THE SENATE COMMITTEE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WILL COME TO ORDER.
GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR THIS MEETING.
THE SENATE WELCOMES THE PUBLIC IN PERSON,
AND WE ARE HOLDING OUR COMMITTEE HEARINGS
IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING.
I ASK ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
TO BE PRESENT IN ROOM 112 SO WE CAN ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM.
WE HAVE 31 BILLS ON TODAY'S AGENDA,
SIX OF WHICH ARE ON CONSENT FILE.
ITEM SIX AB 1622 FILE.
ITEM 12 AB 1802 FILE.
ITEM 14 AND 15, AB 2219
AND AB 2890.
ITEM NUMBER 24, AB 2512
AND ITEM 27 AB 2341.
WE ASK EVERYONE TO KEEP THEIR REMARKS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE
FOR THIS LENGTHY AGENDA.
FIRST, MORE HOUSEKEEPING.
AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHORS, THE FOLLOWING BILLS
HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM TODAY'S HEARING.
FILE ITEM 16 AB 2033
AND FILE ITEM 21 AB 2139.
WE WILL GET STARTED AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND, I THINK WE HAVE, YES, ONE MEMBER, ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
SCHULTZ, YOU LIKE TO COME UP?
GOOD MORNING.
WELCOME.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES.
THRILLED TO START OFF YOUR DAY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG ONE.
TRY TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING NICE AND SIMPLE, IF I CAN.
I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 306.
I BELIEVE YOU BOTH HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE.
BUT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE RECORD, I'LL BE QUICK.
I WILL NOTE.
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE AND YOUR STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK.
WE DO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS FURTHER
DESCRIBED ON PAGE SIX OF THE ANALYSIS.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, AB 306 WOULD REQUIRE THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION, TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS
REGARDING A LOCAL AGENCY'S
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE
AND ISSUE CODE INTERPRETATIONS.
CALIFORNIA'S 540 JURISDICTIONS INDEPENDENTLY INTERPRET
AND AMEND STATE BUILDING STANDARDS,
LEADING TO BOTH IN INEFFICIENCY AND INCONSISTENCY.
THERE IS CURRENTLY NO MECHANISM IN OUR STATE
FOR A HOUSING PROPONENT TO APPEAL A LOCAL CODE
INTERPRETATION, AND NO MECHANISM TO APPLY FOR A CODE
EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION ACROSS MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS.
THE CURRENT APPEALS PROCESS REQUIRES
LOCAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION, WHICH IS EXTREMELY RARE.
IT ALSO REQUIRES PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF ALL LOCAL APPEALS.
THE LIMITATIONS
OF THE CURRENT APPEALS PROCESS, HAS LED TO NEGATIVE OUTCOMES.
NAVIGATING APPROVALS ACROSS 540 INDEPENDENT
JURISDICTIONS IS A MAJOR IMPEDIMENT
TO SCALING, INNOVATION STATEWIDE, AND IT SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASES COSTS AND TIMELINES FOR PROJECT DELIVERY.
ENCLOSING AB 306 ADDRESSES THE LACK OF A PRACTICAL
AND EFFECTIVE STATEWIDE
APPEALS PROCESS TO RESOLVE CODE
RELATED ISSUES OF BROAD SIGNIFICANCE.
IT DOES SO BY ESTABLISHING
A MORE WORKABLE PROCESS FOR RESOLVING BUILDING
CODE ISSUES THAT HAVE STATEWIDE IMPLICATIONS,
WHILE PRESERVING LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER MATTERS
THAT ARE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
WITH ME TO SPEAK TODAY IN SUPPORT OF AB 306
IS MIKE MALINOWSKI,
A LICENSED ARCHITECT AND CONSULTANT
WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.
CALIFORNIA, OF COURSE,
AND ALEX OPPERMAN, ADVOCACY AND POLICY MANAGER
WITH THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION.
MORNING.
WE WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I'M MIKE MALINOWSKI, 46 YEARS.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU.
I UNDERSTAND 46 YEARS.
A LICENSED ARCHITECT REPRESENTING AIR CALIFORNIA,
WHOSE 11,000 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
PREPARE THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS
FOR VIRTUALLY ALL COMMERCIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN OUR STATE.
I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR TIME AND COLLABORATION IN REFINING THIS BILL,
FOR SPONSORING THIS BILL, BECAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM
FOR BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION AND APPEALS
CREATES UNNECESSARY INCONSISTENCY, DELAY AND COST.
THE SAME STATE CODE CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY
ACROSS 540 JURISDICTIONS, WHICH LEADS TO NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES, PARTICULARLY IMPACTING HOUSING DELIVERY.
CONSIDER A SEEMINGLY SIMPLE EXAMPLE A TOWNHOUSE.
JURISDICTIONS DIFFER ON WHICH CODE APPLIES.
IS IT THE SIMPLER CRC OR THE MORE COMPLEX CBC?
HOW OCCUPANCY IS CLASSIFIED?
IS IT R2 OR IS IT R3?
AND THE DETAILING OF WALLS TO SEPARATE UNITS?
THIS MEANS A SET OF PLANS
APPROVED ON ONE SITE MAY NOT WORK ACROSS THE STREET.
THAT AFFECTS COST, TIMELINES,
AND SOMETIMES WHETHER A PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AT ALL.
AB 306 PROVIDES PRACTICAL, WORKABLE PROCESS
FOR APPEALS AND STATEWIDE CODE INTERPRETATIONS WHILE PRESERVING
LOCAL CONTROL OVER LOCAL ISSUES AND PROJECT SPECIFIC DECISIONS.
THIS BILL BUILDS ON MODELS PROVEN TO WORK,
SUCH AS THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S
WELL USED AND HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL CODE INTERPRETATION PROCESS,
THROUGH WHICH ANY PERSON
CAN REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF THE FIRE CODE WITH THE RESULTS
POSTED ONLINE AND COORDINATION WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
BUILT INTO THAT PROCESS.
AB 306 DIRECTLY SUPPORTS HOUSING INNOVATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, 3D PRINTED CONCRETE HOMES ARE ALREADY BEING USED
THROUGH A LOCAL ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND METHODS APPROVAL
AND THE CAMPFIRE REBUILD AREA THAT COULD BE SCALED, BUT
IT CURRENTLY REQUIRES REVIEW BY JURISDICTIONS ONE AT A TIME.
EACH OF THESE APPROVALS CAN COME WITH UNIQUE CONDITIONS
AND REQUIREMENTS.
GOOD BUY EFFICIENCY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS.
THIS IS A BALANCED AND PRACTICAL REFORM.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS ALEX JAYARAMAN, ADVOCACY AND POLICY MANAGER
FOR THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION.
I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF AB 306.
AD HOC.
WE REPRESENT DEVELOPERS, ARCHITECTS,
ATTORNEYS, CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS
AND LABOR UNIONS ACROSS CALIFORNIA
WHO ENTER TO ENCOUNTER BUILDING CODE INCONSISTENCIES
AS A DAILY BARRIER TO HOUSING DELIVERY.
CALIFORNIA'S 540 JURISDICTIONS INDEPENDENTLY INTERPRET STATE
BUILDING STANDARDS, AND THERE'S CURRENTLY
NO PRACTICAL MECHANISM FOR AN AFFECTED PARTY
TO APPEAL A LOCAL INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN.
THE EXISTING PROCESS REQUIRES LOCAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION,
MEANING A JURISDICTION MUST ESSENTIALLY AGREE
TO APPEAL ITS OWN DECISION, WHICH ESSENTIALLY NEVER HAPPENS.
8306 FIXES THAT THE BUILDING CODE
INTERPRETATION REQUEST PROCESS IS A MEANINGFUL ADDITION,
GIVING THE PERSON
THE ABILITY TO REQUEST A DETERMINATION
FROM THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION,
THE STATE BODY THAT ADOPTS AND PUBLISHES THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, CREATES REAL, ACCESSIBLE PATHWAY
FOR RESOLVING AMBIGUITY THAT CURRENTLY GETS RESOLVED
INCONSISTENTLY ACROSS JURISDICTIONS OR
NOT AT ALL FOR HAC MEMBERS WORKING ON ADAPTIVE REUSE.
THIS MATTERS, ESPECIALLY LOCAL CODE AMENDMENT TRIGGERS
FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS VARY DRAMATICALLY ACROSS THE STATE,
AND THERE HAS BEEN NO STATE LEVEL FORUM TO ADDRESS THAT.
AB 306 BEGINS TO CHANGE THAT.
THAT TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT REQUIRING LOCAL AGENCIES
TO POST THEIR CODE,
INTERPRETATIONS AND AMENDMENTS ONLINE, IS SIMPLE AND OVERDUE.
HAC MEMBERS REGULARLY DISCOVER LOCAL INTERPRETATIONS
MID PROJECT.
MAKING THEM
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE UP FRONT REDUCES COST AND DELAY.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE ON AB 306.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE IN, ELSE IN SUPPORT OF AB 306?
IF YOU CAN PLEASE COME UP THE MICROPHONE.
THANK YOU.
MORNING.
JOHN SKOGLUND WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN SUPPORT.
MORNING.
FREDDY QUINTANA WITH THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION. AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
STEPHANIE JIMENEZ,
ON BEHALF OF BARRETT COUNCIL AND SUPPORT.
DANNY CURTIN, CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF CARPENTERS
AND SUPPORT.
WE HAVE TO ATTACK THIS HOUSING CRISIS.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 306?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
NO. OKAY.
SEEING NONE, COME TO THE DAIS.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
NOPE. SEEING NONE.
THEN YOU MAY WRAP UP.
I'LL RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. I VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THANK YOU.
AND WE'RE JUST HERE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
SO AS SOON AS WE GET TO THE MEMBERS TO COME ON DOWN, WE'LL
TAKE UP A VOTE.
THANK YOU.
WHO'S NEXT?
ON WHICH NUMBER?
THREE.
3 A.M., I THINK, ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUICKSILVER.
I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE.
SO YOU'RE NEXT.
GOOD MORNING.
OUT TO. OH.
HOW DO WE JUST GET TO THE SECOND?
THANK YOU.
THANK
YOU FOR THE REST.
YOU WEREN'T WITH.
OKAY.
GOOD MORNING. ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBER.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TODAY.
MY FINAL TIME PRESENTING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT HERE.
I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 956, WHICH CLARIFIES EXISTING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LAW BY ALLOWING A HOMEOWNER
TO BUILD UP TO TWO DETACHED ADUS ON A PROPERTY, PROVIDED
THOSE UNITS COMPLY
WITH ALL EXISTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO SIZE,
HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AS WELL AS HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THIS BILL ALSO CLARIFIES HOW ADU LAW APPLIES TO HOA FEES
AND COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT SIDES.
IN 2019, THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED AB 670
TO PREVENT CARRIERS FROM PROHIBITING
OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADUS.
HOWEVER, AMBIGUITY IN CURRENT STATE
STATUTE HAS CREATED UNCERTAINTY REGARDING WHICH PROPERTIES
WITHIN COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS
ARE COVERED BY THOSE PROTECTIONS.
THAT AMENDMENTS TAKEN IN SENATE HOUSING MAINTAINS CONSISTENCY
WITH SB NINE AND AVOIDS INADVERTENTLY TRIGGERING THIS
DENSITY BONUS LAW.
SPECIFICALLY, THE BILL AUTHORIZES
EITHER TWO DETACHED ADUS THAT MEET REQUIREMENTS
OR ONE DETACHED ADU AND ONE ATTACH
J ADU CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAW.
AND WE BROUGHT YOU THIS LITTLE HANDOUT.
MANY FAMILIES USE ADUS TO SUPPORT AGING PARENTS
WHO WANT TO LIVE CLOSE BY, BUT ALSO EVEN YOUNG ADULTS
WHO, ARE FINDING IT VERY DIFFICULT
TO FIND AN AFFORDABLE PLACE TO LIVE.
OTHERS.
WE KNOW,
THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY, ATTEMPTS
FOR YOUNG ADULTS, AS WE JUST SAID, TO FIND HOUSING.
AND THIS IS ANOTHER SOLUTION.
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS WORKED
DILIGENTLY TO REDUCE BARRIERS TO ADU CONSTRUCTION.
AND YET, THERE IS STILL CLARITY ISSUES
WITHIN THERE, WITHIN HOW MANY UNITS WHERE
AND SO FORTH.
BASICALLY, THIS BILL PROVIDES THE CLARITY.
WITH ME TODAY IN SUPPORT OF HB 956
AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR DOUBLE POLICY MANAGER
WITH YIMBY AND RYAN O'CONNELL, PRESIDENT OF HOW TO ADU.
FIRST.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS MAX TWO BLAIR, MY CITY PLANNER
AND, POLICY MANAGER AT CALVARY IN CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA IS 82 REFORMS HAVE LED THE NATION CREATING
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW HOMES EVERY YEAR WITHOUT,
DISRUPTING THE LOOK AND FEEL OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
EXISTING STATE LAW LETS HOMEOWNERS BUILD THREE ADUS,
ONE NEW DETACHED UNIT IN THE YARD
AND TWO FROM EXISTING FLOOR SPACE.
AB 956 MAINTAINS THE EXISTING DENSITY LIMITS
WHILE GIVING HOMEOWNERS
MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THEY ARRANGE THEIR ADUS.
FOR EXAMPLE,
INSTEAD OF CONVERTING
THEIR GARAGE TO AN INTERIOR ADU AND BUILDING A DETACHED EDU,
A HOMEOWNER WOULD BE ABLE TO DO TWO DETACHED ADUS,
PRESERVING THEIR OFF STREET PARKING.
THIS FLEXIBILITY WILL PARTICULARLY BENEFIT PEOPLE
WHO OWN SMALL HOUSES ON LARGE LOTS,
AND WILL HELP
MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILIES LIVE TOGETHER,
WHILE MEANING MAINTAINING PRIVACY AND INDEPENDENCE.
THE BILL ALSO CLARIFIES THE EXISTING ADU EXEMPTION
FROM CARS, ENSURING THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS
WHOSE PROPERTIES ARE FORMERLY DEFINED AS CONDOS,
ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD IN TWO YEARS.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS RYAN O'CONNELL AND I MANAGE HOW TO ADU,
WHICH IS A COMMUNITY WITH OVER 150,000 MEMBERS ON FACEBOOK,
ALL TRYING TO BUILD ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN CALIFORNIA.
AND WE RUN INTO SO MANY OF THESE SAME EQUITY ISSUES
THAT MAXUS REFERRED TO.
I THINK,
THANKS TO THE WORK OF THE LEGISLATURE, AIDES
HAVE BECOME A REALLY IMPORTANT SOURCE
OF HOUSING OVER THE PAST DECADE IN CALIFORNIA.
1 IN 5 NEW PERMITS.
BUT THERE'S STILL THIS ISSUE WHERE EVEN THOUGH THE STATE
ALLOWS MULTIPLE
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED
ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME PROPERTY,
REALLY ONLY HOMEOWNERS WITH VERY LARGE
HOMES
CAN MAKE USE OF ALL OF THOSE ADUS
BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD TO CHOP OFF 500FT² AS A JUNIOR
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THIS WOULD OPEN IT UP AND ALLOW FOR FOLKS TO,
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LOCAL REGULATIONS,
TRADE THAT INTERIOR CONVERSION FOR A SECOND DETACHED UNIT,
AND IT WOULD CLARIFY AND OPEN UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR, PEOPLE
AND KIND OF CONDOS AND, AND CARS TO, TO DO MORE TO.
I SEE THIS IN NAPA ALL THE TIME WITH BIG HOME,
WITH BIG HOMES
WHERE IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO CHOP OFF A MASTER BEDROOM
AND AN EN SUITE AND GET THAT EXTRA UNIT,
BUT ON SMALLER PROPERTIES FROM OLDER HOMES 1950S
AND BEFORE, WELL UNDER 1200 SQUARE FEET,
THERE'S MUCH LESS OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT,
EVEN THOUGH THERE'S SOMETIMES I'M RELATIVELY LARGE, LOTS
WHERE THEY'D BE ABLE TO BUILD THAT SECOND UNIT.
SO, THIS HIGHLY TAILORED BILL CREATES
A NARROW WAY FOR HOMEOWNERS TO BUILD THOSE TWO UNITS.
NEW CONSTRUCTION IS TO USE UNDER THE SAME GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND I RESPECTFULLY URGE I VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 956?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MADAM CHAIR, MICHAEL GUNNING, LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS
HERE ON BEHALF OF ABUNDANT HOUSING LOS ANGELES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
I'M SURE BOB NAYLOR FOR FEELS DEAD IN COMPANY.
THAT'S HOWARD AHMANSON JR.
ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESSMAN. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SUPPORT.
OKAY.
DANNY CURTAIN, CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF CARPENTERS
IN SUPPORT OF ONE OF THE FEW, PRODUCTS
THAT ARE ACTUALLY GROWING AFTER ALL OF THESE LEGISLATION.
AND THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS.
THANK YOU.
HARRISON LINDER WITH LEADING EDGE CALIFORNIA HERE IN SUPPORT.
FREDDY QUINTANA WITH THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE NO ONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE.
IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO AB NINE DRIVE SIX?
NO ONE.
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF YOU WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME OR YOU'LL JUST KEEP IT BRIEF.
YEAH. GOOD MORNING.
CHAIR MEMBERS
BRADY GEREN, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION,
WANTED TO
FIRST OFF
EXTEND OUR APPRECIATION FOR LIMITING IT TO THE TWO DETACHED.
I WAS HELPFUL, BUT WE DO REMAIN CONCERNED
ABOUT THE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROCESS.
AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, KIARA ROSS.
ON BEHALF OF THE CITIES OF BURBANK, THOUSAND OAKS,
CARLSBAD AND SAN MARCOS, ECHOING THE LEAGUE OF CITIES CONCERNS.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING,
TRACY RYAN AT THE ROYAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE, CALIFORNIA.
I'D LIKE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF THE FOLKS BEFORE ME AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 956?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE, BRING IT TO THE DAIS.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
YES, SENATOR. CIERTO.
THANK YOU.
DURING THE, THE TESTIMONY HERE,
YOU BROUGHT UP SOMETHING ABOUT THE TOWNHOMES, HOA FEES.
TOWNHOMES ARE PRETTY MUCH
YOU OWN THE PROPERTY THAT IS UNDER YOUR TOWNHOME.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TURNING THE ADU GARAGE?
HOW DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY HERE?
BECAUSE, THAT OPENS UP FOR SOMETHING.
YEAH. THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION.
SO THE THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH
THAT WE'VE SEEN IS, SOMEONE WHO OWNS A SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME,
WHO WANTED TO CONVERT HIS GARAGE INTO AN ADU,
AND HIS HOA DID NOT WANT HIM TO DO THAT.
AND SO THE IDEA HERE AT HIS, HIS, HIS TOWNHOME
WAS FORMALLY DEFINED AS A CONDOMINIUM.
ALTHOUGH IT WAS LIKE ON ITS OWN PARCEL WITH NO UNITS
ABOVE OR BELOW IT.
SO THE IDEA HERE WAS JUST TO CLARIFY
THE EXISTING CODE NA OVERRIDE, AND IT WILL APPLY IT TO SINGLE
FAMILY PROPERTIES THAT ARE LIKE TECHNICALLY CONDOS.
YEAH, THAT'S THE BECAUSE
ALL THE SPACE AROUND THEM IS, IS ALL HOA,
COMMON INTEREST PROPERTY AND, AND WHEN WE START APPLYING THIS
TO STUFF LIKE THAT,
THERE'S ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT STUFF THAT COMES INTO THE MIND.
WHEN YOU'RE CONVERTING A GARAGE IN A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT,
YOU'RE CREATING A PARKING PROBLEM.
BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY THERE, ALREADY HAVE PARKING ISSUES
AND ALMOST EVERY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT I KNOW,
AND TAKING CARS OUT OF GARAGES AND THAT'S PART OF
SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE USING THEM FOR STORAGE. BUT
GETTING
CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY RENTING DOWNSTAIRS
IN YOUR GARAGE AND MOVING CARS OUT INTO THE THING
WILL CREATE A HUGE PROBLEM.
SO THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT.
SO WE WE'RE WE'RE DOING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I CAN THINK OF THE ONES OVER BY THE COLLEGES THERE
THAT THAT'S THAT KIND OF HAS THAT LAYOUT A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THEY DO HAVE ATTACHED, WALLS AND STUFF.
SO, THE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU?
AUTHOR.
HOW IS THAT DEFINED IN YOUR IN YOUR BILL BY RIGHT.
BY RIGHT.
AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE.
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL TO ME MEANS,
THAT
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR CAN HOLD THE HEARING,
GET INPUT FROM THE, THE, THE PUBLIC AND,
AND APPROVE IT AT HIS LEVEL.
SOMEHOW THE TWO HAVE BECOME CONFLATED
AND BY RIGHT, SOMEHOW MEANS MINISTERIAL.
AND, AND TO ME, THAT'S ANOTHER TERMINOLOGY
THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP, BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE
TO ME, BY RIGHT, IS THEY JUST COME IN
AND THEY PUT THEIR APPLICATION IN AND GO START BUILDING.
THAT'S A BY. RIGHT.
AND, THAT NEEDS TO BE MORE CLEARLY DEFINED BECAUSE THAT
THAT LANGUAGE AFFECTS A LOT OF, OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THIS LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
BECAUSE IT DOES, EXCLUDE
THE CITIES FROM HAVING ANY SAY WHATSOEVER BY.
RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS.
IT MEANS THEY CAN GO IN AND DO WHAT THEY WANT.
AND BECAUSE IT IT FITS WHATEVER IS IN THE BILL
THAT WE'RE DOING.
AND SO THAT
THAT CREATES PROBLEMS FOR THOSE BILLS AS WELL.
SO ANYWAY,
THOSE
ARE JUST THE CONCERNS I HAVE WITH THIS PARTICULAR BILL.
YOUR NEXT ONE, I THINK YOU'LL BE OKAY.
SENATOR CHOI,
I ALSO HAVE,
SOME CONCERNS, ON THIS BILL.
BECAUSE OF,
BASICALLY, YOUR BILL IS, TRYING TO ALLOW
ONE ADU IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE
TO TWO UNITS.
AND, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFICATIONS
OR LIMITATIONS ON THE ADU SIZE?
SO YOU WANT TO.
YES. SO, WE'RE USING THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK
JUST TO SPEAK TO, THE, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION AS WELL.
SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE MINISTERIAL PROCESS
AND THE SIZE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE IN THE EXISTING
GOVERNMENT CODE.
SECTION 66323 WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE
AND APPLIED TO BOTH DETACHED ADUS.
AND THAT IS AN 800 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT.
YEAH. CAN YOU TELL ME, WHAT?
PREVIOUSLY I READ ABOUT, THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT,
SIZE, HAS THIS,
RELATIONSHIP TO ADUS.
SO CERTAIN PERCENTAGE IN NOT TO BE OVER 15% OR SOMETHING.
20%, ETC..
THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.
THAT IS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
IN A SEPARATE PART OF THE CODE, WHICH WE WON'T BE TOUCHING.
IT'S IN SECTION 66314.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO THE 366323 ADDS.
EXCUSE ME, SENATOR,
WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE ONE SECOND TO ESTABLISH QUORUM.
NOW THAT WE HAVE SENATOR LAIRD.
OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU.
SENATORS. GERARDO HERE.
THEY'RE ALSO HERE. JOY.
YEAH.
JOY. HERE.
IRENE. ASHBY. CERVANTES. LAIRD.
LAIRD HERE.
SO YOU ARE TO SEE ARTO HERE. YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD.
GO AHEAD AND ENJOY.
OKAY, MY SECOND QUESTION IS THAT, ESPECIALLY,
THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONE.
SO ESPECIALLY IN MY CITY OF IRVINE,
WE HAVE, GENERAL PLAN FOR,
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE MULTI-UNIT, AREAS,
OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS OR COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE SEPARATED.
THAT MAKES OUR CITY VERY UNIQUE,
AND, THE DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE.
IF THIS BILL PASSES,
ALREADY ONE ADU IS ALLOWED.
SO WHEN YOU ADD MULTIPLE
UNITS, IN THE ORIGINALLY PLANNED,
ZONED AREA, FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
AND THEN THE CAPACITY FOR, LIKE,
A UTILITIES, WATER ESPECIALLY, SO SEWAGE.
AND, ELECTRICITY, GASOLINE,
ALL OF THOSE SO WILL BE IMPACTED.
AND THEN ALSO TRAFFIC BECAUSE SO WE DON'T KNOW
THE REASON I ASKED ABOUT THE SIZE OR SET SIZE OF THE ADU.
SO OR TO DETERMINE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WHO MAY BE ABLE TO DO WELL LIVE IN THAT THEY DO USE.
SO IT COULD BE SINGLE.
IT COULD BE FIVE.
WHO KNOWS.
YOU KNOW, IN TOTAL.
SO THAT WILL IMPACT THE CHARACTERISTICS.
AND THEN ALSO PARKING OUR PARKING ISSUES.
SO ON THE STREET, SOME, SOME HOA IS A VERY PARTICULAR
ABOUT EVEN, DEMANDING US TO, WELL,
NOT TO PARK ON THE STREETS TO TO PARK ON IN THE GARAGES,
TO ENHANCE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT COMMUNITY.
SO THIS WILL BE OR,
THE ADUS IS NOT GONNA DEMAND
TO BUILD ADDITIONAL GARAGES.
SO, THIS WILL CHANGE SO MUCH OF THE,
BEAUTIFUL CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT, THE, PARTICULAR,
DWELLING AREAS AND, HOW,
THE DETRIMENTAL
THIS, IMPACT THAT THIS BILL WILL,
IMPACT, THE SUCH SUCH AREA SO OR CITIES,
HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE, THE DEMAND OF THE,
THE CAPACITY OF THE, DEMAND BY INCREASING
THE POPULATION IN THAT AREA, WHICH WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
I THINK WE HAVE TWO ISSUES HERE.
WE HAVE INCREASED DENSITY AND WE HAVE PARKING.
ON THE PARKING PIECE, ESPECIALLY IN HOA COMMUNITIES,
HOA COMMUNITIES HAVE THE POWER TO REQUIRE PERMIT PARKING
AND MANY OF THEM DO NOT ISSUE, STREET PARKING
PERMITS TO HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE CONVERTED THEIR,
THEIR GARAGES INTO AREAS.
SO THERE IS THERE IS THE POWER TO,
TO MANAGE STREET PARKING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
SECOND OF ALL,
IF YOUR ADU IS FURTHER THAN HALF A MILE FROM PUBLIC TRANSIT,
THEN YOU HAVE TO.
YOU ARE A LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE PARKING SPACE OFF STREET PER ADU
ON THE DENSITY PIECE.
I WOULD SAY THAT
KEEPING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
DOES NOT PREVENT THEM FROM BECOMING OVERCROWDED.
CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF THE WORST HOUSEHOLD
OVERCROWDING IN THE COUNTRY,
AND OVERCROWDING AND DENSITY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
WHEN I WAS IN MY EARLY 20S, I LIVED IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
WITH SIX ROOMMATES AND SEVEN CARS.
WE PARKED ON THE STREET.
THERE WAS NO ATM
ALLOWING
ANY USE TO HAVE MORE PHYSICAL FLEXIBILITY,
AND ESPECIALLY BY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO SKIP
CONVERTING THEIR GARAGE INTO AN ADU AND INSTEAD BUILD
A SECOND UNIT AS A DETACHED UNIT IN THE BACK OF THE BACKYARD,
WHICH WILL PRESERVE THEIR OFF STREET PARKING.
REDUCES
OVERCROWDING WHILE LIKELY MAINTAINING
THE SAME OVERALL LEVEL OF DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS,
BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO, TO SEPARATE OUT THE ISSUES OF
OVERCROWDED STREET PARKING,
OVERCROWDED HOUSING AND THE DENSITY
OF ACTUAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YEAH, THE PRACTICAL SENSE.
I, HAD
A LITTLE BIT, SIMILAR EXPERIENCE.
MY, I EXTENDED TO MY, HOME
BECAUSE I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A SPACE.
I WAS A NOT A SINGLE ADU.
SO IT WAS THE EXPANSION.
EVEN THEN, CITY
BROUGHT UP A LOT OF ISSUES.
A SEPARATE ADDRESS, SEPARATE MAILBOX, ETC.,
AND THE MAILBOX ALREADY AFFORDED
FIXED THE UNNECESSARY TO PAY FOR BIG METAL
MAILBOX INDIA AND THE CREATION OF A NEW ADDRESS.
BUT THE.
AND WHEN YOU CREATE THE TWO ADUS
AND THEN ALSO SEPARATE BILL
AS I REMEMBER THE RIGHT
FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO SEPARATELY SELL
NOT AS A PART OF THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT.
SO THAT WOULD CREATE THE ALL KINDS OF WELL, IN ADDITION
TO PARKING ISSUES, MAILBOX
ISSUES TO ADDRESS ISSUES.
THIS WILL CREATE THE SO MUCH OF CONFUSION FOR THAT, REGION.
AND WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
IT I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW, YOU CAN MAYBE YOU CAN DO THAT
IN WRAP IF YOU WRAP UP, INCLUDE SOME OF THE SENATOR'S CONCERNS.
OKAY. GO AHEAD.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER OR IF YOU WANT
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
IF NOT, THEN YOU CAN WRAP UP.
AND PLEASE INCLUDE REFERENCES TO SENATOR CHOICE QUESTIONS.
YEAH.
TO THE SENATORS THAT, THAT ARE OPPOSED I UNDERSTAND,
I UNDERSTAND, THE CONCERN OF PARKING OR OVERCROWDING
OR AS YOU EVEN MENTIONED, ALL THE THINGS THAT GO
WITH ANOTHER RESIDENTS ON ONE SIDE, MAILBOXES AND,
AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THEY ARE CONCERNS,
WE KNOW THAT NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE CHANGED
AND ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.
THIS BILL IS AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY
WHAT CAN BE PUT ON A PROPERTY.
THERE HAVE BEEN AMENDMENTS TAKEN AND,
THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE WORK TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING
AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, WE WORK WITH NEIGHBORHOOD,
LEAGUE OF CITY AND OTHERS TO, TO ADDRESS CONCERNS.
BUT, RIGHT NOW NEIGHBORHOODS ARE CHANGING.
THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE, FEW GLIMMERS,
IF YOU WANT TO SAY, AND HOUSING, WHICH IS ALLOWING HOMEOWNERS
TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY WITH THEIR PROPERTY.
AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THAT, I KNOW
SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL SAY, WELL, THEY'RE BUILDING YOGA STUDIOS
OR ART STUDIOS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE ADUS ARE TO HOUSE
MANY TIMES SENIORS.
WE USED TO CALL THEM GRANNY FLATS.
AND MANY TIMES THEY WERE BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS
BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH
HAPPENING AT THE CITY LEVEL THAT PEOPLE JUST,
THEY EVEN CALLED THEM LENNONS, I THINK, AT ONE POINT.
SO TIMES ARE CHANGING.
AND THIS BILL IS TO OFFER, FLEXIBILITY.
AND, TO CLARIFY WITH THAT, I, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
WELL, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE VISUALS HERE.
SO MUCH BETTER WITH,
WITH THAT, I WANT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
ANYBODY?
THAT YOU HAND OF THE GAVEL.
OH, YOU WANT
WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION?
OH, I SEE,
I'M NOT LEAVING.
OKAY, I MOVE THE BILL.
CAN YOU TELL?
WHO'S.
I'M NOT LEAVING YOU.
THE CHAIR.
HE CAN DO,
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
AND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY, SENATOR TO TERRAZZO.
GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
AND IS TO REZONE.
HI THERE. ALSO, I JOY NO.
JOY. NO. AGAIN. ASHBY. SIR.
MANTIS. LAIRD.
SORRY TO SAY I DON'T KNOW.
ALL RIGHT. VERY MUCH. THAT WILL BE ON CALL.
OKAY.
NO, WE TURNED THAT RETURN THAT BACK. YEP.
MAYBE NOW, YOU
JUST TO MAKE THEM.
ALL. HERE.
YOU CAN GIVE THIS TO JONATHAN.
OH. OH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
OKAY, WE GOT.
SORRY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUICK.
SILVA, YOU HAVE ANOTHER BILL.
AB 1751.
YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
ALL RIGHT, MEMBERS, ANOTHER EXCITING BILL TO OFFER
TO SENATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND A YOU.
NO, WE DON'T WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE.
ALL RIGHT.
OF COURSE WE WANT TO THANK THE, COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR VERY, VERY,
STEP BY STEP, CONVERSATIONS WITH US.
WE ARE ACCEPTING, MANY, MANY AMENDMENTS TODAY.
I HAVE A LONG LIST, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT OUT
UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO READ ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
OKAY,
BUT WE ACCEPT ALL OF THEM.
YES, YES, WE WILL ACCEPT ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
THESE AMENDMENTS STRENGTHEN THE BILL'S FOCUS ON GENUINE,
MISSING MIDDLE PRODUCTION WHILE PRESERVING
THE MINISTERIAL PATHWAY THAT IS THE HEART OF AB 1751.
THE BILL ITSELF BUILDS ON RECENT HOUSING REFORMS
BY EXPANDING ACCESS TO ONE OF THE MOST ATTAINABLE
PATHWAYS TO HOMEOWNERSHIP TOWNHOMES, HOMEOWNERSHIP
IS MOVING FARTHER OUT OF REACH FOR TOO MANY CALIFORNIANS.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION MANY TIMES.
A FAMILY NOW NEEDS AN ANNUAL INCOME
OF ROUGHLY $221,000 TO PURCHASE THEIR FIRST HOME.
THESE NUMBERS REFLECT A MARKET THAT IS PUSHING TRADESPEOPLE,
NURSES, TEACHERS, FIRE FIGHTERS
AND YOUNG ADELE YOUNG ADULTS OUT OF STABILITY,
OUT OF THEIR COMMUNITIES
AND EVEN IN SOME CASES, OUT OF OUR STATE.
THIS IS A STRUCTURAL FAILURE THAT IS PRICING OUT
THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP OUR COMMUNITIES RUNNING.
AB 1751 ALLOWS FOR MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF QUALIFYING
TOWNHOME PROJECTS THAT MEET CLEAR, OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.
IT ALSO ALLOWS LOCAL INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE
TO APPLY FOR PROJECTS WITH MORE THAN 11 UNITS.
THE BILL PROTECTS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE SITES
FROM BEING BUILT,
CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING LAWS ON STARTER HOMES AND BUILT
TOWNHOMES WOULD BE NO HIGHER THAN THREE STORIES OF OCCUPY
OR OCCUPY A SMALL LIVING SPACE.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING AFFORDABILITY,
WE NEED TO CREATE MORE PATHWAYS INTO HOMEOWNERSHIP.
THIS BILL DELIVERS ONE WITH ME TO TO TO TO TESTIFY TODAY
IN SUPPORT IS ED MANNING ON BEHALF OF THE NEW CALIFORNIA
COALITION, WHO ARE THE SPONSORS AND MICHAEL
GUNNING ON BEHALF OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
GO AHEAD.
IF YOU WANT TO GET STARTED AND YOU EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
ED MANNING WITH, KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
ON BEHALF OF THE SPONSOR, NEW CALIFORNIA COALITION.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND, MISTER FEBRUARY AND SORBA FOR ALL THE WORK ON THIS BILL.
I, YOU KNOW, THE MAIN THING,
WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT WAS CRITICAL FOR US
IS THAT WHEN WE CAME AWAY FROM THE BILL,
WE HAD A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE
THAT WE WOULD GET TOWNHOMES BUILT AND THAT,
THAT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL WOULD WORK IN PRACTICE.
AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THEY WILL,
SO APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOT HERE
WITHOUT YOU.
WHY TOWNHOMES AND WHY THIS BILL?
TOWNHOMES ARE,
NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL IN THE ZONING WORK WORLD.
THEY'RE NOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES,
EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE OWNER OCCUPIED AND, AFFORDABLE.
AND THEY OFTEN DON'T FIT IN A LOT OF MULTI-FAMILY DENSITIES.
AND SO THIS BILL IS TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION TO BE ABLE
TO BUILD MORE TOWNHOMES.
AND WHY TOWNHOMES?
THEY'RE 30% MORE AFFORDABLE THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BASED ON TECHNICAL ANALYSIS DONE BY MAP CRAFT ON THIS BILL,
WE WE WILL HAVE ENOUGH SITES AVAILABLE
NOW TO BUILD ON WHICH WE DON'T CURRENTLY.
AND THAT WILL MEAN THAT PEOPLE MAKING BETWEEN 150%
TO 250% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
WILL NOW HAVE A LOT MORE OPTIONS TO BUY A TOWNHOME.
THE, THEY'RE PRODUCIBLE THEY'RE AFFORDABLE.
THEY'RE FAIRLY DENSE.
AND SO, THE PRICE POINT
IS SIGNIFICANTLY, LOWER.
AND THEREFORE,
PEOPLE CAN GET FINANCING AND AFFORD
TO GET INTO THE CENTURY LEVEL HOUSING.
WE HAD ABOUT 100,000 HOUSING STARTS
LAST YEAR, GIVE OR TAKE, AND THE LAST FIVE YEARS,
AND ABOUT 20 TO 25% WERE ADUS,
WHICH ARE NOT HOMEOWNERSHIP, PRODUCTS.
SO WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
AND, THIS BILL SEEKS TO GIVE PEOPLE ACCESS
TO HOUSING THAT THEY CAN'T GET NOW IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY.
THERE ARE A LOT OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
IN THE BILL THAT WERE ADDRESSED.
AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANY OF THOSE AMENDMENTS
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO AHEAD, MR.
GUNNY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MICHAEL GUNNING HERE ON BEHALF OF HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT OF HB 1751
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBERS KIRK SILVA AND WICKS.
CALIFORNIA'S
HOUSING CRISIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT BUILDING MORE HOMES,
IT'S ABOUT CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR WORKING FAMILIES TO BECOME HOMEOWNERS.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
AFFILIATES ACROSS CALIFORNIA INCREASINGLY BUILD TOWNHOMES
AND OTHER MULTIFAMILY OWNERSHIP COMMUNITIES.
BECAUSE HIGHER DENSITY
HOMEOWNERSHIP IS OFTEN THE ONLY AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP THAT'S FEASIBLE IN TODAY'S MARKET.
THE RECENT APPROVAL OF THE VETERAN'S AND HOUSING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND, WITH ITS DEDICATED INVESTMENT
IN AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP IS A SIGNIFICANT STEP
FORWARD, BUT FUNDING ALONE CANNOT PRODUCE HOMES.
WE THINK THAT PAIRING THESE INVESTMENTS
WITH SMART LAND USE POLICIES LIKE AB 1751
IS WHAT WILL ACTUALLY TRANSLATE
THOSE DOLLARS INTO MORE AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW INCOME WORKING FAMILIES.
AB 1751 CREATES A PREDICTABLE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR QUALIFYING TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS,
HELPING REDUCE DEVELOPMENT
COSTS, MAKING MORE EFFICIENT USE OF SCARCE LAND,
AND ULTIMATELY BUILDING MORE ENTRY LEVEL HOMES
FOR CALIFORNIANS THAT THEY CAN AFFORD TO OWN FOR HABITAT.
THE BILL REFLECTS
THE FUTURE OF AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA.
WHILE MANY STILL PICTURE
HABITAT BUILDING DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES,
TODAY'S REALITY IS THAT THEY'RE INCREASINGLY BUILDING
THOROUGHLY DESIGNED TOWNHOMES AND MULTI-FAMILY
OWNERSHIP COMMUNITIES THAT WILL ALLOW MORE FAMILIES
TO BUILD EQUITY, STABILITY AND GENERATIONAL WEALTH.
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU.
THAT'S.
OKAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO'S IN SUPPORT.
OF 17
AB 1751, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
ALL IN SUPPORT IS MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS BOB MILLER FOR
THE SOUTHERN COMPANY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS, DANNY CURTAIN, CALIFORNIA
CONFERENCE OF CARPENTERS.
WE STILL WANT TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION
TO THE REMOVAL OF THE MINIMUM WAGE
INCREASE TO THE LOWEST PAID, MOST EXPLOITED WORKERS.
WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT BECAUSE IT IS THE HOUSING CRISIS.
WE ARE NOT NEUTRAL ON THE BASIS OF THAT ACTIVITY.
WE STILL THINK IT'S NEEDED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HI, DAVID RAMIL WITH VETERANS AND BUSINESS NETWORKING.
WE SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
MARISOL IBARRA WITH FAMILY
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 1751?
SEEING NONE ALL THOSE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 1751.
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING.
CHAIR MEMBERS.
BRADY KERN, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES, IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO AB 1751,
I WANT TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN ABOUT THREE IMPORTANT ISSUES
FOR OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
FIRST, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT,
THIS BILL
WOULD REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO POTENTIALLY DECREASE
THE DENSITY IN THEIR COMMUNITIES THAT THEY HAVE PLANNED FOR.
FOR THE LAST
TEN YEARS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS ENCOURAGED OUR CITIES TO UP
ZONE AND PROMOTE
MORE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
AND LARGER DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR CITIES
ARE DOING THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS ACCORDINGLY.
THIS MEASURE SAYS IF IT IS 75% OF THE SAME MINIMUM DENSITY,
WE CANNOT DO,
OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND MEET OUR LOCAL ZONING PLANS
AS REQUIRED.
AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND, IF THERE'S A MEN'S AROUND
THIS ISSUE THAT WE ADDRESS AND FOLLOW THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS
THAT WE HAVE PLANNED FOR IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WE ARE DOING THIS IN RESPONSE TO WHAT HAS BEEN EXPECTED
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AND THE HOUSING CRISIS TO ENSURE
WE ARE HAVING GOOD, STRONG DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE ALSO, AS A RESULT OF THIS ABILITY
TO, DECREASE THE DENSITY WOULD PROVIDE CITIES, A LOT OF,
A LOT OF CHALLENGES REGARDING NO DOUBT LOSS.
SO ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT YOU COULD HAVE IS IF WE ARE PLANNING FOR
100 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE OR OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING,
AND A PROJECT COMES IN FOR A THREE STORY TOWNHOME
PROJECT TO PROVIDE THAT, AND IT ONLY PROVIDES 75,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND 25 OTHER SITES
WITHIN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE LAW.
SO WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE CHANGES.
AND THEN FINALLY, I WANT TO ADDRESS
THAT THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE A BI-RITE APPROVAL PROCESS
AND A, NON-DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THESE TOWNHOME PROJECTS.
SO WE DO CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED,
APPRECIATE ALL THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS
AND LOOK FORWARD TO READING THE AMENDS.
BUT, WE DO REMAIN OPPOSED TODAY
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
GOOD MORNING.
TRACY RYAN THROUGH CAN I REPRESENTS CALIFORNIA.
DO APPRECIATE THE RECENT AMENDMENTS,
BUT WE DO CONTINUE TO BE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
CURIOUS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
ON THE FLOOR, ALALA,
ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT,
THE CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION AND HOUSING CALIFORNIA,
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON THIS.
WE ARE REVIEWING THE COMMITTEE AMENDS,
BUT VERY LIKELY WE'LL REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION
WHEN IT DOES GO INTO PRINT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
BENJAMIN HENDERSON
WITH THE WESTERN CENTER IN LAW AND PROPERTY.
WE ARE EVALUATING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
AND ANTICIPATE MOVING OUR POSITION TO NEUTRAL.
OKAY. THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEMBERS.
NICK GRAHAM,
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE,
WE LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS
AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE TODAY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS,
SENATOR CARDO?
THANK YOU.
WHEN THIS WAS UP IN HOUSING, I SUPPORTED IT.
AND BECAUSE FROM A HOUSING PERSPECTIVE,
IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
TO ACTUALLY BUILD WHAT, CONSUMERS
HAVE A DEMAND FOR AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING WHAT
THEY REALLY DON'T AND HOPING THAT THEY'LL CRAM THEMSELVES IN.
RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOTTEN WAY AHEAD OF OURSELVES,
WAY OVER OUR SKIS IN,
IN, SMALL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE A LOT OF THOSE IN MY REGION.
THEY'RE BUILDING THEM LIKE, LIKE CRAZY.
THE CONCERNS
I HAVE FOR HERE IS, WELL, WE'RE TRYING TO,
FORCE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF STUFF THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY
HAVE IN DEMAND THERE.
WHEN THEY'RE DOING THAT,
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET CREDIT FROM HCD
FOR BUILDING WHAT'S IN DEMAND,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE FORCED
TO TRY TO BUILD WHAT'S NOT IN DEMAND.
EVEN MORE,
BECAUSE WE HAVE AN AGENCY THAT'S JUST COUNTING BRICKS.
THAT'S ALL THEY'RE DOING.
THEY'RE JUST COUNTING ROOFTOPS
NO MATTER WHAT'S UNDER THOSE ROOFTOPS, WHETHER IT'S A 250
SQUARE FOOT ROOFTOP OR A 900 SQUARE FOOT ROOFTOP,
OR A TOWNHOME THAT'S 1700 AND 50FT².
THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE,
BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, I, I WANT TO SUPPORT
BILLS LIKE THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE DEMAND.
BUT IF WE DON'T
CHANGE OUR RULES SO THE HCD CAN BE A LITTLE BIT
MORE FLEXIBLE WITH COMMUNITIES ON THIS, THAT'S GOING TO HOLD UP
OTHER OTHER STUFF BECAUSE I CAN'T GO ON
CREATING MORE IMPOSITIONS ON CITIES
AND THEN HAVING AN UNRESPONSIVE AGENCY BECAUSE WE'VE MADE RULES
THAT THEY SAY, HEY, WE GOT TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES AND
SO WE'RE OUT.
I'M FRUSTRATED.
I'VE TRIED TO WORK WITH
IT'S NOT WORKING.
WELL, SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO REEL THAT IN.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE, AT SOME POINT, AND THIS IS MY.
I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE TO MAKE LEGISLATION
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S MINISTERIAL VERSUS, BY.
RIGHT.
BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT SOME
WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT SO THAT WE CAN,
HAVE A MINISTERIAL PROCESS THAT MAKES SENSE
AND STILL GIVE CITIES SOME LEVERAGE.
OVER, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEING BUILT IN SOME CONTROL OVER
WHAT'S BEING BUILT AND HOW IT'S BEING BUILT.
NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, THE PRODUCT,
BUT HOW IT LOOKS, HOW IT FITS THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
ALL OF THAT STUFF.
CITIES NEED TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT STUFF.
AND, AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING BY.
RIGHT, THEY HAVE VERY LITTLE CONTROL.
AND WHEN THEY HAVE LITTLE CONTROL THERE,
I MEAN, JUST GO ON FACEBOOK
AND LOOK AT SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM JUST CITIZENS
THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS ACTUALLY A GOOD, GOOD APPROVAL.
I MEAN, A GOOD PROJECT.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE FRUSTRATED.
THE CITIZENS ARE FRUSTRATED.
EVENTUALLY THEY GET SICK AND TIRED OF THIS.
AND THEY, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY TAKE IT OUT ON US.
THEY SHOULD THAT WE'RE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.
AND SO WE'RE
WE'RE NOT DOING THEM ANY FAVORS BY NOT ADDRESSING THIS STUFF.
TODAY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT
THAT NEEDS TO GO FORWARD.
BUT THEN LATER WE'RE GOING TO BE,
WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS OTHER STUFF WITH HCD,
AND THE CITIES AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AND,
AND HOW WE ACCOMPLISH THESE GOALS
WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATING THE GENERAL PLANS OF CITIES.
THAT, ARE TRYING TO DO THEIR BEST
TO ACCOMMODATE THIS, HOUSING SHORTAGE.
BUT WE CAN GO FROM A HOUSING SHORTAGE TO AN ABUNDANCE
OF HOUSING AND A GLUT IN NO TIME.
WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE.
AND, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT US IN THAT SITUATION,
BECAUSE WHEN THAT HAPPENS, YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS
LOSS OF VALUE AND AND PEOPLE'S FINANCIAL, EMPIRES ARE RUINED
BECAUSE SOME OF IT'S BUILT ON HOPEFULLY
AT LEAST A THIRD OF IT IS BUILT ON, ON, ON HAVING REAL ESTATE.
SO, THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS GOING FORWARD.
IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT YOUR BILL TODAY.
BUT, BUT CERTAINLY I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS
WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT.
IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE DOWN THIS PATH,
BECAUSE I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF, LEAVING OUR COMMUNITIES
OUT LIKE THAT.
THANK YOU.
MINTS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.
THANK THE AUTHOR VERY MUCH.
AND THE COALITION THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER,
AND I HOPE AND CONTINUE TO RELY ON THE CITIES
TO RAISE THE ISSUES THAT THAT NEED TO BE RAISED,
BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS NOT GONE.
YOU KNOW,
WE'VE GONE FROM ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER AND BACK AND FORTH,
AND WE HAVEN'T SETTLED DOWN YET ON HOW TO ACCOMMODATE
THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT ALSO WHAT IT TAKES TO
CARRY OUT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
SO THANK YOU FOR HANGING IN THERE AND KEEP PUSHING BACK.
I JUST WANT TO SAY, I'M REALLY GLAD TO SEE OWNERSHIP,
AT THE CORE OF THIS, OF THIS BILL.
THAT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT,
BECAUSE THAT'S,
WELL, GENERATIONAL WEALTH THAT CAN BE PASSED ON, TO OUR
TO OUR KIDS OR FAMILIES, WHOEVER, WE HAD A
WE HAVE A PROJECT STARTED WHEN I WAS FIRST ELECTED
AT THE 710 CORRIDOR AND LOS ANGELES,
AND THERE WERE HUNDREDS, HUNDREDS OF CALTRANS PROPERTIES.
THERE WERE NOT GOING TO BE USED ANYMORE BECAUSE THE,
A STOP WAS PUT TO THE FREEWAY.
400 PROPERTIES OWNED BY CALTRANS.
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM?
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS TO GO.
AND WE DECIDED, AND I'M REALLY, GLAD.
AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S IT'S TAKEN SOME TIME
IS TO MAKE THOSE OPEN TO OWNERSHIP,
MAKE THOSE PROPERTIES OWNED BY REHABBING THEM.
IN FACT, WE WORK WITH, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
WE WORK WITH, A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS
WITH OUR FORMERLY INCARCERATED WHO ARE GOING THROUGH THEIR,
CONSTRUCTION TRADES SKILLS AND APPRENTICES, HUNDREDS.
AND THEY'RE SOME OF THEM
WERE SET ASIDE FOR REHABBING AND THEN RESELLING THEM.
SOME WERE SET ASIDE FOR SOME, RENTAL, LOW INCOME RENTAL,
WITHIN FILLING IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAD LOST THOSE PROPERTIES.
AND NOW HOW DO WE FILL THAT COMMUNITY WITH, NEW HOMES,
WITH NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO RENT, WITH NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO BUY.
AND THAT HAD NEVER BEEN THAT HAD NOT BEEN DONE.
IT WAS TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR THE FACT
THAT THOSE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN SOLD, TO TRY TO BUILD A FREEWAY.
SO THERE'S MANY OPPORTUNITIES IF WE LOOK AT THEM.
I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU'RE RAISING THE
THE IDEA OF OWNERSHIP AND WHAT WE CAN DO
TO STREAMLINE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GREAT DIRECTION TO GO.
SO I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND THE COALITION VERY MUCH FOR THIS.
AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WRAP UP, MADAM QUICKSILVER,
THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR FOR SHARING THAT STORY,
BECAUSE IT DOES, REFLECT EXACTLY HOW LONG IT TAKES
TO, IF YOU WANT TO, SAY, BUILD AS A WHOLE.
I REMEMBER THAT PROJECT, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE I WAS ON
SKAG AS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PROBABLY 15 YEARS AGO WHEN THE 710, CAME UP.
AND IT'S TAKEN THESE MANY, MANY YEARS TO RESOLVE THAT.
SO AS MUCH AS WE TRY TO PUSH AND WE WANT TO SEE,
ACCOMPLISHMENTS, PARTICULARLY
IN, HOUSING, WE KNOW IT CAN BE VERY SLOW.
THAT BEING SAID, I'M
PROUD OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE ON THIS BILL.
WE KNOW IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES.
I 100% AGREE WITH, THE SENATOR
AND I THINK IT'S, MARIETTA.
YEAH.
I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE HCD.
WE NEED TO WORK ON THAT FLEXIBILITY.
AS YOU'VE, STATED AND,
I THINK THERE WILL BE A CONTINUED WORK IN THAT AREA,
BUT, WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AND I VOTE.
YOU FOR.
IS THERE A MOTION?
YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO MAKE A COURTESY
REQUEST.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING I JUST I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON,
BUT RULES DIDN'T LIKE MY, PREVIOUS, SOLUTIONS TO THAT
AND KEEP THE MEETINGS MOVING.
I'LL GO AHEAD.
AND FOR YOU, THAT'S THE SIGN.
THE GOOD LUCK.
I MOVE THE BILL. NO.
OKAY, I CAN MOVE THE BILL.
THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. SORRY.
GETTING I'LL MAKES SENSE.
OKAY, WE GOT A BILL.
WE GOT A MOTION.
YEAH, A BILL AND A MOTION.
NOW WE HAVE A VOTE.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS TO ALSO THERE ALSO, I JOY
WE HAVE AGAIN ASHBY.
CERVANTES.
BLAIR. OUR SARAH.
SO I TO ZERO AND.
THE BILL WILL REMAIN ON CALL.
THANK YOU.
WILSON.
FIRST.
YEAH.
SO I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU WANT TO GO IN ORDER SINCE SHE WAS ALREADY HERE.
YEAH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, I THINK YOU'RE NEXT.
OKAY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, YOU ARE SAID TO GO.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND SENATORS, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO THANK, YOUR OFFICE
FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS BILL.
AND I DO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 912, A BILL THAT PROPOSES AMENDMENTS
TO THE VALLEJO FLOOD
AND WASTEWATER DISTRICTS ENABLING ACT
TO MODERNIZE THE COMPOSITION OF THE DISTRICT'S
BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND IMPROVE GOVERNANCE, EFFICIENCY,
RESPONSIVENESS, AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.
EB 912 MODIFIES THE BOARD'S COMPOSITION
TO REDUCE GOVERNANCE CONFLICTS, IMPROVE FIDUCIARY INDEPENDENCE,
AND ENSURES THE DISTRICT CAN CONTINUE TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE
LONG TERM INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE DISTRICT'S CURRENT
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PRESENTS PRACTICAL AND LEGAL CHALLENGES
BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY OF THE DISTRICT BOARD
IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING NEGOTIATIONS, LITIGATIONS,
OR OTHER CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND THE CITY,
RECUSAL FROM ONE GOVERNING RULE DOES NOT FULLY RESOLVE
GOVERNANCE CONFLICTS AND OFTEN CREATES QUORUM ISSUES.
THE CONFLICTS AND QUORUM ISSUES
CONSISTENTLY HOLD UP NEGOTIATIONS ON CONTRACTS,
WHICH FURTHER DELAYS PROJECTS AND NECESSARY AGREEMENTS
FOR THE BASIC FUNCTIONALITY OF THE DISTRICT.
OUR BILL SEEKS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES
BY RETURNING THE DISTRICT TO A MODIFIED GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF TWO VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS,
ONE SOLANO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND TWO AT-LARGE
TRUSTEES APPOINTED BY THE REMAINING TRUSTEES.
WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE
MY WITNESS, MARK TOMKO,
GENERAL MANAGER OF VALLEJO FLOOD AND WASTEWATER DISTRICT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR AND SENATORS, I AM, MARK TOMKO.
I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER
OF VALLEJO FLOOD AND WASTEWATER DISTRICT.
AND, COMING TO SUPPORT AB 912.
AND THIS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S SUPPORTED BY OUR UNANIMOUSLY
BY OUR BOARD AND BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
SO EVERYBODY THAT'S INVOLVED IS JUST SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
SO THIS HOPEFULLY SHOULD BE FAIRLY EASY.
WE ARE A SPECIAL DISTRICT.
WE DO WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER.
OUR CURRENT BOARD, AS WAS MENTIONED,
I WAS STARTED IN 1995 AND IT INCLUDES EIGHT MEMBERS,
SEVEN OF WHICH ARE THE CITY COUNCIL
AND ONE IS THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT WERE,
COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT AGENCIES.
BUT THAT INDEPENDENCE GETS CHALLENGED
WHEN THE MAJORITY OF YOUR BOARD IS THE CITY COUNCIL.
AS AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THE INTEREST DON'T ALIGN.
SO WE HAVE SOME MISALIGNMENT OF INTERESTS,
CERTAINLY WITH,
AS FAR AS LEGAL ISSUES, AS FAR AS THAT CLARITY AND,
THAT PRIVILEGE CONCERNS AND ALSO JUST DEALING
WITH DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ALSO GETTING A QUORUM.
SO THIS NEW BOARD
THAT WAS DESCRIBED, A FIVE MEMBER BOARD,
WHICH IS PRETTY TYPICAL FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS,
HAS THE TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ONE COUNTY SUPERVISOR AND TWO APPOINTED.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL RESOLVE
A LOT OF THE CONFLICTS AND WILL ACTUALLY BE MORE
BENEFICIAL TO THE TO THE, THE PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE.
SO WE'RE CERTAINLY IN SUPPORT OF IT,
AND HOPEFULLY YOU WILL AS WELL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
WHICH I
KNOW THERE IT IS, A 912.
PLEASE COME.
A GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
KAREN LING, ON BEHALF OF THE SOLANO
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, PAUL GONSALVES,
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND SUPPORT,
JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS BILL.
REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT SEEING NONE, ANYONE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 912.
NOBODY. ANYBODY.
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED.
YOU MAY WRAP UP.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME
SPENT ON THIS BILL GETTING IT RIGHT,
HELPING US TO MAKE SURE WE GOT IT RIGHT.
AND AS GENERAL MANAGER TOM CO NOTED THAT,
THIS IS UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED
BY ALL PARTIES
THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND THE SEWER DISTRICT.
I RESPECTFULLY ASKED OUR NEIGHBOR,
WELL, YOU HAD TO GET THIS JUST FOR ALL THAT,
GETTING EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE.
THANK YOU.
BILL HAS BEEN MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
YOU MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATION.
SENATORS. DEROSA. HI.
ROSALIE CHOI.
CHOI.
IRENE ASHBY.
CERVANTES. LAIRD. SATO.
SIERRA TWO I, THREE ZERO.
THE BILL IS ON CALL.
THIS WILL GO ON.
TO FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA.
GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 1710.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEES
FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS MEASURE,
AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU.
ABC 17 BIPARTISAN
EFFORT TO ADDRESS CALIFORNIA'S UNPRECEDENTED HOUSING CRISIS
A CLUSTER THAT HAS TOO MANY PEOPLE WITHOUT A HOME,
STRUGGLING TO PAY RENT AND UNABLE TO ACHIEVE OWNERSHIP.
THIS BILL BUILDS UPON THE PROVEN SUCCESS OF SB 330 IN 2019
BY ENSURING THAT ONCE
THE HOUSING PROJECT BEGINS THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS,
IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATORY CHANGES, EXCEPT FOR
ESSENTIAL UPDATES RELATED TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS
OR TO MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
AMONG OTHERS.
AS A FORMER CITY PLANNER,
I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW BUREAUCRATIC HURDLES
INCONSISTENT REGULATION
STALLED PROJECTS FOR YEARS,
DRIVING UP THE COST AND MAKING BUILDING HOUSING UNATTAINABLE IN
A 2025 STUDY
FOUND THAT CALIFORNIA
IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE STATE TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING,
LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE LONG APPROVAL TIMELINES IN CALIFORNIA
TAKE OVER 22 MONTHS LONGER TO FINISH THAN IN TEXAS,
WHICH GREATLY INCREASES COSTS.
IF WE DON'T FIX OUR PERMITTING SYSTEM, WE WILL CONTINUE
TO LOSE HOUSING INVESTMENTS TO OTHER STATES
THAT OFFER A MORE PREDICTABLE AND EFFICIENT APPROVAL PROCESS.
A STRONG, RELIABLE HOUSING SUPPLY IS CRITICAL
TO KEEPING WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA,
SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES AND FUELING ECONOMIC GROWTH.
WITHOUT ENOUGH HOUSING, EMPLOYERS FACE HIRING CHALLENGES
AND WORKERS COMMUTE BECOME LONGER AND MORE COSTLY.
AB 1710 ADDRESSES THESE CHALLENGES HEAD ON
BY INCREASING TRANSPARENCY, PROVIDING CERTAINTY,
AND ENSURING FAIR AND TIMELY PROJECT APPROVALS.
WE ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT TODAY IS NICK CAMAROTA,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
AND DARYL CARLTON WITH THE CALIF
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO STEP IN HERE
FOR A MOMENT WITH NICK, BUT, THERE WILL BE JUST TWO OF US.
BUT STEVE CRUZ, CORRECT IT.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND, THANK YOU TO THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
FOR OFFERING THROUGH THIS IMPORTANT BILL FOR, KBIA.
AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING
TO ACCEPT AMENDMENTS TODAY AS THE THE AUTHOR INDICATED, TO,
NARROW THE FOCUS OF THE BILL TO SECTION TWO.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON THAT.
THAT IS, STILL AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE BILL
THAT WOULD MAKE ADJUSTMENT TO THE REASONABLE PERSON
STANDARD AND, TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC AGENCIES,
WHEN THEY'RE ASSESSING PROJECTS
FOR CONSISTENCY, THAT THERE ARE OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS THAT THEY MAY COMPLY WITH.
AND SO WE'RE GRATEFUL THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THOSE PROVISIONS INTACT AND WOULD ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
NO, HE COVERED IT
JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN, SUPPORT OF AB 1710?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MADAM CHAIR, MICHAEL GUNNING HERE
ON BEHALF OF SPUR
ABUNDANT HOUSING LOS ANGELES AND CIRCULATE
PLANNING AND POLICY, ALL IN SUPPORT OF A.B.
17. OKAY. THANK YOU.
VERY CONTENT.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR, BOB NAYLOR FOR THE CITIZEN COMPANY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
HENRY, WRITING ON BEHALF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
LENNY COULD WALK US IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU,
HARRISON LINDER ON BEHALF OF LEADING EDGE
CALIFORNIA HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
I SEE NO MORE IN SUPPORT.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 1710?
IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, ANTHONY TANNEHILL
WITH THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION.
WE HAD IN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED.
LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THESE AMENDMENTS IN PRINT.
REEVALUATE WAITING
AND WANT TO EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO THE COMMITTEE,
THE AUTHOR AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS
FOR ENGAGING WITH US ALL OF THESE MONTHS.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, KYLIE
WRIGHT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES.
ALSO WANT TO, APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE'S WORK ON THIS BILL.
AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN TODAY.
LOOKING FORWARD
TO REVIEWING THE BILL IN PRINT AND RECONSIDERING, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
HI. GOOD MORNING, KEELEY MORRIS.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION,
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NOBODY ELSE.
COME TO THE DAIS.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS?
SENATOR SALADO, THANK YOU.
SO THE OPPONENTS OF THE BILL RIGHT NOW
ARE ASKING FOR THE AMENDMENTS,
ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE THAT ARE PENDING.
ARE THOSE DO THOSE ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS
OR IS THERE MORE WORK TO BE DONE?
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE AMENDMENTS
WILL ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
BUT I KNOW THERE WILL BE OTHER CONCERNS
AFTER THEY SEE WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN PRINT.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE.
THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED.
I'LL CLOSE IT.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS BILL IS DESIGNED
TO BRING CONSISTENCY AND SANITY TO THE HOUSE
AND APPROVAL PROCESS I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR.
AND I THANK YOU. WELCOME.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
AND THERE'S TERRAZZO I FRESNO I CHOI I
CHOI I BEGIN ASHBY CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I LAIRD
SAY TO SAY OUR TIME
FOR ZERO.
THE BILL IS ON CALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE HERE?
OKAY.
NEED A MOTION FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
BILL HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR CERVANTES.
THE MOTION FOR THE CONSENT.
THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
WHICH CONSISTS OF FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 1622, FILE ITEM
NUMBER 12, AB 1802 FOUR, AND 14 AB 2219,
FILE ITEM 15 AB 2395.
ITEM 24 AB 2512 FOR ITEM
727 AB 2341.
SENATOR CEREZO HI TRANSL I CHOI
CHOI I RIN ASHBY.
CERVANTES SARANDOS I LARRY SATO
I SWEAR TO I40.
ON CALL.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE.
WE'RE GOING BACK TO AB 306,
AND I NEED A MOTION FOR THAT.
PLEASE.
THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR CERVANTES.
CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATION.
SENATORS RUSSELL I SO I CHOY.
CHOY I RIGGIN.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I LAIRD. SATO.
SARATOGA FOUR ZERO.
BILL IS ON CALL.
WAITING.
WE HAVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER JOHNSON.
YES. READY.
GOOD MORNING.
WELCOME.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT AB 2080.
GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB 2080, A STRAIGHTFORWARD MEASURE INTENDED
TO IMPROVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
AND REMOVE UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, A COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MUST GO THROUGH
FORMAL RENEWAL PROCESS EVERY SINGLE YEAR
TO DELEGATE INVESTMENT AUTHORITY TO THEIR COUNTY TREASURER.
THIS CREATES
A REOCCURRING ADMINISTRATIVE HURDLE THAT SERVES NO PRACTICAL
OVERSIGHT PURPOSE THAT CARRIES SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL RISKS.
IN MANY CASES, SIMPLY SCHEDULING DELAYS OR AGENDA
BACKLOGS CAN CAUSE THIS ONCE A YEAR PERIOD TO LAPSE,
PUTTING THE COUNTY IN TECHNICAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.
THIS UNCERTAINTY CAN IMPACT NOT JUST THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
BUT ALSO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
THAT RELY ON COUNTY INVESTMENT FORCE.
AB 2080 FIXES THIS BY SHIFTING AN ANNUAL RENEWAL MODEL
TO AN ONGOING DELEGATION
THAT REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE BOARD CHOOSES TO REVOKE IT.
THE BILL IS SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTY TREASURERS AND TAX COLLECTORS,
AND HAS RECEIVED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND NO NO VOTES.
IT'S A VERY COMMON SENSE FIX THAT IT PROVIDES STABILITY
TO LOCAL INVESTMENT OPERATIONS WHILE MAINTAINING
A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD,
WELL, STRICT BOARD OVERSIGHT WITH ME TO TESTIFY
IS KAREN LING, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY TREASURERS AND TAX COLLECTORS.
GOOD MORNING, 20 MINUTES.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING THE BILL,
AND I THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE AUTHOR FOR TAKING IT ON,
AS SHE OUTLINED TO YOU, THIS IS REALLY A TECHNICAL,
CHANGE WHERE THE DELEGATION WILL OCCUR.
AND THEN WHEN A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FEELS AS THOUGH,
MAYBE SOMETHING'S NOT QUITE RIGHT, THEY CAN HAVE A HEARING
AND POTENTIALLY RE DESIGNATE THE AUTHORITY TO THEMSELVES.
BUT DOING SO WILL PROVIDE
ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COUNTY TREASURY
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.
WHILE WE HOLD A LOT OF MONEY
FOR OURSELVES IN COUNTY TREASURIES,
WE ALSO HAVE THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS MONEY
AND A LOT OF LOCAL SCHOOLS DOLLARS.
AND THOSE FOLKS ARE ALSO STAKEHOLDERS
IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTY TREASURY.
AND OCCASIONALLY WHEN A BOARD OR A TAX COLLECTOR
MIGHT NOT GET IT ON THE AGENDA IN TIME
BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR,
TECHNICALLY, THAT RESPONSIBILITY FALLS BACK
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND NOBODY
WANTS TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
SO THIS ACTUALLY TIGHTENS THAT UP,
BUT ALSO GIVES THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN ANY REVOCATION OF AN INVESTMENT AUTHORITY.
ALL OF THESE CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE 90S
AFTER THE ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY.
ACTUALLY, WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS ON THE
COMMITTEE THAT REPRESENT ORANGE COUNTY.
WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO, DILUTE OR DIMINISH
THE REPORTING THAT MUST BE DONE ON A MONTHLY
AND QUARTERLY BASIS AS FAR AS WHERE THE MONEY IS
AND HOW IT'S PERFORMING.
SO WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING FROM A PUBLIC ACCESS STANDPOINT.
WE WOULD NEVER, COME HERE AND ASK JONATHAN
TO ANALYZE A BILL THAT WOULD DO THAT.
HE'S BEEN WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH.
YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN FABULOUS.
WORKING ON ANOTHER BILL RELATED TO INVESTMENTS.
AND WE ARE, VERY MINDFUL OF THE THE COMMITTEE'S DEDICATION
TO MAKING SURE THAT MONEY IS MANAGED APPROPRIATELY.
AND WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
AND AGAIN, THANK THE AUTHOR FOR TAKING IT ON.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE, ELSE IN SUPPORT,
OF AB 2080, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
OKAY.
SEEING NONE
DO HAVE ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2080.
MANY IN OPPOSITION SEEING NONE.
WE HAVE, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THE DAIS.
MEMBERS MOVE THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT.
BILL HAS BEEN MOVED.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO WRAP UP?
THANK YOU.
I JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR.
I VOTE ON AB 2080.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO AHEAD.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATORS TO RUSSELL.
I RESERVE I CHOI CHOI I RICKY ASHBY.
CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I LARRY CARTER.
STAY ORDER I FOR ZERO BILLS ON CALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND AS SOON AS WE GET OUR MORE OF OUR MEMBERS WILL
TAKE UP THE VOTE AT.
217 ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBER THANK YOU.
HAVE TWO BILLS.
WE'LL START WITH AB 1740.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THE AGE
I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
OKAY.
GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH,
FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT AB 1740,
WHICH IS SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AND STREETS FOR ALL.
I WANT TO FIRST BEGIN BY THANKING EVERY STAKEHOLDER
WHO HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY WITH ME TO GET THIS PROPOSAL
TO WHERE IT IS TODAY, INCLUDING THE COMMITTEE CHAIRS,
AN INCREDIBLE COMMITTEE, CONSULTANTS,
AND A VARIETY OF COMMITTEES IN BOTH HOUSES.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE BILL SPONSORS
FOR THEIR TIRELESS ADVOCACY AND ADDITIONALLY, MY SINCERE
THANKS TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF.
I'M ALSO HAPPY TO BE JOINED TODAY
BY MY FRIENDS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY.
I'VE WORKED HAND-IN-HAND WITH THESE GROUPS FOR DECADES
AND WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM TO FIGHT
TO PROTECT OUR BEAUTIFUL, VIBRANT AND DELICATE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENT AND COASTLINE.
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT OF 1976 WAS A LANDMARK
POLICY ACHIEVEMENT IN THE FIGHT TO PROTECT
AND MANAGE CALIFORNIA'S 1100
MILES OF PRECIOUS, VIBRANT COASTLINE.
THE HISTORIC LAW, BALANCED
RESOURCE AND ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION, COASTAL ACCESS
AND ECONOMIC
VITALITY, AND ITS PASSAGE MARKED A CRITICAL INFLECTION POINT
IN CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT
TO DEFENDING OUR PRICELESS COASTLINE.
THIS BILL HAS ALWAYS BEEN ONE WHOSE INTENTION
WAS TO ADVANCE AND PROTECT THE POLICIES OF THE COASTAL ACT,
AS INTRODUCED
AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED, IT INTENDED
TO ADVANCE PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS,
HOUSING AND VISITOR SERVING USES IN THE COASTAL ZONE, IN AREAS
THAT ARE HIGHLY URBANIZED AND IN WHICH
THERE ARE NOT OTHER COASTAL RESOURCES PRESENT.
THEREFORE, THE GOAL WAS TO ADVANCE
GOOD COMMUNITY PROJECTS AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT
THE THINGS THAT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC CHERISHES,
LIKE CLEAN WATER, OUR BEACHES, WETLANDS, SPECIES AND HABITAT.
ACHIEVING THESE GOALS IN A POLICY PROPOSAL IS COMPLICATED,
AND WE UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WAS SO MUCH FOCUS AROUND THIS BILL.
WHEN AB 1740 WAS INTRODUCED EARLIER THIS YEAR, IT PROPOSED
TARGETED EXEMPTIONS FROM COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
FOR A SPECIFIED TYPE OF URBAN TRANSIT RICH AND COASTAL CITY
THAT MET STANDARDS AROUND PUBLIC ACCESS,
TRANSIT AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION.
SANTA MONICA AND MY DISTRICT IS AMONG THE MOST TRANSIT
RICH AND MULTIMODAL CITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE.
IT ALSO REMAINS ONE OF THE ONLY COASTAL CITIES
WITHOUT A CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
THE EARLIER VERSIONS OF AB 1740 WERE VETTED, AND FEEDBACK
AND THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FOSTERED A SUBSEQUENT EXTENSIVE
AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AMONG THE COASTAL COMMISSION,
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL, HOUSING, AND MOBILITY ADVOCATES.
THESE CONVERSATIONS OVER THE PAST MONTHS HAVE LED
TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION REACHING AN AGREEMENT
THAT PUTS SANTA MONICA
ON A PATH TO A CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, AFTER DECADES WITHOUT A LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, SANTA MONICA AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION
AGREED ON A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO GUIDE LCP
NEGOTIATIONS, WITH BOTH SIDES SAYING COMPLETION
WITHIN 18 MONTHS IS FEASIBLE.
SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
VOTED SEVEN ZERO TO APPROVE THE MOU ON MAY THE 26TH,
DEVELOPING AND MUTUALLY AGREEING ON AN MOU
FOR AN LCP IS ALMOST UNPRECEDENTED,
AND IT'S A TESTAMENT TO THE REINVIGORATED ENERGY
AND WILLINGNESS OF ALL PARTIES
TO SEE THE CITY GRANTED A CERTIFIED LCP.
ONCE CERTIFIED,
A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WILL ALLOW
MOST COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO BE PROCESSED BY THE CITY
RATHER THAN REQUIRING SEPARATE COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL,
CREATING A MORE PREDICTABLE AND LOCALLY CONTROLLED PROCESS
WHILE MAINTAINING
THE COMMISSION'S TRADITIONAL MECHANISMS
FOR OVERSIGHT IN THE COASTAL ZONE.
SO THIS BILL, CONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
TO QUICKLY MOVE FORWARD WITH AN LCP AB 1740, NOW
PROVIDES CLEAR TIMELINES,
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED TO ENSURE
THAT AN LCP FOR SANTA MONICA IS COMPLETED AND IMPLEMENTED.
A.B. 1740 CONCURRENTLY PROVIDES FOR SMART CLIMATE STRATEGIES
BY GIVING THE COASTAL COMMISSION NEW TOOLS
TO SUPPORT INVESTMENTS IN TRANSIT,
BIKE LANES, AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION ACROSS THE STATE
BY CREATING AN EXPEDITED STATEWIDE PERMITTING PROCESS
WITHIN THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION FOR BIKE TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS.
THIS PROCESS ELIMINATES REQUIREMENTS
FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES AND EMPOWERS
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO WAIVE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
IF SHE DEEMS THE PROJECT PROVIDES
COMMENSURATE AND ENHANCED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COAST
THE PUBLIC.
ALSO, THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES
THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO PUBLICLY REPORT DATA
ON THE APPROVALS OF THESE PROJECTS, PROVIDING TRANSPARENCY
TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE PUBLIC.
THE BILL BEFORE YOU TODAY REPRESENTS A WIN WIN
WIN APPROACH
AND REWARDS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT
BETWEEN THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
WHICH IS WHY I'M HAPPY TO HEAR
THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL BE AGENDIZE THIS BILL
FOR THE JULY HEARING IN ORDER
TO CONSIDER TAKING A FORMAL POSITION OF SUPPORT.
THEY'VE ALREADY REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION.
THIS BILL BRINGS BOTH PARTIES TO THE TABLE
AND SUPPORTS THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
BY CERTIFYING AND CERTIFYING AN LCP
THAT WILL PRESERVE THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY
AND ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR BEACHES
AND COASTAL RESOURCES FROM ACTIVITIES
THAT THREATEN SENSITIVE HABITATS.
MADAM CHAIR, I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE TWO AMENDMENTS
OUTLINED IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS,
ONE BEING TECHNICAL,
THE OTHER REMOVING REFERENCE TO HTP FUNDING.
I ASK FOR YOUR.
I VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME
AND WITH ME TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE SYLVIA SALIH SHAH,
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
AND LAURA DEEHAN, STATE DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA.
YEAH.
GO AHEAD. DO YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, MADAM? MISS ABSENT.
GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR.
GOOD MORNING, SYLVIA SOLIS SHAH, HERE.
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, OUR COASTLINE IS CENTRAL
TO OUR COMMUNITY'S IDENTITY, ECONOMY, AND QUALITY OF LIFE.
MANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH, VISIONS OF THE PIER
AND JUST OUR VERY, VERY VAST COASTLINE AND BEACHES.
FOR DECADES, SANTA MONICA HAS BEEN A LEADER
IN ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP, SUSTAINABILITY AND PUBLIC COASTAL ACCESS,
AND WE REMAIN FIRMLY COMMITTED TO THOSE GOALS.
THE CITY SPONSORED AB 1740 TO ADDRESS LONG STANDING,
PERMITTING CHALLENGES IN URBAN COASTAL COMMUNITIES, WHILE ALSO
PRESERVING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND PUBLIC ACCESS.
WE ARE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE COLLABORATION
AMONG ASSEMBLY MEMBERS OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION,
OUR CO-SPONSORS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO
FOR GETTING THIS BILL TO A CONSENSUS CONSENSUS
BASED FRAMEWORK THAT CREATES A CLEAR PATH TOWARD
CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
WITHOUT THE LCP, THE CITY HAS FACED PERMITTING
DELAYS THAT CAN HINDER PROJECTS THAT IMPROVE MOBILITY,
PUBLIC ACCESS, SUSTAINABILITY, AND ECONOMIC VITALITY.
GOALS THAT ARE NOT ONLY LOCAL BUT STATEWIDE GOALS AS WELL.
AB 1740 ESTABLISHES TIMELINES AND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
THAT WILL HELP THE CITY COMPLETE ITS LCP,
WHILE PRESERVING THE COMMISSION'S
OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY AND STRONG COASTAL PROTECTIONS.
WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
IN TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR AND SENATORS.
MY NAME IS LAURA DE HEN.
I'M THE STATE DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA.
YEAH, WE'RE A STATEWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY GROUP
THAT WORKS FOR CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER, PROTECTING OUR OPEN
SPACES AND BEAUTIFUL COASTLINE,
AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE A LIVABLE FUTURE FOR ALL OF US.
AND WE ARE REALLY PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT AB 1740.
WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZIPPER
FOR WORKING WITH COASTAL GROUPS, THE COASTAL COMMISSION
AND OTHERS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WITH AN EARLIER VERSION
AND THE VERSION HERE, BEFORE YOU TODAY,
HAS NO EXCEPTIONS, EXEMPTIONS TO THE COASTAL ACT.
AND IT REALLY HELPS, ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE LOCAL DECISIONS
THROUGH A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE.
WE ALSO SUPPORT THE PROVISIONS TO ENCOURAGE,
THE WALKING, BIKING, PUBLIC TRANSIT USED TO BE ABLE TO
GET TO THE BEACH.
AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, COMMITMENT
TO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT HAS SHOWN,
WITH THESE CHANGES IN THE BILL
AND WITH OTHER BILLS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN
TO WORK WITH THEM ON AS WELL.
THE COASTAL ACT REALLY IS A BEDROCK ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
THAT THE PUBLIC SUPPORTED 50 YEARS OVER 50 YEARS AGO.
AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO KEEP IT STRONG
SO THAT OUR COAST STAYS BEAUTIFUL.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER, SUPPORT
IN THE AUDIENCE
SAID YOUR NAME AND, ORGANIZATION
AND YOUR POSITION, SIR JOHN SKOGLUND, WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES IN SUPPORT.
STEPHANIE JIMENEZ
WITH HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN SUPPORT,
SHAUNA BACON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION, AND SUPPORT.
OKAY ANY LEAD THE OPPOSITION GROUP,
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE.
OKAY.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY.
MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY SENATOR SATO.
I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION.
YOUR, BILL IS, SUMMARY SAYS,
BASICALLY, VERY SIMPLE
LOCAL SANTA MONICA IS A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
WILL BE DEVELOPED AND OR BE SUBMITTED TO COASTAL COMMISSION,
AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION SHALL FOLLOW
THE TIMELINE THAT'S SPECIFIED WITH THIS BILL.
WITHOUT THE BILL, WHAT WHAT, THEY WILL DO THE THEIR JOB.
WHAT DOES YOUR PARTICULAR BILL WILL ACHIEVE
BY ENACTING THIS BILL?
SO, SANTA MONICA IS ONE OF A HANDFUL OF JURISDICTIONS
THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOCAL, A CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
AND IT'S BEEN AFTER DECADES OF ACTUALLY
GOING BACK AND FORTH, TRYING TO DEVELOP ONE.
SO, YES, THERE ARE TIMELINES.
SO THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE STANDARDS,
THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION
NEEDS TO APPLY FOR COASTAL PROGRAM.
THEY WILL APPLY THE EXISTING LAWS.
WHAT IT DOES DO IS IT SETS UP A PROCESS BY WHICH,
BOTH THE CITY
NEEDS TO, SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A COASTAL PROGRAM.
AND IF THEY DON'T MEET,
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO THAT NOW.
AND IF THEY DON'T MEET THAT, THEN HAS THEY SUBMITTED
THE PROGRAM PLANS THEY HAVE IN OTHER YEARS?
AND I THINK THE LAST TIME
THEY SUBMITTED ONE WAS IN 2018, I BELIEVE, 2018.
AND THEN THE COASTAL COMMISSION ASKED THEM TO
WITHDRAW THE PROBE, TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION.
BECAUSE THEY
THERE WERE DIFFERENCES AND THEY DIDN'T
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MOVE IT FORWARD QUICKLY
ACCORDING TO THEIR THE TIMELINES
THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION NEEDED TO FOLLOW.
SO AT THAT POINT IT SORT OF STALLED THE PROCESS.
AND THEN, COVID CAME AND NOW IT'S SORT OF STALE.
SO NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION
FOR A COASTAL PROGRAM, WHICH REQUIRES CITY PROCESSES
TO DEVELOP THAT.
SO THAT HAS THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC INPUT.
SO, BUT THE CITY HAS COMMITTED THE RESOURCES TO,
TO GO THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS
TO PREPARE THE APPLICATION IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, THERE'S TRANSPARENCY,
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL THAT REQUIRE THE CITY
TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.
THE COASTAL COMMISSION
THEN HAS TO PROCESS IT WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
THAT'S ACTUALLY FASTER THAN THE NORMAL TIME PERIOD.
IT'S IT'S NOT WAIVING ANYTHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S TYPICAL.
THAT'S FASTER THAN WHAT THEY TYPICALLY WOULD DO.
SO THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS AGREED
TO DEVOTE RESOURCES TO GET THAT DONE.
IF THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE APPLICATION,
THEY'VE GOT TO REPORT WISE TO THE LEGISLATURE.
SO THERE'S A BUNCH OF TRANSPARENCY THINGS THAT DON'T
REDUCE THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OR CHANGE THE LAW,
BUT REALLY REQUIRES BOTH PARTIES TO REALLY FOCUS ON THIS
AND GET IT DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
WHILE THIS PLAN IS BEING DEVELOPED, THE,
IT'S THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA COORDINATING WITH THE COMMISSION
FOR THAT, THAT THEY
ONCE THAT'S A APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED,
IT WILL GO SMOOTHLY ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINES. YES.
THANK YOU
TO THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND TO LEADERSHIP IN THE CITY.
WE ARE WORKING COLLABORATIVELY
WITH THE COMMISSION SO THAT WE STAY ON TRACK.
OKAY.
WITH THE MOTION MADE BY SENATOR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH, AGAIN, I JUST I WANT TO THANK THE, THE BILL.
THE BILL CO-SPONSORS CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND STREETS
FOR ALL WHO'S BEEN HAS DEVOTED A LOT OF ENERGY TO THIS
BECAUSE OF THE BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN FOCUS THAT THEY HAVE.
AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK,
REALLY ALL THE, THE COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF,
I THINK THEY REALLY DESERVE A LOT OF CREDIT.
THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH US, TO GO SHADING
BOTH OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ON THE MLU AND,
AND WITH MY OFFICE, TO SORT OF SUPPORT THAT WITH THE BILL,
AND THEN WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY
WHO HAVE BEEN SO FOCUSED ON THIS BILL
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN,
YOU KNOW, DOING THEIR JOB TO REALLY PROTECT THE COAST.
AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THEM FOR WORKING WITH OUR OFFICE.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
CLOCK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS CENTERS TO RUSSELL
CHOI.
I, I AGAIN, ASHBY
CERVANTES SURROUNDS THIS I LAYER.
SO YOU ARE 202301.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
OKAY.
YOU HAVE,
ANOTHER BILL WHILE YOU ARE HERE.
BILL NUMBER AB 2181.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU.
I SEE.
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS, FOR.
SO WHAT?
I, WANT TO
THANK MADAM CHAIR
FOR HER ATTENTION TO THIS BILL, AS WELL AS BEING A PRINCIPAL
COAUTHOR OF THE BILL.
I KNOW SHE'S NOT HERE RIGHT NOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO THANK HER.
AND I ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THE WORK ON THE BILL.
I'M PROUD TO PRESENT AB 2181, WHICH IS CO-SPONSORED
BY UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL AND UNITE HERE LOCAL 11.
AB 2181 IS A NARROW CLARIFICATION THAT ENSURES
THAT DENSITY BONUS POTENTIAL
CAN ONLY BE USED IN VALUATIONS FOR HOTELS AND MOTEL OR MOTELS.
WHEN IT IS REAL, APPROVED AND VESTED,
IT SIMPLY ENSURES THAT GROUNDLESS RENT RESETS
REFLECT REALITY, NOT SPECULATION.
THIS IS A PRO HOUSING BILL THAT PROMOTES AND PROTECTS
DENSITY BONUS LAW,
WHICH IS ONE OF THE STATE'S MOST IMPORTANT TOOLS
TO INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE BILL DOES NOT CHANGE OR LIMIT DOWN DENSITY.
BONUS ELIGIBILITY IN ANY WAY.
INSTEAD,
IT PROTECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE POLICY
BY ENSURING THAT
BENEFITS ARE TIED TO ACTUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION.
THIS BILL ADDRESSES A REAL PROBLEM THAT HAS EMERGED.
APPRAISERS ARE USING HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS TO INFLATE LAND VALUES
WHEN NO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED OR CONTEMPLATED.
DENSITY BONUSES
THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PURSUED OR APPROVED
ARE OFTEN USED TO INFLATE PROPERTY VALUES,
AND THAT INFLATED VALUE IS THEN USED TO RESET HOTEL AND MOTEL
LEASES RENTS, CREATING REAL FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTING EXISTING BUSINESSES AND WORKERS,
ESPECIALLY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY.
FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE A FULLY OPERATING HOTEL
IN MY DISTRICT SUPPORTING JOBS AND TOURISM.
IT HAS A LONG TERM GROUND PLACEMENT THAT MAKES
REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT PARCEL NOW INFEASIBLE FOR DECADES.
NO HOUSING PROJECT IS PROPOSED OR APPROVED.
IT COULD BE DONE BECAUSE OF THE GROUND LEASE YET.
APPRAISAL.
THE APPRAISAL ASSUMES HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT USING THE DENSITY.
BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY BONUS LAW,
NO HOUSING IS BEING BUILT, BUT THE IDEA OF HOUSING
IS DRIVING REAL CONSEQUENCES SUCH AS WORKER JOB LOSS,
POTENTIAL WORKER JOB LOSS, REDUCED TOURISM ACTIVITY,
AND PRESSURE ON LONG STANDING PRODUCTIVE LAND USES.
THE STATE IS APPROPRIATELY EXPANDING DENSITY BONUS TOOLS
TO INCREASE HOUSING PRODUCTION
AND NEW POLICIES LIKE HIGHER DENSITY THRESHOLDS
OR DOUBLE DENSITY CONCEPTS INCREASE THEORETICAL
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY.
HOWEVER, WITHOUT GUARDRAILS, THAT EXPANDED CAPACITY
CAN BE MISAPPLIED IN APPRAISAL SCENARIOS
AND USED TO FURTHER INFLATE LAND VALUES BASED ON HYPOTHETICALS.
HB 2181 PROVIDES A SIMPLE GUARDRAIL
WHERE DENSITY BONUS CAN ONLY BE PURSUED IN VALUATION
WHEN IT IS PURSUED, APPROVED, INVESTED
THAT WILL ENSURE THAT HOUSING INCENTIVES
REMAIN TIED TO REAL PROJECTS AND VALUATIONS
REFLECT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE, REALISTIC CONDITIONS.
THE BILL IS NARROW IN SCOPE AND INTENTIONALLY IS FOCUSED ON
HOTELS AND MOTELS.
THIS IS WHERE LONG TERM GROUND LEASES ARE COMMON.
REDEVELOPMENT IS OFTEN CONSTRAINED
AND IMPACTS ARE MOST ACUTE.
TO BE CLEAR, THIS BILL DOES NOT RESTRICT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE DENSITY BONUS LAW,
AND IT DOES NOT PREVENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS A TECHNICAL FIX WITH REAL WORLD IMPACT.
IT IS. IT PROTECTS HOSPITALITY WORKER JOBS.
IT PREVENTS SPECULATION, SPECULATIVE VALUATION PROCESSES
AND KEEPS HOUSING POLICY TIED TO ACTUAL PRODUCTION.
I ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME
AND WITH ME TODAY
IN SUPPORT,
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE LAURA STRAND,
CONSULTANT TO REPRESENTED UNITE HERE LOCAL 11,
AND MARIA ESPINOSA, A MEMBER OF UNITE HERE
LOCAL 11 AND A HOUSEKEEPER IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
GOOD MORNING, HONORABLE ACTING CHAIR CHOI AND MEMBERS
LAURA STRAND
REPRESENTING UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 ON BEHALF OF MORE THAN 32,000
HOSPITAL WORKERS ACROSS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA,
WE ARE PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR
WITH UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL AB 2181
ZIPPER AND RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT PRESERVING COMMERCIAL USES
OF PROPERTY THAT ARE CRITICAL OF CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY.
HOTELS AND OTHER HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES
PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF GOOD PAYING JOBS, UNION JOBS,
THEY GENERATE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, AND THEY HELP
SUSTAIN CALIFORNIA'S VIBRANT VISITOR ECONOMY.
THIS BILL SEEKS TO CLOSE A LOOPHOLE
THAT CAN PUT THESE BUSINESSES AND JOBS AT RISK.
FUNDAMENTALLY, AB 2181 IS IN ALIGNMENT
WITH TWO OTHER UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 AND UNITE HERE
INTERNATIONAL UNION CO-SPONSORS BILLS FROM LAST YEAR
SB 838 TERRAZZO AND SB 92 BLAKE SPEAR, WHICH WENT THROUGH
AND WERE BOTH SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR IN 2025.
THESE BILLS ARE PRINCIPALLY
ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT HOUSING LAWS
ARE BEING USED FOR HOUSING PURPOSES,
NOT JUST FOR THE CREATION OF GOOD HOUSING,
WHICH OF COURSE, WE DEEPLY SUPPORT,
BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE CLARITY OF RULES ENSURES NO GAMESMANSHIP
AND A CLEAR PLAYING FIELD.
WE THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE,
AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR.
I VOTE ON AB 2181.
THANK YOU FOR A SECOND PERSON.
ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
MY NAME IS MARIA ESPINOSA.
DE LA NYDIA.
THEY WILL NOT TELL IN SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA IS A MEMBER
OF THE UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 LODGES.
LOUIS BLANCHARD, LA SAVANNA DE LOS GATOS ESTA SEGURA DE
PEREZ TENGAN UNA BUENO EXPERIENCIA SON TRABAJO DURO.
BUT MAINTENANCE FUNCIONA VIENTO.
PERO CON DEMASIADO FRECUENCIA.
LAS PERSONAS TRABAJO EL
PSA LOS MEDEIROS
EPSILON NOT ANIMAL WAS
OFFICIAL.
NASCAR PLAYERS LUGAR DE TRABAJO
FOR THIS PROJECT IMPORTANT
I EVENT YOU KNOW 2020 SAID
INDUSTRY BENEFITS NO SOLO PRO IMPERSONATES
SI NO LOS TRABAJADORES FUNCIONA MENTOR
THE IDEA SAY TRATA DE KEY THAT RESPETO ELLA SEGURA
NO SAID DOMAIN EXPENSIVE DE LAS PERSONAS Q TRABAJANDO
DIRECTAMENTE EL SECTOR PARA TRABAJADORES
COMO YO LIKES TO IMPORT EL STRATEGY TO IMPORT
PLAYERS.
IS HE THOSE HE CAN WITH NO TRABAJO.
LAREDO ESA IMPORTA ESTA PROYECTO DE LA NO
DIRECTION RICO NO SE LOS TRABAJADORES SECTOR DE LA AREA.
SO ESSENTIALLY
PARA LA COLOMBIA DE CALIFORNIA, HE DENTRO DE TRATADOS COMO EL
ESTADO DE EL TRABAJO CARGO E SOLO QUIERO SUBWAY
SYSTEM TRABAJAR MAS TAMBIéN NO
SOLLECITO.
IT ALSO A MENTAL SWAP.
BUT EL PROYECTO DE LA I MEAN YOU KNOW THAT YOU KNOW MUCHO.
YES. GOOD MORNING.
I'LL BE TRANSLATING FOR THE WITNESS.
MY NAME IS
MARIA ESPINOSA AND I WORK AS A HOTEL HOUSEKEEPER AT THE
AT A HOTEL IN SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, FOR OVER 22 YEARS.
I AM A PROUD MEMBER OF UNITE HERE LOCAL 11.
EVERY DAY I CLEAN ROOMS, TURN OVER BEDS
AND MAKE SURE GUESTS HAVE A GOOD EXPERIENCE.
IT'S HARD WORK AND IT'S WORK THAT KEEPS OUR HOTELS RUNNING.
BUT TOO OFTEN THE PEOPLE WHO WORK DO THIS WORK
THE HOUSEKEEPERS, THE SERVERS, THE FRONT DESK STAFF
DON'T HAVE A REAL VOICE IN THE DECISIONS
THAT AFFECT OUR JOBS AND OUR WORKPLACE.
THAT'S WHY THIS BILL MATTERS.
AB 2181 IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE HOSPITALITY
INDUSTRY WORKS
NOT JUST FOR OWNERS AND INVESTORS,
BUT ALSO FOR THE WORKERS WHO KEEP IT GOING EVERY DAY.
IT'S ABOUT FAIRNESS, RESPECT AND MAKING SURE
THAT WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE, IF THEY DON'T COME
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND.
FOR WORKERS LIKE ME, STABILITY MATTERS.
FAIR TREATMENT MATTERS.
KNOWING THAT OUR JOBS ARE PROTECTED
AND THAT OUR WORK IS VALUED, THAT MATTERS.
THIS BILL HELPS MOVE US IN THAT DIRECTION.
IT RECOGNIZES THAT HOSPITALITY WORKERS
ARE ESSENTIAL TO CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY
AND DESERVE TO BE TREATED THAT WAY.
I'M PROUD OF THE WORK THAT I DO.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW
THAT THE SYSTEM WE WORK IN SUPPORTS US, TOO.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON AB 2181.
THANK YOU.
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL,
JUST YOUR NAME AND POSITION,
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS SARAH FLOCKS,
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
WHEN THE CAC IS UNDERWAY, THAT'S
THE LIMPIEZA DEL HOTEL IN SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.
IS A MEMBER OF THE UNITED
A POPULAR LABOR BEING.
DO NOT, YOU KNOW, GRACIOUS.
GOOD MORNING.
DELILAH.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL
AND LODGING ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
OKAY.
ANY, LEAD OPPOSITION WITNESS,
ANY MID TO OPPOSITION
IN THE AUDIENCE? NO.
THEM QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS.
OKAY.
MOTION HAS BEEN MADE
IN ORDER. QUESTION.
AND, YOU CAN CLOSE THE, YOU KNOW, STATEMENT AGAIN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU.
NIGHT HERE, INTERNATIONAL AND LOCAL 11,
FOR STEPPING UP TO PROTECT THEIR WORKERS
FROM RISKS THAT ARE OUT THERE DUE TO DENSITY BONUS LAW.
I WANT TO THANK MADAM CHAIR FOR BEING,
COAUTHOR OF THIS BILL WITH US AND WORKING WITH OUR OFFICE.
AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOU. I VOTE,
OKAY, MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, AND,
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATOR OSO TORRES OF I JOY CHOI I ORIGIN ASHBY.
CERVANTES.
I LAWYER SAY YOUR TO SAY YOUR TIME FOR ZERO.
THANK YOU.
THANK.
THE BILL WILL REMAIN ON CALL.
OKAY.
WHO'S NEXT?
HE RAN OUT.
ALL RIGHT.
GREAT. LET ME JUST.
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.
NUMBER 17.
WAIT, WAIT VERSUS A BIRD.
WE DIDN'T. YOU.
22. 24.
INTERPRETING YOUR.
RECEIPT.
WAS NOT UNTIL THE SECOND PAGE.
SO. MR..
OKAY.
MEMBER.
PEPIN, YOUR NEXT.
THIS IS, AB 2469.
BY, TWO BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING.
2469 AND 2619.
YOU GOT IT.
OKAY, OKAY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. DELIGHTED TO BE WITH YOU.
SO I'VE GOT TWO BILLS THAT ARE RELATED THIS MORNING,
TO DATA CENTERS AND THE WATER THAT DATA CENTERS USE.
THE FIRST BILL
I CALL THE GET THE INFO BEFORE YOU BREAK GROUND, BILL.
SO GIVEN, THE FOCUS, THE OF THIS COMMITTEE
BEING LOCAL GOVERNMENT, I WANT TO FOCUS MY REMARKS
ON WHAT THIS BILL MEANS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
AND IN THIS REGARD, WITH THE CHAIR'S PERMISSION,
I'D LIKE TO READ JUST A COUPLE EXEMPLARS OF WHAT PUBLIC COMMENT
IS LOOKING LIKE OUT THERE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL HEARINGS
AND WHAT WE FIND, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
HAVING TO GRAPPLE WITH AS IT RELATES
TO DATA CENTER PROPOSALS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE THEM.
SO IN IN IMPERIAL, WE HEARD THE FOLLOWING.
AND I QUOTE.
THIS PROJECT DOES NOT EXIST IN ISOLATION.
IT IMPACTS REAL NEIGHBORHOODS, FAMILIES AND SCHOOLS
AND IS ALSO SETTING A PRECEDENT
FOR HOW YOU TREAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS.
THE OTHER ONE,
SAME HEARING
SAID, IF THE FULL SCOPE OF THIS
PROJECT CANNOT BE CLEARLY PRESENTED
AND INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED,
THEN RESIDENTS ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING ASKED TO MAKE DECISIONS
WITHOUT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY DESERVE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THESE BILLS TRY TO GET AT.
SO I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT DIFFERENT.
THIS IS VERY PREVALENT IN THE PRESS THESE DAYS.
BUT THIS REALLY IS UNLIKE ANYTHING
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE SEEN BEFORE.
AND WE FIND THAT LOCALITIES ARE ASKING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
AND THEY'RE VERY FUNDAMENTAL.
DO WE HAVE ENOUGH WATER NOW?
WILL WE HAVE ENOUGH WATER IN A DROUGHT YEAR?
WHAT ARE THE LONG TERM IMPACTS ON OUR COMMUNITY
AND WHAT IS THE COST TO OUR COMMUNITY?
RESPONSES TO THESE
INQUIRIES IS WHERE THIS BILL, AB 2469, COMES IN.
THE BILL WILL CREATE A CONSISTENT BASELINE.
SO EVERY COMMUNITY, LARGE AND SMALL, STARTS
WITH THE INFORMATION THAT IT NEEDS PRIOR
TO MAKING A DECISION
ON A DATA CENTER, BECAUSE PERMITTING ISN'T
THE SAME IN EVERY CITY STATEWIDE.
THE INFORMATION ABOUT DATA CENTERS AND WATER
AND THEIR WATER USE IS NOT ALWAYS COLLECTED.
OR IS IT ALWAYS COMPLETE?
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OFTEN
HAVE TO NEGOTIATE
FOR FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS.
AND NOW WE'RE SEEING THAT WHEN A LOCALITY CAN'T GIVE
THE INFORMATION THEY NEED,
THEY'RE JUST BANNING DATA CENTERS ALL TOGETHER.
SO LET'S GET INTO THE PARTICULARS OF THE BILL
AND HOW IT WORKS.
THE BILL HAS TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS.
THE FIRST IS THE AMOUNT OF WATER THE BILL REQUIRES,
A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT BEFORE PROJECT APPROVAL,
WHERE A PROJECT PROPONENT PROVIDES
INFORMATION ABOUT ITS PROJECT NEEDS,
AND THEN THE WATER SUPPLIER DETERMINES
WHETHER A RELIABLE AND SUSTAINABLE WATER
SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PROJECT.
THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THE BILL IS ABOUT THE COST IMPACTS
ON THE COMMUNITY
AND ENSURES
THAT IF ADDITIONAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
IS NEEDED TO SERVE ONE OF THESE LARGE FACILITIES,
OR IF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE EXPANDED,
THOSE COSTS MUST BE BORNE
BY THE PROJECT AND NOT EXISTING RATEPAYERS MEMBERS.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT INFORMED LOCAL DECISION
MAKING FOR LONG TERM WATER IMPACTS.
IT'S ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING RATEPAYERS.
WITH ME TODAY I HAVE ERIC MASINA FROM UC SANTA BARBARA AND SEAN
BOSWELL WITH THE CALIFORNIA COAST KEEPER ALLIANCE.
WE'LL START WITH MR. MAZZONE.
PROFESSOR MAZZONE, I SHOULD SAY PERFECTLY FINE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MY WELCOME.
GOOD MORNING.
AND, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU, HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH.
TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MY NAME IS ERIC MASSENET, AND I HAVE CONDUCTED RESEARCH
ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF DATA CENTERS FOR TWO DECADES.
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY.
AS I MENTIONED IN MY TESTIMONY FOR THE ORIGINAL BILL,
THE RAPID EXPANSION OF DATA CENTERS CAN POSE RISKS
TO LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES, ESPECIALLY IN TIMES OF DROUGHT.
BUT WITH INTELLIGENT PLANNING TO REDUCE THOSE RISKS,
OUR STATE CAN ACHIEVE ITS ECONOMIC
AND DIGITAL LEADERSHIP GOALS
WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROTECTING THE STATE'S WATER RESOURCES.
BUT SUCH PLANNING WILL REQUIRE SOME BASIC DATA, PARTICULARLY
THE QUANTITIES OF WATER THAT WILL BE REQUIRED
AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
SO THAT LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS.
THE EXPECTED PEAKS IN WATER DEMAND THAT CAN OCCUR,
SO THAT PROACTIVE MEASURES
CAN BE TAKEN TO AVOID SUPPLY, STRESS,
AND BASIC INFORMATION
ON THE COOLING STRATEGIES AT SPECIFIC SITES
THAT WILL LOCK IN WATER USE FOR YEARS TO COME.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SUCH DATA
NOT ONLY HELP US BETTER PLAN
FOR THE DATA CENTERS BEING BUILT TODAY,
THEY'RE ALSO DRASTICALLY IMPROVE THE STATE'S ABILITY
TO MAKE FORECASTS THAT ARE CRITICAL
FOR IDENTIFYING STRATEGIES
THAT BALANCE WATER STEWARDSHIP AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
IN THE FUTURE.
SO WHY NOT RELY ON VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURES?
WHILE
ALL COMPANIES HAVE THE NEEDED
DATA IN HAND, ONLY A TINY FRACTION HAS ACTUALLY SHARED
THEM VOLUNTARILY.
IN FACT,
ONLY GOOGLE AND META REPORT THE WATER USE OF INDIVIDUAL U.S.
DATA CENTERS, AND ONLY AFTER THOSE DATA
CENTERS HAVE BEEN BUILT AND ARE OPERATING,
WHICH IS WHEN WATER USE HAS ALREADY BEEN LOCKED IN.
THEREFORE, EXPECTED
WATER USE REMAINS A MAJOR BLIND SPOT FOR PLANNERS.
IN MY VIEW, DISCLOSING EXPECTED
WATER USE POSES NO MAJOR CONFIDENTIALITY RISKS.
COMPANIES ROUTINELY TOUT THE WATER
EFFICIENCY AND ADVANCED
COOLING CAPABILITIES THEY HAVE UP FRONT.
ASSESSMENTS WOULD MERELY ASK THEM TO BACK
THOSE CLAIMS WITH TRANSPARENT DATA,
LIKE WE WOULD FOR ANY OTHER SECTOR.
IN SOME, REQUIRING UPFRONT ASSESSMENT
SEEMS LIKE COMMON SENSE IS A MUST FOR SENSIBLE PLANNING,
AND IS MOST CERTAINLY IN THE BEST INTERESTS
OF CALIFORNIA CITIZENS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR. COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SEAN BOSWELL, I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FOR CALIFORNIA COAST KEEPER ALLIANCE.
WE REALLY SEE THIS BILL
AS A TRANSPARENCY BILL TO PROTECT RATEPAYERS.
OUR COMMUNITY'S WATER SUPPLIES
PORTFOLIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT OUT AND ARE CONSTRAINED STATEWIDE.
RIGHT.
WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING FOR WHERE CAN WE GET MORE, WATER.
AND YET THESE DATA CENTERS ARE COMING IN
AND PUTTING NEW PRESSURES ON OUR COMMUNITIES.
AND THESE COMMUNITIES SHOULD KNOW BEFORE
THE DATA CENTERS ARE BUILT WHAT TYPE OF PRESSURE THAT IS.
NOW, SOME OF THESE DATA CENTERS ARE, YOU KNOW, USING
NON-POTABLE WATER, RECYCLED WATER, THAT'S ALL GREAT,
BUT THAT'S WATER HAS ALREADY BEEN SPOKEN FOR.
WE HAVE ALREADY SET
POLICIES IN THIS STATE TO RECYCLE ALL OF OUR RECYCLE
ALL OF OUR WASTEWATER.
THAT'S FEASIBLE TO BE RECYCLED.
WE NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE GOVERNOR HAS MADE PROCLAMATIONS.
THE WATER BOARD HAS SET GOALS THAT WATER HAS SPOKEN FOR.
AND SO WHEN WE HAVE NEW DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEM,
THOSE COMMUNITIES SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THOSE DEMANDS AND BE,
YOU KNOW, TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT BEFORE GOING IN
TO BUILDING THESE CENTERS.
THE BILL ALSO, REQUIRES THESE DATA CENTERS
TO BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S REQUIRED
BECAUSE OF THEIR STRAIN ON THE SYSTEM.
AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT,
THE THESE DATA CENTERS CAN JUST WALK AWAY
AND LEAVE THE RATEPAYERS
ON THE HOOK FOR THOSE STRANDED ASSETS,
WHICH IS NOT FAIR TO THE RATEPAYERS.
AND THEN LASTLY, THE DEFINITION OF CII,
WE NEED TO LOOK AT CII FACILITIES DIFFERENT
THAN WE DO OTHER CITY OR WE NEED TO VIEW DATA CENTERS
DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER CII CUSTOMERS BECAUSE DATA CENTERS
USE WATER CONSUMPTIVE MEANING WHEN THEY USE IT, IT GOES AWAY.
IT DOESN'T GO BACK IN THE SYSTEM.
IT'S NOT ABLE TO BE RECYCLED.
IT DOESN'T GO DOWN RIVER TO THE NEXT COMMUNITY.
IT'S GONE.
AND SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE FACILITIES DIFFERENTLY
THAN WE DO OTHER CII CLASSES.
WITH THAT, I'LL ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2469?
MORNING, KYLE JONES, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY ALLIANCE
WITH FAMILY FARMERS
RESOURCES RENEWAL INSTITUTE, CALIFORNIA WATER
IMPACT NETWORK AND RESTORE THE DELTA AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
REMEMBER, LAKE IS WITH THE PLANNING
AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE AND SUPPORT
ASHLEY WALKER WITH NASA AND ON BEHALF OF SANTA
CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MARISSA HAGERMAN, THE TROUT AND PRICE
CONSULTING REGISTERING SUPPORT
FOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS.
THANK YOU.
GABRIELA FAZIO WITH SIERRA CLUB OF CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO CHECK,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, IF YOU ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT.
YES. OKAY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2469,
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH.
GREAT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
CHRIS ANDERSON, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, A LITTLE CLOSER.
YES. GREAT.
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
RESPECTFULLY IN OPPOSITION.
I'LL NOTE, IF THERE ARE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, WE WE HAVEN'T SEE THEM.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL
BASING MY COMMENTS OFF OF THE BILL IN PRINT.
YOU KNOW, I WANT TO FIRST START OFF
BY DISCUSSING THE BILL'S MANDATE THAT DATA
CENTER OPERATORS PAY THE QUOTE UNQUOTE, FULL
COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SERVICE THEIR FACILITY.
AS THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS NOTED, WATER AGENCIES ASSESS
CONNECTION FEES AND CAPACITY CHARGES
WHENEVER A FACILITY IS CONNECTING TO A WATER SYSTEM.
AND THAT THOSE FEES REFLECT THE PROPORTIONAL COST
OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SERVICE THE FACILITY.
AND THOSE FEES CAN ALSO BE USED
TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLIES IF NECESSARY.
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE MITIGATION
FEE ACT AGAIN MANDATE THAT THESE COSTS ARE PROPORTIONAL.
I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT THE MITIGATION FEE ACT DETAILS
THE FORMULA AGENCIES MUST USE IN ASSESSING COSTS, PROVIDES
A PUBLIC PROCESS FOR ADOPTING THESE FEES.
MANDATES SEPARATE ACCOUNTING AND SPELLED OUT
AN APPEALS PROCESS IF THESE FEES ARE TO BE CHALLENGED.
YOU KNOW, THIS PROVISION DOESN'T DO ANY OF THAT.
THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS
PROVISION THAT'S PARTICULARLY USEFUL TO A WATER AGENCY.
AT BEST, THERE'S PROVISION IS REDUNDANT
OF EXISTING LAW, AND THEREFORE UNNECESSARY.
AND AT WORST, IT'S CREATING A NEW
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD.
YOU KNOW, I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT IT GIVES DWR A ROLE
IN ASSESSING DETERMINING THESE FEES.
DWR PLAYS
NO ROLE IN ASSESSING THE FEES OF LOCAL WATER AGENCIES.
SO IT'S VERY UNCLEAR WHY THIS, WHY
THEY WOULD BE GIVEN A ROLE HERE.
YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING I'LL NOTE
IS THAT THE PROPONENTS DESCRIBE THIS AS AN INFORMATION SEEKING
BILL, ENSURING THAT THESE FACILITIES
HAVE SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES BEFORE BEING PERMITTED.
YOU KNOW, BETWEEN WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENTS, CONNECTION FEES
AND CAPACITY CHARGES, URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS,
A EXISTING LAW ALREADY REQUIRES SUPPLY
DEMAND ASSESSMENTS, BOTH FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS
AND BASED ON LONG TERM PLANNING PROJECTIONS.
SO IT IS UNCLEAR EXACTLY WHAT GAP THIS IS.
THIS BILL IS FILLING.
SO FOR THESE REASONS AND MORE,
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR KNOW, ABOUT.
THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ASHANTI SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE,
SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP
GROUP, IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO AB 2469,
WE APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S FOCUS ON WATER
STEWARDSHIP AND THOUGHTFUL PLANNING FOR CALIFORNIA'S
GROWTH OF DATA CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION
THAT WE WANT TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE ON.
DATA CENTERS ARE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
THEY SUPPORT THE HEALTH SYSTEMS, UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS, MEDICAL
RESEARCH, FINANCIAL SERVICES, EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT,
OPERATIONS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
IN THE BROADER DIGITAL ECONOMY THAT CALIFORNIANS RELY ON DAILY.
UNFORTUNATELY, AS AMENDED, AB 2469 BUILDS A SEPARATE
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AROUND A SINGLE INDUSTRY WITHOUT GIVING
A STATE COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE OF STATEWIDE,
WATER DEMAND OR HOW THAT DEMAND SHOULD BE
MANAGED ACROSS LARGE WATER USERS.
WE HAVE THREE PRIMARY CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL.
FIRST, THIS IS A PERMITTING BILL, NOT A DISCLOSURE BILL.
THE AMENDED VERSION BARS, AND WHEN I SAY AMENDED VERSION,
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENTS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BILL IN PRINT.
BARS A CITY FROM OR COUNTY FROM APPROVING A DATA CENTER
THROUGH DISCRETIONARY OR MINISTERIAL PERMIT,
UNLESS THE APPLICANT SATISFIES A LIST OF PRECONDITIONS,
A WATER SCARCITY PLAN AND WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT,
AND A WATER USE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE IT REACHES
MINISTERIAL APPROVALS, IT OVERRIDES EVEN BY RIGHT
PROJECTS THAT TODAY MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
THAT IS A SITING AND APPROVAL MANDATE AND NOT TRANSPARENCY.
SECOND, IT IGNORES
THE REAL OPERATIONAL TRADEOFFS IN MODERN DATA CENTER DESIGN.
WATER USE, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, COOLING TECHNOLOGIES
ARE ALL BALANCED AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, ONE ANOTHER,
AND AGAINST LOCAL GRID AND CLIMATE CONDITIONS.
A FACILITY THAT REDUCES WATER USE OFTEN INCREASES ENERGY
USE, AND VICE VERSA.
ON TOP OF THAT, THE AMENDED BILL FORCES
AN APPLICANT TO ASSUME THE FULL COST OF CONVEYANCE, TREATMENT,
STORAGE, OR DISTRIBUTION UPGRADES AS DETERMINED BY DWR
OR THE WATER SUPPLIER WITH NO CAP OR NO COST
SHARING FRAMEWORK,
CREATING AN OPEN ENDED AN UNPREDICTABLE LIABILITY.
AND THIRD, IT CREATES AN UNAVOIDABLE RISK
TO PRIVACY, SECURITY AND COMPETITIVENESS
IN CALIFORNIA'S DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
DETAILED FACILITY LEVEL WATER SITING, AND WORKFORCE
INFORMATION CAN EXPOSE COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE,
SENSITIVE AND SECURITY RELEVANT DETAILS ABOUT WHERE
AND HOW CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OPERATES
AND THE ADDED COST AND APPROVAL
UNCERTAINTY WILL PUSH INVESTMENT,
TO OTHER STATES THAT ARE ACTIVELY COURTING IT.
AS FIELD SUPPORTS TRANSPARENCY, INNOVATION
AND RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
CALIFORNIA CAN ADVANCE
SMART WATER POLICY AND CONTINUE TO WORK ON INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR NOVA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2469.
GOOD MORNING, TRACY RYAN AT THE ROYAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVE, CALIFORNIA.
WE HAVE AN OPPOSED, LESS AMENDED POSITION ON THE BILL.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS
AS OUTLINED IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHARLES DELGADO, CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED, ON THE,
CURRENT VERSION OF THE BILL.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE AMENDMENTS
PUT FORWARD BY THE COMMITTEE.
AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR,
AND THEIR STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU.
LEILA ROMERO, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES,
AND WE ARE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS WHEN IT COMES INTO. BRAD.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, TIMOTHY BYRD JR.
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET AND THE DATA CENTER
COALITION IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
SEEING NO MORE NO MORE WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION,
I BRING IT TO THE DAIS.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SENATOR CHOI, THANK YOU. CHAIR.
I HAVE A NUMBER OF,
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
WHEREVER WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT?
BILL CAN ANSWER.
OBVIOUSLY, IN THE ERA WE ARE LIVING IN,
TECHNICAL, TECHNICAL ADVANCEMENT,
THEN THE DATA CENTER NEED HAS RISEN RECENTLY SO RAPIDLY.
AND, SO THEY NEED TO BUILD THAT
SOMEWHERE, DATA CENTERS, BUT OBVIOUSLY, PROBLEM IS,
WHAT I HEAR IS THAT A LOT OF, WATER USAGE AND,
I BASICALLY QUESTIONED MYSELF ON WHY IS THAT THE MATTER?
THE WATER
CANNOT BE REUSED
FROM THE, POSITION.
WITNESS.
WHAT I HEAR IS THAT THAT THAT'S NOT, REUSABLE.
SO ONCE THE WATER IS, USED, IS THAT CONTAMINATED?
AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, COMMON SENSE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT,
WHAT IS USED TO COOL THE SYSTEM?
NOTHING. NO CHEMICAL ADDED.
SO WILL BE,
IF THIS IS THE MACHINE COMPUTER OR IT ARE PASSED THROUGH
THE MACHINE AND GO DOWN
AND, LET IT STAY FOR AN HOUR OR TWO HOURS.
SO, WHEN IT'S COLD, IT CAN BE RECYCLED IS NOT POSSIBLE.
AND WHY NOT?
THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.
NUMBER TWO.
IS THAT THE
IF THE SO CONTAMINATED WHERE THIS THE WATER WILL GO.
HOW HARMFUL IS THIS.
IS IT THE WE TREATED?
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN
FORTUNATELY, IN CALIFORNIA WE HAVE A NORMAL,
COASTAL REGION WHERE DATA CENTERS CAN GO.
WHY NOT THE BUILD?
IN THE COASTAL AREA WHERE NOBODY.
SO USING RATHER THAN FARMLAND.
AS WE HEAR, THE SHORTAGE OF WATER.
SO IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS TWO QUESTIONS FIRST,
SENATOR CHOI, WHO WHO ARE YOU ADDRESSING THE QUESTION?
ANYONE WHO HAS A KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT,
IF I MAY, REFER TO ONE OF MY WITNESSES.
ABSOLUTELY. PERFECT QUESTION. WE'LL GET IT ANSWERED FOR YOU.
TAKE IT AWAY, SEAN.
SO THERE ARE TECHNOLOGIES OUT THERE,
THAT CAN REUSE THE WATER.
IT'S JUST A QUESTION
OF WHETHER THE DATA CENTER IS USING IT OR NOT.
AND I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET TO THAT
IN THE SECOND BILL, BECAUSE THERE ARE, ADVANCES.
WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, SETTING BEST PRACTICES.
AND THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN SET IN CALIFORNIA YET.
AND SO SOME DATA CENTERS,
THE MAJORITY THAT I KNOW, USE THE WATER ONCE,
AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT WATER QUALITY.
IT'S MORE THAN JUST DISSIPATES.
SO LIKE A POWER PLANT, WHEN YOU RUN THE WATER
THROUGH, IT EVAPORATES OUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NECESSARILY CONTAMINATED.
NOW, THESE TECHNOLOGIES
AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON ALL THE TECHNOLOGIES,
BUT I HAVE A FAIRLY DECENT BACKGROUND
ON LIKE ONCE THROUGH COOLING
AND SOME OF THE TECHNOLOGIES ALTERNATIVES TO THAT.
SO THERE ARE DRY AND WET,
COOLING SYSTEMS THAT REUSE THE WATER.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS PARTICULARLY FOR THE, THE,
THE WET COOLING SYSTEMS, YOU USE THEM, YOU KEEP REUSING IT.
AND AS IT CONDENSES, THE WHATEVER
THE WATER QUALITY WAS JUST GETS MORE, ACUTE.
AND SO YOU DO NEED TO, RETREAT THE WATER AFTER SO MANY USES.
SO, SO
THERE IS A WATER QUALITY PIECE
FOR THOSE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.
IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY'RE
USING THE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT I THINK
THE SECOND BILL IS GOING TO SPEAK TO TOWARDS,
BUT OUR ISSUE IS THE ONES THAT ARE CONSUMPTIVE
WHERE IT JUST EVAPORATES INTO THE, THE AIR.
THEN ON YOUR PRESENT.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES.
SO WHAT WE UNDERSTAND
IS THAT MANY OF THEM CAN RECYCLE FOR SEVERAL CYCLES.
BUT ROUND ABOUT THE SEVENTH CYCLE, THE WATER IS GONE.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE WHAT WE CALL
A AN ULTIMATE CONSUMPTIVE USER.
AND SO IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW AT THE OUTSET.
SO REALLY SURPRISED TO HEAR THE CALLING THE WATER.
WHAT IS THIS WATER.
PASSING THROUGH THE SYSTEM JUST BECAUSE OF THE
INTENSIVE HEAT, I BELIEVE. BUT IT'S EVAPORATED.
SO RATHER THAN PASSING THROUGH, I MEAN,
THERE SHOULD BE BETTER TECHNOLOGY
TO LET IT PASS THROUGH, A MORE SPEEDY WAY
SO THAT THE WATER BEFORE WATER EVAPORATES.
IT CAN BE RECAPPED TO THEN THE COOLED AND THE RECYCLING,
RATHER THAN SITTING THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
SO THAT'S TO MY ANOTHER QUESTION IF YOU CAN,
IF YOU'RE A PROFESSOR, YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERS TO THAT.
AND THE NUMBER TWO IS THAT THE, COOLING
METHODOLOGY IS FAN
CAN BE ANOTHER WAY OF DOING IT.
I DON'T KNOW, WHAT THE FAN WILL CALL THE SYSTEM,
COOL ENOUGH FOR IT TO OPERATE THEM.
SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THAT
THAT'S THE REASON THE WATER IS USED.
SO CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? ON THAT?
I'M SORRY.
DID YOU WANT TO. YES.
SO NOW YOU CAN GO BACK TO I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY SPEAK TO
I MEAN, SOME OF THE MEMBERS THAT SKG HAS, THAT ARE DATA
CENTER OPERATORS AND BUILDERS HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ARE CONSTANTLY IN AN INNOVATION CYCLE
WHERE THEY ARE MAKING THEIR SERVERS
MORE EFFICIENT, WHERE THEY ARE, ABLE TO RUN
AT HIGHER TEMPERATURES WITHOUT NEEDING COOLING SYSTEMS.
SO FOR MOST OF THE TIME,
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SERVERS WHO ARE NOT NEEDING
THAT ADDITIONAL WATER THAT IS LIKE
PUMPED OVER TO COOL THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING ABLE
TO OPERATE AT HIGHER TEMPERATURES.
AND THEN THEY ARE COOLED OFF RATHER QUICKLY TO GO UNDER THAT
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE OF ROUGHLY AROUND 85°F.
SO NOT ONLY ARE THEY CONTINUING TO USE LESS WATER
BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING MORE EFFICIENT,
COOLING SYSTEMS,
BUT THEY'RE ALSO MAKING
MORE EFFICIENT, SERVERS THAT ARE ABLE TO RUN
AT HIGHER TEMPERATURES RATHER THAN, LIKE,
CONSTANTLY, COOLING.
SO YOU HAVE THE RECYCLABLE, NATURE OF THE WATER
THAT IS ACTUALLY BEING USED IN THESE FACILITIES.
AND THEN THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF INNOVATION
IN THE TECHNOLOGY THEMSELVES
THAT ALLOW THEM TO USE LESS WATER.
AND THAT WAS A PART OF A REPORT THAT QUITE A FEW OF OUR,
FACILITIES HAD PUT OUT RECENTLY.
SO I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH.
I HAVE ONE FOLLOWING QUESTION. YEAH.
HE HAD HIS HAND UP.
HE WANTED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
OKAY. YEAH, I'LL TRY TO BE VERY BRIEF.
SO I THINK THE BEST WAY TO THINK ABOUT WATER USE IN
THE DATA CENTER IS TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THERE ARE GENERALLY TWO LOOPS.
THE FIRST LOOP,
IF WATER IS USED TO COOL THE SERVERS, IS A CLOSED LOOP.
THE WATER JUST RECYCLES.
THAT'S WHAT REMOVES HEAT FROM THE SERVERS.
IT DOESN'T EVAPORATE, IT GETS WARM.
AND THEN THAT HEAT HAS TO BE REJECTED FROM THE BUILDING.
THAT'S WHERE EVAPORATION COMES IN.
THAT SECOND LOOP,
WHICH IS ALSO WATER
BASED OFTEN, AND RUNNING THROUGH COOLING TOWERS WILL EVAPORATE.
SOME OF THAT WATER INTO THE ATMOSPHERE
TO TAKE THE HEAT WITH IT.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, AS SEAN MENTIONED,
THE MINERALS, SOME OF THE TREATMENT CHEMICALS
AND THE REMAINING WATER GET CONCENTRATED.
SO YOU DO HAVE WATER DISCHARGE
FROM EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS AT DATA CENTERS.
AND BY AND LARGE, THAT GOES INTO THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM.
OKAY.
SO THAT MEANS, YOU ARE SAYING THAT'S THE CONTAMINATED.
THAT'S NOT GOOD.
WELL, IT'S IT'S THE SAME SORT OF DISCHARGE
ONE WOULD HAVE AT AN OFFICE BUILDING
OR A WAREHOUSE THAT'S USING COOLING TOWERS.
IT'S PRETTY STANDARD.
WE'VE BEEN USING THESE TECHNOLOGIES FOR,
YOU KNOW, MANY, MANY BEFORE THE WATER IS, DISCHARGED.
ARE THEY TREATED KNOW
IT'S POSSIBLE TO TREAT THE WATER AND RECYCLING IT.
I MEAN, IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO DISCHARGE IT,
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T,
IT HAVE TO BE MANDATED TO BE TREATED BEFORE IT COULD BE.
BUT YOU CAN ALSO DISCHARGE WATER THAT IS WITHIN THE LIMITS
OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM.
SO THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT DATA CENTERS HAVE.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ON THE NATURE OF THE WATER
USE ITSELF AND THE DISCHARGES.
YEAH. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION.
THE POINT
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IS THERE ARE MULTITUDES OF SYSTEMS
THAT DIFFERENT USERS AND DATA CENTERS EMPLOY,
AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT LOCALITIES
CAN BE PREPARED TO PROVIDE ENOUGH WATER
SO THAT THESE DATA CENTERS CAN SUCCEED,
WHICHEVER TECHNOLOGY THEY MIGHT BE USING.
OKAY.
I HAVE, ANOTHER QUESTION TO THE AUTHOR.
NOW, YOUR BILL IS PROHIBITING CITIES AND THE COUNTIES.
NOT TO,
ISSUE ANY PERMITS.
NOW, IF THAT'S THE CASE, TO ME,
CITIES AND,
I DON'T KNOW WHY
SOMEBODY IS LISTENING.
THE CITIES AND THE COUNTIES.
WHERE THE DATA CENTER WOULD BE LOCATED.
WE'LL KNOW MUCH BETTER THAN ANY OUTSIDE
OR SO WHERE THE WATER SUPPLY IS, SUFFICIENT FOR THAT AREA.
SO WHY NOT THE THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY IS, DETERMINED.
FINE.
ON APPROVAL OF THE DATA CENTER AND THE.
YOU ARE PROHIBITING THAT.
THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS THAT
IF YOU PROHIBIT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO MAKE THEIR DECISION APPROVAL DECISIONS,
THEN WHO'S GONNA APPROVE?
WHAT IS IT GONNA BE?
A STATE AGENCY, NEWLY NEWLY FORMED.
SO ACTUALLY, IT IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
THE LOCALITIES WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO PERMIT.
ALL THIS BILL DOES IS SAY
YOU MUST YOU, THE APPLICANT, THE DATA CENTER DEVELOPER
MUST PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SO THAT A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED.
WE ARE AGNOSTIC
ABOUT WHAT WILL WORK FOR A PARTICULAR WATER SUPPLIER.
THEY'LL HAVE TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES, YOU KNOW,
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OVER SOMETHING LIKE 3500 DIFFERENT
WATER SUPPLIERS, THIS IS A VERY LOCAL ISSUE.
WATER COMES RATHER LOCALLY, SO THE LOCALS ARE IN
THE BEST POSITION
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE
A HEAVY WATER USER, LIKE A DATA CENTER.
ALL THIS, BILL SAYS, IS PRIOR TO PERMITTING,
GET THAT INFORMATION.
HELP US HELP YOU.
BECAUSE IF YOU RUN OUT OF WATER, WE'LL ALL NOT SURVIVE.
SO LET'S MAKE IT SO THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY LOCALITIES,
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S COMING INTO THEIR COMMUNITY
SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION
ABOUT HOW THEY PERMIT A DATA CENTER.
WE ARE NOT MANDATING WHAT LOCALITIES SHOULD DECIDE.
LET'S SAY THANK YOU.
OKAY.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE I WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR YOUR BILL TODAY.
I, I THINK THE ISSUE OF INFORMATION,
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES, MULTIPLE ISSUES IN THIS BILL,
BUT THE ISSUE OF INFORMATION FOR THE LOCAL AREAS
IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
I HAVE A SIMILAR BILL, TO PROVIDE WATER.
SUPPLY ASSESSMENTS.
AND, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW
TO HAVE SOMEONE USE THE TERM BLIND SPOT FOR FOR PLANNERS.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE A BLIND SPOT FOR FOR PLANNERS.
MADAM.
BETHANY, WE YOU MAY WRAP UP.
WRAP UP.
I JUST THANK YOU FOR THE THE DISCOURSE.
IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
I AGREE WITH YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND, I THANK YOU FOR THE EYE
RECOMMENDATION AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST.
AND I VOTE AT THE TIME.
THANK YOU.
WITH BILL MOTION MADE BY SENATOR SERRANO THIS
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS CENTERS TO REZONE.
SO I CHOY NO. CHOY NO.
ORIGINAL ASHBY SURROUNDINGS
SURROUND DESIGN LAYER. SATO
TO ONE
BUILDS ON CALL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
JUST DO OKAY.
AND WE'LL GO ON.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD AB 2619 AND I'LL BE BRIEF.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SO AB 2619 HAS A SIMPLE BUT ESSENTIAL GOAL ENSURING
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND WATER SUPPLIERS HAVE THE DATA
THEY NEED
ABOUT THE ACTUAL AND CONTINUING WATER USE OF LARGE FACILITIES.
AB 2619 REQUIRES DATA CENTERS TO PROVIDE THEIR WATER USE
TO DATA.
THEIR WATER USE DATA TO LOCALITIES
AS PART OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS LICENSE.
SURE PROCESS.
THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES WATER AGENCIES TO INCLUDE
DATA CENTERS IN THEIR URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
AND THEIR ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT.
I NOTE THAT THE URBAN ONE, I THINK, HAS TO BE DONE
EVERY FIVE YEARS,
AND THE WATER SUPPLY IS AN ASSESSMENT THAT'S DONE
ANNUALLY, AND IT DIRECTS
THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES TO DEVELOP,
DATA CENTER WATER
USAGE, BEST PRACTICES, NOTHING MANDATED,
AND A LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR OUR LOCALITIES.
WHEN IT COMES TO WATER, YOU KNOW,
IT REALLY IS THE OLD ADAGE
YOU CAN'T MANAGE WHAT YOU HAVEN'T MEASURED.
SO THIS IS JUST TO KEEP MEASURING AS WE GO ALONG.
SAME WITNESSES AS BEFORE.
ERIC. MESONET AND SEAN BOSWELL.
OKAY.
HELLO AGAIN.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
AS I MENTIONED IN MY TESTIMONY FOR THE ORIGINAL BILL,
BETTER DATA ON THE DRIVERS AND QUANTITIES OF DATA
CENTER WATER USE WILL ENABLE MUCH BETTER PLANNING,
MUCH BETTER FORECAST TO BALANCE ECONOMIC AND WATER GOALS,
MUCH LESS CONFUSION
AND MORE EVIDENCE BASED DIALOGS BETWEEN ALL STAKEHOLDERS
AND THE IDENTIFIED OF BEST PRACTICES
FOR WATER EFFICIENCY THAT CAN BE INCENTIVIZED AND REWARDED.
IN SHORT, EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM BETTER DATA.
BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER,
VOLUNTARY REPORTING HAS FALLEN SHORT.
LET ME SHARE WITH YOU
SOME NUMBERS THAT ARE BASED ON 20 YEARS
OF VOLUNTARY DATA COMPILED BY MY LAB.
FIRST, THE POSITIVE NEWS OF THE 80
OR SO MAJOR GLOBAL OPERATORS.
WE TRACK AROUND TWO THIRDS.
WE REPORT SOME SORT OF WATER DATA,
AND THE NUMBERS OF REPORTERS HAS BEEN INCREASING OVER TIME.
NOW, THE NOT SO POSITIVE NEWS
REPORTED TYPES ARE NOT AT ALL CONSISTENT.
SOME REPORT WITHDRAWALS, SOME REPORT CONSUMPTION,
AND SOME USE ONLY VAGUE TERMS LIKE TOTAL WATER.
REPORTING LEVELS ARE ALSO NOT CONSISTENT.
AROUND TWO THIRDS OF REPORTERS DISCLOSE ONLY CORPORATE
WIDE WATER USE, RATHER THAN THE WATER
USE OF DATA CENTERS THEMSELVES.
WHEN DATA CENTER WATER USE IS REPORTED, IT'S
OVERWHELMINGLY AT THE GLOBAL OR REGIONAL LEVELS,
RATHER THAN FOR SPECIFIC SITES LIKE THOSE HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
VERY FEW OF THE COMPANIES
WE TRACK DISCLOSE THEIR COOLING TECHNOLOGIES,
WHICH GIVES US A SENSE OF OF WATER LOCKED IN.
AND FINALLY, WHAT THEY REPORT CAN CHANGE BY YEAR,
EVEN FROM THE SAME COMPANY.
THE SITUATION LEAVES ANALYSTS, PLANNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS
TRYING TO MAKE LOCAL DECISIONS WITH A PATCHWORK
OF INCOMPLETE, INCOMPATIBLE AND UNRELIABLE DATA.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO SETTLE FOR THIS.
IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE PRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER
MAJOR SECTOR IS ASSESSED USING COLLECTED DATA,
ALL OPERATORS ALREADY HAVE THE DATA IN HAND,
AND MANY ARE ALREADY REPORTING THESE DATA
TO GOVERNMENTS ABROAD, SO WE KNOW THAT IT CAN BE DONE.
LASTLY, I'M SKEPTICAL THAT DISCLOSING WATER USE
WOULD REVEAL PROPRIETARY SECRETS.
MY LAB HAS TRIED FOR YEARS TO REVERSE ENGINEER REPORTED DATA.
TRUST ME, AND IT CAN'T BE DONE
WITH REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC CONFIDENCE.
COMPANIES ALREADY TOUT THEIR WATER EFFICIENCY
GOALS AND ADVANCED COOLING CAPABILITIES,
SO BETTER REPORTING
WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BUILD BACK THESE CLAIMS WITH DATA
AND GET CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. GO AHEAD
AGAIN.
SEAN BOSWELL, CALIFORNIA COAST KEEPER ALLIANCE
IN AN IDEAL WORLD, OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR STATE
CONSTITUTION, REQUIRES
THAT WATER USERS PAY THEIR PROPORTIONAL SHARE
OF HOW MUCH IT COST TO DELIVER WATER TO THEM.
IN AN IDEAL WORLD,
AND THE LESS DATA WE HAVE WHEN WE COME TO SETTING WATER
RATES, THE MORE REGRESSIVE OUR WATER RATES WILL BE, MEANING
THAT HIGH END USERS ARE PUTTING THE BURDEN ON LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES TO SUBSIDIZE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT'S BEEN PUT ON BY THE HIGHER END USERS, NOT THE LOW INCOME,
COMMUNITIES.
AND SO THIS BILL AND THE ANNUAL REPORTING ALLOWS LOCAL AGENCIES
TO DETERMINE THE PROPER RATE STRUCTURE
SO THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING CHARGED THE PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF WHAT
IT COST TO DELIVER THEM THEIR PROPORTIONATE PIECE OF WATER.
THE SECOND PART OF THE ABOUT THE BILL, ABOUT, DWR
SETTING BEST PRACTICES,
WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW INNOVATIVE
DATA CENTERS ARE BEING, THIS BILL JUST REALLY SHINE
SOME LIGHT ON THAT.
AND WHAT WHAT PRACTICES ARE OUT THERE.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING
IN FACT, IF YOU PUT IT IN CONTEXT
OF OTHER COOLING SYSTEMS, POWER PLANTS, THEY'RE MANDATED
TO USE, CERTAIN TECHNOLOGY, AT LEAST AS A FLOOR.
AND THIS BILL JUST LOOKS AT EXPLORING BEST PRACTICES
SO THAT, DATA CENTERS CAN INNOVATE,
TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY TO CONSERVE WATER.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2619, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING,
REMY VELASQUEZ OF THE PLANNING CONSERVATION LEAGUE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU,
ASHLEY WALKER WITH SANTA CLARA
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT?
SEEING NONE.
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO 2619,
YOU MAY COME UP TO THE FRONT.
IN 22.
OH, OKAY.
YES. GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING. WELCOME.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH, RIGHT.
TIMOTHY BIRD, JUNIOR, REPRESENTING THE DATA CENTER
COALITION. WE'RE HERE TODAY IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
AB 2619.
WE APPRECIATE THE ARTHUR'S, ENGAGEMENT AND
AND THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
THAT CAME OUT OF SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES.
COMMITTEE,
THE DATA CENTER COALITION CONTINUES TO REVIEW THE LATEST
WITH OUR MEMBERS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE
TO ENGAGE WITH THE AUTHOR WHILE WE SHARE THIS COMMITTEE'S,
COMMITMENT TO RESPONSIBLE WATER USE.
WE BELIEVE THIS BILL IMPOSES DISPARATE STANDARDS
THAT THREATEN THE SECURITY, COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION
OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTING OUR DIGITAL ECONOMY.
DATA CENTERS DEPEND ON RELIABLE WATER AND ENERGY RESOURCES,
AND WE SHARE CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY.
DATA CENTER COOLING IS NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
IT REQUIRES A DELICATE BALANCING ACT.
GENERALLY, COOLING SYSTEMS OPERATE
ON AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP.
SYSTEMS THAT USE LESS WATER THAN WILL REQUIRE MORE ENERGY.
DATA CENTER
COALITIONS SUPPORTS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
THAT ALIGN WITH FIVE KEY BENCHMARKS
THAT WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS.
PARODY STANDARDS SHOULD APPLY TO OTHER SIMILAR COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL USERS TO PROVIDE CONTEXT
AND A HOLISTIC VIEW OF WATER, DEMANDS
CONFIDENTIALITY, PROVIDE CLEAR PUBLIC RECORDS,
PROTECTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES
SPECIFIC TO SITES
AND END USERS TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONAL SECURITY.
MEANINGFUL METRICS ANY, REPORTING SHOULD TARGET
ACTUAL WATER CONSUMPTION
RATHER THAN MERE WITHDRAWALS OR PROJECTIONS.
ANONYMITY ENSURE THAT ANY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA
IS AGGREGATED AND ANONYMIZED AND THEN TECH NEUTRAL.
ENCOURAGE BEST PRACTICES THAT ARE REFLECTIVE
OF ALL TECHNICAL, TECHNICAL, FEASIBLE OPTIONS
AND ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT
OF INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE.
AS I MENTIONED, IN AN EFFORT TO STRIKE A BALANCE
THROUGH THESE PRINCIPLES,
PARTICULARLY AS NEW TECHNOLOGIES CONTINUE
TO CREATE NEW EFFICIENCY FOR DATA CENTER WATER USE,
WE BELIEVE
WATER POLICY SHOULD FOCUS ON THE
ACTUAL WATER CONSUMPTION AND LOCAL WATER CONDITIONS,
NOT THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF BUSINESS
THAT OCCUPIES THAT BUILDING.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
SO, GOOD.
GOOD MORNING AGAIN. MY NAME IS ASHANTI SMITH.
ON BEHALF OF THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP.
WE WANT TO AGAIN THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR HER ENGAGEMENT ON, AB 2619.
WE DO THINK THAT THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS
ON THIS BILL.
WE CONTINUE TO RUN THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAD SEEN
FROM NATURAL RESOURCES BACK TO OUR MEMBERSHIP.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IN PRINT, WE ARE STILL IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL.
WE HAVE THREE CORE CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL.
THE FIRST ONE I WILL GO OVER IS BASED
ON, THE PERJURY COMPONENT FOR FOR WATER USAGE REPORTING.
IN THE MARKUP AMENDMENTS, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL TWEAK,
THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS IN MY COMMENTS TODAY
THAT I DO THINK IT'S
BEEN KIND OF CONFUSING, BASED ON THE INITIAL FEEDBACK
THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM OUR MEMBERSHIP.
THE CHANGE FROM ESTIMATE TO GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE DOES NOT SOLVE
THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.
IT COMPOUNDS IT.
BUSINESS APPLICATIONS ARE EXECUTED
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, ASKING AN OPERATOR TO ATTEST,
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY TO A GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE.
FUTURE WATER USE A MAXIMUM DAY.
MAXIMUM MONTH.
AN AVERAGE YEAR REQUIRES CERTAIN CERTIFYING FIGURES
THAT ARE INHERENTLY, INHERENTLY SPECULATIVE,
OFTEN YEARS BEFORE A FACILITY IS EVEN OPERATIONAL.
IT IS GENUINELY UNCLEAR
TO OUR MEMBERS WHAT THAT METHODOLOGY SATISFIES.
GOOD FAITH.
OR WHAT LEGAL EXPOSURE IS, IF THE ACTUAL
USE LATER DIVERGES FROM AN HONEST PROJECTION.
SECOND, THE BILL SINGLES OUT DATA CENTER FACILITIES FOR
FACILITY LEVEL REPORTING THAT IS NOT REQUIRED
OF ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
OR INSTITUTIONAL USERS WITH COMPARABLE RESOURCE DEMANDS.
THIRD, IT STILL LAYERS A NEW REPORTING REGIME
ON TOP OF CALIFORNIA'S
EXISTING CONSERVATION AND WATER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS,
WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING THAT THOSE FRAMEWORKS
ARE INSUFFICIENT OR HOW THIS NEW DATA
WOULD BE MEANINGFULLY IMPROVED STATEWIDE.
WATER MANAGEMENT.
AS THIS COMMITTEE'S ONLY ANALYSIS NOTES,
LOCAL AGENCIES
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT INFORMATION
BUT DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
AS FIELD G SUPPORTS TRANSPARENCY
AND RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
MANY OF OUR MEMBER COMPANIES ARE ALREADY LEADERS IN RECYCLED
WATER USE, CLEAN ENERGY PROCUREMENT, AND ENERGY
EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES.
WE SHARE THE GOAL OF RESPONSIBLE WATER STEWARDSHIP
AT A TIME WHERE INTENSIFYING COMPETITION
FOR DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE SUPPORTING
RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, NOT ADDING CONFUSION, DEPLOYING DUPLICATIVE
AND LEGALLY UNCERTAIN MANDATES THAT DISCOURAGE INVESTMENT.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESSES OUT THERE?
YEAH.
MR. CHAIR, CHRIS ANDERSON, CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
OKAY.
SEEING NONE
I SEE NO OTHER MEMBERS BUT ME.
LET ME ASK, ANOTHER QUESTION.
EARLIER, BILL,
REQUIRED, CITIES,
AND THE COUNTIES, TO,
ASSESS, THE WATER SUPPLY ISSUE.
SO WHETHER THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT OR NOT.
AND THEN THEY WANT TO GO BY THAT THE ALL THIS, REQUIRED
THIS BILL IS, RELATING ABOUT THIS SEPARATE BILL, AND,
THIS IS AN ANNUAL REPORT, INCLUDING, TO INCLUDE
ALL THE SPECIFIED ITEMS IN THERE.
I WONDER IF, THE APPLICATION IS, THOROUGH ENOUGH FOR THIS.
QUESTIONS OF CAN BE, ANSWERED IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
SAID.
THAT'S SO QUESTION TO THE AUTHOR.
IF I HAVEN'T, I'M SURE INTERESTED IN THE QUESTION.
IF WHAT COULD BE ANSWERED IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS,
THE APPLICATION INITIAL APPLICATION
OR WAS THE DEMANDING WATER SUPPLY ISSUES.
SO THIS, FOLLOW UP,
BILL IS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REPORT,
CONCERNING ALL THE ITEMS THAT YOU DESCRIBED.
SO, WHAT, THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS
THAT CAN BE ANSWERED IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION.
WELL, I THINK
WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR WATER SUPPLIERS IS TO KNOW
WHETHER OR NOT
IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE
AND WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE WATER USE.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE BILL REALLY TRIES TO GET.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
THE PREVIOUS BILL DEALT WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS,
WHAT YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO USE.
AND THEN THIS BILL IS TELL US WHAT LOOK FOR
ON THE FIRST APPLICATION. WHAT IS YOUR ESTIMATE.
AND THEN EVERY BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL THEREAFTER,
IT TELLS US WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY USING.
DID YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT'S
ON? I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE SO AMENDMENTS, PROPOSED TO YOU.
DO YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS TO. OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AND YOU KNOW, THE ADDITIONAL ANSWER?
NO. OKAY.
THEN THAT'S.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL MEMBERS COME BACK
TO TAKE A MOTION AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, THOUGH.
OKAY? OKAY.
I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE ANOTHER BILL.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLOSE ON THIS BILL.
IF I'M OKAY, YOU CAN CLOSE, AND THEN YOU'RE DONE WITH. YEAH.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT.
THE DATA
CENTER, FOLKS WANT PARITY,
BUT THEY'RE NOT ON PARITY
WITH THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT THEY HAVE BEEN USING.
COMMUNITIES.
THIS IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
COMMUNITIES ARE ALARMED
BY HOW MUCH WATER THEY ARE CAPABLE OF USING.
AND SO I THINK THAT MANY COMMUNITIES
ACROSS THE STATE ARE NOW
EITHER SAYING WE DON'T WANT THEM AT ALL,
OR WE'RE PUTTING THEM OFF UNTIL WE CAN UNDERSTAND
THE INFORMATION.
AND SO, TO US, FOR PARITY,
WHEN YOU'RE NOT AN EQUAL WATER USER,
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S REASONABLE,
BUT I THINK WE CAN WORK TOGETHER.
AND I THINK WHEN LOCAL COMMUNITIES KNOW
WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE, AND THAT IS ON AN ONGOING BASIS
AS IT RELATES TO THIS BILL,
WE'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER AND WE WILL ALL SUCCEED.
SO RESPECTFULLY QUESTION I VOTE. THANK YOU. AND
THEN I, SEE YOUR
ANOTHER BILL HAS BEEN PULLED OR SO YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.
YOU'RE DONE WITH ME. THANK YOU SIR.
THANK YOU.
WHAT'S NEXT? TEN.
ZERO.
OKAY.
NEXT BILL IS, FINAL
ITEM.
NUMBER TEN A B 1801 SEVEN.
REMEMBER LISA HERE.
ALL RIGHT.
AND Y'ALL READY?
YOU CAN BEGIN.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT AB 1801,
WHICH WILL STRENGTHEN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
FOR CONTRACTS OF PRIVATE IMMIGRATION FACILITIES.
FIRST, I WANT TO SAY I ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
RELATED.
CHARTER CITIES DESCRIBING THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
AB 1801 REMOVES ANY AMBIGUITY BY REQUIRING THAT PUBLIC NOTICE
BE PROVIDED A FULL 180 DAYS BEFORE ANY APPROVAL, ENSURING
HEARING ENSURES
HEARINGS ARE HELD AT LEAST 30 DAYS APART,
AND THAT ADEQUATE NOTICE IS GIVEN,
AND CLARIFIES THAT ALL CONTRACTS
AND AGREEMENTS RELATED DETENTION FACILITIES ARE SUBJECT
TO THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS.
THE COURTS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR
IF WE WANT MEANINGFUL TRANSPARENCY,
THE LAW MUST BE EXPLICIT, RIGHT?
IN MY OWN BACKGROUND BACKYARD.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS MAKING PLANS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO OPEN AN IMMIGRATION PROCESSING CENTER
WITHOUT ENGAGING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
PRIVATE PRISONS
DO NOT MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS, AND AP AB 1801 CLOSES
LOOPHOLES TO ENSURE COMMUNITIES
HAVE A REAL VOICE IN DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THEM FOR DECADES.
WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE ABRAHAM BEDOYA
FROM THE IMMIGRANT
LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER AND JOSE HERNANDEZ,
A COMMUNITY MEMBER AFFECTED BY PRIVATE IMMIGRATION DETENTION.
OKAY.
I THINK IT'S ON. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. SO MANY SENTIMENTS. YEAH.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS ABRAHAM MADORE, AND I AM THE CALIFORNIA
POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER
FOR THE IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER.
THE IRC IS A NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE
FOR IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY.
AND WE'RE PROUD CO-SPONSORS OF AB 1801.
AT ITS CORE, AB 18 ONE IS ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE,
ROBUST CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, AND PROVIDING
CONSTITUENTS WITH A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY
TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS WHEN LOCALITIES CONSIDER
ANY NEW DETENTION CENTER IN THEIR COMMUNITY,
AB AND ONE AMENDS EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAW,
CIVIL CODE SECTION 1670.9, WHICH INCREASES
TRANSPARENCY IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS
FOR DETENTION CENTERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA.
BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF SB 29.
IN 2018,
DETENTION CENTERS WOULD BE APPROVED QUICKLY
WITHOUT MEANINGFUL PUBLIC NOTICE OR ENGAGEMENT.
LOCAL RESIDENTS AND LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDERS WOULD LEARN
THAT A NEW DETENTION CENTER HAD OPENED UP
ONLY AFTER A FAMILY MEMBER
OR CLIENT WAS TRANSFERRED THERE, LONG AFTER ANY OPPORTUNITIES.
TO RAISE CONCERNS,
SB 29 CREATE IMPORTANT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS
TO ENGAGE WITH THEIR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS.
OFFICIALS THROUGH PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS.
HOWEVER, IN 2020,
WE SAW THREE DETENTION CENTERS INTO CALIFORNIA
THAT DID PUT THIS IMPORTANT LAW TO THE TEST.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE WITNESSED REPEATED EFFORTS
TO CIRCUMVENT SB
29 BY EXPLOITING, EXPLOITING LOOPHOLES IN EXISTING STATE LAW.
WHILE COMMUNITIES TECHNICALLY RECEIVE
NEW NOTICE THAT PERMITS FOR DETENTION CENTERS
ARE BEING CONSIDERED LOCALLY,
HEARINGS WERE OFTEN HELD SHORT AFTER A NOTICE
WAS ISSUED, LEAVING
LITTLE TIME FOR RESIDENTS TO ORGANIZE AND PARTICIPATE IN
WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SIX MONTH
COMMUNITY NOTICE AND HEARING PROCESS
WAS REDUCED TO A MATTER OF WEEKS.
AB 1801 STATUTORILY CLOSES THESE LOOPHOLES BY REQUIRING
THAT NO PERMIT OR OTHER LOCAL APPROVAL FOR,
BE EXECUTED BEFORE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE OCCURRED.
THIS BILL ENSURES THAT NOTICE AND HEARINGS
CANNOT OCCUR WITHIN WEEKS OF ONE ANOTHER,
REQUIRE NOTICES TO BE POSTED
IN PUBLIC LOCATIONS IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES,
AND GUARANTEES PUBLIC ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS.
RELATE TO ANYTHING ANY PROPOSED APPROVAL.
AB 1801 ADVANCES A CORE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE
OF TRANSPARENT LOCAL GOVERNANCE THAT ENCOURAGES
MEANINGFUL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC DECISION MAKING.
TO SHARE HIS EXPERIENCE INSIDE A CALIFORNIA DETENTION CENTER,
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO INTRODUCE A COMMUNITY LEADER,
JOSE HERNANDEZ.
HIS STORY IS ONE OF MANY REASONS WHY STRONGER PROTECTIONS
AND MEANINGFUL
COMMUNITY INPUT ARE NEEDED WHEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES
CONSIDER PERMITS FOR DETENTION CENTERS. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
ANNIE.
I THINK WE HAVE A YES.
SO, GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. OKAY.
MY NAME IS SUZAN, AND THIS
I AM THE FREEDOM CAMPAIGN ORGANIZER
WITH THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT HUMAN INTEGRITY,
AND A STUDENT AT THE SAN JOSE DESERT COLLEGE.
I WAS DETAINED AT THE, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX AND MESA
VERDE DETENTION FACILITY,
TWO PRIVATELY OWNED FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA,
WHERE I WAS DETAINED FOR A TOTAL OF 16 MONTHS,
WHERE I WAS FORCED TO LIVE IN DORMS
THAT HAD THE CAPACITY OF HOLDING 100 PEOPLE
THAT CONTAINED MOLD PESTS,
AS WELL AS VENTILATION SYSTEMS THAT RELEASE BLACK DUST.
WE HAD TO WORK AS JANITORS FOR A DOLLAR A DAY
BECAUSE THE FACILITY DID NOT DO ANY OF THE CLEANING,
LEAVING US TO LIVE IN FILTH
WHILE WE WERE UNDER QUARANTINE DURING THE PANDEMIC.
WE'RE EXPOSED TO TOXIC CHEMICALS WITHOUT PROPER EQUIPMENT,
TRAINING, AND INSTRUCTION.
WITH RESPECT TO FOOD AND WATER,
WE WERE CONSISTENTLY SERVED EXPIRED MILK,
NO FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, AND DENIED BOTTLED WATER
WHEN THE FACILITY'S WATER SYSTEM WAS RELEASING
DARK, RUSTED WATER, ACCORDING TO A REPORT
BY THE CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE.
ON AVERAGE, 85% OF PEOPLE DETAINED
AT BOTH OF THESE PRIVATE FACILITIES EXPERIENCED FINDING
FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THEIR TRAYS, SOMETHING THAT I EXPERIENCE
COMMISSARY PROGRAMS THAT WE, PURCHASED FOR A HIGH
PRICE WOULD BE MOLDED AND EXPIRED.
IN TERMS OF MEDICAL NEGLECT.
MY VISION HAS WORSENED
BECAUSE I WAS NEVER TREATED BY AN EYE DOCTOR AS REQUESTED.
AND WHEN THOSE MY PEERS
BEING DENIED COVID TEST AND MEDICATIONS
BY MEDICAL STAFF, RESULTING IN OUTBREAKS
AND HAVING TO ENDURE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING FROM COVID,
THESE ISSUES EXIST IN DETENTION CENTERS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.
THIS IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR AB 1801 TO PASS.
SO A LOCAL COMMUNITIES HAVE A VOICE BEFORE
ONE OF THESE FACILITIES OPENS UP IN THEIR BACKYARD.
ESPECIALLY IMPACTED FAMILIES WHO HAVE WE'VE ACCOMPANY
TO ATTEND PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SEARCH
FOR THEIR MISSING DETAINED FAMILY MEMBERS.
AFTER CALIFORNIA CITY OPENED UP
AN ICE DETENTION CENTER WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC NOTICE.
DETAIN
INFORMALLY THE SAME PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA CITY
ALSO SHARE TESTIMONIES ARE BEING DENIED
THE LIFESAVING MEDICATIONS FOR DIABETES AND HEART PROBLEMS,
WHILE HAVING A DRINK FOR DRINK, TASTING WATER.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE BRIEF
EXAMPLES OF WHAT I LIVED THROUGH IN THESE FACILITIES,
AND THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL CURRENTLY LIVING.
AND I KINDLY ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PASS AB 1801.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND GOD BLESS.
THANK YOU ANY ME TO SUPPORT US.
AND I'M AT THE
SANTIAGO WITH MISS, A VERY BIG GROUP
HERE ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER.
GARRISON AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ZINNIA.
WITH ACLU, CAL ACTION IN SUPPORT.
CHLOE.
ROCIO WITH THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER.
AND SUPPORT.
OKAY. ANY
OTHER NO LEAD OPPOSITION WITNESS.
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC OPPOSING.
OKAY, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
I SEE,
YOUR BILL IS EXPANDING, SO TO SPEAK IN GENERAL.
SOUNDS GOOD.
THE, TRANSPARENCY
OF, SOUTHERN, PROJECT, BUT THIS ONE,
THIS BILL, THIS ARE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THE,
IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITIES.
NOT, ANY OF THE HEARINGS, THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REQUIRES UP ON ANY NEW FACILITIES.
WHY ANY PROJECTS?
THEY, REQUIRED TO, THEY ARE PLANNING
AND THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO POST, HEARING NOTICES,
AND THE NUMBER OF,
TIMES, AND THEN GEOGRAPHIC AREA,
HOW FAR,
THEY HAVE TO, NOTIFY THE REST OF THOSE.
SO WITHIN THE PROJECT, CERTAIN DISTANCE
THAT THEY HAVE TO, NOTIFY FOR THOSE HEARINGS.
SO, BUT THIS ONE IS EXPANDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT,
MANY BY MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.
SO, TRANSPARENCY IS A GOOD
BUT THE WHY THIS IS,
TO THE ALSO FOCUSING, NOT THE ALL THE PROJECTS,
THE DETENTION CENTER, ON THERE THAT'S THE SINGLING OUT.
SOUNDS LIKE, TO ME AS A TO,
DISCOURAGING, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, TO, BUILD,
WHEN WE DO THAT, THE OBVIOUSLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS THEIR OWN ISSUES OF, NECESSITY BUILDING ADDITION OR,
LOCAL DETENTION CENTERS.
BUT, IF, LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
REQUIRES SO MANY,
REGULATIONS AND, DETER THEM
FROM, BUILDING
UNNECESSARY DETENTION CENTERS,
THEN WHERE, OBVIOUSLY,
THE LACK OF,
DETENTION CENTERS IS NOT GONNA
PREVENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
AND, OBVIOUSLY
THEY, PROPOSING ADDITIONS OR DETENTION CENTERS
ARE TO BE BUILT IN CERTAIN AREAS.
THEN, IF WE TRY TO, BLOCK
THAT KIND OF, ADDITIONS OR FACILITIES,
TO ME THAT THAT'S NOT THE REALLY BENEFICIAL FOR THE DETAINEES,
IN THE FACILITIES, BECAUSE THEY WILL BE SENT,
FROM PROPOSED TO LOCATION TO ANOTHER EXISTING LOCATION
THAT WILL CREATE THE, OVERCROWDING.
SANITARY, ISSUES.
IN THE NARROW SPACE, SO MANY PEOPLE WILL BE CROWDED,
AND THEN, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE MEDICAL CARE
ATTENTION, WILL BE MORE PROBLEMATIC.
SO IT IS AN UNNECESSARILY BENEFICIAL
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT GONNA BLOCK
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM BUILDING NO MATTER HOW. OH,
THIS BILL
OR TO TRY TO DETER THAT KIND OF, ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS.
BUT SECONDLY IS, TO ME, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE,
THE SERVICES, WELFARE OF THE DETAINEES
AND THE FROM THE SHORTAGE OF, FACILITIES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT
THIS KIND OF PROBLEM?
SO INSTEAD OF JUST, SIMPLY BLOCKING THEM?
YEAH, I'M I WANT TO.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY SPONSOR IN A SECOND,
BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THIS IS CLARIFYING.
BUILD UPON EXISTING LAW. IT'S ALMOST A DECADE OLD.
IT'S EXISTING LAW ABOUT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PRIVATE
DETENTION FACILITIES.
I WANT TO REMIND THE SENATOR
THAT THESE ARE NOT BUILT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THEY ARE PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS THAT PROFIT
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM TAXPAYER MONEY.
AND SO THEY ARE OPERATING UNDER THESE
SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
AND CONSTANTLY SKIRT CALIFORNIA LAW THAT IS ALREADY EXISTING.
IF, ABRAHAM WANTS TO TALK A LITTLE BIT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR.
I THINK IF I CAN ONLY ADD TO WHAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER
LEE IS FOCUSED, HONESTLY, THE
THE SPIRIT AND THE POINT OF AB 201
TRULY IS NOT ABOUT MANDATING WHAT LOCALITIES
DO, IT'S JUST ALLOWING CONSTITUENTS TO KNOW
WHEN DETENTION CENTERS ARE POTENTIALLY BUILT,
BEING BUILT IN THEIR BACKYARD.
SO THROUGH A ONE, JUST LIKE ASSEMBLYMEMBER
LEE MENTIONED,
WE ARE JUST BUILDING ON EXISTING
LAW THAT REALLY PUTS THE GUARDRAILS
THAT IF A LOCALITY IS TO APPROVE IT, FINE.
BUT AT LEAST WE BELIEVE
THAT IS FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE, THAT THE CITY SHOULD DO ITS DUE
DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE LOCALS KNOW
THAT THIS POTENTIAL PROJECT
IS TO BE BUILT IN THEIR CITY OR BACKYARD.
I MEAN,
MY BELIEF IS THAT NO COMMERCIAL VENTURE
OR DEVELOPER WILL BUILD VOLUNTARILY
ADDITIONAL DETENTION CENTERS UNLESS THERE WAS A, DEMAND OR,
THE REQUEST FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
THAT WE NEED A FACILITY SUCH AND SUCH.
CAN YOU BUILD ONE?
SO, THAT, IS NOT AS, LIKE,
FUTURE POTENTIAL INVESTMENT OR NO SPECIFIC
USE OF A DETENTION FACILITY WILL BE ADDED OR DEVELOPED
BY THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS.
SO I DON'T QUITE NECESSARILY,
YOU KNOW, AGREE WITH, THE AUTHOR'S
STATEMENT.
SO WELFARE ISSUE, IN OTHER WORDS, OVERCROWDING ISSUE.
IF A SHORTAGE OF OR IS A WHERE DETAINEES
CAN BE ACCOMMODATED.
OKAY.
SO NO COMMENT.
AND IS THERE ANY MOTION IN THERE?
WAS THERE A QUESTION, SENATOR
DON'T WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER OR BEFORE CLOSING?
NO, I THINK
SIMILARLY TO SOME ROOM, REALLY. I WAS JUST WONDERING
IF YOU COULD REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE.
THE LAST QUESTION THAT YOU HAD.
OKAY.
MY QUESTION WAS, IF, NECESSARY.
SPACE.
ADDITIONAL SPACE.
IS, PROVIDED,
THEN THERE WILL BE EXISTING
DETENTION CENTERS WILL HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE,
THE, THE ADDITIONAL DETAINEES
AND THAT WILL CREATE THE OVERCROWDING SITUATION
THAT CREATES A WELFARE PROBLEMS
IN MORE CROWDED AREA.
SO ADDITIONAL,
FACILITY HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
AND THE THAT THE PROPOSAL WILL BE OBVIOUSLY
BASED UPON THE DEMAND
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT TO THE DEVELOPER,
NOT JUST ANY DEVELOPER VOLUNTARILY.
I WILL BUILD A DETENTION CENTER.
WILL YOU PLACE IT?
AT LEAST THE BUILDING FROM IS NOT IT BE VICE VERSA?
SO IF WE BECAUSE OF THIS,
THE INTENT OF THIS BILL IS, TO.
DETER
OR BLOCK THE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES.
THEN THAT KIND OF OVERCROWDING SITUATION,
WELFARE OF THE DETAINEE ISSUE.
ALL RIGHT.
HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT? THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
I'M HAPPY TO.
I THINK FOR US, THE BIGGEST THING IS GOING BACK
TO WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAID IS FOR US,
WE TRULY NEED TO THE IDEA OF A 2 TO 1 IS THAT WE, REGARDLESS
OF WHAT LOCALITY DECIDE TO DO, IF THEY DECIDE TO APPROVE IT,
HAVE TO APPROVE A PERMIT OR NOT.
THE LEAST
THAT WE THINK
A LOCALITY COULD DO IS INFORM THEIR CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THAT.
AND I THINK THAT A 2 IN 1 DOES AN OUTLET.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH OUR PARTICULAR
BILL IS NOT OUTLAW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF POTENTIAL DETENTION CENTERS,
BUT AT LEAST GIVE COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND KNOW ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE
AND ATTEND HEARINGS TO BE ABLE TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS
OR EVEN POTENTIALLY THEIR SUPPOR
ALSO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH, AGAIN, I WANT TO REMIND FOLKS THAT THIS BILL EXISTS
BECAUSE THERE ARE THESE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS
THAT ARE EITHER
FLAGRANTLY GAMING THE SYSTEM, NOT QUITE ACTUALLY
MEETING THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS.
IN FACT,
SOME OF THE EXAMPLES, LIKE IN THE ANALYSIS,
TALK ABOUT HOW THEY REALLY GAME THE SYSTEM
BY ABOUT HEARINGS OR STACK THEM TO THE POINT
THAT PEOPLE CAN'T REALLY GO TO THEM.
SO THERE ARE GAPS IN THE LAW, AND THERE ARE FACILITIES,
EVEN IN CALIFORNIA TODAY, THAT FLAGRANTLY
DO NOT RESPECT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL
CONTROL WHATSOEVER.
THEY DON'T EVEN FOLLOWED LOCAL ORDINANCE.
SO YOU HAVE THAT PROBLEM ALL TOGETHER.
SO THIS IS ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE.
AND IF WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE OVERCROWDING SITUATION,
THE WELFARE OF PEOPLE IN THE DETENTION FACILITIES,
WELL, LUCKILY THERE'S A VERY EASY SOLUTION TO
THAT IS TO STOP FEDERAL MASS DEPORTATION.
SO YOU HAVE LESS PEOPLE IN THOSE FACILITIES.
BUT I WOULDN'T WORRY TOO MUCH
ABOUT THE PROFIT MARGINS RIGHT NOW,
BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS INSISTENT ON ROUNDING UP
SO MANY PEOPLE
THAT THESE CORPORATIONS PROBABLY CAN CONTINUE
TO MAKE A LOT OF THAT PROFIT OFF OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.
SO THAT'S WHY I VOTE WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE.
OKAY.
SO THAT YOU YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT. YES.
OKAY.
IS THERE ANY MOTION FOR ME? OKAY.
THAT'S ON
UNTIL THE MEMBERS COME BACK AND THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
I WANT TO, LEAVE IT OPEN.
OKAY. THANK YOU.
OH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER BILL NOW?
SAME. SAME PERSON.
SEVEN MORE. BILL 11. SORRY.
OKAY.
I HAVE A NUMBER 11 A THE, 26 OR 2561.
WHAT IS IT NOW?
CAN I READ 26 ON?
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN.
SENATORS, I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB 2601,
WHICH ALLOWS HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO APPLY
FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW OF PROJECTS THAT INVOLVES
SPECIFIC STREAMLINED PROJECTS AND LOT SPLITTING.
WE HAVE PASSED A LOT OF BILLS THAT SHORTEN TIMELINES, EXEMPT
HOUSING PROJECTS
FROM DIFFERENT KINDS OF REVIEW,
AND REQUIRE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
AND I'VE SUPPORTED MOST OF THOSE EFFORTS.
THIS BILL SEEKS TO COMPLEMENT THOSE EFFORTS,
BUT WITHOUT ADDING SHOT CLOCKS
OR SIDESTEPPING REVIEW PROCESSES,
ALLOWING CONCURRENT REVIEW OF PARCEL MAP SPLITS.
AND THESE HOUSING PROJECTS
CAN CREATE EFFICIENCY AND DEVELOPMENT.
NEW HOUSING PROJECTS.
THAT EFFICIENCY
CAN MAKE PROJECT FINANCING MORE CERTAIN
AND PROJECT DELIVERY FASTER, ALL TO THE BENEFIT
OF PROVIDING MORE HOMES FOR PEOPLE.
WITH ME HERE IN SUPPORT TODAY IS LOUIS MORANTE WITH THE BAY
AREA COUNCIL AND JONATHAN CHANG WITH ALPHA X CAPITAL.
SO MANY SUCH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
GOOD MORNING.
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS LOUIS MORANTE
WITH THE BAY AREA COUNCIL, WHICH REPRESENTS
ABOUT 400 OF THE REGION'S LARGEST EMPLOYERS FOR BUSINESSES
IN THE BAY AREA.
HOUSING IS NOT A SIDE ISSUE.
IT'S A CRITICAL CORE FUNCTION OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY'S
FOCUS ON MAKING THE REGION THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK,
AND TO RECRUITING, FUTURE JOBS OR COMPANIES TO THE REGION.
THIS BILL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT HELPS BUILD
THE MISSING MIDDLE, THE AFFORDABLE
TYPE OF HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECTS
THAT OUR COMMUNITIES SO EAGERLY CRAVE.
THESE SMALLER, MORE NATURALLY AFFORDABLE
HOMES ARE ONES THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY BUY.
CALIFORNIA BUILDS VERY FEW HOMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY FOR SALE,
AND THESE HOMES ARE WELL PLACED CLOSE TO JOBS IN, IN, IN,
YOU KNOW, IN THE PENINSULA
IN SAN FRANCISCO AND IN THE EAST BAY, MAKING THEM VERY VALUABLE
TO EMPLOYERS SEEKING TO RECRUIT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO OWN HOMES.
CRITICALLY, THIS BILL, AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MENTIONED, DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY NEW DEADLINES ON LOCAL AGENCIES.
IT STREAMLINES
STRATEGICALLY WITHOUT MANDATING A DIFFERENT PACE OF REVIEW.
I THINK THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER COVERED THE DETAILS OF THE BILL
VERY WELL, SO I'LL SKIP THAT.
I WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY URGE
YOUR I VOTE AND THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER LEE
FOR CARRYING THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE. THANK YOU.
OKAY. SECOND WITNESS.
HELLO, CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS JONATHAN CHANG,
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF Z CAPITAL AND SUPPORT OF AB 2601.
ALPHA X IS A BAY AREA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER.
FOCUS ON INFILL AND MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
OUR MISSION IS DIRECTLY TIED TO THE TYPE OF HOUSING PRODUCTION.
THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT
SMALLER SUBDIVISIONS, TOWNHOME AND CONDO COMMUNITIES, ADUS,
AND OTHER ATTAINABLE OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.
AS AN ORGANIZATION,
WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON COLLABORATING
WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO PUT CALIFORNIA'S
NEWEST HOUSING LEGISLATION INTO PRACTICE.
WE ARE ONE OF THE FIRST SB 684
PROJECTS APPROVED IN THE CITY OF CAMPBELL.
WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON
SB 1123 PROJECTS THROUGHOUT SANTA CLARA COUNTY
AND IN SAN JOSE.
WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST TO COMPLETE
A CONDO CONVERSION OF A DETACHED ADU UNDER AB 1033.
THAT TWO BEDROOM ADU WAS ULTIMATELY PURCHASED
BY A MOTHER AND SON FOR $530,000,
GRANTING THEM FIRST TIME HOME OWNERSHIP WITH A MORTGAGE
ALMOST EQUAL TO THE RENT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY PAYING.
THIS IS THE KIND OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
THAT CALIFORNIANS DESERVE MORE OF ALLOWING THE CONDOMINIUM APP
AND RELATED HOUSING REVIEW TO MOVE FORWARD
CONCURRENTLY WOULD MAKE
ADU OWNERSHIP MORE VIABLE,
CREATING ANOTHER PATH FOR ATTAINABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
TO A WIDER DEMOGRAPHIC ACROSS THE STATE.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT STRENGTHENS PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
OF IMPORTANT HOUSING LEGISLATION, INCLUDING SB9
AND SB9.
CREATED A PATHWAY TO ADD
HOUSING ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THROUGH TWO UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS.
BUT IN PRACTICE, THESE PROJECTS STILL FACE CHALLENGES
WHEN THE BUILDING APPLICATION, SUBDIVISION MAP
AND EVENTUAL OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE ARE REVIEWED SEPARATELY.
AB 2601 HELPS ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM
BY MAKING THE PROCESS CLEARER AND MORE COORDINATED,
WHILE STILL PRESERVING LOCAL AUTHORITY
JURISDICTIONS WOULD STILL APPLY THEIR LOCAL STANDARDS,
OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS, AND SAFETY REVIEWS.
IMPORTANTLY, APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS WOULD STILL REMAIN,
SUCH AS THE ABILITY TO CONDITION OCCUPANCY
ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF A FINAL MAP.
FROM OUR EXPERIENCE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH CITIES
AND COUNTIES, CLEAR SEQUENCING
AND CONCURRENT VIEWS BENEFITS EVERYONE INVOLVED.
IT HELPS APPLICANTS UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS EARLIER,
HELPS STAFF
IDENTIFY ISSUES SOONER, AND GIVES THE JURISDICTION
A CLEARER PICTURE OF THE PROPOSED
HOUSING OUTCOME FROM THE VERY START.
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
IN THIS BILL, WE BELIEVE CALIFORNIA CAN CREATE
A MORE WORKABLE PATH FOR SMALLER HOUSING PROJECTS,
ALLOWING DEVELOPERS LIKE US TO DELIVER THE HOUSING
OUR COMMUNITIES NEED DURING OUR ONGOING HOUSING CRISIS.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR VOTE ON AB 2601.
THANK YOU.
OKAY, ANYONE ALSO ME TO SUPPORT US?
YES, MR.
CHAIR, MICHAEL GUNNING, LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS
HERE ON BEHALF OF ABUNDANT HOUSING LOS ANGELES
AND CIRCULATE PLANNING AND POLICY, ALL IN SUPPORT.
NOLAN.
GREAT FOR CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANY LEAD?
THE OPPOSITION WITNESS.
OKAY.
IN THE PUBLIC.
OKAY.
NO QUESTION.
AND, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
OH, YEAH. OKAY. YES.
SENATOR. SEATTLE.
SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THE HOUSING COMMITTEES.
I'M SEEING, LIKE TEN, 15 OF BILLS
THAT ARE VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO THIS, ALL STREAMLINING SB9.
HOW DO WE RECONCILE THOSE WITH I MEAN, HAVE YOU LOOKED
AT YOUR BILL IN RELATION TO OTHER BILLS
TO SEE WHERE THE OVERLAP IS OR WHAT?
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
WE JUST HEARD ONE EARLIER THAT I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF BEVERLY.
BUT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT BECAUSE OF THE MIDDLE,
THE MIDDLE HOUSING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE,
THE ONEROUS
PARTS OF ONE BILL GET COVERED IN ANOTHER BILL.
AND THEN WE WE WHEN WE COMBINE THEM ALL AT THE END,
WE HAVE AN UNWORKABLE MESS OF REGULATORY STUFF
FOR CITIES TO HAVE TO WATCH BECAUSE THEY APPARENTLY CANNOT
PARTICIPATE IN.
SO HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THESE OTHER BILLS
AND COMPARED THEM TO YOURS AND SEE WHERE THE OVERLAP IS?
OR WE JUST I MEAN, IT'S JUST LIKE REINING
THESE TYPE OF BILLS AND,
YOU KNOW,
IT'S LIKE
WE'RE MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
SO I THINK IT'S A VERY IT'S VERY VALID POINT,
YOU KNOW,
AND I SIT ON THE ASSEMBLY HOUSING COMMITTEE,
I CAN'T SPEAK TO RESPECT OF ALL THE OTHER ECOSYSTEM BILLS,
BUT THIS BILL IS ABOUT TRYING
TO SIMPLIFY THAT SO CITY CAN CONCURRENTLY REVIEW.
A LOT OF THE STREAMLINING IS DONE. IN A SENSE.
THIS IS A BILL THAT'S STREAMLINING THE STREAMLINING.
SO RATHER THAN MAKING A CITY GO ALL RIGHT.
REVIEW NUMBER ONE. REVIEW NUMBER TWO REVIEW NUMBER THREE.
FOR ALL THE THINGS TO CHANGE THEY CAN AT LEAST LOOK AT ALL
COMPREHENSIVELY AT ONCE.
I DON'T KNOW IF MY WITNESSES ON THE PRACTITIONER
FRONT WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY WORKING AT THIS ON LOCAL LEVEL,
BUT THIS IS INTENDED TO SAVE TIME AND RESOURCES BY CHECKING,
LIKE CHECKING ALL THE STREAMLINING
THAT WE'VE DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY RATHER THAN GOING
MULTIPLE DIFFERENT STEPS.
AND I THINK PART OF WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, FORGETS IT.
SOMETIMES THERE'S JUST 1 OR 2 PEOPLE DOING THE SAME PROCESS.
RIGHT.
AND SO THE STREAM,
THEY CAN'T DO THINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DO ONE THING AT A TIME.
IT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY THEY'RE NOT DOING
IT, IN SERIES BECAUSE THEY,
THEY WANT
TO THEY'RE DOING IT IN SERIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.
BECAUSE, YEAH, THEY'VE ONLY GOT ONE THING IN TIME.
SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT IT THAT, THAT STREAMLINING
WITH ALL THE OTHER
50 STREAMLINING BILLS THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS YEAR,
IS, IS GOING TO BE NECESSARY ON TOP OF ALL THE OTHER ONES.
THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ESPECIALLY WITH SMALLER CITIES,
APPLYING DEPARTMENTS MAY BE A BIT SMALLER IN THAT SENSE.
BUT I THINK ABOUT IT AS
THE SMALLER PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVING TO JUGGLE 15
BASICALLY PROJECTS FOR ONE PARCEL
RATHER THAN DOING IT ALL COMPREHENSIVELY AS ONE.
SO IT IS IN A SENSE, WE'RE TRYING
TO SIMPLIFY THIS PROCESS STILL FOR THEM.
WELL,
OUR STATE AGENCIES
ALL HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYEES
AND THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THIS EITHER.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM DO IT.
SO THANK YOU.
SO OKAY WITH THAT I WILL HAVE TO WAIT
UNTIL THE MEMBERS COME BACK
AND THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND THE LIVE IN OPEN.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
NEXT.
OKAY.
NEXT ONE IS, ITEM NUMBER 13
AB182.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CHERYL,
YOU HAVE SEVERAL BILLS.
THANK YOU, MR.
VICE CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AB 1820 TODAY.
I'D LIKE TO START BY,
THANKING CHAIR DURISO AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR DETAILED WORK ON THIS MEASURE.
AND I AM ACCEPTING ALL OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
AS AMENDED, AB 1820 SETS A PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
FOR EV CHARGERS INSTALLED IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING,
BUT ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FLEXIBILITY IN THE CASE
OF MORE COMPLEX PERMITS TO EXCEED FEE SCHEDULE AMOUNTS
IF THEY MAKE A WRITTEN FINDING PROVIDING EVIDENCE
OF A HIGHER COST TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT.
AS A PROPORTION
OF ALL HOUSING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING UNITS, AN APARTMENT
BUILDINGS HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF INSTALLED EV CHARGERS.
THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THIS.
IF A TENANT WOULD LIKE AN EV CHARGER
INSTALLED, THEY MAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH
A PROPERTY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE LANDLORD INSTALL AN OUTLET.
IN ADDITION TO THE RAW LABOR AND INSTALLATION COSTS,
THE LANDLORD MUST REQUEST
AND PAY FOR THE PERMIT FROM THE CITY
AND NEED TO WORK WITH THE UTILITY DURING INSTALLATION.
IN OTHER WORDS,
THERE ARE MULTIPLE POTENTIAL VETO POINTS ALONG THE WAY
THAT CAN BLOCK INSTALLATION AND MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
SETTING A STATEWIDE FEE SCHEDULE WILL NOT SOLVE
EVERY ISSUE, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT ENSURING THAT EV CHARGING PERMITS
ARE AFFORDABLE FOR APARTMENT
DWELLERS WILL HELP MORE PEOPLE GET ACCESS TO EVS.
STATEWIDE PERMIT FEE SCHEDULES ARE NOT NEW.
ONE EXAMPLE IS AB 1132, ENACTED IN 2023 BY FORMER
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN,
WHICH CAPPED PERMIT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMERCIAL SOLAR PERMITS.
MEASURES
LIKE THESE ARE AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE STATEWIDE UNIFORMITY,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO STATEWIDE POLICY GOALS
SUCH AS INCREASED SOLAR ADOPTION OR ACCELERATED
EV INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED FOR EV ADOPTION.
WITH ME TODAY IS NATE SOLAR PV,
WHO CAN COME SIT UP HERE IF YOU'D LIKE.
HE'S ALWAYS SITTING IN THE BACK. NATE, I DON'T KNOW WHY.
REPRESENTING EV CHARGING COMPANIES AND BILL MCGOVERN,
REPRESENTING THE COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR.
THANKS.
BILL MCGOVERN WITH THE COST FOR CLEAN AIR.
AND WE'RE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT WILL HELP
TO EXPEDITE, SOLUTION TO OUR AIR AND CLIMATE PROBLEMS.
CALIFORNIA.
UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE ALL THE PROGRESS WE'VE
MADE, STILL HAS THE COUNTRY'S WORST AIR POLLUTION.
WE HAVE THE WORST SMOG, THE WORST SOOT.
AND WE'RE ALSO
SEEING THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF RUNAWAY CLIMATE CHANGE AND
WILDFIRES AND HEATWAVES AND DROUGHTS AND FLOODS.
FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE A SOLUTION TO THE
BIGGEST CAUSE OF THAT POLLUTION, WHICH IS TRANSPORTATION.
AND WE CAN ELECTRIFY TRANSPORTATION.
WE HAVE THE VEHICLES AVAILABLE.
UNFORTUNATELY, ONE OF THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES
TO TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION
IS LACK OF CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THAT'S PARTICULARLY ACUTE IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
SO THIS BILL WOULD HELP TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS
AND MAKE SURE THAT FEES ARE REASONABLE WHEN WE'RE PERMITTING
THAT CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE.
MEMBERS NEEDS TO LIVE, AFTER THE EV
CHARGING COMPANIES SUPPORTING THE BILL.
JUST FOR CONTEXT, THE LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED
THREE BILLS OVER THE LAST
15 YEARS DOING THIS SAME THING FOR THE SOLAR INDUSTRY.
THAT'S LED TO MORE, CONSISTENT PERMITTING
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
AND THAT'S HELPED A LOT WITH SOLAR ADOPTION.
WE ARE ADOPTING THAT SAME TYPE OF,
REFORM HERE, APPLYING IT TO EV CHARGERS, BUT
WE'RE DOING IT IN A VERY NARROW WAY, AS THE AUTHOR MENTIONED.
AND WE AGAIN, APPRECIATE ALL OF HER WORK.
AND THE COMMITTEE'S HARD WORK ON THIS BILL.
THE AMENDMENTS EXTREMELY NARROW THE BILL.
SO IT NO LONGER APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
AND NO LONGER APPLIES TO SUPERCHARGERS
AND AND CHARGING FACILITY
SETTINGS, AND NOW JUST APPLIES TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING LEVEL
TWO CHARGERS.
SO THOSE ARE PREDOMINANTLY GOING TO BE AT APARTMENTS.
THIS IS THE SECTOR THAT'S HARDEST TO GET AT.
THESE ARE FOLKS WHO HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY
TO REALLY CONSIDER PURCHASING AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE
UNLESS THEY HAVE CHARGING OR WHAT, WHERE THEY LIVE.
SO TO
PROVIDE IT IN THIS APARTMENT, SETTINGS, THAT'S
GOING TO BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
AND WE THINK THIS BILL HAS A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY.
WE DELAYED THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE COMING OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY.
SO THERE'S A ONE YEAR
DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION FOR CITIES UNDER 200,000 PEOPLE
TO HELP GIVE CITIES TIME TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS
THAT THEY MIGHT NEED TO.
HOWEVER, I WILL NOTE THAT MANY CITIES ARE ALREADY CHARGING
BELOW THE PRICE PARAMETERS SET IN THE BILL, AND SO MANY CITIES
WILL NOT BE IMPACTED ALL BY THIS BILL.
BUT IT DOES ENCOURAGE THOSE JURISDICTIONS
TO MOVE AND HAVE MORE EFFICIENT,
PERMITTING PROCESS, WHICH WILL LEAD TO LOWER FEES.
THERE ALSO IS, EXEMPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY
FOR LOCAL JURISDICTION, SINCE EVERY,
YOU KNOW,
PERMIT IS DIFFERENT,
POTENTIALLY, JURISDICTIONS CAN CHARGE
MORE THAN THE PRICING PARAMETERS IN THE BILL.
THEY JUST NEED TO DO A WRITTEN FINDING.
AND SO THERE IS AN EXEMPTION
FOR FOLKS IF THEY NEED TO CHARGE MORE. THAT'S OKAY.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO, FLEXIBILITY IN THE FEE SCHEDULE
WHERE IF THERE'S JUST A FEW CHARGERS,
IT STARTS AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT, BUT THEN AS MORE CHARGERS
GET INSTALLED AT A LOCATION, FOR EXAMPLE,
THEY'RE ABLE TO CHARGE MORE
FOR FOR THAT PROJECT SO THAT THERE IS THE ABILITY
FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO CHARGE MORE.
THERE'S FLEXIBILITY AND EXEMPTIONS.
AND SO WE THINK THAT STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE
TO REALLY HONE IN ON THE MOST CRITICAL SECTOR,
OF OF FOLKS OUT THERE TRYING TO GET CHARGERS
IN APARTMENT SETTINGS.
SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S CONTINUED SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER SUPPORT STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
CHAIR MEMBERS, NICK RAMOS, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN EV JOBS
ALLIANCE AND THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION
IN SUPPORT YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS, SCOTT COX
ON BEHALF OF THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING ASSOCIATION, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL,
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOUR I VOTE AND ALSO,
THE REQUEST OF THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
EXTENDING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. THANK YOU.
AND, MR.
CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST, THE UNION
OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL, WEREN'T ABLE TO BE HERE
AND ASKED US TO ADD THEIR SUPPORT.
ALSO,
I'M KYLE LAPOINTE HERE ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
OKAY.
ANY LEAD THE OPPONENT.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR.
DAYMON CONCUR WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.
WE ACTUALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK
THAT THE COMMITTEE STAFF
HAS DONE ON THE ANALYSIS, AS WELL AS WORKING WITH THE,
THE SPONSOR AND THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL.
APPRECIATE, THE NARROWING OF THE BILL
AND THE PROVISIONS THAT FOCUS THIS BILL MORE HYPER.
ON LEVEL TWO, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, OUR, ISSUE
KIND OF REMAINS KIND OF, PREMISED UNDER THE,
CAPPING OF ANY FEES THAT LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES CHARGE.
CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS SOME OF THE STRONGEST
PROTECTIONS IN THE NATION AGAINST EXCESSIVE PERMIT FEES,
UNDER PROP 26 AND THE MITIGATION FEE ACT,
CITIES AND PERMITTING AUTHORITIES, CAN ONLY RECOVER,
REASONABLE COSTS PROVIDING PERMITTING SERVICES.
THESE COSTS ARE, FOUNDED ON OUR PLANNING REVIEW ENGINEERING,
WORKING WITH DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT STAFF TIME
AND THAT ANALYSIS AND REVIEW ALL COSTS MONEY
AND LIMITING OUR ABILITY
TO RECOVER THOSE COSTS, IS LIKE THIS BILL
COULD ARTIFICIALLY SUPPRESS THOSE, COST RECOVERIES AND,
FORCE US TO
PULL RESOURCES FROM OUR GENERAL FUND
OR OTHER CORE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'RE OPPOSED.
OKAY. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER, AND THE FROM THE PUBLIC.
GOOD MORNING.
TRACY WRIGHT AT THE ROYAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
AFTERNOON, MARK NEWBERGER, FOR REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION.
COUNTY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO LEND OUR COMMENTS, TO
THOSE MADE BY CAL CITIES AND ALSO REGISTER OUR PETITIONS.
BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KIRA ROSS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
AND THE CITY OF SAN MATEO IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF OF THE SOLANO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND AN OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED POSITION.
THANK YOU. OKAY.
GOOD MORNING, KEELEY MORRIS, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO,
ASK, TO SUPPORT WITNESSES.
ALSO CAN ANSWER PRIOR TO THE,
OPPOSE MAJOR EARLY
THE WITNESS PRESENTED HIS VIEWS OF WHY HE WAS OPPOSING.
DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT?
SURE, ABSOLUTELY.
SO, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S COMING FROM.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAYS, THIS IS KIND
OF A PRINCIPLED OPPOSITION ON ANY BILLS LIKE THIS.
BUT WE VIEW THIS REALLY AS A SOFT CAP, RIGHT?
IT'S NOT A HARD CAP.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY UNDER
A CERTAIN AMOUNT, NO MATTER WHAT.
SIMPLY, IF YOU DO FINDINGS SHOWING
THAT YOU HAVE TO GO ABOVE THAT CAP
AND YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT, THEN YOU CAN CHARGE MORE.
AND AS WAS MENTIONED BY MY WITNESS, MOST CITY
ALREADY CHARGED
WHAT IS UNDER THE CAP THAT WE, SAID IN THIS BILL, TOO.
SO, WE THINK WITH THAT FLEXIBILITY,
IT STRIKES A BALANCE
WHERE YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO DIP INTO GENERAL FUNDS
OR WILL NOT HAVE TO DO MORE EXTREME
MEASURES TO BE ABLE TO FUNCTION AS YOU NEED TO FUNCTION.
AND I THINK ALSO
WITH THE NARROWING OF THIS BILL DOWN TO LEVEL TWOS,
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CONCERNS PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE BILL WAS
THAT IT INCLUDED ALSO THE FAST CHARGERS, THE VERY HIGH,
YOU KNOW, ENERGY CHARGERS THAT COULD INCLUDE DEMAND
FOR MUCH, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS TO BE
INSTALLED TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO BE INSTALLED.
AND SO, WITH THE LEVEL TWOS, THERE'S GOING TO BE LESS DEMAND,
AND LESS, YOU KNOW, HEAVY INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT'S GOING TO BE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS.
AND SO I THINK WITH THAT AMENDMENT AND WITH THE
FLEXIBILITY OF A SOFT CAP
AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHARGE MORE, IF,
YOU KNOW, IF IT'S JUSTIFIED, IF YOU HAVE TO INSTALL MORE,
AN INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE DEMAND,
THEN YOU JUST YOU JUST DO A FINDING ON THAT
AND JUSTIFY IT, AND YOU CAN CHARGE THAT MUCH.
OKAY.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION
IS THAT WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT'S A SORE CAP SELFIE,
SO DO YOU MEAN THAT THAT
AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITIES OR COUNTIES,
THEY WERE SET THE OR THIS BILL IS SETTING THE CAP.
SO THIS BILL HAS A CAP AS KIND OF A GUIDE.
RIGHT.
SO WE ARE ASKING CITY IS TO STAY UNDER THAT AMOUNT
AS A STANDARD.
BUT IF YOU WERE TO GET A PROJECT THAT SAID, YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE TO INSTALL A TRANSFORMER OR WE HAD TO UNDERGROUND
OR SOMETHING, THAT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE, RIGHT.
THEN YOU CAN JUST, THE, THE AGENCY,
THE CITY DEPARTMENT CAN WRITE UP A FINDING AND JUSTIFY,
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DO UNDERGROUNDING
AND THAT'S GOING TO COST THIS MUCH MONEY.
WE GOT TO, YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO DO
ALL OF THESE THINGS RELATED TO IT.
AND SO IT'S GOING TO COST US THIS MUCH MORE
TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THIS.
AND THAT FINDING CAN JUSTIFY A HIGHER CHARGE.
SO TECHNICALLY THEY CAN CHARGE MORE
IF NEEDED, AS LONG AS THEY JUSTIFY IT.
OKAY.
BILL ANALYSIS IS JUST THAT, EXISTING LAW ALREADY LIMITS,
PERMIT FEES, TO THE REASONABLE COST
OF PROVIDING THE, A SERVICE.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR BILL AND THE EXISTING LAW?
I THINK THAT OUR
BILL SETS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A REASONABLE COST.
AS A AS AT LEAST THE HIGHER END OF WHAT IS A REASONABLE COST.
AND THAT'S BASED ON LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE EV,
INDUSTRY LOOKING THROUGHOUT THE STATE
ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE BEING CHARGES.
THERE'S BEEN SOME OUTLIERS THAT RAISED CONCERNS.
AND SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT
KIND OF EVERYBODY HAS A UNIFORM STANDARD,
AND WE LEAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE MORE
IF IT'S JUSTIFIED.
BUT WE WANT TO SEE THAT THERE'S JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.
OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS?
OKAY.
ANY ONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
OH, VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE CONVERSATION.
AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE.
WE THINK THAT THE STRIKES A SMART BALANCE
AND HELPS ME TO DEMAND WITH THE ENERGY PRICES RIGHT NOW
WHAT THEY ARE AS, EV DRIVER.
IT, AND A SINGLE MOM, I GET TO DRIVE
PAST GAS STATIONS AND NOT HAVE TO LOOK.
WELL, I ALWAYS LOOK AT HOW MUCH IT
COST BECAUSE IT STILL SHOCKS ME.
BUT, BUT IT'S NOT IMPACTING MY MY MONTHLY BUDGET
OR WEEKLY BUDGET
THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST ON A ROLLER COASTER WITH GAS PRICES
RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS A HUGE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE,
AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING,
WHERE THAT KIND OF, RELIEF CAN MAKE A HUGE, HUGE DIFFERENCE
FOR THEM,
HAVE SOME RELIABILITY TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE AT HOME
AND USE THOSE EVS DURING THE DAY.
SO WE THINK THAT THIS STRIKES A GOOD BALANCE AND APPRECIATE
THE CONVERSATION TODAY.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION AND THANK YOU.
IS THERE A MOTION?
OKAY.
MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY SENATOR ARAGON.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS CENTERS TO RUSSELL CHOI.
CHOI, NO.
REGIN. ARAGON I ASHBY.
CERVANTES. LAIRD. SATO.
SATO. NO. 1 TO 1. CALL.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE?
THANK.
RAY 27, 2727.
PHONE NUMBER
19 IS SEC.
OKAY. NEXT.
BEING WILL BE ITEM NUMBER
19, AB 2074 AS AMENDMENT.
WILL AMY.
THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS, I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 2070
FOR THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION ACT.
I WANT TO,
START BY SAYING THAT I'LL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS, WHICH WILL REGULATE THE MAXIMUM
AVERAGE UNIT SIZE OF HOMES
BUILT UNDER THE ACT IN ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER LAND USE BILLS.
AB 2074 ADDRESSES TWO OVERLAPPING CHALLENGES
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING SHORTAGE AND OUR STRUGGLING
DOWNTOWNS, MANY OF
WHICH HAVE NOT YET RECOVERED FROM THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC.
AB 2074 WILL CREATE
A STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL PATHWAY FOR HIGH RISE, MIXED
INCOME HOUSING AND TRANSIT CENTERS.
IT WILL HELP TO BRING RESIDENTS AND ACTIVITY BACK DOWNTOWN,
AND ENSURE THAT THE PROJECTS
WE ARE BUILDING SUPPORT A WELL COMPENSATED
CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE.
THIS BILL FOCUSES ON A SMALL NUMBER
OF THE STATE'S LARGEST CITIES, THOSE WITH POPULATIONS
OVER 400,000 AND MULTIPLE TRANSIT STOPS.
THOSE CITIES ARE LOS ANGELES.
SAN DIEGO, SAN JOSE,
SAN FRANCISCO, SACRAMENTO, OAKLAND, AND LONG BEACH.
AT THE SAME TIME, OTHER CITIES MAY OPT INTO THE BILL,
ALLOWING THEM TO DESIGNATE A REGIONAL TRANSIT HUB
WITHIN THESE DISTRICTS.
AB 2074 ESTABLISHES LAND USE CONTROLS
TO ALLOW HIGH RISE HOUSING, INCLUDING MINIMUM STANDARDS
FOR HEIGHT,
DENSITY AND FLOOR AREA RATIO APPROPRIATE FOR DOWNTOWNS.
NOTABLY, MOST OF THE CITIES AFFECTED BY THIS
BILL ALREADY HAVE HIGH DENSITY DOWNTOWN ZONES,
SO THIS BILL MIGHT NOT REPRESENT
TWO SIGNIFICANT OF A DEVIATION FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE,
WITH AMENDMENTS TAKEN IN SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE YESTERDAY.
THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES CALHFA TO CONDUCT A HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND FINANCING STUDY BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR.
THERE IS INCREASING DEMAND
FOR INNOVATIONS IN THE HOUSING FINANCE SPACE.
AND THIS STUDY,
IS A STEPPING STONE TO HELP US EVENTUALLY GET THERE.
HERE.
TO TESTIFY WITH ME TODAY ARE VINCE SUGRUE,
STATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SHEET
METAL WORKERS LOCAL 104,
AND PHIL, SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL MEMBER.
OKAY. EACH PERSON HAS TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS VINCE MCGREW, STATE
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR WITH SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 104.
AND I'M BEFORE YOU TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF HB 2074.
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING CRISIS DEMANDS
THAT WE ACTUALLY MOVE PROJECTS FORWARD,
ESPECIALLY IN OUR MAJOR DOWNTOWN AREAS
WHERE HOUSING CAN BE BUILT CLOSE TO JOBS,
TRANSIT AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
AB 2074 PROVIDES A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
THIS BILL RECOGNIZES THAT ZONING REFORM ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH.
A PROJECT CAN BE ALLOWED ON PAPER AND STILL NEVER GET BUILT.
FINANCING, DELAY, UNCERTAINTY AND UPFRONT COSTS
CAN ALL STOP HOUSING BEFORE A SHOVEL EVER HITS THE GROUND.
AB 2074 ADDRESSES THAT BY ESTABLISHING A STATE
BACKED REVOLVING LOAN
FUND THROUGH CAL HFA, TO HELP PROVIDE THE EARLY STAGE CAPITAL
THAT LARGE HOUSING PROJECTS OFTEN NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, THE BENEFITS ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT.
HIGH RISE HOUSING IS COMPLEX WORK.
IT REQUIRES WORKERS WHO UNDERSTAND
SAFETY, COORDINATION, MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, VENTILATION,
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THE MANY TRADES
THAT MUST COME TOGETHER TO DELIVER A DURABLE BUILDING.
AB 2074 HELPS CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT WORK
WHILE MAINTAINING STRONG LABOR STANDARDS.
FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULL
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR DEROSA AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS PHILLIP LUCKY BOMB OF THE SACRAMENTO
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPRESENTING DOWNTOWN,
AND I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AB 2074
2074, WILL SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT
OF MORE HIGH RISE HOUSE HOUSING, WHERE WE CAN REALLY GO
BIG IN ADDRESSING CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING SHORTAGE,
OUR BIGGEST URBAN CENTERS AND DOWNTOWNS.
I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE LEADERSHIP
OF A SUMMER MEMBER, HANEY, IN THIS.
SACRAMENTO IS ONE OF THESE SEVEN LARGE TRANSIT RICH CITIES.
THEY'RE, REQUIRED BY THE BILL TO ESTABLISH A REGIONAL TRANSIT
HUB DISTRICT WHERE HIGH RISE
HOUSING CAN BE PERMITTED AND IN SOME CASES, STREAMLINED.
WE WELCOME THAT DESIGNATION.
SACRAMENTO ALREADY HAS.
IT IS HOME TO MANY,
MAJOR TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE, JOBS, ART AND CULTURE.
AS, THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS AREA.
I'M COMMITTED TO ENSURING IT
BECOMES A THRIVING, LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOOD
FOR RESIDENTS OF ALL INCOME LEVELS.
IT'S NO SECRET THAT CHANGING WORK AND LAND
USE PATTERNS HAVE HIT DOWNTOWNS HARD.
HOWEVER, WE WE ALSO KNOW THAT BRINGING HOUSING WITHIN WALKING
DISTANCE OF TRANSIT, BUSINESS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES
IS A GREAT WAY TO BRING LIFE BACK TO OUR DOWNTOWNS.
I WAS ALSO A BIG FAN OF THE REVOLVING LOAN
FUND INCLUDED IN THIS BILL, AND A LOT OF OTHER CITIES
AND LOCAL ELECTEDS WERE AS WELL.
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
LOAN FUNDS
ALLOW ALLOW HOME BUILDERS TO LEVERAGE PRIVATE CAPITAL,
MAGNIFYING ITS IMPACT.
THEY CAN HELP PUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT OFF THE SIDELINES AND PUTTING IT
TO PRODUCTIVE USE, BUILDING HOUSING AT ALL INCOME LEVELS.
AND WHEN THE LOANS REVOLVE BACK INTO THE STATE FUND,
THAT MODEST ONE TIME COMMITMENT
FROM THE LEGISLATURE CAN UNLOCK SUSTAINED SUPPORTING
SUPPORT FOR HOUSING AND GROWTH, AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
BY PERMITTING AND STREAMLINING MORE HIGH RISE
HOUSING IN OUR DENSE URBAN CORES,
AND TAKING A FIRST STEP TO A REVOLVING LOAN FUND,
AND TO CLOSE THE FINANCING GAPS FOR HIGH RISE PROJECTS.
AB 2074 DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE BARRIERS THAT HAVE LONG MADE
VERTICAL HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGING,
DESPITE, THE DESIRE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR IT IN OUR CITY.
AB 2074 GIVES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN CALIFORNIA'S BIGGEST TRANSIT
RICH CITIES A NEW TOOL TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE,
AS WELL AS REVITALIZE OUR DOWNTOWNS.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL?
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
MIKE.
MOLLY, GOING TO BEHALF OF THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
AFTERNOON. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MOIRA TOP HERE ON BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO MAYOR TODD GLORIA.
SAN DIEGO IS ONE OF THE CITIES LISTED IN THAT BILL.
AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.
NOLAN GRAY FOR CALIFORNIA.
ME A PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG SUPPORT.
JORDAN GRIMES ON BEHALF OF GREEN
BELT ALLIANCE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU,
BEN RADER, STAFF AND BABY OTTO FOR HOW SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO,
YIMBY MOVEMENT
AND DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO RESIDENTS IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. WELCOME,
BILL MCGOVERN COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2074?
NOBODY
OPPOSITION OKAY. GREAT.
WONDERFUL TO BE HERE TODAY.
ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
WELL THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU TO THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
OAKLAND IS ONE OF THE CITIES THAT WOULD BE COVERED
BY THIS BILL.
THE CITY OF OAKLAND IS IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BILL.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP,
BUILD MUCH NEEDED HOUSING IN OUR DOWNTOWNS,
WHICH ARE STRUGGLING TO REBOUND FROM THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC.
AND I THINK WHAT'S ALSO REALLY SPECIAL ABOUT THIS BILL IS IT'S
BRINGING THE BUILDING TRADES AND GIVING TOGETHER.
I THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT IN QUITE SOME TIME,
AND I HOPE THAT'S A PARTNERSHIP
WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUSTAIN ON OTHER HOUSING BILLS.
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING WITH,
THE HOUSING COMMITTEE,
WHICH HEARD THIS YESTERDAY AND RECOMMENDED IT.
ON THIS BILL.
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
I SUPPORT A REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WE DON'T HAVE OPPOSITION HERE,
BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT THAT WE TOOK IN THE HOUSING COMMITTEE,
REMOVED OPPOSITION FROM SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING GROUPS
WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MONEY GOING TOWARDS MARKET
RATE HOUSING AS OPPOSED TO SUBSIDIZED HOUSING.
BUT I DO THINK THE
THE FUND HAS MERIT, PARTICULARLY TO HELP CATALYZE PROJECTS
THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SECURE THE NEEDED FINANCING,
TO BUILD MUCH NEEDED HOUSING, OUR DOWNTOWNS.
AND I HOPE
THE OUTCOME OF THE STUDY WILL RESULT IN SOME IDEAS FOR,
POLICIES AND BUDGET INVESTMENTS THAT CAN HELP SUPPORT
THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL.
COMMENTS.
QUESTIONS. NONE.
WELL, I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD WORKING WITH YOU AND GOOD TO HAVE PARTNERS
ALSO IN HOUSING
WHERE YOU CAN MATCH UP AND SEE WHAT
WHAT ARE THE PIECES THAT STILL NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.
AND SO I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO OUR HOUSING CHAIR AS WELL.
SO WRAP CAN WRAP. YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND THANK YOU FOR BOTH BOTH CHAIRS FOR WORKING WITH US.
I AGREE THAT,
THIS BILL WILL STILL DO SOME,
SOME VERY IMPORTANT THINGS
IN TERMS OF WHAT IT WILL UNLOCK FOR OUR DOWNTOWNS.
AND AT THE SAME TIME,
WE CONTINUE TO BE EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES
OF THIS REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE IS SOME, SOME STEPS OF CONSIDERATION
THAT ARE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT RIGHT.
WE DO HAVE TO ADDRESS, NOT JUST THE LAND USE ISSUES,
BUT ALSO SOME OF THE FINANCING
THAT I THINK IS AS HOLDING BACK HOUSING
WHERE IT'S MOST NEEDED, LIKE IN OUR DOWNTOWNS.
I WOULD THAT WOULD WELL
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
WE HAVE
A MOTION BY SENATOR OTHER AGAIN.
THE MOTION.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
AND AS TO RAZZLE DAZZLE, I JOY NOT 2018,
BUT AGAIN I ASHBY CERVANTES LAIR CIERTO SINGER.
SO I30 BILLS ON CALL.
BRINGS THE HERE
AND THEN.
AFTER.
THAT I DO.
THIS IS AMBER HART.
FOR JOHN.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
WELCOME. AND YOU MAY START.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TODAY
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2257 ON COUNTY JAIL.
ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
AND STAFF FOR WORKING WITH ME ON THIS BILL.
I'LL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS.
CALIFORNIA'S COUNTY JAILS ARE IN CRISIS.
DEATHS ARE OCCURRING AT RECORD LEVELS.
PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS ARE LANGUISHING
AND COSTS ARE SKYROCKETING WITHOUT IMPROVED OUTCOMES.
SINCE 1993, CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS HAVE HELD SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE
AUTHORITY OVER JAIL OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION.
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS ARE REQUIRED
TO FUND THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF COUNTY JAILS
AND COUNTIES
PAY MASSIVE LEGAL SETTLEMENTS WHEN THINGS GO WRONG.
HOWEVER, BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
HAVE NO DIRECT AUTHORITY TO IMPROVE JAIL CONDITIONS.
THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM EXERCISING THE STATUTORY,
BUDGET AND OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES OVER JAILS.
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS ARE EFFECTIVELY
PUT IN THE POSITION
OF WRITING BLANK CHECKS
TO SHERIFFS FOR THE OPERATION OF COUNTY JAILS.
PRIOR TO SERVING IN THE ASSEMBLY,
IT SERVES AS COUNTY SUPERVISOR IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY.
I EXPERIENCED THIS LACK OF JAIL ACCOUNTABILITY FIRSTHAND.
HB TWO 2257 SEEKS TO BRING BALANCE
TO THE SHARED GOVERNANCE RESPONSIBILITY
THAT BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND SHERIFFS
HAVE IN ADMINISTERING COUNTY JAILS.
THIS MODEST BILL
WILL GIVE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
THE AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM A SHERIFF
NOMINATED JAIL ADMINISTRATOR TO A THREE YEAR TERM,
WHILE LEAVING THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS
AND MANAGEMENT OF THE JAIL WITHIN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
THIS IS A PERMISSIVE BILL.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE COUNTIES
TO EXERCISE CONFIRMATION AUTHORITY.
IT SIMPLY ALLOWS COUNTIES SEEKING
GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY TO USE THIS TOOL.
BOARDS COULD CONSIDER RELEVANT FACTORS WHEN CONFIRMING
A NOMINEE, INCLUDING EXPERIENCE WITH CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT,
HEALTH CARE, AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
IN A CORRECTIONAL SETTING, PUBLIC BUDGETING,
AND A COMMITMENT
TO PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE IN CUSTODY.
ONCE CONFIRMED,
THE JAIL ADMINISTRATOR WOULD SERVE
AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE JAILS UNDER THE DIRECTION
AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SHERIFF FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS
AT THE EXPIRATION
OF A THREE YEAR TERM, OR ANY TIME A VACANCY OCCURS,
THE SHERIFF MUST SUBMIT A NOMINEE
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR CONFIRMATION.
BECAUSE THE SHERIFF
IS NEVER MORE THAN THREE YEARS AWAY FROM NEEDING TO SEEK BOARD
CONFIRMATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THEIR JAIL ADMINISTRATOR.
THE SHERIFF AND JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR ARE INCENTIVIZED TO TAKE SERIOUSLY
THE CONCERNS AND PRIORITIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THIS BILL ADDRESSES A GAP IN CURRENT LAW.
WHILE THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
WITH OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS IN RECENT YEARS.
BOARDS STILL HAVE NO MEANINGFUL WAY TO ACT ON THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED TO THEM
OR TO EFFECTIVELY ADVANCE CHANGE.
WHILE SHERIFFS ARE INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, SHERIFFS
JAIL BUDGETS ALONE ARE GREATER THAN THE COMBINED BUDGETS
OF ALL
OUR OTHER COUNTY AGENCIES, LED BY
INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED DEPARTMENT HEADS,
THE IMPACTS OF JAIL ISSUES ARE FELT
FAR BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
AFFECTING ALL OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
CONFIRMATION OF A SHERIFF'S JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR GIVES BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS ONE CONCRETE
TOOL TO PROMOTE IMPROVED JAIL ACCOUNTABILITY.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE TO BRING BALANCE
TO CALIFORNIA'S JAIL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
AND TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR THE PUBLIC,
PEOPLE IN CUSTODY, AND THE CORRECTIONAL WORKFORCE.
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY ARE SUPERVISOR LAURA CAPPS AND MR.
MAX HUNTSMAN.
SUPERVISOR CAPPS REPRESENTS
THE SECOND DISTRICT ON THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SUPERVISORS.
LAST YEAR, SUPERVISOR CAPPS WAS APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM
TO REPRESENT CALIFORNIA'S
COUNTIES ON THE BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS.
MR. HUNTSMAN
IS THE RECENTLY RETIRED INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
AS INSPECTOR GENERAL, MR.
HUNTSMAN LED
THE LARGEST SHERIFF'S OVERSIGHT ENTITY IN THE NATION.
PRIOR TO SERVING IN THIS CAPACITY, MR.
HUNTSMAN SERVED AS A PROSECUTOR WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES.
SUPERVISOR CAPPS,
YOU VERY MUCH WELCOME.
AND YOU WILL HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES EACH, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBERS.
AS A COUNTY SUPERVISOR, I EXPERIENCE
THE VERY ISSUES AT THE JAIL THAT, OUR ASSEMBLYMAN HART
SPOKE OF THESE CHALLENGES
ARE EVER PRESENT FOR COUNTY SUPERVISORS.
PARENTS AND LOVED
ONES OF INCARCERATED PEOPLE FREQUENTLY COME TO OUR BOARD
SHARING HEARTBREAKING STORIES OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR JAILS,
URGING US TO MAKE CHANGES THAT CIVIL GRAND JURIES DO.
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
URGING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO MAKE CHANGES
WEEK AFTER WEEK.
IMMIGRANT ADVOCATES FILL OUR CHAMBERS, URGING US
TO MAKE CHANGES ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH FEDERAL AGENTS,
ACTIVELY AT OUR JAILS.
BUDGET PRESSURES ARE TOUGH ON ALL OF US ELECTED OFFICIALS.
YOU DON'T NEED ME TO TELL YOU THAT OUR COUNTY
HAD TO DO LAYOFFS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YEARS, YET
OUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS $10 MILLION OVER BUDGET THIS YEAR
AND LAST YEAR.
IT'S AN ONGOING PATTERN.
YET THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE DO OVERSEE MADE
RESPONSIBLE CUTS.
AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER, HART SAID,
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS ARE EFFECTIVELY REQUIRED
TO WRITE A BLANK CHECK TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
THE STATE HAS GIVEN US
NEW TOOLS
TO IDENTIFY ISSUES IN THE JAILS, YET
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MEANINGFUL WAY
TO ACT ON THESE ISSUES THAT HE HAS IDENTIFIED.
COUNTY JAILS HAVE A CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITY
PROVIDING A SAFE
CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT FOR PEOPLE AWAITING TRIAL
WHO CANNOT SAFELY REMAIN IN THE COMMUNITY
AND FOR THOSE SERVING LOCAL SENTENCES.
BUT AS THE DATA SHOWS, CALIFORNIA JAILS ARE TOO OFTEN
FALL SHORT OF MEETING THEIR OBLIGATIONS
TO BROUGHT TO PROVIDE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
WITH A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY
TO WEIGH IN ON JAIL ADMINISTRATION AND TO BE FISCAL
RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS FOR OUR COUNTY THAT WE SERVE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
CALIFORNIA HAS CREATED A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
IN ITS JAILS.
WHEN I WAS A YOUNG PROSECUTOR, WE PASSED TOUGH ON CRIME LAWS
WITHOUT BUILDING NEW PRISONS
OVER CROWDING PRISONS AND DENYING ADEQUATE CARE.
WHEN THE US SUPREME COURT
ORDERED US TO STOP, WE PLAYED A SHELL GAME
BY SHIFTING THE ISSUES TO OUR JAILS.
WE TOLD THE PUBLIC WE HAD REFORMED OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND HID WHAT WE WERE DOING.
I WAS HIRED AS LA'S FIRST INSPECTOR GENERAL WHEN A SHERIFF
TRIED TO PREVENT THE FBI FROM IN INVESTIGATING JAIL CONDITIONS.
WHEN I REPORTED ON MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS CHAINED TO BENCHES
FOR EXTENSIVE PERIODS.
POSITIONAL TORTURE.
THE RESPONSE WAS A COLLECTIVE SHRUG.
AGAIN, IT TOOK A COURT ORDER TO END THE PRACTICE.
YEARS LATER, CHANGE CONTINUES TO HAPPEN IN THE COURTS,
BUT ONLY AFTER SIGNIFICANT
TIME HAS PASSED AND HARM HAS OCCURRED, RATHER
THAN AS A RESULT OF PROACTIVE LOCAL EFFORTS.
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNANCE.
SINCE 1993, WHEN SHERIFFS
RECEIVE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE JAILS,
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS HAVE STRUGGLED WITH LIMITED TOOLS
TO EXERCISE THEIR STATUTORY OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES.
IN RECENT YEARS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS A POWER
AS EMPOWERED COUNTIES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
TO HIRE INSPECTORS GENERAL AND ESTABLISH SHERIFF OVERSIGHT
COMMISSIONS TO IDENTIFY ISSUES AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
HAVING SERVED AS THE LA INSPECTOR GENERAL,
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS A GAP
BETWEEN IDENTIFYING JAIL ISSUES AND ACTUALLY SOLVING THEM.
NOW, THE LEGISLATURE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE COUNTIES WITH A FOCUS TOOL
TO INCENTIVIZE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE JAIL.
WHEN A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM
OR DENY THE SHERIFF'S
APPOINTMENT OF A JAIL ADMINISTRATOR,
THE STAKES ARE RAISED FOR THE SHERIFF
TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH COUNTY GOVERNMENT
TO IMPROVE JAIL CONDITIONS.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR.
I VOTE ON THIS MODEST BILL TO IMPROVE JAIL,
JAIL, ACCOUNTABILITY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
ANYONE, IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2257.
ANYBODY WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS? NO.
SEEING. NONE.
IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO AB 2257?
SORRY YOU WERE COMING UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
SENATORS COREY SUSILO, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2257,
MANY, IF NOT MOST SHERIFFS ALREADY EMPLOY A CHIEF DEPUTY
OR ASSISTANT SHERIFF OVER CORRECTIONS.
THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL AND THE CHOICE BY A COUNTY BOARD
TO EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY IT CREATES,
WOULD PUT THE SHERIFF IN A POSITION
OF HAVING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHETHER THE BOARD
WOULD CONFIRM THEIR CHOICE TO SERVE AS JAIL ADMINISTRATOR.
THIS VITAL ROLE SHOULD BE FILLED
BY THE PERSON BEST SUITED TO DO THE WORK,
NOT THE PERSON
WHO THE SHERIFF THINKS CAN WIN A POPULARITY CONTEST
WITH THREE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE WORD CRISIS WAS USED AT LEAST TWICE IN THE PRESENTATION,
AND I JUST HAVE TO TAKE A SECOND TO WONDER HOW MUCH OF THIS
SO-CALLED CRISIS IS DRIVEN OR,
CREATED BY COUNTIES BEING REQUIRED
TO HOUSE FORMER STATE INMATES
AND ALL THE LAWSUITS THAT EMANATE RELATIVE TO THEIR CARE?
THE BILL'S SUPPORTING MATERIALS INDICATE
THAT THIS RECENTLY AMENDED VERSION OF 2257, THE
POLICY DIRECTION THIS BILL TAKES NOW IS INTENDED
TO GIVE LEVERAGE OVER THE OPERATION
OF THE COUNTY JAILS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
BUT IN REALITY, IT JUST IMPOSES A LABYRINTH OF RULES
OF HOW A SHERIFFS CHOICE FOR THIS POSITION IS SELECTED,
CONFIRMED, OVERSEEN, AND REPLACED.
AND AND GIVEN THAT ONLY THE SHERIFF CAN REMOVE
THE JAIL ADMINISTRATOR ANY LEVERAGE THAT, THE BOARD
THINKS IT OBTAINS BY EXERCISING THE OPTION
THAT THIS BILL WOULD CREATE EFFECTIVELY DISAPPEARS
AS SOON AS THEY CONFIRM THAT PERSON.
THE NOTION THAT THERE'S A LACK OF OVERSIGHT
OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR THE JAILS IS IS JUST FLAT WRONG.
THE SHERIFFS ARE ELECTED, AND THEY'RE SUBJECTED
TO SPECIFIC YET BROAD OVERSIGHT FROM ENTITIES
INCLUDING THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL
GRAND JURY, THE BOARD OF STATE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS,
NOT TO MENTION THE VOTERS WHO ELECT
THE SHERIFF EVERY FOUR YEARS.
WE DON'T THINK THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD POLITICIZE
THIS IMPORTANT POSITION WITHIN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S NO INDICATION
OF THE COMPLICATED GOVERNANCE CHANGE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS BILL
WILL LEAD TO BETTER OUTCOMES IN THE JAILS.
BOARDS DON'T CONTROL THE ELECTED OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF.
IN CONFIRMING ONE JAIL ADMINISTRATOR WON'T FIX BROADER
OVERTIME OR OTHER BUDGET ISSUES.
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, KAREN LANG.
ON BEHALF OF THE FRESNO COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND OPPOSITION TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2257?
SEEING NONE. COMMENTS.
QUESTIONS SENT OUT AGAIN.
WELL, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
IT'S GREAT TO SEE SUPERVISOR CAPPS,
WHO WAS MY BOSS 23 YEARS AGO.
THINGS COME FULL CIRCLE.
BUT I'M STRONGLY IN SUPPORT.
THIS BILL IN THE SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
HEARD THIS BILL, AND MOVED IT OUT ON A 5 TO 1 VOTE.
AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THIS ISSUE OF THE THE MANAGEMENT
OF JAILS, IMPACTS MY COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY.
ABOUT A DECADE AGO, THERE WERE SERIOUS ISSUES IN COUNTY JAIL.
INCLUDING, IN-CUSTODY DEATHS
THAT WERE NOT PROPERLY REPORTED AND ADDRESSED.
AND A SERIOUS LACK OF, MENTAL HEALTH CARE,
WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THE COUNTY
BEING UNDER A FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE.
AND DESPITE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EFFORTS USING ITS BUDGET AUTHORITY
TO TRY TO GET THE SHERIFF TO ACT.
WE WEREN'T ABLE TO ACHIEVE MEANINGFUL ACTION.
AND SO THERE IS THERE IS A CHALLENGE.
I MEAN, THAT STATE LAW ALLOWS COUNTIES
TO INDEPENDENTLY ELECT A SHERIFF, AND THE SHERIFF
IS RESPONSIBLE,
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTY JAILS,
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHO'S ALSO ELECTED
AND IS THE POLICY AND BUDGET DECISION MAKERS OF THE COUNTY
HAVE LITTLE IMPACT
IN HELPING INFLUENCE THE DECISIONS OF THE
INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED SHERIFF, EXCEPT FOR BUDGET AUTHORITY.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THIS INSTANCE
THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO EFFECTUATE
THE KIND OF MEANINGFUL CHANGE, IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY.
SO THERE IS THIS TENSION, AND IT DOES EXIST IN COUNTIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AND I DO THINK THAT THIS BILL IS IMPORTANT.
BUT I JUST WANT TO CALL
ATTENTION TO THE COMMENT ON PAGE FOUR.
THE ANALYSIS,
WHICH SAYS THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY WISH TO CONSIDER
WHETHER TO GIVE COUNTIES BACK THE AUTHORITY
TO CREATE A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OUTSIDE OF
THE SHERIFF'S CONTROL.
IF THEY'RE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DIRECTION
OF JAIL OPERATIONS.
NOW, THIS BILL DOES NOT GO THAT FAR,
BUT I THINK THAT'S
A REALLY INTERESTING IDEA THAT'S WORTHY OF FUTURE DISCUSSION.
I WANT TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
I THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
AND I WILL MOVE THE BILL TO APPROPRIATE TIME.
THANK YOU.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE OF JAIL DEATHS AND INMATE
ONE, JAIL DEATHS IS TOO MANY FOR THE FAMILIES
THAT HAVE THEIR THEIR LOVED ONES GO AWAY.
A LOT OF TIMES WE TRY TO CREATE
A BIGGER CRISIS THAN WE'VE ALWAYS HAD.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
MORTALITY RATES IN, IN 2000.
THE AVERAGE MORTALITY RATE IN JAILS WAS,
151 DEATHS PER 100,000 INMATES.
AND THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT THEY HAVE IS 174
DEATHS IN 2023,
WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH THE RISE
IN, IN FENTANYL DEATHS AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT THERE'S OTHER FACTORS THAT PLAY INTO THIS WHOLE PICTURE.
WHEN WE SHUTTLED A BUNCH OF THE STATE INMATES INTO COUNTY
PRISONS AND OVERCROWDED THE COUNTY PRISONS,
THE SHERIFFS, THE DA'S, THE YOU KNOW, WHOEVER THE POWERS
TO BE IN EACH OF THESE COUNTIES WERE LEFT WITH DECISIONS
OF JUST UNLOADING THEIR JAILS AND RELEASING INMATES.
SO WE CREATED THE OVERCROWDING CONDITIONS.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE OVERCROWDING, YOU HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR DEATHS AND AN INMATE TO INMATE DEATHS.
BUT MOST OF THOSE DEATHS, THERE THERE'S A FEW THAT WERE
NATURAL DEATHS, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM WERE ATTRIBUTED
TO DRUG AND, AND, FENTANYL OVERDOSES.
AND THOSE ARE ISSUES OF PEOPLE SMUGGLING DRUGS
INTO THEIR, THEIR RELATIVES.
SO THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANOTHER LAYER
OF THE POLITICAL PERSON STUCK INTO THE MIDDLE
OF THE MIX, IS GOING TO FIX THOSE PROBLEMS.
IT MAY GIVE SOME PEOPLE COMFORT THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY THERE
TO TELL THEM.
YEAH, YEAH, WE HAVE A BUNCH OF FENTANYL DEATHS.
BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, WHEN THE CORONER
FIGURES OUT WHY SOMEBODY DIED IN THEIR SLEEP
AND THEN FIND OUT, WELL, HE ACTUALLY DID A FENTANYL O.D..
THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION IN THE JAILS
THAT'S GOING TO COME IN.
EVERY WE DON'T HAVE ONE ON ONE SUPERVISION OF INMATES.
AND, SO THOSE DEATHS ARE GOING
TO CONTINUE TO OCCUR AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE SMUGGLING,
DRUGS INTO THEIR THEIR LOVED ONES.
AND, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S
GOING TO DO A WHOLE LOT
OTHER THAN MAYBE GIVE PEOPLE THE COMFORT THAT THERE'S
ANOTHER POLITICAL PERSON STUCK IN THE MIDDLE
THAT IS GOING TO SOMEHOW ALLEVIATE
SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN GOING
ON FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS,
ARISE FROM 151,174 GIVEN THE CONDITIONS,
BECAUSE IN 2000, WE HADN'T SHUTTLED PEOPLE YET.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S A SUPER CRISIS.
BUT LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING,
ANY PERSON THAT DIES IN JAIL, THAT'S A CRISIS TO THAT FAMILY.
AND, AND SHOULD THOSE ANSWERS BE GIVEN TO THEM? YES.
BUT A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE ANSWERS.
PEOPLE WILL GET IN JAIL FOR A REASON.
SOME OF THEM BECAUSE.
AND THE OTHER PART OF
THIS IS DUMPING THE MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE INJURED THE JAILS,
LIKE THAT'S WHERE THEIR STORAGE FACILITY IS.
THAT'S NOT.
WE NEED TO WE NEED TO DO BETTER WITH THAT PART OF IT
SO THAT WE ARE NOT,
RIGHT.
YEAH, YEAH.
I DO NOT
CONDONE THE CHAINING OF PEOPLE, THE BEDS AND STUFF AT ALL.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
SOMEHOW THEY WIND UP WITH THE SOFT RESTRAINTS
AND STUFF ON PEOPLE
THAT ARE TRYING TO HARM THEMSELVES,
AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE HECK TO DO WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO SEND THEM.
WE HAVE TO DO BETTER WITH THAT PART,
BUT I THINK THERE'S ANY SHERIFF WOULD BE WILLING
TO AND HAPPY TO WORK ON THAT PART.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE SEVERELY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE,
IN THEIR JAILS ANY MORE THAN WE WANT THEM
OR THEIR FAMILIES WANT THEM THERE.
BUT THAT'S WHERE THEY KIND OF WIND UP.
SOME OF THEM.
WE HAVE TO FIX THAT.
I DON'T THINK ONE PERSON IS GOING TO FIX THAT.
I THINK IT'S A A, YOU KNOW, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ISSUE.
AND, OUR COUNTY AND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE.
AND WORKING TOGETHER, WE CAN FIGURE OUT THIS,
BUT IF EVERYBODY'S JUST GOING TO POINT FINGERS AND BLAME
DIFFERENT AGENCIES FOR FOR PROBLEMS THAT,
YOU KNOW, EXIST, BUT NOT AT THE CRISIS LEVEL
THAT PEOPLE ARE MAKING IT OUT TO BE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO THESE KIND OF THINGS.
SO, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF OF THE IDEA
OF INSERTING ANOTHER LAYER OF SOMEBODY
BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GOING
TO NEED TO INSERT SOMEBODY TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT PERSON,
TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE NEXT PERSON.
BECAUSE THEY WON'T TRUST THAT PERSON'S OPINION
ANY MORE THAN THEY TRUST THE SHERIFF'S OPINION
OR THE SHERIFF'S OPINION, OR SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS LEADS.
THAT'S I'M SAYING
THERE'S A LOT OF
WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO, BUT WE SHOULD BE DOING THAT.
AND WE'RE KIND OF NOT EVERYBODY'S
KIND OF PASSING THE BUCK ON IT. THANK YOU.
AND I JUST ON THIS.
YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I DO JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.
TO THE AUTHOR, THANK YOU FOR,
TRYING TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT WE BELIEVE, IS A CRISIS.
I DO AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT,
THAT OUR COUNTY JAILS ARE IN CRISIS AND THE DEATH
RATES ARE AT A RECORD HIGH,
INCLUDING IN MY OWN COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
BUT THROUGH ANOTHER ANOTHER MEASURE.
WE DO NEED TO IMPROVE OUR JAIL OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILLS TODAY.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE OTHER I HAVE,
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
TO MISS CAPPS.
WELCOME.
WELCOME HERE.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK WHAT?
WHAT MADE YOU BELIEVE
THAT THIS IS WORTH TRYING?
THAT THIS IS
THIS COULD ACTUALLY
MAKE SOME CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO COME OVERNIGHT.
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR JAIL, BUT IN LOS ANGELES,
SERIOUS PROBLEM.
SO WHAT MAKES YOU THINK
THIS IS WORTHY OF TRYING?
THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR, AND
BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE AS COUNTY SUPERVISORS,
WE JUST WE HAVE
WE BASICALLY HAVE THE BURDEN OF THE THE LIABILITY
WITHOUT ANY MEANS TO
UTILIZE THE TOOLS THAT THE STATE HAS GIVEN US TO MAKE REFORMS.
AND SO HAVING, AN ACTUAL ADMINISTRATOR
AND WITH RESPECT, I WOULD SAY NOT A POLITICAL PERSON
WITHIN THE JAIL, BUT AN ACTUAL SOMEONE TO RUN THE JAIL
WHO HAS THE EXPERIENCE OF JAIL ADMINISTRATION.
AND THERE ARE THOSE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY THERE ARE THOSE PEOPLE
THAT HAVE THE FISCAL ABILITY TO RUN A JAIL AND ABILITY
TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND THE TALENT TO UNDERSTAND
HOW YOU DO PREVENT, THE, THE TRANSMISSION OF DRUGS INTO
JAILS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN PREVENT THOSE.
WE NEED PEOPLE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF TALENTED DEPUTIES THAT ARE VERY GOOD
AT PREVENTING CRIMES,
BUT WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE WAY WE ADMINISTER JAILS.
AND SO THE ABILITY FOR THE BOARD TO HAVE THAT PERSON IN THAT
ROLE, WILL JUST IMPROVE OVERSIGHT,
WILL IMPROVE FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY, TO HAVE A REAL ADMINISTRATOR
IN A JAIL, BECAUSE THESE, AS YOU WELL KNOW,
IN LOS ANGELES, THESE ARE MASSIVE BUDGETS.
THESE ARE MASSIVE OPERATIONS THAT NEED AN ADMINISTRATOR
AT THE HELM.
AND WHAT HOLDS YOU FROM DOING THAT NOW?
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE SHERIFF RUNS THE JAIL.
WE HAVE NO ZERO ABILITY TO HAVE ANY
ANY ROLE IN JAIL OPERATIONS.
BUT YET THE PUBLIC BELIEVES WE DO.
THEY COME TO US WEEK AFTER WEEK, BEGGING FOR CHANGES,
BEGGING FOR CHANGES.
THE GRAND JURY IS ASKING FOR CHANGES.
WE HOLD THE PURSE IN A SENSE, AND EVEN THINGS WE FUND
CAN BE CHANGED BY JAIL OPERATIONS.
THERE IS ZERO ABILITY FOR US
AS A COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AFFECT JAIL OPERATIONS.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE A WE HAVE A MOTION.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR, YOUR BILL
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME CLOSING REMARKS,
BUT I WOULD JUST, ECHO SUPERVISOR CAPPS IS
PRIMARY POINT THAT PROFESSIONALIZING THIS ROLE
OF A JAIL ADMINISTRATOR AND HAVING A SHARED
GOVERNANCE MODEL WHERE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE SHERIFF ARE JOINTLY MAKING THE DECISION
ABOUT WHO THAT PERSON IS WILL INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY
AND, PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE DECISION MAKING.
THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLE THAT WE HAD IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
WAS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SET THE BUDGET FOR THE SHERIFF,
AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, TWO YEARS IN A ROW,
THE SHERIFF CAME FORWARD
WITH $10 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL OVERTIME CHARGES
THAT WERE NOT WITHIN THAT BUDGET.
AND THE ONLY RESPONSE OF THE BOARD HAS GIVEN THE SHARED
OR THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NO ABILITY
TO INFLUENCE THOSE
THOSE STAFFING DECISIONS IS TO PAY THAT BILL AND TO CUT
OTHER IMPORTANT COUNTY PROGRAMS TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT.
AND THE IDEA
BY HAVING THIS DUAL ROLE WITH, THE JAIL ADMINISTRATOR,
IS TO JUST INCREASE THE COLLABORATION
AND THE COOPERATION
BETWEEN THE SHERIFFS AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND TO TO HAVE A BETTER SHARED GOVERNANCE MODEL.
AND THIS IS A VERY MODEST, INCREMENTAL STEP.
IT'S A PERMISSIVE BILL.
IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE
ALL OF THESE GLOBAL PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
BUT IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT BILL, A SPECIAL REQUEST.
AND I VOTE FROM THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION. YOU SHOULD.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATOR RUSSELL.
I ALSO I JOY NO JOY.
NO. IRENE.
IRENE I ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES.
AS I SAY OUR TO SAY AUDIO NO.
THREE TO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL BE GOING BACK ON OUR LIST.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AB 414 57.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRIAN.
BIENVENIDO.
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
COME ON. BIENVENIDO.
GOOD AFTERNOON TO YOU, TOO.
WELCOME.
YOU MAY.
YOU MAY BEGIN.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND SENATORS, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
AB 1457, A BILL THAT PROMOTES COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT
AND SETS A COMPLIANCE DEADLINE FOR EXISTING REQUIREMENTS.
TEN YEARS AGO, CALIFORNIA MADE A PROMISE THROUGH SB 1000
THAT REQUIRES LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WITH DISADVANTAGED
TO DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THEIR GENERAL PLANS
WHEN THEY UPDATE TWO OR MORE OTHER ELEMENTS.
TODAY, A DECADE LATER,
THAT PROMISE HAS NOT BEEN FULLY DELIVERED.
MANY JURISDICTIONS HAVE NOT COMPILED OR COMPLETED.
IN 2023, UCI
FOUND THAT ONLY 33
JURISDICTIONS OUT OF THE MORE THAN 250
HAD AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT.
SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE ONLY UPDATED ONE ELEMENT
OF THEIR GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IN TURN HAS NOT TRIGGERED
THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT.
UNDER SB 1000.
THIS MEANS THAT TOO MANY COMMUNITIES
HAVE BEEN LEFT WITHOUT THE PROTECTIONS
THAT THEY DESERVE AND WERE PROMISED.
FAMILIES ARE STILL LIVING NEXT TO POLLUTION SOURCES,
AND COMMUNITIES ARE STILL BEING LEFT
OUT OF PLANNING DECISIONS THAT SHAPE
THEIR DAILY LIVES AND THEIR HEALTH.
AB 1457 CLOSES THE COMPLIANCE GAP
AS IT'S A CLEAR DEADLINE OF JUNE 30TH, 2028 FOR JURISDICTIONS
THAT HAVE NOT YET ADOPTED AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT
DESPITE HAVING DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.
IT STRENGTHENS TRANSPARENCY
SO COMMUNITIES CAN SEE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
IT INCLUDES MEANINGFUL
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SO RESIDENTS CAN PARTICIPATE
IN SHAPING THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS.
EVERY CALIFORNIAN SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT IS HEALTHY AND SAFE.
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY
IS GINA STANFORD WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ANABEL MARQUEZ
WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER.
SHAFTER AND HER TRANSLATOR.
WE ALSO HAVE JESSICA GORDON
FROM THE DOJ AS A TECHNICAL WITNESS.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME.
AND YOU HAVE TOTAL TWO MINUTES TO
WHOEVER THE WITNESS IS GOING TO BE, OKAY?
OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS JANA STANFORD.
I'M A DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA.
AND ON BEHALF OF THE AG, I WANT TO START BY THANKING
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRYAN
FOR AUTHORING THIS IMPORTANT BILL,
WHICH THE AG IS PROUD TO SPONSOR.
THE AG IS COMMITTED TO USING
THE EXPERTISE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AND OUR BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES
THAT ENDURE A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS.
OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE BUREAU
DEVELOPED THIS BILL BECAUSE A DECADE
AFTER THE SEMINAL SB 1000 PASSED IN 2016,
OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT LESS THAN HALF OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
PUTS DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN THEIR JURISDICTIONS,
HAVE ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THEIR GENERAL PLANS.
AS ENVISIONED BY SB 1000.
SB 1000 REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WITH DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN THEIR JURISDICTIONS
TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT
OR INCORPORATE
RELATED POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
INTO OTHER ELEMENTS OF THEIR GENERAL PLANS.
WHEN THEY CONCURRENTLY ADOPT OR REVISE TWO OR MORE ELEMENTS
OF THEIR GENERAL PLAN.
THE PAST TEN YEARS HAVE MADE CLEAR
THAT THIS IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE TRIGGER FOR THE FOR THE LAW.
SB 1457 WOULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE
BY SETTING A DEADLINE FOR WHAT WE APPROXIMATE TO BE AROUND 160.
SO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO SB 1000
THAT HAVE NOT YET
ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN THEIR GENERAL PLANS.
IN ADDITION, AB 1457 WOULD ADD TRANSPARENCY
AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES TO SB 1000,
MODELED ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING ELEMENT ADOPTION,
TO ENSURE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
MEANINGFULLY ENGAGE AND CONSIDER THE INPUT
AND IMPACTED COMMUNITIES AS THEY PLAN.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PROUD TO SPONSOR HB 1457 TO ENSURE
THAT SB 1000 IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED
SO THAT MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES ARE NOT LEFT BEHIND
AS WE PLAN FOR A HEALTHIER AND MORE JUST FUTURE.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
GRACIAS FOR THIS WILL MARK REPRESENT
COMMITTEE PARA ON FOUR.
AQUI FOR THE CONNELL
PARA LA.
COMO MIEMBRO
MUCHOS HEMOS PASADO PORQUE DéCADAS
LUCIANO POR LA SALUD DE LA AMBIENTAL
ELLA ECONOMICO SENTIMIENTO AMBIENTAL CHAPTER ES
UNA COMUNIDAD DEL BARRIO
CENTRAL CONGRESS NUMERO DE TRABAJADORES DEL CAMPO MIGRANTES
HALF A MILLION TRABAJADORES UNA OTRA VEZ LAS FAMILIAS VISITA
BISTRO PAUSA SALUD PARA HACER JURADO UN LUGAR PARA
EXPOSITIONS INDUSTRIELS COMO RESULTADO NOSTRA
COMUNIDADES UNA DE LAS ARMAS SOBRE REGARDLESS
NACIONAL DE
LA FABRICATION, INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC,
TRAFICO DE TRAINS COMMISSIONS PASADO ALMACENAMIENTO
LA INDUSTRIA DEL PETROLEO E GAS, LA INDUSTRIA
DE AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES IN CALIFORNIA,
IN MAS COMUNIDADES CIRCUS IN THE COMUNIDADES.
AND THEN
COMMUNITY
CERCA CONTINUA SIENDO OLVIDO DE
AL MISMO TIEMPO.
VEMOS MAS PROYECTOS PRIVADO SIN
MIENTRAS SOMOS
FORESHADOWS A COMPRAR WHEN THEY ARE IN IRAN.
NUESTRO NINOS DENTRO DE NUESTRAS CASAS POR QUé LOOK LIGHT?
ELLA WORKS ON TOXICS IN NUESTRA COMUNIDAD.
MUCHAS VECES VAMOS VEMOS PROYECTOS DE
DINOSAUR PRIVADO VEMOS
VAMOS A QUANTAS E
NOS VEMOS DECEPTION LADOS PORQUE
NO NOS NO SIN, NO NOS VEO IMPORTANCIA A LA SALUD.
THEN VISTAS FAMILIAS
EN LA PLANTATION SUDAN POR LAS PERSONAS.
ESTAS DECISIONES.
PRESTO ORGANIZATION CONTO CON MUCHOS
OTROS GRUPOS ABOGADOS POR LA APROBACION.
SEVEN MIL.
UNA ATRAS, LA CUAL LOGRO CASINO
QUIERA UN AUMENTO DE JUSTICIA AMBIENTAL PARA TODAS LAS
PARA TODOS LOS PLANS GENERALS
TENGAN, POR LO MISMO, UNA COMUNIDAD SOBRE CARGA DE ESTA
LA FUTURE CLUB PARA LOGRAR COLLABORATION DE LOS MIEMBROS
DE LA COMUNIDAD E LA NACION DE PLANNERS GENERALS CON LA REDUCIR
LOS IMPACTO AMBIENTAL ES E LA SALUD DE LOS PLANS LOCALES.
OH YEAH.
OKAY, OKAY.
THEY SUFFER.
THEY SUFFER MUCHAS COMUNIDADES COMO LA NUESTRA.
CUANDO NO NOS ELEMENTOS
AMBIENTAL EMOS ES ESPERADO AQUI LA CIUDAD CAMBIA CAN
GRACIAS ESTO YAN APOLLO A LA ABC
CUENTA GRACIAS POR SUA POLIO.
MY NAME IS ANABEL MARQUEZ.
ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER CHEF
TO HEAR IN STRONG SUPPORT OF HB 1457.
AS THE VOLUNTEER
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, MANY OF US HAVE SPENT DECADES
CHAMPIONING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND JUSTICE,
ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY,
AND MORE AS A COMMUNITY IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
MADE UP OF FARMWORKER,
IMMIGRANT AND WORKING FAMILIES,
THESE FAMILIES HAVE SEEN THEIR HEALTH DEPRIORITIZED
FOR THE SAKE OF MORE,
MORE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION AGAIN AND AGAIN.
AS A RESULT, OUR COMMUNITY IS ONE OF THE MOST
OVERBURDENED COMMUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA.
FROM POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING,
TRUCK AND TRAIN TRAFFIC, WAREHOUSING, THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY, INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE AND PESTICIDE.
NEARBY UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
CONTINUE TO SEE DEEP JUSTICE DISINVESTMENT.
MEANWHILE, WE WATCH MORE PROJECTS
GET APPROVED IN OUR CITY
AS WE'RE FORCED TO BUY WATER AND KEEP OUR CHILDREN INDOORS
BECAUSE OUR WATER AND, AND AIR ARE TOXIC
AND OUR COMMUNITY, WE OFTEN SEE HARMFUL PROJECTS PROPOSED.
WE SHOW UP TO MEETING
AFTER MEETING AND OFTEN LEAVE DISAPPOINTED
BECAUSE THE HEALTH OF OUR FAMILIES
WAS NOT CONSIDERED OR PRIORITY IN THE PLANNING OF OUR CITY
BY DECISION MAKERS.
BECAUSE OF THIS, OUR ORGANIZATION WAS AMONG
THE MANY GROUPS THAT ADVOCATED FOR THE LANDMARK PASSAGE
OF SB 1000 A DECADE AGO, WHICH CALLED FOR THE INCLUSION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT IN ALL GENERAL PLANS
WITH AT LEAST ONE DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY.
THIS LAW WAS VITAL BECAUSE IT CALLS
GENERAL PLANNING INITIATIVES TO ENGAGE
AND COLLABORATE WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS,
WITH THE GOAL OF MITIGATING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS
AND LOCAL PLANNING.
UNFORTUNATELY, MANY COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS STILL LACK
AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT.
WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THE CITY OF SHAFTER
TO COMPLETE ITS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
SINCE 2018.
THE PASSAGE OF HB 1457 IS LONG OVERDUE.
AB 1457 WILL PROVIDE A DEADLINE FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
TO ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT
THAT WILL INCLUDE TRANSPARENCY
AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIRECTLY IMPACTED RESIDENTS TO HAVE SAFE,
TO HAVE A SAFE, DEVELOPMENT WITH THESE ELEMENTS,
WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT. 1457.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GRACIAS.
POR TESTIMONIAL,
I'D LIKE TO ASK ANYBODY ELSE WHO'S IN SUPPORT OF AB 1457.
PLEASE COME.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KATY VALENZUELA, ON BEHALF OF COMMUNITIES
FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, AS WELL AS PHYSICIANS
FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, LOS ANGELES FOOD AND WATER
WATCH AND THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ELIZABETH TAPIA, REPRESENTING THE CENTER ON RACE, POVERTY
AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN STRONG SUPPORT OF AB 1457.
THANK YOU,
ANDREW MITCHELL, FOR SAN DIEGO
350 AND SUPPORT.
GABRIELA FASSI WITH SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK OPPOSING
AB 1457?
OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
GO AHEAD.
I'M GOING TO GO.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
BRADY GORDON,
ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES,
IN A RESPECTFUL OPPOSING THIS AMENDED POSITION.
FIRST OFF, I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE.
WE'VE HAD ONGOING CONVERSATIONS,
BUT WE DO REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS THAT WE'LL DISCUSS TODAY.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE
AND PART OF THE REASONS WE HAVEN'T SEEN DEVELOPMENT IS
YOU KNOW,
A LOT OF CITIES HAVEN'T UPDATED THEIR GENERAL PLAN
IN TEN YEARS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
PROBABLY A LOT OF THE BILLS
THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT AND STREAMLINE.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CHALLENGES, BUT ALSO,
YOU KNOW, THE OPPOSITION IS NOT TO
THE IDEA OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.
WE ARE VERY, VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT
AND ENCOURAGE OUR CITIES TO DO THAT.
AND OUR CITIES DO PLAN FOR THAT ACCORDINGLY.
THIS BILL ALSO PROVIDES
PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT THAT
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR EACH UNIQUE JURISDICTIONAL NEEDS.
SO WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
AND ALSO A VERY, VERY TIGHT DEADLINE TO COMPLETE THIS.
WHILE WE HAVE CONTINUOUS LEGISLATION
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESPOND TO ACCORDINGLY.
SO OUR UNDERRESOURCED COMMUNITIES, IT'S
GOING TO BE A CHALLENGES, FOR THOSE CITIES TO DO THAT.
ALSO,
YOU KNOW, PERMIT
FEES IS WHERE WE WOULD HELP COVER THE COST OF THOSE
WHAT THE TRADE OFF HAS TO BE.
AND I THINK THE ANALYSIS DOES A GOOD JOB TALKING ABOUT IS,
IS THAT TRADE OFF,
SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER
AS WE LOOK AT REDUCING THE COST OF HOUSING.
BUT IT IS A CHALLENGE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO DO THAT, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DO NOT HAVE
THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE TO DO THAT.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT, WE FIRMLY BELIEVE
THAT TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORTANT, AND WE THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY
THAT'S BEST HANDLED LOCALLY AS OPPOSED TO
PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT THAT.
AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONTINUE TO COLLABORATE AND WORK
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
IN ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS WITH THIS.
AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS CHRIS LEE HERE.
ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA,
WE ALSO HAVE AN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION,
AND ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH WHAT THE LEAGUE WAS JUST SAYING.
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND SPONSORS FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS
TO CLARIFY
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL DON'T LOOP
IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY, SINCE 2015,
UPDATED AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ELEMENT OR INCORPORATED POLICIES THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERAL PLAN.
WE DO THINK THAT CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY
BASED ON HOW THE BILL WAS WRITTEN.
AND SECOND, AS THE LEAGUE POINTED OUT,
WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH SOME OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE
ELEMENTS INCLUDED, PARTICULARLY
THE TIMELINE FOR COMMENT PERIODS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
BUT REALLY, OUR OVERARCHING CONCERN
WITH THIS BILL IS MUCH MORE PRACTICAL.
RATHER THAN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILL.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATES ARE VERY COSTLY ENDEAVORS,
AND WE'RE LIVING IN AN ERA OF LEGISLATION WHERE WE'VE SEEN
INCREASINGLY PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS,
PASSED DOWN TO COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE TO UPDATE THESE PLANS.
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH FULL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO JUSTICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
PROCESS, THAT SORT OF OUTREACH, TRANSLATION FACILITATION
WITH COMMUNITIES WHICH IN COUNTY WORLD
ARE USUALLY VERY GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED.
IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S ONE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S POCKETS OF COMMUNITIES
ALL OVER THE COUNTY THAT REQUIRE THAT OUTREACH.
SO THESE ARE VERY COSTLY.
ENDEAVORS.
AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF APPETITE IN THE LEGISLATURE
FOR NEW AND MORE PRESCRIPTIVE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS.
BUT AS THE LEAGUE OF CITIES NOTED, THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE
IN THE WAY OF RESOURCES
FROM THE STATE TO HELP US OFFSET THOSE COSTS.
SO WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THIS, VERY AGGRESSIVE DEADLINE FOR
AGENCIES THAT HAVEN'T YET DONE AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE UPDATE.
COUNTY BUDGETS ARE ALREADY COMPLETE,
BASICALLY FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
SO IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS WORK YET,
YOU REALLY HAVE 18 MONTHS
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS BILL
TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
THAT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT TURNAROUND, PARTICULARLY
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A GOOD JOB OF THESE, THIS WORK.
AND SO REALLY WANT, TO, ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE
AND THE AUTHOR AND SPONSORS TO WORK WITH US,
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TIMELINES ARE FEASIBLE HERE AND THAT,
IN THE FUTURE, AS WHERE WE'RE CONSIDERING MANDATES LIKE THIS,
TO HAVE SOME CONSIDERATION
FOR THE COST AND THE RESOURCES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT.
BUT AGAIN,
I APPRECIATE THE WORK TO DATE AND, WANT TO CONTINUE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
AND ONCE AGAIN,
IN OPPOSITION TO 1457, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
LACEY RYAN, RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE,
CALIFORNIA, WOULD LIKE TO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
MARK NEWBERGER, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION, COUNTIES
LIKE TO ALSO ASSOCIATE
OUR COMMENTS FOR WAS MADE BY CAL CITIES
AND URBAN COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA.
WE ALSO HAVE IT OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
LAUREN DE VALENCIA, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL OPPOSED POSITION
BUT DO SHARE THOSE CONCERNS.
SO LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE CONVERSATIONS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR.
OTHER GOING TO GO PRESENT A BILL UPSTAIRS, BUT I MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ZERO.
THANK YOU.
IN THE BILL ANALYSIS.
NOT THE ANALYSIS ACTUALLY THE BILL ITSELF.
WE WERE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT,
THE MANDATED COSTS,
ON CITIES AND
DOING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, BUT IT IS REALLY EXPENSIVE.
IT'S TIME CONSUMING.
IT DOES TAKE A WHILE.
I'VE BEEN THROUGH TWO OF THEM
THAT TAKE THREE YEARS TO TRY AND DO ONE.
IF YOU'RE DOING THE WHOLE CITY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE
THERE'S A SECTION IN EVERY BILL, AND THIS DRIVES ME NUTS.
SAYS THE CALIFORNIA.
FIRST,
IT SAYS THIS BILL WOULD IMPOSE A STATE MANDATED LOCAL PROGRAM.
RIGHT. AND THEY'RE EXPENSIVE.
THEY DON'T.
IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED THOUSAND BUCKS.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
1 MILLION TO $3 MILLION TO DO THESE THINGS.
THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A STATE TO REIMBURSE
LOCAL AGENCIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
FOR CERTAIN COSTS MANDATED BY THE STATE.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR MAKING THAT REIMBURSEMENT.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR BILLS THAT IMPOSES
THESE COSTS ON THE STATE HAS THIS IN IT.
THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE THAT NO REIMBURSEMENT
IS REQUIRED BY THIS ACT FOR A SPECIFIED REASONS.
WHEN PEOPLE PASS THIS LAW,
THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WHEN THE STATE MAKES LOCAL AGENCIES,
DO THEIR BIDDING, THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR
THE STATE HAS TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY
SO THAT THEY CAN DO THOSE THINGS
SO THAT THEY CAN HIRE THE PERSON, THAT
THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE PROCESS,
THEY CAN PAY FOR THE STUDIES AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT ALL OF THESE GET WIPED OUT.
THE THE WILL OF THE VOTERS GET WIPED OUT BY THE ONE CENSUS.
THIS WOULD PROVIDE THAT NO ONE REIMBURSEMENT IS NECESSARY.
IT IS NECESSARY
IF FOR IF I'M GOING TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT MANDATES STUFF ON
TO OUR COMMUNITIES,
IT'S NECESSARY THAT THAT THE STATE
COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT.
NOW, THE OTHER THING
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IS THIS WHOLE
THE CONCEPT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EFFORT.
SB 79, PUTS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING RIGHT NEXT TO A RAIL.
RIGHT.
AND WE THE THE WITNESS TALKED ABOUT HOW RAIL AFFECTS THEM.
WE'VE HAD ENTIRE BLOCKS OF COMMERCIAL
OR OFFICE AREAS THAT WERE MEANT TO,
TO KEEP OUR OUR HOUSING AND WHERE PEOPLE LIVE
KIND OF SEPARATED AND MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF NOISE
AND ROAD POLLUTION AND DUST AND THINGS FROM FREEWAYS,
ENTIRE BLOCKS
HAVE BEEN WIPED OUT AND REPLACED WITH WHAT?
AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
WELL, IF IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
THAT MEANS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IMPACTED
AND CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT ARE BEING
WE'RE ACTUALLY BUILDING HOUSING RIGHT NEXT
TO THE FREEWAYS WHILE IN THEM, AND WHILE IN THE NEXT BREATH,
COMPLAINING THAT THE CITIES
AREN'T DOING ENOUGH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
WE'RE FORCING THEM TO DO JUST THE OPPOSITE.
AND THEN WE WANT THEM TO PAY FOR STUDIES
THAT TELL US, HEY, WE'RE SCREWING THIS UP.
IT NEEDS TO CHANGE.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD APPROACH.
THIS IS A GET AN AMEND BILL, I BELIEVE.
AND,
IF IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, THEN I WANT
I WANT THE STATE TO REIMBURSE THE CITIES FOR THIS.
IF THERE'S NOT A CLAUSE THAT SAYS THAT I HAVE A BILL
THAT DOES SOME STATE MANDATED COST.
YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS?
THE STATE WILL REIMBURSE THE CITIES FOR THIS.
THAT'S WHAT THESE BILLS NEED TO SAY.
OTHERWISE, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THEM.
I JUST WANT TO ASK THE AUTHOR
IF YOU CAN RESPOND TO THE.
YEAH, ISSUE OF AT LEAST THAT AT LEAST,
THE TIME FRAME, THE ISSUE OF KIND OF BILLING LINKS.
AND THIS IS IN ADDITION TO, SENATOR YADA,
BUT I THINK AT LEAST THE TIME FRAME CAN BE ADJUSTED.
AND ANY THOUGHTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE ABOUT BOTH ISSUES.
I THINK WE ARE DEFINITELY,
STILL IN CONVERSATION, AND OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS.
BUT TO BE CLEAR, THIS HAS BEEN A TEN YEAR TIMELINE ALREADY.
I THINK DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN HOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING ELEMENT FOR THE LAST DECADE.
AND WHEN SB 1000 WAS
PASSED INTO LAW, I THINK IT WAS VERY FLEXIBLE
ON IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PURPOSES
OF GIVING MAXIMUM DISCRETION TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO COMPLY.
AND IN THAT DECADE, THEY'VE CHOSEN
MORE THAN HALF OF THEM NOT TO COMPLY.
AND FOR THE ONES THAT HAVE COMPLIED,
WE DON'T WANT THEM TO GO BACK AND REDO IT.
WE MADE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLEAR IN THIS. BILL.
THANK YOU FOR DOING WHAT?
THE LEGISLATURE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES EXPECTED YOU TO DO.
AND FOR THE OTHER HALF THAT HAVEN'T,
WE'D LIKE YOU TO GET THAT DONE.
THE COMMUNITIES DESERVE TO GET IT DONE.
IT'S ALSO NOT A REIMBURSABLE COST
BECAUSE OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY SECTION SIX.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WROTE IN THE BILL.
AND SO TO CHANGE THAT,
YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
AND I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO THAT CONVERSATION.
SB 79 ALSO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BUILDING BY FREEWAYS.
IT HAD TO BE IT WAS ABOUT BUILDING BY,
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE,
THAT ACTUALLY HELPS GET CARS OUT OF THE ROAD AND IMPROVES
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITIES.
FREEWAY SPLITTING IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST TOXIC,
PLACES THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE NEXT TO HIGHWAYS AND FREEWAYS.
AND WE USED FREEWAYS TO SPLIT UP BLACK COMMUNITIES,
WHICH IS WHY SO MANY FOLKS, PARTICULARLY IN SOUTH L.A.,
EXPERIENCED POOR AIR QUALITY BECAUSE OF THEIR PROXIMITY.
BUT WE WOULDN'T KNOW THAT IF THERE WASN'T A HOUSING ELEMENT
OR AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT IN THE GENERAL PLANS
THAT SPOKE TO THIS KIND OF HISTORY
AND THE MITIGATION EFFORTS
AND THE WAYS THAT WE CAN CHANGE THAT.
AND SO WE'RE STILL OPEN TO CONVERSATIONS.
I KNOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS, DONE.
I KNOW THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS DONE.
I THINK FOR COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED,
THEY BELIEVE THIS IS TEN YEARS TOO LATE ALREADY.
BUT, WE WANT TO ABSOLUTELY ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH.
YO PUEDO SILVA.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALGO COMO COMUNIDAD? SI
LAS INDUSTRIAS.
PARA LOS OTROS COMO UNIDAD SUPREMO PARA LOS PERDIDA.
NUESTROS AREAS GET IDOL.
POR QUé NO TAN SOLO ES EL RUIDO L TRAIN L TODO ES LA
CONTAMINATION CAN CON PESTICIDE US PETROLEO AGUA
E E TODO LO OURA LAS INDUSTRIAL Q SYSTEM B
NANDO NUESTROS ULA PORQUE ES EL IS PERMITTED.
SI TODO THE IDEA SINO PARA VER SI SE PUEDEN PERMITIDO
NO PARA LAS YENDO A LOS.
THIS IS YOU KNOW DIGO POR QUé YO TENGO SARA MUERTO
TENGO UN SOVEREIGN Q PEGAR FIEVRE DEL VIA.
QUé PODEMOS HACER
INDUSTRIAS.
GET IN NERO.
NOSOTROS QUEREMOS VIDA POR FAVOR.
ESCUTCHEON NO NOS ALLOW ORACLE
LA INDUSTRIA PROGRESS A TODO LO VAMOS A HACER EXCUSE
PORQUE NO SE
TENER UNA DE LA UNA OLYMPIA UNNATURAL LIMPIA POR FAVOR.
WHAT IF THE CONCERN IS OKAY.
DO YOU WANT TO DO IT?
SO IN SUMMARY WHAT YOU SAID THAT YOU KNOW THAT
THAT INDUSTRY HAS BEEN POLLUTING
FOR A LONG TIME AND THAT COMMUNITIES LIKE HER,
YOU KNOW, THAT THEY SUFFER FROM AILMENTS.
SHE'S TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL OF HER, HER, HER,
FAMILY MEMBERS.
AND SHE SAID THAT
THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO INDUSTRY MAKING MONEY. RIGHT.
WE KNOW THAT INDUSTRY IS NEEDED.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE INTO, COMMUNITIES LIKE,
SHAFTER ARE NOT WILLING TO OR ARE OPPOSED
TO TOXICS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THAT THEY NEED HELP
AND THAT PLEASE LISTEN TO THEM.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION YOU WANT TO WRAP UP, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR. AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT.
AND, I APPRECIATE THAT.
WITNESSES ALL OF THEIR TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR ORIGIN.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
AND TOURISM.
I, CHARLES I CHOY CHOI.
NO, I, REGINE ASHBY CERVANTES.
LAIRD. SATO. SATO. NO.
ONE TO
THE BILL IS ON CALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
DID THEY SAY TO GO AROUND IT?
THEY SAY THE WILL NOW.
HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
OKAY, HE'S GETTING UP.
I DON'T NOW YOU HAVE TO GO NOW.
WELL, WHAT'S NEXT?
OKAY, PILAR.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, YOU WILL BE PRESENTING ON AB
2188. YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS BILL.
AND I'M COMMITTED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE
WITH THE FIELD EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION
BEFORE I TAKE THIS BILL UP.
ON THE SENATE FLOOR,
FOUNDED IN 1972, THE MID PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT, OR MID PENN, SPANNED
17 CITIES, AND SANTA CLARA, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CRUZ COUNTIES
AND SERVES NEARLY 770,000 RESIDENTS.
MIDPEN CURRENTLY MANAGES MORE THAN 73,000 ACRES
OF MOUNTAINOUS FOOTHILL AND BAY LAND.
HOWEVER, THEIR CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE
LIMITS RESET OVER A DECADE AGO, WITH THE SURGING COSTS
IN THE BAY AREA AND AN ADDITIONAL 10,000 ACRES
ADDED TO THE DISTRICT.
SINCE THE ORIGINAL ADMINISTRATIVE
LIMITS WERE IMPOSED, THERE IS A NEED
TO UPDATE THESE LIMITS TO HELP THE DISTRICT STAY ON TRACK.
AND ITS PROJECTED GOALS.
THE CURRENT LIMIT HAS ALSO SOMETIMES DELAYED ACTIONS
BY SEVERAL WEEKS TO OVER A YEAR,
AND COMES WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF MORE THAN $6,000
PER CONTRACT.
AS A RESULT, MIDPEN IS THAT APPROXIMATELY 1.13
MILLION ON AROUND
200 CONTRACTS ABOVE $50,000 IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
ON THESE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ALONE, EACH DOLLAR
SPENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IS A DOLLAR
THAT ISN'T SPENT ON RESTORING FORESTS, STREAMS, WATERSHEDS,
ADVANCING WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AND IMPROVING PUBLIC ACCESS.
THIS BILL SIMPLY STREAMLINES THE CONTRACTING PROCESS
AND ALLOWS THE DISTRICT TO GO BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL GOAL
OF STEWARDING
THESE BEAUTIFUL LANDS WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS MIDPEN
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SPECIALIST JOSHUA HUG.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND CHAIR TERRAZZO.
MY NAME IS JOSH HACKETT.
I REPRESENT THE MID
PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS MIDPEN.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I'M HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL,
WHICH PROVIDES AN ESSENTIAL UPDATE TO OUR ENABLING
LEGISLATION TO APPROVE CONTRACT CUTTING EFFICIENCY.
WE THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER PELLERIN
FOR AUTHORING THE BILL, AND WE THANK THE CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE STAFF, FOR WORKING CLOSELY
WITH US TO PREPARE THIS MEASURE FOR TODAY'S HEARING.
SINCE THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER WENT THROUGH OUR BACKGROUND,
I WON'T, REHASH THAT, BUT,
THIS THIS, UPDATE, ADDRESSES
OUR CONTRACTING LIMITED, OUR CURRENT CONTRACTING LIMITATIONS.
IT'S SIMPLY
A CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASE.
BUT EVEN THAT THAT, MEASURED INCREASE WILL PROVIDE
IMMEASURABLE BENEFITS AS FAR AS OUR ABILITY
TO DELIVER TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY EXPECT IN
STEWARDING A BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT.
ON THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA.
AND,
WE RESPECTFULLY, ASK YOU
FOR AND I VOTE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER, SUPPORT?
GOOD AFTERNOON.
KIARA ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICTS IN SUPPORT.
OKAY. ANY.
POSITION WITNESS.
YEAH.
OKAY.
MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY SENATOR SEATTLE.
PLEASE.
KLAUS.
CLOTURE. YES.
YEAH.
YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY BEFORE I AGREED TO ALL OF THIS BILL,
MY TEAM WENT OUT OF OUR WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE LABOR GROUPS
WERE DID NOT HAVE CONCERNS, BUT CONCERNS WERE RAISED TO US
LAST NIGHT.
AND SO YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THEM TO RESOLVE ANY CONFLICT IN THE BILL.
AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATORS TO ROGER.
HI, DARRYL.
ZOE CHOI.
CHOI.
I ARE AGAIN.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
LAIRD.
SO YOU ARE TWO SARAH.
2I30.
BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY MUCH.
NEXT WILL BE, CALLING UP ASSEMBLY MEMBER VALENCIA.
SEE HERE.
AND THERE'S TWO BILLS, AB 2194 AND AB 20
OH ONE'S CONSENT.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY.
JUST ONE BILL.
AB 2194 WELCOME.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
HAPPY TO PRESENT THE OTHER BILL AS WELL
SINCE IT'S ONE OF MY FAVORITES, PERTAINING TO THE CHANGING
OF ANGELS TO AN ANAHEIM CITY NAME.
BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WANT SAY YES OR THAT IS MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
AB 2194 AIMS TO STRENGTHEN THE GOVERNANCE OF CAL
OPT IN THE HEALTH MY DISTRICT'S COUNTY ORGANIZED HEALTH SYSTEM
THAT SERVES NEARLY 1 IN 3 RESIDENTS
WITH AN APPROXIMATE $4.7 BILLION BUDGET.
CAL OPTIMA IS UNIQUE BECAUSE THEIR GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE HAS BEEN CODIFIED IN STATE STATUTE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS THE ONLY COUNTY PUBLIC
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT IS UNDER THIS SCOPE.
THIS GIVES THE LEGISLATURE
AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OVER THIS VERY ISSUE.
UNFORTUNATELY, RECENT CALIFORNIA BOARD DECISIONS AND BOARD
MEMBER DEPARTURES REINFORCE THE NEED FOR TIMELY ACTION.
THERE'S ALSO, A PRECEDENT, A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT,
OF BAD ACTING, AND INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY GONE
TO FEDERAL PRISON THAT HAVE SERVED
ON THIS CALIFORNIA BOARD IN THE LAST 8 TO 10 YEARS.
THE BILL HAS AMENDED
THE BILL, AS AMENDED, WILL PERFORM AN AUDIT
THAT WILL REVIEW THE BOARD'S POLICIES AND COLLECTIVE ACTIONS
AND DELIVER RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE SERVICES
ARE MAXIMIZED FOR OUR FAMILIES, SENIORS AND CHILDREN.
IN MY DISTRICT ALONE, OVER 250,000
CONSTITUENTS DEPEND ON MEDI-CAL,
HENCE WHY THIS BILL AND ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME.
AS LEGISLATORS.
WE ALL KNOW WE JUST PASSED A VERY DIFFICULT BUDGET VOTE
IN THE FACE OF FEDERAL CUTS.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I AM HYPER FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT
MEDI-CAL DOLLARS ARE MAXIMIZED AND ALSO INVESTED
IN NOT ONLY A TRANSPARENT WAY, BUT IN AN EFFICIENT WAY.
WITH THAT, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A YES VOTE.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE
ELSE WHO WANTS TO SUPPORT, A BILL?
2194?
SI, NOBODY.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2194?
PLEASE STEP FORWARD
IF YOU WANT.
YOU CAN DO IT FROM THERE.
YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FROM UP HERE?
I CAN DO IT HERE. OKAY.
DEBBIE DALY, ON BEHALF OF CAL OPTIMA HEALTH,
WE HAVE AN OPPOSE, POSITION ON THE RECORD.
WITH THE RECENT AMENDMENTS, THEY WERE DISCUSSED
IN THE HEALTH COMMITTEE
AND OUR BOARD CHAIR WAS HERE AT THAT, COMMITTEE MEETING
AND RECOGNIZED THAT THE AMENDMENTS
DO, DEAL WITH THE CONCERNS THAT WERE PART OF THE,
OPPOSED LETTER.
BUT THE CAL OPTIMA BOARD, AS A WHOLE, HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE
TO CONTEMPLATE ALL THE CHANGES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS BRENDAN MCCARTHY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES,
ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA,
WE ALL HAVE AN OPPOSED POSITION ON THE BILL IN PRINT.
BUT WHAT THE AMENDMENTS WILL BE REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION.
WE WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE AMENDMENTS
AND FOR THE WORK ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
AMY JENKINS, ON BEHALF OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
WE ALSO HAVE AN OPPOSED POSITION
ON RECORD,
BUT WITH THE BILL AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED,
HAVE CURRENTLY NO POSITION ON THE BILL
AND WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
OKAY.
ANYBODY ELSE?
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE DAIS?
SENATOR CHOY, THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER.
VALENCIA, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE FROM ORANGE COUNTY.
OBVIOUSLY I'M FROM ORANGE COUNTY,
SO I AM VERY INTERESTED IN KNOWING,
WHAT THE CURRENT,
MAKEUP OF THE, CAL UP TO MY BOARD.
NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD.
WHAT PROMPTED YOU?
WHAT PROBLEM PROMPTED YOU TO, PROPOSE THIS BILL?
SIR, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS BILL HAS BEEN AMENDED
TO NOT RESTRUCTURE THE CAL OPTIMAL BOARD.
WITH THAT BEING SAID,
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I AM FOCUSED ON
AND WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE IN THE FUTURE.
BUT THE BILL IN FRONT OF US WOULD JUST AUDIT
THE BOARD
BASED ON THE PARAMETERS OF THE AUDIT
THAT ARE LISTED IN THE AMENDMENTS.
WHAT PROMPTED ME, TO YOUR QUESTION, SENATOR,
THE MOST RECENT, ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WAS TO REINSTATE A CONTRACT WITH A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
THAT CAL OPTUM HAD ACTUALLY TERMINATED IN 2024
DUE TO SOME PUBLIC DATA POINTS THAT THEY DISCLOSED.
ONE BEING THAT THAT PUBLIC HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
WAS BEING PAID TO ONLY SERVE 1.5%
OF THE OVERALL MEDI-CAL RECIPIENTS WITHIN THE NETWORK.
SO IT WAS WASTED RESOURCES IN THAT SENSE.
SO THERE WAS A TERMINATION
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, JUST ABOUT A MONTH
AND A HALF AGO, THE BOARD
LED BY, THE,
THE THE REPRESENTATIVES AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
REINSTATED THAT CONTRACT WITH THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
AND ALSO, PROVIDED
A BACK PAY OF $30 MILLION
DUE TO LOST REVENUE FROM 2024 UP TO THE DATE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THE REQUEST WAS TO THE TUNE OF $96 MILLION.
BUT THE ACCORD CAME DOWN TO $30 MILLION.
SO AGAIN,
THE COUNTY, IS IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION
WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC HEALTH CARE DOLLARS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ARE,
IN A GAP OF ABOUT $325 MILLION.
THANKFULLY, THEY HAVE SOME RESERVES.
BUT AGAIN, IF WE'RE REINSTATING CONTRACTS
TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS THAT AREN'T BEING MAXIMIZED
AND USED TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE
HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO THOSE MOST IN NEED,
AGAIN, I THINK THOSE ARE BAD DECISIONS BEING MADE.
THAT WAS ONE OF THEM.
AND THERE'S ALSO JUST, AN UNFORTUNATE HISTORICAL,
PRECEDENT WHEN IT COMES TO CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS BEING TIED TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.
AND THIS ISN'T JUST MY SAYING.
THIS WAS ALSO DISCLOSED IN A, GRAND
JURY REPORT THAT WAS MADE PUBLIC A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, A VERY RECENT UNFORTUNATE
SITUATION BY A FORMER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR WHO ENDED UP
GOING TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR MISUSING, COUNTY RESOURCES.
ALL TO SAY, I THINK BOARDS LIKE THAT NEED TO BE DEPOLITICIZED,
AND THE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE ON PROVIDING THE SOCIAL SERVICE
TO THE RESIDENTS MOST IN NEED, CONSIDERING THE FACT
THAT WE'RE MAKING CUTS LEFT AND RIGHT
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FUNDING
DUE TO THE H.R
ONE CUTS THAT ARE COMING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
SO THOSE, REASONS, THAT THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING,
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.
SUPERVISORS SERVING IN THE BOARD.
I SO THAT AND THIS WAS A NEW INITIATIVE.
WELL, WHAT WAS IT?
SPONSORED BY SOMEBODY ELSE.
ANOTHER GROUP OR ANOTHER SUPERVISOR.
ORIGIN OF, THE IDEA CAME TO YOU
BY SOMEBODY ELSE WHO WANTED, YOU KNOW, THIS PROBLEM SAID
THAT WAS GOING ON AND THAT YOU FELT THAT THIS
A NECESSITY OF THE BILL, SIR, THIS WAS MY IDEA.
AND I AMENDED THE BILL, TO TRY AND RESTRUCTURE THE BOARD.
A FEW WEEKS AGO BECAUSE OF,
THE INFORMATION AND DATA COLLECTING
THAT MY TEAM HAD MADE, IN REFERENCE
TO A BILL THAT WE WERE CARRYING ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.
THIS INFORMATION, WAS SHARED TO ME BY MY TEAM,
WHICH PROMPTED ME TO THEN RETHINK WHAT MY FOCUS AND INTENT
WAS GOING TO BE.
MY LIMITED TIME SERVING, AS A PUBLIC SERVANT,
WHETHER IT WAS ON THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
OR THE LAST TERM AND A HALF HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
A PILLAR OF MINE,
A FOCUS OF MINE
HAS BEEN ON GOOD GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY AND ENSURING
THAT PUBLIC RESOURCES ARE NOT BEING MISUSED.
I LED THE CHARGE ON THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL AGAINST THE SALE
OF ANGEL STADIUM.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE, THE FORMER MAYOR WHO I SERVED
ALONGSIDE WITH, ENDED UP GOING, TO A FEDERAL PRISON AS WELL,
BEING CHARGED CRIMINALLY FOR TRYING TO UNDERSELL,
ANGEL STADIUM AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
I LED, IN PART, THE CHARGE AGAINST THAT.
SO, AGAIN, I'M VERY VIGILANT WHEN IT COMES TO
HOW PUBLIC RESOURCES ARE USED, CONSIDERING WE SHOULD ALL BE,
RESPONSIBLE
FISCAL STEWARDS, IN MY OPINION, AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
SO THE IDEA CAME, ON MY OWN, AND, PLAN
TO CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, ONCE THIS BILL ALSO
IS HOPEFULLY PASSED
OUT OF THE SENATE AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR. YEAH.
THE TWO SUPERVISORS,
CAME TO ME TO THE CAPITAL OFFICE,
BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE, UNFORTUNATELY, TO DISCUSS,
ABOUT THE ISSUE THEY ARE FACING AND THE, IN THE MEANTIME,
ORIGINALLY SUPERVISORS OPPOSED TO THE BILL, BUT,
THROUGH THE PROCESS, YOU MADE THIS SEVERAL,
AMENDMENTS, LIKE,
NOW WE HEARD IN THE,
POSITION STATEMENT, BUT NOW WITH THE OPPOSITION
HAS BEEN REMOVED AND, THE THEY ARE STANDING NEUTRAL.
SO WHAT KIND OF AMENDMENTS?
HAVE THEM TO PULL OUT THE,
POSITION AND, BECAME A STANDING NEUTRAL.
CAN YOU ELABORATE
ELABORATE THE THE, AMENDMENTS SPECIFICALLY HOW?
YEAH.
SO THE BILL,
THAT I PRESENTED IN PUBLIC
HEALTH, WAS TO RESTRUCTURE AND REMOVE,
THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS FROM SITTING ON THE CAL OPTIMA
BOARD.
IN MY OPINION, THAT'S WHAT HAS HISTORICALLY
POLITICIZED THIS BOARD, AND LED TO MISUSES AND BAD DECISIONS.
YOU CAN IMAGINE WHY, SITTING BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
WOULD NOT BE HAPPY WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS,
BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE, IN MY OPINION,
POLITICIZING THE BOARD ITSELF WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BOARD.
THAT WAS THEIR MAIN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
I DECIDED TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT STRUCTURE
BECAUSE I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT, THE CONCEPT THAT WE
PUT INTO LANGUAGE, WAS NOT, GOING TO BE MOST EFFICIENT.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER
RESTRUCTURING DID TAKE PLACE WAS GOING TO BE
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS,
THE BEST INTERESTS
OF THE STAKEHOLDERS, AND DELIVER ON WHAT MY HOPE WAS,
WHICH IS HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO OUR ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENTS.
SO THAT WAS THE BILL.
THEN WHEN I DECIDED TO, AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM AS WELL,
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN AUDIT OF THE CAL OPTIMA BOARD,
THAT IS WHEN MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THEY DECIDED TO REMOVE THEIR OPPOSITION
BECAUSE I AM NOT FOCUSED
ON REMOVING THEIR AUTHORITY FROM THE BOARD THROUGH THIS BILL.
OKAY.
BY RESTRUCTURING, HOW CAN YOU GUARANTEE
THERE WILL BE NO, MISCONDUCT OR CORRUPTIONS?
THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING IN THE WORRIED ABOUT, SIR?
YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S A CALCULATION,
THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN AND AGAIN, THIS IS,
MUCH OF THIS IS PUBLIC INFORMATION HAS BEEN LED BY
THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHO SIT ON THE BOARD ITSELF.
SO, AGAIN, BY REMOVING THEIR ABILITY
TO DICTATE AND TO ENGAGE IN THE CAL
OF A DECISION MAKING PROCESS,
I THINK THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD DEPOLITICIZE THE BOARD
AND ALLOW FOR THE BOARD
TO FOCUS ON PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO THE RESIDENTS.
I SHARED IN MY COMMENTS THAT THE CAL OPTIMAL
STRUCTURE IS UNIQUE.
IT'S THE ONLY KIND IN THE STATE WHERE THE STATE HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THE COUNTY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
SO, I ALSO FEEL LIKE IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY
TO ENGAGE IN THIS FASHION BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE
AND MAKEUP.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CAL OPTIMA
HEALTH CARE PLAN IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS.
THERE'S COORDINATION, OF COURSE,
BECAUSE, THE COUNTY HEALTH CARE, DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
BUT CAL OPTIMA AS AN ENTITY IS AN AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUAL ENTITY.
SO AGAIN,
BY THE REMOVAL OF THOSE SUPERVISORS, IN MY OPINION,
YOU WOULD REMOVE ONE OF THOSE CHALLENGES
THAT THE BOARD CURRENTLY HAS.
AND THIS HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY SITTING BOARD MEMBERS.
I FEEL LIKE THE BOARD IS OVERLY POLITICIZED BY PAST
BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE SAT ON THE CAL OPTIMA BOARD.
I'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS, NOT OF MY OWN PROACTIVE NESS,
BUT PEOPLE REACHING OUT TO ME, SHARING THEIR EXPERIENCES
AS WELL WITH HOW CHALLENGING IT HAS BEEN FROM, HEALTH CARE,
PROVIDERS TO CLINICS TO PHYSICIAN ORGANIZATIONS,
INDIVIDUALS, ELECTED OFFICIALS ABROAD HAVE ALL SHARED A CERTAIN
PERSPECTIVE, AND FRUSTRATION BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
SO AGAIN, THAT IS THE THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE LAST BILL.
THIS BILL AIMS TO AUDIT THE BOARD ITSELF,
TO GIVE ME A BETTER SENSE OF HOW
I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE FUTURE.
MANY ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE MAYORS AND, COUNTY SUPERVISORS.
I'VE GONE THROUGH THAT.
THAT'S WHY I KNOW THAT THE MANY COMMITTEES
AND COMMISSIONS, GOVERNING OR VISITING,
DIFFERENT AREAS, IN ORANGE COUNTY
WE SERVE THERE.
BUT PARTICULAR, GIVEN TIME,
PARTICULAR MEMBERS, MAY HAVE, PROBLEMATIC CHARACTERS
AND EXHIBIT THE BEHAVIORS THAT THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING,
BUT NOT NECESSARILY, THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF RAUL.
YOU KNOW, THEY, THERE TO SERVE.
SO, I TRUSTED THAT.
BUT THE SHAKING UP THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD
OR ALSO THE THE THE THE ESSENTIAL,
THE PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE AS LONG AS,
THE FOR FOR MORE OF
I KNOW NOT THE ONE ANAHEIM MAYOR GOING TO JAIL
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, CARLA SITUATION.
IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL, NO MATTER WHO,
THE PERSON IS, IN A
THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR CORRUPTION
AND THAT THAT'S THE REASON WE HAVE, OBJECTIVE EYES.
AND EVENTUALLY
WE CATCH THEM AND, TRY THEM AND SEND THEM TO THE,
YOU KNOW,
JAIL AND THE FORMER ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR
AND YOUR DOOR, OR SO WE ALL KNOW
THAT THAT'S A PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
AND HE'S PAYING HIS DUES.
SO HIS, MISCONDUCT WITH THE FUND IS, AS A SUPERVISOR.
SO HIS,
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HIS A
SITTING IN GENERAL IS HIS, PLAN TO BE IN JAIL.
SO ULTIMATELY, THEY KNOW THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THEIR CONDUCT.
BUT THE ESSENTIAL, RESTRUCTURING OF THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD,
ALSO WITH THE ESSENTIAL PROBLEMS
THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, I'M NOT SURE.
I THINK.
SO, THANK YOU FOR DOING THE AMENDMENTS.
WHEN YOU HAVE A BOARD,
IF IF YOU'RE AN AGENCY THAT HAS AN INTEREST
AND A STAKE IN WHATEVER THE OTHER AGENCY IS, IS DOING,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A REPRESENTATION ON THESE BOARDS.
WHETHER THEY'RE THEY CORRUPT THEMSELVES OR NOT.
THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT.
I THINK YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
BY ADDING THE SUPERVISOR BACK IN, THERE'S FUNDING,
THERE'S ALL THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
AND ALSO PEOPLE CAN THAT WAY THAT IT'S NOT ALL INTERNAL
AS FAR AS WHO'S WATCHING THE THE, THE STORE.
AND AND THAT GOES BOTH WAYS.
AND, YOU KNOW, TWO
SUPERVISORS ON A SEVEN PERSON BOARD IS NOT GOING TO,
MAKE A DECISION THAT,
THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS DON'T THINK IS RIGHT.
SO ANYWAY,
I APPRECIATE YOUR AMENDMENTS.
AND, SO WITH THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT
YOUR BILL TODAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE MOST THEM
AS LONG AS THOSE AMENDMENTS HOLD,
AND WHEN THEY GET TO THE FLOOR.
THANK YOU.
OKAY. DO IT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO WRAP UP SHORT?
YES, SENATOR.
JUST BRIEFLY APPRECIATE THAT PERSPECTIVE.
HENCE WHY I DECIDED TO AMEND THE BILL TO THIS CAPACITY.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE,
STRATEGIC COORDINATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY
AND THIS HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT COORDINATION
SHOULD CONSIST OF, OF WHETHER OR NOT
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO,
APPOINT EVERY SINGLE ONE
OF THOSE BOARD MEMBERS,
AND THEN THEY THEMSELVES ALSO SIT ON THERE.
THEY THEMSELVES SIT AS, YOU KNOW, NONVOTING MEMBERS.
IF COUNTY HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT HEADS SHOULD SIT ON THAT BOARD
TO ENSURE THAT COORDINATION. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT THAT THIS BILL,
WILL MOVE FORWARD
AS IT IS. I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR
AS WELL FOR HER AMENDMENTS AND HELP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE THE BILL HAS THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AND TOURISM.
HI TO RUSSELL.
I ENJOY THAT AGAIN.
ASHBY CERVANTES LAYERED CIGAR
TO SEE YOUR 2I20.
WE WILL COME BACK.
THE BILL IS ON CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER 20 WE'RE GOING OUT TO
THE NEXT IS AB 2415
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOOVER.
BUT, YEAH.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON. YES. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AB 24, 15.
THIS IS, VERY SIMPLE, BILL, THAT IS SEEKING,
TO HELP, MANY PRO HOUSING COMMUNITIES ARE IN STATE,
INCLUDING A CITY IN MY DISTRICT, THE CITY OF FOLSOM,
AS THEY AIM
TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
IT WOULD, SLIGHTLY ALTER SB 79,
VERY NARROWLY TAILORED TO ALLOW A CITY
IF THE MAJORITY OF THE TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT ZONE IS PART OF A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT,
TO REDUCE THE CAPACITY IN ONE ZONE BY MORE THAN 50%.
THE BILL LAYS OUT CRITERIA FOR HOW THIS CAN HAPPEN.
WITH THAT TODAY, IS, FOLSOM CITY COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE KOZLOWSKI,
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, AS WELL AS JERRY
BRUNO WITH BRUNO DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION TO SHARE SOME COMMENTS AS WELL. THANK YOU.
CHAIR, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
MY NAME IS MIKE KESELOWSKI,
AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING DISTRICT
ONE IN THE CITY OF FOLSOM,
WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLSOM HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I'M HERE TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG SUPPORT
FOR AB 2415, AUTHORED BY OUR GOOD ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, MR. HOOVER.
FOLSOM TAKES ITS HOUSING RESPONSIBILITIES SERIOUSLY.
WE MORE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, WE'VE CONSISTENTLY APPROVED
AND BUILT HOMES ACROSS THE INCOME SPECTRUM,
AND WE CONTINUE AN EMBRACE TO EMBRACE HIGHER DENSITY
DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS
WHERE IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE NEAR JOBS, SERVICES AND TRANSIT.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROTECT THE FOLSOM HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT IS THE CULTURAL HEART
OF OUR COMMUNITY AND ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
HISTORIC ASSETS IN THE SACRAMENTO REGION.
IN 2024, WE UPDATED OUR GENERAL PLAN
TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE DENSITIES AND TARGETED AREAS,
INCLUDING THE EAST BIDWELL COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR,
THE FOLSOM PLAN AREA, TOWN CENTER,
AND TWO TRANSIT STATION AREAS.
WE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT APPLY THOSE HIGHER DENSITY OVERLAYS
TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT
BECAUSE IT'S SCALE AND CHARACTER ARE ESSENTIAL TO ITS IDENTITY.
EVEN SO, THE DISTRICT CONTINUES TO GROW IN A COMPATIBLE WAY,
PRIMARILY THROUGH THE ADDITION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
THAT BLEND NATURALLY INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CHALLENGES IN THAT CURRENT LAW STILL ASSIGN
HIGH DENSITY HOUSING OBLIGATIONS
TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN WAYS
THAT DO NOT
REFLECT ITS PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OR ITS REGIONAL CULTURAL ROLE.
AB 2415 PROVIDES A PRACTICAL FIX.
IT ALLOWS FOLSOM TO SHIFT
THOSE OBLIGATIONS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AREAS NEAR
OUR TWO ADDITIONAL LIGHT RAIL STATIONS, PLACES
SPECIFICALLY PLANNED FOR HIGH DENSITY
AND MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE.
AB 2415 SHOWS THAT THE STATE CAN SUPPORT HOUSING PRODUCTION
WHILE RESPECTING THE HISTORIC RESOURCES
COMMUNITIES ARE WORKING TO PRESERVE.
WE CAN MEET STATEWIDE HOUSING GOALS
WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE PLACES THAT TELL OUR SHARED STORY.
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR.
I VOTE ON AB 2415.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO AHEAD.
YES, SURE.
THE ROSA COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS GERRY BRUNO,
OWNER OF RENAULT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
WE'VE BEEN DEVELOPING
AND BUILDING IN FOLSOM FOR OVER 35 YEARS.
IN 1990, OUR FIRST DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED A 400 UNIT MULTIFAMILY
PROJECT, THE LARGEST IN FOLSOM AT THE TIME.
TODAY, WE JUST COMPLETED
THE GRADING OF A THREE STORY MIXED USE BUILDING ACROSS
FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT LIGHT RAIL STATION,
WITH A DENSITY OF 762 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
I'M HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF 2415
BECAUSE IT GIVES CITIES LIKE FOLSOM A PRACTICAL WAY
TO MEET HOUSING OBLIGATIONS WITHOUT COMPROMISING
AN IRREPLACEABLE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AS A DEVELOPER, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR
WE ARE BUILDING HOUSING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE'RE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE DISTRICT
SMALL BLOCKS, NARROW STREETS, LIMITED INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND UNIQUE HISTORICAL CHARACTER.
THESE ARE NOT ABSTRACT CONCERNS.
THERE ARE REAL PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT DEFINE
WHAT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE.
OUR PROJECTS ARE MODEST AND SCALE
DESIGNED TO FIT THE ARCHITECTURAL FABRIC
OF THE EXISTING STREETSCAPE, ADDING NEW HOMES,
ADUS AND MIXED USE PROJECTS
WITHOUT OVERWHELMING THE INFRASTRUCTURE
OR OVERSHADOWING THE HISTORIC ASSETS.
THIS IS THE KIND OF CONTEXT APPROPRIATE DEVELOPER
DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH THAT KEEPS THE DISTRICT VIBRANT.
IF WE WERE TO BUILD TO DENSITIES
MANDATED UNDER THE EXISTING LAW,
THE RESULT WOULD BE OUT OF SCALE, OUT OF CHARACTER,
AND OUT OF STEP WITH WHAT MAKES HISTORIC
FOLSOM ECONOMICALLY AND CULTURALLY SUCCESSFUL.
AB 2415 STRIKES A BALANCE
THAT ALLOWS THE HIGH DENSITY
OBLIGATIONS TO SHIFT TO PARTS OF FOLSOM
THAT CAN SUPPORT THE HEIGHTS, INTENSITY
AND HAS MODERATE INFRASTRUCTURE,
ESPECIALLY IN THE TRANSFER ORIENTED FRICTION
OF THE CITY'S TWO ADDITIONAL LIGHT RAIL STATIONS.
THESE ARE AREAS WHERE LARGER PROJECTS MAKE SENSE,
AND WERE DEVELOPERS LIKE ME
CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER HOUSING PRODUCTION.
THE STATE IS ASKING FOR.
THIS BUILD DOESN'T REDUCE HOUSING.
IT PUTS HOUSING WHERE IT BELONGS,
WHILE ALLOWING HISTORIC DISTRICTS
TO CONTINUE CONTRIBUTING IN WAYS COMPATIBLE
WITH THEIR SCALE AND PURPOSE. I SINCERELY
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR.
I VOTE ON AB 2415. THANK YOU.
WE'LL BE ASKING HERE.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2415?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
MEMBERS KATHY COLE, A HISTORIC FOLSOM RESIDENT
AS WELL AS THE VICE CHAIR
OF THE HISTORIC FOLSOM DISTRICT COMMISSION.
AND I URGE YOUR I VOTE THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
TONY GONZALEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PRESERVATION FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR BOTH THE HOUSING
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES FOR EXCELLENT ANALYZES.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS JASON GONZALEZ, ALSO REPRESENTING THE CITY OF FOLSOM.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE BILL DOES HAVE
STATEWIDE APPLICABILITY IF THE CITIES MEET THE CRITERIA
AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE CHAIR,
THE COMMITTEE AND THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YES. OH, MAKE A MOTION,
SENATOR.
NO, NO, WE HAVEN'T DONE OPPOSITION UPDATE.
CAN I CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? OH, YES.
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
AND THIS IS VERY NARROWLY TAILORED
WHEN I HEARD THAT OPPOSITION.
OH, I'M SORRY.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
ASSUMPTIVE THAT, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.
IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2415
SEEING NONE NOW,
SO EAGER TO TALK ABOUT THIS BILL.
NO, BUT I JUST WANT TO
THANK ASSEMBLYMEMBER HOOVER, BRINGING THIS FOR
THIS IS A VERY NARROWLY
TAILORED BILL TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF FOLSOM.
BUT THERE MIGHT BE APPLICABILITY TO OTHER CITIES IN CALIFORNIA.
AND,
YOU KNOW,
SB 79 WAS A GROUNDBREAKING LAW,
BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WERE THINGS
THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO FIX.
I THINK THIS IS ONE AREA
WHERE WE'RE WE'RE MAKING, I THINK, A VERY, NARROW CHANGE,
TO IMPLEMENT THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF THE LAW.
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH SENATOR WIENER
ON THIS AS WELL IN THE SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE.
AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MOTION
YOU MOVE, SENATOR CHOY, MOVE TO MOVE THE BILL.
SENATOR CHOY YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU.
SB 79 IS THE LAW.
IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND.
AND SO WE HAVE TO RESPECT IT,
BUT WE'RE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT WE'RE VERY CAREFUL
ABOUT HOW IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED IF IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO WRAP UP?
ABSOLUTELY. APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS.
AND THE SUPPORT.
I THINK IT IS NOTABLE THERE IS NO OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL.
I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE WORKED
WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE THAT, WE'RE NOT,
YOU KNOW, EXEMPTING ANYBODY WITH THIS.
WE'RE SIMPLY ALLOWING, COMMON SENSE SHIFTS
TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN A COMMUNITY THAT'S VERY PRO HOUSING.
AND, I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT
AND WHAT I ASKED FOR, AND I THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATORS TO RUSSELL I RUSSELL I CHOI I CHOI I I AGAIN
I THINK I ASHBY CERVANTES SURROUNDS US I LAIRD SATO
I SEE TO I50 THE BILL IS ON CALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND FINALLY WORK FINALLY.
WE'RE HAVING A 4TH OF JULY PARADE TONIGHT.
SO THE GOOD NEWS. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HERMITIAN.
FOR YOU'VE BEEN SO PATIENT.
I'VE ENJOYED IT.
AND YOU SAY YOU FALLING ASLEEP?
OKAY. YOU MAY PROCEED.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THE BILL IS, A SIMPLE AB 79 CLEAN UP BILL AS WELL.
SB 79 WAS,
A GROUNDBREAKING BILL AS WE HEARD IT, IN TERMS
OF PROTECTING HISTORIC RESOURCES,
DID NOT MAKE CLEAR
THAT HISTORIC RESOURCES ON A STATE OR NATIONAL REGISTRY
WERE PROTECTED.
THIS BILL CLARIFIES THAT THE NOT ONLY LOCAL
HISTORIC RESOURCES, BUT HISTORIC DISTRICTS,
ANYTHING INCLUDED ON A STATE
OR NATIONAL REGISTER WOULD BE, PROTECTED AS WELL.
SO WE WE VIEW THIS AS A, A VERY NARROW CLARIFICATION
BILL HERE WITH ME IS CARRIE ROSS FROM THE CITY OF PASADENA.
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
GO AHEAD.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE. YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
KAREN ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PASADENA,
PASADENA IS DEFINED BY OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES
AND OUR DECADES LONG COMMITMENT TO PRESERVATION,
INCLUDING OLD PASADENA,
THE CIVIC CENTER, AND THE PASADENA PLAYHOUSE.
AS WAS NOTED IN OUR SB 79, CITIES CAN DELAY
THE LAW'S IMPACT UNTIL THE SEVENTH CYCLE OF RENA
FOR RESOURCES
PLACED ON A LOCAL REGISTER BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2025.
THAT PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO RESOURCES
THAT ARE ON THE STATE
OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.
THIS BILL FIXES THAT GAP THAT COVERS
RESOURCES ON ANY LOCAL, STATE, OR NATIONAL REGISTER
AND EXPRESSLY INCLUDES HISTORIC DISTRICTS
AND PASADENA TAKES HOUSING VARIOUS
THE HOUSING CRISIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
WE'VE WORKED TO ADD HOUSING OR TRANSIT
WHILE PROTECTING OUR HISTORIC FABRIC,
INCLUDING THROUGH PROCESSES LIKE ADAPTIVE REUSE.
WE HAVE THE FORMER STEWART PHARMACEUTICAL BUILDING
ACROSS THE STREET FROM A TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT STOP, AND IT'S NOW SURROUNDED
BY SUCCESSFUL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THIS BILL LETS US KEEP DOING BOTH
BUILDING HOUSING AND HONORING PRESERVATION.
WE ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2576?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS TAKING SOLACE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION.
THANK YOU.
SO MEMBER HERE BEATING FOR AN INTERESTING BILL
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
CLAIRE SULLIVAN, ON BEHALF OF THE CITIES
OF GLENDALE AND SAN MATEO IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYBODY ELSE IN SUPPORT?
IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 2576
MOVED?
THE AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS KAREN STOUT HERE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA AND BE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE TO.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
JORDAN GRIMES, ON BEHALF OF GREENBELT ALLIANCE.
WE WERE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CO-SPONSOR OF SB 79.
IN OPPOSITION.
YES, SENATOR.
ITEM MOVES THE BILL.
COMMENTS. QUESTIONS.
SENATOR. OREGON.
I WANT TO JUST MAKE SIMILAR COMMENTS TO THE PEOPLE
I MADE FOR THE PREVIOUS BILL.
THIS IS A VERY NARROWLY TAILORED BILL.
THAT DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF SB 79.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING
WITH SENATOR WIENER ON THE BILL.
CERTAINLY RESPECT THE OPPOSITION.
BUT FRANKLY, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,
THERE WERE THINGS THAT WE KNEW WE HAD TO CLARIFY.
AND IN CASE IN POINT, THE ADMINISTRATION ISSUED
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT TO
CLARIFY SOME ASPECTS OF SB 79 THAT WERE VERY UNCLEAR.
THE ORIGINAL STATUTE,
AND I THINK THIS IS A VERY NARROWLY TAILORED AMENDMENT
THAT HONORS THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF THE LAW.
AND, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEE, NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
TAKE THE VOTES.
OH. I'M SORRY.
CLOSING REMARKS.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THE BILL.
THANK YOU, TO THE CHAIR OF HOUSING FOR ALL HIS WORK
AND RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR, AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATOR RUSSELL.
HI THERE.
ALSO I CHOI CHOI I ORIGIN OF AGAIN I ASHBY.
CERVANTES.
CERVANTES. I'M BLAIR SATO.
SATO I50.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE BILLS ON CALL.
WE HAVE
THREE MORE BILLS THAT WE'RE WAITING FOR.
THE AUTHORS.
TO GO ON.
DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE OR GO ON PAUSE.
ANY WORD? NO.
WE'RE GOING TO LIFT THE CALL ON BILLS
THAT WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON.
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE, AB 306.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR ZERO, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
I SENATORS, I BEGIN I MEAN, I ASHBY.
LAIRD 350.
OKAY, SO WHAT WAS THE VOTE?
FIVE ZERO.
UNCLE.
GOOD AFTERNOON,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
WELCOME.
WE ARE MOVING ON WITH YOUR BILL.
AB 2635. WELCOME.
AND YOU MAY GET STARTED.
YEAH.
CAN I JUST LET THEM KNOW THAT? YES.
SHE'S GOING GONNA LET THEM KNOW WE'RE UP REALLY FAST.
OKAY. I'LL START.
OKAY.
WE COUNT OURSELVES LUCKY TO
GET SLIPPED IN RIGHT NOW, SO.
I'LL JUST.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND START.
I WANT TO, FIRST ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS,
AND THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR ANALYSIS AND WORK ON THIS.
CALIFORNIA IS HOME TO NEARLY
ONE THIRD OF THE NATION'S LANDSCAPING WORKFORCE.
OH. CALIFORNIA IS HOME TO NEARLY
ONE THIRD OF THE NATION'S LANDSCAPING WORKFORCE.
AB 2635 THE JUST TRANSITION FOR LANDSCAPERS
ACT IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT CALIFORNIA'S CLEAN
AIR POLICIES MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY THAT IS BOTH EFFECTIVE
AND EQUITABLE FOR OUR LAWN AND GARDENING WORKFORCE.
THE JUST TRANSITION FOR LANDSCAPERS
ACT DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS.
IT REQUIRES
AIR DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT VOUCHER PROGRAMS
THAT HELP COVER THE COST OF ELECTRIC LAWN EQUIPMENT,
SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION,
ESTABLISHES PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR IMMIGRANT WORKERS,
AND SETS A REASONABLE ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE
THAT DOES NOT PUT LOW WAGE WORKERS IN A DEEPER
FINANCIAL HOLE.
MORE THAN 100,000 LANDSCAPERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA MAINTAIN
AND BEAUTIFY OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, SCHOOLS, PARKS AND BUSINESSES.
CALIFORNIA BANNED THE SALE OF NEW GAS
POWERED SMALL OFF-ROAD ENGINES,
INCLUDING THOSE USED IN LAWN EQUIPMENT, IN 2024.
ALTHOUGH THE USE OF GAS LAWN EQUIPMENT IS NOT BANNED
IN CALIFORNIA,
OVER 60 MUNICIPALITIES IN CALIFORNIA RESTRICT OR BAN
GAS LAWN MOWERS OR LEAF BLOWERS IN THEIR JURISDICTIONS.
AB 2635 ESTABLISHES A FAIR AND PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK
TO HELP LANDSCAPERS COMPLY WITH THESE CHANGING REQUIREMENTS
BY REQUIRING LAWN EQUIPMENT VOUCHER PROGRAM
A LAWN EQUIPMENT VOUCHER PROGRAM.
THE BILL REMOVES UPFRONT COST BARRIERS FOR LOW WAGE WORKERS
WHO OPERATE ON THIN MARGINS
AND HELP ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION ON THE GROUND.
THE BILL REMOVES PROGRAM BARRIERS,
INCLUDING ACCEPTING ALTERNATIVE FORMS
OF DOCUMENTATION IN PLACE OF A BUSINESS LICENSE
OR INFORMAL WORKERS
AND DELIVERERS TO ACCESS ZERO EMISSION LAWN EQUIPMENT.
IT ALSO TAKES A BALANCED APPROACH
BY ADOPTING AN ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK
THAT NEITHER CRIMINALIZES THE USE OF GAS POWERED
LAWN EQUIPMENT, NOR IMPOSES UNREASONABLE FINES.
I HAVE WITH ME WITH ME TODAY,
JOSH DAVID, A LANDSCAPER FROM ALTADENA, AND DANIELA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.
WHEN A SERVICE.
BIENVENIDO.
I JUST,
WHEN, WHEN I START THIS, I MEAN, THIS WAS A LADY.
ALONSO. YO, VENGO DE LA CIUDAD DE.
WHAT THE MALA IS IS E TRABAJO COMO HA DINERO
VEO IN LA CIUDAD DE ALTADENA.
PERO LOS IN SAN JOSE SAID THE ITEM AFFECTED
WHO IS INGRESOS JACKIE LAS CASAS ON THE TRABAJAR
FUERON CONSUMIDORES POR LA JAMAS
COMO RESULTADO ME TRABAJO FOR SHADOW
SIDO SALUDOS DE AS PER SE.
MAN AHORA TENGO CONSEGUIR
NO I WAS CLIENTES PARA MEJORAR MAS INGRESOS A CAREER.
LOS GATOS
PARA LA CIUDAD ESTA PIDIENDO OKAY
CAMBIA MOST NUESTRO EQUIPO DE TRABAJO I TALENT.
ESTAMOS HACIENDO MAQUINA DE GASOLINA E NO SAYS BREXIT
HINDER COMPROMISE MARQUINHOS ELECTRIC ESSO IMPLICATE LAGOS.
YAKI RAMIREZ AND DIELECTRIC
DNA UN ALTO COSTA ECONOMICO.
WHAT I WHAT I CALL THE CONOCER EL CENTRO DE TRABAJO.
THE IN THE MESS LOYA ACERCA
DE ELLOS PARA VER SI ME PUEDEN
AYUDAR CONSEGUIR TRABAJOS PARA MEJORAR MRS.
MAR DE VIDA.
I OWN CAMERA GUSTO
ME TRABAJO COMO HA DINERO PORQUE ES CLIENTES HISPANOS ALIASES
COMO SERVICIO A SWIMMING POOLS A SEGUIR
ADELANTE TRABAJO
OKAY IGUANA VACATION
UN VECINO MAINSAIL TODO POR EL MOTIVO.
AS FAR USANDO UNA DE GASOLINA,
DIJO CAMA ERA A REPORTAGE CON LA CIUDAD JUAREZ.
SE MOTIVO ESTOY AQUI REPRESENTANTE IS COLEGAS
CARDINALS JACKIE.
ELLOS TAMBIéN ES VAN PASANDO POR EL MISMO PROBLEMA
COMO SUDAN NO COMPRENDO CARA VAMOS QUEDAR EL
AMBIENTE E TAMBIéN MUESTRA SALAS PEDRO NECESITAMOS THE SUPPORT.
GRACIAS.
HELLO MY NAME IS SAM AND I'M WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZING NETWORK AND I'LL BE TRANSLATING.
HELLO. MY NAME IS DAVID ALONSO.
I CAME TO THIS COUNTRY
FOR MY TAMALA AS AND WORK AS A LANDSCAPER.
I LIVE IN ALTADENA,
BUT THE FIRES THAT OCCURRED AFFECTED MY WORK AND MY INCOME
BECAUSE THE HOUSES
WHERE I WORKED WERE DESTROYED BY THE FLAMES.
AS A RESULT, MY WORK HAS BEEN REDUCED TO JUST TWO DAYS A WEEK.
NOW I HAVE TO FIND NEW CLIENTS TO INCREASE MY INCOME AND COVER
MY EXPENSES.
BUT THE CITY IS ASKING US TO SWITCH OUR EQUIPMENT.
CURRENTLY, WE'RE USING GAS POWERED MACHINES.
AND THEY'RE.
WE CRYING OR CRYING US TO BUY ELECTRIC ONES,
WHICH MEANS DOUBLE THE EXPENSE.
SINCE ELECTRIC TOOLS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE,
I'VE JUST LEARNED ABOUT THE PASADENA COMMUNITY JOB CENTER.
I'M REACHING OUT TO THEM TO SEE
IF THEY CAN HELP ME FIND JOBS TO IMPROVE MY QUALITY OF LIFE.
ALTHOUGH I ENJOY WORKING AS A LANDSCAPER
BECAUSE MY CLIENTS ARE HAPPY WITH MY SERVICE
AND THAT MOTIVATES ME TO KEEP DOING MY JOB.
HOWEVER, ON ONE OCCASION, A NEIGHBOR INSULTED ME
FOR USING A GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWER
AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO REPORT ME TO THE CITY.
THAT IS WHY I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY
FELLOW LANDSCAPERS, AS THEY ARE ALSO FACING THE SAME PROBLEM.
AS A CITIZEN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE MUST PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
AND OUR HEALTH.
BUT WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR DURISO AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DANIELA, AND I AM A POLICY ANALYST
AT THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER.
WE ARE A STATEWIDE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
AND PROUD CO-SPONSORS OF AB 2635.
IN THE PAST YEAR, CALIFORNIA HAS TAKEN KEY STEPS
TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION BY TRANSIT,
TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM GAS POWERED LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT.
IN 2021, AB 1346 PASSED, BEGINNING THAT PHASE OUT OUTSIDE
EQUIPMENT, HIGHLIGHTING CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT
TO IMPROVING AIR QUALITY ACROSS THE STATE.
HOWEVER,
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE NOTICED
IS THAT IN ORDER FOR THAT TRANSITION TO SUCCEED,
IT MUST ALSO INCLUDE THE VOICES OF THOSE
MOST IMPACTED, LIKE LANDSCAPERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
THE REALITY IS THAT THOUSANDS OF THE WORKERS WHO MAINTAIN
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, PARKS, SCHOOLS AND BUSINESSES
ARE IMMIGRANTS, SMALL
INDEPENDENT LANDSCAPERS, OR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
THEY DO PHYSICALLY DEMANDING WORK
THAT KEEPS OUR COMMUNITY HEALTHY AND BEAUTIFUL.
YET MANY FACE BARRIERS
THAT MAKE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCESS THE EXACT
THE EXISTING VOUCHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE SUPPOSED
TO SUPPORT THEIR TRANSITION TO ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT.
THIS INCLUDES LANGUAGE BARRIERS, BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIREMENTS,
UPFRONT COSTS AND,
FOR SOME, FEAR OF INTERACTING WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
THAT HAVE LEFT MANY WORKERS BEHIND
WITHOUT MEANINGFUL SUPPORT FOR THE TRANSITION.
LOCAL BANS ON GAS POWERED EQUIPMENT COULD ALSO COULD ALSO
AND DO PUSH HARD
WORKING FAMILIES INTO DEBT THROUGH FINES AND PENALTIES,
EVEN WHEN THEY DO WANT TO COMPLY BUT SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD
NEW EQUIPMENT.
OUR WORKERS HAVE SHARED
THAT MANY OF THEM WHO ARE HERE TODAY HAVE SHARED THAT
TRANSITIONING THEIR EQUIPMENT
TO ELECTRIC COULD COST ANYWHERE BETWEEN 3000 TO $5000.
THIS AMOUNT INCREASES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
THIS BILL OFFERS AN ALTERNATIVE MORE JUST PATH.
MORE JUST PATH.
WE'VE RECEIVED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
IN TWO OF OUR COMMITTEES WITH THE MOST RECENT SEVEN ZERO
VOTE IN CHINA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
IT EXPANDS ACCESS TO VOUCHER PROGRAMS, ACCEPTS ALTERNATIVE
DOCUMENTATION, PROTECTS APPLICANTS PRIVACY, AND ENSURES
THAT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS HAVE VOUCHER PROGRAMS
AVAILABLE TO WORKERS CONTINGENT ON STATE FUNDING.
WITH THIS BILL, CALIFORNIA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW
THAT CLIMATE POLICY AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE GO HAND IN HAND.
LET'S PROVIDE THE TOOLS
TO MAKE THIS TRANSITIONAL EQUITABLE
FOR WORKERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
WE SHOULD NEVER FORCE WORKERS, LANDSCAPERS
AND SMALL BUSINESSES TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SUPPORTING THEIR FAMILY
AND COMPLYING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE FOR, AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, WHO IS HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2635?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
HI. GOOD AFTERNOON.
LUCAS, FROM THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF POLICY
AT INCLUSIVE ACTION FOR THE CITY
AND A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN SUPPORT.
I'M ALSO HERE TO PROVIDE A ME2 FOR, KELSEY CCI,
WHICH IS A COALITION OF OVER 40, CDPHE
IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS CAL SOTO,
WORKERS RIGHTS DIRECTOR AT THE NATIONAL DAY LABORER
ORGANIZING NETWORK, AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HI.
MY NAME IS GIOVANNI ROSELLE. I'M HERE WITH DELANO.
AND AS A MEMBER OF GRUPO ALTO DEFENSA RAPID RESPONSE NETWORK.
AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
HELLO.
MY NAME IS KAZU RIVERA.
I'M COMING FROM PASADENA,
THE EPICENTER, AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE BILL.
THAT'S. YES.
HELLO, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS NANCY.
I'M AN ORGANIZER WITH THE NATIONAL DAY
LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK.
AND THE. I SET UP SOUTH EAST L.A.
NETWORK, AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU.
WILL NOT START THIS MINIMALIST REZA SANCHEZ.
BINGO.
BUT YOU ARE AN ALLY.
BANK DISTRICT I CINCO DE PASADENA, NEON CENTER.
GRACIAS.
HI. MY NAME IS MARIA RIVERA.
I COME FROM ALTADENA.
I COME SUPPORT THE BILL.
LAST YEAR,
WHEN THE CITY LAWYERS VENGO REPRESENT UNDER COMMITTED
ALTADENA CALIFORNIAN WELL A LA PROPUESTA.
WHEN YOU SAY AND I THINK OF.
GRACIAS, GRACIAS.
WHEN I START THIS, I MEAN NOBODY ROGER CRUZ
WHEN HE MOVES THE REPRESENT AND ALL THE THE
THE JUDGE CENTER THE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA ANIMALS.
PAULA.
I MEAN THEY DECIDE TRYING TO SING ALOHA DINERO.
GRACIAS. MACIAS.
WHEN I
START THIS ME IS BLANCA VENGO REPRESENT.
DANIEL. COMMITTEE.
CUATRO DE ALTADENA. FIGUEROA.
EVEN THOUGH I SEE A LADY BANK DISASTER.
ENTICING. GRACIAS, GRACIAS.
WHEN I START, THERE MAY NOT BE MATTER.
MANGO COURT EL GRUPO.
THEY BEHAVE IN.
WHEN I START THIS, MY NUMBER IS BLANCA PEREZ.
SO LELE DEL COMITé CUATRO.
SO MOST OF RUBY IN THIS DEL INCENDIO
THAT YOU DON'T IN ALTADENA.
ESTAMOS HACIENDO SUPPORT AND WITH TRAS CARDINALS
DE LA CIUDAD DE LA ABBY
VENTI SAY DRINK DE CINCO.
GRACIAS. YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS HERMAN BARAHONA
WITH THE SACRAMENTO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION.
WE'RE HERE
IN YOLO, SACRAMENTO AND PLACER COUNTY,
AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS FINN WEST.
I'M A COMMUNITY MEMBER AND I'M VOICING MY SUPPORT FOR THE BILL.
THANK YOU.
HI. MY NAME IS ALEX MENENDEZ.
I AM THE CEO FROM ALBA AND I AM HERE FOR SUPPORT.
2635. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THE.
HI EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS EDUARDO FROM SALVA AT PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA
AND I SUPPORT, 2635.
THANK YOU.
ONCE THAT NUMBER IS READY TO RECEIVE THE ORGANIZATION.
SALVA AND BUNDLE IN TAMBIéN
PARA, SUPPORT LA LA LA PROPOSITION.
BY CINCO GRACIAS.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS EMILY YELLA.
AND ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION
FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS, WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHLOE, MCO WITH THE CALIFORNIA
IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY.
MY NAME IS RAPHAEL GUERREIRO AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ
WITH THE MESSAGE GROUP
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER
AND IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? SEEING NONE.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2635?
GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS.
YEAH. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. THANK. YES.
THANK YOU.
BRENDAN TUREK, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THOSE ARE THE,
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS FROM ALL 35 LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS.
WE'RE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE AUTHOR AND SPONSORS
ARE TRYING TO HELP WORKERS
FINANCIALLY AND PROTECT THEIR HEALTH.
AND WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AIR DISTRICTS ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR IMPROVING AIR QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
FOR THE MOST PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
WITH THE LIMITED DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE.
DISTRICTS DETERMINE
HOW FUNDING IS DIRECTED BASED ON
THEIR FEDERAL ATTAINMENT STANDARDS.
STATUS. EXCUSE ME.
AND ALSO REGIONAL AND LOCAL PRIORITIES,
DISTRICTS DO SUPPORT LAWN AND GARDEN INCENTIVE PROGRAMS.
AND IN FACT, APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE STATE'S POPULATION
RESIDES IN A DISTRICT ALREADY OFFERING A PROGRAM.
BUT I HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT THESE PROGRAMS
DON'T COMPETE WITH HEAVY DUTY PROJECTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS.
AND THEN ALSO, THE BILL CREATES A NEW MANDATE
FOR MANY DISTRICTS TO ESTABLISH AN ENTIRELY NEW PROGRAM,
WHICH WE DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
AND WHILE THE AMENDMENTS CONTAIN CONTINGENT
APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE,
IF ANY MONEY IS PROVIDED,
THEN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL APPLY.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENS
IF FUNDING IS PROVIDED ONE YEAR AND THEN GOES AWAY?
DO WE LAY OFF STAFF HIRED TO DEVELOP AND RUN THE PROGRAMS?
AND IF FUNDING IS INADEQUATE, WILL DISTRICTS
HAVE TO PULL RESOURCES AWAY FROM OTHER IMPORTANT PROGRAMS
THAT ARE RESULTING IN GREATER PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS?
THIS ALSO COULD CREATE AN UNFUNDED STATE
REIMBURSABLE MANDATE, IN SOME DISTRICTS.
IN FACT, STAFF COSTS TO DEVELOP AND ADMINISTER THESE PROGRAMS,
COULD BE MORE
THAN THE INCENTIVES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE OFFERED.
AND LAST, I'LL JUST SAY THAT, THE BILL
REQUIRES DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN ANY LANGUAGE.
AND THERE'S OVER 200 LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN CALIFORNIA.
SO WHILE WE APPRECIATE WHAT THE WHAT THE GOAL IS,
WE THINK THERE'S SOME REAL ISSUES ON ON WHAT'S IN THE BILL.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ALAN ABS.
I'M THE LEGISLATIVE OFFICER FOR THE BAY AREA
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THE NINE COUNTY
REGIONAL AGENCY.
AND, AND OUR BOARD IS COMPRISED OF, 24 COUNTY
SUPERVISORS AND CITY MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WE'VE HAD, AN OPPOSING, LESS OPPOSING,
LESS AMENDED POSITION, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW.
SO I JUST WANTED TO
BRIEFLY OFFER THE BAY AREA AIR DISTRICT'S PERSPECTIVE.
WE WE CURRENTLY DO OFFER A PILOT PROGRAM, LAWN
AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT,
PROGRAM WITHIN OUR FOUR AB, 617 COMMUNITIES.
BUT WE ALSO TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY THAT WE HAVE
TO, MAKE GOOD USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS.
AND SO, SO WE DO HAVE REQUIREMENTS,
FOR, BUSINESS LICENSES, TO KNOW,
THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE USING THE EQUIPMENT
WITHIN THE AREAS THAT THEY REPRESENT.
AND WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 1090 NINES,
TO FOLKS, WHEN WE GIVE AWAY TAXPAYER MONEY.
AND SO, SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO AT LEAST KNOW
THAT WHEN WE PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THESE PROGRAMS,
THAT IT'S BEING PROVIDED TO SOMEONE,
THAT'S GOING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO, SO WE'RE CONCERNED
THAT, THAT AB 2635 CREATES SOME, REQUIREMENTS
THAT REALLY WOULDN'T ALIGN
WITH, WITH THE WAY WE TREAT FUNDING IN OUR CARL
MOYER PROGRAM RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS WHERE WE FUND,
OUR LAWN AND GARDEN PROGRAM OUT OF AND AND 2635
WOULD REQUIRE US
TO CREATE A BRAND NEW PROGRAM IF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE,
WHICH WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM OUR EXISTING PROGRAM.
AND AS, MY COUNTERPART SAID, IF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE
AND THEN NOT AVAILABLE, WE END UP CREATING A NEW PROGRAM,
GETTING RID OF THE PROGRAM, CREATING IT AGAIN
AS FUNDING BECOMES AVAILABLE OR NOT AVAILABLE.
AND THEN JUST LAST, I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT 2635,
CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT APPEAR TO LIMIT OUR ABILITY
TO ENSURE COUNTY ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES ARE IN PLACE.
AND WE DO SUPPORT PRIVACY.
AND AND WHAT THE OVERALL GOAL OF THIS BILL IS.
BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME OVERLY BROAD RESTRICTIONS
ON SHARING OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
IN A WAY THAT COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO PARTNER
WITH THIRD PARTIES IN DISBURSING,
FUNDS UNDER THIS PROGRAM.
AND SO, WITH THAT, I, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2635,
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
ON TABLE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN LUNG
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. SENATOR OREGON.
THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BILL IS CURRENTLY
BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
SO ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS
AND I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THIS MET
BECAUSE I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROVISION
WOULD HAVE, PROHIBITED LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FROM ADOPTING, ENFORCING AN ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING GAS POWERED EQUIPMENT,
UNLESS IT PROVIDES VOUCHERS.
THESE VOUCHERS,
AND AS A FORMER MAYOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
IN A CITY THAT HAS A PROHIBITION ON GAS POWERED, LAMP BLOWERS
AND OTHER, HANDHELD EQUIPMENT, SMALL EQUIPMENT,
WE ABOUT TO THAT POLICY
30 OVER 30 YEARS AGO
FOR A REASON, WHICH IS TO REDUCE,
EMISSIONS AND TO PRESERVE THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY.
SIMILARLY, BERKELEY ADOPTED A POLICY TO BAN
NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE, NEW BUILDINGS
FOR THE SAME REASONS AS WELL.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE BILL, ONE WOULD ESTABLISH
THIS VOUCHER PROGRAM UPON APPROPRIATION OF LEGISLATURE,
AND TWO, WOULD ESTABLISH STATEWIDE ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS
WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
WE ARE TAKING OUT THAT
PREEMPTION SO LOCAL GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T HAVE TO,
WAIT FOR AN AIR DISTRICT TO HAVE
FUNDING FOR A VOUCHER PROGRAM IN ORDER TO ENFORCE.
SO THAT'S SORT OF WHAT THAT MEANS.
AND THEN THE SECOND PIECE, CAN YOU REMIND ME
WHAT YOU JUST SAID? STANDARDS. SO. OH, YES.
GETTING A, A CITY OR COUNTY ADOPT ITS OWN ORDINANCE,
ESTABLISHING CERTAIN ENFORCEMENT.
YEAH.
ORDINANCES WOULD ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS.
YES.
WE ARE PROPOSING IN THE BILL,
A FEE STRUCTURE BASED OFF OF OTHER MODELS,
ONE CURRENTLY IN GLENDALE THAT WE'VE SEEN.
AND I CAN SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
AND HOW WE CAME TO THOSE ADJUSTMENTS.
YEAH. CANNOT BE ENFORCED.
AS A
AND FRACTURE MISDEMEANOR, BUT RATHER WOULD ESTABLISH,
PENALTIES FOR.
YES. AND THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS THAT OCCUR.
YES, EXACTLY.
OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL.
I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE WHAT?
THE BILL IS CURRENTLY IN PRINT NOW.
AND I WILL SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
I DO SHARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED BY
THE AIR DISTRICTS.
BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN SUPPORT THIS,
THIS INDUSTRY.
AND SO, I WILL VOTE FOR THE BILL TODAY.
OKAY.
YES, SENATOR. YES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO HERE WE ARE TWO YEARS LATER.
ALL OF THESE CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED WHEN THE ORIGINAL BILL
WAS GOING THROUGH, INCLUDING THE TIMELINE.
AND WE SAID, WELL, YOU GOT THREE YEARS, YOU GOT TWO YEARS.
A WORK
OBVIOUSLY IT DOES NOT WORK.
WE HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE
THAT HAVE PERFECTLY GOOD EQUIPMENT THAT NOW OUR TIMELINE,
BECAUSE WE HAVE A MANDATE NOW SAYS, OH, YOU GOT TO REPLACE IT.
HERE'S YOUR WINDOW TO REPLACE IT.
AND THEN NEXT YEAR THE CITY'S GOING TO GO HAMMER YOU GUYS WITH
WITH WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
WE HAVE MADE PEOPLE'S LIVES
CONSIDERABLY MORE DIFFICULT,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INFORMAL WORKER AGREEMENT.
YOU KNOW WHAT A PHASE OF PEOPLE THAT GO,
I GO, I WALK MY NEIGHBORHOOD ALL THE TIME,
AND WE HAVE PEOPLE OUT MOWING LAWNS AND DOING ALL THAT STUFF.
THEY'RE TWO SKIPPED WEEKS
FROM NOT HAVING A JOB
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ON A SHORT LEASH WHEN WHEN
IT COMES TO THEIR GARDENING, AND BECAUSE ANOTHER PERSON
WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO IT.
WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THESE MEET THE MANDATES.
WE NEED TO CHANGE SOME OF THESE DATES.
WE NEED TO PUSH SOME OF THESE OFF
SO THAT THEIR EQUIPMENT CAN WEAR OUT,
AND THEY CAN REPLACE THESE THINGS IN A MORE NATURAL WAY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE THE ELECTRIC STUFF
THAT WE'RE MAKING THEM BUY ANY MORE, ANY CHEAPER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THIS
THAT NEVER MADE SENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
AND ESPECIALLY THESE PARTICULAR WORKERS.
IF YOU'VE HAD ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT, WHICH I HAVE,
I AM CONSTANTLY CHANGING THE BATTERIES
AND THE BATTERIES AREN'T 30 BUCKS, THEY'RE 100 BUCKS.
IT'S IMPRACTICAL
FOR THIS SET OF WORKERS
TO BE DOING THIS, AND THE EFFECT ON OUR
ENVIRONMENT IS NEGLIGIBLE IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS.
SO I FEEL BAD FOR THESE FOLKS BECAUSE WE
WE THIS IS WHAT WE WENT AFTER FOUR YEARS OR THREE YEARS AGO
WHEN THIS BILL WAS BEING INTRODUCED.
WAS THIS WAS WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND HERE IT IS
THREE YEARS LATER, THEY'RE UP AGAINST THE DEADLINE.
THEY DON'T WANT TO DO. THEY GOT PERFECTLY
GOOD EQUIPMENT THAT THEY GOT TO THROW AWAY.
AND SOMEHOW WE'RE SOMEHOW WE'RE GOING
TO FIGURE OUT A SYSTEM TO HELP THEM BUY NEW EQUIPMENT.
BUT GUESS WHAT?
NOW THEY HAVE TO BE MORE FORMAL THAN THEY WERE BEFORE.
THEY HAVE TO DO THESE TEN.
THEY HAVE TO DO THEIR 1099.
THEY'VE GOT TO DO ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
WE HAVE MADE PEOPLE'S LIVES VERY, VERY DIFFICULT.
AND THEY'RE THE
PEOPLE THAT THIS BODY, NOT JUST US, BUT OUR ENTIRE BODY,
PROCLAIMED THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO STICK UP FOR THE MOST.
SO, YEAH, HARD FOR ME TO GET BEHIND THIS.
I'D RATHER SEE THE MANDATES PUSHED BACK
SO PEOPLE CAN DO THEIR JOBS AND START PLANNING LONG TERM
TO REPLACE EQUIPMENT AS IT GOES OUT.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO DIE.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR ME PERSONALLY 66 YEARS NOW.
MOWING LAWNS WITH GAS POWERED MOWERS
AND I THE, THE ILL EFFECTS HAVE NOT CAUGHT UP WITH US YET.
I GET IT.
EVERYBODY HAS A JOB.
AND AND EVERYBODY THINKS THAT
IF THEY DON'T DO THEIR JOB, SOMEHOW
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROP DEAD TOMORROW. WE'RE NOT.
WE'RE NOT.
WE NEED TO THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH A LITTLE MORE.
WE NEED TO THINK THROUGH OUR TIMELINES A LITTLE MORE.
WE NEED TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS
ON ALL THESE RIDICULOUS MANDATES THAT WE PUT ON EVERYBODY,
BECAUSE THIS IS THE THIS IS THE END RESULT.
AND, THAT'S WHAT FRUSTRATES ME WITH WITH
WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
YOUR BILL IS NOT A BAD BILL AT ALL.
BUT IT CREATES EVEN MORE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE,
IN THE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING
TO APPLY AND GET THESE VOUCHERS SO THAT THEY CAN REPLACE,
THEY'RE SAYING.
AND IN THE MEANWHILE,
WE GOT CODE ENFORCEMENT COMING TO GET THEM.
I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S ABSURD.
IT'S ABSURD THAT WE DON'T RECOGNIZE THIS DAMAGE
BEFORE IT STARTS.
THAT'S IT. SENATOR ASHBY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND,
YOU KNOW, I OKAY, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU.
EVERYONE WHO CAME MADE THE, JOURNEY TO SACRAMENTO.
I GET TO REPRESENT SACRAMENTO.
SO WELCOME TO MY HOME.
IF THIS IS NOT WHERE YOU'RE FROM
AND IF IT IS WHERE YOU'RE FROM,
CONGRATULATIONS ON LIVING IN GOD'S COUNTRY.
OUR FAVORITE PLACE IN THE STATE, RIGHT?
MARIA ELENA. THERESA. OF COURSE. NO, SHE DOESN'T AGREE.
OKAY.
LISTEN, I THINK THIS IS CALIFORNIA AT ITS BEST.
THIS IS WHAT WE DO.
WE MAKE BIG, AUDACIOUS GOALS.
WE FOCUS ON YOUR HEALTH AND WELL-BEING.
WE MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT AIR QUALITY.
AND WE SAY WE WANT YOU TO LIVE IN HEALTHY COMMUNITIES.
AND THEN IF THERE'S A PROBLEM
WITH THE WAY WE'VE STRUCTURED IT, WE COME BACK
AND WE WRITE ANOTHER BILL AND SAY,
THIS PIECE WE NEED TO FIX AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, THIS IS THE BEST OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS IS DEMOCRACY.
WE SWING FOR THE FENCES.
WE TRY REALLY HARD.
WE MAKE YOUR COMMUNITIES AS STRONG AS WE POSSIBLY CAN,
AS HEALTHY FOR YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR GRANDCHILD
AND YOUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN AS WE CAN POSSIBLY GET THEM.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAKE A COMMITMENT TO HELP YOU
BE ABLE TO EARN A LIVING INCOME, A GOOD LIVING WAGE
FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.
AND IF SOMETHING THAT WE DO
CONFLICTS, WE COME BACK AND WE GRAPPLE WITH IT AGAIN.
WHETHER WE'RE THE
MAYOR OF BERKELEY OR A VICE MAYOR OF SACRAMENTO,
WE TAKE THOSE COMPETING INITIATIVES
AND WE TRY TO FIND A PATHWAY FORWARD.
I'M PROUD OF THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN, AND I'M PROUD OF ALL OF YOU
FOR SHOWING UP HERE TO SHARE YOUR CONCERNS WITH US.
I'M ALSO PROUD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR SETTING BIG GOALS
FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE, AND FOR YOUR FAMILY'S HEALTH,
FOR THE AIR THAT WE BREATHE AND THE WATER THAT WE DRINK
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE SAFE AND THAT YOUR FAMILIES ARE SAFE.
THIS IS A GOOD BILL.
WE'LL FIND THE BALANCE AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO HELP YOU.
AND AT THE SAME TIME,
WE'LL FIGURE OUT
HOW TO BE LESS DEPENDENT ON GASOLINE
SO THAT WE CAN SAVE OUR COMMUNITIES.
I APPRECIATE IT. I SUPPORT THE BILL.
IF DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE A MOTION, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.
ANYBODY ELSE COMMENTS?
SENATOR ADVANCES?
I'D JUST LIKE A BRIEF COMMENT AND JUST, STATE, YOU KNOW?
OF COURSE.
AND I THANK YOU
FOR ALL THOSE WHO SHOWED UP TODAY
IN COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY
AND SHARE THE CHALLENGES AND HARDSHIPS.
CERTAINLY.
AND AND EMPATHIZE WITH THAT AND
WANT TO REACH OUR CLIMATE GOALS HERE IN THE STATE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, FINDING A BALANCED APPROACH TO ACHIEVING
THAT, I KNOW, IS, A DIFFICULT ONE.
CERTAINLY HEARING THE CONCERNS, THAT WERE LAID OUT TODAY,
AS WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS AND CONTINUE MOVING IT FORWARD,
I WILL SUPPORT IT,
GIVEN THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN
AND HOPEFULLY THE CONVERSATIONS THAT, WE'LL CONTINUE
WITH GETTING TO THE GOAL IN MIND.
THANK YOU.
SENATOR.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE SEED.
BIENVENIDOS A TODOS LOS GIVING I IN
PUERTO SIERRA, THE SACRAMENTO, PASADENA.
LET'S, I GOT OF THIS MUCHO
GET THE I ON ITS DAMPER AS THE BIRDS.
WELL, THOSE BUDDHIST ARAKI AS UNDERGRAD
RANDY PARA AND ALSO, THE KNITTED
BALANCE CORRECTO INTO THE UNA AMBIENTE LIMPIA.
BUT LATER LIMPIA YOU TAMBIéN PUEDE
SUSTENANCE ECONOMICAMENTE THAT THE TRABAJO SKIPPED BY THE.
YES. LOOK ESTAMOS AND MISALUCHA.
NO THERE WAS NO THERE VEMOS
THE SCHOOL HEAD INTO THE UNO OR LAUTARO.
TENEMOS A VILLAGE THAT THEN IT WOULDN'T IMPLEMENT
E TAMBIEN EITHER.
LIMPIA BETO MUCHAS VECES PASAMOS LAS SOLO
BENEFICIAL UNO OR LAUTARO INCLUSO.
SO LET'S LOOK AT TENEMOS CAPITAN, DADDY.
GOOD. OKAY.
IS THIS PART ESTAMOS HACIENDO.
KEEP IT UP.
THE SYMBOL MUCHO ESTA ESTA PROPUESTA.
THE LEY IS MUY WINNER.
MUY IMPORTANTE.
OH. HELLO.
VIETNAM WAS THE USA IS SALVATION.
AND THIS LA LA PAKISTAN WAS.
BUT HERE TO LOOK IS LOOK AT STANDING CENTER
MUSEUM US CALLING US SO GRACIAS EU TAMBIéN ESTOY YO.
THIS REALLY, MOST SENATOR ASHBY
CLOSING REMARKS.
YES. I JUST WANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT MOMENTS LIKE THIS DON'T ALWAYS HAPPEN UP HERE.
AND I'M REALLY GRATEFUL,
TO BE HERE TO REPRESENT THIS COALITION
WHO SAT DOWN AND TALKED ABOUT
HOW OUR EXISTING LAWS WERE IMPACTING THEM
AND WHAT WAS WORKING AND WHAT WASN'T FOR LANDSCAPERS.
IT'S IT'S NOT JUST A JOB. IT'S ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
IT'S HOMEOWNERSHIP. IT'S SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSHIP.
AND THIS BILL SHOWCASES THAT.
THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO OPT OUT OF OUR CLEAN AIR GOALS.
THEY WANT A CHANCE TO HELP MEET THEM.
AND SO, BY CREATING A REALISTIC PATHWAY
THAT MAINTAINS THEIR LIVELIHOOD
AND KEEPS US ON TRACK TO MEET OUR GOALS.
SO THANK YOU FOR HEARING US TODAY.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST ARRIVAL.
THANK YOU.
MOTION MADE BY SENATOR ASHBY.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATION.
SENATORS RUSSELL I.
RUSSELL I CHOY I BEGIN, I BEGIN I ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES.
I LAIRD.
SALGADO.
FOR ZERO.
OKAY.
TWO MORE BILL. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GRACIAS. OKAY, SO WE HAVE
THIS, AND THIS GOES FIRST.
NEXT ON ON THE LIST IS,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ADAMS.
THIS IS ABBY.
ABBY, 2254.
WHAT'S YOUR ITEM NUMBER? 26.
OH FIVE.
NUMBER.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
YOU MAY PROCEED WITH,
AB 2254, MADAM CHAIR.
LOOKS LIKE, PREVIOUS WITNESS LEFT SOMETHING. OH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
AND, STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT AB 2254,
THE COASTAL MONARCHS PROTECTION ACT.
AND FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, I'M
GOING TO SHORTEN UP MY COMMENTS AND TURN IT OVER TO
MY WITNESSES.
BUT I DO WANT TO START
BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
AND JUST SAY THAT THIS BILL IS PRETTY SIMPLE
AND STRAIGHTFORWARD IN THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE THAT HAVE MONARCH BUTTERFLY
OVERWINTERING SITES WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION
TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT OVERWINTERING SITE PROTECTION
POLICIES AS A NORMAL PART OF DEVELOPING
THEIR LOCAL COASTAL PLAN.
AND THE PROBLEM FOR MONARCH BUTTERFLIES
AND FOR OUR COASTAL ECONOMIES IS DIRE.
WE HAVE HAD ABOUT A 95% DECREASE IN THE WESTERN
MONARCH POPULATION SINCE THE 1980S,
MEANING THAT THE POPULATION IS AT RISK OF COLLAPSE.
IT'S NOT JUST, ENVIRONMENTAL OR BIODIVERSITY PROBLEM.
IT'S ALSO AN ECONOMIC ISSUE FOR OUR CENTRAL COAST
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE MONARCH OVERWINTERING SITES
THAT, THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE COME TO EVERY YEAR
TO SEE THE MONARCHS, TO SPEND MONEY IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
AND WITH THE DECLINE OF MONARCHS,
WE HAVE SEEN A DECLINE OF VISITORS
COMING TO SEE THE MONARCH.
SO IT'S BOTH A BIODIVERSITY ISSUE
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS, AS WELL AS AN ECONOMIC ISSUE.
WITH THAT, I'VE GOT TWO WITNESSES HERE
WITH ME ANGELA LAUS, ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION BIOLOGIST
AND CLIMATE CHANGE LEAD WITH THE XERXES SOCIETY,
AS WELL AS SCARLETT WHEN HER HOME,
CENTRAL COAST RESIDENT FROM MY DISTRICT AND, ECA
INTERN IN OUR OFFICE
WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE NEAR ONE OF THE OVERWINTERING SITES.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CENTRAL COAST.
AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THEM.
THE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
I AM DOCTOR ANGELA LAWES, CONSERVATION BIOLOGIST
WITH THE XERXES SOCIETY FOR INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION.
OUR ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN WORKING ACROSS CALIFORNIA
FOR DECADES TO CONSERVE MONARCH BUTTERFLIES AND THEIR HABITATS.
THEY DEPEND ON.
AND HERE TODAY, IN STRONG SUPPORT OF AB 2254,
THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR MONARCHS ARE IN TROUBLE.
THE U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE HAS DETERMINED THAT THE MONARCH
BUTTERFLY WARRANTS
LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
THE WESTERN MONARCH COUNT HAS DOCUMENTED ONLY 12,000
MONARCHS LAST WINTER, DOWN FROM MILLIONS IN THE 1980S.
THESE EXTREMELY LOW POPULATION NUMBERS PUT WESTERN
MONARCHS AT RISK OF SERIOUS COLLAPSE.
OVERWINTERING SITES ARE FORESTED GROVES
ALONG COASTAL CALIFORNIA, AND THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL
FOR MONARCH SURVIVAL.
WITHOUT THESE SITES,
WE WILL NO LONGER HAVE MIGRATORY MONARCH BUTTERFLIES
IN CALIFORNIA.
YET THESE SITES ARE DESTROYED OR SEVERELY DAMAGED EVERY YEAR,
PRIMARILY DUE TO THE TREES WHERE MONARCHS
ROOST BEING TOPPED OR CUT DOWN.
ONCE THESE OVERWINTERING GROVES ARE LOST,
THEY'RE IMPOSSIBLE TO RECREATE.
WHILE SOME REGULATORY PROTECTIONS EXIST
THROUGH THE COASTAL ACT,
THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT GAPS
AND INCONSISTENCIES IN IMPLEMENTATION.
AB 2254 OFFERS A PRACTICAL,
TAILORED SOLUTION BY REQUIRING THE ADOPTION
OF OVERWINTERING PROTECTION POLICIES.
THIS BILL CREATES CLARITY AND PREDICTABILITY
WHILE PROTECTING VITAL MONARCH HABITATS
FOR THE FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA'S MONARCHS.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR AB 2254.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS SCARLETT WINTER HOME AND I WAS BORN
AND RAISED ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY,
TO SHARE MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR AB 2254
AND WHAT I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND AS A CENTRAL COAST RESIDENT
REGARDING OUR DIMINISHING MONARCH POPULATION.
WHEN I WAS YOUNG,
EVERY FALL USED TO BRING EXCITEMENT AND ANTICIPATION.
OUR LARGE MONARCH POPULATION WOULD FLOOD MY HOMETOWN
WITH PRIDE.
MONARCHS USED TO BE A PART OF MY NORMAL LIFE,
WHETHER THAT WAS FIELD TRIPS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OR WALKS
WITH MY GRANDMOTHER AND PACIFIC GROVE,
IT WAS NORMAL TO BE MET
WITH THE SIGHT OF OUR TOWN'S MASCOT, MONARCH BUTTERFLIES.
WE CALL IT BUTTERFLY TOWN USA, BUT THE TRUTH IS
THAT WILL BE A TERM OF THE PAST.
IF WE DON'T ACT QUICKLY TO PRESERVE
WHAT LITTLE HABITATS WE HAVE LEFT.
AS I SIT HERE TODAY, I CAN'T SAY
THAT TIME OF YEAR BRINGS EXCITEMENT ANYMORE.
NOW IT BRINGS ANXIETY BECAUSE THE MONARCHS I ONCE SAW
AS A ONE, YOUNG GIRL DON'T JOIN ME ON MY WALKS ANYMORE.
THROUGHOUT THE NEXT FEW YEARS, KIDS FROM MY HOMETOWN
WON'T GET THE SAME EXPERIENCE I DID.
INSTEAD OF SEEING THEM ON FIELD TRIPS OR IN THE GARDEN,
THEY'LL LEARN ABOUT THEM IN THE CLASSROOM,
AND THEY'LL LEARN THAT THE REASON THEY DON'T SEE THEM
ANYMORE IS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH TO PROTECT THEM.
THESE HABITATS CAN'T BE REBUILT, FIXED, OR REPLACED,
AND AS WE LOSE MORE OF THEM DUE TO HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
AND CLIMATE CHANGE, ALL US LOCALS CAN DO
IS SPEAK TO LAWMAKERS AND ASK THEM TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY.
THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT BUTTERFLIES.
IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE AS CALIFORNIANS ARE WILLING
TO PROTECT THE PLACES THAT MAKE OUR STATE WORTH.
GROWING UP IN
AB 2254 IS A CHANCE TO DO THAT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
I ASK YOU TO VOTE YES ON AB 2254.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2254?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
MY NAME IS SCOTT COX HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE MID PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT,
THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION
AND THE SEMPER VETERANS FUND HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN SUPPORT?
SEEING NONE.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2254.
NOBODY.
OKAY. NOBODY IN OPPOSITION.
I'LL BRING IT TO THE DAIS ANY.
THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR SALADO.
ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS?
NONE. OKAY.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY
HAS A VERY SPECIAL PLACE IN THE CULTURE, MEXICAN CULTURE.
AND FOR LATINOS,
IT'S BEEN ADOPTED AS A SYMBOL OF THE MIGRATION
THAT HAPPENS, BETWEEN MEXICO, CENTRAL AMERICA
TO THIS COUNTRY AND THE RESILIENCY OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO, PLAYS A VERY SPECIAL ROLE CULTURALLY,
FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.
HAVING SAID THAT, YOU MAY WRAP UP.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
WITH THAT, I'LL USE YOUR COMMENTS
AS OUR CLOSE AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU
ALL. THE VOTE EMOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AND TOURISM.
I TRUSTEE CHOI AND AGAIN I MEAN I, I SPEAK
ASHBY CERVANTES SARANDOS I LAYER
SO YOU ARE OUR SO I50
THE. THANK YOU.
AND OUR LAST BILL ASSEMBLY MEMBER SORIA
WELCOME.
THIS IS BILL AB 2639.
YEAH.
WELCOME.
THANK YOU.
CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS,
AB 2639, IS A VERY SIMPLE BILL WHERE, IT DIRECTS
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE TO ASSESS THE FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT AND MAKE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
ON HOW BEST TO MODERNIZE THE DISTRICT TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COUNTY OF MERCED.
THE MERCED FLOOD CONTROL WAS ESTABLISHED BY AB 2926,
IN 1982 TO RECEIVE AND MANAGE FUNDS
FOR FLOOD MANAGEMENT IN MERCED COUNTY,
IT WAS MODELED ON PREVIOUS LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS THAT THAT BILL GAVE THE COUNTY.
EMER SAID AUTHORITY TO ACT AS THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, 40 YEARS LATER, THE AUTHORITY OF THIS DISTRICT
HAS NOT SEEN SIGNIFICANT USE AND THE FLOOD CONTROL NEEDS OF
THE COUNTY HAVE ONLY GOTTEN MORE COMPLICATED.
IN FACT, IN 2023, THE FIRST YEAR THAT I WAS HERE
IN THE LEGISLATURE, WE HAD THE ATMOSPHERIC RIVERS
AND THE LEVY ON MILES CREEK ENDED UP FAILING,
FLOODING THE COMMUNITY OF A FARMWORKER COMMUNITY,
AND IT DAMAGED AND DESTROYED NEARLY HALF OF ITS HOMES.
EVEN TODAY, THREE YEARS LATER, THE COMMUNITY OF NADA
IS STILL RECOVERING AND SUFFERING FROM A LOT OF PTSD
IN TERMS OF JUST ALL OF THE LOSSES THAT THEY'VE HAD.
THIS BILL ESSENTIALLY WILL HELP,
DIRECT THE FUTURE POLICY ON THE GOVERNANCE OF FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECTS
AND OPERATIONS IN MERCED COUNTY TO ENSURE THAT, ONE,
THESE RESIDENTS HAVE THE BEST PROTECTION
FROM POSSIBLE FLOODING IN THE FUTURE.
AND THE REASON WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT IS THAT
THIS IS THIS WASN'T THE FIRST TIME
THAT WE SAW THIS TYPE OF CATASTROPHIC
FLOODING HAPPEN IN MERCED COUNTY.
IT HAS THIS COUNTY HAS FLOODED MULTIPLE TIMES
IN THE LAST FEW DECADES.
AND SO WE MUST DO MORE.
AND I THINK THAT IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE, YOU KNOW, GETS,
THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ESSENTIALLY HELP THIS COUNTY,
DEVELOP A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE THAT WILL HELP THEM,
ADDRESS THIS RECURRING CHALLENGE, TO BE ABLE
TO NOT JUST CALL FOR THE LONG TERM INVESTMENT THAT IS NEEDED,
BUT ALSO CREATE THE FLOOD PROTECTION
THAT THESE COMMUNITIES DESERVE TO HAVE.
AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE AND JUST.
VERY ELSE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2639
NOBODY C NOBODY
ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2639
NO ONE IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
BILL HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR OREGON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE ALL.
OH I'M SORRY CLOSE UP THE THERE WE ACTUALLY ASKED FOR
AND I VOTE THANK THANK YOU
MOTION IS DO PASS THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ROSTER ALSO THERE
ALSO I CHOY AGAIN AND AGAIN I ASHBY ASHBY
CERVANTES CERVANTES I LAIRD SATO
SATO I50
THE BILL IS ON CALL.
WE'LL GO BACK
GO BACK TO THE BILLS.
OKAY.
SHOULD WE START WITH CONSENT?
YES. SO.
OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO LIFT CALLS
WITH STARTING WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
WHICH CONSISTS OF FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 1622, FILE ITEM
12, AB 1802, FILE ITEM 14, AB 2219,
FILE ITEM 15 AB 2395.
ITEM 20 FOR AB 2512 FOR ITEM 27, AB 2341
SENATORS OREGON I MEAN I.
ASHBY ASHBY. I LAYERED
SIX ZERO
BILLS ON COMP.
ITEM NUMBER ONE AB 306.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FIVE ZERO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING ITEMS.
ASHBY.
ASHBY. LEARY
SIX ZERO.
BILLS ON CALL.
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB NINE AND 12.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS THREE ZERO, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
I CENTERS. OREGON.
I BEGIN I ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES.
I LAIRD SIX ZERO.
BILLS ON CALL FILE
ITEM NUMBER 3AB956.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS ONE TWO SENATORS
I MEAN I BEGIN I ASHBY, ASHBY.
CERVANTES.
I LAIRD.
FOR TWO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB 1751.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS TWO ZERO AND AS JOINT ORIGIN EVERGREEN I.
ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES'S. DESIGN. THERE.
FIVE ZERO BILLS ON CALL FOR.
FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 1457.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS ONE TWO SENATORS. ALI.
ARENA. ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I.
LAIRD
FOR TWO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB 1710.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR ZERO.
SENATORS ARE AGAIN BEGIN. ASHBY.
ASHBY.
BLAIR SIX ZERO.
BILL IS ON CALL FILE I DON'T NUMBER EIGHT AB 1740.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS AS AMENDED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS THREE ZERO.
SENATE IS DUE RUSSELL I THERE ARE SO I I BEGIN I BEGIN
I ASHBY I ASHBY I LAIRD
SIX ZERO
UNCLE THE BILL IS ON CALL
FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE AB 2181.
THE MOTION IS DUE PROCESS.
AND AT FLOOR THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR ZERO.
CENTERS OF AGAIN OVER IN I ASHBY.
ASHBY.
LAIRD SIX ZERO.
BILLS ON CALL.
OH, WE DID A MOTION
18 OH OKAY.
WE NEED A MOTION ON AB 1801
SECOND.
THIS SENATOR ADVANCES MOVES A BILL.
THE MOTION IS DO PASSED AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATOR MR.
RUSSELL I THERE ALSO I JOY
AGAIN I MEAN I ASHBY
ASHBY CERVANTES CERVANTES
I LAYER 0 TO 0 NO.
FOR ONE
BILLS UNCLE.
MOTION.
I NEED A MOTION ON AB 2601 WAS MOVED BY SENATOR,
AND AGAIN THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
SENATOR RUSSELL JR.
ALSO I JOY I BEGIN NOW RECOGNIZE ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES.
I LAIRD CIGAR TO SAY AFTERNOON
FOR ONE BILLS ON CALL.
FILE ITEM NUMBER.
13 AB 1820.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS ONE TWO SENATORS. DEROSA.
ALL RIGHT. THERE ALSO, I
ASHBY.
ASHBY I CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I LAYER.
LAIRD I.
FIVE TWO.
THE BILL IS OUT.
FIVE. TWO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 17 AB 2469.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS TWO ONE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING.
ARE SENATORS OUT AGAIN?
I MEAN, I ASHBY.
ASHBY. LAIRD.
LAIRD I SEE GATO.
CIGAR. TONO.
FIVE TO THE BILLS.
THE BILL IS OUT.
FIVE TO.
WE NEED A MOTION ON AB 2619 SO MOVED BY SENATOR UDELL AGAIN.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR RUSSELL I DO RUSSELL I CHOY THAT AGAIN AGAIN I ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I LAIRD LAIRD I0 TO SEE
I DON'T KNOW.
FIVE ONE BILL.
THE BILL IS OUT BY ONE FILE ITEM NUMBER 19 AB 2074.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS THREE ZERO, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING.
EISNER IS. CHOY. ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I LAIRD. LAIRD I.
SIX ZERO.
BILL IS OUT.
THE BILL IS OUT. SIX ZERO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 20 AB 2080.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR ZERO. WITH THE CHAIR VOTING I.
CENTERS ARE AGAIN 18 I ASHBY.
ASHBY I LAIRD.
LAIRD I70.
THE BILL IS UP SEVEN ZERO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 22 AB 2188.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE SENATE FLOOR,
WITH THE CURRENT VOTE BEING THREE ZERO
AND THE CHAIR VOTING I.
SENATORS.
ORIGIN I BEGIN I ASHBY.
ASHBY I SERVANTS.
CERVANTES I LAIRD.
LAIRD I SEVEN 0 TO 21 YES.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 23 AB 2194.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS TWO ZERO WITH THE CHAIR.
VOTING ARE SENATORS CHOY ARE AGAIN I BEGIN I ASHBY.
ASHBY. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES I LAIRD.
LAIRD I60.
HOUSE
BILL IS UP SIX ZERO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 25 AB 2254.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FIVE ZERO
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING ARE SENATORS JOIN
LAIRD.
LAIRD I60.
BILL IS OUT SIX ZERO
FOR ITEM NUMBER.
YES. FILE ITEM NUMBER 26 AB 2257.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CURRENT VOTE
IS THREE TWO, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING ARE SENATORS ASHBY.
ASHBY I. LAIRD.
LAIRD I.
FIVE TO.
IT GOES OUT.
THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 28 AB 2415.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FIVE ZERO
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING ARE SENATORS ASHBY.
ASHBY. LAIRD.
LAIRD I70.
THE BILL IS OUT.
THESE ARE ITEM NUMBER 29 AB 2576.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CARNIVAL IS FIVE ZERO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING I.
SENATORS ASHBY.
ASHBY I LAIRD.
LAIRD I70.
THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 26.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 30.
AB 2635.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR ZERO.
SENATORS CHOY LAIRD.
LAIRD I050.
THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 31.
THE AB 2639 DO PASS.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FIVE ZERO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING.
EISNER IS CHOY LAIRD I LAIRD I60.
WITH THOSE OUT, THE BILL IS OUT.
THIS BILL
WE NEED TO CONSENT TO THE ONE THROUGH.
YES. YES. YOU ARE
FROM THE
SENATOR.
THAT'S.
SUPERVISOR I THINK YOU HAVE TO BRING THIS
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
JUST THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING OUR CHAIR.
IT WAS REALLY APPRECIATED YOU
THESE PAST THREE YEARS AND, YEARS.
YEAH I KNOW, WE'VE FLOWN THE VICE, BUT WE'RE JUST HERE.
YEAH.
AND SO, YOU KNOW YOU'RE OFF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SO HOPEFULLY YOU GET A LITTLE TRAFFIC THAT YOU
WILL BE THERE FOR YOU
AS THE BEST THING I DO IS UNDO ALL THE DIFFERENCES.
BILL.
NOW THAT'S WHY YOU
IT IS GOING TO BE YOUR BEST FRIEND. IT.
SHOULD BE GETTING
BETTER.
GIVE ME YOUR CELL NUMBER. YEAH.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
WE'VE BEEN EVERY
THE GOVERNMENT FROM 80 YEARS TO MONARCH BUTTERFLIES.
YOU NAME IT. IT COMES TO THE YEAR.
THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES, TO THE STAFF, TO THE CONSULTANTS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SPEAKER.
OH, YEAH.
EVERYBODY WAS THERE. SO
YEAH, IT'S I WANTED I DO FOR EVERYBODY THAT
I KNOW THAT THIS THIS COURSE YOU GUYS HAVE MADE IT
SO MUCH.
COME ON, COME ON, COME ON.
THESE FLOWERS ARE.
I'M SURE THEY'RE BY
BEAUTIFUL.
I'M SURE THE SERGEANT I'M GOING
SAY YES CARLOS YOU'RE HOLDING US UP.
COME ON.
DON'T.
MIND.
WE HAD TO ADD UP.
HOW MANY THINGS
GOOD THIS.
YES. GOOD JOB.
THERE WE GO.
KEEP.
THEM UP A LITTLE.
LIKE THE DAY WE GOT TO.
LIKE ON OUR LAST NIGHT? YES.
I BET YOU IT IS SOMETHING.
WE'LL SEE.
BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL.
LITTLE AGENDA.
OKAY.
OH! OH, MY.
OH, WE'RE NOT DONE. YOU.
WE'RE NOT.
SO WE'RE NOT.
WE'RE NOT QUITE THAT. WE JUST.
WE JUST WANTED TO GET IN THINGS LIKE I.
KNOW.
YEAH. WE'RE NOT DONE YET.
JUST LIFTING A COUPLE MORE BILLS.
HEY, ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW THESE NAMES ON YOUR SHIRT?
YEAH.
I WANT MY NAME TO MAKE.
I WANT MY NAME.
HAHA.
YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO IT WAS.
OKAY, NEXT.
MOSES, GO.
HERE WE GO.
OKAY.
PLEASE CONSENT.
CALENDAR.
THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
WHICH CONSISTS OF FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX, AB 1622, FILE ITEM NUMBER 12, AB 1802,
FILE ITEM 14, AB 2219 FILE AND IN 15 A, B 2390 FILE.
ITEM 24 AB 2512 FILE
ITEM 27 AB 2341.
SENATORS LARRY.
LAYER 970.
THE BILL IS UP.
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE AB 306.
MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS SIX ZERO, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING I.
SENATORS LAIRD.
LAIRD I70. THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM 912.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS SIX ZERO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING.
I'M SENATORS LAIRD. LAIRD I702.
SOMETHING ABOUT A BILL ABOUT MY HOME.
ACTUALLY, SEVEN THIS DISTRICT WAS FORMED IN 1962.
I WAS THERE.
I READ THE ANALYSIS LAST NIGHT.
I WASN'T VERY MUCH.
IT'S A REMINDER.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, AB 956.
EMOTION IS TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR TWO,
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING I SENATORS LAIRD.
LAIRD, I FIGHT TO THE BILLS.
THE BILL IS OUT BY TO FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB 1751.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATION.
THE CURRENT VOTE
IS FIVE ZERO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING ITEM IS TROY LAIRD.
LAIRD I60.
THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 1457.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR TWO
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING ARE SENATORS LAIRD.
LAIRD, I52.
BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB 1720 MOTIONS TO PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS SIX ZERO, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING I.
SENATORS LAIRD.
LAIRD I70.
THE BILL IS OUT SEVEN ZERO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT DAVID 1740.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS SIX ZERO. SENATORS. LAIRD.
ALL RIGHT.
LAIRD I7070.
THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE, AB 2181.
THE MOTION IS DUE PROCESS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS SIX ZERO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING OUR
SENATORS LAIRD. LAIRD I70.
THE BILL IS OUT SEVEN ZERO.
FILE ITEM NUMBER TEN AB 1801.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS FOR ONE SENTENCE.
TROY LAIRD.
LAIRD I51.
THE BILL IS OUT FIVE ONE.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 11 AB 2601.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CURRENT BILL IS FOUR ONE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING RIGHTS.
SENATORS TROY LAIRD.
LAIRD I51
BILL IS OUT BY ONE.
LET'S SAY IT'S DONE.
THAT'S IT.
WHAT'S.
THAT STUFF.
OKAY,
OKAY, WELL, HOLD ON A BIT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
NEED TO.
WELL,
HE'S.
DO WE NEED TO RECESS OR SHOULD WE SHOULD RECESS.
OKAY.
WE'RE GOING ON RECESS.
SO YOU THINK ABOUT BEING OUR LAST.
OKAY.
WIN. NOW. ONE.
TWO. THREE. FOUR. FIVE.
OKAY.
THANK YOU EVERYONE.
THAT'S IT FOR OUR BILLS TODAY. THANK YOU
TO EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
IF YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO TESTIFY
TODAY, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS
OR SUGGESTIONS IN WRITING TO THE SENATE.
LOCAL GOV COMMITTEE OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE.
YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE
AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IMPORTANT TO US.
WE WANT TO INCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY
IN THE OFFICIAL HEARING RECORDS.
I WANT TO
THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
ARE WE ARE JONATHAN COME ON. RIGHT.
AND WE WERE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO SAY GOODBYE.
COME ON, RYAN, SAY GOODBYE.
BYE EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU ALL.
YOU'VE MADE THIS WORK.
SO MUCH EASIER.
AND I FELT A LOT SMARTER WHEN I WAS AROUND YOU GUYS.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR PATIENCE
AND COOPERATION.
WE'VE CONCLUDED THE AGENDA THE LAST TIME I DO THIS GAVEL.
THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.