Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Did I scare everyone with that gavel? Hi, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We have eight items on our agenda today. Two of the items are on consent. Item number nine, SB 834 Portantino has been pulled at the request of the author. Each Bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition. Each main witness gets two minutes each. There's no phone testimony option for this hearing.

All witness testimony will be in person. Please feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website. This will become part of the official record of the Bill. The hearing will be open for attendance of this hearing. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. Thank you for your patience and understanding and would love to take role to establish a quorum.

Weeks? Here. Weeks, here. Patterson? Here. Patterson, here. Carillo? Gabriel? Grayson? Here. Grayson, here. Kalra. Here. Kalra, here. Quirk-Silva? Here. Quirk-Silva, here. Sanchez? Ward?

We have a quorum. Great. And before we begin, I want to also give a shout out. We have some of my interns coming from the district office. If you all would stand up and wave to the audience. We love our interns very much. Maxwell, Julie, and Samiksha. They're here to watch a riveting housing hearing. So let's make it as dramatic as possible, team. Okay? Yes. And with that, we have a consent calendar. Do we have a motion? So moved. And a second. Great.

Item that's number two, SB 20. Do pass. Item number five, SB 240. Do pass to the Assembly Committee on appropriations. Weeks? Aye. Weeks, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Carillo? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Kalra. Aye. Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye. Sanchez? Ward?

5-0. That is out. We'll let folks add on. And we are looking for authors. So if you are a Senator watching this hearing, who are presenting in this committee today, please feel free to stop by. Or if you are a staff Member of a Senator present in this hearing, please have your boss come here. We have a couple of bills on the agenda today, so when we get some authors here, we will entertain those bills. So with that, we will hold until get the authors. Authors, please come to Housing Committee. Thank you.

You. Are. We good? Okay, great. Senator, thank you very much for you're the first one here today, so thank you for that. You have two bills on the agenda today, I believe. SB 34 and SB 229. And which one will you be presenting first?

We're going to do 34 1st.

Great, perfect. Well, we're ready when you are. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the courtesy of taking me first. I know how important that can be. So let me give you some context for both of these bills because they both emerge from the same set of facts. Anaheim Stadium, located, as you might guess, in Anaheim, California, is the home of the formerly known Anaheim Angels.

It is probably, at least in the last five years, the most valuable parcel of land that was offered for sale by any governmental entity in California. There was collusive behavior between the former mayor and former and I'll underline former City Council and what I believe to be the California Angels and others. As a consequence, two people have pleaded guilty.

There's investigation that is still ongoing concerning how that transaction came together because the net impact of the transaction, should it have been actually executed, was probably a loss to taxpayers of at least $200 million, in my view. And so what happened was that as a consequence of the Surplus Lands Act enacted by or authored by Assembly Member Phil Ting Surplus Lands Act, its purpose is at least twofold, maybe more, but at least twofold. One is to make sure that when a government entity is going to dispose of property that it be put out to bid so that the market can determine what the value is for the benefit of the taxpayers to avoid just the sort of behavior here where you have one entity who's potentially purchasing or leasing the land and secondly, to provide for 25% affordable housing.

That's two of the purposes of surplus lands act. The sale of the stadium, or at least the attempted purported sale of the stadium, violated both provisions of the Surplus Lands Act. As a consequence, HCD notified the city of Anaheim that there was a violation. There was conversation over the course of about a year or so, and ultimately there was a resolution. That resolution was simply that Anaheim pay the fine, which is sort of a weird deal where the taxpayers pay a fine. It moves from one bucket to another.

And what this Bill is, is an effort to close that loophole. It's an effort to close the loophole so that when HCD issues violation that you don't simply just go through the transaction, find yourself and move it from one bucket to another. Otherwise it has no force, no effect. This Bill simply pertains to Orange County. I know that there's been some that feel like that Orange County cities, special districts and other governmental entities are being put upon because it's only Orange County, but frankly, that's the best I could get. I actually think this should be a statewide policy, but we'll start with Orange County.

And what it does is it simply says, look it, if you get issued a violation, you got 60 days to cure it. If you don't cure it, then you can't go through the transaction with me. Here to testify in support is Andrew Dawson. I think we were just downstairs in local government and thank you, Mr. Dawson, for running up here with me. Thank you.

I think your elevator is a little bit faster than mine. Hi, everyone, I'm Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership. I'm here to testify in support of SB 34. The Surplus Land Act is a super important act for governing how public agencies deal with surplus land and offering us for affordable housing, which is a great source of land for us, for nonprofit, affordable housing developers. This Bill would help with making sure the Surplus Land Act is enforced well, especially in situations like the Anaheim Stadium. And with that, I would like to close and respect for your aye vote.

Thanks. Any other primary witnesses?

No other primary right.

As anybody else or anybody else in support, please state your name and affiliation for the record. Thank you.

Good morning. Janice Stanford. On behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta in support. Thank you.

Great, thanks. Any other supporters? All right. Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Looks like they took the fast elevator also.

Actually, they were just right behind you the whole entire time.

They're drafting off of me.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, representing approximately 1000 local governments using their lands to provide essential services from water to wastewater, to fire protection. I want to thank the author and his staff and the committee staff for meeting with us and working with us as this Bill has progressed. However, we respectfully have an opposed unless amended position on this Bill.

And I'm confined my remarks right now to SB 34. I have additional remarks on SB 229, which is similar. I want to be clear that we understand and respect Senator Umberg's desire for additional transparency.

Our concern with this Bill is its reference to an application to notices of violation received from HCD in connection with the sales or leases of surplus land, and in particular, the use of the word leases. The clear established intent of the Legislature is not to apply the requirements of the SLA to surplus land disposals, or rather to surplus land the requirements of the SLA to surplus land to leases. And I'll share two examples.

In 2019, as introduced AB 1486 by Assemblymember Ting, proposed to define dispose in the Surplus Land Act and to include leases in that definition. A broad local agency coalition opposed this inclusion and expansion, and consequently, leases were amended out of that Bill before it became law. Another example just this year, and actually, another Bill that's up in committee today in this committee is SB 747 by Senator Caballero.

This is a Bill that is seeking to bring entry of specified leases into the SLA, further indicating their absence under current law. Further, this Bill simply applies to all leases, not long term leases. Therefore, under this Bill, local agencies would be required to respond to notices of violation for HCD for all leases.

When leases are not covered by the SLA, the SLA is not a model of clarity. Unfortunately, this Bill would add to that lack of clarity. We therefore ask that the bill's reference to leases be struck. We again thank the author for his willingness to work with us, and obviously we'll continue to work with his office, but at this time respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thanks. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Chris Lee, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California with an opposed unless amended position. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other opposition on this measure? All right, seeing none. Any questions or comments from committee Members?

I want to move the Bill, and I support the Bill. I know that the lease concern is a concern, but a bigger concern is taking surplus land and not using it or going through the processes that have been spelled out by legislation. I do represent parts of Anaheim, and certainly it's been a very lengthy and long discussion related to all of the accusations that went down related to that property. But in the end, it's ultimately the taxpayers that are losing out, and we need to make sure we're doing everything to guard against that. So with that, I move the Bill.

Great. Okay. Is there a second? All right. Any other comments or questions from committee Members? All right, seeing none, I have a couple of questions. Reading the Attorney General's letter here, and obviously you can't speak to the Attorney General, but it mentions that after the notice of violation was sent, that it was rescinded after the Department of Justice started to enforce the penalty provisions. So they seem to indicate to me that there are some kind of penalty provisions associated with that. And are you saying it was just a fine?

The chronology is that, yes, there was a settlement entered with HCD. This is my view, is that that settlement was just basically moving money from one bucket to another bucket. But what happened was that, in short order, after the settlement was entered into I think it was within 24 hours, the FBI released several affidavits that demonstrated that there was collusive behavior in terms of the terms of the actual sale. And so at that point, it sort of blew up.

Yeah. But are you saying there's not enough enforcement mechanism under current law?

That's correct, yes.

Okay. All right. And last question. You answered it a little bit when you said you think this should be a broader Bill, but obviously, Anaheim was having this issue in which you think taxpayer dollars were at. You know, it's the whole county. Right. So I don't see their position on this Bill, I don't think. I think we have the association, one of the associations, but did you have any context on

No, I definitely think. It should apply statewide. But we've been at this for a while, and through previous negotiations, we agreed to limit it to Orange County. We'll see how it works in Orange County. I may be back.

Great. I don't know if that's okay. Great. Any other anything else? All right, if you'd like to close.

I want to thank Mr. Wertheim for working on this Bill with us. We've been doing this for a little while. I also want to thank Assembly Member Quirk Silva for her leadership on this very, very important issue. The opponents have raised the issue of ambiguity and leases. I don't think it's ambiguous, but this Bill definitely clears it up. Leases are included to eliminate any doubt.

Now, should all leases be included? We've tried to negotiate what leases should be in and shouldn't be out. A five year lease for a $200,000 parcel of property I'm not sure needs to go through all the processes for Surplus Lands Act may not even be big enough to provide for any housing, but we have not been able to achieve some sort of understanding as to what's in and what's out.

So right now, everything is in. Leases are critically important because the disposal of land over a long term lease is the equivalent of a sale. And indeed, that's exactly what's happening in many, many, if not most, transactions. So, yes, I do want leases in, but there's amenability to further defining it. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second, and we take roll.

Motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee on appropriations. Wicks. Patterson? No. Patterson? No. Carrillo. Carrillo. Aye. Grayson? Grayson. Aye. Kalra. Kalra. Aye. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva . Sanchez. Sanchez? No. Ward. Ward? I.

Okay. Great. It's out. 5-2. We'll keep it open, but you have another Bill up, which is SB 229.

Yes, SB 229 is in the same context. So to further explain what happened and why it's important that we close this loophole is that after the violation and there was a settlement, that settlement was entered into and then provided to the city council within, I believe, 24 hours, maybe 48 hours. Mr. Bui tells me it's 24.

Thank you very much. And the purpose of this 14 day period is to allow the community to be able to take a look at the settlement to see if it's fair for taxpayers. In particular, it is an effort to add some transparency to what was formally permitted, as is illustrated by the collusive behavior by the former mayor and other former officials. I vote with me here testify. As I said earlier, I'm hoping. In support is Mr. Tony Bui.

Chair. And committee Members Tony Bui with the California Apartment Association here in strong support of SB 229. This Bill ensures laws on the books to address the housing production shortage across the state works as it originally intended. The author mentioned previously that the Bill will increase public transparency, which is crucial to ensuring that the laws on the books do work.

But in addition to that, the Bill is in response to a specific incident, as previously mentioned in Anaheim, where negotiation on the stadium broke public trust in addition to violating the law. Right public trust that can be restored by passing SB 229. And lastly, the Bill protects taxpayer dollars.

Violations of the Surplus Land Act generally often involve taxpayer dollars. This bill's requirement for additional open hearings and notice will ensure that decisions are made with public accountability. And all that said, I ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support?

Morning. Janice Stanford on behalf of Attorney General Robanta in support. Thank you.

Andrew Dawson. The California Housing Partnership in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition could have just stayed up know.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Again, I want to thank the author for his willingness to meet with us and talk about this Bill. And his staff have been great to work with as well, also the committee staff.

Mr. Worthein, thank you for your time. However, again, we still have a respectful opposed and less amended position on this Bill. This Bill is similar to SB 34, but with different procedures and applicable to all local governments. Our concerns with this Bill are threefold. Number one, the exact same issue with leases that I just addressed on SB 34. I won't rehash all those points here.

Again, it's the same argument we'd like to see that struck from the Bill. Number two, this Bill has an important distinction from SB 34 that we think really needs to be rectified. SB 34 applies procedures local governments need to file when they receive a notice of violation from HCD in connection with the sale or lease of surplus land.

This Bill, SB 229, applies those procedures when a notice of violation is received in connection with a sale or lease of a parcel, it does not say a parcel of surplus land. And we think that's a really critical distinction, and it's problematic. The SLA is not a model of clarity. It's hypertechnical. And every word has significance. This Bill should clearly state that it applies to surplus land disposals to avoid any confusion that it may have application beyond that.

To that point, I note that exempt surplus land disposals are explicitly not subject to the SLA. So there's a reason why this wording is really important here. We're also, as my third point of concern with the Bill, seeking flexibility in some of the procedural requirements of the Bill.

Number one, we're seeking an off ramp from the local agency having to hold a public meeting if, after receiving this notice of violation, it elects not to proceed with the transaction. Senator Umberg just confirmed in the first committee that this Bill was heard in today that he's going to be taking an amendment to address that issue. And I appreciate that.

Thank you. The second is we're seeking additional flexibility in the format in which these notices of violation need to be considered by a local agency. And third, it's a minor fix.

This Bill requires posting on local agency websites of the notice of these meetings occurring to consider these notices of violation. Not all local agencies are required to maintain websites, so there are some local agencies that cannot comply with the provisions of this Bill. Again, thank you to the author for working with us. Thank you to the committee staff for working with us as well. At this time, we're respectfully asking for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Chris Lee on behalf of the urban counties of California, opposed unless amended. Nick Romo on behalf of the imperial irrigation district, opposed unless amended.

Annalee Akin on behalf of Mesa Water District. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others, are there any questions or comments from my colleagues? Well, that's good. Well, appreciate you bringing this to us. I think I am personally supportive of the concept. I do have some concerns with just the broad definition of who would get this notice when a parcel is if it was restricted. This is my personal view, of course, to SLA violations of surplus land.

I might be able to personally get to a support position on it. And I think most of these having been on a City Council, most of these notices and hearings, they'll happen in a normal City Council meeting or water district meeting or whatnot, but is there a motion? All right.

Second.

Great. Thank you. And with that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you again, Mr. Wirthheim, for your help on this over the last couple of years. Thank you for your leadership. One more time, Assemblymember Quirk Silva, a couple things. One is, as pointed out, we are going to make sure that if a entity decides not to go through with the sailor lease, that they need not have a meeting to basically confirm that they're not going to do it. I do believe, though, that if a governmental entity is going to dispose of, in whatever fashion, a parcel of land, the community should know.

I didn't realize that. Some special districts apparently don't notify anyone. If you don't have a website and you don't communicate that you're going to sell a parcel of land other than perhaps a legal notice in the back of the penny saver, then you're really not telling the public.

And so to the extent that special districts do not have a website that they do not tell anyone, I would recommend that they actually, if they want to dispose of property, that they actually get a website and so that the public does know. But this simply says you get 14 days. The public gets 14 days to examine the settlement and provide their point of view as to whether or not it's fair or not. As is illustrated in Anaheim, that settlement was arguably not fair. And with only 24 hours to weigh in, that did not provide adequate transparency. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion in a second and we can take a roll.

Motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations Weeks. Patterson not voting. Patterson not voting. Curio? Curry? Aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson? Aye. Cholera. Cholera? Aye. Quirk Silva? I'm sorry? Quirk Silva? Aye Sanchez. Sanchez. No. Ward. Ward? Aye.

All right, that Bill is also out. We'll keep it open. Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you, Members. Thank you.

There we go. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

And we have SB 745.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. I'm here to present SB 745 and I appreciate you and the Members allowing me to do that. We call it the Drought Resilient Buildings Act.

To tackle the anticipated water shortages in California caused by global climate change, SB 745 requires that the California Building Standards Commission develop building standards to reduce the design potable water demand of new buildings. In addition, SB 745 requires adoption of model ordinance, language and guidance to streamline local implementation of the onsite treated graywater local program requirements set forth in Water Code Section 13 558.

These initiatives will be funded through the existing building standards, excuse me, the Building Standards Administration's Special Revolving Fund and that provides funds to the California Building Standards Commission for the specific development of sustaining building standards. The impact of climate change is projected to diminish California's water supplies by up to 10% by 2040. That's not an unknown statistic, but it's worth repeating from time to time, considering that buildings remain in use for several decades before being replaced.

California must proactively adapt to the challenges posed by climate change by reducing the expected demand for potable water in new construction, starting now. I do accept the technical amendments made by this committee. I appreciate the committee's analysis and work on the Bill.

And with that, I want to turn it over, if I may, to our witnesses, Scott Wetch and Thomas Enslow. And Mr. Wetch is here to represent the California State Pipes Trades Council. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. And two minutes each, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, I'd like to also thank the staff who have worked really collaboratively with us on this Bill and the author for introducing it.

There's been some misrepresentation by some about what this Bill attempts to do. This Bill is not a Bill that conflicts with past legislation relative to addressing water usage by occupants. This is a building standards Bill to improve the design of new buildings.

Not existing buildings, but new buildings for a couple of reasons. If you just look at the swing space, if that building had been designed under a Sacramento ordinance that allows it to take all the gray water that just comes from sinks in that building, treat it in a very compact treatment system that you can obtain and then used it just in water closets, meaning toilets and urinals. Just that building that we all use every day, we could save tens of millions of gallons of water.

The second purpose of the Bill is that if we get to a point one day, which we'll have to, where we have really robust municipal water reuse programs, where we have purple pipe running throughout our cities, you can't just go connect to a building and use that gray water if the building hasn't been designed to receive it.

So it's about getting ahead of the curve. And what we really tried hard to do is to not be prescriptive in this Bill but for the Legislature in its appropriate responsibility to direct the Building Standards Commission to come to upgrade building standards without telling them which standards, but to upgrade them to make our buildings more water efficient and resilient.

That's what the Bill does. Opposition by the water districts is focused on the fact that when you distill it down, that they're concerned that if buildings are made more water efficient, then there'll be less water for them one day to be able to conserve through municipal water conservation programs. Well, I think we should be hitting every front to save every drop of water at every point that we can.

So we'd please urgent, I vote.Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Tom Enslow, on behalf of the International Association of Plumbing, mechanical Officials, and also a Blue Green Alliance asked me to provide their support today since they can't make it to this hearing. This is a really important Bill.

California's population is expected to grow from 40 million to 60 million by 2050. Sacramento alone estimates its urban water demands can increase by 30% by 2045. Yet at the same time, because of global warming, we're projecting current sources of water, of available potable water to decline by 15%.

And as Scott said, this needs to be addressed on multiple levels, including both urban water use objectives that the utilities are already required to adopt to address existing use. But also to reduce new water demand from new buildings. This is new water demand that's coming that we don't have water for. As Scott said, SB 745 does not mandate the installation of any particular type of water use systems.

We have this go through the building standards process for both HCD and the Building Standards Commission requires stakeholder review, expert code advisor review, consultation with appropriate agencies, including the Water Board. And that's a three year process. So that means the earliest that any new standards could come out would be effective January 2026.

So, for example, the SB 966 new standards that are coming out this year on water reuse treatment standards, which is just an update of existing standards, that's going to be in place well before any of these standards go into effect. But if we don't pass this Bill this year and they don't start that process because it's a three-year update on these codes, it won't be till 2029 until we have standards in. So there is some urgency to get this out today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in support of this measure?

Good morning. Aaron Wooley, on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Elena Pieri on behalf of the building decarbonization coalition in support. Thank you.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mona Lake committee in support.

Seeing no other supporters are there there anybody in opposition to this measure?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Beth Olasso on behalf of water reuse California and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies asked me to register their opposition as well. Appreciate Mr. Wetch trying to articulate what our concern was.

I'll take this time to share what our actual concern is. We are very supportive of on site reuse as a tool to be efficient in water use throughout the state. As everybody knows in this committee, hydrology and how communities use water throughout the state is very different.

Some have invested heavily in potable reuse, like in San Diego, some like San Francisco, where it makes sense to do on site reuse. That's the tool that they are using. So we think this is on site reuse is one tool in the tool shed in the toolbox.

Should the city of Sacramento had decided that on site reuse was the preferred method of water use efficiency, they could have required the swing space to be dual plumbed and to capture and treat their water. They chose not to do that. What we are asking for very simply, and we really appreciate the amendments that the author has taken, the Bill has moved very far in the right direction.

All we're asking is that the Building Standards Commission keep everything voluntary so that individual communities can pick the best way to be efficient and to use their water. So we're just asking for the ability for the Building Standards Commission or the Department of Housing and Community Development to not be able to require to mandate a one size fits all for the state. We want to keep it voluntary.

We're incredibly supportive of a model ordinance. Water reuse has invested heavily in that process, something we're very, very supportive of. Want to continue to work with our partners to keep this voluntary and to make sure all communities are using water efficiently, whether it's through potable reuse with purple pipe, with raw water augmentation or just straight up conservation.

That's where our concern is, just to make sure that we're all working together and find the best way for rate payer money to be used in each community. Appreciate the time.

Thank you for that. Anybody else in opposition?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Don Gilbert on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in opposition for the reasons stated. Thanks.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association respectfully with an imposed and less amended position and I'll align my comments with Ms.. Alaso. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from committee Members?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the Senator for bringing this forward. I know that we have some experience locally in San Jose with purple pipes and the need for us kind of to have all tools available because for our sustainability goals, especially the way that we're seeing with climate change. Although we had a lot of rain this last year, we also know that droughts are always on the horizon in our state.

And so I think it's getting ahead, but usually we're playing catch up. And I think in this case, this is a good strategy to get ahead and to create expectations for those going forward in building to make sure that we're doing everything we can to have, again, all the effective tools that we can that make sense to preserve our water. And I think this will really put California on a great path forward in our building standards.

And so grateful for the Senator, happy to support the Bill, move the Bill today, and would like to be added as a co author.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Grayson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also to the author. Thank you for bringing this forward.

Great concept and ideology behind this Bill. Always have wondered, why aren't we doing something with our gray water to recycle it on site rather than put it out with that, having said that, and forgive me, I'm subbing in for a Member of the committee, so I haven't been able to dig too deep into the weeds here. Is this limited to commercial or I noticed that the analysis mentions housing as well.

So would the commission be looking at codes that would have a broad spectrum from commercial buildings to multifamily to single family homes?

Yeah, the short answer is yes, and I'll let the witness respond in more detail if necessary. Assembly Member. Thank you.

Yes. So this has the Building Standards Commission looking at the non residential buildings and the Housing Community Development looking at the residential as the code process sets forth, it does have specific language saying that they need to take into consideration impacts on affordable housing, and it gives them broad discretion. I would imagine that for large commercial, there'd probably be stronger standards than for, obviously, single family residents.

Maybe you wouldn't have anything. Maybe you just have a simple gray water system. But these are all technical questions, which is why we wanted to go through the technical process, right?

So I appreciate the technicality of it all, and I appreciate our agencies, regulatory and those that will design, research and develop codes. As a builder myself, I appreciate those codes, especially when I go to other areas of the world that don't share those codes. And we see the consequences of that.

Having said that, the concern that I have that could be addressed later on I will be supporting the Bill today is an example would be when the commission authorized rooftop or actually mandated rooftop solar for all residential. One of the things that wasn't considered at the time was a lot of those houses were going to sell with a 30 year mortgage. But the lifespan of that solar that was put on the roof only had a 15 year lifespan.

So the person that bought that house was going to spend the last 15 years of that mortgage paying for something that was no longer in existence and gone. And so I am hopeful that the commission will take things into consideration like that and their approach would be providing options and really looking at different levels of development and what's best to incorporate on those different tiers and different levels. When they do propose ideas coming forward, is it limited to just the Commission approving those new codes for proposal, or will the Legislature have an opportunity to weigh in again?

Well, the Legislature will always constitutionally have an opportunity to weigh in if the commission goes off in a direction that you or any of us doesn't like. And I think that's one of the most beautiful things of this system up here. I have some criticisms of the system, but that's one of the beautiful things.

We can come back and address those issues. I think it's a great point and I'd also say we haven't taken on opposition from the building industry relative to some of those issues, but it's a great issue to give some thought to and we'll continue to do that here in the remaining period in the session. This issue of amortized cost over time and if there's something we can do with it, or if that's just another Bill that needs to come in and maybe attack the problem in a little bit of a different way on a grant program side or something, I don't want to go too far in my response because I haven't thought through the excellent point that you made today.

But we will.

Thank you so much, Senator. I think that's a great answer also to the opposition, and the Legislature always has an opportunity to weigh in if things don't go a certain way. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. OK, great.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the Senator for bringing this important piece of legislation forward. I just want to comment on a comment made by Mr. Wetch and our swing space.

I think that we think about policies in ways that are transformative future thinking. The Legislature just is using that building and created that building in a space. As we remodel the Capitol building, as I walk down the annex and see that it's halfway torn down.

But I would say that as we developed ideas and opportunities for legislation moving forward, we should model those same expectations of ourselves. I'm not sure at the moment if the new annex building, the new addition to the Capitol building with the new offices that will be in place in the near future, has even thought about that. I don't know.

It's something that I think is a good conversation to have with our legislative body, with our Rules Committee. So as we implement possible solutions in water storage and ensuring that we're not wasting water, why don't we start with our own house? And so I would just say that I think your Bill and what we've done is a good conversation for us to have about being a model for the rest of the state that if we can do it in the people's house, it can be done elsewhere. So I would just say that there's an opportunity for your Bill to be potentially implemented with the new design of the Capitol Building.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other comments? All right, well, I wasn't planning on talking at all today, except for on one Bill, and then I got stuck as chair, which it's an honor to be. But I just wanted to say my concern with this Bill is that and I understand there's a provision in it to take into account affordable housing.

But my concern is well, first of all, who knows what that's going to look like and whether certain regions because affordable housing in one region is obviously different than affordable housing in another region, and some regions are exempt from affordable housing, basically, and all this legislation coming through. But if we're going to require it off the bat, not knowing the impact to affordable housing, that is a concern that I have. I think we could probably get to the point where I'm supporting something that might require this type of thing, but without knowing what the impact would be, it's hard for me to say, hey, full steam ahead when we're trying to deliver affordable housing in this state.

And I know it's not your intent to stop that from happening, but I know in my own district, when I talk with developers, I have a housing advisory committee. All the costs prevent it from happening in a way that we'd like to see it. So that's my concern. And if you'd like to address that, more than welcome to.

I think it's good points. It's akin to the point that Assembly Member Grayson was talking about in terms of really a cost benefit analysis between the capital costs of doing things and the amortization thereof and the offset that you get in a community like some of them. Recall when I represent, where the affordability of housing is being impacted dramatically by the cost of retail cost of water, which has been going in.

We just got a 15% water increase notice from San Jose Municipal Water Agency, which has been trying to build a new treatment plant for as long as I've been around. I was on the City council 20 years ago. They're only a billion dollars short of coming up with enough money to do that.

The purple pipe, Mr. Wetch, alluded to that. It's not there. The infrastructure isn't there yet.

Do we need all that? Yes, absolutely. And that'll help as well? It'll help in a big way, I think, address the concern you're talking about if you can just hook up and use non potable water wherever possible, or treated water to the extent we get to that point where it's potable. But right now we're in a position to do what we can with what we have in front of us as a step.

And I do think this is a both and conversation ultimately, but I think fundamentally, the cost of amortization, of capital improvements needs to be looked at probably separately, but soon in addition to this Bill. And it's a great topic for us to maybe take up with California Building Industry Association in terms of their feelings about attacking that problem going forward and nonprofit housing developers. So I appreciate your comment and your concern.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I don't see any other comments.

Would you like to close?

Yeah. Only to acknowledge all of the comments. I appreciate the engagement and the interest on this Bill.

We've been spending some long days in a lot of committee hearings, a lot of committee discussion, and I wasn't sure how much people would be engaged on this Bill. And it feels good to hear from folks that we're seeing great potential for additional tools in this space. I do think some emerald crew that maybe we ought to get together and try have talked about this in our house to really reinstitute now that construction is underway a more robust Member oversight process on what's going on with the actual everything from the finished carpentry to the infrastructure to the water to the access to power and you name it.

I mean we're not really involved with that. And it's a separate conversation. I agree.

I don't want to go off topic on a Bill I'm presenting, but I very much empathize and would like to be a part of that kind of oversight. So we will take into account these cost issues going forward, either by trying to see if there's something we can still address here, but maybe more importantly coming back if we can get this enacted and see now that this is enacted, we need to come back and take a look at what we can do in terms of mitigating consumer costs.

Thank you. We still need to

respectfully ask for your Aye vote okay.

Without you saying that, I think everybody's going to vote no. And was there a second? Okay, great. We have a motion and a second.

We could take roll motion.

Do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations Weeks. Patterson, Patterson no. Carillo,Carillo aye. Grayson, aye. Grayson, aye. Cholera. Cholera, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Ward? Ward, aye.

All right, the Bill is out, but we'll keep it open.

And for the record, we'll be adding Assembly Member Cholera as a co author. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. And Assembly Member Creo wanted to be added as well. Great. Thank you. All right. We don't have a long line of senators in the building, so I appreciate every single one that's here.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member. I appreciate that. It's always good to be appreciated, even if you're the only one in the room.

Well, we appreciate you at all times. And you are here to present SB 747, correct?

Correct.

Great. Thank you.

Correct. Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair, I'm pleased to present SB 747, which would make important changes to the California Surplus Land Act to provide greater flexibility and clarity to its application for local governments.

First, I'd like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill, and I will be accepting the amendments outlined on pages eight and nine of the Committee analysis. For decades, redevelopment agencies, or RDAs, were equipped with broad community revitalization authority and financing powers. A core feature of the former RDA, as everyone knows, is that it enabled local agencies to acquire properties and assemble land that could be used to revitalize deteriorated neighborhoods and attract and expand new businesses and jobs to the community, especially in deteriorating downtowns with infrastructure challenges.

After RDAs were eliminated in 2011, the Legislature recognized that local agencies needed new economic development tools and enacted a variety of laws, including the State Economic Opportunity Law, to authorize local agencies to acquire and dispose of property for economic growth. Since the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Law in 2017, local agencies have utilized this tool to acquire deteriorated buildings underutilized lots and other properties, often in underinvested neighborhoods and downtowns, with an aye to future sale or lease of the property to advance private sector reinvestment and economic opportunity. When a local jurisdiction acts to dispose of property access to its needs, the property acquired with the goal to pursue economic opportunity, it must undergo review under the Surplus Land Act.

The Surplus Land Act requires a local agency seeking to dispose of real property to first make it available for affordable housing. In 2019, AB 1486 imposed requirements under the SLA, which included giving the Department of Housing and Community Development an oversight role and the ability to impose fines when a local government is believed to have violated the SLA centralizing. The Administration of the SLA under HCD with the authority to impose these penalties, has created confusion for local agencies to understand their options to effectively conduct activities and fulfill their missions without experiencing significant delays or lobbying HCD or the Legislature to obtain an individual exception.

This year, the Assembly sent seven exception bills for consideration. And quite frankly, when we start seeing the broad application of exceptions to something that we barely passed, that's a red flag that we've got some problems. This came to my attention when local governments in my district had issues with dealing with surplus land, and rather than get fined by HCD, just elected to leave them vacant, which does nobody any good.

We're not building affordable housing and we're not doing economic development. And that's the reason that I started working in this area. First and foremost.

SB 747, as proposed to be amended by committee, makes needed changes to the Surplus Land Act to, as the analysis states, serve as a release valve to limit the need for future SLA changes. What we're trying to do is to avoid the one offs and create rules that make sense that cities and local government understand how to use their property. Among the Bill changes to SLA, it allows local agency to dispose of surplus property.

So the bottom line is, economic development was stripped out of it. And I want to work with the Chair to see if there's a way for us to create a nuanced way to be able to use the economic development law in order for cities and counties to be able to make some good decisions for themselves. But maybe by making findings, we just need more time to talk about it.

But I have accepted the elimination of economic development in that. But the Bill, as amended, would allow surplus property for mixed use property which contain at least 25% of its units affordable to Low income residents. The Bill clarifies that land retained by local governments for several purposes, including broadband development and waste disposal, qualify for agency use.

And it exempts short term leases of 15 years or less from the SLA. These properties are less characteristics of a traditional surplus property analysis. Local governments have a responsibility to build housing and support economic development within their communities.

Both Economic Development Law and the Surplus Land Act are a critical component to ensure that this happens. However, the Legislature has a responsibility to ensure the laws passed do not inadvertently punish local governments that are genuinely working to advance development that support the needs of their community. While committee amendments today removes the language that provides for greater flexibility for economic development, I would like to continue working with the Chair, this committee, and the stakeholders to ensure local governments have the tools to develop in ways that support the necessary balance between economic development and affordable housing.

I make to you the commitment that as the Surplus Land Bills have passed through the Senate, we have linked them so that they all are getting through and they're all working to accomplish the same goal, which is to clarify how surplus land should act in their communities. So with me here today to testify and support and facilitate the conversation about this Bill is Aaron Avery on behalf of the California Special Districts Association.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members. For the third time today and last time, aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, which represents nearly a thousand local governments using their lands to provide essential services such as water, wastewater and fire protection, and supporting affordable housing through providing essential services.

Although we have a supportive amended position, we want to thank Senator Capuyero for her tremendous work on this Bill and for tackling this really tough issue. I think that's really demonstrated by the sort of parade of SLA bills that this committee has seen today and this year. We're enthusiastic about this Bill, and we've been working with the Senator on it for many months.

I note that my remarks are on the version of the Bill in print. We have not yet seen the Committee amendments, but want to thank committee staff for working with us on this Bill as well. The SLA serves an important purpose, but it is both hypertechnical and again, not a model of clarity.

This has led to disputes and inefficiencies, as demonstrated by the parade of SLA district bills and cleanup bills that come before this committee every year. SB 747 is designed to help bring additional clarity and flexibility to the SLA while preserving its core purposes. Important provisions include providing a definition of dispose under Section 54221 D that includes the sale of surplus land and the entry of specified leases in excess of 15 years.

Finally, providing clarity to that issue we were discussing on other bills today. This Bill provides additional transparency to HCD procedures prior to HCD, adopting, amending, or repealing specified standards, forms or definitions or SLA guidelines by removing an Administrative Procedures Act exemption applicable to HCD. And this Bill clarifies that the SLA shall not be interpreted to require a local agency to dispose of land that is determined to be surplus.

We are seeking amendments, working with the author to increase the bill's term for leases that would be caught up in that definition of dispose to make it something more akin to a sale in excess of 15 years. So I think we're aligned with the author and seeing if there's a path forward there as well. We're also seeking to remove a recent amendment to the Bill which requires notifications to HCD of exempt surplus Land Act disposals.

We think that's unnecessary and exempt surplus land is not expressly not included. Those disposals are expressly not included in the SLA. Again, we want to thank the Senator and her staff for their tremendous work on this Bill, and we look forward to continuing to work with them as this Bill progresses.

Thank you.

Thank you. Was there just the one primary witness? Any other primary witnesses in support? No folks in the room wish to express support. Name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Matt Robinson. On behalf of the California Transit Association. I just want to thank the author for all her work.

For your committee staff's time. We have a support position on the existing version of the Bill, the amendments that are proposed in the analysis, we do have some concerns with several of them and hope to be part of the conversation that moves forward. And just to point out something that Aaron said, that definition of disposal is critical to making this entire body of legislation much easier for our agencies to interpret. So thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordlman, on behalf of San Bernardino County and the city of Ontario, in support.

Sharon Gonzalez, on behalf of the cities of Bakersfield, Corona, Carlsbad, Merced, and Santa Rosa, in support. Thank you.

Chris Lee, on behalf of the urban counties of California, in support.

Paul Yoder, on behalf of the city of Beverly Hills, in support.

Nick Rome, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and the California Business Properties Association, in support.

David Jones, on behalf of the city of San Marcos, in support. And thank the author.

Thank you. Now we will go to primary witnesses in opposition.

First of all, we'd like to thank the Housing Committee and our staff for working so hard to ensure we protect the spirit of the Surplus Land Act. Since 2020, surplus land transactions have resulted in about 8000 housing units, including over 5800 units of affordable housing. And these homes are a critical part of our state's affordable housing strategy.

So we always want to carefully balance all suggested changes to the SLA. We'd also like to thank the author and our excellent staff for being really good folks to work with and parties to address some of the outstanding issues in the measure. And I think we've made some great progress here.

Our coalition hopes to continue to work with all parties to address certain outstanding issues. This includes exemptions for transit agencies and certain mentions around sites that are proposed to be set aside for 25% of their land for housing.

On the first issue, we know that housing or transit is a critical public policy goal for the state, one that simultaneously addresses our housing and environmental goals.

Exempting land used simply for transit, or even around transit oriented development under this Bill could take some of the most promising areas of land in the state for 100% affordable housing projects out of the regular disposal process. And these are sites we believe should remain within the scope of the SLA. And we also think that allowing exemptions for certain sized parcels that restrict to only 25% of their units for affordable housing could be lost opportunity.

We could have affordable housing builders who'd like to build 100% affordable housing projects on those parcels and would like to continue discussions around ways we can balance that approach. Obviously, we want housing fast, but we also want a lot of it if we want to meet these very ambitious rena goals we have across the state. So on our part for Mph, we remain very committed to productive conversations with the author, her sponsors and the team.

Really appreciate everything that's been done so far, but at the moment, we continue to have an opposed unless amended position.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. Brian Augusta, on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, one of the Members of the coalition that my colleague was describing.

I just wanted to note, having worked with Senator Caballero on many housing bills over the years, I know that we come to this conversation with a lot of shared interest, and I appreciate the work that's been done by the committee and the author. To get a little bit closer, when Mr. Umberg was here earlier presenting one of his SLA bills, he gave credit to Mr. Ting for creating the SLA, which I'm sure Mr. Ting would like to claim credit for.

That's not quite right. But he would rightfully claim credit for authoring 1486, which is the Bill that has led to a lot of these additional conversations we're having this year as we talk about how to fix that and how to make sure that we meet the flexibility that the author of this measure wants. It's important that we don't lose the progress that we've made with 1486.

The reality is we've gotten from that law just on standard dispositions that are subject to the SLA, over 1800 units, but I think it's affordable units. I think it's also important to note that when HCD looked at 235 dispositions under the act, only 21 led to an affordable housing developer choosing to take that land. So the vast majority proceed outside after going to the SLA, proceed on a different track.

And so I think we want to make sure that we are, as we look at, making additional flexibility here, and Abram described very well what our remaining concerns are in the Bill, that we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We've got to make sure that we ensure that we continue to have the role of the SLA in helping to produce 100% affordable projects, and we don't want to see the progress that's been made undermined by that. So for those reasons, we look forward to continuing to work with the author.

We have also are sponsoring a Bill, one of several moving this year, that is in somewhat in direct conflict with that in this Bill. And so we're hoping that that will all be resolved before these bills go down to the governor's desk. We appreciate the Chair's interest in helping to broker that conversation and we hope to be along with the supporters at the table on that.

So for those reasons, we are currently opposed, but we look forward to the continued conversation.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition name, organization and position, please.

Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership. Part of the same coalition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mariah McGill on behalf of Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority.In opposition unless tribes are included in the language for local government.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee. Ms. Quirk-silva.

I'm a little concerned about the Bill, although I'll be saying yes to it, but would hope for the continued conversations because, as said, you know, we have worked quite a bit in this space and we don't want to move backwards. I understand the local government's concern, that's always a concern, but just would encourage the conversations to continue and hopefully by the time it gets to the floor, the opposition will be removed.

But I'll support it today, but just a little concerned.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Thanks. A couple of comments and one of them refers to the amendments actually. I will support this Bill as it is because I think it's making progress. I did prefer the original, personally. The original version, I think having an economic development component is really important.

In my community, the city spent something like $15 million building Quarry Park, and for people who live in the area, the point is to bring in tens of thousands of people a year, spend tax dollars in the town, create this experience, all that sort of thing. The City wanted to put basically a beer garden in, but the city shouldn't be operating a beer garden, so they wanted to lease a gravel parking lot to somebody and HCD said no. And there's never, ever going to be housing there.

It's always going to be for the development of that economic development engine. And so whether HCD has the authority to say you can't lease it or not, obviously there's been a lot of discussion on that, but they did, and the city's not going to challenge that. They don't have the resources or time to do that.

So I think it's really important to consider economic items and appreciate your work on it. Hopefully, we get something done on that that sort of meets the needs of housing. By the way, Rockland, as I've said a million times up here, never denied a single project the entire time I was on the City Council.

Lastly, I want to say I do have one of those bills that's linked to this Bill, AB 457, which takes basically highway right away for an overpass and would allow the city to get rid of HCD's concerns about, hey, you can't lease it for more than five years, because that's our interpretation of it. First of all, I appreciate you so much working with me on the Bill and this Bill in particular and moving it forward. Also, it's a really important change that we have.

I'm keeping it on the Senate floor until we make sure this Bill goes the distance, obviously, because I don't want to limit because it requires this Bill to be enacted, right? And I don't want them to lose that opportunity if hopefully nothing happens with this Bill in the process. But I just wanted to flag you with that. But thank you very much for your emphasis on this Bill.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions? Comments? We have a motion by Ms. Sanchez

We have a second by Mr. Patterson, and I have a couple of comments, but I'll let you close first.

Well, I appreciate the comments that have been made, and I'm very sensitive to the fact. Look, if there's one thing that I've spent my entire political career doing is building affordable housing or making it easier to build affordable housing.

And way before it was popular to have inclusionary housing ordinances and all kinds of requirements, we had them in our city because that was a priority. But laws have to make sense. And if you pass a law and immediately, within the first four years of the law passing, you've got everybody coming in with one offs.

Not this, not this, not this, not this. Assembly Member Patterson, your point is really well taken. There are times that local government puts together property for something that they need, whether it's an on-ramp onto the freeway or whether it's a yard that they're going to need to do work in a city yard.

And if you can't figure out how to comply with the law and still get your needs met, then basically what it does is it causes a lack of action. And that lack of action ends up hurting the local jurisdiction, whether it was economic development or housing. That uncertainty creates a rush to the Legislature to fix it, just in case you're going to get in trouble.

And so what we were trying to do with this is to recognize and acknowledge that the Legislature passed the Economic Development Act for a purpose. And if we have susumed it, then we ought to give some direction as to exactly how do you manage the fact that on one hand, you're given this right and on the other hand, you're given this other right. And, oh, by the way, if you don't get it right, HCD is going to come in and slap you upside the head and they're going to find you, right?

And so what do city attorneys do? They end up saying, don't do anything because otherwise we're likely to have to pay a fine, that's embarrassing to the community. The public is going to be critical, which they should be, and you get nothing done. So that's really the reason for working on this Bill.

And I am working very closely with Assembly Member Ting so that our Bills work well together. And I appreciate the comments that were made from my friends in the affordable housing community. We just got to figure out what's the sweet spot for being able to assure that affordable housing is getting built, but that if there are economic development opportunities as well, there's a pathway to be able to get there as well.

And so I look forward to continuing the work with the Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to have the conversations we've had. And what I said at the very beginning is that I was accepting all the committee amendments.

And so with that, I would respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Senator. I'm a fan of the Surplus Lands Act in concept.

I was a co author of 1486 back in 2019 because I think it's a smart idea to prioritize affordable housing on our surplus land. So I'm a supporter of the law, but I also recognize that there needs to be some changes made to it. We've had nine Surplus Land Bills run through this committee this year, which indicates that there does need to be some sort of changes.

So I appreciate you bringing the Bill forward so we can provide more certainty and flexibility for our local governments, who I know, many of whom are trying to do the right thing, some of whom aren't, but many of whom are. And I know we asked for a lot of amendments, Senator, so I appreciate you taking those committee amendments. There's been a lot of effort from my team, with your team towards that end to try to land this plane.

I know you and I have landed tough planes before in the past and are committed to doing that. Even with those amendments, there's a lot of important changes to the law that are contained in this Bill. And I hope that we can continue to work together, because I do value the Surplus Lands Act.

And so I think we're trying to navigate that together. I'm committed to working through the Bill. I've spoken to my counterpart in the Senate of the Housing Committee, Senator Wiener, about some of the concerns raised by the transit agencies, if they're still here.

There they are. So Senator Wiener and I have spoken about that, and we want to make sure that you all are at the table over the next couple of months as we try to navigate and figure out how to address some of those concerns.

So assuming the Bill moves out of committees today, which I think it will, I just give you my commitment to keep working through some of these issues. And if other Members in the committee want to be part of those conversations, happy to engage as well, because I do think we can land this in a place, hopefully, where it can work for everyone.

And with that, I'm happy to support the Bill today. A motion is due, pass is amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Weeks, I. Weeks, I. Paris, I. that's seven to zero.

The Bill is out, and we will let folks add on as needed. And I think we are waiting on Mr. McGuire, who said he texted me, said he's on his way, so he'll be here momentarily.

And with that, can we go back through and add on for folks who, myself included, who need to add on? Thank you.

Adding on to the consent calendar. Korea. Korea I Sanchez, I. Sanchez, I. I word I for items number two and number five, SB 20 and SP 240. Item number three, weeks, aye. Weeks I, six, two. Item number four, weeks, aye. Weeks, aye. Six, one. Was that item number seven? Weeks, aye.

Weeks I 72. Great. Okay.

We will now hear from our final author of the day. Senator McGuire, I believe you have item number one, SB 18, and item number six, SB 620.

Thank you so much. Really grateful and appreciate the ability to be able to present. And I know that we are at the tail end of the hearing, so I will be brief. First we have a motion. Thank you so much. First, I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for their incredible work on the important legislation.

Of course, I'll be accepting the committee amendments. Bottom line is this SB 18 would address challenges the public health crisis that we have on Tribal lands regarding housing by creating a new and completely separate housing program for tribal governments, specific to tribal needs, which would be created in consultation with tribal leaders and tailored to the unique needs that we see on Tribal lands and for tribal government. It would be very similar to what we've seen with the Joe Cerna Farm Worker Housing Grant program that is focused on farm workers across this state.

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote, and we are grateful that we have witnesses here in support, and both will be succinct, and we're grateful that each are here. Good morning. And we have Annalie trujillo, Executive Director of pala housing resource center and, of course, Liz Elliott, the Executive Director of the northern circle Indian housing authority.

Thank you very much, and you will each have two minutes. Hi, good morning. My name is Annalee Trujillo, Executive Director of Pala Housing well, Paula Housing Resource Center.

Pala Band of Mission Indians. And thank you for having us here today for SB 18, which is a very important, monumental, and historic thing for us here. As far as the tribes, tribes have been historically excluded from any type of state housing programs.

We have been paying very close attention to all the other housing programs that are available across the state. And it's kind of sad that tribes have always been we're the first people here, but the last to be thought of. With that being said, that there was some tribal set aside funds.

$130 million only $45 million of that was accessed because of tribal barriers. We found it that the best thing for us as tribal people was to have our own tribal program so that doesn't happen.

$85 million left on the table is not acceptable to us. For decades, we've been excluded. Our housing, especially with the termination, relocation and removal from our own homelands, we were always promised housing, and housing never came.

And that's when I was a little girl, or prior to that, when my grandfather was working in housing, housing never came. And you see all this development around you, but still nothing for your people, nothing for your tribe. And now that the tribes are being included with some of these programs, it's very hard to even get access or hard to pass threshold for us to even apply to get housing for our people.

I know that there's a misconception that all tribes are gaming or gaming tribes, and gaming tribes are rich tribes, but that's not true. We still have a need for our people. We still have a need for housing today.

It's just sitting here is an honor for us to sitting in front of you and asking you for your support in our Bill and also that it's being amended to respectfully request if you sign on as co authors because it's being amended and I know that it could be done at that time and I would be honored for that. It'd be historical and monumental, like I said, for the tribes across the state of California, 110 federally recognized tribes that are asking we're asking for help for housing, for affordable housing for our people. Thank you.

Hello, madam Chair and committee Members. I want to call out the date to you. January 6, 1851. That marks 172 years of policy based exclusionary, redlining, and extermination by the state of California on tribal communities. For many, that date doesn't look like that's in the past. That's so long ago.

But I serve the homeless grandchildren of those who the state couldn't exterminate. When I go home today, I get to look at children who are living in storage containers with their family. When we look at the state policies and the things coming forward, the mitigation of homelessness for all of our communities, tribes are left out.

We look at the CAL ICH data that's used. That data is inaccurate. We are othered. We are redlined. And I ask for unanimous consent to move this Bill forward in an action of restorative justice to California's first people. As you leave here today, you walk over the graves of those who California set out to exterminate.

If we want to lessen the weight, as Senator McGuire said on the public health crisis, mitigate the weight on Medical, and insurance companies, everything, this is the first step to heal that historical trauma. So I ask that you move this forward in honor of that restorative action. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional folks wish to express support. Name, organization, and position, please.

Yeah. Madam Chair and Members, Paul Yoder. On behalf of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, Happy to support our friends in sovereign tribal governments in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Hello. My name is Brian Williams. I'm the vice chairperson of the Redwood Valley Rancheria Little Band of Pomo Indians, and I proudly support this Bill. Thank you to the author,

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership in support.

Brian Augusta, on behalf of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation in support.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Galen Dobbins with the California Coalition for Rural Housing in support.

Talia Dimato on behalf of the Tuli River Tribe as well as Dry Creek Rancheria in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks wish to express opposition? Okay, we will bring it back to the committee. We have a motion and a second. No questions. Would you like to close?

We respectfully ask for an Ivote. And thank you again for all your work on this, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And I just want to say I appreciate you running this Bill. I appreciate hearing your testimony.

So thank you for coming here today. I think one of the things that many of us care about when it comes to housing is particularly those who are disproportionately impacted by a lot of the intended and unintended consequences of policy that we put forth in this state. And I think particularly as it pertains to our tribal communities, we have a real reckoning to dress here in the state of California.

So hopefully, this could be part of that. I'd love to be added on as a co author, and I'm happy to support the Bill today. And with that, the motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Weeks, Aye. Weeks aye. Parison. Aye. Paterson Aye, Carrillo Aye, Carrillo Aye. Grayson Aye, Grayson Aye. Cholera. Quirk-Silva. Sanchez. Sanchez. Aye. Ward. Ward. Aye

I six to zero. That Bill is out, and we will let folks add on when they come back. And your next Bill, I believe, is number six, SP 620.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And to Members, I wanted to say thank you, Madam Chair, and to your incredible staff. We love working with you and your staff. And of course, we'll be accepting the committee amendments. I'll be very brief and say that California's outdoor recreational economy is worth $54 billion. It's one of our largest economic drivers in the state of California, and one of the top tier drivers within our outdoor recreational economy is camping.

And SB 620 is going to usher in greater and more affordable access to the outdoors and expanded camping opportunities. The Bill will establish a needed framework guardrails and regulations for low impact camping ten sites or less, including important health and safety regulations. In addition, this Bill will empower local governments to manage and oversee new low impact camping sites. Again, ten sites or less. And it's going to open up new economic opportunities for some of the most economically disadvantaged rural communities here in the Golden State. I have with us today, and we're really grateful for their amazing partnership.

Ada Waelder with the California State Association of Counties. Let's go, CSAC. And of course, we have Lexi Griddlefield with the California Outdoor Recreation Partnership and would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and you'll each have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the committee, and thank you to Senator McGuire and his staff for all their hard work and including counties in on this conversation. We really do appreciate. My name is Ada Waelder. I am a legislative advocate with the California State Association of Counties CSAC. We represent all 58 counties in California, and we're here in support of this Bill.

SB 620 empowers local governments to manage and oversee low-impact campsites in ways that work for their community. The Bill does not preempt local laws that may apply to low-impact camping operators in a specific local jurisdiction and instead ensures that camping operators comply with local requirements while also establishing minimum health and safety regulations at the state level. CSAC also supports efforts like SB 620 to promote agricultural, historic, and natural resources tourism throughout the state.

On average, we see campers spend around $300 per person at local restaurants, cafes, gear shops, farm stands, et cetera. And these tourism dollars stimulate local economies by providing sustainable revenue for small businesses and helping to create jobs. Low-impact camping would help drive economic development into rural and often underdeveloped communities.

In addition, this Bill will facilitate local landowners, including small farmers and ranchers from across the state, to earn a diverse and supplemental income stream from hosting campers. In summary, SB 620 would clarify state and local authority and increase access to the outdoors while providing economic opportunity to these rural communities. CSAC strongly encourages you to support SB 620 and we appreciate your time today.

Thank you, Chair Wicks and esteemed Members of the Committee for the opportunity to offer comments on Senate Bill 620. Thank you, Senator McGuire, for your continued dedication to this critical issue. My name is Lexie Gritlefeld and I represent the California Outdoor Recreation Partnership. We are representing over 80 plus outdoor industry companies and organizations throughout the state, and we include gear manufacturers, retailers, guides and more. Participation in outdoor recreation skyrocketed during the pandemic.

Thank you

In fact, about half of all Californians participated in outdoor recreation last year, and California's outdoor recreation economy is one of the largest economic drivers. It's worth an estimated $54 billion. Low-impact camping has also grown and is a great example of how the outdoor recreation industry is responding to changing consumer preferences.

Low-impact camping areas offer a range of accommodation types at all price points and are spread throughout the state. However, there are still too few campsites to accommodate all Californians who want to camp. In fact, a recent study showed that more than half of the people who started camping in the past few years said they will likely camp less often next year due to overcrowding because the majority of new campers are people of color.

Barriers like these disproportionately impact populations who have been historically excluded from our outdoor spaces. At the core of this issue are existing state permitting requirements, which were designed for large campgrounds and are too financially burdensome and impractical, especially for properties with just a handful of temporary campsites. SB 620 takes a common sense approach and differentiates between commercial campgrounds and low-impact camping.

The proposed Bill would establish requirements and safeguards for low-impact camping that are appropriate and right-sized for this activity. By streamlining the permitting process, SB 620 will usher in greater and more affordable access to the outdoors and expand camping opportunities for all Californians. Without these camping opportunities, outdoor overnight stays may be out of reach due to lack of access, cost, or increased competition for public campsites.

In summary, this Bill would increase the supply of outdoor accommodations at all price points to meet the current and expected increased demand Low impact camping helps provide the opportunity for all Californians to experience the benefits of the outdoors. We strongly recommend the passage of this Bill. And thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support, please name, organization and position.

Hi. My name is Mason Smith. On behalf of Hipcamp, in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Madam Chairman. Brian White with the Forest Landowners of California. We look forward to working with the author. It's a great Bill, and we appreciate your support. Thank you.

Elena Piere, on behalf of Save the Redwoods League. In support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks wish to express opposition? We'll bring it back to the committee. Questions? Okay. Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Mr. Grayson. A second by Mr. Ward. Would you like to close?

Would respectfully ask for an aye vote, and thank you again, Madam Chair. Very grateful.

Thank you, Mr. Majority Leader, for authoring the Bill. Happy to support it. Today, the motions do pass, as amended to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations.

Thank you.

Aye.

Wicks?

Wicks, aye. Patterson?

Aye

Patterson aye. Carillo? Carillo aye. Grayson?

Grayson. Grayson aye. Kalra?

Aye

Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva?

Aye

Quirk-Silva, aye. Sanchez?

Aye

Sanchez, aye. Ward?

Aye

Ward, Aye

Eight to zero. The Bill is out.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

And we'll go back through I think we have a couple of Bills that Mr. Kalra and Ms. Quirk-Silva need to add on.

Item number one, Kalra?

Aye

Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva?

Aye

Quirk-Silva aye

That is out eight to zero.

And one more, ma'am. Item number eight, SB 747. Assemblymember Kalra?

Aye

Kalra, aye.

Eight to zero. That's it. We are meeting adjourned.