Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance

You. My script says good morning, but obviously it's a little past morning, so I'll say good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public.

In person and via the teleconference service for individuals who wish to provide public comment today, the participant number is 877-226-8216, and the access code is 5700096. We are holding our committee hearing here in the O Street building. I ask all Members of the committee to be present in room 2100. We will establish a quorum when we get more committee Members.

We have 28 bills on today's agenda, three proposed for consent. The consent items today are file item number eleven AB 1765, file item number 16 AB 1400, and file item number 20 AB 1093. File number 22 AB 1563 will be presented only. And file number 18 AB 965, will be taken up first on AB 965.

Assembly Member Carrillo. Each main witness on each side will have 2 minutes to speak after the second opposition witness finishes Mr. Paul McGavin will have an additional two minutes to testify before we well.

We need to wait to establish a quorum. And we have late breaking news, which is file item number 26 AB 1510. By assemblymember Joan Sawyer has been pulled, so we will not be taking that up today as well.

And I also have been asked to take a Bill out of order. We usually do the file order. Assemblymember Wicks has two items, file item number 23 and 24 that we'll take out of order after we finish the first Bill. So that's the agenda for the day.

So I'd like to start off with. Our first Assembly Bill, file item number.

18 AB 965 by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo. Welcome Assembly Member.

Thank you, madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 965, AB 965 Bill seeks to help broadband permits get processed more efficiently so that our constituents can more quickly benefit from high speed internet. The shot clocks and dimapproved language in the Bill for batch permit processes only applies to wireless broadband projects.

As you know, wireless broadband permits are already subject to state and federal shot clause, which is 60 to 90 days when a broadband project is being deployed in a community. Oftentimes there are numerous locations where identical telecommunications infrastructure has been installed to provide high speed internet. They are very simple and very similar. These bills ensures that groups of nearly identical broadband permits can be processed together in a batch. This Bill authorizes local agency to set reasonable limits on number of projects batching to a simple permit.

Cities with population less than 50,000 people and counties with populations of 150,000 people may batch no less than 25 sites. Cities and counties with populations greater than 50,150 thousand people may batch no less than 50 sites. I want to emphasize two points that were addressed in the recent amendments. In prior committees, locals will have the flexibility to approve or reject the permits or extend the amount of time needed for review.

Locals can also make a health and safety finding if they have a concern with one or more permits by pulling them and continue to proceed with the rest of the batch. It also makes it clear that proven applicants can work with the local jurisdictions to assist with resource issues to help process the permits. Permit fees will still be reviewed by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine, high volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually.

We're also quickly approaching the deadline of December 2024, which is about a year to spend $6 billion of federal broadband dollars at risk of losing it. This funding will get us connected in months instead of years.

As a former city planner myself who has dealt with these permits in the cities of Coachella, Deseha Springs and the city of Palmdale, I know firsthand that the processing of substantially similar broadband permits by local jurisdictions at the same time will be more efficient on the workload of local government staff as well. Joining me to testify in support and answer questions is Rochelle Swanson, external affair manager of Crown Castle and also Valek Tying, senior vice President of Government relations at Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thank you.

Very good. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and committee Members. I'm Rochelle Swanson, external affairs manager for Crown Castle. We're the nation's largest shared telecommunications infrastructure. Provider, installing, operating and maintaining broadband for.

A variety of customers, including K through twelve districts, local governments, universities, internet service providers, and wireless cell phone services, all of which are critical to connectivity and especially for wireless on the public safety and first responders. This Bill is based on experience, knowledge, and a desire to get communities connected. Crown Council works with local jurisdictions every.

Day in this state and across the country to deploy broadband. AB 965 reflects the best practice of permit batching. The Bill does not require local agencies to approve the permits, it simply requires a decision within existing shot clocks.

This will reduce delays and create a more consistent permitting process throughout the state instead of the current patchwork that exists. AB 965 is needed because even though.

Some local governments are using permit batching for broadband projects, many are not. With constrained staffing resources, we must find efficiencies that motivate applicants to organize and bundle their projects and give staff tools.

So that they can more easily review the process the Needed Permits in addition to the state's investment of 6 billion in broadband, the private sector has also been investing billions in the state and continues to do so each year. In the coming months, there will be.

A large increase in broadband projects, and this Bill is critical to make sure the decisions are made in a timely manner. We genuinely appreciate all the work done by the author and his staff to negotiate and find compromise between industry and Local governments, including cities, counties and municipal Utilities, all of whom have removed their opposition.

California's enhanced reliance on remote work, telehealth and virtual learning demonstrate the need for legislation to accelerate the deployment of broadband. In short, this Bill will ensure best practices are being consistently used by both the industry and the cities and the counties.

Crown Castle is an enthusiastic partner in this effort and we thank you for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and esteemed committee Members. My name is Valec Tang and I'm here for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. SVOG is a business association representing hundreds of companies and institutions that work in the economy. In the innovation economy, we are proud to support AB 965 because we believe it will accelerate the buildout.

Of critical broadband infrastructure throughout California. Doing so, we will support the state's economy, grow jobs, and bridge the digital divide. The COVID-19 Pandemic has unfortunately seized the migration of work, education, business and healthcare to online platforms. Those with access to high speed and reliable Internet transitioned quickly to the new reality of fully remote employment, online classes.

Or virtual doctors appointments. Sadly, many rural, Low income and minority communities lack the broadband architecture for sufficient advanced Internet to keep pace with these current changes. As a result, existing inequities are further exacerbated.

AB 965 will increase Californian's ability to access and leverage online resources by implementing industry best practices that speed up the approval of digital infrastructure projects. At our community level, the Bill will allow for approving substantially similar broadband permit applications simultaneously. To avoid these duplicative and redundant red tape reviews that stymie our efforts to expand Internet access, AB 965 will grow the state's economy and jobs. Broadband construction, operation and maintenance will immediately require greater workers.

Enhanced Internet infrastructure will also increase the need for workers in digital industries, which is critical for our economy. This is including cyber, It Data, and many others. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is proud to support AB 965 and. Thank Assembly Member Juan Carrillo and his staff for improving digital access throughout California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Like to invite anybody that would like to add on in support as a me too to please come forward.

Marvin Pineda on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund and Support.

Good afternoon. Roxanne Gould on behalf of WIA, The Wireless Infrastructure Association in support.

Kish Rylander on behalf of Calcom and support.

Chair and Members. Nate Solo on behalf of the following organizations who can't be here in person and support the Bay Area Council, Cal Chamber, California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, California Business Properties Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Wireless Association, Consolidated Communications CTIA, Frontier Communications, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Mateo County Economic Development Association and US Telecom. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Not in support. Wanted to restate our neutrality with the June 7 amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in support of the Bill saying none. We'll move on to opposition. Mr. Graham, I understand that you would like to be the lead opposition. You can come to the mic, please. Sure.

Started the clock. I have advised you you'll have four minutes. An additional two minutes.

Okay. Good afternoon, senators Mark Graham on behalf of keep cell antennas away. Thank you for your time. Please ask me questions when I am done. What is this? 27 volumes of evidence. 12,000 pages of studies showing cell antenna radiation is harmful to your health. 27 volumes showing why California should not should not be putting up more cell antennas. August 13, 2021. The US.

Court of Appeals for the DC circuit ruled that the Federal Communications Commission had ignored this evidence when it decided not to update its 1996 radiation exposure limits. Children's Health Defense versus FCC. 90% of Californians already have access to high speed Internet where they live. You should not require batch processing. Why are there people in your district without high speed internet access? It's because telecom has failed to apply for permits in certain areas.

They've had years to apply for permits, but they decided it was not going to be profitable in certain areas. This Bill does not change the underlying economics. It does not require them to provide access to even one person, and they will not. AB nine six five promotes the irresponsible placement of cell antennas. It is an unnecessary, misguided gift to the trillion dollar wireless industry at the expense of localities. Your staff Bill analysis ignores and omits everything that the opponents have told the committee.

Cities and counties can already do application batch processing. If you think they are not aware of the advantages of batch processing, then tell them about it and let them decide. And vote no. Telecom will use this Bill in order to circumvent local zoning codes by filing 50 simultaneous cell antenna permit applications with local planning departments at a time, day after day after day. Even if the city sets the daily limit at 50, the total number of submittals and applications is insufficiently constrained.

You cannot meet the speed requirements for the NTIA Bead grants, which California thinks it's going to get with wireless. Wireless is too slow, but you can meet it with fiber optic cables. Please vote no and study the issue more. California should stay on the course which it's set with AB 156, which was passed unanimously and signed into law in 2021. And that is an emphasis on hardwired internet connections. They do not provide a health risk. They are more reliable and faster.

This should remain the course for California. I urge you to vote no and study the issues. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hello, Welcome.

Thank you my name is Rennet Senm. And I'm a former two time mayor and council Member. I know firsthand how cities process wireless telecommunication facility applications. And let me give you some evidence that contradicts what Mr. Carrillo has said. Drinking from a fire hose. Those in local and state government know what that's like. You're experiencing this right now, trying to weigh the trade offs involved in 28 bills on today's agenda. You feel fully prepared to make a good decision on each?

I know from experience you probably don't. It's very difficult. Well, that is exactly what you're asking. Thinly staffed planning departments and commissions of 58 counties and over 400 localities to do completely unnecessarily because we have not been honest about the real purpose and impacts of this Bill. Allow me to explain the evidence shows that Bill Gates is. Not a force for good in America backing the WHO, the WEF and AB 965.

Bill sponsor Crown Castle. I just watched an interview a week ago with Dr. Peter McCullough. McCullough always cites evidence for every conclusion he makes. Unlike Dr. Peter Hotez. McColla reports that Bill Gates is gleefully. Announcing the next Pandemic for 2025.

Mr. Gates, we all know, has profited handsomely over the last three years, and he's also the top shareholder of today's Bill sponsor Crown Castle. With billions of dollars invested in the most litigious firm in the wireless game. What is Bill Gates goal? A medical tyranny. Agenda. For that?

Gate aims to have Crown Castle build a 24/7 wireless surveillance grid to lock down the population and force a CCP style social credit score system on Americans. It doesn't matter that totalitarianism hides behind the phrase of environment, social justice, or ESG. This is actually a matter of national security.

The people of California reject this agenda and need our elected representatives to work. Hard to defeat it. Or you can vote to amend AB 965, a two year Bill to enter substantive discussions about the amendments offered by Wire, California to return AB 965 to its original fiber optic microtrenching purpose and properly define appropriate radio signal strength levels for wireless telecommunications infrastructure in our communities.

And if you can't, then I implore that you vote no on AB 965. Thanks you.

Thank you very much. Now for opposition. Me, too. Opposition. Actually, we have two more. Let me just say that I'm trying to do this fairly, and I've already given five and a half minutes, so I'm going to allow you to proceed, and we'll give you two more minutes beyond that. Is that okay? Right now, we're now on opposition. So if I could just briefly we need to make this accommodation and then.

We'll allow you 1 second. Just have to change my file. I'll tell you when to start the clock. Okay.

Sorry. We started now.

All right. You shouldn't have. I'm Paul McGavin, Wire California. Thank you for the time. In the words of the late, great Yogi Bear deja vu all over again. AB 965, in many ways, is a redo, a mulligan, a repeat of two earlier wireless telecommunications bills, both which were vetoed 2017 SB Six four Nine was properly deliberated in these chambers. But 2020. One's SB. 556 was not.

In 2017, the California Legislature and the committees allowed 60 minutes of substantive testimony on SB 649 per committee, 30 minutes for support, 30 minutes for opposition. In 2021, that was cut down to four minutes per side due to specious rules written for the now proven scam of a pandemic by a California Legislature that was played along.

California's deserve fair and open deliberations on AV 965 at 2017 levels, but we're still stuck at 2021 levels, which is more than 85% less testimony than in 2017, and there's no emergency in 2023. Such an end run around the public is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and, as of yesterday, illegal.

As I informed Senators Caballero on Dahle yesterday face to face, my two minutes of testimony today is not an acceptable ADA accommodation for the one to 4 million Californians with electromagnetic sensitivity who actually may be constrained and forced out of their homes if these WTF branching requirements become law. We have written and video evidence to prove that Wire California and EMS Californians were not granted fair and open deliberations on AB 965.

We experienced discrimination, systematic hiding of public information, and a torturously slow walk of our valid ADA request, all of which violates federal law. The solution to these violations is to vote on one motion today. Make AB 965 a two year Bill giving the California Legislature the time to correct these errors before voting AB 965 to the Senate floor. There's no rush for this Bill. You don't need it. Senator Caviar, these are matters of governance, the very purpose of your committee.

It's time for California Legislature to go back to the open and fair deliberations consistent with the Bagley Keen Open Meeting Act. Senators, your vote today, not your words, states your position to all Californians, please make this a two year Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I'm going to make another accommodation. Because I understand we have a lot of people in opposition, which is fine.

I appreciate it very much, Madam Chair, on a totally different, I think, tact here. I'm Paul Yoder. On behalf of the San Francisco City and county of San Francisco and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. The munis in California have been exempted from the Bill. The Municipal Transportation Agency in San Francisco has not. They were admittedly a little late to the exemption game.

But if there is any entity in California that should actually be exempted from this Bill, it is the Municipal Transportation Authority of San Francisco. Because of the trolley line. We've all been to San Francisco, seen the trolley line, seen the overhead wires. There is nothing like that in San Francisco. There's nothing like that west of the Mississippi.

Those wires have to be supported by poles that are larger, cost more, have to do more than any of the other polls that have been exempted in the state of California. Appreciate the author spending time with San Francisco staff. He personally spent time with them. A little surprised, frankly, that he hasn't agreed to exempt Muni from the Bill. That's fine. We can continue the conversation downstairs or upstairs now, as the case may be.

But respectfully, if the committee could consider exempting the muni from this Bill, the city would be very grateful. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I have to agree with you, it's a little bit easier for us. If we have this information ahead of time so that we're not sitting and kind of trying to craft something on the dais which we've been admonished not to do because it makes it very difficult so we'll allow Assembly Member Carrillo to address that when we get to questions. We're now on the further opposition.

Anybody who would like to join on as a me too? And we did present the opportunity for almost nine minutes of opposition. So I think we've been fair, sir.

Thank you, Eric Lehr. On behalf of the California State Association of Counties, the Rural County representatives of California and the League of California Cities, we are pleased to remove our opposition from the Bill and remain neutral. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you so much. Anyone else in opposition?

Bill Allio Environmental Working Group in opposition. Thanks.

Thank you.

Suzanne Hume CleanEarthForKids.Org in opposition. Thank you.

Anyone else? Is there anyone else in Room 2100? We're going to move on to the teleconference line moderator. If you could open the lines to indicate to anyone who would like to testify either in support in opposition of AB 965.

If you are in support or opposition of AB 965, you may press one and then zero. We will go to Line 408.

Yes. My name is Julie Levine. I'm with 5g free California. I am opposed to 965. It remains a wireless permit batching Bill which is going to make it even easier for telecommunications. Thank you very much, too.

Thank you very much. We're looking for people to identify themselves, the organization they represent, if there's any organization, and whether you are in support or opposition. We're done with the testimony.

I want to make sure that was 400. Was that caller? I want to make sure that if. You want to make a comment, you have the ability to do that.

Next, please. All right, line 321, your line is open.

Hi my name is Lindy Purcell. I am EMS sensitive. I'm with California Nurses for Environmental, Health and justice. Families advocating for chemical and toxic safety. Protect wild petaluma, and grandparents in action strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Line 209, your line is open.

Yusef Miller with cleaners for kids in opposition.

Thank you. Line 313, your line is open.

Can you hear me? We can hear you. Great. Sarah Amaros with safe Tech International in strong opposition.

Thank you. Thank you.

Line 415, your line is open.

Good afternoon. Amanda Gualderama with Cal broadband in support.

Thank you. Line 314, your line is open.

My name is Charlene Hopi, Los Angeles, California. 5g free California, Fiber First LA. A citizen of LA. I oppose strongly. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Line 425.

Yes, my name is Lonnie Gordon, Executive Director of Malibuforsafetech.org and we are strongly opposed to this Bill.

Thank you. Line 393.

Vicki Sievers EMF Safety Network Education Outreach in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Line 450.

Yes. My name is Maria Tamayo. I'm a resident in Pearl County. I'm in support of AB 918.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Line 426.

This is John Padawa from Cleanearthforkid.org and Strong Opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 423

with the California. Chamber of Commerce and support it.

Thank you. Line 408.

Julie Levine, 5G, free California fiber first LA. Strongly opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. One moment. Thank.

Madam Chair, we have no further support in queue.

Very good. And bring it back to the committee. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the author who we were able to have a conversation yesterday. So I do have a concern about the Bill, which is not about any of the mind control conspiracy theories or about Low full control. I've actually been pretty consistent in supporting these bills over the years to facilitate expansion of wireless service in our cities. And I've even gone against the city of San Francisco on some of those bills.

I do have concerns about the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Concerns? They don't typically come to us with opposition unless they're really concerned. And the overhead wire, the catenary wire system in those poles, it's a pretty unique asset in the city. I really wanted to just get your take on exempting that from the know.

We took a lot of amendments, and we did have a conversation with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority. In fact, the planners for the city were also part of that conference meeting. We know. I would say that this is an opportunity for them to be able to replace those polls that they see not fit for something like this. There was a comment on how electoral officials have waited on going through these processes and approving them in a public hearing.

As a city planner actually practicing in the field and knowing how providers don't really want to stop a project because of replacing a pole, even installing a new pole, there is advantages to having them interested in providing a cell antenna in playing fields. I've worked on a lot of those. They don't mind putting that type of infrastructure, which is a benefit to the community as well.

If the concern with the San Francisco MTA is the and I respect the uniqueness, I respect the history of the cable cars in San Francisco. It's unique, and we need to preserve that, absolutely. But I don't think that this is really putting that at risk at all. Even if a provider wanted to have these antennas on that system, they still have the ability to put conditions on those antennas that would be approved, assuming that the planning commission or council would approve them.

And again, one of those benefits would be to actually replace those poles. I see that as a benefit. And having taken so many amendments to this process, I think that it's only fair to make it a plainfield throughout this state. There are also users throughout their system that would benefit from having that capability, having been able to access whatever they need to do while riding the trolleys, even the residents, those that live nearby businesses.

This will add a benefit to the entire system, and I really don't see that as a real threat. Again, help providers replace those poles that they feel are not suitable to have the additional 200 300 pound weight that the antennas are. I don't know if that answers your question.

No, I appreciate it. And like I said, this Bill is normally one that is one I would support. And the arguments you're making are ones that I generally agree with. I just think this is a situation where I don't think SFMT would have come forward if it were not like a real issue. I don't think they're just it's not a get off my porch kind of situation. I think they view it as an actual real issue.

And so my question to you is, are you definitively ruling out that exemption? Because, again, this is a unique thing. It's not like there's like 300 of these infrastructures around the state. So my question is, are you open to still considering it or are you sort of saying, no, we're just not going to do this?

I would definitely consider it. I think there is still room to have those conversations with them. Absolutely. Okay.

So I will vote for the Bill today to help you move it forward because like I said, I'm generally sympathetic, but I'll be on the lookout for this and I really appreciate your open mind in this about that. Thank you.

Senator Ciarto. Any questions? Senator Dolly, I want to kind of second what's been said. I think there's a need to look at the situation a little bit differently. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I would agree with the Senator that I spent a lot of time just say that I believe that the Coronavirus was a serious threat to our state and it was a threat to elderly and to the essential workers that were required to work every day.

And so in rural California, that means farm workers and farmers that kept food on our table. But having said that, the Internet problems that we had in rural California became magnified because now all of a sudden, everything was happening on the Internet. Your access to information, children's education, college classes, work opportunities were all related to whether you had good high speed Internet.

And this Legislature has worked really hard to allocate resources for the deployment of Middle Mile and Last Mile and take in important federal funds to build out the infrastructure. Doesn't do us much good unless we finish building out that infrastructure. So I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and we do have federal funds that we need to be able to utilize within a specific time period.

So I support what you're doing and I appreciate the challenges in trying to make sure that it works all over the state. But there are certain instances where I think we need to make exceptions, and this may be one of them. So with that, I'll allow you to conclude.

Well, I thank you again for your time and yeah, we will continue those conversations. Again, I know the historic value of the San Francisco rail system, the cable cards. I appreciate that, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. We had a quorum, and then we just lost it. And so when we get it back, we'll take up your Bill for a vote. So thank you very much for being here on time and ready to roll. So we'll move on to Assemblymember Wicks, and we will be taking up file item number 23, AB 1319.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. I want to start off by accepting all of the committee's amendments. I particularly want to thank Jonathan Peterson from the committee staff for spending so much time working with us. Madam Chair, you have great staff.

And for all of his work helping to create Baffa in the first place. Back in 2019, AB 1319 enacts targeted modifications to state law governing the Bay Area Housing Financing Authority, also known as BAHFA. BAHFA was created by AB 1487 in 2019. Authored by David Chu, of which I was a proud coauthor, it was created to help the Bay Area take a regional perspective to a regional problem, which is housing affordability.

Thank you.

Since BAHFA was created, it has hired an Executive Director and staff, developed a business plan, received $20 million from the state to implement pilot programs, and began preparing for a ballot measure to raise funds to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing. BAHFA is governed by MTC and ABAG, who are the sponsors of this Bill, along with regional advocates for affordable housing. In getting BAHFA up and running.

They and partners in the affordable housing community noticed that there were a handful of places where the law lacked clarity, made implementation challenging, or simply didn't reflect recent evolutions in best practices such as the homelessness prevention techniques we learned during the pandemic. This Bill includes the modifications necessary to address the existing issues so that BAHFA can best fulfill its mission to help ensure housing affordability for lower income residents of the Bay Area.

And this Bill essentially, I know many of us pass a lot of laws here, but then you get into the implementation phase, and it turns out we need some tweaks and changes. So that's essentially what this Bill does. With me here to testify in support of the Bill are Julie Snyder, principal legislative advocate for MTC and ABAG, and Abram Diaz, policy Director for the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California.

Very good. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Julie Snyder with MTC. And ABAG. First, we also want to express our great appreciation to the chair and your staff for working with us on amendments always improving the Bill. So thank you. The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, or BAHFA, is our affiliated entity. You all have charged us with implementing region wide solutions to our housing affordability challenges, challenges that heavily impact whether our region can meet our climate goals, our equity goals, and our mobility goals.

AB 1319 as the Assembly Member says, gives us additional tools to carry out your mandate. We are preparing to place a $10 to $20 billion housing bond on the November 2024 ballot. And to maximize the impact of this funding, AB 1319 makes a series of changes and clarifications. I'm not going to go through all 25 of them, but I did want to highlight just a couple for you. The first, the Bill clarifies ambiguity about our ability to buy and sell property.

A number of our cities and counties had requested that BAHFA seek this authority so that we can help them meet their rena goals. Second, the Bill gives us the explicit authority to create LLCs or limited liability companies and issue mortgage revenue bonds. With these, we'll finance the purchase of apartments affordable to middle income or moderate income households and deed restrict them. This is additive to the lending powers that BAHFA already has, and we'll be able to expand our impact.

Third, there was one thing in particular I wanted to emphasize that with the committee's amendments, the Bill changes the nomenclature, but not the content of what will appear in the voter pamphlet next November. And I want to emphasize this because there's been some question about are we reducing the amount of information that BAHFA will give voters? We will continue to provide everything that's outlined in statute.

However, the county expenditure plans, which cover 80% of the revenue for a BAHFA measure, are not due until after the election. So we feel it's a misnomer to call what we will place on the ballot a summary of the expenditure plan. So instead, we've deemed it the full text of the ballot measure. But our intent is to provide everything that is in statute to voters and more.

I'm going to stop there and thank you again, we respectfully request your aye vote, and I'll be available if there are questions about any of the other 23 provisions.

Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Ms.. Diaz or Mr. Diaz, apologize.

No worries. Thank you. Chair and committee Members, my name is Abram Diaz, and I serve as a policy Director for the nonprofit housing association of Northern California. We're proud to co sponsor the Bill and really want to show we can maximize the benefits that BAHFA can deliver for the needs of Bay Area residents facing rising housing costs, instability, and homelessness. The Bay Area region as a whole needs to build 180,000 Low or very Low income homes in our rena period ending in 2031.

And across the state, we average building about 20,000 affordable units a year. If we want to get anywhere near close to fulfilling those goals, we need to improve and use every single tool we have in our toolbox. We believe AB 1319 puts forward some narrowly tailored clarifications and modifications that will make BAHFA as high functioning as possible and stay true to our shared vision for BAHFA that we pass in 2019. And we thank you. And urge your support for the Bill today.

Thank you very much. Any other me, too that would like to add on and I'm going to interrupt you right now because it looks like we have a quorum. So if we could call the roll, please.

Senators; Caballero, Present. Seyarto, Present. Blakespear. Present. Dahle, Present. Duraso. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener, present. You have a quorum.

We have a quorum. You may proceed.

Thank you. Dora Rose with the league of women voters of California and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Political solutions on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation and support thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members Andres Ramirez on behalf of all home and the city of Half Moon Bay in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Sosa and Madina. I've been asked to testify in support for Enterprise Community Partners and SB at Home Action Fund. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition. Is there anybody here who would like to testify in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line. Let's check in moderator with the teleconference line. Is there anybody who would like to testify either in support or in opposition?

Thank you. If your in support or opposition of AB 1319? You may press 1, then 0. We'll go to line 11. Your line is I think the line 1. You took yourself out of queue. If you'd like to there you go, line 1. Your line is open and.

It line eleven. Your line is open. Please unmute yourself.

Chair, I was not able to make a comment on AB 965, even though I waited six and a half hours and I was given a line number.

Are you in support or in opposition?

I didn't want to push 10 again because I didn't want to take myself out of line. Can I make a comment?

Your line is open right now. Are you in support or opposition?

I'm in opposition of AB 965. My name is Kevin Modest. I'm a medical social worker, an expert in broadband permitting, and I strongly oppose it.

Thank you very much, Madam Moderator, please move on.

Thank you. We'll go to line 490. Your line is open.

We're on AB 1319.

Okay, so I will need another number, please. Thank you. And we have no further support in queue.

Very good. We'll bring you back to the committee for questions, comments, concerns. There is a motion. Seeing no other comments, questions or concerns, we'll allow you to conclude. Very good. There is a motion. The motion is due, pass as amended to Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators. Caballero aye. Caballero aye. Seyarto. Seyarto. No. Blakespear. Blakespear. Aye. Dahle. Dahle no. Durazo. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener. Wiener. Aye. Three to two.

Put that on call for the absent Members. We're going to take up file item number 24. AB 1657, floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 1657 authorizes the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2024 to place a $10 billion housing bond on the March 5, 2024 ballot to Fund production of affordable housing and supportive housing. The bond will Fund the construction of more affordable housing for lower income families, supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness, prevention of existing affordable housing, homeownership opportunities, farm worker housing, and housing for tribal governments. We have a history of funding affordable housing through bonds.

The proceeds from the last statewide bond, which was approved in 2018, will be fully exhausted by the end of next year. Just when we need the affordable housing money most, we are running out of it. We have shovel ready projects, affordable housing projects ready to go, but if we don't provide more funding, the production will dramatically slow. The last round of funding for the state's main affordable housing program was oversubscribed ten to one.

We cannot take our foot off the gas now and need to continue our efforts to address the affordable housing crisis. I'd like to recognize that there are multiple bonds pending in the Legislature at the moment, and we have ongoing conversations with the governor's office and other authors of those bonds to ensure that we are collaborating in terms of the bond money for housing that will go on the ballot. Affordable housing funding should definitely be a part of that conversation, and it is. I have with me Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership to testify in support.

Very good.

Good afternoon, Members. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. According to Roadmap Home 2030, California needs to construct 120,000 new affordable housing units per year over the next ten years to meet the needs of its Low-income residents. Thanks to Proposition One that the voters passed in 2018 that this Legislature put on the ballot, we have actually built more affordable housing in the last four years than we ever have, and that is 20,000 units per year.

So at our peak performance, we're doing one 6th of where we need to be. And those Prop One funds now have all been essentially awarded. We are down to having very little. These programs are essentially the Department of Housing are about to sort of go dark. There is some budget money this year. We're thankful for that. But there is no long term funding guaranteed for any of these programs.

And so just to stay at this level of 20,000 units per year, let alone increase that number to where we want to be, we need to have another bond on the ballot. I think we've spent a lot of time this ledger has spent a lot of time talking about affordable housing needs. I won't go into that at greater length.

I want to make one other comment, though, which is that if we don't have state funding available to these developments, we actually leave federal resources on the table as well. The main building block of all affordable housing finance financing is the Low income housing tax credit that the federal government provides. And right now, we're in the position of not being able to pull down all those federal resources because we won't have the state funds to actually fill in the remaining funding gap.

We can't build projects unless we have them fully financed. Funding half a project doesn't get us there. And the state funds are that critical element that allows us to pull down these federal tax credits and continue construction. So we are very hopeful that this committee will see fit to put AB 1657 on the ballot.

We realize there are other conversations to go as we prioritize among various bonds, but we are hoping that you all will not only pass the Bill today, but help make affordable housing a priority as those bonds are discussed in aggregate. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium. And the only thing I just want to add to what Mr. Cybers shared momentarily and to the author, is that counter cyclical investment in affordable housing is a critical way for us to close that affordable housing gap when market reconstruction slows. This is precisely the time when affordable housing can fill in the gaps. It can keep the construction workforce employed and take advantage of reduced costs of construction on materials, et cetera. And so I really urge your vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Julie Snyder with MTC and ABAG in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sosan Madanat here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners SV at Home Action Fund. And I've also been asked to testify for the American Planning Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the City of Encinitas in support.

Thank you.

Andres Ramirez on behalf of all home, the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California and the cities of Lafayette, Pleasanton, Soledad. And Concord, all in support. Was also asked to testify in support of the Bill. On behalf of the Greenlining Institute. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Alyssa Silhi. On behalf of the cities of Foster City and Santa Rosa in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Members Karen Lange, on behalf of the cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, along with the California Faculty Association in support.

Amy Brown, on behalf of the cities of Camarillo, Long Beach and Riverside, in support.

Karen Stott, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, in support.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Leading Age California, in support.

Sandra Nakagawa, representing the California Climate and Agriculture Network in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And Senators Rosanna Carvacho Elliott on behalf of the city of Alameda. Also in support. Thank you.

Ben Triffo for the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? See no further support. We'll move on to opposition. Is there anybody here who would like to testify in opposition? Very good. We'll go out to the teleconference line and ask if there are any individuals that would like to testify in support or in opposition to AB 1657.

Thank you. If you're in support of opposition of AB 1657, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line of 481.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members in support. Thank you.

Thank you. One moment. Next we'll go to line 510. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. ... here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, the City of Santa Monica, and the City of Beverly Hills and West Hollywood in support thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 500.

This is Steven Stenzler with Brownstein, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and Housing California, in support.

Thank you. next will go to 509. Please go ahead, sir. . No, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Gustavo Cuevas. I'm in support of the against cruising. I have been Low riding for a while and I stopped.

I'm sorry, but you have the wrong Bill.

Okay, this is not for the no.

This is the AB 1657.

Okay, I'm sorry. That's the one the email that I got. Okay. Sorry.

That's okay. Moderator if we could move on yes.

We have one more one moment where they get their line number. And again, we're on AB 1657. We'll go to line 512.

Good afternoon, chaired Members I'm Vanessa Ramos on behalf of Public Advocates in support of AB 1657. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no further supporter opposition. Thank you.

Very good. I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, concerns, motion.

Question.

You have a question?

Just more of a concern or question. So you had mentioned that we have several other bonds kind of related to this. One of them is $25 billion. This one's only $10 billion. You're working with those authors to try to come up with one, because there's a couple of issues that I think are going to rear their ugly heads, and that's we have $60 billion worth of bonds that we're trying to stick in front of voters in two years.

And when you have that much, they're not going to bind to any of them. They're all going to fail. So we need to have an alternative plan. Last year would have been a good alternative plan when we were grappling with a $97 billion surplus. But there's also another part of this that voters have a lot of trouble with, and that's getting their bang for the buck out of these bonds. Just having the money available isn't good enough.

It's the process that one has to go through to be able to actually get to the part where you build a product. You have to have a labor force, and that's extremely expensive in California now, you have to have a process to get through. And we've done some sequa exemption for some things, but it makes the other building of other units even more difficult and affordable. Housing units that are trying to be built are in fact, in the city I live in.

We started one in 2016. They broke ground two weeks ago, and most of it was waiting and waiting and waiting for bond money. But in the meanwhile, all that weight, the prices went way up again. So people aren't seeing what they need out of our bonds. And so we're still paying for the other bonds that have been put out there, and now we're going to stack more bonds on top of that.

I think it's more cautionary that we've seen so many of these that the taxpayers are just going to vote no on everything. I would encourage you to work with the others to figure out a bond that makes it clear what we're going to do and points out to taxpayers how they're going to get their money's worth, because right now they're not seeing it.

And I feel that in my district, the frustration from both the builders and people that are waiting for this housing, they've been waiting a long time, and it's just not happening. And by the time it gets built, it costs so much that the bond is barely effective in helping. So anyway, those are my comments. I'm not a big fan of bonds right now.

I think we should be prioritizing the massive amounts of money we have in our budget to be able to address these issues without taking on more debt. I think we have $100 billion of debt right now in bonds alone and payments that we have to make on those. So I struggle with these, all of them. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments, concerns, motions prepared to entertain a motion? Okay.

Senator Blakespear, I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I hear the concerns of Senator Seyarto, but housing is critically important. And I think while there's no question we need to figure out how much to put on a ballot, housing has got to be primarily among them. So we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you. Appreciate that. I appreciate your support. And, Senator Serto, I hear you on the concerns. I think we need ongoing funding for affordable housing in the budget every year to show that we care about this issue in a substantial way. I also agree that delays on housing are not okay, which is why I personally run a lot of streamlining bills, some of which you voted for, some of which you haven't. But I strongly believe we need to streamline housing, especially affordable housing.

So I'll continue to work on that, and absolutely I will continue to talk both with the governor's office and the other authors of the bonds to make sure we're not putting a ton of bonds on the ballot. We want to make sure what we put on passes and works. So with that, respectfully ask for an Ivote.

Very good. We do have a motion. Please call the roll. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations.

Senators. Caballero aye. Caballero aye. No. Blakespear. Blakespear. Aye. Dahle. Dahle. No. Durazo. Glaser. Skinner. Wiener. Wiener. aye three to two.

We'll put that on call for the absent members.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We're moving down the agenda. Assemblymember Valencia, you're up. I'm going down the agenda in file order. I understand there's been a switch, but we'll get to that.

I appreciate that. And bueno tardis, Senators and Madam Chair, I want to thank the Chair and committee team for diligently working on AB 34. Additionally, I would like to also acknowledge our team Members, Aaron Ryberg and Kobe Grossman, who have been working on this Bill as well. Independent redistricting commissions maintain impartiality in the redistricting process. They directly increase transparency and accountability by prioritizing local public input and ensure that the process is conducted in an open and transparent manner.

AB 34 is modeled after recent legislation and would similarly create an independent redistricting commission that would draw district boundaries for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. This Bill goes a step further and adds components specifically tailored to best fit the county of Orange through the impartial redrawing of political district lines. AB 34 will put Orange County voters first by increasing representation of the diversity and interests of the community. I'd be happy to answer any question that the community may have. Thank you.

Very good. Do you have any lead witnesses that you would like to testify?

I do not. Due to the scheduling, it just didn't work.

That's fine. Is there anybody that would like to testify in support AB 34?

Alia Griffin with AFSCME in support.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support? Is there anybody that seeing no other witnesses in support? In opposition? Tweener. Okay, we'll take a Tweener then.

Dora Rose League of Women Voters of California. We thank the author for working with us on amendments. And we still have a few things that we're talking about. Generally support the concept and appreciate the work. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause, also with a support if amended position. Aligning your comments with the leak. Thank you.

Very good. Anyone else? Is there anybody in support? Well, actually, anybody in opposition here in room 2100? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference line moderator. If you could queue up testimony in opposition or in support of AB 34.

Thank you. For support or opposition of AB 34, you may press one and then zero we'll go. Line 380. Line 380. Your line is open. And Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Very good. Bring it back to the committee for questions or concerns. Very good. We have a motion seeing no other concerns raised. We'll allow you to conclude

I appreciate the Committee's time and respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Very good. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Please call the role senators.

Caballero aye. Caballero Aye Seyarto. Blakespear. Blakespear. Aye. Dahle. Dahle. No. Durazo. Glazer. Skinner. Wiener. Wiener. Aye. Three to one.

We'll put that on call for the absent Members.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I understand that a matter is being asked to be taken out of order. Assemblymember Garcia? Correct. That's file item number 17, AB 9818. Okay. And I want to thank Assemblymember Ramos for being such a gentleman.

I want to thank him, too, and Mr. Avelino Valencia as well, for going first.

And he did it very quickly, too.

I didn't know if you had spoken to him.

That's right.

We appreciate the restructuring of the agenda. We have both witnesses in support and perhaps even opposing the Bill from our district who have flights to catch this evening. So thank you. First, I'd like to thank your committee staff for the work on the analysis and putting together what is a roadmap to consolidating healthcare districts and trying to put forward hospitals on a financial solvency pathway.

As you all know, hospitals throughout the entire state of California have been struggling to keep the lights on and the doors open as it relates to not just the pandemic, but in many parts of rural California, these systematic problems that we have as it relates to Medi-Cal and Medicare reimbursement rates. The sense of urgency brings us to take a look at healthcare in our region, with one particular hospital at the verge of closing its doors because of financial uncertainties.

And another hospital who, as of recently, has become put in a better financial situation due to reorganization and restructuring the types of services that they provide, giving them a much more stable financial situation. One of the concerns that we have with second hospital is that in 2030 they have some seismic retrofit expectations that at the current moment, we do not have a financial path to finance those particular improvements.

We also have an analysis that was done by an engineering firm for that particular hospital that says that the majority of the buildings that need to be seismically retrofit may need to just be reconstructed in its entirety. So we have one hospital that is 90% seismically retrofit. We have one hospital that doesn't have a clear path to meeting those requirements.

The hospital that is seismically retrofit almost by 90% is in financial challenges not only to keep the lights on the doors open, meet payroll, but also meet its debt as it relates to the improvements that have been made due to state mandates. We've come up with the concept of consolidating healthcare districts to become more efficient and effective in the way that we're delivering services.

There is a fundamental agreement in the region by most of the healthcare professionals, including those in these healthcare districts, that one healthcare district will bring about the efficiencies that are necessary to be able to ensure financial stability for the region. And there's also another fundamental agreement that by combining these two hospitals, integrating the services, and there's proof that when one hospital takes over certain services, it's helped them financially.

In the case of Pioneers Memorial, they've taken on services that El Central Regional Medical Center could no longer serve. It's helped them financially stabilize their situation. So the reorganization and the consolidation of programs has proven to create a better financial footing for one particular hospital. The purpose of the Bill is to create one healthcare district, integrate the hospitals, create a governance structure that is reflective in representative four corners of the county. There are two financial feasibility studies that are underway as we speak.

We're asking that the governing body of this new healthcare district take a look at those analyses, determine if it is financially feasible to integrate the second hospital to create the one healthcare district. There's also one component here that perhaps makes some people uncomfortable, and that is the circumvention of a LAFCO process.

As a former local government official who also understands the importance of local control and coming up to Sacramento and fighting against Sacramento when every chance there was to take away that local control, we recognize that there are concerns about that. But the current circumstances, the urgency to keep these hospitals financially stable, and more importantly, to keep access to health care to the 180,000 people of Imperial County, not to mention the concerns that people in San Diego County have, and Riverside County.

If the one hospital closes, what does it do to their healthcare infrastructure? There is an urgency and that's why the LAFCO Circumvention is in this Bill. I want to just stop there. We have our co-equal partner in this effort, Senator Steve Padilla, who also has some opening remarks as well.

Thank you very much. Senator.

I'm certainly happy to join the assemblymember with regard to AB 918. I want to thank the assemblymember for his incredible leadership and thoughtfulness in the face of an incredible crisis that I know you, Madam Chair, also personally and regionally, very, very familiar with. Unfortunately, the communities of the assemblymember and I represent are at serious risk, as you know, of losing access to critical healthcare services.

And this is already occurring in communities that are scarce of infrastructure for delivery of healthcare services and other physical infrastructure which allows them access already, and this would further exacerbate that situation. As was cited, one hospital is on the verge of financial collapse, another is unable to retrofit. The creation of a countywide integrated structure will balance obligations, distribute risk, maximize financial feasibility. It also results potentially in cost savings.

But at the end of the day, the most important outcome is to maintain an infrastructure for delivery of healthcare services. I want to say again that Assemblymember Garcia has been working tirelessly with stakeholders, members in the community. Often, as you well know, colleagues, these types of processes are not easy to accomplish in a positive end. I have a high level of confidence we can do this, thanks to that leadership and yours. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. Do you have specific witnesses you'd like to call forward to testify?

We do. We have Erika Valle, who will read testimony on behalf of Tomas Virgen, he's the CEO of the Heffernen Healthcare District, followed by Blanca Morales from the Calexico Wellness Center.

Very good. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Caballero and committee members. My name is Erika Valle, legislative aide for Assembly Member Garcia. And today I will read testimony on behalf of Tomas Virgen, CEO of the Heffernan Memorial Healthcare District. My name is Tomas Virgen and I have been a long standing leader in the healthcare space in the Imperial Valley for the past 25 years. Today, I serve as the CEO for the Heffernan Memorial Healthcare District.

Over the years, I have gained valuable insights into the inner workings of the Imperial Valley healthcare system. From my perspective, it is clear that the two local hospitals cannot continue to exist independently and patient safety is at risk. These hospitals are operating in a fixed economy with a flat population growth, a poor payer mix, and facing challenges in recruiting physicians and registered nurses. Additionally, the cost associated with seismic retrofitting may not be achievable for both hospitals, considering their current financials and debt obligations.

There is a significant disproportion between dollars billed and dollars collected from services rendered by both hospitals. During my tenure at a Central Regional Medical Center, we were only able to collect close to $0.22 on the dollar. It is my firm belief that unless our healthcare system unifies, patients will continue to suffer. In the past, I had the opportunity to be a part of two failed attempts at merging both hospitals to form a countywide healthcare system. Unfortunately, these attempts failed due to political considerations.

Both sides were focused on keeping and retrofitting their own campuses, even when financial analysis clearly indicated otherwise. Today, the reality is shifting, and I argue that we must prioritize patient safety over pride. Both the Heffernan Memorial Healthcare District Board and I see AB 918 as the only lifeline in this sea of change. The benefits that this bill allows are immeasurable for our aging community.

In Calexico alone, we have more than 29% of the seniors in the entire county, and we also have a significant population that is underinsured. Additionally, close to half of all ambulance transports to the two local emergency rooms come from Calexico, as reported by the Calexico Fire Department in 2020.

Therefore, we view the formation of a new healthcare district as the only way to effectively address our challenges, ensuring access to care, efficient and timely delivery of services, reduction in unnecessary duplication, benefits from payers as a sole provider, and significant cost savings through collaboration and ownership rather than competition. Not to mention the ability to collect a countywide tax that will sustain this new district and allow for the expansion of services where they make the most sense. I urge you to support AB 918 before our healthcare access is seriously reduced. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assemblyman Garcia and team for giving me the opportunity to be here. My name is Blanca Morales. My background is in healthcare revenue cycle of business development, contract negotiations, employment development for the past 38 years. As an entrepreneur owner for 24 years in San Diego County, I returned to my roots in Calexico, California in 2017. I am now the CEO co-founder of Calexico Wellness Center, a nonprofit healthcare clinic. I am in support of the AB 918.

Imperial county has the highest in the nation chronic conditions such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and cancer screening. In Imperial Valley, we have primary care PCP ratio of 6000 patients per one primary care physician. This is not quality care, nor it allows us to be proactive when it comes to patients using the emergency services and the ambulances or hospital on wheels in Calexico, the city of Calexico, who hasn't had a hospital in 25 years.

This could have been preventive in a clinic setting or urgent care setting. It allows us to save the state and federal monies. The cost of an ER visit is in the thousands of dollars versus hundreds of dollars in a clinic or urgent care settings. We have medically underserved people live below the poverty line are 25.3% of collectible residents, which is higher than the national average, 13.1%.

The significant consequences with lack of primary care underlining health issues or chronic disease like diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, hypertension, and cancer screening result in people more likely to get severely ill or die. Combining the two hospitals will give us the opportunity to do the following: we can leverage contracts with vendors, such as medical supplies, computers, software systems, to allow the facilities to operate efficiently and effectively, and provide tools to the employees for their day to day operations.

We lower the risk of malpractice liabilities with streamlining training programs, and not have duplications in two different hospitals. Leverage the existing contracts with health plan payers to get paid above the Medicare and Medi-Cal fee schedule. The health plans such as Blue Shield, Blue Cross, Aetna, Cigna, and UnitedHealthcare. We can recruit medical providers such as medical physicians, DOs, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nursing staff, and offer strong competitive benefit packages such as medical, dental, vision, retirement, et cetera.

The more staff we add to the benefit packages, the premiums decrease for the employer and employees. Also, these hospitals can participate in the following. Quality improvement program. All providers will be able to capture reporting on supplemental data. This will translate to potential millions of dollars of payments from the health plans to both hospitals.

This is part of the supplemental and quality improvement program, which is a state level program managed by the Safety Institute. For additional revenue, for access uninsured funding, and for a distribution to servicing the needs of the community. Number two.

Can I ask you to kind of wrap it up?

Sure, sure, sure.

I hate to do this but want to make sure we get to...

Okay. So basically, this both hospitals will be able to collaborate with the community clinics and will use for uncompensated care, also known as Clinically Integrated Network. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate your support.

Thank you. Me too, is in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, committee members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of Mayor Burnworth and the City Council of the City of Imperial, in strong support.

Thank you.

Marvin Pineda on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina, in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, my name is Tomas Oliva, council member for the city of El Centro, president of El Centro Regional Medical Center. For the sustainability of our healthcare services., we hope you support AB 918. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing no further support, we'll move on to opposition. Is there anybody here who would like to testify in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sally Nguyen. I'm general council for Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District. First, I want to thank Assemblymember Garcia for his continued work on the bill and his commitment to working with Pioneers to address all of our concerns. Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District operates a 107 bed acute care hospital in the city of Brawley. Pioneer serves a patient population of over 50% Medi-Cal patients.

As a public hospital with a high government payer mix, it is well accustomed to serving populations on really thin margins, and it's done so for thousands of patients year after year. AB 19 would introduce a brand new countywide healthcare district to Imperial County, and it would dissolve Pioneers as well as Heffernan, the other district down in Calexico, California. And it would create a whole new governing structure.

In addition, as amended on July 6, the new bill requires the new district to enter into negotiations and a formal process to vet the acquisition of the El Centro Regional Medical Center, a hospital in the city of El Centro. We have concerns about just the practical implementation of the bill. Specifically that assumes the acquisition of the El Centro Regional Medical district is feasible in the first place. There is no express language or safeguards for the district in case that acquisition is not feasible.

It also puts the new district in the driver's seat and relies on the funds of El Centro, I'm sorry, of Heffernan and Pioneers to drive that acquisition. Without technical amendments to assure the implementation of the Imperial Valley Healthcare District, the newly formed district, we fear that healthcare in the Imperial Valley will be hindered rather than helped, and we hope to see healthcare access expanded in the valley. For these reasons, Pioneers Moor Healthcare District respectfully opposes AB 918 unless amended. But we look forward to continued conversations with the assemblymember and his staff. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Catalina Alcantara-Santillan, the President of Pioneers Memorial Hopsital District. As a community member and electoral official, I want nothing more than to see the care in our community preserved and expanded, and believe we share the same goal as Assemblymember Garcia. As my colleague mentioned, AB 918 would create a countywide healthcare district in Imperial Valley. Creating the Imperial Valley District is not why our board is concerned.

Our concerns hinge solely on its implementation to ensure it's done correctly. Typically, expansion and dissolutions of any special districts are accomplished through a local LAFCO process. Currently, this public process is already underway. In fact, the bill relies on funding from this process to establish the new districts. So they're waiting for the findings and they will be relying on that, which is great. And thank you for that. When served conventing this public process, it is important the bill is crafted narrowly and carefully.

In the case of PMH, the bill would be amended to ensure the following: the bill is not duplicative of the local process already underway, the fiscal integrity of Pioneers Memorial Hospital is preserved, and that all communities in the county of Imperial are fairly represented through the board competition. Additionally, under the most recent amendments, AB 918 offers a potential solution to preserve ECRMC, a failing municipal hospital in our region. Our board agrees that ECRMC is necessary to provide care to Imperial Valley residents.

However, the conversation on saving this facility goes well beyond the scope of AB 918. At this time, we respectfully oppose AB 918 unless amended. We look forward to ongoing conversation with the assemblymember to address our remaining concerns. Thank you very much for your time. Assemblymember Garcia and Senate Stephen Padilla. Thank you very much and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any further opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Sarah Bridge on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts. We have a position of concerns. Look forward to working with the assemblymember. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else?

Good afternoon, chair members and committee members. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Rachel Fonseca. I am a Member of the Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District, and I oppose this bill unless it's amended. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no further movement, we'll move on to the teleconference line. Is there anybody that would like to testify in support or in opposition of AB 918?

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 918, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 421.

My name is Isabel Solis. I'm Imperial Valley resident and I am in support of AB 918.

Thank you.

Thank you. 311. Your line is open.

Eric Reyes, Executive Director, Los Amigos de la Comunidad. Understanding that one district will only make us stronger in the long run. With the details still to be worked out, we support AB 19.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 435.

Lennor Johnson, the President of Imperial Valley College. I support the bill. One district is needed.

Thank you.

527.

My name is Maria Tamayo. I'm a resident of Imperial County and I am support of AB 918.

Thank you very much.

412.

Good afternoon. This is Eric Bronson on behalf of Imperial County Board of Supervisors, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

528.

Hi, this is Laura Green, community member and resident of Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District, in opposition of the bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 458.

Carly Zamora, county resident, also Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District. I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Thank you. 483.

Hi, my name is, and I'm in support of AB 918.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. 534. Line 534. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Oliver Picchardo. I'm a resident of Imperial County in support of AB 918. Thank you.

Thank you.

440, your line is open. Line 440, your line is open.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Martha Cardenas-Singh. I'm the mayor of the city of El Centro. In support of AB 918.

Thank you.

Thank you. 429. I'm sorry. 513, your line is open.

Hello?

Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Frank Salazar, proud resident of Imperial County, in support of 918. We are in need of better health care. We are all one.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Now we'll go to 429. Your line is open.

Hello.

Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. My name is Michael Luellen. I'm a city council member representing the city of Calipatria, in strong support. Urge you all aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. 484.

Hi, my name is Elena Perez and I vote in support of AB 918.

Thank you.

Thank you. 467. Line 467, your line is open. Do you have us on mute? We will move on to 498.

Good afternoon, Chair Caballero and members. My name is Daniela Flores on behalf of the Imperial Valley Equity and Justice Coalition based out of Calexico, in strong support of the bill. We needed to be here moving forward in order to continue having...

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Line 454.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Caballero and members. My name is Joanna Caballero. I am a resident of Imperial County and I am calling in strong support of AB 918.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Officer. Oh, I'm sorry, one moment.

454, your line is back open.

Okay. Hi. My name is Oscar Garcia. I'm a resident of Imperial County and I'm in support of Bill 918.

Thank you, 476, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Gwynette Chavez, and I'm a Member of the Imperial County Community and I'm in support of AB 918.

Thank you. 506. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Carlos Hernandez. I'm a resident in the Imperial Valley and I am a strong supporter of AB 918 Thank you.

Thank you, 471, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Anika, and I'm in support of the AB 918 I work at. Thank you.

Thank you. 446, your line is open.

Good afternoon. This is Council Member Sonya Carter from El Centro, and I'm strongly in support.

Thank you. Line 441, your line is open.

Hi, this is Roxanne Peco, resident of Calexico, and I am in favor of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. 380, your line is open. Line 380, your line is open.

Yes, this is Alex Cardonas, Central City resident, former Mayor of the city of El Centro, also representing Dr. Vo over 200,000 patients in strong support of AB 918. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 372, your line is open.

This is Maria Nava-Froelich, City of Calipatria. Mayor. okay? We have your name. If you could just tell and Imperial County Lab co-chairman, also support

Thank you. We'll go to line 449. 449, your line is open. please go ahead. Can you hear me?

Patricia Orenia, resident of Collexco, strongly support Assembly Bill 918. Thank you,

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 487.

Hi, my name is Debbie from the ... County calling in support of AB 918.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 549.

Hello. This is John Hernandez, Brawley resident strongly support 918.

Thank you, 516, your line is open.

Hello. My name is Julie Lance Garza, President of Mothers and Men Against Gangs Coalition. I am also a Brawley resident, and we are in strong support to help with the Fentanyl crisis. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we do have a few others that just queued up one moment while we give their line numbers. We'll go to 535. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Diana Garcia Ruiz. I'm a resident of Heber in Imperial County. I'm also a board Member of the Centurion High School District. More importantly, I have a husband who just barely made it to the El Central Hospital before they had to use electric shots on his heart. Yes, I am in strong support.

Thank you. 548.

This is Israel Samaniego, Imperial Valley resident and opposing the Bill unless amended.

Thank you. Line 467.

Hello, this is Raul, mayor of the City of Calexico, in full support of AB and 918.

Thank you. One moment. We have one more in queue. We'll go to line 551. Line 551, your line is open. Hello, please go ahead. Hello, please go ahead, sir. Your line is open. Hello.

My name is Sanders. I am a biomedical engineer at Central Regional Medical Center and I fully support AB 918. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

Very good. We'll bring this Bill back to the committee for questions, concerns, a motion. There is a motion, and Senator Blakespear has a question. Thank you. Oh, gosh. Yeah, no need to touch anything. Yes. Don't need to touch the mic.

I just wanted to say thank you for this Bill. I come from San Diego County as well, and I served on the LAFCO board. And I recognize the difficulty of creating alignment among all the many interests and the complexity of this. It's great to see my colleague, the Senator, who also represents this district, standing behind you and supporting this and having that united front. I appreciate that.

And I recognize that Pioneer Health is concerned about the implementation, and I presume you'll continue to work on that part. But this is obviously really important, and I just really want to commend you for being able to create that alignment among the many competing interests.

Thank you. Good. I want to. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just do have a few questions that weren't brought up. I know that we tried this in my district through the LAFCO process, and it wasn't successful because one hospital was financially sound, the other one wasn't. And you have to balance that out somehow. So I want you to think about answering that part of it. And I know that I don't know the situation completely. And then clinics are a big part of your health pipeline to your hospitals. So could you touch on those two things?

I think and look, I'm going to support your Bill, but I think that there's been a few comments about wanting some amendments to and I'm assuming that's probably why. Because not just the governance of it, but who's going to pay for what. And that's what LAFCO typically flushes out.

So let me just say that we received a letter of support from LAFCO July 11 for the Bill as it currently stands. They see the urgency, but they also see the role that they'll be playing. Once if the Bill is signed into law and is established, they'll be facilitating a lot of the activities that happen after this gets enacted. For example, they will be working with the entities that will make up the governance body, which is Members from Pioneers, Members from Heffernan, Members from the city of El Centro, and Members from the unincorporated area.

Their role will be to take a look at the fiscal analysis that are currently being conducted, one by the El Centro Regional Medical Center that's looking at the consolidation integration benefits. And if that says that there is more to gain than to lose by integrating the hospital that will drive their decision making process. LAFCO is also conducting a study that is focused specifically on different models of bringing the healthcare system together.

But the one particular thing that we are interested in and that will be helpful for purposes of developing a sustainable funding source, is what is the county wide assessment look like that could reflect what the people of Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District, Bay and Heffernan creating a funding mechanism. We're also in conversations with the city of El Centro and the county as it relates to a potential property sales tax, shared agreement for temporary timeframe that could potentially be in additional funding revenue.

So when we talk about the fiscal components, we're working diligently on that. But look, the faster the integration occurs, as was mentioned earlier and quoted by the CEO of Pioneers at a board meeting in the county, it was that this integration will bring about cost savings for both hospitals under one system.

At the same time, this integration of hospitals will trigger the ability for higher medical Medicare reimbursements, putting money on the table that currently isn't there, allowing us to look at the cost of retrofitting pioneers Memorial Hospital finishing the retrofitting and paying the debt service at El Central Regional Medical. So we are continuing to focus on those particular areas so that the mechanics of implementation of this ensure that care is at the forefront. Financial stability of these hospitals is second to that or right next to that.

And that ultimately, through cost savings and additional money being generated, we can also increase the level of access your question to federally qualified healthcare centers. They don't provide the same emergency response service that the hospitals do, right? They're providing primary care and in some cases some special type care. They are there. We have partnerships with Intercare, who is a supporter of the Bill, one of the larger FQHCs there. And there are also medical doctors in the private sector.

We have support from the Medical Society, which is the equivalent of the California Medical Association locally in support of this effort, because they also see that the financial outlook looks a lot more promising than what it does if we're operating separately. And so I hope that that answers your questions. And I can just attest to. We've had over a dozen meetings with stakeholders, including Pioneers, about wanting to accommodate to addressing those concerns.

And one of the major concerns that they've had and others as well, is how do we just put a hospital into a new healthcare system that brings not just assets, but major liabilities. We've developed a mechanism in the Bill that it will be predicated on the fiscal analysis and the governing body that we've set up that's countywide to make that determination if it's financially feasible to integrate that hospital. So hopefully that answers the questions that you've just asked. Well, yes. Thank you so much.

And look, again, I'm going to support you, Bill. I did read that LAFCO does play a big role in this process, but when it's a law, you're going to have a countywide healthcare system. And I wish you luck. I hope it works, because if this model works, maybe we can look at the chair. And I, as you know, have been dealing with hospitals for some time now, so good luck. And I'll move the Bill or if it hasn't been moved thank you.

It has been moved and appreciate that. And let me just say that I really appreciate the work that you've done on this. We've had a couple of discussions about it, and you moved it further than initially when we spoke about it. I am a big believer in local control, so I wanted to make sure that this made a lot of sense.

Having a hospital fail in my district is not a good thing, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen anywhere else. And we've been working on funding both in the Distress hospital loan program, but also through the MCO tax in order to make sure that we're covering the medical expenses of individuals that need emergency care, like the woman who is very emotional about her husband. That's what it's all about. And so I really want to thank you so much for taking this on and for working as a team, because that's what it's going to take. So we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you so much. I want to just send a message to the residents who called in, both in support and in opposition and those who called into our office yesterday concerned about the Bill, mostly Members and employees of the Pioneers Memorial Hospital.

They're under the impression that this Bill will eliminate the hospital, dissolve the hospital. That's what their perception is of this Bill. The Bill will not eliminate the hospital. The Bill is trying to save a hospital from closing to ensure that Pioneers Hospital doesn't take on the burden of those patients that will have to drive 25 miles north for emergency services. That's the one message that I want to send to the employees at Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District who called yesterday.

The second is that what we're trying to accomplish here is efficiencies economies of scale and ultimately increase the access care to the residents of Imperial County. 180,000 people, 80% make up, medical, Medicare, insured population. We have a challenge to keep these hospitals open. And so I want to just commit to Pioneers, to all of the stakeholders involved that we will continue to engage and make sure that the Bill is reflective of their concerns.

One last point I want to make is that we took to heart the concerns of pioneers when they said, we're concerned about the dissolvement of our healthcare district at the signature of the Governor, whether it be implemented with the emergency clause or January 2024. We've given a year plus of a runway to allow the healthcare districts to determine with LAFCO when they are prepared to begin the dissolvement in order to integrate into this new healthcare district.

I think that's plenty of time to be able to coordinate what will hopefully be one healthcare district that will improve the quality of healthcare for the region. Respectfully, for your vote, maybe the Senator would like to say something.

I was given a note and I totally forgot. You didn't say whether you were accepting the Committee amendment. All of them? Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Even a note in front of my face, I can't see.

Madam Chair and colleagues, I would just add that observing and partnering with the Assembly Members, a task and an honor. And invariably, in issues with such urgency and complexity, you're going to have varying opinions from everyone you ask and every interest. And I'm happy with where the Bill has progressed. I'll be jumping on formally and working at the balance in our house and look forward to working with all of you. But at some point, the urgency and the delivery of care and the threat to that delivery has to be first and foremost. And that's what this Bill does. And I thank the Chair and my colleagues.

Thank you very much. We do have a motion. The motion is dopass as amended to Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators. Caballero aye. Caballero. Aye Seyarto Blakespear. Blakespear. aye. Dahle Dahle. aye Durazo. Durazo. aye Glazer. Skinner. Wiener. Wiener. I five to zero. That Bill is out.

We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Moving on to file item number two, Assemblymember Ramos AB 42. And again, I want to thank you for ceding your spot to allow them to go first.

Thank you so much. Madam Chair and Senators. Today I present AB 42, which aims to help programs across the state when it comes to assisting those experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. As Chair of the Select Committee on Youth Homelessness in San Bernardino County, I understand that homelessness requires unique solutions, and AB 42 aims to provide one. As it stands, the current requirement of having to install fire sprinklers in temporary sleeping cabins proves to be a significant cost burden. This Bill exempts a temporary sleeping cabin from the requirement of fire sprinklers, but also adds various mandatory provisions to ensure the safety of the occupant.

To alleviate fire safety concerns, we have lowered the square footage, changed the definition of the units, as well as added alternative fire and safety requirements. To ensure safety and address opposition concerns, we also require the unit to be made of non combustible material. Additionally, each lot would be able to hold a maximum of 50 units, each unit situated 6ft apart with fire alarms, fire extinguishers, and 24/7 firewatch.

Good afternoon. My name is Darryl Evie with Family Assistance Program. In the social service field, we talk a lot about the why behind the what. And it's important that we think about the why behind the what why we have a Bill like this that we need this. We have so many young people that are homeless today, and we all know that you've probably had 1000 hearings on that. And we're looking for a gap. We're looking for a way to solve this in between time that we're in.

AB 42 is a unique solution to allow for the creation of new temporary sleeping cabins to serve the state's homeless population, especially for our youth that experience homelessness at a high rate in the state of California. With me today to testify in support of this Bill is Darryl Evey from the Family Assistance Program located in San Bernardino County.

I have complete confidence that the Legislature is going to build enough affordable housing and we are going to solve this homeless issue and we won't have homeless people come some point in the future. But until then, I need a place for my young people to sleep. And this week, Saturday, it's going to be 114 degrees in Victorville, and I have about 20 young people who are sleeping in tents and cars down by Mojave River.

So they're going to be along the riverbed, which is a dry river. So we think of raging waters. No, this is a dry river. It's an underground river. So they're sleeping in the desert at 114 degrees in a tent because there is no other alternative. And the reason there is no other alternative is that we didn't have an extra million dollars to be able to build a really nice complex that we want.

Instead, we're looking for these short term, inexpensive gaps so we can buy these individual sleeping cabins. They cost approximately $11,000 each. I can put them in my parking lot, but I can't put a bed in them because I can't put a bed in them unless I do plumbing and fire suppression and all that other stuff that goes with it. So instead of that, those children, instead of sleeping in a safe place, are sleeping down by the river.

And we just hope that none of them die like last summer when several of them did die from heat exposure, heat stress, all the stuff that goes with it. So I'm really hoping that you can support our Bill so that next summer our children will have a safe place to sleep at night.

Thank you. Mr. Evey, I appreciate your testimony here today. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in support?

Yeah, good afternoon. Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth in support of the Bill because we have over 70% of our young people sleeping unsheltered. So thank you.

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

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the California Building Officials in respectful opposition to the current form of the Bill, wanted to appreciate the continued dialogue we've had with the author's office. We do so have some concerns.

CALBO's mission is to protect public health and safety in the built environment through responsible legislation, education, and building code development. Unfortunately, we have significant safety concerns with this and we acknowledge that firemakers cost a lot. But we also understand that we want safe, affordable housing so people can eventually move to permanent housing. Now, the alternative fire life safety compliance mechanisms might be possible, but we think it would be better suited to go through the regulatory process to make sure that is the case.

We haven't had these protections at the local level yet, or local governments should be able to have the flexibility to do that. We also think that the cost implications of 24/7 firewatch and some of the other aspects of non combustible materials is actually more expensive than a fire sprinkler suppression system. But our goal is public safety. We've seen historically structural fires in tiny home villages. We had one in Petaluma in March, 25 units were destroyed.

The fire marshal of the city said without fire sprinklers, they may not have survived. So we are looking for the best interest of public safety while also trying to acknowledge we need to find solutions for transitional housing to address this homeless problem. We are very aware of that. We think that it's best handled to develop more regulations for tiny homes. It's not in the building code yet. As well as looking at other alternative fire life safety compliance mechanisms that are safe, cost efficient and effective. So with that in mind, we respectfully urge a no vote on the Bill and look forward to those continued conversations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and we also appreciate I'm Russell Noack on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and on behalf of our fire prevention officers. We remain opposed to the Bill. We do appreciate the amendments that have ameliorated and put in some fire safety and life safety provisions. The FPOs continue up and down.

The state continue to believe that sprinklers may be a more affordable alternative in this type of housing and they do protect lives, and for that reason we remain opposed. But we also greatly appreciate and respect the author and staff for working with us to try and reach some kind of accommodation that meets the needs of affordable housing, these temporary shelters, but also does it in what we would assert life in fire safety way.

Thank you very much. Thanks. Anyone else in opposition seeing none will move on to the Teleconference line. Is there anybody that would like to testify in support or in opposition of AB 42?

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 42, you may press one and then zero. We'll go to line 288. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers and respectful opposition for the reasons outlined by the previous speakers. Thank you.

Thank you. One moment. For our next line, we'll go to 386.

My name is James Justice, a resident in San Diego, and I support this Bill.

Thank you. 409, your line is open.

Hi, there. My name is Aaron Corn. I'm with Pac Mod Solutions, and I'm calling in strong support of AB 42.

Thank you. 566, your line is open. 566, please go ahead.

Hello. Hi, my name is Eunice Abel, and I'm calling in on behalf of the Youth Advisory Board in support of AB 42.

Thank you. We'll go to line 385. Your line is open. Line 385, your line is open.

Paul bridges with pac mod solutions in Apple Valley, California. We manufacture homeless housing solutions. We support Assembly Bill 42.

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

Very good. We'll bring the matter back to the committee. Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. I really support this Bill. It came to housing, and I supported it there too. We need to find solutions to our homelessness crisis. And it's certainly dangerous to be living outside in 120 deg weather, and this is a very small sleeping cabin that's also meant to be temporary. So to me, this seems like a really good solution to try to get more housing on the ground faster that's actually more affordable and we can build at scale. So I really appreciate you bringing it forward and I will move the Bill.

Thank you. Good. We do have a motion. Any other comments, Senator Durazo?

Yeah, I will be supporting the Bill as well. And I can imagine all the pushback and how you felt because you're not opposed to more safety for anyone who sleeps, even if in these temporary homes. So I was a little curious how you decided or came up with the other standards short of the sprinklers, these other standards, because there are a lot of things it seems like will add up to greater safety in the tiny homes.

But I don't know if there's more that you can do or if this is the exhaustive list or how did you make the decision. This was the way to balance out not having the sprinklers through different policy committees and hearing some of the opposition and sitting down and talking with opposition and coming up with some creative ideas. Still, we believe that the issues that we've identified still outweigh the cost of sprinklers going into these temporary sleeping quarters.

And it is in the best interest of those in our community and the state of California to start to come with unique solutions with the homeless issue that plagues us all, especially with our youth that are out there in the streets here in the state of California. So we believe these issues non combustible materials, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, fire extinguishers, emergency evacuation, signage and lighting, those are areas that we've been in dialogue with and have been able to move forward on.

Well, I think the 24 hours active Firewatch is probably of the most valuable there. And how do the issues with local government was that of a concern here or not? As far as building standards or inspections or anything like that,

The standards would still be built within the cities. What this Bill aims to do is to minimize the cost of the sprinklers being engaged at many times out cost the units themselves. So this is a solution that comes forward. There is also the opportunity for cities to move forward and declare an emergency of a homeless situation that then could allow them to streamline some of these processes on their own. However, that hasn't been widely accepted.

Senator Dahle.

Thank you so much for this Bill. I happened to be on the Board of Supervisors a long time ago when they implemented the statewide sprinkler system. We had smoke alarms. We have a lot of things that we used to do, used to use, and that was the building code of the day. And we went to sprinkler systems and quite frankly, there are issues with those in cold weather and your insurance goes up. But I just want to say thank you for the Bill. I noticed that Assemblywoman Dahle was a co author. I'd like to be added for a co author if that's available. But I really appreciate this.

I think that this is a common sense approach to driving down the cost that we're all faced with. I mean, some of these units that we've seen build in I think it was LA County were hundreds of thousands of dollars. I know that was more permanent, but it's a heck of a lot better than having these young folks and people out along the riverbeds. There's a lot of health issues that come along with that. There's a lot of environmental issues that come along with that. If we can get them someplace and be safe at the same time. I fully support this Bill and look forward to coming to the floor and getting signed quickly.

Thank you so much. We'll allow you to conclude

Thank you so much for the dialogue. And I urge an aye vote.

We have a motion. The motion is due pass to Appropriations. Please take the roll.

Senators. Caballero aye. Caballero. aye Seyarto Blakespear. Dahle. Dahle. Aye Durazo Durazo Aye Glazer Skinner. Skinner. Aye Wiener.

Wiener aye. Five to zero.

Bill is out. Five to zero. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. And again, thank you for your patience. Moving on to file item number three, AB 84, Assembly Member Ward. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This Bill hopefully got a little easier in the last 24 hours. First, I would like to accept the committee amendments dated July 11.

Under existing law, affordable rental housing owned by a nonprofit entity is considered a charitable use and is exempt from the basic property taxes. The welfare exemption is intended to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing by abating some of the basic property tax payments. Now, due to existing law, affordable housing developers struggle to utilize this exemption to its fullest. So this Bill, AB 84, will seek to improve the implementation of the welfare exemption to allow affordable housing developers to maximize those savings.

Specifically, this Bill with these amendments would do two things. It would authorize 501 C three bonds as a form of financing that makes a property eligible for the welfare exemption, and it expands the exemption to all affordable housing and extends an existing rule related to tenants whose incomes increase after initial occupancy.

I want to thank the committee staff and the chair as well, who I think had been in conversations about the potential further use that we had began with this Bill to also apply the welfare exemption to a period of acquisition up to five years. We have more work to do on that with some of our legislative partners. And so, in the interest of making sure that we are making progress on this issue that is not included in the amendments.

And I want to thank you for all the work that you did in the analysis. Please say that on file, because I hope to work on this again through maybe a subsequent Bill next year. But at the time, we wanted to make the progress that we can today through this Bill. So this measure will allow nonprofit, affordable housing developers to have greater flexibility with their limited financial resources. And I'd like to present my witnesses in support of the Bill.

Mark Stivers, representing the California Housing Partnership Corporation, and Evan Johnson, the policy Director for State controller Malia Cohen.

Very good. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair Members. My name is Evan Johnson. I'm actually also acting deputy of legislative affairs at the controller's office. So two hats at the moment, and I'm here to testify on behalf of Controller Cohen. The Controller is pleased to co sponsor AB 84, which will reduce the cost of affordable housing construction by improving the implementation of the welfare tax exemption.

As California's Chief Fiscal Officer and Board Member of both the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Debt Limit Allocation Committee, controller Cohen is acutely aware of the challenges surrounding the financing of affordable housing. Reducing affordable housing. Development costs is critical to making use of limited state funds and maximizing the production so that we can tackle the housing and homelessness crises. The California Constitution exempts nonprofit owned affordable rental housing from paying property taxes.

And as Chair of the California State Board of Equalization, controller Cohen convened a series of hearings related to using property tax abatements and exemptions facilitating affordable housing in California. At these hearings, numerous presenters highlighted the need to streamline and effectively implement the welfare tax exemption. Assembly Bill 84 will address some of these inefficiencies and ultimately reduce the cost of developing affordable housing in California.

The Controller appreciates the partnership of the assessors who have worked hard with our office and the author's office to find solutions that work for all parties. And I remain committed to working with any and all opposition to ensure this Bill is workable for all stakeholders. And thank you again for your time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. Three quick points. One is that as we seek to increase resources for affordable housing, we're also trying to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing so we can stretch our resources further. This Bill does exactly that. Number two is an issue of parity. Both items in this Bill really help us treat similarly situated developments in a similar manner. So that's one thing that we think is fairly important. And then three is that we did work with the California's Assessors Association for a period of seven months on this Bill.

While you may hear some concerns from an assessor today, the Assessors Association, as an organization is neutral, as we understand it. So thank you very much, and we appreciate your support today.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to add on as a "Me too?"

Madam Chair and Members Andres Ramirez on behalf of All Home, in support.

Julie Snyder on behalf of MTC and ABAG in support. Thank you.

Karen Stun, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission. In support.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Leading Age California in support.

Karen Lange on behalf of the Burbank Housing Development Corporation. In support.

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

Madam chair and Members of the committee. I'm Larry Stone, the county assessor of Santa Clara county. When I walked in the door tonight, I was prepared to tell you that the official position of the California assessors association on this Bill is opposed unless amended, and the amendments proposed so far do not, are not acceptable to the California assessors association. And I confirmed that with the President of the association at 11:00 this morning. I am encouraged by what I've heard, but I've seen this movie before.

The author has removed amendments that are offensive to the California assessors association at the last minute at a hearing, only to add them back after a favorable fold of the hearing for the next committee. So let me be clear. The California assessors association is strongly opposed to any granting of the welfare exemption for land that is bare or not put to community use. That's the California Constitution law. That's the revenue and taxation code.

It would be inconsistent and violate the welfare exemption law which was passed in 1944. So we are willing to continue to work with the author, but I don't want to see this happen again where they remove objectional things, claim that we're neutral, which we're not, and then bring back these things later on.

As I said, we will continue to work with them, but we will not accept any proposal that grants the welfare exemption for land that is not put to community benefit, which is consistent with the California constitution, and it is the law.

Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. And know that any of those kinds of tricks don't get through this committee. We keep our ayeball on amendments that have to be consistent by the time they hit the floor. So I appreciate that. Is there anybody else in opposition?

Pardon for being late, chair. I'm actually here for me too.

Okay.

Jennifer Armenta with the California Housing Consortium in support of this Bill.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, we'll go to the teleconference line and moderator, If you could queue up testimony in opposition or in support of AB 84, that would be terrific.

Ladies and gentlemen, please press one, then zero. If you're in support or opposition of AB 84, again, one, then zero. At this time, we're showing no one in the queue.

Very good. We'll bring it back to the committee for questions.

I apologize, we do have two that came in. We have line 386. Please go ahead.

James Justice, resident of San Diego, in support of the Bill

Thank you.

And next we have 571. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Catherine Tipple, I'm a resident in the county and I wanted to voice my support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

And at this time, there's no one else in the queue.

Very good, we will bring it back to the committee. Comments, questions, concerns. Motion? There is a motion by Senator Weiner. Seeing no further questions, we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you, Madam chair. And again, I reiterate, I want to appreciate all the work that went into this. It's important that we are doing everything that we can to make affordable housing more affordable to build. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Very good. Thank you very much. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriation.

Senators. Caballero? Aye. Caballero. I. Seyarto?. Aye. Seyarto Aye. Blakespeare? Dahle? Dahle. Aye. Durazo? Durazo aye. Glazer? Skinner? Skinner. Aye. Weiner? Weiner Aye. 6 to 0.

That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Assembly Member Wilson, you are up next. AB 408. And thank you for your patience.

No worries. Thank you. I know you guys have a long day. You had to wait for another committee and still have quite a set of bills for your own. So I appreciate that.

We're going to need to come in or go out because the noise from the hallway is creating problems here. There's too much partying going on out there.

They're having a good time.

They're having a good time.

All right. Well, good afternoon Madam Chair and Senators. I'm presenting AB 408. Our climate resilient, farm sustainable, Healthy Food Access and Farm Worker Protection Bond Act of 2024. I would first like to start off by accepting the committee amendments. Get that done. Thank you for your help with those. California's food and farming system is on the front lines of the climate crisis, and if the state wants to create a more climate resilient agriculture sector, then it must act now to scale up our investments.

AB 408 proposes 3.4 billion in funding to support four pillars of our food system; climate smart agriculture, farm working well being, healthy food access, and regional food infrastructure. Advancing climate smart agriculture practice not only helps farmers, fishers and ranchers, these practices also bring a host of co-benefits such as supporting biodiversity, improved air and water quality, and support for local jobs and economic development.

This is especially important because we know that the pandemic, recent flood impacts and ongoing supply chain challenges are affecting farmers, farm workers and agricultural productivity. It is time that we secure the necessary resources and invest in the people who feed us and avoid displacing small scale farms, farmers of color, and farm workers to other states and other countries. We also must invest in food access and ensuring that our communities have the facilities they need to bring food from the farm to the table.

This includes school kitchen facilities that can be used to teach kids about nutrition and infrastructure to deliver meals to seniors and other populations with high rates of food insecurity. With this proposed bond, the state has an opportunity to scale this work up across our entire state and ensure our food and farmer system is ready, resilient and helping our state fight climate change while continuing to feed our communities. I'd like to introduce my witnesses.

I have Louise Jackson, the emeritus professor in the Department of Land, Air and Water Resources at UC Davis. I was hoping to have Paula Kahn, the policy Director for Californians for Pesticide Reform. She flew all the way up here from Southern California and waited all day long and this was the only thing she was going to testify on and had to catch a flight. And so she didn't realize it was going to be that long.

But in her place we have Sandra Nakagawa and she's from CalCAN.

Thank you. My name is Elise Jackson. I'm a UC Davis professor, retired. I'm also a member of a family who's owned and operated a large ranch in Merced County for five generations. My expertise is in agriculture, ecology, soils and land use. I'll focus on one aspect of AB 408 -- advancing sustainable agriculture and investments to improve climate resilience. Climate resilience is essential if California agriculture is to survive into the next century. Droughts will continue.

Hundreds of thousands of acres will be fallowed, just jeopardizing businesses and communities. Floods, levee breaks, and contaminated water will be more frequent. High temperatures will shift where crops can grow and where packing and processing facilities are located. We do not have the infrastructure and technical assistance to cope with these problems. AB 408 will help develop more dynamic farming and food systems and share knowledge, plan for the future and benefit many stakeholders. Our changing climate puts most farmers and ranchers at risk.

They must drill deeper wells and fix roads after floods. They must restore fields abandoned during drought and inundated by water or eroded along stream banks. These costs add financial precariousness to their operations. This has definitely been true for my family. If farmers and ranchers cannot stay in business, urbanization is likely in many areas. This will diminish food security, reduce biodiversity and add to the greenhouse gas emissions of our state. I urge you to help solve these problems by voting yes on AB 408.

Thank you very much.