WE
HAVEN'T BEEN SLOWED DOWN BY
LABOR SHORTAGES. THE BILLION
DOLLARS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HAS NEVER BEEN SLOWED DOWN BY
LABOR SHORTAGES. IT MAY BE
SOMETHING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE
STATE. WE HAVEN'T REALLY
EXPERIENCED THAT. I THINK THE
REAL ISSUE IS WE CAN PROVIDE THE
WORKERS WITH ALL THESE FOLKS
THAT HAVE SPOKE TODAY. WE JUST
NEED TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE IN
TERMS OF, OF HOW THEY GOVERN
THEMSELVES AND MAKE SURE THEY
AGREE TO THAT. BUT I THINK ONCE
WE DO THAT, WE WON'T HAVE TO
WORRY ABOUT WORKER SHORTAGES.
THEY'LL PROVIDE THE WORKERS AND
THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU SIR. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
MOTION TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A WARD I
PATTERSON, NOT. PATTERSON, NOT
40. GRAYSON. CHOLERA CHOLERA. I
LEE. QUIRK-SILVA. REYES. REYES
AYE. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO.
WILSON HI. WILSON. AYE AT THE
MOMENT, THAT HAS FOUR VOTES TO
ONE. OPPOSE. AND WE WILL HOLD
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. I SEE NEXT
IN ORDER HERE IS SENATOR
PADILLA. THIS WILL BE FILE ITEM
THREE SB 1032. LIKE I SAID, NOT
YET. TRYING TO HELP YOU GET. I
FEEL LIKE I'M SITTING ON THIS.
AND WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY
BEGIN PRESENTATION.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS, I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
SB 1032, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY
TO FORGIVE LOANS PROVIDED BY
HOUSING PROVIDERS IF THE LOANS
ARE IMPEDING THE BORROWER'S
ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE
PROJECT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND SENIOR HOUSING. AS THE
COMMITTEE IS PROBABLY WELL AWARE
IN THE 1980S AND 90S, HCD
PROVIDED SEVERAL LOAN PROGRAMS
FOR AFFORDABLE PROVIDERS TO
PRESERVE EXISTING UNITS ACROSS
THE STATE. WHILE IT'S EASY TO
OBTAIN FUNDING AND FINANCING,
REPAYING THE LOAN IS OFTEN
PROVEN DIFFICULT. THE PREMISE
WAS THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD BE
ABLE TO REPAY THESE LOAN
BALANCES THROUGH PROFITS MADE
OBVIOUSLY ON AFFORDABLE
DEVELOPMENTS. HOWEVER, THERE IS
OFTEN NO PROFIT, AS YOU KNOW, TO
BE MADE IN THE HOUSING
PROVIDERS. THEN IN TURN FIND
THEMSELVES IN AN ENDLESS CYCLE
OF DEBT. SB 1032 WILL HELP
ADDRESS THIS SHORTAGE BY
ALLOWING HCD TO FORGIVE THESE
LOANS TO HELP AFFORDABLE
PROVIDERS CONTINUE TO OPERATE,
AND TO IMPROVE THEIR ABILITY TO
ACCESS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING THE
BILL WOULD ALSO PLACE GUARDRAILS
ON THE LOAN FORGIVENESS THAT TO
QUALIFY, A BORROWER MUST BE A
NONPROFIT ENTITY AT THE END OF
THEIR LOAN TERM AND THAT THE
REPAYMENT OF THE BALANCE OF THE
LOAN WOULD INDEED IMPEDE THEIR
ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PROJECT
AS AFFORDABLE PRODUCT. LOAN
FORGIVENESS FOR THESE PROVIDERS
IS CRITICAL, AS MANY OF THE
HOUSING AGENCIES THAT WOULD
BENEFIT SERVE AS THE MAIN OR
SOLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVIDERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
REGIONS AND MARKETS. THIS BILL
WILL MAINTAIN THE AFFORDABILITY
OF THESE UNITS AND INCREASE
ACCESS TO CAPITAL, SO THAT
DEVELOPERS CAN MAINTAIN THE
SUPPLY THEY ALREADY OPERATE AND
POTENTIALLY BUILD MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS.
WE'LL JUST NOTE, MR. CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS, WE KNOW THAT
EXISTING AUTHORITY PROVIDES THE
ABILITY FOR RESTRUCTURING, BUT
THERE REMAINS THE QUESTIONS OF
THE OBLIGATION OF NONPROFIT
BORROWERS TO CARRY UNSATISFIED
OBLIGATIONS ON THEIR BOOKS. AND
THERE IS A GREAT DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE RESTRUCTURING AND
LOAN FORGIVENESS, WHICH HAS AN
OFFSET OF BALANCES. SO THAT'S
THE POINT OF THE BILL. AND WITH
ME TODAY, TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
INYO COUNTY SUPERVISOR JEFF
GRIFFITHS AND MR. JEFFREY
MORGAN, WHO IS THE CEO OF CHISPA
. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MISTER CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT. MY NAME IS JEFF
GRIFFITHS. I'M A INYO COUNTY
SUPERVISOR REPRESENTING THE TOWN
OF BISHOP AND ALSO THE FIRST
VICE PRESIDENT OF CSAC
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. I WANT TO TELL YOU
ABOUT VALLEY APARTMENTS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN MY
COMMUNITY WAS CONVERTED FROM A
MOTEL IN 1980 WITH AN HCD LOAN,
AND IT'S BEEN OWNED AND OPERATED
BY THE INYO MONO ADVOCATES FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION, AND IT HAS
BEEN MAINTAINED FOR THE PAST 43
YEARS AT A SUPER LOW BELOW 30.
AMI AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 19 UNITS
FOR DISABLED AND SENIORS, IT WAS
THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE AGENCY
AT THE TIME OF THE LOAN THAT IT
WAS A NO RECOURSE LOAN, AND THE
LOAN WOULD BE FORGIVEN AT AT THE
END OF THE TERM IF IT WERE
MAINTAINED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN FACT, AT THE LOW RENTS THAT
ARE CHARGED REQUIRED TO BE
CHARGED FOR 30% AMI, THERE'S NOT
EVEN ENOUGH INCOME TO PAY FOR
THE MAINTENANCE AND THE
OPERATION OF THE BUILDING, MUCH
LESS PAYING BACK THE LOAN. SO NO
PAYMENTS WERE REQUESTED OR PAID
FROM HCD UNTIL 2011, WHICH WAS
THE END OF THE TERM WHEN HCD
SENT THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
A BILL FOR $1.1 MILLION, THE
ENTIRE LOAN INTEREST AND
PRINCIPAL. WHAT FOLLOWED WERE
TEN YEARS OF NEGOTIATIONS THAT
DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE. WHAT WAS
OFFERED WAS ROLLING OVER THE
LOAN WITH SIMILAR, PROCESS.
WHICH WHICH ONE DOESN'T WORK
BECAUSE IT JUST CREATES THE SAME
PROBLEM 25 OR 30 YEARS DOWN THE
LINE, TWO WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL
PREDATORY LOAN IF IT WERE
OFFERED ON THE PRIVATE MARKET.
AND THREE, IT MAINTAINS THAT,
BAD DEBT ON THE BALANCE SHEET OF
THE AGENCY, WHICH PREVENTS THE
ABILITY TO, ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL
FINANCING, FINANCING FOR NEW
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND
MAKES THE BALANCE SHEET LOOK BAD
TO GRANTERS BOTH IN THE FEDERAL
AND STATE GOVERNMENT. SO IN
2021, HCD PUT IT INTO DEFAULT,
AND THIS RESULTED IN THE AGENCY
LOSING ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE
ANY HOMELESS PROGRAMS, ANY NEW
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS, AND
MANY OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS. AND,
THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW HCD TO
FORGIVE THE LOAN, WHICH WOULD,
IN A TIGHT BUDGET YEAR, PRESERVE
MORE THAN 4000 UNITS ACROSS THE
STATE, BOTH URBAN AND SUBURBAN
AND RURAL. THANK YOU,
SUPERVISOR. AND, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. YEAH, HI.
MY NAME IS. IS THIS ON? YES, I
THINK IT IS. OKAY. MY NAME IS
JEFF MORGAN, PRESIDENT OF
CHISPA. WE REPRESENT THE CENTRAL
COAST, 4000 RESIDENTS, WE'VE
BUILT ABOUT 2500 UNITS OF
MULTIFAMILY RENTAL AND FOR SALE
HOUSING. I'VE ALSO HAD ABOUT 20
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DOING
PRESERVATION. AND THE SIMPLE
FACT IS, A LOT OF THESE OLDER
LOANS, THERE WAS ONE PROPERTY IN
OAKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, I WORKED
ON HAD A CHIRLA LOAN, WHICH IS
ONE OF THE KINDS THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT, AND GETTING TO A
POINT WHERE WE HAVE THIS IS ONE
MORE TOOL THAT ESSENTIALLY
ALLOWS US TO HAVE ACCESS TO
CAPITAL, KEEP OUR COMMUNITIES AS
COMMUNITY DRIVEN NON-PROFITS
MORE ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE.
THE A LOT OF THESE LOANS,
THEY'RE REALLY NOT GOING TO BE
REPAID BECAUSE THE FUNDS AREN'T
AVAILABLE. AND I'M SEEING THAT
ESPECIALLY IN THE RURAL AREAS,
WE'RE ALREADY SHORT ON FUNDING.
WE'RE COMING INTO A SEASON WHERE
BUDGETS HAVE BEEN CUT TO THE
POINT WHERE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE
THE SUPERNOVA ISSUED, SO WE'RE
TRYING TO LOOK AT PRESERVATION
AS A WAY OF PRESERVING. THIS IS
A GREAT TIME TO DO THAT. IF
WITHOUT HAVING THIS DEBT,
WITHOUT HAVING TO REPAY THIS,
FIRST OF ALL, IT ALLOWS US TO DO
MORE PROGRAMS. SO IN MANY OF THE
PROJECTS, I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO
MAKE THE HARD CHOICE BETWEEN DO
I DO THIS RENOVATION TO BE MORE
SUSTAINABLE, OR DO I HAVE MORE
DEBT AND THEREFORE HAVE LESS
FUNDS FOR THE PROGRAMS THAT WE
NEED TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF
LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS? SO I
THINK THIS TOOL IS REALLY
HELPFUL. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A
MAJOR IMPACT REALLY, BECAUSE,
BECAUSE THE FUNDS, THE
PROPERTIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
MANY OF THEM ARE ALREADY
TROUBLED. AND THIS IS A WAY TO
KEEP NOT ONLY THAT COMMUNITY
SUSTAINABLE, BUT IN TURN, THE
NONPROFIT SPONSORS THAT ARE
ALREADY COMMUNITY BASED AND
ALREADY TRYING TO GET THIS DONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT THAT
WISH TO REGISTER THEIR POSITION?
MARK NEUBERGER, CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES PROUD
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
LUIS MORANTE, ON BEHALF OF THE
BAY AREA COUNCIL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. PAUL YODER,
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTIES OF
FRESNO, TULARE, STANISLAUS AND
MARIN, AS WELL AS BURBANK
HOUSING AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
MICHELLE RUBALCAVA WITH NIELSEN
MERKSAMER ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. ELIZABETH ESPINOZA, ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTIES OF COLUSA
AND SANTA BARBARA. ALSO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MARY ELLEN SHEA, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, RACHEL MUELLER, ON
BEHALF OF RURAL COMMUNITY
ASSISTANCE CORPORATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS
GALEN DOBBINS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR RURAL
HOUSING, STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. GRACIELA
CASTILLO CRANKS HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, JT HERSCHBACH
OF THE NONPROFIT HOUSING
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND I SEE NO MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC, NO MORE MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE. WE HAVE NO
REGISTERED OPPOSITION ON FILE.
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HERE? Ó WE DO HAVE ARE
THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN OPPOSITION THAT WOULD
LIKE TO EITHER PROVIDE TESTIMONY
OR A STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION?
OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL TURN IT
BACK TO THE DÍAS. ANY MEMBER
COMMENT, MR. VICE CHAIR. THANK
YOU. I JUST HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
ON THIS. IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE,
WE WERE DOING LEGISLATION TO OR
THERE WAS A LEGISLATION TO,
ESSENTIALLY NOT HAVE CERTAIN
TYPES OF DEBT COUNT TOWARDS A
CREDIT REPORT. AND SO IT JUST
MADE ME THINK, I GUESS I HAVE
SOME DISCOMFORT WITH WITH
WAIVING ESSENTIALLY TAXPAYER
MONEY, AND I AND I'M KIND OF
CONFLICTED BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW, MY FAMILY
AND I'VE SAID THIS ALL THE TIME,
FAMILY MEMBERS WHO LIVE IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I
UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY FOR
THE OWNER IN THESE CASES,
NONPROFITS TO PAY THOSE OFF. BUT
I'M JUST CONFLICTED WITH THE A
PRECEDENT OF WAIVING DEBT AND
TAX, ESPECIALLY WHEN TAXPAYER
DOLLARS. AND SO WHEN THESE LOANS
WERE OBTAINED INITIALLY, WAS
THAT KIND OF ALWAYS THE INTENT
OR THAT THEY WOULD JUST NEVER BE
PAID OFF OR THAT THEY WOULD BE
FORGIVEN, HOPEFULLY. OR YOU KIND
OF ALLUDED TO IT A LITTLE BIT IN
YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT I WAS JUST
WONDERING IF YOU COULD ADD SOME
MORE, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR. OR YOU CAN ANSWER IT,
WHOEVER, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO,
WHATEVER IS HELPFUL. I'M HAPPY
AND HAPPY TO HAVE THAT. FIRST
AND FOREMOST, I THINK WITH
RESPECT TO THE INITIAL ISSUANCE
OF THE LENDING AND GIVEN THE
MARKET AT THAT TIME, I THINK THE
EVIDENCE IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT
SOME OF THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT
EXISTED IN THE MARKET THEN WERE
VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAS
EVOLVED TO TODAY. SECOND, I
WOULD SAY TO YOUR POINT ABOUT
WAIVING DEBT, AND IT'S A GREAT
QUESTION, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. AND
THAT IS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC
INVESTMENT, THIS TOOL IS VERY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY,
THE FORGIVENESS THEN IN TERMS OF
ITS IMPACT ON THE PORTFOLIO AND
THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY THE
NONPROFIT, NOT ONLY ALLOWS THEM
TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO
ACHIEVE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL, BUT
THAT TRANSLATES INTO ADDITIONAL
PRODUCT AND THE MAINTENANCE OF
PRODUCT IN THE MARKET OF
AFFORDABLE PRODUCT AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF IMPORTANT
PROGRAMS IN VERY DISTINCT AND
UNIQUE MARKETS. SO IN TERMS OF
THE PUBLIC'S INVESTMENT HERE,
FRANKLY, IN A SITUATION WHERE
MOST OF THESE OUTSTANDING
BALANCES ARE NOT GOING TO BE
COLLECTED ANYWAY, THIS TOOL WILL
ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE
MORE VALUE AND VALIDATE THE
INVESTMENT WE'VE MADE, BECAUSE
THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES MEAN
THAT IF THIS TOOL IS NOT
AVAILABLE, SOME OF THAT PRODUCT
GOES AWAY. AND SO THE PUBLIC
INVESTMENT IS FOR NAUGHT. AND I
THINK IF YOU LOOK AT AT MY THE
PARTICULAR PROJECT IN MY
COMMUNITY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
ONE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE WITH
COLLECTING THE RENTS, TO BE
MAKING ANY PAYMENTS. SO WHAT THE
INTENTIONS WERE ALMOST A HALF
CENTURY AGO. YOU KNOW, I CAN'T
REALLY SPEAK TO, BUT AS FAR AS
THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT $1.2 MILLION AT
THIS POINT. THAT WOULD THE ONLY
WAY TO BE COLLECTED WOULD BE,
EVICTING 19 ELDERLY DISABLED
PEOPLE, EFFECTIVELY MAKING THEM
HOMELESS. AND SELLING IT AT
MARKET RATE. AND YOU COMPARE
THAT $1.2 MILLION FOR PRESERVING
19 UNITS VERSUS THE INVESTMENTS
THAT ARE BEING MADE IN BUILDING
NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS AT, YOU
KNOW, SEVEN, EIGHT, $900,000 PER
UNIT, I THINK YOU CAN JUSTIFY
THE INVESTMENT THAT'S MADE.
YEAH. AND I WOULD JUST SAY JUST
TO ADD TO THIS, IT'S JUST THE
OPPORTUNITY COST YOU KNOW, IN A
IN A MARKET WHERE THERE'S LESS
FUNDING AND WE COULD USE HALF OF
THE FUNDING, LET'S SAY MAYBE
THERE'S TWICE AS MANY UNITS WE
CAN PRESERVE IN A TIME WHERE
THERE'S LESS FUNDING. AND, AND
WHAT WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP IS ARE
WE AT RISK OF ACTUALLY, WHAT'S
THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF ACTUALLY
LOSING THE AFFORDABILITY OF SOME
OTHER ENTITY REQUIRES IT, WITH
THAT'S CAPITALIZED IN A WAY
WHERE THEY ACTUALLY EVENTUALLY
DISPLACE THOSE RESIDENTS. SO I,
I, YOU KNOW, I WOULD I WOULD SAY
THAT'S THE REASON. SO I THINK
THERE'S GOOD REASONS AND IT'S
ALSO SOMETHING I THINK THERE'S
STILL CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPEN.
BUT THE HAVING THE RIGHT TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT, TO PRESERVE
AFFORDABILITY, I THINK IS A GOOD
POLICY. THANK YOU, WHERE DID
WHEN DID THESE LOAN PROGRAMS
EXIST? THE BILL SEEMS TO BE
PRETTY BROAD ON JUST LOAN
PROGRAMS. OR DO THOSE STILL
EXIST OR IS THIS GOING TO APPLY
TO LOANS? RIGHT NOW THAT ARE
BEING GIVEN OUT, AGAIN, THE TIME
FRAME THAT THESE LOANS
PREDOMINANTLY AFFECTING THESE
PARTICULAR DISCRETE MARKETS, THE
NATURE OF THIS PRODUCT WERE IN A
DIFFERENT ERA, WHEN THE
ASSUMPTIONS WERE THAT THE
RECEIPTS WERE GOING TO BE
SUFFICIENT TO COVER DEBT OR AT
LEAST MAINTAIN A BETTER RATIO,
THAT DID NOT PROVE OUT TO BE THE
CASE BECAUSE OF OTHER ELEMENTS.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF, THE CEO
WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT, WHETHER
OR NOT, WELL, ONE EXAMPLE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS WE HAD A PROPERTY
CALLED WESTLAKE EAST, WHICH WAS
IN OAKLAND THAT HAD A CHEAPER
LOAN, AND THIS WAS FROM THE
1990S, AND THERE WAS NO CHANCE
THAT THIS WASN'T GOING TO GET
REPAID. IT WAS JUST SOMETHING
THAT WAS GETTING IN THE WAY OF
BEING ABLE TO DO A LOT OF
CRITICAL SEISMIC REPAIRS AND
OTHER THINGS, AND I THINK IT
WILL GET EVEN MORE AMPLIFIED IN
RURAL AREAS WHERE THERE'S LESS
FUNDING, SO THAT THE MONEY A LOT
OF THIS MONEY WAS PUT OUT A LONG
TIME AGO AND HASN'T BEEN REPAID.
SO I GET THAT. BUT THE LANGUAGE
OF THE BILL DOES IT APPLY TO
THOSE OLDER LIKE, YOU KNOW,
LEGACY PROGRAMS? IT SEEMS TO BE
BROADER THAN THAT, I GUESS, IS
WHAT I'M GETTING AT. LIKE IT
COULD APPLY TO FUTURE LOANS THAT
MAYBE THE STATE DECIDES TO GIVE
OUT. AND I THINK THAT'S MAYBE A
CONCERN I HAVE. I WOULD JUST
SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THE EXPERTS
CAN ALSO ADD ON HERE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RESPECTFULLY, I THINK
THAT THE LANGUAGE IS PERMISSIVE
AND I THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT IT'S DESIGNED TO ADDRESS
EXIST VERY DISCREETLY IN CERTAIN
SITUATIONS. AND SO OBVIOUSLY, IF
THERE AREN'T CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
WOULD APPLY, THEN THE AUTHORITY
WOULDN'T BE UTILIZED. IT'S JUST
THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE THAT
DISCREET AUTHORITY, BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A
RESTRUCTURING CAPABILITY, BUT WE
DON'T HAVE DISCRETE
AUTHORIZATION TO DO THE
FORGIVENESS. THE FORGIVENESS, I
WOULD SUBMIT, IS GOING TO APPLY
TO A DISCRETE SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, AS WAS JUST
NOTED, SOME OF THIS IS A LOT OF
TIME HAS PASSED ON THE ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL ISSUANCE AND THAT HAS
NOT BEEN MADE WHOLE. AND I THINK
THAT THE PASSAGE OF TIME IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES PROVED THE POINT,
THAT THESE ARE LIKELY NOT TO BE
PAID IN FULL AND THAT THE
IMPACTS TO THE PROJECTS AND
OPERATIONS ARE PRETTY SEVERE IF
THEY AREN'T ABLE TO CLEAR THAT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR WILSON. THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
. I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. AND AS YOU NOTED AT
THE END THAT IT IS PERMISSIVE
LANGUAGE. IT AUTHORIZES HCD TO
DO THIS WHERE THEY FEEL IT IS
BEST NECESSARY AND UTILIZED,
WHETHER IN THE PAST OR
POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, IN THE
FUTURE, GIVEN THE BACK AND
FORTH, I HAD ONLY ONE THING THAT
I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BEFORE, AS
IT RELATES TO THE COMMENTS FROM
TESTIMONY AND, BEING FAMILIAR
WITH SOMETHING THAT WE DID IN MY
OWN CITY, THE, RECORDED DEED
RESTRICTION, NOTES FOR THE
PERIOD OF THE REMAINING USEFUL
LIFE OF THE PROJECT, AS YOU
NOTED IN TESTIMONY, THAT A LOT
OF TIMES WITH THESE PROJECTS,
BECAUSE OF THE MARKET CONDITIONS
NOT EXISTING LIKE THEY WERE
INTENDED AT THE VERY BEGINNING
WHEN THEY WERE CREATED, THAT,
THE A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS GO,
UNMAINTAINED, NOT A LOT OF
INVESTMENTS IN THEM AND SO COULD
BE DILAPIDATED OR BLIGHTED IN
SOME NATURE. AND SO IT SEEMS TO
BE THAT THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE
PROJECT MIGHT NOT BE THAT LONG.
AND, THERE IS NO DEED
RESTRICTION ON THE LAND ITSELF
FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS.
AND SO I THINK THAT MAY BE
SOMETHING THAT THE AUTHOR MAY
WANT TO CONSIDER AS YOU CONTINUE
TO NAVIGATE THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, SOMETHING WE DID IN OUR
OWN CITY TO ENSURE THAT IT
EXTENDED BEYOND THE BUILDING, AS
PUT A DEED RESTRICTION FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS ON THE LAND SO
THAT IT COULDN'T, ONCE THE
BUILDING WAS GONE, THEN BE SOLD
FOR PROFIT. TO MARKET RATE
DEVELOPER. AND SO THAT WE KNEW
THAT PARTICULAR LAND FOR A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PERIOD WOULD
HAVE TO BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. IN OUR CASE, IT WAS
SENIOR HOUSING. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SEEING NO
OTHER MEMBERS WISHING FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, SENATOR,
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD,
SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON AS WELL TO, TO BE
ABLE TO REALLY TRY TO OPEN UP
AND PROVIDE THAT OPTION FOR HCD,
TO BE ABLE TO THINK A LITTLE
MORE CREATIVELY. EQUITY THAT'S
OUT THERE AND THE ABILITY TO
REPURPOSE THAT, WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS IS
JUST THE SMART WAY TO DO IT FOR
THE GOVERNMENT TO DO BUSINESS,
AND SO YOU'RE FINDING ANOTHER
COMPLEMENTARY BUT A STANDALONE
IMPORTANT BILL THAT'S ABLE TO DO
THAT AS WELL. SO VERY SUPPORTIVE
OF THIS AND WOULD INVITE YOU TO
CLOSE. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE THE
COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMITTEE
AND OUR OFFICE, AND I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? WE NEED A MOTION BY MR.
KALRA, A SECOND BY MISS WILSON,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ACTION TO PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WORD A WORD I,
PATTERSON. PERSON NOT VOTING.
GRAYSON CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I LEE
QUIRK-SILVA. REYES SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. NO. WILSON WILSON. I AT
THE MOMENT, WE HAVE THREE VOTES.
WE WILL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. NEXT ON FILE, WE SEE
SENATOR BLAKE SPEER, WITH ITEM
NUMBER TEN. THIS IS SB 1077.
AND WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY
BEGIN PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. HELLO.
GOOD MORNING. I WOULD LIKE TO
START BY SAYING THAT I ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS ON SB
1077. AS YOU ALL KNOW,
CALIFORNIA IS IN A HOUSING
CRISIS OF UNPRECEDENTED
MAGNITUDE. SINCE 2010,
HOMELESSNESS HAS SKYROCKETED 50,
AND LAST YEAR, 180,000
CALIFORNIANS DID NOT LIVE INSIDE
. WE IN THE LEGISLATURE HAVE
PASSED HUNDREDS, OVER 100 BILLS
TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE OF
THIS CRISIS, WHICH IS THE
UNDERPRODUCTION OF HOUSING. ONE
OF THE MOST NOTABLE SUCCESSES WE
HAVE SEEN SO FAR HAS BEEN THE
STATE'S LOOSENING OF
RESTRICTIONS TO ADDING ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS, OR ADUS TO
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. DESPITE
THESE CHANGES, HOMEOWNERS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE FACE SIGNIFICANT
ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES TO
PERMITTING ADUS AND ADUS. THESE
CHALLENGES MAKE PROJECTS COST
PROHIBITIVE. CITIES AND COUNTIES
IN THE COASTAL ZONE REPORT THAT
THE ADU DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS
ENFORCED BY THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION. CONFLICT
WITH THE MINIMUM ADU ORDINANCE
STANDARDS ENFORCED BY HCD. THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. WHAT SB
1077 DOES IS IT DIRECTS THE
COASTAL COMMISSION AND HCD TO
DEVELOP, SOLICIT PUBLIC
FEEDBACK, AND PUBLISH UNIFIED
GUIDANCE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ON HOW THEY MAY UPDATE THEIR ADU
ORDINANCES AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAMS. LCP'S TO COMPLY WITH
THE COASTAL ACT AND THE
GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS EXERCISE
WILL ALLOW HCD AND COASTAL
COMMISSION TO EXAMINE AND
RESOLVE CONFLICTS AND HOW THEY
ENFORCE THE LAW. THIS WILL
ADDRESS THE LOGJAM IN ADU
PERMITTING AND PROMOTE
PRODUCTION OF NATURALLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK IN THE
COASTAL ZONE. I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESS WITH ME
HERE IN SUPPORT. LUIS MORANTE,
VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY
AT THE BAY AREA COUNCIL. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS LUIS MORANTE. I WORK FOR
THE BAY AREA COUNCIL AND I'LL
EXCUSE ME. AND I'M ALSO HERE
TODAY IN MY CAPACITY AS A BOARD
MEMBER OF THE CÁC COALITION,
WHICH SUPPORTS THIS BILL. AND
AIMS TO CONVENE ALL THE ADU
POLICY ADVOCATES IN CALIFORNIA,
AS SENATOR BREAKSPEAR MENTIONED,
ADUS ARE A TREMENDOUSLY
SUCCESSFUL POLICY INTERVENTION.
THE LEGISLATURE IS IMPLEMENTED.
THEY NOW ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 25%
OF ALL HOUSING PRODUCTION IN
CALIFORNIA BY 2030. ADU THE ADU
INDUSTRY IS GOING TO BE A $10
BILLION INDUSTRY, AND EVERYTHING
THAT WE'RE LEARNING FROM THE
TERNER CENTER SEEMS TO INDICATE
THAT MOST OF THESE ADUS ARE
AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE
IN THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE
AREAS IN WHICH THEY'RE BUILT.
RESEARCH FROM THE TERNER CENTER
ALSO SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT ADU
CONSTRUCTION IN THE COASTAL ZONE
SUFFERS FOR A CONFUSION WITH HOW
TO INTERPRET ADU LAW AND THE
COASTAL ACT TOGETHER, THE CENTER
, RELEASED RESEARCH EARLIER THIS
YEAR THAT SHOWED THAT ADU PERMIT
TIMES ARE TWICE AS LONG IN THE
AREAS THEY STUDIED FOR ADUS,
ABOUT TWICE AS LONG ON AVERAGE.
AND THAT JUST INDICATES THE NEED
FOR MORE CLARITY ON HOW TO
INTERPRET THE COASTAL ACT AND
SOME OF THE MANDATES OF THE, OF
THE ADU LAW. ALL GOOD GENESIS
FOR THIS BILL, IN THE PAST, A
GUIDANCE FROM THE, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION HAS BEEN
INCONSISTENT. THERE'S A COURT
CASE PENDING IN THE SUPREME
COURT RIGHT NOW WHERE THE
COASTAL COMMISSION INTERPRETED
AN EXEMPTION AS AS AS SOMETHING
THAT SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE
ADU. THEY THEN FLIPPED ON THAT
MID LITIGATION AND, DON'T HAVE A
CONSISTENT SET OF POLICY
GUIDANCE FOR HOW TO INTERPRET
THE COASTAL ACT AND THE STATE'S
ADU LAW. TOGETHER THEY JUST
ISSUE GUIDANCE AD HOC. THIS BILL
WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO ISSUE
GUIDANCE. THAT'S IN THAT'S
GENERAL, THAT ALLOWS HOMEOWNERS
TO DECIDE HOW TO BUILD OR MOVE
FORWARD WITH AN ADU IN A WAY
THAT'S FASTER. BUT IMPORTANTLY,
ALSO HOW TO PRESERVE THE, THE,
THE, THE, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES
AND COASTAL ACT, I'M SORRY, IN
COASTAL ACCESS THAT ARE THE
MANDATES OF THE COASTAL ACT, ALL
THIS CLARITY IS GOING TO MAKE IT
EASIER TO BUILD AND EASIER TO
PROTECT THOSE NATURAL RESOURCES.
I STRONGLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR
SB 1077. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN SUPPORT? THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBER, PAUL YODER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
BRIAN LEAHY, AARP, VOLUNTEER ON
BEHALF OF OUR 3.2 MEMBERS IN
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, AMY BROWN,
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LONG
BEACH IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MOIRA, ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO IN
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. MARK
NEUBERGER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. BROOKE PRITCHARD
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HOLLY
FIRMANDO WITH LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF FIELDSTEAD
AND COMPANY SPUR EDEN HOUSING,
SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION AND
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, CALIFORNIA
, IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY OR A STATEMENT OF
OPPOSITION? OKAY. SEEING NONE,
WE CAN TURN IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
MR. VICE CHAIR, I SWEAR THIS IS
NOT WHAT I'M INTENDING TO DO.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, GREAT. BILL.
AMAZING BILL, AND I WILL USE MY
SECONDS TO SAY THAT THIS IS YET
ANOTHER BILL THAT THE COASTAL
COMMISSION DECIDED TO GET
INVOLVED WITH. THEY'RE TOTALLY
OUT OF CONTROL. THEY NEED TO BE
CHECKED BY THIS LEGISLATURE AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND I DON'T
REMEMBER HOW MANY PAGES IT WAS,
BUT THERE WAS AN ADU BEING PUT
ON SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE PROPERTY,
AND THEY DID LIKE THEY DIDN'T
DECLINE IT. THEY ALWAYS SAY, OH,
WE DON'T DENY PROJECTS. WELL,
THEY MADE IT SO DIFFICULT. THEY
PUT TOGETHER, I DON'T KNOW, 30
SOME ODD PAGE REPORT ON WHY THIS
ADU BLOCKED ABOUT A HALF INCH OF
YOUR VIEW FROM 500 YARDS AWAY.
THEY'RE TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL.
AND I HOPE NEXT YEAR THIS
LEGISLATURE COMES TOGETHER TO
PUT THEM BACK IN CHECK. WHILE AT
THE SAME TIME PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT IN THEIR ORIGINAL
INTENT. AND WHAT THEY SHOULD BE
DOING, NOT BLOCKING STATE
POLICIES LIKE ADUS. SO THANK YOU
FOR THE TED TALK. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO MAKE A MOTION? OH, I AM VERY
HAPPY TO MOVE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. IS THERE A SECOND BY MISS
SANCHEZ, THANK YOU, SENATOR. I
APPRECIATE YOU WORKING ON THIS.
WE ALL KNOW THAT IN RECENT
YEARS, ADU CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN
RESPONSIBLE FOR 1 IN 5 NEW
HOUSING STARTS IN CALIFORNIA.
AND THE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THIS
BILL TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT
OPTION FOR MORE COASTAL
CALIFORNIANS, I THINK, IS
CERTAINLY ONE TO LOOK FORWARD
TO. I INVITE YOU TO CLOSE. YES
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL JUST
SAY IN CLOSING, THAT ADUS HAVE
SUCH POTENTIAL IN THE COASTAL
ZONE BECAUSE THEY ADD GENTLE
DENSITY IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS
MORE PEOPLE TO BE SPREAD ACROSS
AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY
DON'T CREATE THE TYPES OF
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOUSING THAT
HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING SOMETIMES
DOES. SO MAKING IT EASIER TO
BUILD ADUS IN THE COASTAL ZONE
SHOULD BE A TOP PRIORITY OF THE
LEGISLATURE, AND UNFORTUNATELY,
THIS CONFLICT BETWEEN HCD AND
THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND I
KNOW THIS FROM HAVING BEEN A
COASTAL MAYOR CREATES TREMENDOUS
DELAY. AND SO WE HAVE INDIVIDUAL
PROJECT DELAY, AND WE ALSO HAVE
CITY LEVEL DELAY. SO HAVING THEM
WORK TOGETHER ON GUIDANCE IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT STREAMLINING
EFFORT. AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL
MOVE THE NEEDLE ON THE SPEED AT
WHICH ADUS CAN BE BUILT IN THE
COASTAL ZONE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
ACTION TO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A WARD I
PERSON. PERSON I GRAYSON.
CHOLERA CHOLERA. I LEE
QUIRK-SILVA REYES. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ I WILSON. AND RIGHT NOW
WE HAVE FOUR VOTES. WE WILL HOLD
THAT ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
WOW. SOMEONE SPICY TODAY? SURE,
I CAN. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. WE HAVE
SENATOR ASHBY. YEAH. ON ONE
SECOND. NO WORRIES. COMING IN.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE AND FOR BEING HERE ON
THE BACK. AND WE WELCOME YOU TO
PRESENT, FILE ITEM 11. THIS IS
SB 1439. THANK YOU. THANKS
COLLEAGUES, FOR HAVING US.
GRATEFUL TO BE HERE TODAY. WHERE
IS HE? I CAN'T CAN'T TRACK
EVERYBODY TODAY. ALL RIGHT,
CHAIRMAN, YOU WANT ME TO START
ALL RIGHT. WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I KNOW
IT'S THE END OF A ROUGH COUPLE
OF WEEKS FOR ALL OF US. SO, YOU
KNOW, WE'LL JUST GET THROUGH THE
NEXT FEW DAYS AND. AND THEN
ENJOY A BIT OF SUMMER. SB 1439,
AT ITS HEART IS A DISTRICT BILL,
AND IT ALLOWS SUTTER HEALTH TO
BUILD A STATE OF THE ART CANCER
CENTER ON A REGIONAL TRANSIT
PROPERTY HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
SUTTER HEALTH IS A NONPROFIT
HOSPITAL THAT HAS ESTABLISHED
ITSELF AS A REPUTABLE PROVIDER
OF QUALITY HEALTH CARE ACROSS
OUR ENTIRE STATE. YOU GUYS KNOW
THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE SUTTER
HOSPITALS IN AND AROUND YOUR
DISTRICTS. CANCER IS THE SECOND
LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN OUR
STATE WITH 189,000 NEW CASES AND
OVER 60,000 DEATHS EVERY YEAR,
ACCORDING TO A STUDY FROM UC
DAVIS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY HAS A
HIGHER CANCER MORTALITY RATE
THAN THE STATE AVERAGE,
INDICATING A GREAT NEED FOR THE
FACILITY THAT I AM HERE TO FIGHT
FOR TODAY. THERE IS ALSO A GREAT
NEED TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY
TO CRITICAL LIFE SAVING CARE FOR
PEOPLE WHO USE MEDI-CAL AND
MEDICARE OF ITS 3.2 MILLION
PATIENTS SERVED ANNUALLY, SUTTER
SERVES OVER 1.2 MILLION MEDI-CAL
AND MEDICARE PATIENTS. SUTTER
HEALTH IS HEAVILY INVESTED IN
OUR LOCAL FEDERALLY QUALIFIED
HEALTH CENTERS, SUCH AS
WELLSPACE HEALTH AND THE
SACRAMENTO NATIVE AMERICAN
HEALTH CENTER. CARE FOR CANCER
PATIENTS FROM OUR MOST
UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS, BOTH
OUR SUPPORTERS AND YOU WILL HEAR
FROM AT LEAST ONE OF THEM TODAY
THROUGH THESE PARTNERSHIPS,
SUTTER HEALTH HAS PROVIDED LOW
COST MEDICAL CARE TO 440,000 LOW
INCOME PATIENTS, ABSORBING THE
REIMBURSEMENT COSTS FOR THEIR
CARE. I KNOW THAT THE ISSUE HERE
ON THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN ONE
OF CONCERN AROUND PRECEDENT, AND
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT VERY
DIRECTLY TODAY. FIRST, I WANT TO
ASSURE MY COLLEAGUES THAT THIS
BILL IS SO NARROWLY TAILORED
THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO ONE
HOSPITAL THAT IS LANDLOCKED IN A
NON RESIDENTIAL TWO BLOCK RADIUS
IN THE HEART OF MY SENATE
DISTRICT. IT IS INTENDED ONLY TO
MEET THE VERY SPECIFIC NEED OF
TREATING CANCER IN A COUNTY WITH
A HIGHER MORTALITY RATE THAN THE
STATE AVERAGE, AND THE BILL DOES
NOT CUT SHORT THE EXISTING SLA
PROCESS IN PLAY ON THE NINE
PROPERTIES IN THAT PROCESS. NOW,
LIKE ALL OF YOU, I TOO AM A
HOUSING ADVOCATE AND I HAVE
EARNED MY STRIPES AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL. AND HERE, IN FACT, AS A
YOUNG SINGLE MOM IN THIS CITY,
THE ONE I NOW REPRESENT, I LIVED
IN LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHILE RAISING MY YOUNG SON ON MY
OWN, USING FOOD STAMPS, WORKING
FULL TIME AND PUTTING MYSELF
THROUGH UC DAVIS AND MCGEORGE
LAW SCHOOL. I AM VERY AWARE OF
THE NEED FOR HOUSING, AND WHILE
THE SURPLUS LAND ACT IS AN
EXCELLENT TOOL FOR HOUSING AND
ONE THAT I SUPPORT, IT ALSO PUTS
MANY THINGS IN LINE AHEAD OF
HOUSING. IT PRIORITIZES
COURTYARDS, ADMINISTRATIVE
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CIVIC
BUILDINGS, NOT ONLY AHEAD OF
HEALTH CARE BUT AHEAD OF
HOUSING. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY
CHANGES TO THE SLA OVER THE
YEARS. SACRAMENTO IS AN
OUTSTANDING ACTOR ON HOUSING
STOCK. I KNOW SOME OF YOU
RECEIVED A LETTER FROM OUR MAYOR
THIS MORNING TO REITERATE THIS
POINT. WE WERE THE FIRST CITY IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
RECEIVE THE PRO HOUSING
DESIGNATION THAT FROM HCD. WE
RECEIVED IT SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
WE WERE THE FIRST CITY IN THIS
STATE TO ELIMINATE SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING. WE DID THAT THIS YEAR.
THESE ARE RECORD BREAKING
THINGS. THERE ARE 25,000 LOW AND
VERY LOW INCOME UNITS IN OUR
SACRAMENTO HOUSING AUTHORITY'S
PORTFOLIO. THEY BUILT 640 NEW,
VERY LOW INCOME UNITS LAST YEAR
ALONE. AND THERE ARE ANOTHER
2218 IN THE IMMEDIATE PIPELINE
FOR THIS YEAR AND NEXT
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ALSO PROVIDED
THE GREATEST REDUCTION, THE
GREATEST REDUCTION IN UNHOUSED
POPULATION IN THE ENTIRE STATE
AT 41% THIS YEAR IN THE POINT IN
TIME COUNT. I REPEAT, THERE IS
NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT WOULD
INTERFERE WITH THE SURPLUS LAND
PROCESS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY. AND
I DID OFFER A FURTHER AMENDMENT
TO THIS BILL TO CLARIFY THAT
POINT, AND WOULD BE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO TAKE THAT LANGUAGE
TODAY. THIS BILL WAS HEAVILY
AMENDED IN THE SENATE TO INCLUDE
SAFEGUARDS THAT ENSURE THAT THIS
LAND IS USED FOR CRITICAL HEALTH
CARE, REMAINS ACCESSIBLE FOR
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, AND
PROVIDES A NECESSARY COMMUNITY
BENEFIT. I AM SO PROUD TO HAVE
THE SUPPORT OF WELLSPACE HEALTH.
THE SACRAMENTO NATIVE AMERICAN
HEALTH CENTER, MY MAYOR, MAYOR
STEINBERG, SACRAMENTO CITY
COUNCIL MEMBER ERIC GUERRA,
CALIFORNIA BLACK CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, CAL ASIAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, THE
WESTERN STATE COUNCIL SHEET
METAL, AIR, RAIL, AND
TRANSPORTATION CALIFORNIA STATE
PIPE TRADES CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC WORKERS
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA REALTORS, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING
TRADES, THE SACRAMENTO LGBT
COMMUNITY CENTER, THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE, CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO REGIONAL
BUILDING TRADES, SACRAMENTO AREA
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 522. DOZENS
OF OTHER BUSINESSES, INCLUDING
MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION, ALL OF
WHOM BELIEVE THAT THIS CANCER
TREATMENT CENTER IS A LIFE SAVER
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE. I
WILL FINISH WITH JUST THIS ONE
QUESTION THAT I ASKED THIS
COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THIS
MORNING WITH AN OPEN MIND AND
FRESH EARS, THERE IS NO DOUBT
THAT THE SURPLUS LAND ACT IS A
GOOD AND NOBLE POLICY. NO ONE
DEBATES THAT THE QUESTION IS FOR
EVERY GOOD AND NOBLE POLICY, CAN
THERE EVER, EVER BE AN
EXCEPTION? AND IF SO, WHAT IS
THE APPROPRIATE MEASURE? I
SUBMIT TODAY THAT NINE OF THESE
PROPERTIES WILL HAVE COMPLETED
THE SLA WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. I
ALSO SUBMIT TODAY THAT IT IS THE
HIGHEST OF BARS. TO SAY THAT A
LAND LOCKED HOSPITAL THAT WOULD
PROVIDE THE HIGHEST CANCER
TREATMENT SERVICE IN A REGION
WHERE CANCER IS A GREATER RISK
THAN IN THE REST OF THE STATE,
IS A HIGH BAR, AS ONE COULD
POSSIBLY HOPE TO ACHIEVE TODAY,
COLLEAGUES, YOU ARE UNDER
PRESSURE. I KNOW, BUT PRESSURE
IS A PRIVILEGE, A PRIVILEGE THAT
WE HAVE EARNED BY BEING IN THIS
BUILDING. AND TODAY, THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE IN THE ASSEMBLY, IN
THE STATE LEGISLATURE HOLDS IN
ITS HANDS THE FATE OF 3 MILLION
PEOPLE IN THE GREATER SACRAMENTO
REGION, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY
WILL HAVE ACCESS TO CRITICAL
LIFE SAVING CANCER TREATMENT
CARE. I ASK YOU FOR AN AYE VOTE,
AND I AM VERY PROUD TO HAVE WITH
ME AT THIS TABLE TODAY, TWO
WITNESSES AND ONE PERSON HERE,
IN CASE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR
SUTTER, JOE GREGOREK IS
REPRESENTING SUTTER. HE'LL BE
HERE FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. MY
TWO LEAD WITNESSES ARE BRIAN
RICE, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF
THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS, AND JONATHAN
PORTEOUS, WHO IS THE CEO OF
WELLSPACE HEALTH. THANK YOU, WE
HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES PER
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
BRIAN RICE, AND I'M THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS,
REPRESENTING OVER 35,000
FIREFIGHTERS, EMTS AND
PARAMEDICS IN CALIFORNIA. AND
I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB 1439, WHICH, AS
YOU'VE HEARD TODAY FROM SENATOR
ASHBY, EXPANDS HEALTH CARE
ACCESS IN SACRAMENTO. I COME
BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A SACRAMENTO
RESIDENT WHO SERVED 30 YEARS AS
A FIREFIGHTER IN THE SACRAMENTO
METROPOLITAN FIRE DEPARTMENT, 12
YEAR OR EXCUSE ME, SERVED AS
PRESIDENT OF THE SACRAMENTO AREA
FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 522 AND AS A
RESIDENT OF THIS COMMUNITY AND A
RESIDENT, A REPRESENTATIVE OF
FIREFIGHTERS. THIS PROPOSAL IS
PERSONAL FOR ME AS IT WILL HELP
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SUTTER CANCER CENTER HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. THIS TYPE OF
ENHANCED CARE IS NEEDED NOW MORE
THAN EVER, ESPECIALLY FOR
FIREFIGHTERS. THE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER
CLASSIFIED FIREFIGHTING AS A
GROUP ONE CARCINOGEN, MEANING
THE JOB OF FIREFIGHTING WILL
GIVE US CANCER. BUT I WILL
LIKELY GIVE US CANCER. BUT I
DIDN'T NEED I DIDN'T NEED THE
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY TO KNOW
THAT CANCER IS AN EPIDEMIC IN
THE FIRE SERVICE. CANCER IS THE
NUMBER ONE KILLER OF
FIREFIGHTERS ACROSS THIS NATION
ON THE VERY GROUNDS OF THIS
CAPITOL. STANDS OF FIREFIGHTERS
MEMORIAL. FULLY ONE THIRD OF THE
MEMBERS ON THERE HAVE DIED FROM
JOB RELATED CANCER. EVERY
FIREFIGHTER HAS HAD THEIR LIVES
TOUCHED BY CANCER IN SOME WAY.
AND JUST THIS YEAR, SACRAMENTO,
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN FIRE
FIREFIGHTER ANTHONY BEN ALICIA
FROM MY HOME AGENCY DIED AT 32
YEARS OLD FROM OCCUPATIONAL
CANCER. HE DID HIS LAST TWO
YEARS AT METRO FIRE DOING A JOB
THAT HE LOVED. EVERY TIME I
ATTEND A FUNERAL, I ASK MYSELF,
WHAT MORE CAN I DO TO PROTECT MY
MEMBERS AND THE COMMUNITY? THEY
SERVE? I'VE HAD THE HONOR TO
WORK WITH ALL OF YOU TO
STRENGTHEN CANCER RESEARCH,
IMPROVE ACCESS TO CARE, AND
REDUCE TOXIC EXPOSURES. FOR MY
MEMBERS. I THANK YOU ALL FOR
YOUR PARTNERSHIP. I'M HERE TODAY
BECAUSE SB 1439 IS ANOTHER PIECE
OF THE PUZZLE. IT CREATES A
PATHWAY FOR SUTTER TO BUILD A
CANCER CENTER THAT WILL IMPROVE
HEALTH ACCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY
AND FIREFIGHTERS. AND I'LL JUST
FINISH WITH THIS FROM THE HEART.
I'VE SPOKEN AT TWO FIREFIGHTER
FUNERALS, ANTHONY'S AND A YOUNG
MAN NAMED JOHN MARTINEZ, 34, IN
CONTRA COSTA. EARLIER THIS YEAR.
AND ALL THAT TO SAY, OVER THE
YEARS WE HAVE CONCENTRATED ON
CANCER CARE FOR MEN BECAUSE THIS
IS A DOMINATED PROFESSION BY
MEN. BUT WE ARE HAVING INROADS
FOR WOMEN INTO OUR SERVICE. WE
DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION
ABOUT WOMEN IN THE FIRE SERVICE
TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE
NEED. AND ONE MORE CANCER
CENTER, ONE MORE RESEARCH
CENTER, A PLACE THAT WE CAN GO
FOR TREATMENT, EXPAND OUR
KNOWLEDGE AND POTENTIALLY FIND A
CURE AND FOCUS ON THE THING THAT
IS KILLING US MOST IS NEEDED.
SACRAMENTO IS DEVELOPING AS A
MEDICAL COMMUNITY, AND I JUST
URGE YOUR STRONG YES, VOTE ON
THIS. THANK YOU. CHAIR WARD.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DOCTOR
JONATHAN PORTEOUS. I'M THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF WELLSPACE
HEALTH. WE ARE A FEDERALLY
QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER AND LOW
INCOME COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEM
ACROSS SACRAMENTO REGION. WE
HAVE 130,000 MEDICAID
BENEFICIARIES IN OUR CARE. AND
ABOUT 12,000 UNINSURED PERSONS.
THE MAJORITY, THE LARGEST
PROVIDER OF HEALTH CARE TO THE
UNSHELTERED POPULATIONS IN THE
REGION IS WELLSPACE HEALTH. TO
THAT END, I'M THE CHAIR OF THE
STEPS FORWARD BOARD AND WE HOLD
THE HUD CONTINUUM OF CARE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WE HOLD THE
POINT IN TIME COUNT. I AM
ACTUALLY HERE WITH A LOT OF
PEOPLE. I CONSIDER MY COLLEAGUES
ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE. SO
THIS IS A DIFFICULT DECISION FOR
YOU. BUT FOR ME, AS A
PSYCHOLOGIST, IT'S A NO BRAINER.
OR I'M NOT SURE IF I CAN SAY
THAT AS A PSYCHOLOGIST, BUT IT
SEEMS SIMPLE IN IN MANY, MANY
WAYS, BUILDING A CAMPUS FOR A
HOSPITAL IS HYPER LOCAL. IT
NEEDS TO BE CONTIGUOUS, IT
ALLOWS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT
IMPORTANTLY, IT ALLOWS FOR CHAIN
OF CUSTODY AND THE INTEGRATION
OF CARE. AND THAT REQUIRES
CONTIGUOUS CONSTRUCTION.
DISAGGREGATING A HOSPITAL
CAMPUS, WHICH WOULD HAPPEN. OR
MAYBE SUTTER WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO BUILD A CAMPUS DISAGGREGATING
THAT DISAGGREGATES CARE. AND THE
FIRST PEOPLE TO LOSE OUT ARE MY
PEOPLE. THEY'RE THE ONES WITH
THE LEAST ACCESS TO
TRANSPORTATION. THEY'RE THE ONES
WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO NOT
FOLLOW UP IF THEY HAVE TO GO
SOMEWHERE ELSE. WHEN I WORKED IN
A HOSPITAL IN BROOKLYN, THE
TUNNEL BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS
BROKE AND WE HAD TO TRANSPORT
PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET IN
AMBULANCES AND THE LEAST
FORTUNATE, THE PEOPLE I SERVED
THERE AS WELL, WERE THE ONES WHO
ARE LEAST LIKELY LITERALLY TO
GET ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S
WHERE THAT CONTINUITY AND CHAIN
OF CUSTODY IS CRITICAL HOUSING,
WHICH IS A GREAT PASSION OF
MINE, DOESN'T HAVE THAT THAT
NEED. IT'S NOT RESTRICTED IN
THAT WAY. SO FOR ME SUPPORTING
THIS, THERE IS NO ISSUE. THIS
THIS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BECAUSE
IT GIVES ME ACCESS FOR MANY OF
THE PEOPLE I SERVE BECAUSE
SUTTER IS ONE OF THE HEALTH
SYSTEMS THAT'S ACTUALLY FIGURED
OUT HOW TO WORK WITH OUR
MEDICAID POPULATION. SO I WOULD
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT SENATOR
ASHBY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT THAT WISH TO REGISTER
THEIR NAME, POSITION AND
ORGANIZATION? JOE GREGOR, ON
BEHALF OF SUTTER HEALTH. THANK
YOU. SYMPHONY BARBIE, ON BEHALF
OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES
OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT BISHOP
CHRIS BAKER, LONG TERM COMMUNITY
ADVOCATE AND BOARD MEMBER OF
WELLSPACE HEALTH AND GLAD TO SAY
I REITERATE WHAT MR. JONATHAN
SAID, AND I ASK YOUR STRONG
SUPPORT IN THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
JAY KING PRESIDENT AND CEO OF
THE CALIFORNIA BLACK CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. WE'RE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, DOCTOR. KAREN
GROSSMAN, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,
SUTTER MEDICAL GROUP, ON BEHALF
OF MY 1300 PHYSICIANS AND APCS,
WE'RE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. I'M
A RESIDENT OF THE
POCKET-GREENHAVEN AREA OF
SACRAMENTO IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. JEREMY GARDELLA,
SACRAMENTO AREA FIREFIGHTERS,
LOCAL 522 AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE JENNIFER SVEC, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, WE
APOLOGIZE. WE WERE A LATE
ADDITION YESTERDAY AS THE RESULT
OF THE SACRAMENTO ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS. THEY'VE ADOPTED RECENT
POLICY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE
BILL WITH SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
ABOUT THE HEALTH. IF WE WERE TO
USE THE PARTICULAR PARCEL FOR
HOUSING, GIVEN IT'S LOCATED
UNDER A BRIDGE. THANK YOU. KERRY
STUART, EXPERT ONCOLOGY NURSE
WITH CALIFORNIA ADVOCACY FOR
ONCOLOGY NURSING, IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. LUIS
SUMPTER. I AM A FULL TIME
REALTOR HERE IN SACRAMENTO. I
ALSO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS FOR THE SACRAMENTO
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
REPRESENTING 7300 MEMBERS AND
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, REPRESENTING 190,000
MEMBERS. AND WE STAND IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MARTIN VENDIOLA, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL, AND THE WESTERN STATES
COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL WORKERS
ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. ANGIE MINETTI
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS RYAN PERINI,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AMBULATORY SURGERY ASSOCIATION
AND REAL QUICK, IF THERE IS A
PRESIDENT PRECEDENT, WE'RE
SETTING, IT'S ONE THAT PROVIDES
CRITICAL CARE SERVICES FOR
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MICHELLE
SCHMIERER HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
GREATER SACRAMENTO ECONOMIC
COUNCIL, REPRESENTING 35% OF
EMPLOYERS IN IN THE SIX COUNTY
REGION HERE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. DIÆN DWYER Ã, REPRESENTING
THE SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
REPRESENTING THE SIX COUNTIES OF
THE AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO. GOOD MORNING. PHILIP NORTON,
CHIEF OF STAFF TO SACRAMENTO
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ERIC GUERRA
ON HIS BEHALF AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. CHRIS BOLLINGER ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASIAN CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND THE SACRAMENTO
ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. I
DÂN DHAKA, ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL
VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK AND THE
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP FOR
HEALTH, IN STRONG SUPPORT. KATIE
PETTIBONE, CANCER PATIENT OF
SUTTER. AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF
THE LEIOMYOSARCOMA PATIENT GROUP
, MARK SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL BUILDERS
EXCHANGE IN SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS KIRK KIMBALL ESHOO
ON BEHALF OF GUARDANT HEALTH
TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. JAMISON PARKER, ON
BEHALF OF THE MIDTOWN
ASSOCIATION, IN STRONG SUPPORT,
VANESSA GONZALEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
HERE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
NANETTE STARR, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSORTIUM FOR URBAN
INDIAN HEALTH, IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, GEORGE SOROS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT TERRENCE
LEONARD ON BEHALF OF TMP FOR
LIFE HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH
ORGANIZATION THAT MENTORS
FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND SPORTS AND
ACADEMICS. AND I'M HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS ROSS BUCKLEY, ON
BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO MAYOR
DARRELL STEINBERG AND SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, RYAN OJAKIAN WITH
THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING MITCHELL BIXEL, ON
BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF IRONWORKERS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. KEVIN
FRAZIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE SACRAMENTO SIERRA REAL
SIERRA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL, IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
JEREMY SMITH. YOU'RE ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. DENNIS ROMERO WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PRIMARY CARE
ASSOCIATION ADVOCATES STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTERS AND CLINICS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, SCOTT FORD, ON BEHALF
OF DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO
PARTNERSHIP, SERVING THE HEART
OF CALIFORNIA'S CAPITAL CITY IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FORTINO
CURIEL, MY REPRESENTATIVE OF
HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS. LOCAL
16. WE ARE HERE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. SI SE PUEDE. I'M
ENRIQUE VILLANUEVA. I REPRESENT
HÌNH FROST INSULATORS. I'M A
STRONG SUPPORTER. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN
SUPPORT? OKAY. WITH THAT I'LL
INVITE ANYBODY THAT'S HERE THAT
WISHES TO PROVIDE PRIMARY
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY. JOE, YOU
MIGHT HAVE TO STEP DOWN.
THANK YOU. YOU'LL HAVE UP TO TWO
MINUTES EACH. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS NORA KOSTER, AND I'M A
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
WITH Â HOUSING AND A RESIDENT
OF SACRAMENTO IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE SITES IN THE
BILL, I ALSO SIT ON THE
SACRAMENTO HOUSING ALLIANCE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REPRESENTING
SACRAMENTO AREA NONPROFIT
HOUSING SERVICE PROVIDERS,
FUNDERS, AND RESIDENTS. Â IS A
NONPROFIT DEVELOPER WITH OVER 55
YEARS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
EXPERIENCE. WE SERVE MORE THAN
25,000 LOW INCOME RESIDENTS IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE RENTAL HOMES
THAT WE OPERATE. Â IS CURRENTLY
IN THE SURPLUS LAND ACT PROCESS
IN SACRAMENTO. FOR ALL OF THE
SITES ALREADY DEEMED SURPLUS BY
THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT
THAT ARE LISTED IN SB 1439.
SHOULD THE OTHER SITES LISTED IN
THE BILL THAT ARE NOT YET
SURPLUS BY SAC REGIONAL TRANSIT,
BE LISTED AS SURPLUS. Â WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE A FIRST LOOK IN
CASE THEY COULD WORK FOR
CO-LOCATING HOUSING AND
POTENTIALLY HEALTHCARE ACCESS ON
THE GROUND FLOOR AND IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. Â DOES NOT TAKE
LIGHTLY THE PROCESS OF
DETERMINING IF WE SHOULD SUBMIT
A PROPOSAL FOR A SITE,
ESPECIALLY IN SACRAMENTO'S HIGH
RESOURCE URBAN CORE, WHERE
PRICES ARE HIGH, AND WHERE
INTEREST RATES CURRENTLY ARE
STILL PROHIBITIVE IN TODAY'S
FINANCIAL CLIMATE, WE ONLY PUT
IN OFFERS FOR SITES THAT WE KNOW
WILL BE COMPETITIVE FOR LOW
INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS AND
OTHER STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING
AND SITES THAT WE THINK WILL
WORK FOR THE FAMILIES WE SERVE.
HERE IN SACRAMENTO, FOR EXAMPLE,
WE WOULD BE SERVING HOUSEHOLDS
EARNING 24,000 TO 60,000 A YEAR,
DEPENDING ON FAMILY SIZE. WE
ALSO CONSIDER WHAT MIXED USES
MIGHT WORK, SUCH AS A HEALTH
CLINIC ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
THESE REGIONAL TRANSIT OAN
SITES ARE HIGH RESOURCE AND ARE
IN A DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP AREA
THAT GIVES US A TAX CREDIT BOOST
, AND WE APPRECIATE HAVING THE
RIGHT TO MAKE THAT FIRST OFFER.
Â HAS BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH
THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY,
SHRA, AND THE CITY'S HOUSING
STAFF. SO THEY KNOW WE HAVE
PROPOSED HERE AND WHAT LEVEL OF
SUPPORT WE WILL BE ASKING OF
THEM, INCLUDING PARTNERING ON
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
UNITS WITH SHRA AND ON BIKE AND
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THE CITY.
THE FUNDING PROGRAMS TO DEVELOP
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THESE
SITES ALL PRIORITIZE FAMILY
PROJECTS AND HIGH RESOURCE AREAS
THROUGH THEIR POINT SCORING. THE
TAX CREDIT PROGRAM WOULD REWARD
THE SITE FOR BEING IN A BOTH A
HIGH RESOURCE LOCATION WITH
EXTRA POINTS FOR AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING AND FOR
BEING ON SURPLUS LAND, AMONG
OTHER POINT CATEGORIES. AS FOR
ZONING, THE ZONING FOR THE
DOWNTOWN GRID, WHERE THESE SITES
ARE LOCATED HAS CHANGED. THE
NEWLY ADOPTED CITY OF SACRAMENTO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 TO PRIORITIZE
DENSE HOUSING. THE GOAL WAS FOR
A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TO BE
BUILT AND TO REMOVE OBSTACLES TO
BUILDING THAT HOUSING. THE CITY
OF SACRAMENTO'S VERY LOW INCOME
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FROM 2021
TO 2029 IS 10,000 UNITS, AND
THEY HAVE SO FAR PERMITTED 1000.
Â UNDERSTANDS THAT THE SLA THAT
SAC REGIONAL TRANSIT DOESN'T
HAVE, THROUGH THE SLA, THE SAC
REGIONAL TRANSIT DOESN'T HAVE TO
TAKE OUR OFFER, BUT WE WANT TO
SEE THAT NEGOTIATION PROCESS
THROUGH AND BE ALLOWED TO
PROVIDE A FIRST OFFER ON FUTURE
SITES. THANK YOU. I URGE YOUR NO
VOTE HERE SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO
SEE THE SLA PROCESS THROUGH. ITS
WORKING ACROSS THE STATE TO
BRING MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES TO
OUR COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS JT HERSCHBACH WITH THE
NONPROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE
REPRESENT NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS ACROSS THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA REGION.
MANY OF OUR MEMBERS, LIKE Â,
ARE ACTIVE ACROSS THE STATE,
INCLUDING HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON THE
SURPLUS LAND ACT SINCE ITS
MODERN REVISION IN 2019, WITH AB
1486, WHICH INCLUDED A LOT OF
STRENGTHENING, BUT ALSO A LOT OF
ALLOWANCES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO COMPLY MORE EASILY. WITH
THIS, WE REMAIN, RESPECTIVELY,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB 1439
FOR TWO MAIN REASONS. THE FIRST
IS THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT
THIS BILL IS NECESSARY FOR
SUTTER TO ACHIEVE THEIR
OBJECTIVES HERE. AND THE SECOND
ONE IS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT IT
CREATES A SET OF BAD PRECEDENTS
FOR THE REST OF THE STATE. IF IT
WERE TO GO THROUGH FIRST ONE, WE
DON'T BELIEVE THAT SUTTER NEEDS
TO DO THIS TO ACHIEVE THEIR
OBJECTIVES. MANY OF THESE SITES
WILL BE DONE WITH THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT IN THE COMING WEEKS.
THREE MORE WHO HAVE YET TO BEEN
DECLARED SURPLUS WILL GO THROUGH
A SIMILAR PROCESS, BUT WITH THE
SURPLUS LAND ACT, THE AGENCY
REMAINS WITH SAC, RT ON WHAT
THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THEIR
LAND, WHO THEY WOULD LIKE TO
SELL IT TO. IF THEY WOULD LIKE
TO SELL IT TO SUTTER, THEY ARE
ALLOWED TO SELL IT TO SUTTER.
THE SURPLUS LAND ACT DOES ALLOW
FOR THIS. WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS
UP IN THE LAST COMMITTEE, THERE
WERE CONCERNS ABOUT DELAYS THAT
THE PROJECT MIGHT INCUR, AND
THERE WERE EXAMPLES LOCALLY HERE
FOR AT THE SITE AT 15TH AND I
BETWEEN 15TH AND 16TH HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE
THAT IS NOT UNDER THE SURPLUS
LAND ACT. THIS IS STATE OWNED
LAND. IT IS, UNDER THE EXCESS
SITE PROGRAM, WHICH IS
ADMINISTERED BY DGS. THIS IS A
DIFFERENT PROCESS, AND I WOULD
CAUTION US AGAINST CONFLATING
THESE TWO THINGS WHEN DISCUSSING
AN EXEMPTION TO THE SURPLUS LAND
ACT, THE SURPLUS LAND ACT. LIKE
I MENTIONED, HAS NEW ALLOWANCES
FOR COMPLIANCE FOR THE LOCALS,
AS PER FOR 80 AND SEVEN FOR
SEVEN FROM LAST YEAR, WE'RE ALSO
VERY ALARMED AT THE PRECEDENT IT
MIGHT SET. FIRST, THAT IT WOULD
INVITE ANOTHER OF ANOTHER STREAM
OF ONE OFF EXEMPTIONS WHICH
WEAKEN A BILL THAT IS, AT ITS
CORE, IS HERE TO PROVIDE A
PRIORITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE PRIORITY IS WEAKENED, WHICH
EACH SUCCESSIVE EXCEPTION TO
THIS BILL. IT ALSO PUTS ALL OF
YOU IN A DIFFICULT POSITION ON
THIS COMMITTEE TO BE HEARING ALL
OF THESE ONE OFF EXEMPTION BILLS
AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT,
THEY'RE DIFFICULT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
OPPOSITION WISHING TO REGISTER
THEIR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
OPPOSITION? GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BRIAN AUGUSTA, ON BEHALF OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF HOUSING
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, GALEN DOBBINS, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
RURAL HOUSING AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, ANDREW
DÍAS FROM THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP. IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. SAHAR SOLTANI WITH
MUTUAL HOUSING CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. JONATHAN
COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
SACRAMENTO HOUSING ALLIANCE, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, ANNIE
LAWLOR, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MARY
ELLEN SHEA, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCIES IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, RACHEL MILLER, SAN
DIEGO HOUSING FEDERATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, LAURA, ON
BEHALF OF PUBLIC ADVOCATES IN
OPPOSITION, THANK YOU. LAST
CALL. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WISHING TO STATE
OPPOSITION OKAY. WITH THAT?
WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO
MEMBERS COMMENTS AND I'M GOING
TO TAKE A LITTLE PREROGATIVE TO
MAYBE BEGIN CONVERSATION AND
KIND OF REALLY TRY TO TEASE OUT
SOME OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
FACTS, THE CONVERSATION. I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS HAS
REALLY BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE
WRESTLED WITH FOR THE BETTER
PART OF AN HOUR IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE AND TRIED
TO KIND OF LIKE TEASE OUT, I
THINK WHAT MANY OF US FEEL ARE A
VERY STRONG ALLEGIANCE TO THE
SURPLUS LANDS ACT, FOR THE
INTENTS AND PURPOSES THAT IT IS,
WE KNOW IT'S UNDERGONE A COUPLE
OF MORE BROAD REVISIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS, AND IT'S ALSO HAD
SOME BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO EXEMPT CERTAIN
LANDS. AND I'M HAPPY TO TALK
ABOUT SOME OF THOSE EXAMPLES, I
DID WANT TO, YOU KNOW, OPEN AND
REALLY, YOU KNOW, SAY FOR, FOR
EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT,
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE A
BETTER REPRESENTATIVE TO FIGHT
FOR SACRAMENTO THAN SENATOR
ASHBY, SHE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY
AVAILABLE AND FORTHRIGHT AND
THOUGHTFUL. AND DEFENSIVE AND A
CHAMPION ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE
COMMUNITY'S NEEDS AND CERTAINLY
FOR THOSE OF HEALTH CARE AND
ALL. CHARACTERISTICS THAT SIT
VERY STRONGLY WITH ME, AS I'M
THINKING WITH MY HOUSING HAT ON.
RIGHT. AND, AND THROUGH THAT
DEFENSE OF THE SURPLUS LANDS ACT
AND NGUYEN, I THINK THE QUESTION
WAS RAISED, DO WE START TO THINK
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING
EXEMPTIONS TO OCCUR, FIRST OF
ALL, AS THIS BILL PERTAINS TO
THESE PARTICULAR SITES, ONE
THING THAT IS CONFUSING TO ME IS
THAT FIRST, WE WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT WE WOULD WANT THIS TO BE
ABLE TO, BE CRAFTED IN A WAY
THAT DOES ALLOW FOR THE NINE. SO
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NINE PLUS
THREE PROPERTIES HERE THAT ARE
SUBJECT, RIGHT. THE NINE
PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY,
GOING THROUGH PROCESS SOON TO BE
CONCLUDED BY TT, THAT THERE'S A
COMMITMENT THAT WE DON'T IF
THERE'S A SUCCESSFUL BID THAT
THEY WOULD WANT TO CHOOSE THAT
THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT
INTERRUPTED. CORRECT OKAY. SO WE
HAVE THOSE NINE WHICH ARE ONE
BLOCK AWAY FROM THE MAIN CAMPUS
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE THREE
PARCELS THAT CURRENTLY HOUSE THE
BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY
OPERATED BY TT RIGHT NOW THAT
ARE WITHIN THIS BILL, BUT ARE
NOT DECLARED SURPLUS. RIGHT.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PART
ABOUT BEING ONE BLOCK AWAY. YES.
EVERYTHING YOU'VE STATED IS
CORRECT. THE OTHER NINE PARCELS
ARE ONE BLOCK AWAY. THE THREE
PARCELS ARE THE BLOCK ACROSS THE
STREET AND ADJACENT TO THE
HOSPITAL. YET THE NINE PARCELS
REPRESENT THE CONTIGUOUS
COMPONENT. YES. AND THE THREE
OTHER PARCELS ARE ACROSS THE
STREET THERE. THE MAINTENANCE
UNIT? YES. THE NINE PARCELS YOU
HAVE TO HOP OVER THOSE THREE
PARCELS TO GET TO THOSE NINE
PARCELS. BOTH SIDES OF THAT
BLOCK ON BOTH SIDES. SO THERE IS
EXISTING PRESENCE THERE. SO WE
HAVE PROCESSES THAT ARE ABOUT TO
CONCLUDE. AND SHOULD THIS GO
FORWARD. AND IF THIS WERE TO BE
IN EFFECT ON JANUARY FIRST.
RIGHT. THE OPERATIVE ELEMENTS OF
THIS BILL, THAT WOULD BE AFTER
THE SLA PROCESS IS EVEN
CONCLUDED, CORRECT. FOR THOSE
NINE PARCELS. CORRECT. AND SO
NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE THREE
PARCELS HERE THAT AREN'T WE
DON'T EVEN KNOW FROM OUR TÊ IF
THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN
RELINQUISHING THESE. WE KNOW
THAT TT AT SOME POINT WANTS TO
VACATE THAT AREA DOWN THERE. WE
DON'T HAVE A TIME FRAME THAT IS
CORRECT. WHEN THEY DO THOUGH, IT
WOULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, ABSENT ANY
CHANGES, BE SUBJECT TO THE
SURPLUS LAND ACT. YES. OKAY,
EXCEPT FOR UNDER THIS BILL, IT
WOULD NOT. RIGHT. THOSE THREE
PARCELS THEN WOULD ALLOW IN THIS
BILL. RIGHT WOULD BE EXEMPTED
RIGHT FROM THE GET GO. CORRECT
SO IN OUR DISCUSSION FOR I GUESS
BOTH OF THESE SITUATIONS AND
LET'S FOCUS ON THE NINE AS WELL.
YOU KNOW THERE'S A CONCERN THAT
THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY. THROUGH
THE SURPLUS LANDS ACT. BUT
EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE TRIPLE
CHECKED IS TELLING ME THAT
BEYOND PROXIMATELY A SEPTEMBER
1ST TIME FRAME, WHEN TT HAS
CONCLUDED THE PROCESS DECIDED TO
ACCEPT A BID OR NOT, HCD HAS HAD
A 30 DAY STATUTORY DEADLINE TO
BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT THEIR SLA
IS DONE AND TT COULD THEN JUST
GO FORWARD AND ENTERTAIN BIDS,
SAY FROM SUTTER OR ANY ANY
PRIVATE OFFER. THAT IS HOW THE
CODE IS WRITTEN. AND IF NOTHING
WENT WRONG AND THERE WERE NO
DELAYS AND THERE WERE NO
ADMINISTRATIVE HOLD UPS, THAT IS
CORRECT, LET ME JUST ALSO SAY
THAT THE CHAIRMAN HAS BEEN A
VERY ATTENTIVE WI ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. WARD AND I HAVE SPENT
MANY HOURS TOGETHER THIS WEEKEND
AND FOR THE LAST WEEK, AND YOU
HAVE BEEN VERY GENEROUS WITH
YOUR TIME. AND WHAT I APPRECIATE
MOST IS YOU'RE INCREDIBLY OPEN
MIND, AND YOU'VE TAKEN A LOT OF
PHONE CALLS. AND I KNOW YOU'RE
UNDER PRESSURE AND I APPRECIATE
YOU GREATLY. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT
TO DO THESE THESE THINGS. AND I
KNOW YOU LOVE SACRAMENTO. I KNOW
YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR TO ME.
EVEN THOUGH YOU REPRESENT SAN
DIEGO. I KNOW YOU HAVE AN
AFFINITY FOR THIS CITY, TOO. AND
I WANT TO STATE AT THE OUTSET
THAT I APPRECIATE THAT VERY
MUCH. SO YES, THESE YOU'RE RIGHT
THAT IF EVERYTHING WENT SMOOTHLY
, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
GOVERNMENT. SO I ASK YOU TO KEEP
THAT IN MIND. YES. OURSELVES
INCLUDED, THAT. YES. BY
SEPTEMBER 1ST THERE WOULD EITHER
BE ONE OF THE BIDDERS, WHICH,
YOU KNOW, WE'VE DISCUSSED. WE
HAVE ONE HERE THAT'S A HOUSING
DEVELOPER. WE KNOW THAT THE CITY
PUT IN A BID AS WELL FOR SOME
FIRE SERVICES, IRONICALLY. AND
SO ONE OF THOSE BIDDERS COULD BE
SUCCESSFUL. YES. AND WE WOULD
KNOW THAT BY THE ACTUALLY, I
THINK THE END OF JULY AND THEN
THAT PROCESS WOULD, IN THEORY
FINISH OUT IN AUGUST. WHAT WE DO
HAVE, THOUGH, AND THERE'S MORE
THAN ONE I DID BRING UP ONE LAST
TIME, BUT THERE ARE MANY
EXAMPLES OF TIMES THAT PROJECTS
HAVE BEEN HELD UP FOR A VARIETY
OF REASONS. IN A PROCESS OF
REVIEW, TO LOOK BACK AND SEE IF
ALL THE T'S HAVE BEEN CROSSED
AND THE I'S HAVE BEEN DOTTED.
AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT WE
DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME
RIGHT. AND SO THE AMENDMENT THAT
YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT WAS TO
SAY THAT ONCE THIS PROCESS IS
COMPLETED, THE PART THAT WE KNOW
TO BE TRUE AND ACCURATE. SO
SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT SEPTEMBER
1ST, THAT THEN OUR TÊ WOULD BE
ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND THERE
WOULDN'T BE ANY BUREAUCRACY THAT
COULD HOLD THEM UP. AND WE DID
HAVE LEDGE COUNCIL REVIEW THAT
LANGUAGE AND PUT IT ALL TOGETHER
FOR US. AND IT IS LOADED AND
READY. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD
IT. AND IF IT ADDS THE
CLARIFYING COMPONENT THAT GIVES
PEOPLE A LEVEL OF COMFORT THAT
FOR THE NINE PARCELS CURRENTLY
IN THE PROCESS, THERE WILL BE NO
INTERRUPTION TO THAT. WELL, TWO
POINTS. SO ONE, THE ONLY OTHER
POTENTIAL TIMELINE THAT WOULD BE
ADDED UNDER EXISTING PROCESS IS
AFTER THAT 30 DAY REVIEW OF EACH
CD. RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO JUST
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST. CORRECT.
THEY JUST HAVE TO RULE WHETHER
OR NOT TT EXERCISED SLA
CORRECTLY OR NOT. TT BELIEVES IT
IS COMPLYING WITH SLA RIGHT NOW.
YES, AND I BELIEVE HCD THINKS
THAT TT IS COMPLYING RIGHT. SO
IF THEY DIDN'T OR IF SOMETHING
CAME UP DURING THAT 30 DAY
REVIEW PERIOD, THEN THERE WOULD
BE UP TO A 60 DAY EDITION TO
CORRECT. SO AS LATE, IF SOMEBODY
MISSED SOMETHING WHICH THEY
DON'T BELIEVE, THEY HAVE AS LATE
AS POSSIBLE WOULD BE NOVEMBER
1ST. STILL, BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS BILL.
CORRECT? RIGHT. AND SO WHAT THAT
WHAT THIS BILL THEN BECOMES IS A
BACKSTOP TO ANY BUREAUCRACY THAT
WOULD DELAY US BEYOND THAT DATE.
BUT NOTHING IN THE EIR TECHNICAL
SUPPORT. IF I COULD. YEAH. SO IT
IS FROM OUR CONSULTANTS ALSO
INDICATED THAT AFTER THE
DEADLINES HAVE STOPPED, HCD TT
ARE THE BIDDERS IF THEY BELIEVE
THEY ARE CLOSE, CAN ADD
ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONTINUE TO
NEGOTIATE AND THOSE ADDITIONAL
TIMES CAN GO ON CONTINUOUSLY.
THERE IS NO TIME. THERE'S NO
DEADLINE THAT HCD CAN STOP. SO
THE PROCESS CAN CONTINUE TO GO
ON AND ON AND ON. IF THE
DEPARTMENT BELIEVES THAT THE
PARTIES ARE CLOSE TO AN
AGREEMENT. BUT IF THERE'S NO
FINDING OF, VIOLATION OF SLA,
THE WINDOW CLOSES. I MEAN,
THAT'S STATUTORY. WELL, WHAT
HE'S SAYING, THOUGH IS HAPPENED
IN SACRAMENTO. MANY TIMES IS
THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES LET'S
PICK ON THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO.
LET'S SAY THEY FEEL AGGRIEVED IN
THE PROCESS. THEY CAN ASK FOR
EXTENSIONS TO REVIEW. THEY CAN
THEY CAN DELAY THAT PROCESS
THEMSELVES. AND SO THAT HAS
CERTAINLY HAPPENED HERE. AND BY
THE WAY, THE PROPERTY THAT'S AT
16TH AND I IS WHAT WE CALL
VOLUNTARY SURPLUS LAND ACT
BECAUSE THE STATE EXEMPTED
THEMSELVES FROM THE SURPLUS LAND
ACT. SO THE STATE THEMSELVES,
WHEN THEY HAVE PROPERTY, THEY
DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT INTO THE
SURPLUS LAND ACT. THEY CAN DO
WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THEY ACCESS
SITES. CORRECT? RIGHT. AND SO
THIS PIECE THEY PUT INTO THE
LAND ACT, SO THAT WHICH IS WHY
HCD PUT OUT THE RFP ON THE
PROPERTY AND THE BIDDER FROM SAN
DIEGO, WHO IS A TWO YEARS
WAITING, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY
THROUGH THE EXACT SAME HCD RFP
PROCESS THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. RIGHT NOW. BUT IT'S NOT.
YEAH, IT IS, BECAUSE HCD'S RFP
PROCESS FOR STATE. BUT THAT
DOESN'T APPLY TO THE SLA PARCELS
THAT TT IS WORKING ON. NO THIS
WAS THROUGH EXCESS PROJECTS. I'M
JUST GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE OF A
TIME THAT THE EXACT SAME PROCESS
HAS DELAYED EXTENSIVELY, WHICH
IS WHY THE BACKSTOP FOR THE FOR
THIS FOR THESE NINE PARCELS IS
SO IMPORTANT TO US. BUT I AGREE,
FOR THE HOUSING ADVOCATES, I
DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD
MATTER BECAUSE THEIR PROCESS
WOULD BE OVER WITH EITHER. THEY
WOULD HAVE SUCCESSFULLY EARNED
THE RFP OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE,
AND IT WOULD BE OVER WITH. I
DON'T THINK IT MAKES ANY
DIFFERENCE FOR THEM, BUT FOR THE
NEXT GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD
WANT ACCESS TO THAT IN THIS
INSTANCE, SUTTER FOR A CANCER
CENTER, IT CAN BE DELAYED FOR
TECHNICALITIES OVER AN EXTENDED
PERIOD OF TIME, SO THE BACKSTOP
IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AT A
LOCAL LEVEL. ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT'S BEEN DIFFICULT, AND WE'VE
HAD THIS CONVERSATION TOO, IS
THAT APPROACHING THIS SUBJECT,
AND I BELIEVE IT'S A VERY WORTHY
SUBJECT OF THINKING ABOUT HEALTH
CARE, IS A VERY CRITICAL
COMMUNITY NEED, AND WE DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH OF IT BROADLY, AND
REVISITING THAT AS A KIND OF,
YOU KNOW, A THEMATIC OR A
CATEGORICAL CONVERSATION IN SLA
IS CERTAINLY WORTHY. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S WHERE
YOU BEGAN. WE DID, AND THE
SENATE WENT IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION. AND SO DID WE DID.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT,
LOOK, I THINK THE SURPLUS LAND
ACT IS WORTH PROTECTING AND I,
I'M NOT HERE TO CONVINCE YOU
THAT WE SHOULD ADD A WHOLE
NOTHER CATEGORY TO SURPLUS LAND
ACT. I DON'T I DON'T THINK
THAT'S RIGHT. LIKE I SAID,
SACRAMENTO IS AN EXTREMELY GOOD
ACTOR. YEAH. ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. AND I'M REALLY PROUD OF
MY CITY. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE,
MY JOB IS TO FIGHT FOR THE
THINGS THAT THE PEOPLE IN THIS
DISTRICT NEED MOST AND THEIR
DEATH RATES FOR CANCER ARE
HIGHER THAN THE COUNTIES
REPRESENTED BY MY COLLEAGUES.
RIGHT. AND I HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. YOU DO,
BUT I'M TRYING TO DO IT IN A WAY
THAT IS THE LEAST DISRUPTIVE AND
ALLOWS A PROCESS TO COMPLETE
PRIOR TO SUTTER BEING ABLE TO
STEP IN. I'M ALSO TRYING TO
CREATE A SCENARIO WHERE SUTTER
WON'T BE DELAYED, BUT WHERE I
STILL AM. HAVING TROUBLE
CONNECTING THE DOTS IS WHETHER
OR NOT THIS IS A THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY SITE THAT IS STILL
GOING TO MAKE ITSELF AVAILABLE,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE BILL. AND SO
THEN I'M BACK TO JUST A QUESTION
OF JUST PURE WROTE POLICY,
RIGHT? DO WE TAKE A MOMENT TO
ENSHRINE THROUGH A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, ANOTHER EXEMPTION,
WHAT MIGHT THAT DO IN THE
FUTURE? AND SO I'M LOOKING BACK
AS WELL TO SOME OF THE PREVIOUS
CONVERSATIONS WHERE MEMBERS HAVE
BROUGHT FORWARD SITE SPECIFIC OR
OR REGIONAL SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.
YOU WE TALKED YESTERDAY ABOUT
ONE SAN DIEGO COUNTY. RIGHT. AND
THAT WAS FOR A UNIVERSITY AT THE
BEHEST OF A CITY WHO OWNED THE
LAND. YES AND THAT, DID I
REMEMBER THAT COMING FORWARD TO
MY COLLEAGUE FROM DOWN FROM
SOUTH OF ME, WHO BROUGHT THAT
FORWARD AT THE TIME, I HAD IN
THE FIRST HOUSE, ALSO EXPRESSED
VERY STRONG RESERVATIONS ABOUT
UNDERCUTTING SURPLUS LANDS ACT
ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS OR
SOMETHING THAT ESSENTIALLY THE
WAY IT'S CRAFTED PARTICULARLY
AFFECTS ONE SITE. BUT THE
DISTINCTIONS THERE IS THAT
PUBLIC AGENCY WAS REQUESTING IT,
IT WAS MEANT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE,
AND IT WAS ALSO IN A LOW
RESOURCE OPPORTUNITY AREA, AND
IT RECEIVED A AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD STILL ENSHRINE A MINIMUM
25% RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM, I THINK
, 10% LOW INCOME RESIDENTIAL
COMPONENT FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT ON
THAT SITE. AND IT WAS HELD UP IN
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE. SO WE HAVE BEEN
THINKING VERY CRITICALLY BETWEEN
OUR HOUSES ABOUT VERY SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS, ABOUT WHEN TO OR TO
NOT GO AFTER A TOOL THAT IS
IMPORTANT HAS BEEN VERY
SUCCESSFUL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACROSS THE
STATE, AND I AM STRUGGLING WITH
THAT AND WANT VERY MUCH TO BE
ABLE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT
ULTIMATELY YOU SEE, WHAT THE
COMMUNITY SEES AS AN AS AS A
POTENTIAL USE FOR THIS SITE. BUT
FOR THERE STILL IS A WAY TO
ACHIEVE THAT END. AND SO IT'S
JUST ALL THE DOTS THAT I'M
CONNECTING. I WANT TO MAYBE OPEN
IT UP TO OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS
AS WELL TO NOT NOT, YOU KNOW,
SORT OF DOMINATE THIS
CONVERSATION. BUT THAT'S THE
FOCUS OF MY HESITATION ABOUT
USING THIS. YES, AND I
UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, I THINK
YOU'RE DOING AS THE CHAIRMAN FOR
HOUSING FOR THE ASSEMBLY, YOU
ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB OF
ASKING CRITICALLY DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS, CONVEYING THE
CONCERNS OF YOUR OF YOUR STAFF
AND OF PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS FOR A REALLY
LONG TIME. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
DOING THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME,
AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUT I ALSO
THINK WE ARE REMISS AS
LEGISLATORS IF WE CAN'T LOOK
HOLISTICALLY AT COMMUNITIES AND
IDENTIFY REALLY CRITICAL NEEDS.
AS YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE EARLY
SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL WAS
SCRIPPS IN SAN DIEGO, BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A VERY SIMILAR CONCERN
COMING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE. I
THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT FOR US
TO PROTECT HOUSING AND TO CREATE
SUCH A HIGH BAR THAT YOU WOULD
LITERALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL
OF THIS THAT WE ARE DOING HAVE I
MEAN, THAT KIND OF SUPPORT, THIS
KIND OF FUNDAMENTAL HEALTH CARE
NEED TO EVEN GET THE KIND OF
CONSIDERATION TO TALK ABOUT IT.
AND EVEN SO, NINE OF THE 12
PARCELS WILL HAVE FINISHED THE
SLA PROCESS IN TOTAL BEFORE THIS
BILL WOULD EVEN COME INTO PLAY,
NO MATTER HOW WE SLICE IT. AND
I'M COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE
THAT THAT HAPPENS. THE OTHER 12,
THE OTHER THREE OF THE 12 WOULD
FOLLOW, BUT THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALSO
COMMITTED TO YOU ONE OTHER THING
THAT WE CAN DO HERE IS IF YOU
ALL WOULD PASS THIS OUT OF YOUR
COMMITTEE, YOU STILL RETAIN THE
RIGHT TO CALL IT BACK IN AUGUST
IF YOU WANTED TO. YOU COULD
BRING ME BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE
TO DISCUSS IT AGAIN. AND AT THAT
TIME, WE WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT
WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH THESE
BIDS. I HAVE OFFERED THAT AS
WELL AS THE AMENDMENT AND I'VE
DONE EVERYTHING THAT I CAN THINK
OF TO TRY TO ADDRESS YOUR
CONCERNS AND PROVIDE THIS
COMMITTEE WITH THE SUPPORT THAT
I THINK YOU RIGHTFULLY DESERVE
TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I ALSO
THINK THAT SACRAMENTO DESERVES
TO BE REWARDED FOR THEIR
EXTRAORDINARY BEHAVIOR IN THIS
REGARD. SO THEY DO. AND I
APPRECIATE FOR EACH DAY THAT
WE'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING OVER
THE LAST TEN, ALMOST, THAT HAVE
BEEN GIVING IT THAT FRESH LOOK
AND THAT THAT KIND OF OPEN MIND
AND JUST GOING BACK TO SQUARE
ONE AND REALLY STILL KIND OF
ARRIVING AT, YOU KNOW, VERY
MUCH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE SAME
TENSION POINT AND CONCLUSION
THROUGH MY HOUSING LENS THAT I'M
AT RIGHT NOW. BUT I WANT TO OPEN
IT UP TO OTHER COMMITTEE
CONVERSATION AS WELL, BECAUSE I
KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. SOME
MEMBER, GRAYSON. THANK YOU,
CHAIR WARD. AND I JUST WANT TO
SAY, SENATOR, YOU ARE A
CHAMPION, FOR SACRAMENTO. YOU
ARE EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED AS A
REPRESENTATIVE TO BE ABLE TO GO
TO THE MAT AND FIGHT WITH ALL
YOUR MIGHT. I, I RECALL HAVING
GONE ON THE HOUSING TOUR, CHICO
TO SAN DIEGO, 22 NIGHTS ON THE
ROAD AND THEN HEARING THE
NUMBERS THAT COME OUT, I BELIEVE
IF I UNDERSTAND OR REMEMBER
CORRECTLY, CALIFORNIA IS IN NEED
OF BUILDING 100,000 AFFORDABLE
UNITS ANNUALLY FOR TEN YEARS IN
A ROW JUST TO KEEP STATUS QUO
AND NOT REALLY EVEN MAKE HEADWAY
IN, IN, THE CRISIS THAT WE'RE IN
AS FAR AS HOUSING, WE'VE NEVER
BUILT 20,000 UNITS ANNUALLY. AND
HERE WE HAVE THIS MONUMENTAL
TASK OF TRYING TO ADDRESS OUR
HOUSING. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME
TIME, WE HAVE A HEALTH CRISIS
WHEN IT COMES TO CANCER,
UNPRECEDENTED NUMBERS. SO WE'RE
IN A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT SPOT
BECAUSE THERE'S A PART OF US
THAT REALLY DOES APPRECIATE THE
PASSION THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT
AND THE FIGHT THAT YOU'RE RIGHT,
THAT YOU'RE RISING WITH TO, TO
HELP THOSE AND TO HELP, A
MEDICAL FACILITY BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE SOMETHING FOR SACRAMENTO
THAT IS VERY MUCH NEEDED. AT THE
SAME TIME, BEING ON THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE AND BEARING THAT
BURDEN OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW DO WE PROVIDE A MEANS FOR
MORE HOUSING. ONE OF THE ONE OF
THE BEST MEANS WE HAVE OUT THERE
IS UTILIZING, THE SLA PROCESS TO
BE ABLE TO FACILITATE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, WHERE OTHERWISE WE
WOULDN'T HAVE IT. AND SO WITH
THAT, JUST GOING BACK ONCE MORE
FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, THIS BILL IS
A BACKSTOP, BUT IT IS NOT AN,
BUT, WHETHER IT MOVES OR NOT
MOVES IS NOT AN END ALL TO, THE
MEDICAL FACILITIES ABILITY TO
PRESS FORWARD AND OBTAIN THAT
PROPERTY IN OTHER WORDS, THIS
BILL IS A GREAT WAY TO ASSURE.
BUT IT IS ALSO NOT THE ONLY WAY
TO FACILITATE THE OWNERSHIP OF
THAT PROPERTY BY A HOSPITAL. IS
THAT CORRECT? AS YOU KNOW, WE
ARE LEGISLATORS. YES. SO IT'S
THE ONLY WAY I CAN HELP THEM IS
TO PROVIDE THEM WITH LEGISLATION
THAT GIVES THEM SUPPORT FOR A
CANCER CENTER. IS IT POSSIBLE
THAT THIS BILL GOES AWAY AND WE
END UP WITH A CANCER CENTER?
THERE ANYWAY? I SURE AS HECK
HOPE SO. BUT IS THAT A GUARANTEE
WITHOUT THIS BILL? NO. IS IT A
BETTER GUARANTEE WITH THE BILL?
YES. I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR,
AND THEN I ALSO HEARD, ONE
PERSON IN SUPPORT MAKE THE
COMMENT THAT, HOUSING WOULDN'T
BE GOOD. YOU KNOW, HEALTH WISE,
UNDER A BRIDGE. I HAVEN'T SEEN A
SITE PLAN OF THE 12 PARCELS, BUT
I WOULD SURELY HOPE THAT IN THE
PROCESS, THE SLA PROCESS, THAT
PART OF THAT BID PROCESS IS
LOOKING AS TO WHAT IS MORE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE OF THIS
LAND. AND I'M ALSO HOPING THAT,
THE LOCALS ARE WEIGHING IN ON
THIS AND, BEING, AND ARE
PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS OF
THE SLA. I JUST HAVE, AS A
BURDEN ON ME AS A COMMITTEE
MEMBER OF HOUSING, TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE PRESERVE AS MUCH AS WE
CAN, THE TOOLS THAT HOUSING HAS
TO HAVE FIRST. RIGHT TO MAKE A
PROPOSAL. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN
IT GUARANTEES THAT THEY THEIR
PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED. SO JUST
TWO THINGS. TWO THINGS ON THAT.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR COMMENT AND YOUR
DEDICATION, THE GROUP THAT SAID
THAT, THAT THEY HAD TAKEN A
POSITION THAT IT WAS AN
UNHEALTHY LOCATION FOR HOUSING
IS THE REALTORS AND SECONDLY,
THE SITE DOES HAVE BEFORE ALL OF
THIS, WE ALL KNOW THIS. OUR
HOUSING AUTHORITY, SACRAMENTO
HOUSING AUTHORITY, HAD A RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL TO THE LAND AND
DID NOT TAKE IT FOR THE EXACT
SAME REASON. THEY CAME TO THE
SAME DETERMINATION THAT THE
REALTORS DID. NOW THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT AN AMBITIOUS PRIVATE
DEVELOPER, WHICH IS WHO'S HERE
TODAY AND WHOEVER ELSE MIGHT
HAVE BID, DOESN'T SEE SOMETHING
DIFFERENT THROUGH THEIR
DEVELOPER EYES THAT THEY COULD
BUILD THE, YOU KNOW, A WALL
BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND THE
FREEWAY OR DEAL WITH THE, YOU
KNOW, HOSPITAL NOISE DIFFERENTLY
. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT IN
THAT TWO BLOCK RADIUS THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT, THERE IS NO
EXISTING HOUSING. THERE'S JUST
HOSPITAL AND BUSINESS. THERE IS
HOUSING NOT TOO FAR AWAY, THERE
ARE SOME GOOD THINGS ABOUT THIS
SITE THERE. THERE ARE GOOD
THINGS ABOUT EVERY PART OF
SACRAMENTO. YOU WILL NEVER
CONVINCE ME TO SAY OTHERWISE.
BUT THIS IS BY FAR THE BEST IN
HIGHEST USE. WHICH IS WHY I KNOW
YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE
MAYOR TODAY. EVEN THOUGH HE'S IN
SCOTLAND, HE'S DOING WHAT HE CAN
TO ADVOCATE FOR THIS PROJECT,
TOO, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE
NEED THE HEALTH CARE IN THAT
PARTICULAR SITE MORE SO THAN WE
NEED HOUSING IN THAT SITE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AND AGAIN, I JUST
WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR
YOUR PASSION AND THE HARD WORK
THAT YOU PUT INTO THIS BILL. I
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. I MAY
HAVE MORE QUESTIONS IN A MINUTE.
THANK YOU, MR. GRAYSON. MR. VICE
CHAIR. WELL, THANK YOU. I HAVE
FRIENDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS,
DISCUSSION, AND, I THINK YOU
BROUGHT OUT ALL OF MY FRIENDS
AND SUPPORT ALSO, EVERYBODY I
KNOW, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND I ALSO
WANT TO SAY TO THE FIREFIGHTERS,
LOCAL 522, YOU KNOW, MANY
OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF THEM WORK
DOWN HERE AND ALSO SOME IN MY
DISTRICT AS WELL. AND, BUT MANY
OF THEM LIVE IN MY DISTRICT. SO,
I ALWAYS SAY TO INCLUDING MANY
OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO TALK ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, THE CONCERNS AROUND
CANCER AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO
I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE
IMPORTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER
COMMUNITY. SO ALSO SAC STATE
GRAD, FORMER SACRAMENTO
RESIDENT, AND I'VE SEEN SUTTER,
YOU KNOW, THE HOSPITAL GROW OVER
THE YEARS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF
HEALTH CARE IN THIS COMMUNITY,
THE GREATER SACRAMENTO REGION,
ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, JUST A
COUPLE QUESTIONS ON ON THE BILL
IS, IS, I DON'T THINK THE
LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY TALKS
ABOUT A CANCER CENTER, OR MAYBE
IT DOES. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO
GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. SURE
I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT DOES
SPECIFICALLY NAME THE CANCER
CENTER OR NOT, BUT IT IS WIDELY
KNOWN THAT THAT SUTTER'S GOAL IS
THERE'S A CANCER CENTER
COMPONENT. THERE'S ALSO A THAT'S
THE MAIN COMPONENT. AND THEY
THEY REALLY WANT TO BUILD IT. IF
WE DON'T IF WE CAN'T BUILD IT
ADJACENT, THEY CAN'T BUILD IT
THERE, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD
LIKELY BE BUILT SOMEWHERE ELSE
IN THE STATE. AND BY THE WAY,
NOT IN ROSEVILLE, I ASKED,
THAT'S A GREAT PLACE. YEAH,
YEAH, YEAH, IT APPARENTLY HAS
THE SAME PROBLEM. I HAVE. SO IT
WOULDN'T BE THERE EITHER. SO IT
WOULD BE FARTHER AWAY THAN
ANYONE IN OUR, YOU KNOW, COUNTY
REGION HERE WOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCESS IT. SO WE WOULD JUST FALL
BACK TO NOT HAVING THE RESOURCE.
BUT THEY HAVE BEEN VOCAL ABOUT
WHAT THEY INTEND TO BUILD THERE.
AND, AND IT'S WIDELY KNOWN THAT
THAT'S THEIR NEXT PROJECT. YEAH.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE PROCESS
OF SURPLUS LAND, IT SEEMS AS IF
WHEN ALL THESE BIDS COME IN AND
THERE'S NEGOTIATIONS BACK AND
FORTH. AT WHAT POINT CAN TX SAY
WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING ANY OF THESE
, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SELL
IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE? HOW DOES
THAT WELL, FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY
THAT REGIONAL TRANSIT IS JUST AN
AMAZING ORGANIZATION RUN BY SOME
VERY HIGH QUALITY FOLKS WHO HAVE
BEEN TREMENDOUS. AND I FEEL KIND
OF SORRY FOR THEM BECAUSE
THEY'VE GOTTEN CALLS FROM EVERY
COMMITTEE STAFF ALONG THE WAY
HERE AND DONE THEIR VERY BEST TO
PROTECT THAT PROCESS AND TO
PROTECT THE BIDDERS IN THAT
PROCESS. AS WELL. AND I KNOW
THEY'LL DO WHAT THEY CAN TO
CHOOSE EITHER AN APPROPRIATE AND
RESPONSIVE BIDDER OR MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT DISCUSSION. WHICHEVER
THING MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR
THEM, OUR TÊ HAS IS REQUIRED BY
LAW TO DO THE SLA PROPOSALS ALL
THE WAY THROUGH, AND THEY NEED
TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY RESPONSIVE
BIDDER THAT MEETS THEIR
REQUIREMENTS. THE ONLY REAL RULE
SET UP FOR PROTECTION FOR THEM
IS THAT THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT
TO ASK FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE,
WHICH I KNOW THEY DO NEED FOR
THIS, BECAUSE THEY THEY'RE NOT
GOING AWAY. THEY HAVE TO GO
SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO THEY NEED THE
RESOURCES TO BUILD ELSEWHERE,
WHICH IS ALSO TRUE WITH THE
OTHER THREE PARCELS. SO THEY
CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THIS
PROJECT ON THE NINE PARCELS,
UNTIL THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN
FULLY VETTED, WHICH WE
ANTICIPATE WOULD BE SOMETIME IN
LATE JULY. YEAH YOU KNOW, THIS
IS A DIFFICULT BILL. AND I
THINK, MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE SLA
IS AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S BEEN AN
INTERESTING THING. SUPPORTING
HOUSING AND HELPING ALSO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS,
INCLUDING NONPROFITS, YOU KNOW,
ESPECIALLY THEM. I MEAN, WE JUST
DID A BILL A LITTLE WHILE AGO.
YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY BE
COMPETITIVE IN, IN THIS SPACE.
AND SACRAMENTO IS UNLIKE ANY
OTHER CITY, AS YOU SAID IN TERMS
OF APPROVING HOUSING, I'VE NEVER
SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. AND SO
THAT'S KIND OF THAT'S
COMPLICATED OR, YOU KNOW,
INTERESTING COMPONENT TO ALL OF
THIS. BUT, WHEN IT COMES TO THE
SLA, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I DID
HAVE A BILL LAST YEAR IN
EXEMPTION BILL FOR A LEASE FOR A
PUBLIC PURPOSE. SO IT WAS A
LITTLE DIFFERENT. BUT AND THEN
THE REFORM WENT THROUGH. AND SO
I ACTUALLY WITHDREW IT OFF THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK. AND IT'S SOME
OTHER VEHICLE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW
WHAT IT IS ANYMORE. BUT, BUT I
THINK THE SLA, IF WE DO PASS
EXEMPTIONS IN THIS BODY FOR
VARIOUS BILLS AND I THINK, I
THINK THE SLA LENDS ITSELF TO
EXEMPTIONS, ACTUALLY, AND I'M
NOT SAYING ALL OF THEM SHOULD BE
SUPPORTED. AND I KNOW THAT'S
KIND OF A HOT WATER TO TALK
ABOUT. BUT BUT THERE ARE IT IS A
VERY THERE ARE I KIND OF LIKE
THE POINT WHERE THERE ARE
COMMUNITY NEEDS THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED AT SOME TIMES, AND THE
ABILITY TO GET THOSE EXEMPTIONS
OUT OF THE LEGISLATURE. IT'S NOT
GOING TO BE FOR ANYTHING. IT'S
GOING TO BE FOR VERY SPECIFIC
AND NUANCED ISSUES LIKE HOSPITAL
OR CANCER TREATMENT FACILITY.
AND IF THIS WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE,
MAYBE THE CANCER TREATMENT
FACILITY WOULDN'T WOULDN'T GET
AN SLA EXEMPTION. BUT I KIND OF
DEPEND ON MY COLLEAGUES TO TELL
ME WHAT IS BEST IN THEIR
DISTRICT. AND SO I THINK, YOU
KNOW, SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS
THAT I DO I THINK FOR US ON THIS
COMMITTEE AND IF I'M ON THIS,
WELL, FIRST, IF I'M HERE NEXT
YEAR AND SECONDLY, IF I'M
CONTINUE TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE
, THAT IT'S, IT'S WE REALLY DO
HAVE TO COME UP WITH WHETHER WE
WANT EXEMPTIONS OR NOT. AND, I
THINK THERE'S PROBABLY DIFFERING
OPINIONS ON, ON THIS COMMITTEE
IF THERE SHOULD BE. BUT I DO
LIKE THAT THIS IS A VERY
SPECIFIC ISSUE. ACTUALLY. I
WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED, BY THE
WAY, A BROADER DISCUSSION ON
WHETHER HOSPITALS MEET THAT. I
MEAN, I'M ON HEALTH COMMITTEE
TOO, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HOSPITALS CLOSING DOWN ALL OVER
THE STATE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S
A WORTHY CONVERSATION TO HAVE.
THAT'S NOT THE ONE WE'RE HAVING
HERE TODAY, ALTHOUGH THIS IS
KIND OF OPENED THE DOOR TO TALK
ABOUT THAT, BUT I DO THINK THE
EXEMPTION ONE OFF, IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY SUCH A BAD POLICY.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHY IT RAISES
CONCERNS. AND I TOTALLY I
RESPECT ALL THOSE OPINIONS. BUT
ACTUALLY IT KIND OF IT SAYS,
HEY, LOOK, IF THERE'S A NEED FOR
THE COMMUNITY, ALLOW THE
LEGISLATOR TO BRING IT AND SAY
WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THE
DISTRICT, AND THEN WE CAN JUDGE
IT. AND SOME PEOPLE UP HERE
MIGHT SAY IT'S A BAD ONE. SOME
PEOPLE MIGHT SAY IT'S A GOOD
ONE. AND, BUT IT HAS BEEN A
DIFFICULT ISSUE. I'VE TALKED
WITH MANY MEMBERS ON THIS
COMMITTEE ABOUT IT, AND, WELL, A
COUPLE AND, AND I'VE HAD A
CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU AS WELL.
I'VE TALKED WITH PROPONENTS,
I'VE TALKED WITH OPPONENTS. AND
SO IT'S BEEN A LOT MORE
CONVERSATION. I THOUGHT IT WAS
GOING TO BE SO, BUT THANKS FOR
BRINGING IT. AND, YOU KNOW, I,
I, I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.
I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO
SEE HOW THIS WORKS OUT IN
AUGUST. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GOING
TO PASS THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE
IN JULY. AND SO I WOULD
ENCOURAGE CONVERSATIONS TO
CONTINUE THROUGH AUGUST,
DEPENDING ON WHERE THAT PROCESS
IS, SHOULD THIS BILL GET OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO MEMBER LEE. YEAH,
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR. I KNOW A LOT HAS BEEN
ALREADY SAID, AND A LOT OF MY
QUESTIONS WERE ALREADY ASKED
TODAY, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY TO
THE AUTHOR, SENATOR, YOU ARE
REALLY FIGHTING FOR A DISTRICT.
AND I REALLY COMMEND THAT. AND
THAT REALLY IS INCREDIBLE TO DO
SO. BUT WE FIND OURSELVES IN
THIS WEIRD SITUATION OF BETWEEN
TALKING ABOUT FINITE RESOURCE,
WHICH IS LAND, AND WHETHER WE
USE IT FOR HOUSING OR HOSPITAL
AND SINCE MY COLLEAGUE, THE VICE
CHAIRS BRING UP BILLS THAT HE
WORKED ON, I'LL BRING UP THIS
FACT THAT THE REALITY IS THAT
OUR PEER NATIONS IN EUROPE AND
IN ASIA, WHEN THEY THEY'RE
CONFRONTED WITH THIS SITUATION
OF WHETHER Dð HOUSING OR HEALTH
CARE, THEY SAY, WHY NOT BOTH?
BECAUSE THEY HAVE ROBUST SOCIAL
HOUSING DEVELOPERS THAT WILL
SAY, WE WILL DO BOTH. WE WILL
BUILD A HOUSING AND A HOSPITAL
TOGETHER ON THE SAME SITE. AND
THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN FIGHTING
FOR MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO DO THAT. BUT I
THINK RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY IN
HOUSING COMMITTEE, TO MAKE SURE
THAT AS WE FIGURE OUT OUR FINITE
RESOURCES OF SURPLUS LAND, WE
NEED TO REALLY LET THIS PROCESS
PLAY OUT. AND I KNOW WE HAVE
SOME A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION
YESTERDAY ABOUT THIS ISSUE, BUT
I TRUST THAT AS WE CONTINUE TO
LOOK AT THIS ONE AND THIS ISSUE,
MAYBE WE'LL CONTINUE FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS. BUT I KNOW IT'S
VERY LIVE THING THAT'S HAPPENING
LITERALLY AS WE'RE SPEAKING. SO
I JUST WANT TO AGAIN, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR INCREDIBLE COMMITTEE
FOR DISTRICT, AND THANK YOU FOR
THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU, MISS
QUIRK-SILVA. AGAIN, CONCUR WITH
THE, REMARKS FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
AND THIS IS A DIFFICULT, BILL IN
THE SENSE THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR
OWN DISTRICTS THAT THERE ARE
COMPETING INTERESTS. AND WHEN WE
LOOK AT HEALTH CARE AND CANCER
AND SO FORTH, OF COURSE, THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE ALL SUPPORT.
BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SURPLUS
LANDS ACT IN ITS BODY OF WHEN IT
WAS IMPLEMENTED, IT REALLY HAS
NOT BEEN THAT LONG SINCE THESE,
PIECES OF LEGISLATION HAVE NOT
ONLY BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW, BUT
PUT INTO ACTION AND IF WE LOOK
AT RELATED LEGISLATION, WE SEE
ALREADY SEVERAL, EXEMPTIONS FOR
EXCELLENT REASONS. SO THERE IS
NO, DISCREPANCY. AND DO WE
SUPPORT THOSE PROJECTS WHETHER I
SEE RIGHT HERE SURPLUS LANDS ACT
FOR ALL ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR
STATION, I DON'T THINK THERE'S
ANY ARGUMENT THAT THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT USE. BUT WHEN WE GO
BACK TO THE SURPLUS LANDS ACT,
WHY THAT INITIAL LEGISLATION WAS
BROUGHT FORWARD, AND WHAT ARE WE
DOING WITH OUR SURPLUS LAND? WE
CAN SEE COMPETING INTERESTS, AND
WE CAN ALSO SEE THE URGENCY OF
WHY THIS LEGISLATION WAS BROUGHT
FORWARD IN THE VERY BEGINNING,
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN THAT LONG
AGO. I MEAN, IN MY TENURE HERE.
AND I THINK THAT AS WE START TO
TAKE THESE SLICES OUT OF IT, IT
REALLY CAN IN MANY WAYS START TO
DERAIL WHAT WE WANT TO DO, WHICH
IS A TOP PRIORITY OF
CALIFORNIANS. AND IN EVERY POLL
THAT WE HAVE SEEN, HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS COMBINED ARE A
CRITICAL NEED. AND AS WE TAKE
THESE SLICES OUT OF IT, THEN WE
START TO, IN ESSENCE, LIMIT
THESE POSSIBILITIES. NOW,
CERTAINLY GOING THROUGH THE
PROCESSES, LIKE YOU SAID, IF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OR HOUSING
AUTHORITIES CHOOSE NOT TO GO,
THEN MOVING THROUGH THOSE
PROCESSES, I CERTAINLY SUPPORT
IF NOBODY, IN ESSENCE DECIDES
THEY WANT TO USE THAT FIRST AND
BEST USE. SO IN THAT SENSE, I
REALLY THE PRECEDENT OF
EXEMPTIONS IS WHERE I STAND ON
THIS. BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN WE
LOOK AT ALREADY THE EXEMPTIONS,
WHICH THEN YOU MAY SAY, WELL,
WHY NOT MINE? BUT I JUST DON'T
WANT THIS LITANY OF EVERY TIME,
EVERY YEAR IN LEGISLATION, WE
START GETTING 1 OR 2. AND THEN
IN FIVE YEARS WE HAVE MANY
EXEMPTIONS. AND IT REALLY THEN
BECOMES THE TOOL TO GET PROJECTS
DONE. BUT I DO PRAISE YOU. I
KNOW THAT THIS IS HEARTFELT. I
CAN SEE IT, AND CERTAINLY, KNOW
THAT WHAT SUTTER DOES IS
IMPERATIVE. I WAS JUST AT
STANFORD CAMPUS THIS LAST WEEK
FOR THEIR SCAMPER RUN. MY
DAUGHTER WORKS FOR CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL, SO THE NEED IS
IMPERATIVE. SO THIS CERTAINLY
FOR THE SUPPORTERS. PLEASE DO
NOT INFER THAT I DON'T SUPPORT
THAT. BUT HOUSING IN THIS
COMMITTEE IS OF UTMOST
IMPORTANCE TO ME. AND I WANT TO
SEE THE SURPLUS LANDS ACT REMAIN
STRONG. AND SO I WON'T BE
SUPPORTING THIS TODAY. THANK
YOU, MISS QUIRK-SILVA. MISS
WILSON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR YOUR
PASSION, FOR SACRAMENTO AND,
FOR, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIND A
WAY TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT,
HEALTHCARE AND EXPAND HEALTHCARE
IN YOUR COMMUNITY, WE HAD A GOOD
BACK AND FORTH IN LOCAL GOV,
REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE,
SO I WON'T BELABOR THAT POINT,
I'M, YOU KNOW, I WOULD MY HOPE
OUT OF THAT, WHICH I SAID AT THE
END IS I'M GOING TO LEAN MY YES
VOTE WAS LEANING ON THE FACT
THAT MY CHAIR OF LOCAL GOV WAS A
YES, AND THAT THE COMMENTS OF,
MY, AT THE TIME COLLEAGUE. BUT
NOW CHAIR IN SITTING IN THIS
POSITION, THE COMMENTS HE MADE,
SO, AND, AND HE THE
RECOMMENDATION IS, YOU KNOW, THE
CHAIR IS VOTING NO. AND SO I'M,
I'M TO THAT POINT, BUT I WANT TO
GIVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS,
GIVEN I MISSED I EXCUSE ME FOR
MISSING, QUITE A BIT OF THE
TESTIMONY AND, AND COMMENTS,
HAVING TO PRESENT SOMEWHERE
ELSE. I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT.
I'M DEFINITELY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE PRECEDENT THAT IS SET, IN
TERMS OF EXEMPTION AND NOT JUST
EROSION OF THE LAND ACT IN
GENERAL, BECAUSE THERE'S
WORTHWHILE THINGS IN MY OWN
DISTRICT THAT I THINK I'D RATHER
SEE THIS OTHER THING THAN
HOUSING, BUT IT IS A PROCESS.
AND AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS,
WHAT YOU WANT COULD STILL
HAPPEN, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER
PRECEDENT SETTING THAT IN THE
MIDDLE OF A PROCESS, SOMEONE CAN
BRING A BILL AND CIRCUMVENT THE
PROCESS THAT IS A HUGE
PRECEDENT, EVEN MORE THAN JUST
EXEMPTING SOMEONE OUT OF THE,
SURPLUS LAND ACT. AND THAT IS
THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME, IS
WHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF PROCESS
AND THE BILL IS COMING FORWARD
SAYING, GIVING A NOD, IN
ESSENCE, TO AN ORGANIZATION TO
SAY THAT, IF YOU JUST WAIT OUT
THIS OTHER PART, WE CAN PUT THIS
BIGGER PIECE TOGETHER AND WE CAN
HAVE THIS AMAZING THING. AND
THAT DEFINITELY CONCERNS ME. I
THINK IF THERE WAS THOUGHT THAT
WE WANTED THIS THERE, AND FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING, BEFORE IT
WAS EVER IN THE PROCESS, WHILE
IT WAS STILL ACTIVELY BEING
USED, I THINK I MIGHT BE MORE
AMENABLE TO THAT STILL STRUGGLE,
BUT MIGHT BE MORE AMENABLE IF IT
WAS JUST THE OVERALL ADDING
HOSPITALS BECAUSE OF THEIR
PUBLIC BENEFIT, BECAUSE ALL OF
THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS RELATE TO
AN EXTREME PUBLIC BENEFIT, WHICH
IS DIFFERENT THAN A COMMERCIAL
APPLICATION. HEALTH CARE IS IF
THERE WAS THIS THOUGHT PROCESS
OF NOW, WHEN WE DO SURPLUS LAND
ACT, ANY ONE OF THESE ARE
ELIGIBLE USES AND WE HAVE THE
CONVERSATION AS HOSPITAL WORTHY
OF THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. I THINK
WE'D BE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE,
BUT I ALIGN MYSELF WITH MY CHAIR
OF BOTH COMMITTEES WHO HAD
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS TO MY
COLLEAGUES THAT, PUTTING,
ERODING THIS PROCESS. AND THAT'S
ALL IT IS. IT'S NOT A SAYING
THAT THIS CAN'T EVER BE HERE.
IT'S JUST A PROCESS THAT YOU
HAVE TO GO THROUGH BEFORE YOU
GET TO THAT STEP. WHERE YOU
ALLOW IT, I THINK, IS, IS, NOT,
NOT A GOOD THING AND NOT AND
NOT, WORTHY OF BEING OF, OF
DISRUPTING THAT PRECEDENT. NOW,
ONE THING THAT I DO KNOW FROM
THE LANGUAGE, TO THE VICE CHAIRS
POINT, IS THAT CANCER CENTER IS
NOT THERE. SUTTER WHO IS THIS IS
RELATED TO COULD IN THEIR OWN,
ANALYSIS, AS THEY CONSIDER
ACQUISITIONS AND WHERE THEY WANT
TO PUT THEIR PROGRAMS, THEY
COULD DECIDE NOT TO PUT A CANCER
CENTER THERE, NOT TO PUT THE
OTHER THINGS THAT WERE NOTED IN
THE ANALYSIS THERE. SO IT ALLOWS
THAT EXPANSION WITHOUT
GUARANTEEING A CANCER CENTER
THERE. AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS
CANCER CENTERS THROUGHOUT OUR
STATE, INCLUDING IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING IN
SACRAMENTO, THAT ARE INDEPENDENT
OF HOSPITALS AND SO THIS IS A, A
DESIRE FOR EFFICIENCY'S SAKE.
AND I GET THAT HEALTH CARE IS
EXPENSIVE AND EFFICIENCY, YOU
KNOW, IS, IS PARAMOUNT. BUT IT
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ADJACENT.
IT'S CONVENIENT AND EFFICIENT TO
BE ADJACENT. AND SO MY CONCERN
IS WE'RE ALLOWING FOR, UPSETTING
PRECEDENT, NOT JUST ON ERODING
THE SURPLUS LAND ACT, BUT
UPSETTING PRECEDENT ON THE
TIMING OF WHEN WE'RE ALLOWING
THE EROSION OF SURPLUS LAND ACT
TO GET SOMETHING THAT IS NOT
GUARANTEED BY LAW. AND, AND SO
WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I
DEFINITELY WON'T BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT IT AND JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE I HAD COMMENTS ON THE
RECORD AND HOUSING, AS WELL AS
LOCAL GOV. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SANCHEZ. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. I HAD THE GOOD
FORTUNE AS WELL AS SEVERAL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TODAY TO SEE THIS IN
LOCAL GOV. AND IT WAS A VERY
ROBUST DISCUSSION. I FEEL LIKE
AS WE'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST
COUPLE OF YEARS, WE CUT RED TAPE
ALL THE TIME. WE CUT RED TAPE TO
BUILD NEW STADIUMS. WE CUT RED
TAPE TO FOR SHINY NEW OFFICES
ACROSS THE STREET. IF THERE IS
EVER AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
ACCESS TO CRITICAL CARE, IT IS
NOW AND I AM SO GRATEFUL THAT
YOU'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR CHAMPIONING THIS,
AND I ENCOURAGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES, AS I DID IN LOCAL
GOV, TO SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. VICE
CHAIR, I'LL LET YOU ADD A
THOUGHT. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME
THAT SECOND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD
SHOULD THIS BILL MOVE OUT, I
WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME
CLARIFICATION IN THE BILL ABOUT
BEING A CANCER CENTER, I, I
DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PUT THAT IN
THE LANGUAGE. EXACTLY, BECAUSE
THERE MIGHT BE SOME
ADMINISTRATION OF THAT, BUT JUST
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. AS IT
MOVES FORWARD, THAT SAID, YOU
KNOW, I WILL MOVE THE BILL AND,
YOU KNOW, I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER
THAT. THANK YOU. MOTION BY
PATTERSON. I ASSUME A SECOND BY
MISS SANCHEZ. THANK YOU. I HAD A
LOT TO OFFER AT THE BEGINNING.
AND, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO KEEP
A FRESH AND OPEN MIND AS I WAS
LISTENING TO SOME OF THE
CONVERSATION POINTS THAT ARE
HERE TODAY. AND IT DOESN'T COME
EASY WHEN YOU'RE SORT OF
RECONCILING TWO NEEDS TO THINGS
THAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR. IF
WE'RE ABOUT HOUSING POLICY OR
ANY POLICY, THINKING ABOUT HOW
YOU CUT THROUGH THAT RED TAPE,
HOW YOU GET TO A PLACE WHERE YOU
CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY SITE.
AND I STILL AM MECHANICALLY
THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS PLAYS
OUT, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TAKING
THE STEPS TO ACTUALLY HAVE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND CREATE
THIS EXEMPTION ARE THE MEANS TO
THAT END, AND I'M UNCONVINCED
THAT THERE AREN'T OTHER PATHWAYS
FOR IT AS WELL TO FOR
POTENTIALLY THAT END, SOME THAT
ARE RIGHT IN FRONT OF US WITH OR
WITHOUT THIS LEGISLATION, OTHERS
THAT WILL BE BEYOND THAT FOR
THREE PARCELS, RIGHT, THAT
AREN'T YET DECLARED SURPLUS, BUT
HAVE YET TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT
WHAT IS THE TIMELINE THOSE MIGHT
BE ON AND HOW THOSE ARE GOING TO
TRANSPIRE, AND ALL THIS IS TO
SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE IF WE'RE
WRONG AND THERE IS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY THAT WE
CAN'T DEFINE TODAY, BUT IT
PRESENTS ITSELF IN THE LATE FALL
TIMEFRAME, WE ARE RIGHT ON THE
CUSP AGAIN OF URGENCY,
OPPORTUNITIES, YOU KNOW, IN THE
DECEMBER JANUARY TIME FRAME TO
BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT
CORRECTING THOSE. BUT I AM,
AFTER TRIPLE CHECKING,
UNCONVINCED THAT THAT SLA
EXEMPTION IS THE THING THAT IS
GOING TO HANG ANYTHING UP. THERE
THERE MIGHT BE THERE HOPEFULLY
WOULDN'T BE OTHER THINGS THAT
THAT PRESENTED THEMSELVES. BUT
AGAIN, LOOKING AT LIKE YOU KNOW,
AND WE'RE ALWAYS ESTABLISHING
PRECEDENT HERE THROUGH ALL THE
WORK THAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
AND IT INFORMS, FUTURE OP,
OPTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD OR
SHOULDN'T DO. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S
RESTING ON, YOU KNOW, EVEN PAST
EXAMPLES AND SO COMMON THREADS
THAT YOU KNOW, AROUND THIS ISSUE
THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE I JUST AM
LAYING HERE TODAY IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE
DISPOSING ENTITY, THE PUBLIC
AGENCY THAT'S A QUESTION HERE,
LIKE SORT OF AT THE TABLE. AND
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT ASKING
FOR THIS AS MY UNDERSTANDING.
THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT, BUT
THEY'RE JUST NOT THEY'RE NOT
THERE LIKE OTHER AGENCIES HAVE
DONE WITH AN SLA EXEMPTION, WHEN
WE THINK ABOUT IF SOMETHING IS
AT A HIGH RESOURCE AREA, WHICH
THIS IS, AND OTHERS HAVE NOT
BEEN DEFINED, THAT, YOU KNOW, I
THINK AS WE HEARD FROM,
TESTIMONY TODAY TO, YOU KNOW,
DOES INFORM THE VIABILITY OF
BIDS THAT MIGHT BE OUT THERE FOR
HOUSING AND HOW THOSE MIGHT
SCORE. AND SO ALL OF THESE ARE
KIND OF COMPETING DYNAMICS THAT
FROM A HOUSING LENS MAKE, IT
MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO ME TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY. AND
I KNOW THAT THAT IS
DISAPPOINTING AND I AM SORRY FOR
DISAPPOINTING, BUT I WANT TO BE
CLEAR HEADED ABOUT WHAT'S
GUIDING THAT DECISION HERE TODAY
AND WOULD INVITE THE AUTHOR TO
CLOSE. SURE. FIRST, LET ME JUST
RIGHT OFF THE BAT SAY I
APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES DEEPLY.
AND I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE ALL AS
I AS I SAID WHEN I OPENED IT, IS
A PRIVILEGE TO FEEL PRESSURE
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN SELECTED
FOR THESE POSITIONS AND TODAY
YOU YOU FEEL THE PRESSURE OF
SACRAMENTO WITH ME. THESE ARE
LEADERS ACROSS MY REGION HERE
WHO HAVE COME AND ASKED YOU ALL
TO CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF THE
PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF
SACRAMENTO. I UNDERSTAND THAT IN
THIS ROOM ON THIS DAY, EACH OF
YOU IS WEARING YOUR BEST HOUSING
HAT. THAT'S YOUR JOB TODAY. BUT
MY JOB TODAY IS TO STAND UP FOR
THE PEOPLE WHO CHECK YOU IN WHEN
YOU WALK IN THIS BUILDING, AND
THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE YOUR
STARBUCKS ACROSS THE STREET,
MOST OF YOUR STAFF'S AND
EVERYBODY ELSE THAT LIVES IN THE
GREATER SACRAMENTO REGION. AND
THE TRUTH IS THAT THEY ARE AT A
HIGHER RISK TO DIE FROM CANCER
BECAUSE THEY LIVE HERE THAN THE
CONSTITUENTS IN OTHER PARTS OF
THIS STATE THAT YOU ALL
REPRESENT. SO I AM DISAPPOINTED
TODAY TO HEAR THAT SO MANY OF
YOU WON'T BE FOLLOWING. BUT I
ALSO UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF A
NÓ RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
CHAIR. THAT SAID, I APPRECIATE
HOW HARD YOU GRAPPLED WITH THIS
CHAIRMAN. I DO AND I APPRECIATE
THE TIME THAT YOU SPENT SPEAKING
WITH ME, AND I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW SACRAMENTO
HOW MUCH I LOVE THEM AND HOW
MUCH I WILL FIGHT FOR THEM. AND
I APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION OF
THAT. AND, AND I JUST HOPE THAT
TODAY, AS YOU, AS YOU VOTE, THAT
YOU'LL CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE
PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO THAT ARE IN
NEED OF THAT CRITICAL HEALTH
CARE AND IN THE FUTURE,
POTENTIALLY MAYBE WE NEED TO
HAVE SOME BROADER DISCUSSIONS,
OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU LEARNED FROM
MY BILL, IT WILL NOT COME FROM
THE SENATE. SO WOULD HAVE TO
COME FROM THE ASSEMBLY. IT WOULD
NEVER GET OFF THE FLOOR THERE.
BUT THERE PROBABLY DOES NEED TO
BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WE
DO. CUT RED TAPE FOR, AND
WHETHER OR NOT A NAVAL ACADEMY
IS A HIGH ENOUGH REACHING
BARRIER OR A COLLEGE OR A UC
AGGIE SQUARE, AS OPPOSED TO A
CANCER CENTER. SO I THINK THOSE
CONVERSATIONS ARE PROBABLY TO BE
DETERMINED MORE TO COME IN THAT
SPACE. I ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MOTION TO
PASS TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. WARD. NO.
WARD. NO. PERSON A PERSON. YES,
I. GRAYSON. GRAYSON. NO.
CHOLERA. LEE. LEE. NÓ.
QUIRK-SILVA. NO. QUIRK-SILVA. NO
REYES. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I.
WILSON. NO. WILSON. NO THANK
YOU. THAT AT THE MOMENT HAS TWO
AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, IT DOES NOT
APPEAR TO. WE WILL HOLD IT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS, IT DOESN'T
APPEAR TO HAVE THE VOTES, BUT
WHEN WE CLOSE THE ROLL, IF IT
DOES NOT, WOULD YOU LIKE
RECONSIDERATION? GRANTED? NO.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HAVE A
GREAT DAY. THANKS, COLLEAGUES. I
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
I UNDERSTAND, OUR LAST AUTHOR IS
FINISHING HIS COMMITTEE. YEAH.
AT THIS TIME? YES. IT'S A LITTLE
GAP, MADAM SECRETARY, WE'LL GO
BACK THROUGH THE ROLL. OF
COURSE. OH HOW CAN I MISS
SENATOR WIENER? SORRY. OKAY.
THIS WILL BE THE LAST AUTHOR,
AND THEN WE'LL TAKE ALL OF OUR
ADD ONS AND WE'LL BE CONCLUDED
WITH COMMITTEE. WELL, I DID MY
BILLS WILL BE A LITTLE SHORTER.
I PROMISE. THANK YOU. SENATOR,
YOU MAY CHOOSE ITEM ONE TO WRITE
THEM TO, I WILL START WITH, ITEM
ONE. LET'S JUST GO IN ORDER.
OKAY. THIS WILL BE SB 937. YOU
MAY BEGIN. I THANK YOU, MISTER
CHAIR. FIRST, I WANT TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, WHICH MAY CLARIFYING
AND TECHNICAL CHANGES,
COLLEAGUES, SB 937, IS DESIGNED
TO HELP THE DEVELOPMENT OF
HOUSING GET THROUGH A DIFFICULT
ECONOMIC TIME WITH THE CURRENT
HIGH INTEREST RATES THAT WE
HAVE, BY EXTENDING PERMITS ON
PROJECTS THAT ARE CLOSE TO
EXPIRING, THE BILL ALSO, MAKES A
CHANGE SO THAT IMPACT FEES ON
NEW HOUSING WOULD MOSTLY BE
COLLECTED AT THE END OF THE
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, NOT AT THE
BEGINNING. WE KNOW THAT IMPACT
FEES, WHICH CAN BE QUITE LARGE
IN SOME COMMUNITIES, CAN BE A
SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF PROJECT
COST. AND WHEN YOU FORCE THEM
ALL TO BE COLLECTED AT THE
BEGINNING, THAT CAN HAVE A REAL
IMPACT ON THE FINANCING OF THE
PROJECT. SO THE BILL MOVES IT TO
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY INSTEAD
OF WHEN PERMITS ARE PULLED. WE
HAVE WORKED, COLLABORATIVELY
WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONS, SO THAT,
PARTICULARLY FEES WHERE THERE'S
A CASH FLOW IMPACT UP FRONT ON
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THOSE CAN BE
COLLECTED UP FRONT, AND WE'RE
CONTINUING TO DO THAT WORK. AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR, I
VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY.
IS GRACIELA CASTILLO. CRAIG, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM AND MUHAMMAD, AL
MAULDIN WITH THE UC BERKELEY
TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING
INNOVATION. MOVE THE BILL
SECOND. THANK YOU, YOU WOULD
HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH.
WITH THAT, I WILL KEEP MY
COMMENTS VERY SHORT. GRACIELA
CASTILLO CRAIG'S HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM. THE C¢M IS A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT
ADVOCATES FOR THE PRODUCTION AND
PRESERVATION OF HOUSING
AFFORDABLE TO LOW AND MODERATE
INCOME CALIFORNIANS. WE BELIEVE
AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT THIS
BILL WILL ACTUALLY HELP
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. PENCIL AND
THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE
ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR, WARD AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON SB
937, THE TERNER CENTER IS A
RESEARCH CENTER FOCUSED ON A
RANGE OF HOUSING ISSUES FROM
LAND USE AND ZONING TO
ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE. MY AIM TODAY IS
TO SHARE RELEVANT INSIGHTS FROM
OUR RESEARCH ON THE IMPACTS OF
HOUSE OF, THE IMPACTS OF IMPACT
FEES ON NEW HOUSING SUPPLY, A
LARGE MAJORITY OF LOCALITIES
IMPOSE Ã FEES. AT THE TIME OF
BUILDING PERMIT SUBMISSION. ONLY
A QUARTER DEFER IMPACT FEES TO
FINAL INSPECTION OR CERTIFICATE
OF OCCUPANCY. WHY IS THE TIMING
OF FEES IMPORTANT, SIX MONTHS
AGO, WE RELEASED THE MATH BEHIND
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, AND WE
LOOKED AT CURRENT FEASIBILITY OF
NEW HOUSING AND THREE MAJOR
CALIFORNIA MARKETS. USING THIS
MODELING, WE FOUND A SAVINGS
EQUIVALENT OF 1% OF TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT COST. FURTHERMORE,
REQUIRING FEES TO BE PAID LATER
IN THE PROCESS IS OVERALL
BENEFICIAL FOR SUBSIDIZED
HOUSING, REQUIRE FEWER
SUBSIDIES, DOLLARS PER UNIT, AND
THUS FREEING OUT THAT, FREEING
UP THAT MONEY FOR ADDITIONAL
UNITS. WE ALSO RELEASED A PAPER
LAST WEEK ON MISSING MIDDLE
HOUSING PROFORMAS, AND THERE IS
A BENEFIT WHEN IT COMES TO
MOVING IMPACT FEES TO
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. IN
CONCLUSION, OUR ANALYSIS DOES
IMPLY THAT THIS BILL WOULD HAVE
A LIKELY EFFECT OF INCREASING
SUPPLY IN BOTH MARKET RATE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MOST
CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN SUPPORT?
HELLO, BROOKE PRITCHARD, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION, A
CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, ON BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO
ADVOCATES, RIVAS COULD NOT BE
HERE. SHE ASKED ME TO SUPPORT
THE BILL ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
THAT HOLLY, FOR MANY TO JESUS.
I'M FROM LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS SUPPORT IF AMENDED ON
BEHALF OF SPUR HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY CALIFORNIA AND
FIELDSTEAD. AND WE'RE HOPING
THAT THE PERMIT EXTENSION AND
THE FEE DEFERRALS COULD BE
POTENTIALLY SEPARATED AND THE
PERMIT EXTENSION COULD BE
EXPANDED TO PROJECTS OTHER THAN
JUST THE LIMITED 100% AFFORDABLE
SB 35, ETC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. REBECCA MARCUS ON BEHALF OF
LEADINGAGE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE
IN OPPOSITION, EITHER FOR
TESTIMONY? OKAY. GOOD MORNING.
BRIAN RIX. THE LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. OKAY.
THANK YOU. GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. BRADY. AND ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED, CONCERNS
WITH THE TEN UNIT STUFF. WE'RE
WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH
THEM AND HAVE APPRECIATED ALL
THE HARD WORK AND LOOK FORWARD
TO THOSE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS
ANTHONY TANNEHILL, CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION
ALSO STILL OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED, BUT NOT FOR LACK OF
EFFORT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR AND THE PROPONENTS AND
ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS, ENGAGING
IN CONTINUOUS DIALOG. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, KIARA ROSS, ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU, NICOLO
DELUCA ON BEHALF OF THE OAKLAND
CITY COUNCIL, ALSO OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED. REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE SENATOR AND HIS STAFF
AND THE SPONSORS FOR WORKING
WITH US SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET
SOMEWHERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF BED. FRANCO HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND THE FIRE
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSING THIS
AMENDED POSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. SILVIO
FERRARI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, ALSO OPPOSED,
UNLESS AMENDED. THANKS. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WITH OPPOSITION. BACK
TO MEMBER COMMENT, MR. GRAYSON.
THANK YOU. CHAIR WARD, I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. THIS IS TRULY A
BILL THAT WILL MOVE THE NEEDLE
WHEN IT COMES TO HELPING, MAKE
PROJECTS PENCIL OUT, IT IS
OBVIOUS BASED ON, TESTIMONY ON
BOTH SIDES. THERE ARE CERTAIN
FEES, IMPACT FEES THAT NEED TO
BE COLLECTED UP FRONT BECAUSE IT
IS A CASH FLOW ISSUE. IT'S AN
EXPENSE THAT IS INCURRED BY THE
PROJECT THAT IS IMMEDIATE. SO I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR WORKING
WITH, OPPOSITION TO ADDRESS
THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES. BUT IT
IS ALSO VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT
THERE ARE SOME IMPACT FEES THAT
DO NOT NEED TO BE COLLECTED AT
THE BEGINNING OF A PROJECT,
WHICH WOULD HELP THE DEVELOPER,
BECAUSE THEN THE DEVELOPER
DOESN'T HAVE TO FINANCE THAT
PARTICULAR FEE. AND THAT CAN BE
A GAME CHANGER, THAT CAN
ACTUALLY KEEP A PROJECT FROM
PENCILING OUT. SO WITH THAT, I
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS
BILL AND CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH, THOSE THAT ARE IN
OPPOSITION, RESPECTFULLY, OF
COURSE. TO, BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
THE EXPENSES THAT NEED TO BE
COLLECTED UP FRONT. THANK YOU
FOR THE REVENUE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. GRAYSON. ANY
OTHER MEMBER COMMENT, SOME
MEMBER, VICE CHAIR PATTERSON.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, IN ABOUT TWO
HOURS, I'LL HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR BILL UP IN SENATE LOCAL
GOV, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE
PERMIT EXTENSION ITEM. AND I,
RIGHT NOW MY BILL ON IMPACT
FEES, WHICH PASSES COMMITTEE
APPLIES TO MARKET RATE AS WELL.
AND I KNOW THAT YOUR BILL
INITIALLY STARTED THAT WAY ON
THE IMPACT AND THE EXTENSIONS.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. COMPONENT AND, YOU
KNOW, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE CASE
IN A COUPLE OF HOURS AND WE'LL
SEE WHAT HAPPENS. BUT GOD'S
GOD'S SPEED ON THAT. ALL RIGHT.
YEAH. YEAH. SO BUT I THINK IT'S,
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PLACES, THAT
WANT TO DO THAT. YOUR BILL IS
STILL VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THERE ARE WE NEED TO DELIVER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND YOU AND
IT'S INTERESTING WHEN SOME OF
THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARE
CHARGING CONNECTION FEE OR, YOU
KNOW, CHARGING FEES UP FRONT,
THEY'RE NOT HELPING THE CITIES
COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING
OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE. AND IT
KIND OF IT DRIVES ME NUTS. AND,
SO THAT SAID, YOUR BILL, ALSO
HAS THE OTHER COMPONENT ABOUT
THE EXTENSIONS. AND I THINK
THAT'S ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND ALSO SHOULD APPLY FOR MARKET
RATE BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, WHO
WANTS IF A CITY COUNCIL APPROVED
A CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT AND THEN
, YOU KNOW, THE PERMITS EXPIRE
IN TWO YEARS AND THEN YOU GOT TO
GET UP THERE AND SORT OF
RELITIGATE THE ENTIRE THING
AGAIN, IT IT KIND OF
DISINCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO
APPROVE CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS
IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, I SUPPORT YOUR
BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM, BUT IF
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS. YEAH. NO,
I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I SUPPORT
YOUR BILL AS WELL. AND THE
ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS BILL
WAS NOT LIMITED. AND WE DID
ACCEPT AMENDMENTS IN SENATE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS JUST
HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, BUT JUST
TO BE CLEAR, THE BILL IS NOT
LIMITED TO ONLY, SUBSIDIZED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT'S ALSO
DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS AT THIS,
YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, PRETTY
MUCH EVERY MULTI-UNIT PROJECT IN
THE STATE ALMOST IS USING
DENSITY BONUS, SB 35 AND AB 2011
ARE ALSO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A
LOT OF AFFORDABLE A LOT OF
MARKET RATE AS WELL, SO THE BILL
DOES, I THINK, COVER THE FIELD
WELL IN TERMS OF MULTI-UNIT
CONSTRUCTION, BUT I THINK YOU
AND I ARE QUITE ALIGNED ON THESE
ISSUES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS WISHING TO EXPRESS
COMMENT OKAY. WITH THAT?
SENATOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING ON THIS ISSUE. I THINK
ECHOING SOME OF THE OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS COMMENTS AS
WELL, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBLE TO
REALLY HAVE A FRESH LOOK AND A
CLEAN LOOK AT SOME OF THESE
IMPACT FEES. NOT THAT, THERE
ISN'T A REALLY STRONG NEXUS FOR
THEM, BUT THE TIMING OF THEM
ABSOLUTELY MATTERS AND MAY NOT
MAKE SENSE. AND I KNOW THAT AND
OTHER ATTRIBUTES YOU'RE TRYING
TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, THAT THE
IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU'RE ALWAYS
TRYING TO MAKE THROUGH THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT AND INVITE YOU TO
CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
ACTION TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WARD A, WARD I.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. AYE.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON. AYE. CHOLERA.
LEE. LÀ. AYE. QUIRK-SILVA.
QUIRK-SILVA. AYE REYES. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING. WILSON. A.
WILSON. AYE FOUR. FIVE. SIX.
THANK YOU. RIGHT NOW, THAT BILL
HAS SIX VOTES, IT'LL BE OUT. WE
WILL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. AND INVITE YOU
TO PRESENT THE LAST BILL IN THIS
COMMITTEE FILE. ITEM NUMBER TWO,
SB 951. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR. AND I SHOULD SAY,
ASSUMING WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIAL
HEARING. SO ASSUMING WE DON'T
HAVE A SPECIAL HEARING, ANYTHING
CAN HAPPEN. ALL RIGHT. DON'T PUT
ITEM NUMBER TWO. PUT THAT OUT IN
THE UNIVERSE. FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND TO
YOUR STAFF. AND I'M HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS CONTAINED IN THE
ANALYSIS, THIS BILL, WHICH
STARTED OUT AS QUITE
CONTROVERSIAL, IS NOW MUCH LESS
SO. BUT IT IS A GOOD NUTS AND
BOLTS IMPROVEMENT. TO, SOME OF
THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN STATE
HOUSING LAW AND THE COASTAL
ZONE, AND THE BILL MAKES TWO
CHANGES, TO HOW THE COASTAL
COMMISSION ENGAGES WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. THE FIRST IS THAT
RIGHT NOW, WHEN A CITY GETS HAS
ITS HOUSING ELEMENT APPROVED, IT
HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME,
TYPICALLY A FEW YEARS. TO
CONFORM ITS ZONING TO WHAT WAS
AGREED TO IN THE HOUSING
ELEMENT. HOWEVER, FOR CITIES
THAT ARE, PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY
IN THE COASTAL ZONE, TO MAKE
THOSE ZONING CHANGES, THEY HAVE
TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THEIR LOCAL
COASTAL PLAN. TO BE APPROVED BY
THE COASTAL COMMISSION. AND
THERE IS NO TIMELINE THERE THAT
COULD PUT A CITY IN A POSITION
THAT, DUE TO AN EXTENDED LCP
AMENDMENT PROCESS, COULD FALL
OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
HOUSING ELEMENT OBLIGATIONS. SO
THE BILL DOVETAILS TO THE TWO
AND REQUIRES THAT THE LCP HAPPEN
LCP AMENDMENT HAPPEN WITHIN THE
SAME TIME FRAME AS THE HOUSING
ELEMENT MANDATED REZONING, AND
SO THOSE TWO WOULD BECOME
ALIGNED TIME WISE, THE OTHER
PIECE, WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO, SAN
FRANCISCO, SINCE SAN FRANCISCO
IS THE ONLY CITY AND COUNTY IN
THE STATE IS RIGHT NOW, WHEN,
WHEN LOCAL ZONING PROVIDES FOR
MORE THAN ONE USE, LET'S SAY A
PRIMARY USE IS RESIDENTIAL.
SECONDARY USE IS COMMERCIAL, IF
YOU ARE A, AND IT'S ALL APPROVED
AS PART OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PLAN, IF YOU ARE A CITY AND THEN
SOMEONE DECIDES TO INVOKE THE
SECONDARY ZONING, THE COMMERCIAL
AND THE EXAMPLE I GAVE, THAT
WOULD NOT BE APPEALABLE TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION. HOWEVER, IF
YOU ARE A COUNTY, THEN USING THE
SECONDARY ZONING, IT WOULD BE
APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION AND THE RATIONALE, AS
HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME, FOR
THAT DISTINCTION, IS THAT, THE
COASTAL COUNTIES TEND TO BE
MORE, A LITTLE MORE RURAL AND SO
MORE THERE'S MORE ENVIRONMENTAL
SENSITIVITIES, WHEREAS IT'S LESS
SO IN CITIES, WHICH TEND TO BE
MORE URBANIZED, SAN FRANCISCO AS
A CITY AND A COUNTY IS
CLASSIFIED AS A COUNTY, AND,
UNDER UNDER THIS RULE. AND
ALTHOUGH SAN FRANCISCO IS MANY
THINGS, RURAL IS NOT ONE OF
THEM. AND SO THIS CLASSIFIES SAN
FRANCISCO AS TO BE TREATED AS A
CITY INSTEAD OF A COUNTY. I KNOW
THAT'S VERY A LOT OF WORDS, BUT
IT'S SORT OF A BASIC TECHNICAL
CHANGE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY AS CATHERINE CHARLES
WITH THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION. THANK YOU, GOOD.
ALMOST AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS CATHERINE
CHARLES. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT OF SB 951. AS THE
SENATOR MENTIONED, IT INTRODUCES
TWO COMMON SENSE REFORMS. FIRST,
EXISTING LAW ALLOWS PROJECTS
WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE AND
COASTAL COUNTIES TO BE APPEALED
TO THE COMMISSION. IF A PROJECT
DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE MAIN
PERMITTED USE. AND WITH THIS,
THE COMMISSION HAS HAD A HAND IN
CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN
LANDS ACROSS THE COAST, WHICH IS
GREAT. HOWEVER, THIS PROVISION
IS INTENDED TO APPLY TO RURAL
COUNTIES AND AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, SAN FRANCISCO IS BOTH
A CITY AND A COUNTY AND NOT
EXACTLY RURAL. SB 951 REFINES
THIS APPEAL, MAINTAINING ITS
APPLICATION IN RURAL CALIFORNIA
WHILE TREATING SAN FRANCISCO
LIKE THE CITY THAT IT IS.
SECOND, WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE REQUIRED TO UPZONE BY HCD,
THEY'RE TYPICALLY GIVEN 1 TO 3
YEARS TO COMPLY. THESE REQUIRED
ACTIONS, HOWEVER, OFTEN RESULT
IN UPDATES TO LCP, WHICH REQUIRE
COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEW, WHICH
TAKES TIME. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OFTEN END UP STUCK BETWEEN TWO
STATE AGENCIES, WORKING ON TWO
DIFFERENT SCHEDULES. SB 951
ALIGNS THESE PROCESSES, GIVING 1
TO 3 YEARS TO BOTH THE REQUIRED
UPZONING AND ITS ASSOCIATED LCP
UPDATE. THIS BILL SIMPLY
PROVIDES CLARITY FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WHILE MAINTAINING
COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION. TO
HELP CALIFORNIA ACHIEVE ITS
HOUSING GOALS. AND WITH THAT, I
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 951 TO REGISTER
POSITION? GOOD ALMOST AFTERNOON.
BROOKE PRITCHARD ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA YIMBY. THANK YOU FOR
MEETING. WOULD LIKE TO TALK
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR
AND CIVIC WELL THANK YOU. AND
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HERE IN OPPOSITION FOR
TESTIMONY OR POSITION? MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS, PAUL YODER, ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, STILL IN OPPOSITION
TO IT'S AMAZING. SENATORS, SB
951. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.
SEEING NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT,
WOULD OPEN IT UP FOR ANY MEMBER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. SEEING
NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION BY
MR. LEE. SECOND BY MISS SANCHEZ.
WELL, YEAH, WITH THAT, I DO
APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED WORK
ON THIS. AND, I THINK ALL THE
KIND OF THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION
AND AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'VE TAKEN
ALONG THE WAY, INCLUDING
COMMITTEE HERE TODAY, I WOULD
INVITE YOU TO CLOSE, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I DID NEGLECT TO
MENTION THAT WE WERE ABLE TO
WORK OUT, REMOVE ALL OPPOSITION
EXCEPT FOR A VERY STUBBORN
PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS WHO HAS A VENDETTA.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THE
OPPOSITION HAS ALL GONE. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
I ACTUALLY DO PASS AS AMENDED,
TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE AND
APPROPRIATIONS. WORK A WORD, I.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. AYE.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON. AYE. CHOLERA.
CHOLERA. AYE. LEE. LEE. AYE.
QUIRK-SILVA. QUIRK-SILVA. AYE.
REYES REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. AYE. WILSON. WILSON.
AYE. THAT. BILL HAS NINE ZERO
VOTES. IT WILL BE OUT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES. WITH THAT MEMBERS,
WE ARE ALL HERE. WE'LL GO BACK
TO THE TOP OF THE RULE,
BEGINNING WITH OUR CONSENT
CALENDAR. MADAM SECRETARY, OUR
CONSENT CALENDAR. LEE. LEE. AYE
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE. CONSENT
CALENDAR IS OUT 9 TO 0. AND ITEM
NUMBER ONE. SB 937, CHOLERA. SB
937 CHOLERA. I REYES REYES. AYE
THAT IS OUT. 8 TO 0. AND I HAVE
NUMBER THREE. SB 1032. GRAYSON
GRAYSON, I LEE LEE. AYE.
QUIRK-SILVA. QUIRK-SILVA. AYE.
REYES REYES. AYE. BILL IS OUT 7
TO 1 WITH ONE MEMBER NOT VOTING.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. SB 735.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON I LEE. LEE.
AYE. QUIRK-SILVA AYE.
QUIRK-SILVA. AYE AND IS THAT 7
TO 1 WITH ONE MEMBER NOT VOTING,
ITEM NUMBER TEN. SB 1077.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON I LEE LEE, I
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA. AYE.
REYES REYES. AYE. WILSON.
WILSON. AYE THAT BILL IS OUT 9
TO 0. AND FINALLY, ITEM NUMBER
11, SB 1439, CHOLERA. NO
CHOLERA. NÓ REYES. NOT VOTING.
NOT VOTING. THAT BILL FAILS 2 TO
6 WITH ONE MEMBER NOT VOTING AND
WITH THAT ANY VOTE CHANGES.
SEEING NONE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
144. OKAY, OKAY.