Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance

The Senate Committee on Governance and Finance will come to order. Good morning everybody, and welcome to our Committee hearing. Today. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 453-0694.

We are holding our Committee, our Committee hearings here in the O Street Building and I'm going to ask all of the Members of the Committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum. We're going to start today as a Subcommitee, so we're going to jump right into it. We have 17 bills on today's agenda. Three are proposed for consent. The consent items today are file item number one AB 430 by Assemblymember Bennett.

File item number seven AB 1094 by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. And file item number 14 AB 1528 by Assembly Member Gipson. File number eight, AB 1275 by Assembly member Arambula has been pulled from today's agenda. File item number 17, AB 543 by Assembly Member Gipson will be reconsidered for a vote only. And we'll take that item up after Assembly member Gibson presents his other Bill here in the Committee. An announcement to the public Assembly Member and Committee Members.

We will go into recess at 12:15 because of Senate Floor session. Once Floor has adjourned, the Rules Committee will begin their hearing in this room. So if we have not finished by 12:15, we will come back after the Senate Rules adjourns. So it's in everybody's interest to get here and to make sure that they're succinct. The teleconference process takes some time and so it sometimes takes us a little bit longer to get through bills.

We have 10 authors, so we're going to begin hearing our presentation with Assemblymember Kalra. File item number 12. Assembly member Connolly has gracefully given the floor to Assembly Member Kalra. AB 1469, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I do want to thank my colleague Assembly Member Connolly for his graciousness. And I'd like to first begin by accepting the Committee amendments. And I want to thank the Committee staff and chair for their time and work on this issue with us on this Bill with us.

AB 1469 has enjoyed bipartisan support and would amend the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act to expand its statutory purposes and allow certain resources to be used for outreach, counseling, transitional housing or other services for unsheltered people living on public lands and along waterways within Santa Clara County. Valley Water owns and manages 294 miles of streams and habitat with a mission to protect more than 800 miles of streams throughout Santa Clara County.

In 2022, 77% of the unhoused population in Santa Clara County were unsheltered, with an estimated 2300 taking refuge on valley waters, property or land easements. Such circumstances have led to encampments along the waterways both a human and an environmental tragedy. For example, the watersheds in Santa Clara County are prone to flash flooding surprising unsheltered people and resulting in drownings or serious injury. In Martin v City of Bois the US.

Court of appeals for the 9th circuit held that governments cannot criminalize sleeping outdoors on public property if there is no real option for sleeping indoors. Amid an unprecedented need for transitional long term housing in Santa Clara County, cities in the county often do not have shelter space to offer. Valley water has very limited authority to expend its revenue outside of purposes listed in the district act, leaving some human health and safety risks on their lands unaddressed.

AB 1469 will provide valley water with the flexibility needed to direct resources to assist unsheltered people on their lands and humanely address a crisis that can no longer be ignored. With me to provide supporting testimony are Bart Broome, assistant officer for state government relations for the district. But first, our former esteemed colleague, state Senator Jim Bell, who serves on valley waters board of directors.

Welcome, Senator.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair Members, thank you for your welcome. I serve now on the board of the Santa Clara valley water district, which is seven people, colleagues that represent Santa Clara County. We have 2300 people homeless living in the creeks in Santa Clara County, not unlike what we have here in Sacramento and Los Angeles and some other counties. People naturally take refuge along the creeks and streams, and we own hundreds of miles of Creekside public lands.

And we have the responsibility to do more than just assist people living and sometimes actually dying in our creek creeks. Our creeks are flashy, meaning the floods come. And in fact, in 2017, we had a flood that flooded 17,000 homes in Santa Clara County. In San Jose valley water hydraulics and engineers are doing the best to predict mother nature when waters will come. But we know that the danger exists for the homeless people and individuals, and that's our primary concern. But this is not enough.

We have to have a law change with our district act to change the law to help the unsheltered people and have them safely relocated away from our creeks. We believe this law that we propose will actually do that. You're the fiscal Committee, so fiscally, we just approved our budget. Last year, we spent $22.4 million cleaning up homeless encampments in the creeks. We had numerous fires in the creeks where our property was burned.

In fact, we had a recent settlement with an individual where a neighboring house was burned down due to a fire in the creek. All these very dangerous situations exist. So we need this Bill passed to actually not wait till the problem occurs, but to be more proactive in moving people. And we think it will give us the flexibility to do that. And we urge vote from the board of directors of the valley water district. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair Members, Bart Broome, also with valley water. Due to legal constraints on our revenue sources in most circumstances, the only assistance that Valley Water can provide unsheltered people is to clean up the trash and other waste, impacting the water quality in our streams. AB 1469 will enable us to fulfill our ethical responsibility to do more. I'm here to help answer questions, and I urge your I vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody in room 2200 that would like to speak in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair, Jean Hurst here. Today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. In support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Like to invite you to come forward. Seeing no one, we'll move on to the teleconference line. Moderator if you could queue up individuals that would like to testify either in support or in opposition of AB 1469.

For support or opposition, for AB 1469, press one, then zero. On your telephone keypad, we will go to line 19.

Zach Hilton, Gilroy City Council Member in support.

And we'll now go to line 17.

Thank you, chair Members. My name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District. We are in support of this Bill.

And Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Thank you very much. We'll bring it to the Committee for questions, comments, concerns.

Madam Chair, I would like to move the Bill.

That would be great, but we need a quorum. So we'll wait for a couple more Members, and then we'll allow you to do that.

And I just want to thank also our former colleagues, Senator Bell, for being here and appreciate that you're taking a proactive approach and wanting to do more, whereas most people are barely trying to do the minimum and you're trying to do more. So thank you.

Absolutely agree with that. Assembly Member. You may conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, as was the case when Senator Bell was in the Legislature, he's always pushed us with his heart, leading first. One of the first things he did as he joined the Valley Water District Board is reach out to us and say, we need to do something about the unhoused that are on Valley Water property. And so it's no surprise that we see him here today continuing that fight. For those that need the help the most.

With that, respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Very good. We'll take it once we get a quorum. Thank you very much for being here, Senator. Bell. It's great to see you again. Moving on to our agenda, we'll take up file item number two, AB 935 by Assemblymember Connolly. Welcome. Assembly Member.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members. In 2022, 63% of California voters, via Proposition 31, upheld the state law, SB 793, prohibiting tobacco retailers from selling most flavored tobacco products. SB 793 was groundbreaking and covers flavored ecigarettes, menthol cigarettes, and tobacco product flavor enhancers. In retail locations, including stores and vending machines, throughout the State of California. Despite the overwhelming support from voters to ratify SB 793, flavored tobacco products continue to be sold in many stores across the state, which allows many teenagers to continue accessing these dangerous products.

AB 935 will explicitly authorize the California Department of Public Health and the Attorney General to enforce the flavored tobacco ban pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 2295 0.5, also known as the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Act or Stake Act. Consistent with other tobacco enforcement efforts, AB 935 will also replace the subdivision from the Health and Safety Code, which makes violation of SB 9793 a misdemeanor and criminal penalty.

Instead, pursuant to the Stake Act, it will become a civil penalty to retailers, their agents or their employees who are in violation. The cost of implementation will be minor, especially when compared to the cost of health care for those with smoking related illnesses. Preventing the next generation of Californians from becoming addicted to smoking should be a priority, and I know is for all of us who care about the public health of our state and the well being of our children.

SB 793 can help to achieve this goal, but only if the law is properly enforced. And AB 935 will make explicit enforcement by CDPH and the AG, in addition to local agencies to ensure compliance and protection of public health. I will now pass it on, with your permission, to our main witnesses. Keisa Bruce, Director of advocacy for the American lung Association, followed by dr. John Ma, who served as a 2018 President of the San Francisco Marin medical society.

Very good. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Senate Committee Members. My name is Keisa Bruce and I am the advocacy Director for the American Lung Association. I want to thank Assembly Member Connolly for bringing this Bill forward. This is an important step in fulfilling the promise of SB 793 to eliminate the sale of flavored tobacco products. As most of you know, this Bill was passed in 2020 and affirmed by voters in 2022.

The reason for the delay is that tobacco companies spent over 20 million to qualify a referendum to buy time to sell more than $1.0 billion worth of flavored tobacco products until the election. 89 35 will align state enforcement of California's flavored tobacco law and existing state law that prevents youth access to tobacco products. In addition, it makes sense to bring enforcement of all youth tobacco laws under the same umbrella.

The tobacco companies have been doing everything they can to evade the new law in order to keep selling kid friendly tobacco products. From blatantly disobeying the law by refusing to stop selling candy flavored vaping products to introducing new menthol like cigarettes designed to keep customers who are used to minty menthol flavored hooked, the tobacco companies are still up to their old tricks. They have shown time and time again that they will say anything, do anything, and spend anything to keep attracting youth to their deadly products.

We respectfully request an aye vote today, and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair Caballero and Members. My name is John Maa. It's an honor to share the perspective of the San Francisco Marine Medical Society, which has endorsed AB nine and 135. Smoking is the leading cause of death for Americans claiming more lives than COVID did over the past three years. The cost to California are approximately $24 billion each year.

The medical society was proud to help defend Mayor Ed Lee's final public health legacy, the 2017 flavored Tobacco Ordinance, which was challenged by twin referendums in 2018 and 2019. Assembly Member Connolly had the vision to extend Mayor Lee's legislation into Marin County and to strengthen the enforcement now of 793 to restrict the sales of menthol cigarettes and flavored liquids.

I'd like to thank Chair Caballero, Members Durazo, Glazer, Skinner and Weiner for being co authors of 793, and also to Senator Dalay, who joined in voting I for Senate Bill 793 on the Senate Floor on August 28, 2020. It was signed into the law the same day by Governor Gavin Newsom. That was 1040 days ago. We're here now. AB 935 became necessary after the repeated litigation, referendum, and confusion that was created by the tobacco industry that have delayed the implementation of 793.

Three days after Governor Newsom signed the law, the industry filed for a referendum that bought them two extra years to sell nearly $830,000,000 in menthol cigarettes and flavored products while costing our state hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco related health care costs. The day after the Election Day, when they were defeated, they filed a federal lawsuit against 793. And after that failed, they appealed to the United States Supreme Court, who refused to hear their petition.

Another strategy to thwart 793 and local ordinances has been to introduce new products. First came synthetic nicotine, synthesized in the laboratory to evade FDA regulation. Congress stepped in and ended the sales of these illegal products. Then RJ. Reynolds launched its California compliant non menthol cigarettes. The Attorney General recently sent them a request to stop sales of these cigarettes. The industry responded by suing the State of California to be able to continue to sell these products.

AB 935 will empower the Attorney General and the Department of Public Health with the tools to educate retailers and bring an end to the sales of these illicit flavored tobacco products. I urge the Committee to vote aye for ABC 935 today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support of the Bill in room 2200?

Good morning. Jamie Morgan on behalf of the American Heart Association, in strong support, thank you.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of Marin County Board of Supervisors support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair Members, James Michael Paul with Ask Me California strong support, urgency vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition in room 2200?

And Madam Chair Members, John Winger on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. We do have an opposed unless amended position on the Bill right now, but would like to thank the author for continuing discussions with us. We just want to make sure that our station owners are aware of what's banned and what's not. Prior to being fined, we've had some significant compliance issues at the local level. A lot of inconsistency on how things are enforced.

We've even had some station owners get their tobacco licenses revoked for up to a month for selling a product that they didn't know was banned. We're not even being told what is banned. And so just want a little bit of clarity there. So we've had some good conversations and look forward to continuing those. Thank you.

Very good. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line and moderator. If you could queue up those individuals that would like to speak in support or in opposition, please.

For support or opposition, for AB 935, press one, then zero at this moment. And we will go to line 12.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Thank you.

And we'll now go to line 23.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association in support. Thank you.

And with that, Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or concerns. I appreciate the recitation of what's happened in the interim because you lose track of what's going on, and very, very important. So I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward and allow you to conclude at this time.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate the broad coalition we brought together on this Bill. The work of prior legislative efforts to get us to this point. And as was duly noted, after over 1000 days that this law has been--or this effort--has been in existence, it's time to really step up enforcement. That's what this law or this proposal is all about. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. We will take this up when we have a quorum.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation here today. Moving on to file item number three, assemblymember Ting, AB 976. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So AB 976 is going to continue to help us build more housing in California. Currently, ADUs are supposed to establish owner occupancy as of January 1, 2025. AB 976 would remove the owner occupancy provision from ADUs so that they can remain ADUs can continue to be built by people who are owner occupied or also folks who own the property for rental purposes. Respectfully as aye vote on AB. 976. We have Jordan Carbahal from California YIMBY.

Welcome.

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jordan Banana. Carvahad legislative advocate for California YIMBY, a proud sponsor here to speak in support of AB 976. AB, California YIMBY is a stable organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making California affordable place to live, work and raise a family for all Californians. As the name suggested. Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs our homes are built as accessory to the main dwelling to modestly increase our state's housing supply.

Since removing local barriers to ADUs, their construction has grown, resulting in thousands of new affordable rental homes across California. Over the past three years, ADUs have provided almost 10,000 new unsubsidized affordable homes to California's rental supply, including more than 4000 affordable to Low income families. In addition to bolstering our housing supplies, ADUs create additional home value and financial security for California homeowners. Most ADUs are built by homeowners to provide housing for friends or family, generate rental income to offset the mortgage, or grow their home equity.

AB 976 preserves the ability of property owners to provide Low cost rental ADUs by permanently extending the existing prohibition on local owner occupancy requirements. Requirements ADUs are a proven tool to address California's housing shortage, and we should do all we can to ensure their continued success. And it's for this reason we respectfully request your support for AB 976. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support?

Hi. Meg Snyder. On behalf of Meta. In support.

Very good. Anyone else in support? Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition? In opposition, saying none. We'll move on to the teleconference line moderator. If you could queue up individuals that would like to testify either in support or in opposition of AB 976.

For support or opposition for AB 976, press one, then zero at this moment. And we will go to line eight.

Michael Lang with SPUR in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee. You're lucky there's only three of us, so not a lot of questions being asked today. It looks like there are no questions, so assemblyman will let you conclude.

Thank you. Just respectfully ask for I vote and I'd like to move on to AB 1033, if that's okay.

Absolutely. We'll take that up when we have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 1033 removes the state's prohibition on separately conveying ADUs and allowing ADUs to be sold as condos if a local government decides to allow adu condo conversions. So a local government would have to opt into this provision. Again, this is not a mandate. This is just an option for the property owner. This would continue to create more home ownership opportunities. We really appreciate all the concerns that the lenders and the Realtors have brought up through this process.

We believe we've taken amendments to satisfy their concerns. We're also continued to work with the community managers and believe we're on track to satisfy their concerns as well. We also further clarified that any property owner would need to satisfy all liens of the property or receive consent from the lienholders prior to condo mapping. And again, this is very similar to anyone who does a condominium conversion from a Duplex or a Fourplex. The laws are consistent with this approach.

Washington, Oregon, Texas already allowed this practice to occur. This Bill would have the potential to continue to unlock more home ownership opportunities. I believe we have Alex Torres from Bay Area Council, as well as Mark Newberger from California State Association of Counties.

Very good. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam chaired Members. Alex Torres, Director of State Government Relations for the Bay Area Council. We represent 330 employers in the nine county Bay Area. We are a proud sponsor here of AB 1033, excited to continue our work on improving Adu legislation, which we began in 2017. Since 2017, as Mr. Ting referenced, ADUs have been a tremendous success. Production increased locally from 600 ADUs to about 20,000 per year as the result of state legislation that you all have worked on and voted for.

So we thank you for your support of ADUs as a tool of encouraging housing production. According to the UC Berkeley Turner Center, ADUs typically rent for an amount that is affordable to Low income. This means ADUs are a steady pipeline of affordable housing that requires no subsidy. Mr. Ting mentioned the impact in other states.

AB 1033 continues this work by creating a pathway for affordable home ownership ownership options building on the success of adu rentals, which have been the exclusive option until now because of a state ban on separately conveying or selling an adu in communities around the country that allow for sale ADUs such as Portland, Seattle, Austin and Princeton. These ADUs sell for between 30 and 60% less than commensurate homes in the same market, giving middle class people a critical first step into the ladder of home ownership.

One such issue noted in the analysis was a concern that lenders would not be able to sell Adu condo mortgages on the secondary market, an important part of the home lending business. But the Federal Housing Finance Administration has reviewed the Bill and said that they do not have concerns with it at this time. It's worth noting the federal government currently buys Adu condo loans on the secondary market from other states. Another key point the Bill only permits Adu condos, not lot splits.

So these many condo associations would form rules about shared utilities, access and other issues arising from sharing a parcel under the existing laws regulating those agreements. In some, this Bill creates a unique and strategic pathway to affordable home ownership options. Thank you, Mr. Ting, for your authorship leadership on the Adu issue. We are pleased to urge your support here for it today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. I'm Mark Newber of the California State Association of Counties want to thank the author for the opportunity to testify in support of this Bill and the Committee staff for all their hard work on this Bill. CSAC supports AP 1033 as it will help address the state's housing and affordability crisis, which is a component of the state's homelessness crisis.

Recognizing the need for a more thoughtful approach to address the state's homelessness crisis, CSAC has engaged and developed the At Home Plan to address the various various indicators or challenges that are driving the state's homelessness crisis. AB 1030 C's removal of the state's prohibition on separately conveying ADUs will help to increase the availability of homes at prices affordable to the state's working families and individuals.

This Bill aligns with CSAC's efforts to increase housing supply for all Californians, especially affordable housing, to support the state's vulnerable populations, including seniors, those with disabilities, and Low income residents.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in support?

Hi. Meg Snyder. On behalf of Meta in support. Thank you very much.

Brian SAFF on behalf of Spur in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in support? We'll move on to opposition. Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition?

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the community Association's Institute California legislative action Committee, as Mr. Ting said, we have been in active conversations with him and his staff. Just as the Bill is an opt in for local governments, it's also an opt in for community associations.

And so we believe that there should be language providing notice to a separate interest owner of a community Association with an adu that, before that's conveyed the potential purchaser of that adu, needs to have the written authorization from the Association to allow that to happen. A lot of interesting issues can come up with creating a condominium Association within a Master Association and how you deal with voting rights assessments, utilities. All of that needs to be worked out on the front end.

And so with it being an opt in, we totally appreciate that but believe that that notice should be upfront so that it really avoids any confrontation going forward and that the owner or potential owner of that adu knows the steps they should go through prior to actually purchasing that adu. So we hope to get to a resolution here real soon and appreciate the work of the author and the sponsors. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one, we'll move on to the Teleconference line. If you could key up individuals that would like to testify either in support or in opposition, that would be terrific.

For support of opposition, AB 1033, press one, then zero. We will go to line 25.

Madam Chair Members, this is Bob Naylor representing field stud and company. That's Howard Amundsen, Jr. An Orange County philanthropist in strong support.

Thank you very much.

And Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments and concerns. Thank you, Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Just a couple of questions to the author, and I support what you're doing. Just a quick response to the opposition. Is that something that you all really believe is possible or response to their.

I think we're hopeful we could reach agreement. Obviously, there's already existing laws around condominium conversions. Obviously, we'll work with them to make sure that they're consistent. Again, condominium conversions are something that already occur in the state, that's already state law. That's something that we'll continue to kind of work with them to kind of clarify what they need.

Great. And second, this is a much, much broader question, not specific to your Bill, but since we're talking about ADUs, and we have for the last three years, it seemed like that was going to be this big solution to a big part of our housing problem. Is this just like another way to fix the adu issue? And also, how do you see this? I guess my question is the cost of building ADUs I've seen has grown enormously. And so how does this help with that?

Because ultimately our housing problem, part of it, a big part of it is the cost. And I don't know if the more we do around ADUs or bring attention to it, I don't know what is going on that is causing the price of ADUs to go up. So how does this fit into fixing the issue?

I think that's a great question. So just to answer the more global question, I've always thought that ADUs are a piece of the puzzle. But just to be clear, I don't think ADUs take the place of more dense multifamily housing, especially in urban, more dense areas. ADUs are difficult to scale. I mean, you can do one, two, three sometimes here and there, but they're not going to take the place of a 200 unit multifamily complex. Whether you're in downtown LA. Or downtown San Francisco.

Those are sort of, to me, apples and oranges. We definitely need both. I've been working on this issue and am very pleased at the progress. Unfortunately, some of the only units being built in the last couple of years are ADUs. We haven't seen as much progress in multifamily or even in affordable housing as we would like. I think we need all of the above. So this is just a piece of the puzzle in terms of being able to sell it.

My guess will be that the biggest beneficiaries will be family Members. Quite often we heard of ADUs originally as in laws. You have multi generational families. I know all throughout the state we have multi generational families living together. ADUs are a great option. A lot of times you hear a family, especially as they get older, well downsize, they'll move into adu so that their kids and their grandkids can live in the bigger house.

And I think you want to keep property rights and this is like a nice way to maintain a certain separation around property rights. Again, this is something that people can opt into. So it's just allowing more options. And I think at a time that we need more housing, this allows more options. I'm actually surprised to hear that adu costs are going up. I had to go back and look at that and look at the research.

My guess is as ADUs become more ubiquitous and people know how to build them, that my hope would be the cost will come down. I mean, you're hearing about a number of different types of know very common in Los Angeles. You have separate garages that know detached garages. I know those are great ADUs that are completely separately detached. You also hear about different companies that are making prefab adu so they can actually kind of drop it in.

And so the hope is that consumers have more options that we can get housing, like you said, built cheaper and faster. And again, this is to me a piece of the puzzle, but it's definitely not the silver bullet. We have a long way to go to really get to the 2 million homes shortfall. Having said that, the research has estimated that as ADUs ramp up, that we could potentially get about build about 50,000 ADUs a year as the industry kind of ramps up, which is great.

So it's a piece of the puzzle, but definitely I would never characterize it as the ultimate solution.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Sorry for going off.

No, not at all.

Any other questions or comments or concerns?

I think a lot of the adu issues sound great. They sound like they're going to solve. But like one of my colleagues pointed out, I see a big difference between what we imagine is going to happen and what actually happens on the ground. You're talking about a lot of people that use the ADUs for their family Members that probably currently live inside the main house.

And so they just build an adu which only increases their property value because in the future they can use that as a potential source of income for renting it out. But they're not going to rent it out for Low and affordable housing because that's going to be on their property. That's the practicality of it. I mean, it sounds like they're not being a part of the solution. We're densifying areas that weren't meant to be densified. This push to actually have lot splits.

I can think of areas in some our communities that I represent that they could potentially do this. But there's so many things that go into lot splitting and go into trying to even like if a family Member they're not going to buy, having a separate piece of property on the property that their family owns is not something that I think they're going to be aspiring to. So this kind of opens up a can of worms for people who do participate.

And if cities aren't allowed to given some of the other legislation to have more of a say in what's going on with these and they lose that local control, more and more we're going to have a mishmash of housing that we have had in other communities that I have served, and that turns into public safety issues and all of the other things that go with units in the back that we didn't know were there.

I struggle with any more piling on any more adu because it hasn't it hasn't made a lick of difference in our regions. And the reason is we're just putting people from one house into the house next door so they don't have to actually live in the house. So that's my problems with the adu issue and it needs to be approached.

But the local agencies have to have they have to have a say in controlling this in their communities because if they don't, it gets out of control and then they have a whole different issue on their hands. Thank you for letting me impart that on you. I just don't like to not vote for something without you not understanding it well.

So for AB 1033, it's a local opt in. So your local cities would have to opt in. So it's not an option. If the local cities decide, or counties don't decide they don't want it, then they don't opt in. So it's nothing mandatory. It's something that's completely optional. The other piece I can only give you experience with ADUs in my community, in my neighborhood. And I know this is just an example, it's not one size fit all fits all.

But again, I think ADUs are some of the only housing that neighborhoods accept. If you talk to your neighbors, many neighbors would rather have a number of ADUs than have a 30 unit apartment building or 100 unit apartment building down the street. So I think that's sort of why there's been so much interest in ADUs in my community. What we've seen is for ADUs is we've seen them, they're usually in San Francisco, usually at the ground floors, the garage.

Oftentimes those get built out into a separate unit. Upstairs is really where the traditional living quarters has been. And what you'll see is through a separate entrance. Those garages often are more affordable housing. You see in my neighborhood, we have universities nearby that don't provide a lot of housing. San Francisco State University of San Francisco you see a lot of students end up renting those ADUs.

And then you see also families, a lot of immigrant families who are just kind of starting out start off on ADUs because that's what they could afford. So I would say they are a source of more affordable market rate housing just because they're less desirable, right? You're in a less desirable unit, you're in a smaller unit. But that's what people are looking for.

They're looking for something that's location wise, more central, and they're willing to sacrifice the amount they're paying and the size of the unit because they're in a smaller property.

Senator Blakesphere? Yes.

Thank you. Just briefly, I feel that I need to weigh in with my opinion that ADUs are clearly statistically one of the most successful types of housing that we've been able to add in the State of California. So just by the raw numbers, and also that they are, as you said, among the least objectionable ways to add housing. So scattering density into existing neighborhoods that are already developed and adding just incremental increases in density is a really great way to provide additional housing.

And I think to somewhat respectfully disagree with my colleague, I don't think that a lot of times the person is just moving out of the main house into the Adu. I think this is somebody who was living in a separate unit. And because they would like to live closer to family or they need the flexibility that that provides, they move into the Adu that the family builds.

And so ADUs really provide tremendous flexibility for families to allow the social safety net to work from within a family structure, whether it's the older parent or grandparent, it's a caregiver, it's an adult child, it's somebody who's gotten divorced or is graduating from college, or it's the caregiver. It's any number of family situations that are specific to that family. And so this allows ADUs really allow Independence, but they also allow connectivity.

And that combination of being able to share meals occasionally or rides or check on mom in the morning and say, how's it going? Do you need anything? All of that is just really critical that we provide the opportunities for our families to grow and to be housed in this way. So I'm always supportive of adu legislation. I think this one is a really exciting idea, and we'll see how many cities opt in. Hopefully a number of them do.

But I'm grateful that you're working on it, so I fully support it. And thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Skinner. Thanks, Chair. Appreciate the author. I think some Members of the Committee may know that I was a joint author on a number of Assemblymember Ting's bills in this subject area and also with Mr. Wykowski's. And I'm very happy that the state has made it easier to do ADUs. It's very important. But I also want to just as we speak about them, we also need multifamily housing. So I want to make sure that we're not just attached liking ADUs because of this Low density.

When we look at the amount of State of California land, which now, due to various our legislation is no longer strictly R One, but the majority of residential land in the State of California up until very recently was basically zoned only for single family and that was part of the contribution to our housing crisis. Besides the fact that we were saying no and didn't build, part of the way to say no is to just have an R one zone.

But we've changed that both with various bills and with this adu legislation. But speaking to this one directly I'm building an adu right now and the intention is that it will house my daughter, her wife and the grandbaby. And I think a Bill like this is important because let's say at some point I can no longer live on the property or I pass away then because there are two structures on the property I think it's appropriate to leave some flexibility.

If the other person doesn't want to become a landlord and rent then this allows for there to be two structures that can be owned and someone does not have to become a landlord. For example or for example let's say and I knock on Wood this does not happen. But I get to the point where I need the kind of care where hey, us legislators don't have pensions.

Where I have the kind of care that's going to cost a lot more then the ability for my family to be able to separate and sell the other unit allows them to have some or me to have some revenue to for example cover the cost of that care.

So I think there's many and there's many other reasons besides the fact that we're at the lowest point in California's history of percent of home ownership and the more we can create the opportunity for home ownership because that equity in your home is what allows people to do to either Fund businesses, put their kids through college, you name it. So I think this given that ADUs are being built in big numbers now this helps to expand them as an ability for homeownership.

So with that I support the Bill and I would move it.

Okay. Before we move it we need to take role because we have not established a quorum yet. So why don't we do that right now before I speak.

Senators. Caballero. Present. Sayarto, Present. Blakespearm Present. Dahle. Durazo, Present. Glazer. Skinner, Present. Weiner. You have a Qourum.

Quorum has been established. Chair will take your motion. Great. And if I can, just one last comment. In terms of costs, the construction costs for ADUs have gone up some but that's been inflationary.

The thing that has really gone up that the Legislature may want to look at are the fees that water districts, the utility, the various other fees for either putting in a separate meter or for the connection and also the amount of time it takes for those. And that has been now both delaying ADUs and adding very significant cost. I won't even say in the mic. What the my water utility wants to charge us for just the meter, but I'll move the Bill.

So we do have a motion my comments on this, and you and I have had extensive conversations. I think this has been a good discussion. I absolutely support ADUs. I think they've been an important addition to our housing market. I think that every situation is different. So let me just say that the situation you described in San Francisco makes a lot of sense. It's a separate unit and you can sell it.

What I'm concerned about is that in rural California, the way that the homes are built, and in much of suburbia, quite frankly, you've got the main house in the front, and if you're going to put an adu in, you're putting it in the back. And so you're densifying neighborhoods, which is great that it works, but then to have the property be sold, the adu to be sold, and people sharing the backyard of a home, in my mind, is problematic.

And you got to have an easement so that people can access the adu through the yard. But if you end up the rosy picture of it's all about family, family moving in and the sons and they take care of you and all that, that's great. But if you allow it to be sold, investors have come in and they've been buying the homes in order to build ADUs and you sell the properties.

The potential for disagreements, neighborhood disagreements, and if somebody owns the property, you can't ask them to leave, they're in your backyard. What if they don't have the same sense of space and appreciation of a backyard that you have as the owner of the main house? So I get concerned about how you divide what kind of units that works. Well in I'm probably going to lay off today. I don't want your Bill to die. That's not my interest.

But I just have real concerns about communities where this just doesn't work and creating the densification. When I was on the City Council many moons ago, we had areas where the lots were built to county unincorporated standards, so no curbs, gutter, sidewalks, street lights, and they were 800 square foot homes on these huge lots. And the challenge was, once you started densifying those and there were areas of town where very poor people left, it was built during the dust bowl era.

The neighborhoods were inundated with cars and illegal shelters in the backyard that created blight deterioration and the inability for services really to be adequately provided. And so we had a no adu provision for those kinds of properties or certain neighborhoods. And when the state law changed and said, yes, you can do it and you can't prohibit it, I supported that despite knowing that in some neighborhoods it's going to have instead of having a beneficial effect, it's a deleterious effect, because those are the neighborhoods where farm.

Workers are living and people own the home and don't live in it, but are renting. In other words, they're slum landlords. And so I get concerned about the one size fits all and about allowing people to own separate pieces of the same property without the kind of controls local government can't regulate those controls. It'll be up to the property owners to do that. And I'm not sure it's going to be a good thing for adu concerns. So that's my concern.

I can get there maybe by the time it gets to the floor. But for today's hearing, I won't be supporting the Bill. I won't vote no, but I won't support the Bill.

Yeah, let me just answer your concerns.

And I'll allow you to conclude because I think that got everybody. Yeah. Senator Weiner.

Thank you and my apologies for not hearing the early part of this presentation. I just want to say I support the Bill. I appreciate the chair's concerns. We supported in housing and moved it out. I think in the end, we want more homes. I think we all agree we want many more homes in California, but we tend to put a lot of restrictions on people's ability to create new homes.

And so I'm just a believer in flexibility and trying to avoid a level of micromanagement that can undermine what we're trying to do. So the Chair's concerns, I totally respect those concerns, and I'm not suggesting that there aren't situations where it can be problematic, but I think overall, this is the right approach. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the indulgence.

Absolutely. We'll allow you to conclude.

Great. Just in my conclusion, I would just say, as is quite common for any local jurisdiction, if they are allowing condominium conversions, you have to submit Ccnrs. Ccnrs dictate. Mr. Brown was talking about earlier a homeowners Association, what the rules are, how communal property is shared, whether you have access to a garage, whether you have access to the backyard. All of those are dictated in a CCNR to get out exactly the issue that you are raising. So that it's not driven from personality to personality.

It's not driven based on who's there, who's not. But as part of any condominium conversion generally, you are asked to submit Ccnrs which would govern that Association and how the Association would in particular handle shared property or even shared bills. You have sometimes water bills that are not separate, electricity bills that are not separate, a variety of bills that are not separate. This is all very common. Again, this is state law. This is not something that is new to state law. We're not doing something different.

This is something that we are just adding to existing law and adding to what's already going on up and down the state here. So, again, I know with anything that's new, it's a little bit you have to kind of wrap your head around it. But again, there's existing law condominium conversions are happening as we speak all up and down the state. And again, our whole point in discussions with opposition, we're making sure that our law, our Bill was consistent with existing law.

So that to get exactly what provisions you described, Madam Chair, in terms of making sure that backyard space is very clear how that can be utilized. Garages, driveways, again, shared space, shared bills. Those are all things that you have illegal documents that the owners have to sign in order to govern how they will live and share property together. So that's all very commonplace in state law. So with that, respectfully ask for aye vote on AB 1033. Very much appreciate all the discussion.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member. The motion is due pass to Appropriations. Please call the roll

Senators. Caballero. Seyarto, No. Blakespear. Aye. Dahle. Durazo. Aye. Glazer. Skinner. Aye. Weiner, aye. 4-1

That Bill will be put on call for the absent Members.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Moving on to file item, Assembly Member Alvarez. Okay. Mccarty is next on file. Okay. Assembly Member Mccarty. Sorry, I didn't see you here. We were talking ADUs. Yes, thank you. So I have two bills here. I'm going to present 1st 1052.

That would be great.

Yeah. Thank you for allowing me to present this. This is a district Bill related to Sacramento County Regional Transit District. We hear a lot about transit district and funding. This isn't an operational funding issue, but it's more on capital improvements in the out years and focusing on where to make those improvements and how we could engage a large district which has multiple jurisdictions.

In essence, this follows what we did a couple of years ago for San Diego and allows a specific area of the transit district to have an election to focus on transit improvements. This doesn't change the vote threshold. It's still a two thirds threshold. And it doesn't gerrymander the area because it focuses on not splitting a city, but focusing on individual jurisdictions within the overall district.

It simply gives our local transit district the flexibility to have a ballot measure that covers a narrow portion of its service area. For example, here in Sacramento, we have a city called Rancho Cordova, it's actually my district, which would allow them to be outside of an area if we just focus on the City of Sacramento. With me today are a representative from our transit district. I'd like him to have the opportunity to present as well, and respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Gregg Fishman. I'm the senior community relations officer for Sacramento Regional Transit. SacRT is the largest transit provider in the capital region. We operate 82 bus routes, 43 miles of light rail, 53 stations, a microtransit service, and ADA paratransit services within the 440 square mile service territory throughout Sacramento County, including the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom and Rancho Cordova. We're celebrating our 50th anniversary of services here.

We believe that safe, convenient, and inexpensive public transit benefits everybody in our community, whether they ride transit or not. However, we also recognize that certain transit projects might provide more benefit to some parts of our community than others. Consequently, we would like to have the authority to ask only some of the community we serve to approve a ballot measure to pay for projects in those specific jurisdictions.

AB 1052 would give SacRT the authority to place a measure on the ballot that would affect only jurisdictions specified in the measure. For example, the City of Sacramento alone or conceivably The City of Sacramento and the cities of Elk Grove together. Some other jurisdictions, including neighboring Placer County, also have similar authority to this. The Committee analysis raises some important considerations. We can commit to conducting a proportional share analysis to ensure that any revenue was spent in the jurisdictions where it's raised.

We're somewhat familiar with this from past contract agreements we had with cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom and Elk Grove before they were annexed into our system. If we ever do use this authority granted, we would need to include an expenditure plan that specifies how the revenue would be spent. Projects would only benefit the jurisdiction raising the funds, and as the Assemblyman mentioned, we would still need a two thirds vote to pass any such measure.

Individual cities already have the authority to put revenue measures on the ballot only within their city. In fact, all of the cities within Sacramento County have passed General Fund taxes, leading to a variety of different sales tax rates throughout the county. Already. SacRT has always had the authority to collect a parcel tax, and this Bill just clarifies that authority. SacRT also accepted amendments to clarify that revenue from any property tax would only be used for capital projects.

This measure is intended to give SacRT another tool to help us navigate an uncertain financial future and ensure equity in voting for SacRT measures by only asking those affected to actually vote for a measure. We may never need to use this tool, but we would like to have it available in case it is needed, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in support?

Dan Allison with Sacramento transit advocates and writers in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Is there anybody here that would like to testify in opposition to AB 1052? Seeing no one? Is there anybody on the Teleconference line that would like to testify either in support or in opposition?

Thank you for support or opposition for AB 1052 plus 1 and 0 at this time. One moment, please. Line 21, please. Go ahead.

This is Susan Herre from the Environmental Council of Sacramento, and we support AB 52. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Line 11, please. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Dwayne Crenshaw, President and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Urban League in support.

Thank you.

One moment, please.

Thank you.

Please stand by. Line 15, please go ahead.

Yes. Matthew Click, Executive Director of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, in support.

Thank you.

One moment, please. Line 28, please go ahead.

This is Consuelo Hernandez from the City of Sacramento calling in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And Madam Chair, no further comments in queue at this time.

Very good. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments, questions, concerns.

I have a couple of questions. All right, so I'm trying to understand this a little bit. It'll be a parcel or a sales and use tax voted on by just a portion of, say, a community. So a little neighborhood, they decide they want to do this.

Not a neighborhood per se, but like our transit districts, we have six big cities and the unincorporated here in Sacramento, a lot of the unincorporated is residential, so it would allow some of the jurisdictions within the overall transit district.

But we specify that we can't carve up within a city can't be just a small, little area.

Right. Because if you're doing sales and use tax, does this section or this city or portion of it vote on this and then the whole city it applies to the whole city?

No, we clarify that. It would just be the area that votes on it. The improvements would be focused on that specific area.

So, for example, if it's just, let's say, the City of Sacramento and the City of Elk Grove, two contiguous biggest cities in the county, if they voted on it, the capital improvements would be just focused on those areas, not the outside areas within the county in that transit district.

It would be an ongoing tax once they passed it.

Correct. And the improvements focused on that. Yeah. So if you lived on the outside and you drove in and bought a TV at Best Buy in Elgrove and you live in Rancho Cordova yeah, you'd have to.

Once the improvements are in, does it go away or is this a long bonding situation so that one area has this tax and the other area across the street may not? What happens with that? In other words, I'd hate to be the person drawing the lines about who's going to be in and who's out.

Well, that's sometimes with cities with different measures. Maybe I could have our representative that hypothetical. Let me ask some help here.

First of all, this would apply only to an entire city or to more than one city not carved out by zip code or by voting precinct or anything like that. So the entire City of Sacramento would vote on it and would then be subject to whatever tax.

So the entire City of Folsom could do.

Or conceivably Folsom or Elk Grove or yes, but again, two thirds vote required, and in terms of the length, that would be determined by whatever measure we put on the ballot. So we would conceivably ask those voters to put a tax on the ballot, you know, a given period of time, but that would be included in the measure itself. It is not included in this Bill.

They could do that through their own community.

Absolutely. Cities already have this authority.

Fund those projects that way.

Yes. Conceivably.

All right, thanks.

Thank you.

Other comments, questions or concerns? There is a motion. I do have some questions. And what's odd about doing it this way is that the transit authority and I support transit I think we need more as a matter of fact, I think we need it to be more robust into the suburbs and into rural areas as well. It's nonexistent in rural areas, but when you set up a transit entity, theoretically it's everybody in that area that benefits. Right.

Everybody can take to take that public transportation and it's constructed, again, theoretically to be convenient for people to take it. But if you start excluding some areas, how does that allure to the benefit of the whole transit authority? And why do we set up transit authorities then? If you could just do these I mean, I know why because you really want it to function as a system.

But it just seems to me the difficulty that I'm having is that we're picking areas and they may not be the areas that desperately need it the most. I don't know. Theoretically you'd want to do that. So here's the challenge for me, is that whatever we do here, because it's governance and finance, we pass rules that then other entities look at and go, hey, I want to be able to do that too. Right?

And so what I try to do as the chair is to make sure it's fair to everybody that we're not setting up certain communities for failure and we're not creating something that's so hard to use that it's a bureaucratic mess. So I'm just concerned at a transit agency coming up and saying, well, let us just do part of it, part of the system and not including everybody as part of it.

Senator, let me provide a couple of hypothetical examples where this, we feel, is very much needed and I think answers your question. We would love to be able to extend the light rail line from where it currently terminates, the southern end at Kosumnas River College into Elk Grove. So we would conceivably ask the cities of Sacramento and Elk Grove to approve some measure that would provide funding to extend that line into Elk Grove.

The City of Sacramento and the cities of Elk Grove benefit most directly from that extension. But certainly someone from Rancho Cordova could get on the light rail line and ride it down to Elk Grove if they wanted to. So it does benefit the entire community in that way. It also reduces vehicle miles traveled and air quality issues. So it does provide General benefits, but those communities benefit most directly from that service. The same conceivably is true. I mentioned we operate a microtransit.

This is an app based on demand service similar to Lyft or Uber, but it is in a shuttle bus, so there may be more than one passenger. We try to combine rides. We would love to be able to expand that service into some of the underserved areas in our service territory. And conceivably we would ask people to given communities to increase the revenue to pay for that as well.

So let me ask it this way. My experience in bond measures is that when you ask poor people to pay for an education bond, they're there. And they pass education bonds in higher numbers than wealthier neighborhoods. I would sure hate to see a transit district decide that they could pass something in a poor neighborhood, burden that neighborhood, when wealthier parts of the community don't pay their fair share because they don't see the benefit of public transit for them. Right.

I'm concerned with picking and choosing and being able to take certain neighborhoods and not do it. That's just my concern. And I get it that that's not where you're trying to go with it. But to the extent that this becomes the template for other transit agencies to say, hey, well, maybe we can do the same kind of thing, I would hate to see that. So that's just my concern.

Respectfully, Madam Chair, that's why we've included it must include the entire city so we're not picking and choosing zip codes or voting precincts. This would apply to the fabulous Forties in East Sacramento as equally as parts of South Sacramento that are more disadvantaged.

Okay. That's good. Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to address some of the Chair's concerns and express why I support this. So I come from being the chair of a transportation agency, SANDAG, and I think it's important to just remember where transit is at the moment.

When you look at the macro view, which is that in some parts of the State it's on the brink, but in other parts of the State, it's just slowly declining and declining and declining in terms of the quality of the transit that's offered, either looking outside at the threadbearer trains themselves or the amount of service that we're actually able to support. And what transit agencies are trying to do is find a source of revenue to be able to boost ridership.

And so it would be great if we were funding transit at the state or federal level for its operations and its capital expenses in order to be growing transit in this state. But we're really not. So the question is, what will these transit agencies do? And looking for them to be really specific about, we know that there's a need for increased transit service in particular communities.

If we can ask those communities to support that, then in a more micro way, they'll be able to provide transit that then can also create some momentum for more transit. And I think the alternative, if we don't allow this kind of thing to happen, is that everything will continue to decline. And so I very much support this because I want transit to prosper in this state.

And I don't see that we're having the kinds of investments at the higher levels that would be needed for a system wide raising of all ships. So I say if there are communities that see that they could get to yes, let's give them the chance to get to yes instead of allowing a lot of ancillary communities through these bigger transit systems to say no. And then they basically have no new revenue streams because that's very much what the picture looks like right now.

And so in San Diego, this was passed and actually it hasn't been used yet because it's difficult to put something on the ballot. And it's a process and you have to make sure that you think there's a path to victory there. But this is just the very beginning of saying, hey, give it a try. And this is an important value for me and many, I think, to try to boost transit. And I think this is one way that we'll be able to help it a little bit.

Different districts, different issues. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I'm nervous about setting up a standard that then allows a separation within it within an organization or identifying a small subset within an organization. And I want to go on record that I not only support public transportation, I take it. It doesn't work, beyond a train, getting down to my district and never has.

But the question becomes, and maybe the question really is maybe the state should be funding transit better so that we can build out systems that will connect the entire state. Because there are some parts of my district that you cannot get there unless you have a car. So you start talking about vehicle miles traveled. Hey, you know what? The only way to get there is in a car.

And so the challenge becomes, how do we set up these robust systems while we make sure that we're protecting the most vulnerable in our community who take transportation in the highest numbers and that they have the infrastructure and they're not paying double. They're not paying the rate, but then also paying the sales tax, and nobody else in the community is doing it. And so I really appreciate that. You said you're doing entire cities.

Yes, ma'am.

Because that will ameliorate some of the concerns that I have, which is that the people that see the benefit of transit the most because they have to take it for financial reasons, don't end up paying double and don't end up being the only ones that support it. Both either through a sales or used tax or property tax in addition to the fare. So I appreciate your comments, and I think that takes care of some of the issues that I'm concerned about. Senator Weiner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be honest, given the roller coaster on transit funding that we've been on for the last six months, conversation is a little bit triggering to me. I'll be honest.

Understood. Me too. Especially when you get into vehicle miles, travel just like a red.

And first of all, I want to associate myself with Senator Blake Spear's remarks, which I think were very much on point, and also the chair's comment about maybe the state should be doing more to actually Fund transit. And I just want to emphasize.

Of course, I have a Bill and Assembly transportation later today around the Bay Area because the Bay Area is probably the most imperil in the state because we had much higher ridership before the pandemic and we're more fare dependent to Fund these systems. But I support this Bill because I think the State of California sent a crystal clear message this year that we as a state are not going to solve these problems for local communities. I wish it were different. I wanted to send a different message.

And I'm very grateful to the Governor and the Legislature, including our budget sub chairs and our budget chair, for fighting very hard to restore the capital cuts that the Administration had proposed and to put more operational funding in. But that operational Fund and during a bad year. So I'm not criticizing anyone. I'm grateful for that. It doesn't even come close to resolving the actual shortfalls that these agencies face.

And so we have said, unlike New York or Minnesota, where the state stepped in and solved the problems for the New York City subway, for the Minneapolis system, the state adopted new revenue measures. And to basically solve the problem California has said we're going to solve, in the case of the Bay Area, we're going to solve 16% of your problem. And so therefore, the other 84% is on you to solve. That's the message.

And Bay Area is, again, the most extreme, but that's the message the state has sent. And so we need to give our transit districts, our counties, cities, et cetera, maximum flexibility to raise revenue to Fund these systems. And this Bill is one example of that, and I'm happy to support it.

Very good. We have a motion. If there's no further questions, comments or concerns, we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you. I appreciate the conversation. I was going to take your comments as my close, but just to add a bit, right outside, 20 yards from here, we have a light rail train. And many of you came here today on a flight, and we have the luxury of having somebody give us a ride here. Some people don't have that luxury. And one day, the plan is to have this line go from here to the airport. And without measures like this, it would not be as viable.

So as we try to get people out of their cars and improve our local air quality, which is very problematic here in this regional bathtub of Sacramento, as well as fight climate change, public transit is a key piece of the puzzle. And this allows us to make necessary improvements for the future and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Very good. The motion is due passed to transportation. Please call the roll.

Senators Caballero.

Aye.

Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener.

Caballero aye. Seyarto. Blakespear.

Aye.

Blakespear aye. Dolly. Durazo.

Aye.

Aye.

Skinner aye. Wiener.

Aye.

Wiener aye. Five to zero.

That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Moving on to file item number six, which is AB 1291. The floor is yours.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for working with us. And yes, we do accept our Committee amendments that have been proposed here. This measure is about police transparency and taxpayer transparency. Simply stating that as opposed to every now and then reading in a local newspaper online about a settlement from a local jurisdiction for police misconduct, that the local cities must have a more robust measure. Cities and local jurisdictions, robust measures and process to make these public out of the gate. There is no opposition on this Bill and respectfully ask for your vote.

Very good. You have any lead witnesses in this or should I just go ahead and jump in?

I believe we did, yes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric Henderson, legislative advocate with the ACLU California Action. We're in strong support of AB 1291 because police misconduct costs California taxpayers millions of dollars every year. But the total sum and the offending conduct are hardly accessible by the public. Current law allows citizens to file civil suits or claims against police or sheriffs for misconduct or use of force incidents that result in death or serious bodily injury. State law stipulates officers are not responsible for the economic damages of these lawsuits.

Instead, these settlements typically come from the General Fund of the city involved. If the law enforcement agency itself pays, it's part of a larger line item for settling officer misconduct litigation. That means city and county budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing year over year. While taxpayers pay for these settlements, the public will often hear about these settlements only from newspapers.

Information about the financial implications of these police misconduct settlements is difficult to find and frequently requires a PRA request to get details. AB 1291 requires cities and counties to post financial details about police misconduct settlements and judgments on their websites. These settlements result in local jurisdictions paying out significant amounts of taxpayer dollars that could be used to reinvest in the community.

Citizens have the right to know how their governments are spending hardearned tax dollars by requiring municipalities to publicly post financial details of their law enforcement use of force settlements. AB 1291 provides much needed transparency for taxpayers on where their tax dollars are being spent.

AB 1291 will help us understand whether the many reforms that this body has passed to rein in police misconduct, such as the Racial Identity Profiling Act, reform of the use of deadly force, mandate for intervening, and deescalating, have had their intended outcomes. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Others in support.

Good morning, Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, and we are in support of AB 1291. I was a public defender, as Senators Weiner and Skinner have heard me say 90 million times for nearly 40 years, in two different counties. After I retired, I served for two years on the Solano County Civil Grand jury.

One of the issues we looked at was the use of force by law enforcement in our county and how much taxpayer money was paid out to settle lawsuits alleging the use of excessive force by our local agencies. I had never known, except for newspaper articles about numerous very large payments by the cities in and the County of Solano in these lawsuits.

I wondered at the time why there wasn't a transparent mechanism to allow the citizens to see how much of their money was being spent due to the use of excessive force. It shouldn't take a civil grand jury subpoena inquiry and subsequent report or a Public Information Act request to make this information fully public. CPDA has a long standing history of advocating for police transparency, accountability and accessibility. We feel that AB 1291 provides important public access to police activity.

Easy access to critical information regarding police settlements and judgments is a much needed correction to the opaque information and secrecy that Curtis currently shrouds much of this information from public view. AB 1291 will provide more transparency and accountability by providing the public with a clear way to learn about the actions of our law enforcement agencies and the costs of some of those actions. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Is there anybody else that would like to testify in support in support of this Bill in room 2200? Seeing none. Is there anybody that would like to speak in opposition? Seeing none. We'll go on to the teleconference line and ask, is there anybody that would like to speak in support or in opposition of AB 1291?

To speak in opposition of AB 1291, opposition or support, please press one, then zero at this time. Madam Chair, no comments in queue at this time.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, concerns? Senator Skinner. There is a motion by Senator Weiner.

He jumped, but that's okay. So, Assembly Member, I'm glad you brought this Bill, because wasn't referenced was the good work we've done on police records. And so obviously, our public now has the ability to find out if there's an officer who has had a substantiated complaint against them on a variety of categories of misconduct. So you can find that out now.

But what you don't know when you find that out is how much money your jurisdiction may have paid out to settle a case related to that officer. And there can be in some circumstances where a single officer is the cause of numbers of payouts. And so this gives us a much broader picture of that circumstance. And I appreciate the Bill and Mr. Weiner's already moved it.

Seeing no further comments, questions, or concerns, we'll allow you to conclude.

Yes. Thank you, Senator Skinner. We didn't reference it in our talking points, but the excellent analysis by Mr. Rounds or Miss Rounds, I apologize, mentions the forementioned measure.

More importantly, this groundbreaking research last year by the Professor Forget Her Name at UCLA talked about the more the public knows about these incidents and how much it impacts our taxpayers, the more likely they're going to do things like promote Deescalation, which I know you supported in your big measure a few years ago, and bring about smart reforms to jurisdictions. And so, therefore, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Senators. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Five to zero.

That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Moving on to file item number nine, AB 1287 by Assemblymember Alvarez. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. Senators, I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1287 today for you, and I want to thank the staff's work on this Bill. As noted in a very well written analysis, I might say about this, but sometimes can be complicated law, so I appreciate that. Additionally, I want to make it clear that I will be accepting the Committee amendments.

AB 1287 requires that a city or county grant additional density and concessions if an applicant agrees to include additional moderate income units or very Low income units on top of the maximum amount of units for lower, very Low or current moderate income unit bonuses. As you know all too well, we are in the midst of a housing crisis which not only renders the state unaffordable and a large number of Low and middle class individuals, but also costs the state billions in lost economic output annually.

All of the studies and data tells us that we need to build millions of new housing units much quicker than we are doing so today. To get out of the hole that we have found ourselves in as a legislative body, we have appropriately implemented several crucial measures to enhance provision of affordable housing for extremely low and low income individuals. And we should do that, as they are a very vulnerable population in need of help here in our state.

However, a holistic approach to the housing crisis requires that we also tackle housing unaffordability for middle income earners. The Berkeley Turner Center for Housing Innovation found that 40% of middle income renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, while 10% of those middle income renters are severely cost burdened, meaning that more than half of their monthly income goes to their housing expenses.

This cost burden has continued to grow as we have failed to build enough middle income housing units to reduce prices and release pressure from the overall housing market. Although there's an urgent demand for millions of housing units, last year's records from the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development indicate that only 120,000 units were permitted, highlighting a significant shortfall in units. By giving builders an additional incentive under the current density bonus law to build more moderate income units.

AB 1287 is a critical step toward providing some of that relief. I'd like to now turn it over to our witnesses. First we have William Moore, who's policy counsel with Circulate San Diego. And then we'll hear from Rammy Cortez from Rami Urban infill.

Welcome.

Hello. Thank you, Senators. My name is William Moore, I'm a policy counsel for Circulate San Diego. Circulate San Diego is a nonprofit think tank in the San Diego region that brings together a number of interest groups, developers, nonprofit developers, affordable housing advocates, and transit advocates to find new and better policies that will help enhance both our transit options and our housing options. The Circulate San Diego did a study of the density bonuses in San Diego's region and their effectiveness from the 2015 to 2020 period.

Some of these very same reforms were instituted into California law in 2020 and have been effective since. But during that period of time when housing starts were not keeping pace with what we need. Obviously, the incentives in the density bonus programs that we have in San Diego, which are the ones that we're amending here today, those resulted in thousands and thousands of additional units, both affordable and market rate.

The theory here is, of course, that one, you preserve some element of local control by expanding opportunities for all zoning designations to be enhanced with the density bonuses at every level. So something small can be somewhat less small, something large could be proportionally grow if the developer accepts the duty to provide long term, fixed, affordable housing at specific very low, low, or moderate income.

This Bill would only apply, only provide that additional density bonus in the event that all of the previous density bonuses had been completely used up. So that it's additive, it doesn't cannibalize our previous incentive programs, the amendments proposed to make sure that there's not excessive concentration of lower income housing, and that's well taken. So we've recommended the acceptance of that amendment.

And we also have here a developer who has taken advantage of these programs and can attest to how effective they are in expanding housing both market rate and subsidized, is Rammy Cortez of San Diego. So he will be able to come up and tell you a little more about that.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Rammy Cortez, and I'm an infill developer and builder of transit oriented housing in San Diego. We find ourselves not only in a housing crisis, but a humanitarian crisis, as the number of our unhoused neighbors continues to rise. Due to our inability to build housing at all income levels. Without density bonus incentive based programs, none of my projects would be financially feasible. That doesn't mean smaller projects with less units. It means no projects, zero homes.

90% of all housing across the state is built by private developers without government subsidy, while only 10% of housing is built with government financial subsidy. This is why incentive based program housing programs like AB 1287 Middle Income Density Bonus are so important. The current Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program is working great and incentivizes very low income housing, but not middle income housing.

Even in the City of San Diego, who's made strides in policy and housing production in our last Rena cycle ending in 2020, there were only 37 moderate home income homes built. Of the 15,462 targeted, that's less than one quarter of 1%. I was born and raised in San Diego, just miles from the US. Mexico border, and my mom's a first generation immigrant from Mexico, and I'm a lucky one to be able to afford and live near my parents.

But due to the cost of housing and many of my friends have moved out of the state, away from their loved ones, this isn't just true for my friends. The number one challenge for recruiting, retaining police officers, firefighters, teachers, and other essential middle income workers is they simply can't afford to live where they work. In California, this Bill would support middle income housing and projects I build where we need it most along transit corridors and job centers.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We all want a copy of your card so that we can make sure that transit oriented development happens in our communities as well. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support of this Bill here in room 2200?

Madam Chair and Members, Alex Torres, Director of State Government Relations for the Bay Area Council. Proud co sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi there. Brian Sapp on behalf of Fieldset, Sandhill Properties, Buckeye Properties, San Diego Housing Commission, and Civic Well also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carvajal on behalf of California YIMBY, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Nick Ramos with career strategies on behalf of California Building Industry Association in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Is there anybody here that would like to testify in opposition? Testify in opposition. Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line moderator. If you can queue up individuals that can testify either in support or in opposition.

For support or opposition, for AB 1287, press one, then zero at this moment and we will go to line 27.

Michael Lane, with SPUR, proud co sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have no further support or opposition.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, emotion. There is a motion seeing no questions or comments. Appreciate what you're doing here. Appreciate you working to take the amendments and we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you. I appreciate again the opportunity to come before you. As was stated by the testimony, it's an opportunity to potentially build middle income housing which is really a part of the population that I think we need to work more on. And that's the attempt of this Bill to try to create more opportunities for middle income individuals. And again, appreciate the work from staff and working towards bringing forward a final product that I hope continues to receive unanimous support. I appreciate your support.

Thank you very much. The motion is do pass is amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle. Durazo? Aye. Duraz, aye. Glazer? Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Five to zero.

That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Just want to advise the Committee that I've been instructed that we should terminate at 12:15, or we should break at 12:15, not terminate. So we'll try to see who we can get in because we come back late this afternoon after session and after rules, so it's likely to be late. File item number 10 AB 1332. By Assembly Member Carrillo. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1332. Before I begin, I would like to respectfully accept the Committee's amendments which will ensure that approved plans reflect current building codes. This is a common sense bill which has received bipartisan support. As all of you know, California has failed to build anywhere near enough new housing units required to keep up with demand.

Over the past several years, the Legislature has agreed that accessory dwelling units or ADUs, should be part of the solution. Making ADUs more accessible and more affordable should continue to be a cornerstone of our efforts to address the housing crisis. Whether by providing an affordable option to family members and loved ones or as rental income, building and owning an ADU can be a life changing asset. Unfortunately, one of the first barriers homeowners run into when considering an ADU is planning and designing the unit itself.

Homeowners spend thousands of dollars to hire an architect or an engineer just to find out how much building the unit will cost. For many low and middle income homeowners, this is simply not an option. To address this issue, some local governments have started to provide pre-approved plans for ADUs, including Los Angeles and San Jose, as well as a shared program across 16 cities in Napa and Sonoma counties.

AB 1332 will speed up the process and lower the cost of building ADUs by requiring local governments to keep a catalog of pre-approved ADUs to be on their website. This catalog of pre approved plans approved the bill.

Okay, we have a motion. We'll allow you to conclude. I think she's trying to say let's... I think people are in support, but I don't want to prejudge everybody's...

With that, I request, respectfully, an aye vote.

The wise man. Do you have witnesses? Primary witnesses here?

We do have a primary witness.

Very good, sir. Please come forward. You can...

Mr. Jordan Panana Carbajal.

Yes. Thank you. I'll make sure to keep it short. Good morning. My name Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Carbajal, Legislative Advocate for California YIMBY, here to speak in support of AB 1332. California has added over 35 homes to our housing supply over the last five years as a direct result of prior ADU legislation. ADUs has also offered families the opportunity to benefit from previously inaccessible wealthy neighborhoods with good high quality schools, parks, public transportation and other amenities.

Building on this success, many cities have started offering pre-approved ADU plans that further streamline the process for homeowners looking to help and add critically needed new housing in our backyards. AB 1332 will accelerate the process and lower the cost of ADUs by requiring local governments to keep a catalog for pre-approved ADU plans on their website. And with that, we respectfully request your support for AB 1332. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, Members. Nick Romo, on behalf of the Southern California Association of Governments. Support if amended. We thank the author for his amendment today and the Committee hopefully to work with him, the author, over the summer on a couple of different clarifications. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you.

Alex Torres, Bay Area Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anybody in room 2200 in opposition? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference line. Moderator, if you could queue up opposition or support.

For support or opposition for AB 1332, please press one, then zero. Madam Chair, we have no support of opposition.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the Committee. We do have a motion. Anybody have any comments? Seeing none. We'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you for your time, and I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Very good. Thank you. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

Senators, Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Glazer, aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye. Six to zero.

Thank you.

That bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Members, I do not see any Assembly Members, so maybe we can... Oh, I'm sorry. I totally missed you. My apologies. Let me do a couple of housekeeping things. If we can take up the consent agenda items. There is a motion on the consent agenda items. Please call the role.

Motion is adopted. Consent calendar. Senators, Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Seyarto? Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Durazo? Durazo, aye. Glazer? Glazer, aye. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye. Six to zero.

That bill is out, and we'll put it on call for the absent Members. Senator...

Just before you go...

Yes.

I just want to know how you're going to coordinate if we're not going to conclude your Committee before lunch? How you're going to coordinate with all the things that are happening this afternoon.

We are at the... We are after the adjournment of Senate rules, and so we're at their mercy.

After floor session.

After floor session. And then Senate rules has this room and we come back afterwards.

After Senate rules.

That is correct.

Alright, thank you.

Yeah. Assembly Member Garcia. Let's get you in.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Senator AB 1385.

Yes. Thank you. This Bill changes the Riverside County Transportation Commission's sales tax authority. Riverside County is the fastest growing county in the state and the fifth fastest growing in the country. As a result of this population growth and the infrastructure demands and impacts, we want to make sure that the county has the authority to go to the voters, and if they so choose, to increase their investments into road infrastructure. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With us today is the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission.

Very good.

Good morning, Chair Caballero and Committee Members. I'm Anne Mayer, the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation RCTC, the sponsor of this Bill, and it is my pleasure to be here today. Riverside County is the fourth most populous county in the state and 10th most in the country. Riverside County has been tasked with building more than 167,000 housing units by 2029, and our population is expected to reach 3 million residents by 2048, up from two and a half million in 2022.

As a selfhelp county, our residents have twice elected to tax themselves to invest in transportation, thanks to voter approved half cent sales tax measure, measure A, RCTC for nearly 35 years has generated thousands of jobs and efficiently provided more than $4.1 billion for all modes of transportation. Promises made, promises kept. In anticipation of a potential new measure in 2020, RCTC identified over $8.8 billion in needed mobility investments outside of Measure A. However, these efforts were put on hold due to the pandemic.

All the while, project delivery costs and needs have grown exponentially. AB 1385 updates RCTC's sales tax authority from one cent to one and a half cent per dollar, keeping our options open if we are to match historic state and federal investments, to address our infrastructure needs and build a 21st century multimodal transportation system. It is important to note that this Bill does not change Measure A. It still requires a vote of Riverside County residents to approve a new tax measure in the future.

The Commission, comprised of elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and the 28 cities in Riverside County voted to sponsor this Bill. Thank you for your time today, and thank you to Assembly Member Garcia for authoring the Bill. Happy to answer any questions you may have and respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Kiana Valentine on behalf of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, also in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Chair and Members, Mark Watts representing Transportation California, in strong support of this measure. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in room 2200 in support? Is there anybody in 2200 in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line moderator, if you could queue up opposition and support.

For support or opposition for AB 1385, please press one, then zero. Madam Chair, we have no support or opposition.

Very good. We do have a motion by Assembly Member Senator Durazo. Any comments, questions or concerns? Seeing none, we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you again and respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor Senators Caballero aye. Seyarto. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener aye. Four to zero.

Four to zero. That will be put on call for the absent Members. Moving on to file item number 13, AB 1490 by Assemblymember Lee. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. First, I'd like to thank the Committee staff and chair for working with us on this Bill. I'll accept the amendments proposed by the Committee. The amendments specify that projects must retain any open space on the parcel requiring onsite property management of projects of 50 units or more. And a local agency may deny a project if it is on or it is adjoined to a parcel dedicated to industrial uses.

AB 1490 will encourage adaptive reuse affordable housing projects by providing incentives such as providing an expedited review process while respecting local control. Adaptive reuse is when we repurpose an existing building to create affordable housing, as the Governor did with Project Roomkey. AP 1490 removed barriers to the projects by ensuring they're eligible for affordable housing funding and don't get stuck in the entitlement process for years. Adaptive reuse is a faster and less expensive than building new housing from scratch and will help address the housing crisis.

I'd like to introduce my witness in support, Rand Martin from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you so much.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. First, we also appreciate the work of you and Madam Chair and staff on the amendments that the Member just reviewed. Just very quickly. AIDS Healthcare Foundation now has over 1400 units of Low income very Low income housing in the City of Los Angeles that we've developed through adaptive reuse over the last five years. Sometimes local government is not always as nimble as we'd like them to be.

And there are times when the process has taken longer than we needed and cost more, which sort of works against the ability of adaptive reuse to get housing up and ready as quickly and as inexpensively as possible. We think the changes in this Bill will help to speed that process up and get more housing out for Low income people across the State of California. We appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in support of AB 1490? Seeing no one. Move on to opposition. Is there anyone in room 2200 that would like to speak in opposition?

Thank. Good morning, Madam Chair. Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of San Marcos, in respectful opposition to the Bill,

Very Good. Anyone else? Seeing nobody else. We'll move on to the teleconference line and ask, as a moderator, if you could queue up any witnesses that would like to testify either in opposition or in support of AB 1490.

For support or opposition for AB 1490, press one, then zero At this moment. And with that, Madam Chair, we have no support or opposition.

Very Good. We'll bring it back to the Committee for comments, questions, concerns or motions. There is a motion by Senator Blakespear. No comments, questions or concerns. We'll allow you to conclude I appreciate your work on this. Think it's really important. Yes.

Appreciate the collaboration with the chair and the Committee staff. And respectfully ask your aye vote.

Very Good. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations.

Senators Caballero aye. Seyarto aye. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener aye. 4-0.

That Bill will put back on call for the absent Members. Assembly Member Gipson file item number 15 AB 1713. Your other Bill was on consent, and it's on call for the absent Members.

And thank you very much. I understand that Committee is trying to get out of here. So I'm going to be very brief and thank the Committee and the Committee chair for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1713, which seeks to increase transparency and accountability for local agencies that receive federal funds with an expiration date. If I could just be so brief to just cut through this.

The reason why this came up is because when our municipalities receive federal funds and then me removing myself as an Assembly Member but let's talk about me as a taxpayer and then finding out that my city or my local government has to send money that they cannot use, and it expires, and they have to send that money back.

In one of my cities, there was a situation where money was received by the federal government, sent cities a certain amount of money, about $150,000,000 to deal with homelessness. And then it made the newspapers, and that money had to be sent back unused. Well, we're dealing with a crisis in our cities and in our country, especially when you look at monies who's earmarked to address the homeless population and we send that money back to the federal government as if we don't need it.

But yet and still we have a crisis. What this Bill seeks to do is create transparency and accountability. And it's simply I'll be accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee to working very closely with my team in order to strengthen this Bill. And again thank the chair for input that went into this Bill that you have before us. We need to make sure that the transparency and accountability is on every level, especially when it comes down to taxpayers resources.

This could have been prevented to prevent wasteful spending and also ensure that monies are used for the purpose that it was intended. And so this Bill 1713 is trying to get at more transparency and it also put in place that the Department has to notify not only the head of the Department but also the elected body of what transpired why this money is being sent back. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. Is there anybody here to testify in support of the Bill? Testify in support? Is there anybody here to testify in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members. I'm Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California we are in respectful opposition to AB 1713. And as your analysis rightly points out, because of the considerable cost that the Bill in its current form will impose on local agencies. Just want to be clear that no local agency is interested in returning federal funds. However, we are often constrained by complex and stringent federal requirements that make utilizing federal resources invasible.

We are also subject to considerable reporting both at the federal level and at the state level for any federal dollar that we receive. We don't think that the current version of AB 1713 addresses those issues and in its current form would require perpetual and duplicative reporting with little benefit. We understand that there are amendments that are being taken today. We look forward to reviewing that language but at this time we remain opposed to the Bill.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Eric Lawyer with the California State Association of Counties. Also on behalf of the California Special District Association and the Rural County Representatives of California in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities. Also respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further opposition, we'll go to the moderator and ask if there is anybody that would like to speak in opposition or in support of AB 1713.

For support or opposition for AB 1713 please press one, then zero. We have no support or opposition Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or concerns. A motion? Senator Durazo.

Just clarity. You said in terms of amendments, do these have to do with require reporting for only certain types of federal funds and substantial amounts, threshold dollars? All of those. Those are all okay? Yes. Great. Okay. I move the Bill.

Thank you.

There is a motion, and I want to thank you for working so hard on this because I think that the amendments will address some of the concerns of the opposition, but want to encourage you to continue to have conversation. I mean, I understand why there's opposition, but I do agree that transparency is really important and it's true that there are restrictions, but you can call out the restrictions and explain why that it didn't work in your city or your county or your jurisdiction. So with that I allow you to.

Well, thank you very much. I want to thank the opposition for you coming out and expressing concerns and my commitment to you is to working with the opposition as this Bill seeks to move forward. The point I also want to make is that when these cities and counties compete for these federal grants, grants, they compete. So that means they beat out somebody and then imagine them beating out another city or another county and then turning that money back in, saying we couldn't use it.

That's my concern. And the elected officials that oversees and governs, you're looking at facing with. Of course, we're talking about transparency, accountability, LA Times and other articles being written. And this money could be used for the purpose it was intended for. And you're looking dumbfounded. This is a way to make sure there's checks and balances and keep everyone accountable. I respectfully ask when aye vote.

Very good. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators Caballero aye. Seyarto no. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener aye. 4-1.

That Bill has four votes. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Now, before you leave, we're going to take up file item number 17, which is AB 543 for it's your vote only Bill. And so I'll entertain a motion on that.

I'll move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto moves the Bill. Any comments, questions or concerns?

Excuse me. I did not support this last week. Afterwards, the author and I met and I took a much deeper look at the Bill. And although my concerns are still lingering, I think on balance it's a reasonable Bill and so I'm going to be supporting it today.

Very good. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

Senators Caballero. Aye. Seyarto aye. Blakespear no. Dahle. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener aye. 4-1.

We'll put that on call for the absent Members. Thank you very much. Members. We have one Bill left. Yes. We can open the rolls to catch everybody up. Actually, we have three bills that we need a motion on that were taken up before we had a quorum. Why don't we start with we'll start with the consent agenda. Please call the roll for the absent members.

Motion is adopt a consent calendar with the Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto aye. Dahle. Seven to zero.

We'll put that back on call for the absent Members. Moving on to file item number two, I need a motion. Motion by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

Senators Caballero aye. Seyarto no. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner aye. Wiener aye. Five to one.

That Bill is out. We'll put it back on call for the absent Members or we'll put it on call for the absent Members. File item number three. I need a motion. Motion by Senator Durazo. That motion is do pass to the Senate Floor.

Senators Caballero aye. Seyarto no. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner aye. Wiener aye. 5-1.

That Bill is out, we'll put it on call for the absent Members. File item number four. AB 1033 by Assembly Member Ting. The motion is do pass to appropriations.

With the Chair not voting. Senators Dahle. Glazer. Four to one.

Put that back on call. File item number five, AB 1052 by Assembly member Mccarty. Motion is due pass to transportation.

With the Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto no. Dahle. Glazer. Five to one.

That Bill is out. We'll put it back on call. File item number six by AB 1291 by Assembly Member Mccarty. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

With the Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto aye. Dahle. Glazer. Six to zero.

We'll put that back on call for the absent Members file item number nine, AB 1287. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations.

With the Chair voting aye. Senator, Seyarto no. Dahle. Glazer, five to one.

Put that back on call. File item number 10 AB 1332. By Assembly member Juan-Carrillo. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations.

With the Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto aye. Dahle. Seven to zero.

Put that back on call for the absent Member. File item number 11 AB 1385 by Assembly Member Garcia. The motion is do pass to the Floor.

With the Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto. Dahle. Glazer. Skinner aye. Five to zero.

That Bill is out, we'll put it back on call. File item number 12, AB 1469. I need a motion on that. Motion by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor.

Senators Caballero, aye. Seyarto aye. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Durazo aye. Glazer. Skinner aye. Wiener aye. Six to zero.

That Bill is out. We'll put it back on call or we will put it on call. File item number 13. AB 1490 by Assembly Member Lee. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations.

With the Chair voting aye, Senator Seyarto no. Dahle. Glazer. Skinner.

Apologies. This is which number?

AB 1490. File item number 13. Skinner aye. 5-1.

File item number 15. AB 1713 by Assembly member Gipson the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations.

With the Chair voting aye. Senators Dahle. Glazer. Skinner aye. Five to one.

That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. And finally, AB 543 by Assembly member Gipson. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

With the Chair voting aye. Senators Dahle. Glazer. Skinner. Four to one.

Put that back on call for the absent Members. Members, we are going to take a recess.

Thank you. I'm Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer presenting the surplus. I'm sorry. I ran over here.

That's okay. Just presenting the Surplus Land Act so that we in the City of Los Angeles will be able to look at the surplus land. We have over a thousand pieces of property in the City of Los Angeles that have come to the end of their useful life. We would like to expedite using that land for homelessness so we'll be able to not only not have to worry about buying the land, but most important, to be able to turn those lands into housing for the homeless.

Los Angeles has the largest group of homeless in the country. So I respectfully ask for aye vote and I will be taking the amendments that I believe Assembly Member I mean, Senator Caballero suggested that we take.

Thank you. And I believe you have one person to speak. Okay, as brief as you possibly can. We're supposed to recess.

Good afternoon. I will be as brief as possible. My name is Tricia Keane, and I'm the Executive officer for the Los Angeles Housing Department here on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who is proudly sponsoring this legislation. We all know that the State of California is facing a housing and homelessness crisis, and nowhere is this crisis more apparent than in the City of Los Angeles.

The City of Los Angeles represents about 10% of the state's population, but has nearly 25% of the state's unhoused population, with over 46,000 people experiencing homelessness.

Can you wrap it up?

Yes. Thank you. Mayor Bass made confronting this issue a high priority, including adopting Executive directives that involve not many things, but most importantly for this Bill, the reuse of city. And that was the impetus for bringing this forward. So we thank you and would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And also on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Bass, we thank Assemblymember Jones Sawyer for bringing this measure forward. We understand and the author will confirm. That the amendment that the author plans to accept is the one to remove the pro housing designation requirement.

Very good. We're on in support. Okay. There is a motion. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support in room 2200, seeing none. Is there anybody that would like to speak in opposition? In room 2200, seeing none, will move on to the teleconference line and ask, is there anybody that would like to testify in support or in opposition?

Support or opposition? For AB 1734, please press one, then zero. Madam Chair, we have no support or opposition.

Very good. We do have a motion. Bring back to Committee. Does anybody have a burning desire to say anything? If not, we'll allow you to conclude.

I respected. Ask for your aye vote.

Very good. The motion is do pass to housing where the amendment will be taken.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. So what we're going to be doing is we will be returning for the absent Members this afternoon after the Rules Committee, after session and after Rules Committee meeting. So we are in recess.

Calendar for file item number one, file item number seven, and file item number 14. No absent Members at this time. 80.

That Bill is out. Moving on to file item number two, AB 935 by Assemblymember Connolly. The motion is due. Pass to Appropriations

[Roll Call]

Seven to two, that Bill is out. Seven to two. Six to two. Next is file item number three. AB 976 by Assembly Member Ting. The motion is due. Passed to Senate Floor.

With the chair voting aye, Senator Glazer. Five to two,

That Bill is out. Five to two. Next is file item number four. AB 1033 by Assemblymember Ting. The motion is do pass to appropriations.

Chair not voting. Senators Glazer. Vote count four to two. Aye. Glazer I, five to two, that Bill is out.

Next is file item number five. AB 1052 by assemblymember. McCarty the motion is due. Pass to Transportation

With the Chair voting aye. Current vote is five to two. Senator Glazer. Aye. Glazer. Aye.

Six to two, that Bill is out. File item number six. AB 1291 by Assembly Member Mccarthy. The motion is due. Pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations

With the Chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer Aye, eight to zero, that Bill is out.

File item number seven. AB 1097 by assemblymember Luz Rivas. Zero, I'm sorry. You're right. File item number eight. AB 1287 by Assembly. Member Alvarez. The motion is due. Pass as amended to Appropriations

With the Chair voting aye. Senators Dahle Glazer. Five to one.

Arambula was pulled from the Committee.

Five to two. Five to one

That Bill is out. Five to one. File item number 10. AB 1332 by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

No absent Members. Vote is eight to zero.

That Bill is out. Next is file item number 11. AB 1385 by Assembly Member Garcia. The motion is due pass to the floor

With the chair voting aye. Senators Glazer Glazer aye six to two.

Six to two that Bill is out. Next is file item number 12. AB 1469 by Assemblymember Cholera. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor.

With the chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer. aye eight to zero.

That Bill is out. Eight to zero. File item number 13 AB 1490 by Assemblymember. Lee. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations

With the Chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Five to two.

Five to two that Bill is out. File item number 15 AB 1713 by Assembly Member Gibson the motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations.

With the Chair voting aye. Senator Glazer Glazer aye six to two.

Six to two that Bill is out. Next is file item number 16. AB 1734. By Assembly Member Jones Sawyer. The motion is due pass to housing.

With the chair voting aye. Senator Glazer. Glazer. aye 8-0.

And then that Bill is out. And then file item number 17 a vote only AB 543 by Assembly Member Gipson.

Vote on that motion is to pass to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is five to one. With the chair voting aye. Senators Glazer. Glazer aye Skinner.

Six to one that Bill is out. Six to one. That concludes our Committee. The Committee on Governance and Finance. Should anybody wish to send in any public comments because they didn't get a chance to, feel free to visit our website and to send it in. We are adjourned.