Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Assembly local government committee hearing. First, I would like to remind the public that for this and future hearings, testimony will be in person, as we are no longer using a moderated telephone service. We also have written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website.

I would also like to go over some ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impeach the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited. Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or Bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address his reductive conduct, I will take the following steps if an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruption may result in removal from the Capitol Building. I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the Sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol Building. I am honored to have been named Chair of this Committee by Speaker Rivas and would like to start with some brief introductory remarks.

As many of you know, I was elected to the Assembly for the first time last fall to represent the 39 Assembly District, which encompasses the parts of Palmdale, Lancaster, Victorville, Adelanto and Hesperia. I have worked in local governments for most of my professional life. I was a City Planner for about 20 years, working in cities of all sizes. Additionally, I serve on the school board and then the City Council in my hometown, Palmdale. I have admired the accomplishments of this Committee under my predecessor, the now Madam Speaker, pro Tem Aguiar-Curry, and I hope to carry on that good work starting today. A brief history about myself, I came to California as a 15-year-old immigrant from Mexico, and through hard work, the opportunities I found here have been beyond my wildest dreams.

I am committed to working relentlessly to ensure that the California dream I have lived remains a possibility for my children and for yours. My experience to this point has shown that our State must figure out how to build more affordable housing, create realistic pathways to homeownership, and build better public transportation, especially in communities that have been left behind. Additionally, I am very interested in what tools we can offer to promote local economic development across the State in this post-redevelopment era.

I am grateful to have received this appointment so early in my Assembly tenure and hope to use the decade or so ahead to learn these issues inside and out. Finally, I want to make clear that I have an open door policy. I have met with most of my fellow Committee Members already. There's still a couple I need to meet with, and I look forward to meeting with stakeholders and learning what issues and ideas are most important to you. And I also like to welcome a new Member also to this Committee, Assembly Member Haney. Would you like to offer some remarks, sir? No, thank you.

No, thank you. I'm really excited to serve with you and congratulations and be an amazing chair. And it's honored to be here. Nice to see you all.

Thank you, Assemblymember Haney. So we have 11 items on the agenda today. One of these items is proposed for consent, item 11, which is SB 882 by the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance.

In addition, Senator Portantino will be presenting item 8 SB 537 on behalf of Senator Becker. We will hear all the bills in that order, shown on our agenda. Unless otherwise noted, we will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the Bill only.

Looks like we don't have a quorum this time, so we're going to be proceeding as a Subcommittee until we get a quorum present. The first measure that we will hear today is item two, SB 34 by Senator Umberg. Senator, please, when you are ready.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your appointment. I think all of California is going to benefit from your leadership and your experience, you're uniquely situated to chair this Committee, and we're all grateful.

Thank you,

Let me actually that's a perfect segue to the bills that I have to present to this Committee today. Both these bills concern the Surplus Land Act, and both these Bills relate to the sale or the attempted sale of Anaheim Stadium. Anaheim Stadium is situated, as you would guess, in Anaheim, California. It may be the largest parcel of land that was at the time offered for sale by a governmental entity. And thus, one would think it would fall within the parameters of the Surplus Lands Act. Surplus Lands Act was begun. The initiated and enacted by Assemblymember Phil Ting.

And the purpose is severalfold. One is to make sure that when a governmental entity sells or disposes leases or somehow encumbers land, that the taxpayers get their due by putting it out to bid number one, so that the market determines the fair market value for the benefit of the taxpayers. And two is that 25% of it, because we have an interest in making sure we provide affordable housing, 25% is allocated for affordable housing in the context of the sale or the attempted sale reported sale of Anaheim Stadium.

What happened, and these are my words, although two people have already pleaded guilty in the context of this transaction, is that there was collusive behavior between the former mayor of Anaheim and perhaps others in government, and the Los Angeles Angels, formerly known as the Anaheim Angels, in order to sell the stadium. It is my view that the deal ultimately resulted in a multi-hundred million dollar discount in the sale. Subsequently, the sale was thwarted. Housing and Community Development at one point said, you're in violation of the Surplus Lands Act. There was quite a bit of discussion and a year of negotiation, and ultimately the city simply says, you know what, we'll just go ahead and pay the fine. Because the fine really wasn't a fine. It was just moving money from one bucket to another bucket. And these two bills attempt to close some loopholes in the Surplus Loans Act. The first Bill, SB 35, by the way, thank you to your staff, and Hank Brady in particular for the work on this measure.

SB 35 only pertains to Orange County at this point. It's been winnowed down or whittled down to just pertain to Orange County. And what it does is it says simply, if HCD says you're in violation, you got 60 days to cure that violation. You either got to put it out to bid, or you figure out what you need to do considering affordable housing. And if you don't do that, then your sale basically is stopped. At that point, it's a simple Bill, and it's designed to ensure that, at least in Orange County, the same sort of collusive behavior to the detriment of taxpayers doesn't occur again.

With me to testify is Andrew Dawson of the California Housing Partnership.

Before we get to testimony, looks like we have a quorum now. Madam Secretary, could you call the roll, please?

Carillo

Present.

Present.

Dixon, present.

Berner, Haney?

Present

Haney, present.

Carillo, present. Dixon? Berner Haney?

Pacheco?

Here.

Ramos, Waldron, Wilson?

Here.

Pacheco, Present

Wilson, present.

We have a quorum now, so please, primary witness can proceed.

Hello, I'm Andrew Dawson. The California Housing Partnership. The partnership is a private nonprofit that was actually created by the Legislature for increasing the supply of affordable and sustainable homes for low-income households. We're here to testify in support of SB 34. The SLA is a very important tool for us in giving us cost-effective land for affordable housing. ACD is the agency in charge of the Surplus Lands Act, and SB 34 establishes a reasonable check by stopping local governments from proceeding with disposition while under an ACD notice of violation. This will help protect issues like the stadium sale from happening again. And with that, I will close or I would ask for your vote.

Is there a second primary witness or he's the only one?

We have no further witnesses. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anybody else in the room that wants to testify in support of SB 34?

Absolutely. Chairperson Nicolo DeLuca here on nonprofit housing of Northern California and strong support and thank the author for all this leadership.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning. Janice Stanford, on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta in support.

Thank you. No one else in support of the Bill. How about any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And congratulations on your appointment as well. My name is Aaron Avery. I'm with the California Special Districts Association, representing nearly 1000 local governments using their lands to protect and provide essential services, from water to wastewater to fire protection.

I want to thank the author and his staff for their willingness to meet with us about this Bill as it has progressed. However, respectfully, we have an opposed and less amended position on the Bill. I'm confining my remarks right now to SB 34. I have additional remarks on SB 229. I want to be clear that we understand and respect Senator Umberg's desire for additional transparency. Our concern with this Bill is its reference to an application to notices of violation received from HCD in connection with sales and leases of surplus land, and, in particular, the use of the word leases.

The clear established intent of the Legislature is not to apply the requirements of the SLA for surplus land to leases. I'll share two examples. In 2019, as introduced AB 1486 by Assemblymember Ting proposed to define dispose in the Surplus Land Act and to include leases in that definition. A broad local agency coalition opposed this proposed expansion to include leases, and consequently, leases were amended out of that Bill before it became law. A second example. SB 747, pending this year, it's already been heard in this committee by Senator Caballero, is seeking to bring entry of specified leases into the Surplus Land Act, which further indicates their absence under existing law.

Further, this Bill simply applies to all leases, not longer term leases. Therefore, under this Bill, local agencies would be required to respond to notices of violation from HCD for all leases when leases are not covered as disposals under the Surplus Land Act. The SLA is not a model of clarity. Unfortunately, this Bill will add to that lack of clarity. We therefore ask that the bill's reference to leases be struck. We again want to thank the author for his willingness to work with us. We will continue to work with his office, but at this time respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Steve Cruz on behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District and echo the concerns raised by Aaron and the special districts.

Thank you. How about any other witnesses say their position on opposition on the Bill?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members, Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California, appreciate your interest in our amendments. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, I'll turn on this to the committee. Any Members who want to? Yes, Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand why you're doing this, Senator. But I'm concerned about the rest of the cities. 34 cities in Orange County or 33 other cities in Orange County. I would like you to consider not including all the other cities in Orange County. It's a problem. And for the reasons that Mr. Avery just said and other issues understand compliance with Surplus Land Act. Why the intent that's important? No problem with that. Just. Kind of punishing other cities. Would hope we could take care of that. Thank you very much.

Any other committee Member like to make comments? We have a motion by Assemblymember Haney. A second by Assemblymember Ramos. Any closing remarks, Senator?

Let me just respond to both comments. First of all, Assemblymember Dixon, I actually think this should apply statewide. And I recognize that folks in Orange County feel a bit put upon because it's now restricted just Orange County, but I think this is a policy that should apply as broadly as is possible, and this is as good as I could get number one. Number two in terms of leases, the challenge with leases, and I agree a five year lease on a parcel worth $200,000, you need not go through this, and I've attempted to be able to define what leases should be in and what leases should not be in.

We've not come to any sort of understanding and agreement. A 99 year lease is equivalent to a sale. A 75 year lease is equivalent to sale. That's exactly what happened in Anaheim. It's a little more complicated, but by virtue of extending the lease to the Angels, it devalued the land, perhaps intentionally so, because to acquire, you'd have to take it subject to the lease. I realize that's a little bit in the weeds, but it is important that as to large leases, large meaning over. I'm picking a number right now over $10 million or over 15 years that they be subject to Surplus Lands Act. Otherwise, the Surplus Lands Act is basically irrelevant. So having said that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. With that, I want to thank you and your ongoing commitment to ensure the successful implementation of the Surplus Land Act. Your district experienced the first serious violation of the newly revised Surplus Land Act with the sale of the Angel Stadium as you noted. This situation was particularly egregious and your effort to address it are commendable. I am pleased to support your Bill today. We do have a motion, as it do pass to the Housing Community Development Committee.

Secretary, please call the role.

Aye.

Carillo.

Carillo, aye. Dixon?

No

Aye

Dixon, no. Boerner?

Aye

Boerner, aye. Haney?

Haney, Aye. Pacheco?

Aye

Ramos, aye. Waldron? Wilson?

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Ramos?

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

So the vote count is six to one, and the Bill moves on and we'll leave the roll open. We still have one Member missing, so the Bill is up. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This Bill is within the same context is what happened in Anaheim, is that once there was an agreement struck with HCD under the purview of the laws that exist today, it was rushed to City Council with, as I recall, about 48 hours of notice. And then it was attempted to be ratified by the court the following day. That gave virtually no time for the community to weigh in as to the propriety of the settlement. What this Bill does, is simply says you got to give a 14 day period for the community to weigh in as to whether or not this is a fair settlement on behalf of the taxpayers. That's all it does. With me here is Mr. Tony Bui to testify, I'm hoping, in support.

Yes, we're in support. Tony Bui with the California Apartment Association, here in strong support of the senator's Bill. As we all know, California needs a significant increase in the housing stock. And bills like this one will ensure that the laws we have on the books work the way that they were intended to work. As the Senator mentioned, this Bill will increase public transparency and ensure the public and stakeholders have adequate time to review in public at these meetings the proposals that are at hand.

And specifically, this Bill is in response to what happened in the City of Anaheim, where negotiations regarding a stadium violated the state's Surplus Land Act. This Bill ensures and prevents similar situations by promoting transparency and public involvement in land management decisions. Furthermore, it also protects taxpayer dollars. Violations of the Surface Land Act generally involve taxpayer dollars.

So this Bill will safeguard public funds by allowing the public and stakeholders to thoroughly review and comment on large land management proposals. All that said, this Bill simply aims promote transparency, which is sounding like a broken record, but is true and needed, accountability, and public participation in land management decisions by providing sufficient notice and opportunities for public input. With all that said, we're here and ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. And there is no secondary primary witness? No, there's not. How about any primary witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in support?

Good morning. Janice Stanford on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta in support.

Good morning. Nicola Deluge, again, on behalf of Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support and again really appreciate all the leadership on this.

Andrew Dawson. The California Housing Partnership in Support.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses in support, how about primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning again, Mr. Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, again with an opposed unless amended position on the Bill. Again want to thank the author and his staff for their willingness to meet with us as the Bill has progressed. This Bill is similar to SB 34, but with different procedures and applicable to all agencies.

Our concerns with this Bill are threefold. Again recognizing and respecting the author's desire for additional transparency. Our three concerns are as follows number one, exact same issue with leases. I won't rehash it right now, but we are seeking to have reference to leases struck from this Bill for the same reasons.

Number two, this Bill has an important discrepancy from SB 34 which we think needs to be rectified. SB 34 explicitly says that it requires local agency procedures to be followed when a notice of violation is received in connection with the sale or lease of surplus land. SB 229 requires that procedures be followed when that notice of violation is received in connection with the sale or lease of a parcel. Does not say a parcel of surplus land. This is an important distinction.

The SLA is, again, not a model of clarity, and it's hypertechnical. Every single word has significance. And this Bill should clearly state that it applies to surplus land disposals to avoid any confusion that it may have application beyond that. And I would note on that point that exempt surplus land disposals are explicitly not subject to the SLA.

Our third concern is that we're seeking flexibility with some of the procedural requirements of the Bill. We're seeking an off ramp. For example, this Bill requires this public session to occur even if the local agency decides not to proceed with the transaction after receiving the notice of violation. We're seeking additional flexibility in the format of the meeting that needs to be held by the local agency. And we're seeking some website flexibility. Local agencies that do not maintain websites cannot comply with the requirements of this Bill. So, we're respectfully asking for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any secondary witness in opposition?

Good morning. Repeat, I think, on the prior issue for the Imperial Irrigation District and hopefully ability to work with the author on the question of the inclusion of leases and how they're treated in the legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in the room in opposition?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jean Hurst on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. Also opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Annalie Aiken on behalf of Mesa Water District. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. And seeing no more witnesses in opposition, I'll turn it over to the committee. Any Member wants to make comments or there a motion? We did have a motion. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Umberg, for bringing this legislation. I think that it's important that we see issues in other parts of our state, that we ensure that that issue can't happen again in another part. So appreciate the legislation.

I had a question in regard to issues brought up by the opponents and in relation to making sure I understand clearly this particular Bill, is that this is really only triggered when the Department of Housing and Community Development issue an NOV. Is that correct? Because then it wouldn't matter what the language related to the lease is or which lands are exempt because it only comes into effect if HCD says there's a notice of violation. Right?

Yes, that's true. Although, just to hit upon a couple of points, I actually do think it'd be important in every sale, every lease, that there be 14 days notice so that the community can weigh in as to the sale or lease of a public property

That is required right now. I thought that they have to give a public notice, which is so I thought that was an existing statute. Is it?

I'm not sure. You all have more expertise than I. May well be so, but in terms of the point, just to make clear the point about if a governmental entity decides not to go through with the sale or the lease, they need not then have the meeting and we will amend the Bill. We have an RN in right now to amend the Bill to ensure that you need not go through that sort of superfluous step.

So if someone does a lease of a property and then HCD determines that leasing that property is in violation, it is surplus, and it should go through the process. The amendment and process wouldn't apply.

The amendment would be is if the entity, the governmental agency, says, you know what, we're not going to go through with the transaction. They need not have another session, meeting, public hearing that they're not going to go through with.

So if there's a Notice of violation pended and then they decide, oh, because of that, we're done, you don't have to have a hearing. Okay.

That's correct.

That kind of thing. But if there is a notice violation and you would like to do it, still do it, that decision has to be part of the standard public noticing process that you would have had to deal with in the very beginning.

Right. And the settlement with HCD, whatever that settlement is, has to have a public airing. That's correct.

Okay, great. I'll second it.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions from committee Members? We do have a first and a second. Senator Umberg, thank you again for your commitment to ensure the successful implementation of this act. This Bill is a reasonable transparency measure and I am pleased to support it today. Do you have any closing remarks?

Only thank you, Mr. Brady. Again, we've been working on this for a while. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Urgent aye vote.

The motion is they do pass to the House and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carillo? Aye. Carillo, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Boerner? Aye. Boerner, aye. Haney?Haney, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye? Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Waldron? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

The vote is six to one. The Bill is out. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all. Members.

Congratulations.

Thank you. Yes. Not seeing any other authors. We're going to wait until we get another author coming to the hearing room. While we wait for any other Members to present their bills. We're going to go to consent. As I said earlier, there's one item on consent that's SB 882. Do I need to ask for public comment?

No.

A motion to move the Bill on consent. Is there a second to move consent calendar? There's second by Assembly Member Ramos. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carillo? Aye. Carillo, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner? Haney? Aye Haney, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye? Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Waldron? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

The Bill is out of 6-0 and we need to leave their role open for add ons. Yeah. If you can, please ask your senators to come down and present the bills. We're going to wait for the next presenter. Thank you.

We are going to come back to the hearing, seeing Senator Ashby and Senator Ashby is presenting item five, SB 3114. Whenever you are ready, Senator.

Hi there. Thanks for having me. Just looking back to see if my there. Hi, Andre. All right, well, thank you for having us today and for meeting and we're getting so close to our finish line here, so hopefully you guys are ready for a break. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm here to present SB 3114 today, which will create an independent redistricting commission to draw the district boundaries in my county here in Sacramento starting in 2030.

As many of you know, in California, jurisdictions can establish advisory or independent redistricting commissions. In the city of Sacramento, where I served for the last 12 years on the council, I worked to pass a reform that established an independent redistricting commission for our city, which made a world of difference. Many counties have done this, and I'm sure some of you have been involved in those efforts los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Fresno, and Kern. There are several bills circulating this year to create more, including this one. Studies of the 2020 redistricting cycle show that independent redistricting commissions are more transparent, promote more public participation, and result in maps that are more reflective of the community. By contrast, in my community, in 2021, our county board of Supervisors that did not have an independent redistricting commission, they drew their own lines.

So they did hold public hearings, and they did have people come in and speak, but they made the final decision themselves about where those lines would go, and it was wildly controversial. And many groups, large groups, felt their voices were not heard, in particular the API community and the LGBTQ community, who were vocal during the participation, but then their input was not reflected in the maps drawn by the county Board of Supervisors.

So SB 314 lays out eligibility requirements and selection processes that are modeled after bills established in Los Angeles, San Diego, and, of course, the one that I did in Sacramento. Since its last committee hearing, I have made several amendments to the Bill that align with practices employed by the City of Sacramento's Commission, along with best practices that were learned statewide from some of the studies coming out, still, from 2020, I've added two alternates to the commission. I'm moving away from a focus on partisanship by eliminating consideration, a political party preference from the commission's makeup, and I have instituted an ex-parte communications ban. And I'm sort of a little inside baseball, but so many of you have worked in counties. We're moving it from one Department in the county to a different Department in the county that has more resources so that our county has enough manpower and funding to implement this successfully.

We also made that clarifying language to be effective when this Bill is implemented in 2030. I'd like to introduce Andrés Ramos, who is a board member of Organized Sacramento, a standout in my county, a person who's been really engaged and who tried very hard to help the county Board of Supervisors in their last go round to have a more fair and equitable map, and when we fell short, I recruited him to come help me with this legislation. So I'm really grateful to have him here with me today. Andrés.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Andrés Ramos, a board member with Organized Sacramento. We're a local nonprofit in Sacramento County that works to promote community engagement in local government, through training, education, and advocacy. We have worked to increase voter participation and engagement, including in local redistricting. Redistricting is a once-in-a-decade process that shapes our community's future.

It's essential that community voices are centered in that process to ensure that communities of interest are kept together for purposes of fair and effective representation. When decision-makers draw their own district lines, too often the community's needs become secondary to other factors. During Sacramento County's 2021 redistricting community Members provided extensive public testimony about the need to keep certain diverse communities together in the redistricting process.

However, the Board of Supervisors prioritized other considerations and did not incorporate that extensive community input which left the community feeling that their voices were not heard. By contrast, the city of Sacramento undertook an independent redistricting process led by a citizen commission that held numerous hearings and worked diligently to incorporate as much community input as possible. It has worked for the City of Sacramento and will work for the county of Sacramento.

While no process is perfect, commission led processes, both at the local level and state level have led to greater public participation and maps that are drawn to best reflect communities of interest. SB 314 will create an independent Redistricting commission for Sacramento County and ensure that community needs and input will drive our local redistricting process. We thank Senator Ashby for authoring this important local Bill. We respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 314. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition, primary witnesses in opposition? See none. Any witnesses in the room in support of the Bill? Seeing none. How about any witnesses in opposition of the Bill?

Not in opposition, but I'm Dora Rose with the League of Women Voters of California. We have a supportive amendment position. We want to thank the author for taking many of those amendments and we're still in discussions about a few more tweaks. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm in support. I was a little slow. Marquise King Mason, with the California Environmental Voters in support, thank you.

Hi, Laurel Brodzinski with California Common Cause in support.

Is there any witnesses in opposition? Just want to make sure that you had a chance. No. With that, I'll turn it over to committee Members, If you have any questions or comments.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate your experience with this. I want to just have you clarify the fact that there will be no partisan representatives, so how are you going to make the selection of the concerned citizens?

So, first of all, I just want to thank the League of Women Voters and Common Cause both for being here today. But also for helping me draft the version that was implemented in the City of Sacramento, and what we've really done is mirror that language here. As you know, cities and counties are nonpartisan seats, so some of the statewide and larger redistricting efforts are more focused on partisan.

I, by the way, don't think that that's a mistake when other people do that in other bills. I think that's fine as long as the partisan makeup reflects the actual voter registration of the community that is seeking to have the Redistricting Commission oversee them. We did have that in here at first, but I think that the City of Sacramento's process, which allows for folks to apply to be a part of the commission, is a better way to go because you get a more robust group of people who apply, and then through the county administrator's office, they will select those commissioners.

What doesn't work is for the board itself to select the commissioners. It's too much control, and an election process for those commissioners can sometimes be pretty expensive. So this is a way that you move away from the partisan piece of it. You still get independent folks, and inside of this Bill, I'm sure you saw it, but there are a lot of rules and restrictions that are best practices from League of Women Voters and from Common Cause about what your participation can be with whatever that entity is. So whether it's a city council or a Board of Supervisors, meaning you can't run for those seats after you just served on the Redistricting Commission.

You can't be working for somebody in the city or in the county when you're doing it. So we think those restrictions are much more important. As my witness, Mr. Ramos said, one of the problems that we had in the county was that the things that county Boards of Supervisors were using as their determining factors for why they wanted to have an area in their district really weren't reflective of what the community was trying to say to them.

It had more to do with maybe sentiment or their own experiences growing up, the high school they went to, et cetera. And what we really want to do is make sure that communities feel connected to their local government, and that things like a neighborhood don't get split right in half to where a neighborhood feels: now, we don't really have significant representation because we don't have a meaningful participation in who our county Board of Supervisors. So that's the goal of taking the partisanship away.

Well, I appreciate that, but in one of the letters, I think, from the city or county of Sacramento, you've seen that letter? Where they just say there's no real criteria to evaluate the qualification. So how will that be established?

Well, there is criteria in there, and it's modeled after an existing model in their same county that they had a front-row seat to that has been implemented and would be easy for them to replicate. What you don't want to do is be overly prescriptive. Promise you that, if I had been, you would have gotten a different letter that says this was overly prescriptive. How are we supposed to find people in all of these exact categories? So that may be a no win situation. Look, I think the city of Sacramento in part did an independent redistricting commission because of outside pressures.

I was the person who implemented it. But people in the world of Andrés Ramos were telling us, you need to do this because our process. I had the misfortune of living through two redistrictings on my city council in twelve years. And the first one, we did not have an independent redistricting, and it did not go well. It did not go well. There were maps everywhere, and people had all kinds of influences, and we ended up with these districts that didn't make sense. And so when we put an independent redistricting commission in place, it was far more fair, and we really didn't have any of those problems.

Those folks that served didn't even know where we lived. They didn't know if they were putting two people in the same district or not. So leaving it open to people who want to participate, I think is a far better standard and it's produced better outcomes on our home turf here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. It's a great question.

Assembly Member Haney.

Thank you so much, Senator, for your leadership on this, both when you were in local government and now I'm new to this committee, so I'm catching up on a lot of these efforts. But I did just want to ask, I completely agree with what is in your kind of framework for the county of Sacramento. I'm wondering how this interacts with some of the other efforts that are taking place in the Legislature. I know there are a number of redistricting bills. Does this align with those? And if they were all the past, are they in conflict at all? And then what happens if also the county of Sacramento adopts their own framework that's different from yours? Does yours override?

It such a good question. And you can tell who's worked in the county because your questions go together, actually. So Assemblymember Bryan and Senator Allen have an all-encompassing California Bill.

If their Bill passes, everybody who doesn't have an established redistricting commission falls into their fold. That would include the Sacramento County because technically this wouldn't have been implemented yet. So Sacramento County would get, we have two chances to get Sacramento County here, but previously there have been efforts to do statewide redistricting, and they didn't get past the governor's desk, which is why I asked to keep my Bill moving.

I want two shots. I want two bites at the apple here to be able to try to get it's really important that Sacramento County do independent redistricting, but if Assemblymember Brian's Bill passes and is signed, Sacramento County, like all counties that don't have redistricting commissions set up, would fold in. I would argue Sacramento County would be better off with our Bill because Andreas and I tailored it to Sacramento County, and it's a little bit more specific for Sacramento County, but it doesn't matter to me either way if Isaac Bryan has been wonderful. This passed his committee last week with his support, and that Assembly Member has a keen eye, too, on making sure that all of these counties have a more independent and fair process for people.

Thank you. That's very helpful. I know that his Bill leaves it somewhat up to the counties and cities themselves to develop it within a specific framework. If both bills were to pass, does this framework that you've authored for Sacramento County then become their framework or they would still?

Have the other way around? His becomes the framework for the way his Bill is written. There is some language in there that says that any county that doesn't already have a redistricting committee in place would get his language. And since this one hasn't been implemented yet, unless the Governor signed mine on a Monday and then Sacramento County hustled and put a committee together and then by on Tuesday and then Isaac's was signed on Wednesday, then I suppose mine would prevail.

But since this isn't for them to implement till 2030, I find that highly unlikely. So more likely that if his comes through, that they would use his framework, and his does have the partisan language in it. So a little bit different than mine.

Thank you.

Any other committee Members with questions or comments seeing none. I want to thank you, Senator Ashby. I appreciate the work on this Bill, your efforts to ensure independence in the redistricting process for Sacramento County.

I will be voting aye. But before we call the roll, do you have any closing statements?

I just thank you very much. Really great questions. Urgent aye vote. Appreciate your support.

With a motion by Boerner and a second by Ramos. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Committee Secretary. Please call the roll.

Carillo?

Carillo, aye.

Dixon?

Aye.

Dixon not voting. Boerner?

Aye.

Boerner, aye. Haney?

Aye.

Haney, aye. Pacheco?

Aye.

Ramos, aye. Waldron? Wilson?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos? I waldron. Wilson.

Aye.

Wilson, Aye.

With a 6-0 vote and will either roll open. There's one Member still missing. The motion is due pass, and the Bill is up.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, colleagues. Have a great day.

We have two authors -- three more -- but we're going to go back to the roll, the way that the agenda is, and seeing speaker pro tem, Curry, here please. When you're ready. Welcome speaker pro tem. When you're ready.

I know. Whoa. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would like to thank the committee staff for their thoughtful work on this bill and all the work they do. And I'm happy to accept the proposed amendments -- getting a little weak here -- I'm coming home to this committee, and I congratulate you on this appointment, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Over more than six years, I've worked with this amazing team and have had the honor to serve these, and former committee members on issues that affect our constituents every day. And if you'll please indulge me, I want to thank Debbie, Katie, Angela, Misa, Jimmy, Hank, Dixie, and Marisa for helping me chair this committee. You made me successful. I'm proud to announce that the measure ACA 1, that this measure has additional support from 22 of our colleagues, and we will ask the committee to please add them to the list of co-authors. Members, ACA 1 will lower the necessary voter threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent supermajority to approve local, general obligation bonds and special taxes when proposed for affordable housing, supportive housing, or public infrastructure projects.

This is a vote threshold that we have already approved for local school districts, to issue school construction bonds. This measure gives local governments a more realistic financing option to fund an increase in housing and to address the numerous local public infrastructure challenges that cities have, counties have, and special districts have. They are facing them every day. We know about the housing and the homeless crisis. Housing doesn't happen without infrastructure: roads, sewers, broadband, police and fire stations.

ACA 1 is a tool -- remember, it's a tool for local governments and local communities to make their own decisions about what projects to prioritize and is completely optional to our local government partners. Let's be clear, nothing in this bill increases taxes, nothing in this bill requires a jurisdiction to propose a measure to its voters. What this bill does do, and what the opponents don't want to talk about, is to allow our local officials to meet local needs for local priorities, without having to come to Sacramento, here in this building, asking for bonds or taxes or general fund spending, all of which, California taxpayers pay for. What this bill does do, colleagues, it provides local control -- a tool to our local government partners to help them decide how to best serve their own communities.

I'm honored to be joined today by Brian Rice. No, Meagan. Oh, it's Meagan here. Hi, Meagan Subers. No, I'd rather have you here -- and Abram Diaz. I am so apologetic on that one. Welcome. I didn't look far enough down the script.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And thank you Assembly Member. You're a hard act to follow and sorry for the disappointing news. Brian was trying to be in two places at once, so my president had to jump out. And I'm going to do my best here on his behalf. So, Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We are a co-sponsor of ACA 1 and have been proud to stand with the Assembly Member during her tenure on this measure, trying to get it across the finish line. Proud to be before you today. If you live in California, the chances are: you live in some sort of danger zone. Whether it's earthquakes, fires, floods, other natural disasters.

The critical system that we all rely on is our world-class mutual aid system. The reason why our mutual aid system is so great here in California is because you all have put the resources behind it to make it successful. But in many jurisdictions, local voters have made their priorities known by stepping up to support measures to secure local public safety funding when necessary. But overall, the ability to get dedicated, accountable revenue directed to critical public safety is stymied by this two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes. For example, in 2020, a special tax to support disaster and fire services in Sonoma County failed with 64.8 percent of the vote. A parcel tax to fund fire and EMS services for Higgins Fire District in Nevada County received 58.3 percent of the vote and failed that measure.

The failure of that measure forced the district to lay off six full-time positions, keep only two of their three fire stations open at a time. As a result, response times doubled to over twelve minutes. This -- we believe ACA 1 will just give the voters a chance to decide whether or not they think their local jurisdiction should have control over the types of measures they put before the voters, with a 55 percent voter threshold, particularly when you're asking them to raise revenue to support critical public safety services. So again, we're proud to be a sponsor of this measure and would respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Chair and committee members. My name is Abram Diaz, and I'm the policy director for the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. We represent affordable housing builders across the state. We are proud to support ACA 1, and are particularly enthusiastic to champion the adjustment of the threshold for affordable housing bonds. A critical aspect of our affordable housing financing process is putting up local dollars to draw down state and federal funds. The current threshold, however, limits our ability to raise local dollars to address local needs. This is costing us billions in new funding for affordable housing development -- even more when we're accounting for the state and federal match. Local revenue can often draw down up to five state and federal dollars for every one local dollar spent on a project.

When we can't raise the funds for the upfront investment, it's a devastating, lost opportunity. Especially true as the state continues to face historic housing and homelessness crisis and voters are increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress on these issues. ACA 1 will improve local voters' ability to tackle these concerns in their communities, by providing them a more democratic, more realistic financing option to increase affordable homes and to address the numerous local homelessness needs cities and counties are facing. Our coalition of affordable housing and homelessness organizations are proud to support this bill, and we collectively urge your support. And if I may, we've always greatly appreciated working with the Assembly Member and look forward to working with the new Chair. So thank you all so much.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Two primary witnesses.

Opposition.

Opposition? Yes.

Good morning, chair Members, Peter Blocker, on behalf of the California Taxpayer Association and a broad coalition of associations in opposition ACA 1. we believe that two-thirds vote threshold is an important protection for taxpayers in preventing excessive taxation, and the threshold should not be lowered. While we understand there may be frustration in trying to pass some local taxes. We think it's important to remember that the taxes this measure would make easier to pass are regressive taxes. Meaning they're taxes that are not based. On the ability to pay, and that when these taxes fail at the ballot box, it is highly likely that the people voting against them. Voting against progressive taxes are those that can least afford them.

This is why we believe the two-thirds protection is necessary to keep the state affordable. And while one of the goals of the measure is to make it easier to raise revenue for housing, the two taxes this measure applies to, sales taxes and parcel taxes, are both taxes that lead to that make housing less affordable. Higher sales taxes are imposed on building materials and increase the cost of home construction.

For example, on property taxes, increase the burden of homeownership, both of which make housing less affordable for homeowners and renters. Proponents have argued the measure before you doesn't increase a single tax, but it's also stated the purpose is to lead to more taxes being passed. So, as intended, we believe ACA 1 will lead to higher local taxes in California, and we ask that you consider what impact these taxes will have on the cost of living and the cost of doing business in the state.

Thank you.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors in an opposed, unless amended, position on ACA 1. CAR would like to see the Bill narrowed to solely focus on housing bonds. As the analysis notes, the state needs an additional 2.5 million housing units and to meet housing demands. Recently, as part of the state budget negotiations, the Legislature and the Governor prioritized specific infrastructure projects. We believe that this is a better approach to addressing the infrastructure concerns raised in the analysis, and for this reason, we respectfully request a No vote on the measure. Thank you.

Thank you. And now witnesses in the room in support of the measure. Please state your name, affiliation and position on the measure.

Mr. Chair Members, Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation division, in very strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Connie Delgado, on behalf of the 33 District and municipal hospitals at the District Hospital Leadership Forum in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Julie Snyder, representing the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association in support. Thanks.

Mr. Chair and Members Nicola DeLuca, in strong support. On behalf of the following cities Hayward, Emeryville, Palo Alto, and San Leandro. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Andres Ramirez, on behalf of the cities of Fremont, Half Moon Bay, Tulare, Farmersville, Kingsburg, Soledad and the Tri-Valley Cities Coalition, all in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Susan Medina, on behalf of California YIMBY in support. I've also been asked to testify on behalf of SV@Home and Enterprise Community Partners in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Colin Holly, on behalf of the city of Long Beach, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. Nick Cruz with the California Labor Federation in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. James Michael Powell with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Debbie Michel, East Bay Municipal Utility District, in strong support.

Good morning. Nina Weiler-harwell AARP, California, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Alchemy Graham on behalf of the California City Transportation Initiative, California Transit Association, Santa Monica County, San Mateo County Transit District, and San Mateo City County Association of Governments and Support. Thank you.

Mary Ellen Shay California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies. Very strong support.

Marina Wyatt, with the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Good morning. Marcus Detwiler, with the California Special Districts Association in support.

Good morning. Tyler Munzing, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies, California in support. Thanks.

Chair and Members Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Honorable Chair and Members. Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wild Cat Consulting, representing the California Community Land Trust Network, and there are 3500 residents, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Bryan Sapp on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, CivicWell, and Valley Water all in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the Board of Supervisors of the county of Santa Clara in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Andrew Antwih, on behalf of the California City Transportation Initiative in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition in the room? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Annalee Akin, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California. Respectfully opposed.

Scott Kaufman. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Strong opposition.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce, here in opposition.

Lawrence Gain with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you

Thank you, and with that, I turn it to the Committee Members. If you have any questions, comments on the measure, Mr. Haney?

Well, thank you so much for your leadership on this. Madam Speaker, Pro TEM and Madam Chair Emeritus here. Thank you so much for your leadership on this committee. I think this is an example of your deep knowledge and understanding of what we need to do for us to be able to support local governments, and cities, and counties to be able to meet the challenges that they're facing, some of which we are mandating of them to meet.

I think a lot about the housing goals that we've set as a state, the RHNA goals, the mandates that really exist that come down from the state now, a lot of those have affordable housing inclusion aspects of them. And for cities and counties to be able to meet those without funding that we're providing directly, they need to raise the funding themselves. And that's also true on climate infrastructure. That's also true on public safety. That's true on so many different things. And if a measure gets 62% of the vote, I mean, come on, that's an overwhelming majority for anything.

We know that that's a landslide. And the fact that that's not enough when we're talking about this critical infrastructure, I think is a huge barrier for us to be able to meet the challenges that we face as a state and to support our local partners to be able to do so. And again, as you've said, this is only giving the people of California the opportunity to weigh in on whether they want this and they can decide. And ultimately our state's, livability, I think, is at stake over the long term as to whether we're able to build this infrastructure and housing. So, proud to be joint author with you and thank you so much for your leadership. And if it hasn't been moved, I will move it.

Thank you. Assembly Member Wilson. Did you have comments?

I did. Thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. I think it's absolutely necessary. I look at it as calling the question that we asked 40 years ago. A lot has changed in 40 years. And given the opposition's noting comments in the analysis that talks about 2018, there was a poll.

Well, now it's time to see if that poll is reality, right? If voters still feel the same way. I do believe that it's necessary because of the at a local level, it's about the locals determining does the community benefit they receive outweigh the taxes that they would have to pay, and a lot of times the answer is yes, and a majority yes. But the two thirds can be challenging, particularly in some areas of the state of California. And I also would like to comment on this. I'm definitely pro-housing. That is my thing.

Not only did I spend some time in career of production, but also just as a local leader. And this thought that we can do this for housing and not infrastructure doesn't work because you can't build housing without infrastructure.

A lot of the issues with certain types of putting in housing is water, or the level of parks, or other rules that local agencies have regarding housing, and so you definitely need that infrastructure. And with the loss of redevelopment and things like that, there's not a lot of ways to finance that except going to the voters. And so I think that is important that we think about the production of housing and also recognizing that infrastructure is needed to be able to do that.

And so you have to be able to fund both. And I do believe that this is not raising a tax, but it does give an opportunity for people to determine if the tax is necessary for the community benefit that they receive. And it calls the question that we haven't asked the voters yet for at least 40 years. And so with that, I'll do the second. If it hasn't been done, I think did you do the second? I'm going to do a double second.

I'm going to be nice to say I don't know what it is.

But it's a good thing.

You have to say my full name.

Tasha Boerner. Assemblymember Boerner. Woman

Thank you, and I believe Assemblymember Pacheco had some comments.

Yes. Thank you also to the author for this Bill. I do have a couple of questions. I know this Bill doesn't increase taxes. I know it goes to the voters. And it does say here that once approved, any proposition would have to be approved by the majority of the governing bodies of city councils and then it has a list of different requirements. I'm curious to see whether if there's been any conversations as to a requirement of adding some kind of sunset provision to the tax, maybe having the council or the governing body add a sunset of like, 5-10 years, and that way the voters know when this increased tax will end.

Would you like me to answer that now?

Yes.

Okay. So there are some provisions that we put accountability for this. And I want to just stress these because I think that when we run this before, we've had numerous conversations about how do we know the money is going to be used? Right? Maybe my city council is not on the up and up. How can we do that? So what we did, we did. Funds must only be used for specified purposes and cannot be used for employee salaries or operating expenses. Local agencies must have a list of projects they're going to fund.

So when they decide to run one of these, they have to tell you, what are they funding? Is it a new firehouse? Is it new sewer? That has to be specific. And it must provide certification that a local government or agency has evaluated alternative funding sources. So we want to make sure that it's on the up and up and it's transparent.

It requires an independent performance audit to ensure funds that have been expended only on the specific projects listed. Another way to keep it in line, requires an independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the specified projects. Also, both audits must be posted and made available to the public to review and requires the appointment of a citizens oversight committee to ensure funds are being expended as approved by voters.

So we really wanted to make sure that we had it covered because not every city or town is capable of some of these decisions, but at least that we made sure that our constituents were aware of what was on the bond or specifically where the money was going to go.

And the reason why I asked is in Downey, actually there was a sales tax that was approved by the voters and they felt more comfortable because there was a sunset. So the residents knew when this sales tax was going to

They could do that in their Bill.

Don't do that. But it doesn't mention that here?

No

Okay.

I want to give the control of the local government.

That makes sense. And I'm curious to see if there's any conversations happening with opposition as to some of their concerns.

Well it's pretty clear what we're doing here. We're just giving the opportunity for the citizens to vote on this, the local governments to run this. And if the opposition would like to go to each city council and say this is the reason why they shouldn't run a particular tax, they're more than welcome to do that.

Thank you.

People say, well does it increase property taxes or undo Prop 13? Not at all. ACA 1 does not increase taxes, does not require jurisdictions to propose a measure to its voters. It simply gives voters the opportunity to weigh in on their local priorities.

You're welcome.

Keep remember it's local and I live in a really small town and people thought when we got to 60% on fixing the sewer it failed and they were just devastated because now what do we do? And so then we have the state coming in and we have all everybody pointing a finger at my little community when this would have passed if it was at 55%. But in practice local officials propose a local bond or a special tax and then the voters in that community can decide whether they support the idea or not. Voters will still need to overwhelmingly support it with 55%. I'm not saying 50, I'm saying 55% of the vote for a bond or a special tax in order for that to be approved.

Vice Chair Dixon.

Thank you, Madam tem, and miss you up here. We got good leadership. I appreciate how you've structured this, certainly with an eye to local government. And you and I have had many conversations about the importance of local government. Many of all of us here come from local government, so we're all very sensitive to that. My concern is about the cost of housing and particularly in areas that I represent where cost of housing is exceptionally high and while you are correct in saying that you're not raising taxes, 55% makes it easier to add those taxes if 55% of the voting population agrees.

And that voting population may be made up certainly of people who own property and people who don't, it's the people who own the property who are going to be paying the taxes. The increase, modest increase in property taxes and I think that is counterintuitive to what we're trying to do with the cost of housing. This is just one more encumbrance on the cost of when someone's looking to buy a home and seeing that the property taxes have a potential bond measure payment on that along the long list of other special fees and taxes that go on to your property tax Bill.

That's just what gets me concerned. It's a slippery slope. I think you've done a beautiful job of constructing this and trying to protect local government and the people and the cities. I just am concerned 55%. It's a slippery slope because there's always attempts to undo Prop 13 and the two-thirds vote. And it's just a pincer attack against the decades of requiring two-thirds to increase property taxes.

So I'm going to not be able to support it. I appreciate what you've done, I respect what you've done, but I just can't go that extra step. But I appreciate you trying to do that. Thank you.

Well, I think it's kind of ironic that a city and county can propose a General tax for General purposes and only need a majority of vote, just a majority. If it's dedicated purpose like libraries or roads, it's a two-thirds vote. And special districts can oppose special taxes, but it also has a two-thirds vote and this is just lowering it to 55%.

May I just make another comment to follow up on that? Obviously, I'm from Orange County. Most of the cities, of the 34 cities in Orange County, the city councils have amended their charters to require a two-thirds vote for any tax measure. A supermajority of the city council to pass it to the voters and the voters must approve any tax. So that's what I'm used to and that's really the constituency that I'm dealing with.

I have a constituency that's so different I have to look at the whole state. So I appreciate your comments. Thank you assemblymember.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other committee Member wants to make comments or ask questions? Not seeing one. I want to thank you for presenting this Bill and thank you for working with the Committee on the Technical Amendments. I believe that improving the quality of life of most vulnerable California begins with building high-quality, reliable, and affordable public infrastructure. Multifamily housing and reliable public transportation are the lifeblood of working families around the world. Two areas in which we are painfully far behind in California

If we are going to close this gap, we will need significant resources and local governments must be part of that solution. I believe this measure, if approved by the voters on the statewide ballot, provides a reasonable approach to generating additional revenue at the local level, while still ensuring overwhelming community support for tax and bond measures on the local ballot.

Thank you again for working with the committee, and I ask that I be added as a co-author. And I have actually seen this personally, being a city planner. I joined the City of Palmdale in 2005 when the housing boom was happening, when redevelopment was in existence.

I work on projects where development made it possible to renovate dilapidated buildings for commercial purposes. I've seen senior housing projects through the redevelopment process and many other housing opportunities with the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency. I'm glad that you are bringing this forward, because the very moment I got here in January, when I was sworn in, I talked about looking at a possible way to bring some sort of redevelopment back, I learned that redevelopment was a bad word in the Assembly really quick, and that others tried to do it.

But I've always said that the Legislature has done a good job. Before I got here with the ADU law, the SB 35, the SB 9 but without really meaningful support, money for those developers to build the housing that we need, we're never going to be able to do that. I see this measure as being part of the solution. I'm really proud to support it. And with that, again, me experiencing that as a city planner on both spectrums, this is one way that we can actually provide the housing that we need. And without the infrastructure, as mentioned by some of my colleagues, it makes it even more difficult.

There are communities like the one that I represent where the lack of infrastructure makes it impossible for multifamily developers to come in and build the housing that we need because it doesn't pencil out. This is one way that we can be able to solve the housing issue that we have. And I want to thank you for the work that you've done in this committee. I really feel honored to be here. I look forward to working with every Member here and trying to find real solutions to the challenges that we have in California. Thank you for what you've done. Thank you. Do you have any closing remarks?

I just asked for aye vote.

That simple? Assemblymember?

Sorry. And I think at the very beginning, you invited us all to add ons co-authors, and I'd like to be added on.

Let me know if they're not already on there.

Well, thank you. I believe we do have a motion by Haney, second by Boerner, and with that, the motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll

Carillo?

Aye.

Carillo, aye. Dixon?

No.

Dixon, No. Boerner?

Aye.

Boerner, aye. Haney?

Aye.

Aye.

Haney, aye. Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos?

Ramos, aye. Waldron? Waldron not voting. Wilson?

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

With a 6 to 1. The Bill is out. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

The bill is out. Thank you. Item 4 on the agenda, SB 52, by Senator Durazo. Please, when you're ready.

Great. Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Senator.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone, members. SB 52 requires cities of two and a half million residents or more, to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw its city council district lines. Already, redistricting office boundaries for state and several counties, including Los Angeles County, are based on independent redistricting commissions. At the same time, major cities, like the city of Los Angeles, are some of the largest remaining local entities yet to adopt an independent redistricting process. SB 52 will provide a transparent, fair, and unbiased redistricting process to be carried out for the public good that best captures equitable representation of the city and for those public resources to be fairly distributed.

There is a legal issue that has been brought up with regards to charter cities, like Los Angeles, having certain autonomy over municipal affairs like elections. This bill is based on extensive legal research in consultation with UC Berkeley Law Dean Chemerinsky and our own legislative counsel, who found this bill has strong legal standing. Case law has set a legal precedent, granting the state the ability to legislate on local matters.

Through our bill, we argue that large cities are stewards of major public resources in the billions, from the state, and we need to ensure that local governments preserve trust with the public. SB 52 goes a step further, with an off-ramp -- if the city charter adopts a model of independent redistricting. With an independent redistricting model, SB 52 will provide for a fair, transparent, and unbiased city council redistricting, which captures equitable representation for a city, and mend the relationship between the community and the government of Los Angeles. With me to speak in support is Marquis Mason, legislative advocate for Environmental Voters. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Chair. Congratulations. Hello, committee members. My name is Marquis King Mason with California Environmental Voters. I'm here to speak in support of SB 52 and Senator Durazo's efforts to provide proper representation for residents of Los Angeles. With the unfortunate events that happened late last year, it is apparent that LA needs a truly independent redistricting process to provide a more representative and responsive government. SB 52 will ultimately ensure that every community, every candidate, and every council member competes in fair districts that represents every Los Angelan. Locally, there is a widespread consensus that independent redistricting works, and is necessary for the city of Los Angeles. SB 52 is built on the precedent of independent redistricting that is working throughout the state.

It describes a minimum standard for a process that seeks to eliminate unfair advantage and promote transparency. SB 52 is built on the need for immediate reform. This bill works directly in collaboration with local efforts to bring about true reform to LA City Council. SB 52 is critically needed in a city like Los Angeles to ensure that transparent, fair and unbiased city council redistricting processes that captures the spirit and representation of the city, to mend relationships between community and its government. Finally, the strength of democracy is often measured by the faith of its members in the electoral process. Lack of participation in that process, erodes freedoms and our democratic principles. We can see that with low voter turnout and the ability to hold our government officials accountable.

If we expect to elect good public servants to office, like you all, then we must create and enhance systems that provide an equal playing field for those to participate. I ask for you to support much needed transparency in government, and for that I ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Two primary witnesses. See none. Are there any witnesses in support? Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Good morning. James Michael Powell with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, are there any witnesses in the room in opposition? Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Thank you Mr. Chair, members, and congratulations on your appointment. Andrew Antwih, here, on behalf of action taken by the Los Angeles City Council, here to register a respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Hi. Actually, in support, Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause and also, by proxy, the League of Women Voters of California in support.

Well, thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, I take it to the committee members. Any questions, comments on the measure? Seeing no one else to comment, there is a motion by Haney and a second by Boerner, I believe. Please call the roll, Secretary. Oh, yes. I missed two steps. Are there any closing statements that you want to make, Senator?

I ask for aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carillo. Aye. Dixon. No. Boerner. Aye. Haney. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Ramos. Aye. Waldron. No. Wilson. Aye.

Thank you very much.

Bill ... with a 6-2. Thank you.

Sorry, I didn't congratulate you. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

Thanks. Item number 6 on the agenda, SB 411 by Portantino. Senator, when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And again, I would like to add to the congratulations on your new assignment. I know you're a local government guy and this is a great committee for you, so congratulations. I would like -- we have a motion. I would like to start by taking the committee amendments and comment three on page 14 of your analysis, that would change the sunset date and require at least one year -- there be a quorum of the neighborhood councils to participate in a single physical location, within the jurisdiction that is accessible to the public. This is a Los Angeles city-specific issue related to neighborhood councils, which are a volunteer advisory body. During the COVID pandemic, they saw public participation significantly increase and the democratic process significantly benefit, by having the ability to meet remotely.

This allows them to continue that practice with the one meeting per year, and also with the significant safeguards that were put into the bill previous to this committee. And I would like to say that the newspaper publishers have withdrawn their opposition and are neutral on the bill. And I appreciate the work of this committee, my staff, and all of the folks who have come together so far to get us to this point. We have a representative of Streets For All and also from the city of LA to add comments. So thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mark ..., with Streets For All. I'll keep my remarks short, but I just want to make a few, kind of, points about the bill and what we're trying to achieve. So the neighborhood council system in LA is particularly unique. And one of the things about it, is that someone on a neighborhood council may be owning a business in a certain district that may be completely different from where they live. And because us, the city of Los Angeles, is over 500 sq mi, there's a logistical difficulty with that. And that's one of the things that we're trying to do here, is ensure that members of the public can make their voice heard without the burden of having to physically get to a location at all times.

As the Senator mentioned, there's also been an increase in public participation from both actual council members, the public, and really crucially, city staff, as well, with virtual meetings. Third, cars pollute and waste people's time and Los Angeles is known for having a lot of that. And so, because it's such a large city with over 99 neighborhood councils, this is one of the things that we're trying to do to address that.

Neighborhood councils also have a very small budget, that they would, instead of spending money on rent -- they're able to now spend that money on community events and more public events and actually that money going to the taxpayer into the community. And lastly, I want to just address something. I don't want to deny the quality of the discourse that there can be had in in-person meetings. I mean, we're here right now. But what we believe and believe most strongly to be true is that our decision-making discourse is strongest when we break down the barriers to government. Break down the barriers for mothers who have childcare concerns, people of color, working class folks who want to participate as a citizen, or even participate as an elected, on one of these bodies. So we ask for your support on this critical bill that will strengthen local democracy in the city of Los Angeles. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange, here today on behalf of the city of Los Angeles. Pursuant to action taken by the LA City Council on January 17, 2023. The city's neighborhood councils are the closest form of government to the people in the city of Los Angeles.

They are advisory bodies that advocate for their communities, within City Hall, and on important issues like development, homelessness, emergency preparedness. The neighborhood council system was established in 1999, as the committee analysis correctly notes, as a way to ensure the city government becomes more accessible. And has become part of the fabric of the way the city governs and takes an input from the people. We think that the city councils and the neighborhood councils in Los Angeles -- there's some 99 neighborhood councils, each serving roughly 40,000 people -- this would enhance the flexibility and ability of the public to weigh in. And for those reasons -- and we've taken note of the amendments that the author has accepted today -- we still think the bill is very consistent with the position taken by the city council, and for those reasons we support.

Thank you. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition?

Good morning Chair, and congratulations on your appointment. Members, good morning. My name is Cynthia Valencia.

I am a legislative advocate at the ACLU of California Action. With our coalition partners, we are respectfully opposing SB 411.

We appreciate the author's willingness to work with our coalition and the amendments. We recognize the several amendments that have been taken. Nonetheless, the approach of carving out certain government bodies from the Brown Act's fundamental democratic protections remain concerning permitting the neighborhood councils in Los Angeles to meet entirely, virtually, or given the one meeting with the amendments, one meeting per year.

It's going to deprive the press and public of physical meeting space to directly engage and reduce transparency, accountability, and the democratic nature of these local bodies. SB 411's rewriting of the Brown Act, while narrowed only to Los Angeles neighborhood councils, would set a dangerous precedent of carving out certain categories of bodies from the law's protections for public access and participation.

The neighborhood councils are hyper-local government bodies that are elected and given taxpayer dollars meant to serve their immediate communities.

We understand the difficulties these groups are facing as finding a location to meet Members of the bodies having long commutes and other concerns. However, this is a local problem that needs a local solution.

If the councils are facing difficulties functioning, then the city charter that created them is the best means to address these difficulties, not a special carve-out from the laws that apply across the state, regardless of size.

This Bill also lacks guardrails that put the public interests in participating before public officials desire for flexibility. It's creating tiers of public access which our state government transparency laws never envisioned. We encourage remote public participation for Members of the public that is allowed under current law.

We do not need more carve outs for the Brown Act for that. And we also agree with a recent LA Times editorial which states, remote access to public meetings for Members of the public as an additional option is one thing. Remote access for officials, on the other hand, is another.

It simply makes them more remote. For these reasons, we oppose SB 411 because it fundamentally undercuts the long-standing protections of the Brown Act and the California Constitution that have ensured meaningful access to important local bodies. We respectfully urge you to vote no today.

Please.

Thank you, Chair. And Members. I'm Laurel Brodzinski, Legislative Director for California Cause.

Unfortunately, in respectful opposition, California Common Cause is dedicated to building a democracy that works for everyone, everything from voting rights and redistricting reform to transparency and accountability for government at all levels.

SB 411 seeks to solve a unique local issue in Los Angeles with neighborhood councils by rolling back the Brown Act's key protections for public access and participation, which guarantees that Members of the public and the press can be physically present with officials as they make important decisions. We fundamentally believe face to face interaction is a core tenet of democratic institutions.

Officials are forced to interact with their constituents, including efforts by the community to collectively organize to make their voices heard. Members of the press can observe interactions between officials and between the officials and others in the room to gain a deeper understanding of situations and accurately inform Californians.

I'm not here to dispute that Los Angeles neighborhood councils may be struggling to function, or even that specific officials may need greater accommodation to participate remotely due to their unique circumstances.

However, provisions already exist in law allowing for officials under the Brown Act to have valid reasons to need to teleconference from a private location, such as caregiving needs, illness, or disability. Officials can also utilize existing teleconferencing procedures in the Brown Act at any time if they simply participate from a remote location, which is also open to the public and follow certain posting requirements.

Unfortunately, the current piecemeal approach by this Bill and others like it chip away at the transparency and public participation provisions in the Brown Act by making exceptions for certain government bodies, which is a slippery slope and sets bad precedent.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in the room in support of the Bill? Please state your name, affiliation, and position.

Mr. Chair and Members of the committee, Logan Andrew Antweap, here on behalf of the city of Beverly Hills in support.

Eric Harris with disability rights in California and also on behalf of the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition in the room? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Thank you. Ginny LaRoe. I'm with the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit in California. We are very opposed and remain so, even with the committee's amendments, for the reasons the ACLU and Common Cause stated. May I read proxy "me too's" in opposition?

Thank you. You can give that to the clerk and we can see with that.

Scott Kaufman. Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association opposed, as well as Cal Tax, who recently joined in opposition.

Thank you. See nobody else. The committee members have any questions, comments on what is in front of us? Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you, Senator Portantino. So this would be a bill that normally I wouldn't support, because of the fact that the Brown Act was created, really for the protection of our constituents and members of the public, not necessarily us as constituents -- I mean us as elected officials. It can sometimes be cumbersome, but at the end of the day, it's about supporting democracy and having access to the people that are elected. Because it is a carve out, in particular for neighborhood councils, as noted, the fact that some people on these councils, -- one, it's specific to LA, as over 3 million people, a city with over 3 million people -- but also as it relates to these neighborhood councils which are advisory to the city council.

And also, the fact that someone could be elected in a particular neighborhood, but not necessarily live in that neighborhood, which is unique -- because typically at other levels you have to live in the neighborhood that, you know, that you're going to represent. And also the fact that -- one thing that still concerns me about it, but really can't be addressed effectively because it is only related to LA, which I talk about when people try to make adjustments for Brown Act post-pandemic -- is that need to know where people are, who, if they can't be physically present, where are they? And not specifically their address, but, like, what city they're in, or whatever. But that still wouldn't apply to this because they're still probably likely within the same city and you would probably need to know if they were in-district or out-of-district.

And I'm not sure how the councils work, if they call them districts or neighborhoods or what. So there's lots of issues just because of the uniqueness of what you're targeting and that it is specific to the district. And I'm going to support it today because it is really a district bill. But those are the things that are problematic. So I put that out in the world. Because one, I've talked about this several times, and local governments -- people have brought these amendments, these Brown Act amendments, and I just wanted to make it clear that my support of this is not because it's against what my principles are, concerning the Brown Act and the need to protect not only democracy, but the people that we serve, and having them access, but also because this is a district bill.

You're tailoring it to this specific: what's happening with neighborhood councils in light of the pandemic and just where we are moving in terms of technology. Thank you.

Senator Pacheco, did you have comments?

I just want to thank the author for this bill. What I like about this bill is what was said earlier. It's very specific. It's very specific to neighborhood councils within the city of Los Angeles. I like that there's different provisions in here that protects the public's access to these neighborhood councils. It has the city council oversight, so the city council has to adopt a resolution authorizing for the neighborhood councils to use teleconferencing. There's still notice and agendas requirement. There's a quorum requirement. So everyone has to participate within the city of Los Angeles. So there's so many different items or requirements within this bill that, I agree with my colleague, that this is so narrowly tailored, and I believe it just provides for more participation from the neighborhood councils, but also residents within the city of Los Angeles. So I also want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward.

Any other committee member? No, seeing none. Thank you Senator Portantino, for your efforts on behalf of your neighborhood councils, and for working with the committee on a compromise to ensure yearly access for the public and consistency in the sense of dates for the Brown Act bills moving through the process this year. With the amendments, I will be voting -- supporting the bill. Do you have any closing statements?

I just appreciate the comments from you and your committee members. This is a unique situation. Neighborhood councils are a unique body, both from the deus side and then the participation from the neighborhoods. And frankly, this makes it easier, and I think, actually furthers the democratic process, and agree with the comments made about how we have to be careful when we go down this space. And we've worked through this process through multiple committees and put those safeguards in place. So with that I say thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We do have a motion, but we need a second. Is there a second? Second by Pacheco. The motion is due pass, is amended to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo. Aye. Dixon. Not voting. Boerner. Haney. Pacheco. Aye. Ramos. Aye. Waldron. Pardon me? Waldron. Aye. Wilson. Aye.

The bill is out with a 5-0, and we'll leave the roll open for add-ons. Not seen, Senator Skinner, next item on the agenda.

I have Mr. Becker's bill too, if I may.

I'm sorry. So the next, item 7.

Senator Skinner not here yet. We're going to have item 8, SB 537, Becker is the author, Senator Portantino will be presenting.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. As a courtesy, thank you for letting me present Senator Becker's SB 537. It's a bill that would increase accessibility to multi-jurisdiction, cross County Board meetings and encourage participation by allowing Members to convene remotely when they have a greater barrier to attend in person. In the light of the motion, we're going to skip right down to we've got Alan Abbs from Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Anders Fung from the Peninsula Clean Energy Board Member representing the City of Millbrae, and when appropriate, would respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Becker.

Good morning, Chair Carillo and honorable committee Members. My name is Anders Fung. I am a council Member in the city of Millbrae and an Executive board Member of Peninsula Clean Energy in the county of San Mateo.

We're proud to sponsor SB 537 because for the last three years we have seen significant increased participation from our Board and Citizen Advisory Committee represented by San Mateo County, all 20 of our cities, and the City of Los Banos. The virtual meeting format allow people to participate who would have otherwise missed meetings due to distance work and family obligations, road closures, and even extreme weather that we have seen lately. We have a diverse Board of directors and we value the contributions of every Member at every meeting and wanted to make this as easy as possible to participate.

When Governor Newsom issued his COVID-19 Executive order allowing for virtual public meetings, PCE moved quickly to ensure continuity of our board meetings, continued transparency, and easy public participation. We successfully held 37 virtual board meetings and dozens of Subcommittee meetings, all with nearly 100% participations, a dramatic increase over our in person attendance levels. During this time, our board formally expanded in adding the city of Los Banos, becoming a member in 2020. The success of having Los Banos joining our CCA during COVID due to successful outreach via remote hybrid communications and leveraging our success of having developed a sizable solar project on subprime farmland just outside the city limit.

The project and the collaborations have been a win win win for the city of Los Banos, the county of San Mateo, our state, and most importantly, the people whom we serve. Cross-jurisdictional projects such as this are going to help address statewide issues such as climate change with local based solutions. Technological advancements are allowing for greater communications between multi-jurisdictional agencies, and are creating opportunities for different regions within our state to work closely together. In this case, it is a Central Valley Committee community and a Bay Area County, and we believe more regional issues could find solutions as more similar types of JPAs can form with passage of SB 537.

Our main office is in Redwood City and that's where our monthly meetings are being held. Our meetings location it's about 100 miles away from the City of Los Banos. Our monthly meeting begins at 06:30 p.m. and oftentimes it lasts over 3 hours. It would be highly burdensome to require our Los Banos board members to risk their safety, to travel that long distance in the very late evening hours. We want to encourage regional collaborations, and SB 537 is vital to the success of joint jurisdiction JPAs such as ours.

SB 537 is seeking to create more equity and participation on regional cross county boards, and we thank Senator Becker for authoring this Bill. I respectfully ask for your support today. We think it will make a great difference in the lives of those who volunteer on our regional boards and ultimately enable us to provide excellent service to our constituents. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Carrillo, and Members of the committee. My name is Alan Abbs, I'm the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which is a nine county regional agency. The southernmost point is down in Santa Clara County, and it stretches up to Sonoma in the north with in person meetings in downtown San Francisco. Our board of directors is comprised of 24 members appointed from the various counties and cities within those counties.

And when you're on the board, you're also eligible to serve on up to seven different committees in the district, plus other public participation to represent the air district. So that means when you get appointed to the AQMD, you attend a lot of meetings in addition to other board and commissions that you're on, some of which have the same large footprint in the Bay Area. Prior to COVID, when you looked at the attendance rates, our average board Member was able to attend 24 meetings of the Bay Area board, plus various committees.

But when remote meetings were allowed, that average increased to 35 meetings per year that an average board member was able to attend. And so when you think about it, more participation in Bay Area Air District deliberations, there's better decision making, which makes for a better agency. And so with that said, we support SB 537 and Senator Becker's efforts to balance public participation and board attendance options and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition?

Hello again. Cynthia Valencia with ACLU California Action. With our coalition partners, we are respectfully opposing this Bill.

We recognize that the author has made several amendments and their willingness to work with our coalition, but we continue to be very concerned with the approach of carving out certain government bodies from the Brown Act's fundamental protections. Last year AB 2449 by Assembly Member Blanca Rubio was the result of careful negotiations by members of our coalition. And we believe that the resulting legislation had rigorously, balanced, open government protections with the desire for members of local bodies to have increased flexibility.

But it has only been in effect for a few months. Therefore, we ask that the hard work that resulted in last year's AB 2449 be given an opportunity to play out and see how these bodies use them before making additional risky changes to the Brown Act. We agree with the proponent's goal of making government bodies more inclusive and expanding access to government meetings to the public.

Current law allows these bodies to expand public virtual participation. We have advocated for that legislation, in fact, and hoped that it would be required. We do not think that this bill is the solution to those problems.

Allowing Members to participate remotely and not having to face the public in person is not an effective way to diversify bodies governed by our state's open meetings laws. Making our state and local bodies more equitable and inclusive instead requires public officials to commit to robust outreach to potential members, to provide stipends for unpaid positions, to implement an open and transparent selection and appointment process, and to exercise the political will to appoint members from diverse communities to these public bodies. For all these reasons, we oppose SB 537 because it continues to chip away at the Brown Act and we are creating too many tiers of bodies that want to exclude themselves from having to comply with the current law. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Congratulations on your appointment. It's good to see you up here. I'm Brittney Barsotti. I'm the General counsel of the California News Publishers Association, also in opposition to this bill, SB 537 by Senator Becker. I know the pandemic changed things for us, right? And it feels like teleconferencing is very different today than it used to be. But the reality is there are teleconferencing provisions that have been in existence since the 80s.

As the analysis notes, it only requires members of a body to post the location they're participating from and make it accessible to the public. This bill seeks to carve out multi-jurisdictional bodies from those requirements, but then also requires that a member participating remotely take the meeting from a publicly accessible building, but not be directly accessible by a member of the public. If they're going to be taking a meeting from a publicly accessible office, which is appropriate, then why not just avail themselves of the traditional teleconferencing provisions? Because those again have been in effect for a great amount of time.

Senator Portantino's Bill is more narrowly tailored. We worked on 2449 from last year, which provides reasons for accommodations. That structure has additional guardrails that are not necessarily included this bill. I also want to clarify, we don't have any issues with the addition of the just cause for someone who's immunocompromised or has family immunocompromised, or allowing someone with a disability who requires an accommodation to count towards the quorum. Those are good policies that should continue.

However, this bill also raises constitutional concerns by requiring that members of the public who show up to these meetings a full list of community members that attend the meeting to be posted on a government website. That creates a chilling effect and is something that is expressly prohibited by other provisions of the Brown Act. You cannot be required to sign in to an attend a meeting.

We have dealt with some technical stuff with zoom, like allowing third party registration before, but we've seen language that addresses those concerns. This Bill does not. And I want to echo the comments of my colleague and say, we respectfully request that the Legislature hit pause, allow 2449 to continue to be an affect, and then have an informational hearing in the fall to further address the true martinization for both the public and Members of the body for a Brown Act.

Thank you. Respectfully ask your no vote.

Thank you for that. Are there any Members of the public in the room that want to support the Bill? Those in support?

Good morning. Katherine Brandenburg, with the Brandenburg group representing Sonoma Clean Power in support.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members.

Ross Buck, Southwest Air Quality Management District. We're a little bit in between position. We take an interim support position, but would request the 40 mile threshold of the bill be considered to be lowered. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Matthew Silverling on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, same position as previously stated. We have a lot of respect for the author, thank him for him and his staff willingness to meet with us and speak about our administrative concerns with the bill. But in the spirit of participation and getting people to meetings, we support the bill and concept. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in the room in opposition of the Bill, please say your name, organization and position.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association in opposition. Also recently joined by CalTex.

Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause in respectful opposition.

Jenny Larios with the First Amendment Coalition and opposition and by proxy, twelve organizations. May I read their names?

You have to declare.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else, we're going to take it back to the committee. Committee Members see any questions, comments on what's in front of us. Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this for Senator Becker and presenting on this today. Seeing the bill, I have like a number of concerns about it. Some have been brought up by opposition that happened to share without having conversations with them.

Some of them relate to the amendments, like in particular, compensation for members a part of the legislative body if they are allowed to participate remotely. Some particular multi-jurisdictional agencies allow competition, but they also allow reimbursement for travel. And so for those who just have a blanket because they're incorporating it in, to say that they shouldn't be compensated for being physically present is a bit of a concern because so much goes into preparing for a meeting.

And so it's not just that 1 or 2 or sometimes 5 hours that you sit in a meeting, it is everything that you do that leads up to it. And so if there's that distinction between travel versus not travel within a particular group, then, yeah, it makes sense, you're not going to get reimbursed for travel. But if it's corporated in, everything's thrown out and that shouldn't be. Also the thought process that you can be accessible to the public but not be accessible to the public seems like an odd thing.

But there are lots of carve outs here and I'm really sensitive to this because I happen to serve, you know on Bay Area Air Quality Management for almost four years as well as ABAG, as well as several other committees. I was chair of a housing committee for ABAG and so we met in San Francisco and so going to San Francisco was really like an all day affair, getting on the train and then getting on another bus and then having to be there and then sometimes it didn't line up well where you're staying, like extra hours in a place not needed. And BAAQMD in particular had for some southern people a remote location but didn't have one for Solano county, so it was difficult.

So I get the sensitivities there and I think that there is an opportunity to allow for this really under the previous bill that was mentioned. But this one just has a lot of changes and a lot of confliction that I just don't think it's fully there yet. And I don't know what level of where we are in the legislative process, if you're aware, because I know this is not your bill, if there's continued discussions to improve or is this kind of where it is right now and what's expected to go to the floor? If you can answer that.

Yeah, those conversations are continuing.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Yeah, I'm still not sure where I'll be by the time we do the vote, but I'm happy to hear that conversations are still happening. I think it's problematic but I have just to give credence to those who sit on ABAG and those who sit on BAAQMD. Thank you to all the elected officials who've reached out to me personally as friends to tell me that this is something that they support.

If I may. And obviously you know Senator Becker and you share Nor Cal roots, I'm sure he would welcome your conversation with him. He's a thoughtful legislator like you, so I would encourage you to have those conversations.

Any other Member with comments or questions? Seeing none, I believe that we do have a motion by Assembly Member Tasha Boerner. Is there a second from a Member? Second by Pacheco.

I want to thank you, Senator Portantino, on behalf of Senator Becker for presenting this bill and the efforts for working with the committee on amendments to ensure greater access for public and consistency in sunset days for this year's Brown Act bills. With the amendments I will be supporting the aye. But do you know the author, Senator Becker has accepted the amendments?

Yes, he has accepted the amendments.

So with that, again, the motion is due pass as amended to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Berner? Aye, Berner, aye. Haney. Pacheco? Aye, Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye. Wilson? Not voting. Wilson, not voting.

With that 5-1, the bill is out, and we'll leave the call open for others to add on. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is item number seven. Not seeing Senator Skinner

We're going to skip to item number ten. Senator Caballero, SB 684. Senator, when you are ready. Welcome, Senator.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And congratulations on your chairmanship. Very happy to see you here today. I'm pleased to present SB 684, which creates a streamlined process for communities to build small scale home ownership projects.

First, I'd like to begin by thanking the Chair and the staff for their work on this Bill, and I'll accept the committee's amendments outlined in the analysis on pages eight and nine. Additionally, I am committed to continue to work on the Bill with the appropriate stakeholders to further strengthen the guardrails and to ensure successful implementation should this become law. Additionally, I'd like to make a special shout out to Assemblymember Boerner for her dedication and work to pass AB 803 in 2021, which helped inform many of the elements of this Bill.

Members, since 2010, California's population growth has far exceeded the number of new homes built. The lack of new housing construction has been a key factor in the state's affordability crisis, because supply simply has not kept pace with the demand. The lack of supply and affordability has also contributed to driving down California's homeownership rates and to drive up rental costs.

We know that California homeownership rates have dropped to pre-1940 levels. In fact, the affordability crisis has become so extreme that homes now cost 8.5 times the average family salary, versus only 2.5 times in the early 1970s. As a result, the American dream of homeownership is now out of reach for many California families, especially families of color.

Just like housing affordability has driven homeownership rates down, local planning and rules have also created barriers to homeownership. Many communities throughout the state have enacted policies that restrict denser developments in single family neighborhoods, which prevents the construction of smaller starter homes working families can afford. Under existing law, the framework for dividing land for sale, lease ,or financing is set forth under the Subdivision Map Act, or SMA, which has been on the books since the mid 1970s.

This creates an extensive permitting and approval process that often delays the construction phase of new homes. While the SMA is an important tool, there are opportunities to streamline processes to help allow construction to begin at an earlier stage. SB 684 expands the tools available to local governments and developers to streamline small lot subdivisions for the construction of homeownership projects to create more lower cost homes for sale.

Specifically, the Bill will shorten the time frame for development by authorizing local agencies to issue building permits once a tentative map has been recorded, and to provide ministerial approval for the subdivision of sites with less than ten units. We're talking about small projects. SB 684 also includes important guardrails to ensure that development does not occur in an environmentally sensitive area.

Units constructed are reflective of local objective standards, and local affordability requirements apply. Additionally, any property, any proposed development must be on parcels five acres or less that are zoned for either multifamily residential or vacant parcels. Zoned single family residential with me today to testify and support are Sosan Madanat on behalf of California YIMBY and Esmeralda Lopez with UnidosUS.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the committee, and congratulations on your new role. My name is Sosan Madanat. I'm here today on behalf of California YIMBY as a proud co sponsor of SB 684.

California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state a more affordable place to live, work and raise a family. And while there's no singular reason for California's housing crisis, the LAO has identified the undersupply of housing as one of the biggest culprits, and this has contributed to the high housing costs and the low homeownership rate. As the Senator mentioned, these low ownership numbers are particularly concerning when we consider that homeownership is one of the most important tools to build generational wealth.

And those hardest hit by the affordability crisis are often people of color and communities of color. The practical tool to address this problem is by removing barriers to the construction of missing middle housing, which refers to a range of multiunit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single family homes such as Duplexes, Fourplexes, Cottage Courts, and Townhomes. The creation of this housing can have a positive impact on the availability of more affordable starter homes that allow new buyers to enter the otherwise competitive marketplace.

However, barriers such as the SMA, as the Senator mentioned, prevent small scale developers from providing these housing options to their communities. SB 684 encourages the creation of these missing middle housing types by streamlining the SMA, allowing small projects of ten units or less often built by mom and pop developers, to move forward sooner in the mapping process. We have spent a great deal of time addressing concerns raised defining that this policy will only apply in urbanized areas, adding health and safety language, and precluding development in very high fire zones, very high fire severity zones.

And we're committed to continuing that work with our partners to strengthen the efficacy of this policy to ensure that we're incentivizing the production of Low cost ownership opportunities. Thank you for your time, and it's for these reasons we'll respectfully ask for your Ivote.

Good morning, Chair. Committee Members. My name is Esmeralda Lopez, and I am the California State Director of Policy and Advocacy for UnidosUS, which is the nation's largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization.

In addition to an office in Los Angeles and staff here in Sacramento, we have an affiliate network of 66 community based organizations throughout the state of California. I'm here today to share with you why homeownership is such a powerful tool for reducing the ethnic and racial wealth gap for Latinos, and why SB 84 is a step in the right direction to increasing access to affordable homes for purchase. For Latinos, homeownership plays a larger role in wealth building than for other groups, and accounts for more than 50% of household wealth.

Last month, Unidos announced our initiative and campaign called the Homeownership Equity--Homeownership Means Equity Campaign, with a goal of creating 4 million new Latino homeowners by 2030. In addition to that, we're going to be releasing a report here about California Latino homeownership next month. This research has shown that the low housing supply is really weighing down the homeownership rate.

There are 1.9 million Latinos ages 18 to 45 in the state of California that are considered mortgage ready. Our research also indicated that the incomes of Latinos lag far behind home appreciation values. California has some of the most unaffordable markets for home ownership for Latinos in the country.

According to the National Association for Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, seven out of the ten most unaffordable markets for homeownership for Latinos are here in the state of California. This is why we support policies like SB 684 to produce more homes that are a lower cost and more accessible to first time homebuyers. Addressing California's housing crisis is going to require increasing support for housing supply.

We also support homebuyer readiness programs, increasing access to credit, and preserving home ownership. But additionally, decades of underproduction cannot be undone without significant budgetary investments by the state. SB 684 is one important step in addressing California's housing crisis by creating an important tool for building affordable homes for purchase and wealth building opportunities, especially for Latinos. Thank you and we respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. How about in the room? Anyone in support of the Bill, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Andres Ramirez, on behalf of All Home, in support.

Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in support.

Nina Weiler-Harwell. AARP California in support.

Taylor Thompson on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Bryan Sapp on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, California Spur Civic Well, San Diego Housing Commission, Fieldstead, and the Two Hundred For Homeownership all in support. Thank you.

Bryan Ngo on behalf of Bill Costa in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association. We're actually neutral on the Bill. We were neutral in the previous version, had some concerns with the language, but really appreciate working with the author, the sponsors, with your committee. With those committee amendments, I think we will continue to be neutral. But we do look forward to continuing to work on fine tuning some of the remaining pieces. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition of the measure, please come forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Alchemy Graham on behalf of the city of Beverly Hills in opposition.

Thank you. They'll bring you back to the Committee. Assembly Member Boerner?

Yes. I want to commend the author and the sponsors on this Bill. If you remember, AB 803 took me three years to get through this house, and the original version of it in 2019, actually tried to touch the Subdivision Map Act, and we were not able to get it through.

So this is phenomenal that you've taken that and what we've already seen. I've had reports from Habitat for Humanity, who I never thought would use AB 803, the Starter Home Revitalization Act in 2021, for those of you who weren't here yet. they're already using it to build homes.

And what you said about homeownership is super important, not only for the Latino community. I agree. We need to do more on that. But I'm one of five renters. Actually, Mr. Haney's going to be surprised that I'm voting for this Bill. So I want to, for the record, note Haney, I'm voting for another housing bill.

You know, we're two of five renters in the Legislature. It is very hard and very high land value communities to get in housing, and this is going to really help. It's a very nuts and bolts thing that you're doing. And so with that, I'd love to be added at a co author, if that's possible. Thank you.

Any other committee Member? Seeing nobody else wanting to comment? There is tremendous opportunity to increase housing production by expediting the subdivision MAPAC process for smaller developments. I appreciate you working with the committee to refine the scope of the Bill. I know you will continue to work with local agencies to further refine the Bill as it moves forward.

I am pleased to support this Bill today. I actually, as a city planner, process countless tenary maps and tenary parcel maps. And I know the frustration that comes with developers because time means money to them and having this measured by developers actually being able to actually get the building permit too, I believe that this is one of the ways that we're going to be able to accelerate building homes, which is what we need to do in the state with that. Is there any closing statements that you want to make?

I appreciate all of the comments. My experience in local government is that the ability to own your own home fundamentally changes not only the neighborhood, but the family that's moving into that home. I've never seen such joy and excitement, except when people get a key to their house and they realize it's theirs.

Now they have to pay for it for 30 years, right? But just the fact that they have a place that's theirs, that they're working towards that goal, I think, is really life changing. So I appreciate the support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. I'm pleased to support your build today. We do have a motion by Assemblymember Boerner and seconded by Assemblymember Waldron. Bill pass amendment to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carillo? Aye. Carillo, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner? Aye. Boerner, aye. Haney? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We do have two more items on the agenda. Not seeing those, but going back to this, the vote was 7-zero and the Bill is out. Thank you. So I was saying two more items on the agenda. Item number nine by Senator Allen, actually, that's the only item. No, item number seven also. SB 44 by Senator Skinner. Please, Senator Skinner and Senator Allen make your way to Room 126. Thank you.

We are currently waiting.

While we're waiting for other authors to present, we're going to do the add ons for those that were not present for consent calendar. I believe there's two Members that need to be added on--Boerner--For consent calendar.

Berner, aye. Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye.

The Bill is out with 8-0. Here I can actually run through. Welcome. Yeah, real quick.

SB 34. Waldron? No. Waldron, no.

The bill is out with 6-2.

SB 314. Waldron? No. Waldron, no.

The Bill is out with 6-1 still on call. Okay, so it's out with 6-1.

SB 411. Boerner? Aye. Boerner, aye.

The Bill is out. We're going to leave that open, actually, still waiting for another add-on.

That's it.

And now seeing Senator Allen, item number nine, SB 676. Welcome, Senator. Begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the two of you. And congratulations to you, Mr. Chair. Happy to discuss this further, but this is obviously correcting a mistake we made before by returning power to cities and counties to regulate artificial turf and manage these environmental and waste issues associated with artificial turf in their own communities. So here with me to testify in support of the Bill is Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm Jordan Wells on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, and we're a nonprofit that advocates for an equitable circular economy, and we're strongly in support of SB 676. California's drought has led some residents to switch from water-loving grass to synthetic grass. Unfortunately, laying sheets of plastic on the ground that usually contain multiple toxic chemicals, such as PFAS, will most likely result in microplastics and PFAS entering our soil and water.

At a time when drinking water quality has been impaired nationally by both microplastics and PFAS and water districts are being held responsible for limiting these contaminants, why would we encourage the use of Astroturf? The cost to remediate soil and water will be more than we will be able to afford. So, why not reduce the use of Astroturf to prevent soil and water contamination? Additionally, Astroturf is not required to disclose that it contains PFAS on the label.

So, homeowners are buying toxic plastic without knowing and putting it on the soil around their home in an effort to do a good thing for the environment, save water. A growing number of municipalities in California and across the country are banning the installation of synthetic grass. Due to these concerns, we must not forget that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There are a lot of issues that are hard to solve, but this is not one of them. We'd like to thank Senator Allen for his leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Those in support of the Bill, please come forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Mr. Chair, Members, Carlos Gutierrez on behalf of Plant California Alliance in support.

Alchemy Graham on behalf of Stop Waste and the National Stewardship Action Council in support. Thank you.

Jeff Nielsen Wercksman, on behalf of the city of Millbury, in support.

Jon Potter from CleanEarth4Kids.org and Safe Healthy Playing Fields in strong support.

Thank you. Anybody in the room in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. And I'll take it back to the committee for any comments, questions, Vice Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see what you're doing. And the world is trying to deal with plastics. And having sat on a city council for years, making decisions about converting our, living through a drought, and converting our soccer fields and landscape medians and such to drought resistant, which is all good, but the soccer fields, the baseball fields, et cetera, changing that to artificial turf, now we have to change all that back.

This doesn't require them to change it back. It returns the power to the local governments to decide one way or another.

Okay, so that's what it really wanted to get clarification on. So if predictably we'll have another drought, will there be--okay, If the city governments want to retain the turf, artificial turf, then if we have another drought, then we're protected the

Legislature, took away local control.

Now you're restoring it.

And now we're restoring it.

Oh, that's very good. Yeah, what a concept. All right, thank you.

Any other committee Member with comments? Seeing none. Senator Allen, I appreciate your work on this issue to encourage drought-tolerant landscaping that does not pose environmental risks for communities across the state. I will be supporting your Bill today. Do you have any closing statements?

No. I appreciate it. I love the opportunity to clarify and ask for an aye vote.

With a motion by Assemblymember Boerner and a second by Assemblymember. Waldron the motion is due passed to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll

Carillo? Aye. Carillo, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Boerner, aye. Boerner, aye. Haney? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Waldron? Aye. Waldron, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

Thank you, Members, thank you very much.

The Bill is double 6-0 and we leave the roll open for Adams.

Great.

Number seven by Senator Skinner. Sorry, having only one item left on the agenda. Item number seven by Senator Skinner. Senator, please make your way to room 126. In the meantime, do we need to have any other add ons? So we're good? We're good. Thank you.

Somebody else.

While we wait for the next author, we have one more add on for Assemblymember Ramos. Secretary. That is seven of the bills still out, but we still have the roll open for one more Member. And we just heard that Senator Skinner is on her way to room 126.

Welcome. Our last item on the agenda. Item number seven, SB 440 by Senator Skinner. Welcome, Senator. When you're ready.

For local governments, local entities in regions who want to cooperate together to help us get the missing middle and affordable housing that we know this state needs, that they could come together and create a regional Housing Finance Authority to engage in this. They would still have to follow all local zoning rules, all rules regarding approvals for financing mechanisms. So those that must be voter approved obviously would have to go before the voters.

So all of that would be intact. The Bill does not interfere with that and it is not prescriptive. It does not dictate to the local area exactly how they would constitute themselves. So it's enabling. But I think that what's important, before I have my witness, is to let you know the amendments that we were able to work out that enabled both the Realtors and the CBIA, and I'll let them speak for themselves. But if I could just briefly say what those amendments are, I think would be helpful, and then I will let my witnesses speak.

Get my glasses out. Sorry. Okay, my staff quickly. So, the Bill will be amended to ensure that a regional Housing Finance Authority would only be able to propose one ballot measure per election cycle, that there would be an expiration date put on any taxing requirement, that there would be a limitation of one tax per real property. Until that tax expires, they would not have available to them the ability to use a documentary transfer tax as a financing mechanism. And it would eliminate the acquisition of housing with one to four units in a specified way.

And additionally, there's an additional amendment or final amendment that indicates that sorry, my staff did not give it to me in a simple way, but basically ensures that housing that was built under an inclusionary zoning. So, in other words already has affordability would not be affected by any of these new financing mechanisms for a minimum of five years from the point of the completion of that housing. Now, hopefully, I described that accurately because I was trying to do it rather than reading you the long document.

But those are the amendments. And with that, I'd like to turn to my witnesses who are Steve Frisch from the Mountain Housing Council in Tahoe and Truckee and Marina Wiant from the California Housing Consortium.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon now. My name is Steve Frisch. I'm the President of the Sierra Business Council and a Member of the Mountain Housing Council, which is a coalition of 30 local governments and agencies working in the North Lake Tahoe Truckee area through a joint powers authority to create a regional Housing Finance Authority.

We're strongly in support of this Bill that includes several members of our coalitions, including the county of Placer, the county of Nevada, the Town of Truckee, the Sierra Business Council, my organization, the Tahoe Truckee Workforce Housing Association, which is our regional JPA. There are six special district Members who I will not all list, and the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation. So this piece of legislation solves four critical issues for our coalition working on increasing housing financing in our region.

First, it clarifies the governance structure of a regional Housing Finance Authority and defines the powers, the relative powers vis-a-vis the different participants in the Finance Authority. Second, it clarifies the authorities that the Regional Housing Finance Authority will have and gives us clear guidance about what powers that authority will have moving forward.

Third, it creates bonding authority for the Regional Housing Finance Authority, which allows our coalition to make long term commitments about the use of public funds to support bonds while speeding the deployment of money to build housing directly.

And finally, this Bill allows a regional Housing Finance Authority to set a local AMI eligibility threshold, advancing projects at 150% of AMI. So it solves a very critical need in our region, that is the delta between 80% and 150% for achievable housing for middle class families within our region.

Our communities have done a great deal of local policy to advance housing. They are spending their own money from their General Fund budgets to build housing. They're doing loan programs for builders and developers. They've limited short term rentals within the region.

All of them have deed restriction programs, and two of them are either HCD recognized housing priority communities or in the process of doing so. So we are all strongly in support of this piece of legislation because it gives us a new tool in order to apply our own funds and our own kind of perspicacity to solving our local issue. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Marina Wiant--and Members--Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium. We're an affordable housing advocacy organization focused on the production and preservation of low income housing and proud to be a sponsor of this Bill. As Mr. Frisch articulated so well, the need for it, this Bill, the existing tools have shortfalls, and that's why the Bay Area came forward in 2020 with AB 1487, which established BAHFA and Los Angeles County came forward to the Legislature in 2022 with SB 679 that established LA Casa to create these similar types of tools.

And we're just trying to kind of model after those, a model for any other organization in the state to be able to produce, put together a similar entity like BAHA and LA Casa ,without having to come back to the Legislature. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have and respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Witnesses in support. Please come forward, state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Andrew Dawson on the California Housing Partnership in Support.

Niccolo De Luca on behalf of Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support.

David Jones on behalf of the towns of Truckee and Mammoth Lakes in support. Good to see you.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies. Very strong support.

Brian Sapp on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, in support. Civic well in support. And on behalf of Fieldstead in support, and specifically Bob Naylor for the amendment requesting eminent domain, also in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Jennifer Speck. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we're not in support of the Bill, but we're also not in opposition of the Bill anymore due to the wonderful work that was done by the author, her staff as well as her sponsor in working out negotiations with us within the last couple of days. We extremely appreciate all of the attention to detail and the opportunities sort of align some of the principles within this measure, within some of the other alterations or amendments that are being made to BAHFA currently within Assemblymember Wcks' Bill. And so we very much appreciate the opportunity to collaborate. I want to thank you again profusely for the opportunity to negotiate these amendments. Once they are in print, the Realtors will remove their opposition formally. Thank you.

Thank you.

And Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. With the amendments, we'll also be neutral. Just wanted to ensure that it wouldn't impact the production of new housing, so thank you.

Thank you. And just for the record, no one else in opposition to the Bill? seeing nobody else, bring it back to the committee. Assemblymember Pacheco?

I just wanted to just comment and thank the author for working with the opposition. I'm glad to see that the opposition has now come to neutral. I know it took a lot of work and I appreciate all the work you put into it and thank you for everything that you're doing.

Assemblyman Wilson.

Thank you to the Senator for bringing this forward. I had the opportunity as Chair of Housing for association barrier Government to work with BAHFA. It was, the collaboration was extremely helpful as we're trying to move housing production and more housing in the Bay Area. And I think that's why it was extremely important to work with the opposition in terms of ensuring that we don't impact that because that's the end goal of everybody.

And so I just really am happy to support this and the fact that we won't have these coming to the legislatures when it's very simple, doing something that is we had an opportunity to really have a pilot program with the two both in Southern California and Northern California. We see what this looks like, we see what additional parameters we might need in place. And now we can roll it statewide. And that is a very good thing. Very happy that this is brought forward and look forward to increasing housing production, increasing housing across our state because it's so needed.

And I think it will help with not only homeless, but also people talk about how high it is, the cost of production and the rate, how much it costs for people to purchase homes and things like that nature. When we increase our production, when we have more housing, it fixes those issues as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other committee Member wishing to make a comment? Assembly Member Boerner?

Yes. I want to thank you for coming forward with this measure. Last year, we heard a very prescriptive version of this, which was I struggled to support because it was so prescriptive. And I think having it more open for local jurisdictions to figure out what works for them is a great approach. One of the things that I did say when we heard that Bill last year was that one thing we need to ensure is the good governance. There are good governance practices.

And hopefully going forward, you'll think about whether it's in this Bill or another Bill, how would you ensure that those best practices are put in place? Because the success of these agencies will live and die by that governance and the public trust to actually do what they want to accomplish. But I represent several small cities and they've been asking for like, how can we do this, how can we do that? Because it is really hard, especially on high land value areas like my district that I represent, to actually get money to do this. And many cities have to come together. So thank you very much.

Seeing no other Committee Member wishing to comment. Senator Skinner, you have worked tirelessly to address the housing crisis during your time in the Legislature, and this Bill continues to build on that work. I commend you for working with the opposition on these issues they raised. I am pleased to support the Bill today with the amendments that you read to us. I believe we have a motion by Assemblymember Waldron, seconded by Assemblymember Boerner.

The motion--Wilson. Wilson. I'm sorry, she's not even here. Motion by Wilson, seconded by Borner. Thank you for the clarification. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the role.

Carillo? Aye. Carillo, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Boerner? Aye. Boerner, aye. Haney? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Waldron? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

The Bill is out five to one, and we'll leave the roll open for add ons. Thank you. Congratulations.

Thanks.

We're going to open the roll for Adams, madam Secretary. We're going to open the roll for Adams. Madam Secretary.

SB 411. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye.

It's seven out. The Bill is out. It's a final roll.

SB 440. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye.

It's a 6-1. The Bill is out.

SB 537. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye.

With a 6-1, the Bill is out.

SB 676. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye.

With an 8-0, the Bill is out.

SB 684. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye.

With an 8-0, the Bill is out. And that concludes the open roll. Thank you coming back. And with that, we adjourn this meeting. Thank you, everybody.