Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

We also accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. I would also like to go over some ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupt, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or Bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps. If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruption may result in removal from the capitol building.

I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the capitol building. I would also like to note that Assemblymember Alanis is standing in for assemblymember. Excellent. When he gets here. For today's hearing only, we have 20 items on the agenda this afternoon. Four of these items are proposed for consent.

Item four, AB 2144 by Assemblymember Grayson. Item five, AB 2350 by Assemblymember Hoover. Item 11, AB 2597 by Assemblymember Ward item 14, AB 2748 by assemblymember Flora. In addition, one of the bills on our agenda has been pulled by the author. This item is item number six, AB 2431 by Assemblymember Mathis. We will hear all the other bills in the order shown on our agenda. Unless otherwise noted and unless other Members let other Members go in first.

We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should say their name, their organization, and their position on the Bill. Only we don't have a quorum yet, so we're going to be acting as a Subcommitee and I will be handing the gavel to our Vice Chair Waldron, because I have to step out and present two bills somewhere else.

Item number one, AB 1801. Jackson, begin when you are ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, committee members, AB 1801 is a measure to provide clarity to existing law by allowing nonprofits to construct their administrative office spaces on the same sites as their supportive housing complexes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Nice, short testimony. We like that. Do we have witnesses in support of this bill?

Everyone.

Do we have anyone in opposition? Seeing none or is.

Apologies, Seamus Garrity with Lighthouse Public Affairs, here on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission, in support.

Thank you. Any opposition? Seeing none. Bring it to the committee. Comments? No. As was said, we can't do a motion right now, but would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay. Well, Mr. Grayson, we will take you. You'll be doing AB 3012?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and members. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and accepting the committee's proposed amendments. AB 3012 will help provide clarity on development fees that must be paid during the development process, helping strengthen existing requirements for impact fee transparency. In order to help promote transparency around impact fees, I was the proud author of AB 1483 in 2019, which required jurisdictions to make information on impact fees more accessible.

This included the online posting of information such as impact fee schedules, impact fee nexus studies, and other information that could inform a developer of that jurisdiction's impact fees. While AB 1483 and other housing policies have made significant process on impact fee transparency, recent reports from SPUR found that many jurisdictions may not be in full compliance with the bill and that information on development impact fees may still be difficult to comprehend and inconsistent depending on the jurisdiction.

To address these inconsistencies, AB 3012 will require the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop a fee schedule template and a list of best practices that jurisdictions can utilize, which will make it easier for builders to understand potential fees that may be encountered during the development process. Additionally, AB 3012 will also require that jurisdictions provide a fee estimate calculator by 2032 to help ensure that builders can arrive at a more accurate estimate for fees required during the development process. This bill will help ensure that impact fee information is accurate and easy to understand, thereby further removing barriers to housing development. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Do we have witnesses in support?

Seamus Garrity, Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, in support.

Thank you.

Francisco Morales on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, Jordan Panana Barbajal on behalf of California YIMBY, in strong support. Thank you so much.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead. That's Howard Ahmanson Jr., Orange County philanthropist, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any comments, questions from committee? No. Thank you for your continued work on fee transparency. And working with the committee on the amendments. The chair and I both will be voting aye on your bill when the time comes with the understanding that the committee amendments will be adopted in the Housing and Community Development Committee. So, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay. We don't have any authors at the moment. Is there anyone in the committee then? Nobody.

Thank you, Miss Bauer-Kahan, for being here. We will be doing item three, AB 2085. And as you can see, we do not have a quorum, so we will be operating as a Subcommitee. But please present when you're ready.

Awesome.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Good afternoon. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for their help and dedication on improving the Bill. The amendments currently in print narrow the Bill to specifically reproductive health clinics. And for clarity, we'll be taking Committee amendments. With that, I'm proud to present AB 2085, a Bill that creates an exemption to local zoning for community clinics in areas already zoned for healthcare and retail use. California has worked incredibly hard to enact legal protections for abortion within the state.

We want to be a reproductive sanctuary for all. However, access requires both legal protection and clinic access. Unfortunately, we have seen cities block the construction of clinics through bad faith requirements and unnecessary regulatory hurdles. This is happening in areas that already have healthcare deserts. And to be clear, Reproductive Healthcare Clinics provide a myriad of healthcare, all of which are critical to women in their communities. The clinics being blocked would provide this critical basic health care seven days a week in some cases.

This Bill requires ministerial approval of clinics that meet all of the locality standards, ending the arbitrary and politicized obstruction of life saving care. With me today is Lauren Babb from Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and Andrea Schmidt from Planned Parenthood Orange in San Bernardino counties. You guys can decide who goes first.

Hi, my name is Lauren Babb and I'm the Vice President of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood Marmonte and also a passionate advocate for reproductive freedom. And I'm here to attest the need for AB 2085. Picture this. March of 2022, before Roe was overturned, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte sought to expand our existing clinic in Visalia, a move that would allowed us to provide essential primary care to patients of all ages. In Tulare County, primary care has a staggering 2000 to one ratio of doctors.

That means that every primary care provider there are over 2000 people in need, and Visalia ranked 44th in Doctor to patient ratio. Highlighting the shortage of medical professionals, we felt it was needed to expand our clinic. In the process of purchasing a health center, a conditional use permit was required, and the city planning Commission confirmed that Planned Parenthood Mar Monte met all the requirements. An appeal was filed, and this meant that we would need to seek the approval of City Council.

But our proposed health center wasn't just about numbers. It was about bridging the gap in access to care. It was about serving community in need. It was about providing care where we are desperately lacking it. However, this straightforward process of obtaining a conditional use permit turned into a political battlefield. The opposition we faced was fierce and was driven by misinformation. Right to life organizers lobbied council Members who were inundated with calls about our plan. Let me be clear. Our mission was not about politics.

It was about the people. It was about ensuring that every single individual, regardless of their background or belief, had access to essential care. We didn't back down. We rallied patients, staff, community groups, reached out to everybody under the sun, including on social media, and urging young people to stand up and support their healthcare. We had over 200 people join us in in chambers to fight for the health center. But this wasn't just about numbers.

It was about women like Marilyn Brady, a Republican who voted twice for Trump. And yet her political affiliations felt the importance of the access to care. She shared with me how she fought to bring Planned Parenthood clinics to Tulare County over 20 years ago, recognizing the importance of contraception and sexual reproductive healthcare. Our fight was not in vain. Even though we didn't, we were not able to open that health center.

It echoed the need for healthcare in the Valley, even the most progressive state here, California, there are still battles to be fought to expand reproductive freedom. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this Bill.

Thank you, Lauren.

Great. Yeah.

Hi, good afternoon, Assembly Members. My name is Andrea Schmidt and I serve as the Public Affairs Senior Project Manager at Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino counties, or PPOSBC for short. I'm here today to testify in support of AB 2085. In 2022, PPOSBC began the process of leasing a site in the City of Fontana, where we plan to open our 10th health center, which would be our fourth in the County of San Bernardino, which is the largest county in the nation.

As someone who was born and raised in the City of Fontana, I've seen firsthand the lack of health, education and resources in the community, and I can assure you there is a great need for an additional Low cost provider like PPOSBC. Our prospective site had been vacant for nearly five years and was already zoned to be a clinic location.

So our architect and facilities team worked really closely with the City Planning Commission, following standard procedure, abiding by all guidelines, and adjusting our plans as needed for over a year. This included the smallest adjustments, such as changing the sconces and lighting fixtures on the exterior of the building. Our team accommodated everything in order to meet the city standards. In July 2023, however, we received the verbal approval from the head of the City Planning Commission.

So it came as a surprise to us when shortly after that, the City Council placed a temporary moratorium on any new buildings in the specific area where our prospective health center was. After some research, we found that our permit was in fact the only one impacted by the then temporary moratorium.

Weeks later, the council passed another moratorium, this time for 10 months, our team has been actively attending the City Council meetings, encouraging the council and the mayor to end the moratorium, and educating them on the positive impact a reproductive health care provider can have in the city, including an estimated 2000 medical visits per month and being open seven days a week. There's been vocal opposition from a small church group, which the mayor and many council Members are very closely and publicly aligned with.

For example, the mayor recently hosted her annual State of the city address at said church.

Assembly Bill 2085 will strengthen protections for reproductive healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood to expand our services to cities where the local council may not be personally aligned. AB 2085 streamlines the permit process so reproductive health providers get clear and concise guidelines about the permit process from the get go and avoid being dragged along, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process here in the State of California, where health, reproductive health care and abortion access specifically is protected in our state constitution.

So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there other witnesses in support, name, organization and position on the Bill?

Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We are a co sponsor in strong support and want to give our gratitude to the Committee for working with us on the Bill. Thank you.

Hi Alena Chavez with TEACH, Training, and Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare, co-sponsors of the Bill and strong support. Thank you.

Seamus Garrity with Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of Reproductive Freedom For All in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition? Seeing none. Comments Mister Karl, thank you.

I really want to thank the author for bringing this forward, and it's appalling to hear that under the guise of government planning, however they want to put it, that they're putting their beliefs and using their backwards beliefs to stop access not just reproductive care, but Planned Parenthood provides healthcare, and not just, by the way, not just to women. I think about 13% of those that go are men.

But the bottom line, even if it was just for reproductive health for women, that by itself is providing a service that's so critically important. And so imagine in that community you just referred to that the church wanted to do some upgrades and all that, and the council voted it down because of their beliefs. I mean, just if you turn that around and see the outrage that would occur if that happened. And so I really appreciate this Bill.

It is unfortunate that in our state we're overwhelmingly, we support reproductive choice, we support healthcare access, that there are these portions of our state where this is happening. So thank you for really fighting to make sure that access is available to everyone in every corner of our state. And thank the author for that as well.

Thank you. And Chairman Carrillo would like to express his appreciation for your work on this issue and your commitment to ensuring that Community Clinics have a clear path in every part of the state. And he has an Aye support on the Bill. When we have a quorum, would you like to close?

Thank you. Yes. I really, I want to say this Bill started actually when Miss Babb and I were having coffee when she was having this fight in Visalia. And she was telling me what was happening. And I said to her, we can fix this. And so it's really fun to be on this journey with her today to making it easier for people to have access to reproductive health care in California.

And I want to thank these incredible women and all of the people who work across our state to provide health care in the places where it is most needed. It is not easy, but you do it every day, and my gratitude is there. So thank you that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Miss Friedman, when you're ready, you will be presenting your Bill on reconsideration. AB 20712.

Thank you. Chair Waldron and Members of the Committee. Last week we discussed the Bill that I'm presenting the amendments for today. And even though there's no opposition to the Bill, many of you had various concerns which I took very seriously. I spent time meeting with the chair and his Committee and they have recommended a group of amendments which now has changed the chair's recommendation, I believe, to an aye recommendation on the Bill and all reconsideration. The amendments limit the Bill just to the City of Los Angeles.

They exempt residential developments that are 20 units or less. They exempt developments that occupy deed restricted units intended for households that are very low income households, extremely low income and lower income households. And they allow local authorities the latitude to issue permits, but only if they decide in writing that the issuance of the permit does not provide a liability to the existing neighbors.

AB 20712 recognizes the need to support transit oriented development and affordable housing without encroaching on overcrowding, on already overcrowded curb parking that existing residents rely on through permit parking. We believe this is a great compromise that still allows for new residents to have the ability in certain cases to receive preferential parking passes, but without burdening already overburdened neighborhoods in Los Angeles. And with that I would request and aye vote on reconsideration with the amendments.

Thank you. Miss Friedman, do we have any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Comment? Yes.

Thank you to the author for being quite flexible and working with the chair and the Committee on the Amendments and taking in consideration the things that were shared in the last discussion. I really appreciate it. I know we don't have a quorum yet, but when we do, I'd be happy to offer the motion.

Thank you so much. Very much. Appreciate it again, thank you especially to the Committee staff for their work.

I also want to, I just want to also commend you as well as the chair and the Committee staff. It's great to see in such short order that you're able to find compromise and it kind of becomes kind of like an LA pilot program. Let's see how it works and we'll get some data from it. If it's something that looks like it's working as intended, then we can explore it further in other regions of the state. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Friedman, thank you and your staff for working to address the Committee's concerns. I appreciate your commitment to your concern constituents and to the discussions that led to the committee amendments. Due to timing, these amendments would be processed in the Housing and Community Development Committee if the Bill moves forward. We don't have a quorum yet, but thank you so much. Would you like to close?

Just really appreciate the reconsideration and again, the ability to help address our problem in a way that makes sense to everybody.

Moving right along, Mister Alvarez. Item 17, AB 2945.

Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, I am pleased to be before you to be able to talk about Assembly Bill 2945. Certainly want to thank the committee staff for working with our office on the bill we have before you today. I just by way of background, chair the Select Committee on Reconnecting Communities.

And this bill is partially informed and has been created as a result of discussions we've had at the select committee, meetings that we've had as it relates to trying to address some of the historical unfortunate demolition of communities and destruction of communities that have been divided by state highway systems throughout our State of California and other parts of the country, but here in California in particular.

So AB 2945 is a version of Assembly Bill 1476 which this committee passed last year, and it would allow cities and counties to create a community of an affordable housing reinvestment agency to fund economic development through tax increment financing.

For those of you who have served in local government like I have and have maybe had a chance to serve, serve prior to redevelopment and post redevelopment, we have seen the impacts of that important tool that has been unfortunately no longer available for economic development activity in our local communities. Redevelopment was an important tool to also help build affordable housing as it required affordable housing construction.

Again, while I was in my own community at the City Council in San Diego, I saw firsthand the effects had positive effects it had on disability communities in particular. Unfortunately, there were some instances in which the redevelopment law and the authority created inefficiencies and also some misuse which ultimately led to the dissolution which happened in 2012.

Prior to, I think, all of our times here on in the legislature, and there have been various attempts to try and recreate a tool for local government in order to be able to finance these projects of not just investments in the community, but also again focused on a funding stream that is dedicated to affordable housing as redevelopment used to be.

AB 2945 recognizes the importance of RDAs and addresses their previous flaws by reestablishing them with stronger oversight provisions for the controller, including penalties for non-compliance, opportunities for public input, and a larger requirement for affordable housing more than it was under under the previous version. This would require 30% of the funds that are achieved through tax increment dedicated to the construction of low and moderate-income housing in these project areas.

Importantly, the oversight provisions include the state's approval of the establishment of these areas and the comptroller's annual review of agencies to determine the state fiscal impact. Bill also requires RDAs to be located near, and be specific, specifically located near freeways with reconnecting communities projects as defined, thereby limiting the implementation to only a few locations throughout the state.

While it will be available statewide, it will only be available in areas where there are reconnecting programs already being established by local governments, usually led by local governments, counties, cities, or MPOs. To provide some context, in 2022, federal and state government launched programs. There were grant programs, over $3 billion that went out to fund infrastructure, such as freeway lids that reconnect communities that were divided by previous transportation infrastructure.

To date, 10 projects in California have received funding through these programs, including the City of Pasadena for converting the I-710 north stub, the City of San Jose for converting Monterey Road highway, the City of Oakland for the I-980 corridor, Los Angeles County for the 101 freeway and San Diego for the I-5 freeway. AB 2945 can serve as a framework to help develop these projects and leverage additional funding options.

Following the dissolution of RDA's, the legislature created a couple of tools you might have heard of so that cities and counties could create some agencies that would utilize tax increment as a tool to finance economic development. I know that I was in San Diego, I believe the first, first to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, which was the legislature's response to the dissolution of redevelopment. We did that, but since then, only five, a total of five districts exist in the entire State of California.

I think demonstrating that EIFDs are not the solution to trying to again reinvest in communities as was previously available to do so under redevelopment. The 2021 Governor Office of Planning and Research report identified that existing tools such as EIFDs that I just described, and also the tool known as NIFTIs, or neighborhood infill finance and transit improvement districts have failed to make a dent in our housing and infrastructure deficit because, quote, according to the governor's Office of Planning Research report, they have limited revenue potential to make district formation even worthwhile, which is why we see no communities that have developed NIFTIs and only five in the entire State of California that have EIDFs.

I want to acknowledge the we have received some opposition's concern for RDAs to be successful. I believe they should have access, though, to greater share of property taxes generated within the project areas. Certainly willing to continue to have a conversation on how to address some of those concerns and also why we've made this a very limited area. It's only within half a mile of these very specific projects. It is not going to be miles and miles of square miles of city or county land.

It is very, very limited in scope. Also, regarding the concerns on eminent domain that we just received, I think today we have some language that we've been able to draft that this committee also expressed concerns about last year that we were not able to introduce in terms of amendments last year because the bill did not proceed from this, after this committee did not proceed from appropriations. So with that, I'm certainly happy to answer a lot more questions.

This is a topic that I am very, very excited about, and I hope that we as a legislature can find once again a tool to provide these economic development opportunities for our locals. But we have Mary Ellen Shay, who's Executive Director from the California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, who would like to provide some testimony on this bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon honorable members of the committee. My name is Mary Ellen Shay and I represent the California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, CAL-ALHFA. We were formed in 1989 to represent local agencies in the issuance of their single and multifamily housing bonds. Since that time, we've expanded our brief to include development of all kinds of financing tools and participation in the various programs that help us develop affordable housing. Our membership is broad.

We represent big and little agencies, urban and suburban, but most importantly, many of our members are former redevelopment agencies. And needless to say, we were devastated at the loss of redevelopment money for affordable housing. When redevelopment itself was dissolved. We were kind of the innocent bystanders there, but we lost $1.0 billion a year spread throughout many redevelopment agencies around the state. And we see the introduction of this bill as being a very, very small part of restoring some of that financing.

We recognize redevelopment is never going to be what it was. It took us 66 years to create a viable statewide redevelopment agency, and it took us less than a year to dissolve it with a lot of chaos and heartbreak involved. But that was then, this is now. And let me tell you why we like this bill. Number one, it is a very limited area. That small project area is going to eliminate a lot of opportunities for abuse.

And having public hearing and approval of state gives us a reputation other than, those redevelopment agencies are just doing it in the dark. So we like the openness, we like the reporting requirements, we like the accountability requirements. We like the fact that displacement is addressed. The units that might be removed have to be replaced, one for one, at the same income levels at which they were originally rented. We love the fact that it's 30% of affordable housing, not just 20 anymore.

We like the idea of local control in a public forum. We like the ability to make our own decisions, but we want them to be public and approved and recognized as a need. We also like an amendment I believe is going to be accepted that allows us to create public private partnerships that will increase the revenues available, maybe let our project areas develop more quickly and with more resources. So with all of those pieces of information in mind, we're very happy to be supporting the Reconnecting Communities Redevelopment Act.

Thank you. Any members of the audience that want to add on in support?

Good afternoon, chair and members, Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of Pasadena, very appreciative of the author's efforts on this issue and happy to support the bill.

Thank you.

Seamus Garrity with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of California and strong support.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in opposition of the bill as primary witnesses? You can sit on the desk if you like. As primary witnesses in opposition.

Mister Chair, Members. Bob Naylor, representing Fieldstead and company. It's Howard Amundsen Junior in Orange County. Philanthropist. We oppose the Bill unless amended, and we want the amendment to be to bar the use of eminent domain. We've taken the same position as Mister Alvarez's Bill last year and with a number of other bills. And many authors have adopted the barring of eminent domain, including the Bay Area Housing Authority and the Los Angeles County Housing Authority legislation in the last three years.

The reason we're opposed to eminent domain is it has been badly abused and we think it's inherent in the way it operates that abuse is potentially there. The reparations Commission had a long chapter on the history of abuse of eminent domain in California. Almost always in minority and low income areas, every is decimated. Now this bill is more limited, but it doesn't make it right to limit it. The other thing that happens with eminent domain is situations change.

You take the property and then all of a sudden the economy changes or interest rates go up or the developer doesn't have the financing the developer thought they'd get. And it sits vacant. And there are areas of the City of Sacramento, blocks from here that were taken in the fifties that are still vacant buildings. Talk about blight. It's a lot more blighted now than when they exercise eminent domain. So we just do not want to set the precedent of returning domain.

We ask the author to consider an amendment to bar the use and we have the language from other bills, about a half a dozen of them that have taken that language, and we're happy to withdraw our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you Members of the audience, to add on as opposition to your name.

Organization and position, Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association and opposition because of Prop 98 impacts.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Mister Chair and Members. Matthew Seiberling, on behalf of the State Association of County Auditors. Submitted a very late opposition letter to the Bill. We have some administrative concerns. The author staff has reached out to us and offered to sit down with us over the next week or two to help work those out. But as the practitioners of this program, we'd very much like to sit down with you guys and work it out and hopefully find some amendments to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, and we're still operating as a Subcommitee, I believe. Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you Mister chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. You know, I think it's extremely important to be able to fund infrastructure projects where they're best for the community. And I notice your particular bill narrows it to communities. What's the exact word? Reconnecting communities. And you noted in your testimony, and I wanted to get clarity on that, that it allows for where there's already a reconnect program. Can you explain that?

Yeah. So there are several communities in California that have been getting grants, primarily from the Federal Government, but also from the state government in previous budget allocations that have been mainly planning grants, not implementation grants just yet, with maybe the exception of one or two. I listed some of those cities at our Committee hearing.

We did hear from, as an example, when we were in San Diego for the Select Committee, we heard from some San Diego efforts when we had our hearing here, City of Pasadena presented their efforts. They received federal funding in order to try and create a reconnecting plan to address the issue of what had been previously acquired land with the intent of building a highway. And so it's been sitting vacant for decades now.

And the intent in their case is to reconnect the neighborhoods that are divided, literally divided by a swath of vacant, blighted land. In other cases, communities were devastated by the demolition of full communities and neighborhoods, as in the case in my own backyard, where they created, essentially the highway was created in a valley that was man made in order to put in a highway system. So you've got communities sitting on top and you've got the highway running down below.

And in some cities, what they are doing is they're building decks to connect the communities. And building of that infrastructure is, as you might imagine, very, very costly. And so that's the impetus for this idea, is how can we identify funding tools in order to build that very expensive infrastructure? That's not all going to come from grants from the state or the Federal Government. We wish it did.

We wish the government would invest in the same magnitude that it did in the 1950s with the federal highway system, which unfortunately led to these situations. If they invested even a portion of that to make these communities whole, we could have a solution, and we have a financing tool to build these connections. And so when we talk about which communities we are referring to, in this case, the communities that we know have been recipients of planning grants or other, they're somewhere in the funding cycle.

Maybe some are beyond planning, maybe they're now in implementation. Some are in feasibility, different cycles, as you know, for projects. And what we'd like to do is once a project becomes feasible, and there's a plan that they would have this as a tool to create these project areas around those projects in order to help finance the infrastructure that is so expensive.

And so to clarify, you're phrasing already, and I'm not sure where it's found in the actual language of the bill is that it is only used in the implementation stage, not the planning stage. And so it doesn't negate a community that might be currently bifurcated by a highway but had never thought about reconnecting from then trying to plan to reconnect and then use this tool, even though today, or let's say that when this is implemented.

So at our normal time, if they didn't have a planning process for reconnecting communities, they would not be exempt from it. They would just have to go through that process first before they can utilize this tool.

Correct?

Is that correct?

Correct. And we want more communities to participate in this because this is what we need to do in order to do justice for those neighborhoods that were impacted by this.

Right. And then the last and final question I have is related to there's CTA opposition and there's language in there around making people whole pass throughs, things of that nature. And so as it relates to CTA's opposition, because it does impact on the surface Prop 98 funding, how is there any mechanism for that restoration through the bill?

So this is where we might just have potentially a disagreement on whether there's value in doing this and potentially having some impact in the future if this happens to get approved. And localities create these districts to some minimum education funding in a very small area, which is again, literally just around these areas where today, let's just imagine we have a site where you want to build a deck over a highway system, there is a land value of zero on that.

There is no property tax that is being assessed and therefore the counties and the cities and the schools are getting no dollars for that, for that land today, if we have this tool, it is my argument that you are now creating value on these decks where you could potentially build housing or every community be different. They are going to do different things. But if you now go from a value of zero to a value of any amount, now you've got property tax money.

And I think that's where education folks are concerned that that future money would have gone to them under current law and that this would take away what should go to education, even though, again, there's nothing there today, it's a future created value.

And so are you saying because it's a future created value. And that had this investment mechanism not existed, then there would be no, there would be no future value for you to get and that the maybe adjacent value of properties that you currently have, value that they're receiving, might go up because of this. They would get that, but they not that. Because it doesn't take away from the, as a part of the district, it is only the new created, it is not the land adjacent to.

So I'd have to read that specific area. I think that was our intent. But the way it's written, it might capture, and this, we have not had a chance to actually sit down to talk.

Okay.

The district is half a mile from that area.

Oh, so it would include some, they'd be frozen at that level, but just like the like redevelopment example, it would include some, but it won't be the same as.

The future growth would not be.

Okay. Yeah, understood. Thank you.

Thank you for the questions.

Thank you. I wanted to thank you also for bringing this Bill forward. I served on the Escondido City Council for 14 years. That city was incorporated in the late 18 hundreds. So older cities can really be impacted when a freeway is just, you know, in 1975 is put right through your community.

It really substantially changed the character of the city and it's been reeling from that ever since, trying to get back to what we used to have as a very quaint, you know, community oriented kind of a downtown to this now where the freeway became the focus of everything and it really split up the neighborhoods, especially impacting the residential neighborhoods.

What we saw was it destroyed not only the downtown because it brought everything to the big target center that was put along the freeway, but it hurt the residential areas and really created kind of a blight area where the residential areas were. So you either had that type of residential and some car dealerships and, you know, and that's really all it is. So we need to have some kind of a mechanism to be able to go back and plan for those areas.

And I'm thinking of the 78th corridor in north San Diego County. I mean, some of the newer cities along there are not quite as impacted as the older ones because they have housing that's right along those, the freeways, but the newer ones have the commercials, so. But it did impact all along there and I'd be excited to see what could come out from this. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Kalra.

Thank you Mister Chair, and thank you Senator for bringing this forward and your work on this. You know, you mentioned Monterey highway and San Jose, I literally live in the neighborhood that's adjacent to that. So I understand and appreciate the focus of the goal here. In fact, this issue comes up when we have conversational reparations and other kind of neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, Latino neighborhoods that have been intentionally split apart. And so I appreciate the narrow focus of it.

Redevelopment was certainly a great tool for cities like San Jose to build a lot of housing, a lot of affordable housing. But the reality is, I think that if we're going to revisit it, I think this is the way to do it in these really kind of narrowly focused and really trying to repair harm.

And I would just ask you, as our colleague asked some questions regarding concerns from CTA, and I understand the general CTA concern also, just in terms of existential threat to Prop 98, but there's also some real impacts here. And so it's some of the fine tuning. You've already discussed the perimeter and the half mile. But whatever fine tuning can be done to minimize the impact on education funds with the understanding of the larger.

I mean, I think that your argument was fascinating in terms of future and there's nothing there now and kind of future growth, but it does sound like there's, it does capture some existing property. And so to whatever extent that those conversations can continue, that'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else. Assembly Member Alvarez, would you like to close?

Yeah, thank you. I love having this conversation and would love to talk more with you at any time. It is about repairing damage that was done primarily in communities that were older, definitely in communities that were almost always black and brown. And so unfortunately, there is no financing tool to help repair and we have some money from the Federal Government.

It's a very small pot of money under the infrastructure bill that was approved by Congress a few years ago, that's going to do, it's going to maybe build a couple projects. That's the extent of the impact of how that's going to go. The state has been funding some studies. We definitely don't have the capacity to fund the cost of building the infrastructure that's required in these areas.

And so we're just trying to find ways to be creative where we don't rely on state government money in order to create a tool that has been proven to be effective, much more tailored, as was just mentioned, to a specific area in order to not have the impacts on General Fund that were the reason for the demise, unfortunately, of redevelopment. And so I would love to get your more creative thoughts about how to do this again.

In a more surgical way and appreciate again the opportunity and look forward to furthering the conversation and appreciate your aye vote on our bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Alvarez, you've accepted the amendments?

That's correct.

Thank you. Thank you for your commitment to revitalizing those areas of the state that need it the most. I support your effort to combat the impacts of highway infrastructure has had on some of our communities. I'm voting aye on the bill with the understanding that the Committee amends will be taken in house and Community Development Committee. The motion, we don't have a quorum yet, so we need a motion, but we'll, I'll let you know how that goes.

Thank you very much. Thank you all.

Thank you. Next on the agenda, we're going to take one of Assembly Members Wilson's 3259. That's item 19, AB 3259 by Assembly Member Wilson.

Whenever you're ready.

First, let me say thank you to Assemblymember Ting for letting me go out of order to be able to get one of my primary witnesses, Mr. Mayor, back to his City of Benicia in a timely manner. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members, and to those members who are on their way so we can establish a quorum. Thank you so much for coming to housing. I'm sorry, Local Government Committee.

I will begin by accepting the committee amendments and would like to thank the chair and the committee for working with me and my office on these amendments. I'm pleased to present AB 3259. It is a district bill that would provide needed flexibility for residents in Solano County to vote on local revenue measures to ensure to allow us to protect essential services and improve critical transportation infrastructure.

Specifically, this bill would raise the statutory transaction and use tax limit above the 2% cap to allow cities within Solano County to vote on measures that raise local revenue at a rate not to exceed 0.5% with a sunset in 2029. Currently, a citizen initiative put on the ballot by the residents in the City of Benicia would, if approved by the voters, put the city above the cap.

Earlier this year, voters in the City of Benicia overwhelmingly approved a three-quarters cent general purpose sales tax increase to support public safety and essential services. At the same time, residents in Benicia had formed a coalition to draft the Citizens' Initiative for the November ballot for this specific purpose of increasing revenue to improve road conditions. However, with the recent sales tax initiative approved by voters, if the November citizen ballot initiative were to pass, it would then put the city above the 2% county cap.

This bill does not raise or enact any new taxes. It simply allows, or really empowers, voters within Solano County by allowing them to decide whether to approve local revenue measures that would exceed the 2% cap until 2029. With me to testify in support is Mayor Steve Young and City Manager Mario Giuliani from the City of Benicia.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Assemblywoman Wilson for sponsoring this bill. As she said, we had a sales tax initiative in March that passed with the highest percentage anywhere in the state. It passed with 72% support. We're very happy about that. It allows us to save from having to cut law enforcement and fire and parks and a number of things. We are in a bit of a fiscal crisis, which is not unusual for cities across the state.

In Solano County, there will be two other or three other cities that will have sales tax measures of their own on the ballot in November, in our case, because, as Assemblywoman Wilson said, because we increased our rate to 9.125 and a separate citizens initiative specifically for road improvements. And our roads are terrible. We're at a PCI of 57, which is between fair and poor. We're a very old city and we have, you know, many of our streets are over 100 years old.

We really need to fix them. And it's been estimated we're going to need about $6 million a year to repair the roads. The gas tax generates about $1 million, so there's a gap that we're not able to cover and people are understandably frustrated by the conditions of the roads. We had nearly 2800 citizens sign the initiative. It's been validated by the county registrar. It will be on the November ballot.

So what we are asking from this committee and through this legislation is simply to allow the citizens of Benicia and other locations within Solano County, give them the right to decide whether or not they want to increase their own taxes to pay for specific local initiatives. Thank you.

If I may, members of the committee, I will just close with also highlighting the need for this bill to be an urgency measure. As highlighted by Assemblymember and Mayor Young, we already have a citizens initiative that is qualified for the November ballot, and it is essential that we have kind of clarity and resolution from the State of California on our ability to raise our tax rate by half a cent in order to address our roads. Secondarily, and really most importantly to the people of Benicia, every day and year that is delayed in fixing our roads only makes it exponentially more expensive.

And so the action that we can take today as members of the State Assembly and those of us in local government, to give our residents an opportunity to choose the type of community in which they live. We can begin fixing our roads in the summer of next year. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Any members of the public who want to out on support, please state your name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon. Karen Lange on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors. Their legislative committee met on Monday and will be recommending to the full board a support position which will hopefully be next Tuesday. So just wanted to make sure you knew that the county was aware and hopefully support it.

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Seeing none. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any members of the public in opposition? Seeing none. I take it back to the committee members. Any questions, comments on what's in front of us? No. Would you like to close?

I would. Thank you very much. I so appreciate the representatives from the City of Benicia here, and they have support from mayors and city managers in Solano County to support them. In particular, being able to have the voters, the citizen-initiated voters, the initiative to come forward and to be able to pass and have self-denomination in their city. The same thing is for we have other cities within the county, which is why we broaden it beyond just the City of Benicia.

We have other cities heading to the cap and we have other voters who are saying that we have to be a self-help county. We have to be able to decide our economic future and ensure prosperity not only for the current residents of Solano County, but the generations to come. The status quo is not acceptable. And what I love about my cities in Solano County is they don't always look for the state to bail them out. They said we can bail ourselves out. And so with that, when it is appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And thank you for accepting the committee's amendments. I will be supporting your bill today. When we get a quorum and a motion, we will proceed. Thank you for presenting. Assemblymember Ting.

Yes, when we get some more members to come present. That's why I said that.

And that's AB 2488, agenda item number seven. Whenever you're ready, assemblymember.

Thank you Mister chair. Just want to first thank you and your committee for all your help on the bill. We are happily accepting the committee amendments. AB 2488 will allow San Francisco to create a downtown revitalization district. As all of you know, since COVID we've had a huge exodus of people not going back to work and downtown San Francisco is a prime example. We estimate we have a record breaking 32.6 million sqft that's empty of vacant office space.

This vacancy has created a huge impact on our small businesses. Restaurants, coffee shops, tailors, shoe repair stores, all of those stores that were plentiful all around downtown San Francisco, not to mention the pharmacies and the drug stores that were there. Stationery stores doing business have now very much struggled. Many of them have closed. This is really a bill that's less about housing but really more about trying to get people back into downtown.

This bill will allow San Francisco to create a downtown revitalization district which will allow them to have tax increment financing to use that tax increment to help support the construction of conversion from office space into apartment buildings and in the hopes that people will live downtown. And in particular, while many people know our famous office buildings, the newer office buildings, those really won't be the ones that will be converted.

It will probably be some of the older buildings, the buildings that are smaller, less famous, because those are the ones that are easier to convert into housing. With that, I have Louis Mirante here from Bay Area Council as my primary witness and respectfully ask for an aye vote on 2488.

Thank you Mister chair and members. My name is Louis Mirante with the Bay Area Council. We're strong supporters of AB 2488. The Bay Area Council represents about 350 of the Bay Area's largest employers. We've worked with a large coalition of property owners in downtown and other members of the Bayer Council to really lean in on this policy because as Mister Ting said, the situation in downtown San Francisco needs improvement. It's a big liability for the region.

It's been a big struggle for our employers to get people back to downtown because their employees feel unsafe. We need to hit that critical mass again where there are enough people that are frequenting the shops that we can support the infrastructure that we've already built for these places. In that vein, I want to emphasize Mister Ting's point that this is first and foremost a downtown recovery bill.

While housing is a strategy for getting people there, the goal really is to make sure that there are people downtown again. The Bay Area Council is also working with San Francisco's mayor London Breed on her strategy to get 30,000 new people in downtown San Francisco by 2030. We think that this proposal will help us get to about 14,000 of those 30,000. So we think this is a very significant proposal.

I just want to emphasize that the situation in downtown is a bigger liability than just for the city, for the region and the state. I'm so passionate about this bill because I think this is a great foot forward in solving those problems and in bringing a broader regional solution to the area. So I strongly urge your support for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any member? Is there a second primary witness? No. Those in supporting the audience, please state your name, affiliation and position on the bill.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY action and on behalf of San Francisco YIMBY and urban environmentalists in support.

Seamus Garrity with Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of SPUR in strong support.

Francisco Morales here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Seeing no one else. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. How about any members of the public that want to come in opposition of the bill. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the committee members. We have one in opposition.

Pardon me, Mister chair and members. Actually not in opposition. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special District Association merely want to express my appreciation to the author's staff, author's office and the sponsors on being receptive to noodling out some technical, I wouldn't even call them complaints, just lines of inquiry. And also express appreciation for the committee staff time in working on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, vice chairwater.

Thank you. I'm always interested in bills that help with revitalization in the urban core. It won't affect my city maybe now, but maybe in the future it can be expanded because, but I do have some questions because I want to see if it would actually, you know, help in some ways in an older city. Like I mentioned that I served on the business loops became kind of obsolete.

Then the commercial buildings that are there are, and they don't have the parking designated for them and they just sit vacant. And for decades they sit there and then you have housing that kind of just kind of became rentals and they're just sort of sitting there. And if there's a way you could just take this and have a vision for those areas, it would really help.

We tried to figure out how to do that in the general plan renewal and housing element and everything, but without the funding source, you know, it's difficult. One of the questions I had, I don't know if you can answer it is as far as infrastructure like public works infrastructure under the street, the sewer system and the older, you know, pipes and things like that, would this redevelopment money or IFD money be able to help with that? Because you really need to revitalize what's under the street in order to revitalize what's on top.

I believe so. You could, that for our city is not an issue because again, prior to COVID, that area was servicing, you know, tens of thousands of people, very, very crowded, millions of people coming in every day, including tourists. And so it's just a very, the infrastructure is there for us, but it's, it's more of a, trying to get more people down there.

So I think, and originally we started off as a, as a statewide bill, but I think good getting into discussions with the consultants and the city and the committees, we felt that this was easier just to make it a city bill for now and then just to kind of move forward, see if this would work and see if other cities might be interested in adopting it. Later on.

Right. Well, thank you. I believe that cities need more tools to do this urban renewal, so I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other members of the committee? Seeing none, Assemblymember Ting, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I do believe that you did say that you accept the amendments. Thank you. Thank you for working closely with the committee on this bill and for accepting the committee amendments. I certainly support your efforts to revitalize those areas with a significant amount of empty office space and to provide housing to those areas that have been greatly impacted in recent years by the chiefs in how Californians perform their jobs.

Voting eye on this bill with the understanding that this committee's amendments will be adopted in the Housing and Community Development Committee. We still don't have a quorum, but as soon as we do, we'll be making an action on these bills. Thank you. Assembly Member Quirk Silva, item number nine, AB 2591. When you are ready, you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members, I'm going to go off script a tiny bit and welcome these young gentlemen. I believe. Is it your first time to the Capitol? They're very excited about being here. And Members, we often hear in headlines these horrible tales of our youth and all of these type of negative comments, that they're not interested in government, that they're self absorbed, that they only focus on their social media and many other negative issues.

But these gentlemen and their youth advocacy group are beyond any of these innuendos. They are step by step moving through the legislative process by first contacting our office last summer about their interest and starting and being engaged in local city processes by a youth Commission. So with that, AB 2751 enhances youth civil engagement by requiring cities and counties to establish a youth commission as a youth advisory body if petitioned by a specified amount of the city or county's youth population. And that's a special note.

So that does not mean every city has to partake in this. It means that it would come from within the city and that advocacy would have enough participants to make sure that we know it's not. Every city would have to do this regardless. More importantly, this Bill would provide guidelines for the implementation of these bodies to ensure efficient and beneficial processes.

While youth councils currently exist in some of California cities, they are often limited to unincorporated areas, small towns and cities that have yet create, who have not yet created advisory bodies. Disproportionate access to these councils across our states, creates inequities for students who wish to participate and have a voice in their own communities. As I mentioned, I was fortunate to meet with these amazing, passionate minded young adults that are here today. They have actively and diligently advocated for the introduction of AB 2591 last summer.

The sponsors in my office have been working with those who are concerned with the bill in order to address any issues, and we will continue to work with them as we move forward with the legislative process. I am proud to introduce with me today and support of AB 2591 Rishal Malvani, who is a California State policy Director with American Youth Association. Tyler Lee, national operations Director, also representing the American Youth Association. And then we have a third.

So make sure you introduce yourself, if that's okay.

That's okay.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Committee. My name is Rochelle Malvani and I'm with the American Youth Association. So the real problem right now is that there's a huge disconnect between students and their representatives. So this bill seeks to really solve that problem at its core, as well as give students much needed representation. Section two ensures that these commissions are not only are only created in areas where there is sufficient interest.

If students manage to accumulate more than 500 signatures, or 10% of the population of 13 to 18 year olds within their county, then the board of that county will implement a youth commission. The local youth Commission will have ability to make proposals to the board, and counties will determine their full responsibilities. The thing is, local youth commissions have already been very successful at creating change within their communities and beyond.

And the Institute for Local Government recently found that in El Dorado County, the local youth Commission wrote and implemented a resolution to reduce the environmental footprint of community residents. In Pomona, the youth Advisory Committee has expanded student poll workers to six official high schools. And then in La Canada Flintridge, the youth council contributes to a monthly column in the local newspaper and tries to maintain accountability of companies towards the youth. And most notably, they actually surveyed local businesses regarding tobacco sales to youth.

So, very actionable change right there. So every voice deserves to be heard. And this Bill ensures that it's a promise to youth that their voice matters. So please, respectfully vote aye on AB 2591.

Thank you. Is there another one?

Yeah.

Hi. Hello. Hi, everyone. My name is Tyler. I'm also part of the American Youth Association. In 1776, our founding fathers created this nation's motto, E ploribus unum, out of many, one. Now, these founding fathers were faced with the question, how does a loose collection of states with vastly different languages, beliefs, and ideas come together and become one nation, one vision? Through democracy. In America, it doesn't matter how old you are or how much money you have or even what you look like, everyone gets a voice.

That's all today is about making sure that Californian students can be heard. Now, my colleague Rishal has already done an amazing job explaining to you why this bill is so necessary. But there has been some opposition through letters. So I want to acknowledge that and kind of show us our side. The first concern is mainly due to a lack of rural interest. Now, that's why this has a petition in place.

So with this petition, if people sign a petition, they're most likely going to actually want to be a part of this council, and they're going to be there. If there's no interest, there's no petition. No petition means no council. Now, second concern is really about finances and especially concerning venue and also staffing. For venue they can literally meet in their local town hall and basically it's 1 hour a month. Can't see why they don't, they won't have that. And then the second thing is staffing.

These students are extremely dedicated, and if they're out there and want to be part of this youth council, they will be dedicated and are happy to help with anything, whether that is helping plan agendas, whether that's taking meeting minutes, whether that's coordinating with these youth commissions in general. Overall, if these students are that dedicated, they will do whatever it takes for their voice to be heard. Out of many, one.

At the end of the day, no matter how many, out of the many concerns, comments, and impacts you're going to hear on the opposition, there's only one side that truly impacts and helps our democracy, and that is the affirmative. We'd like to thank Representative Quirk-Silva for her leadership, and we humbly ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Would your third caller like to add something?

Hi. Yes. My name is Travis Hodges. I'm the national President and policy Director of the American Youth Association, and I'm here to give the support of the American Youth Association. And I'm also here on behalf of the National Women's Political Caucus of California to give their support as well.

Well, thank you. It's very impressive, very eloquent students. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to add in support? Please state your name, organization, and position. I see no one. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

That one of you needs to reply.

Primary witnesses?

Yes.

Okay, just go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Jessica Blair, president of the City Clerk's Department of the League of California Cities, here today in respectful opposition of this bill. First off, I want to thank the sponsor and author for taking the time to meet with the league and discuss the bill. I want to applaud the effort to increase California's youth participation in civic engagement activities. However, we must oppose the bill is currently drafted. I want to say I'm so proud of these young gentlemen.

I'm a big proponent of youth and government. I run in my jurisdiction the Youth academy and SUNY Youth Commission. So I applaud you. I think it's great, but our primary concern is that it creates a new, mandated local program. There are many cities that have limited resources. It would be a cost burden to some, especially for those with limited staff and resources.

As Brown act govern bodies commissions require resources to Fund the staff time to respond to the initial petition and create the body, fill vacancies, provide the venue, increase liability insurance, staff the meetings, coordinate with the members, fulfill brown act requirements cities already have the authority to establish local youth commissions and can make the decision to create one while balancing local needs, available funding and staff resources.

Cities should have the autonomy to decide how limited city resources are used and in addition to the new cost, we are concerned with how the petition would be verified and what type of staff resources would be necessary to validate the petition, given that it could only be signed by those who are aged 13 to 18. For these reasons, we are respectfully opposed but remain committed to working collaboratively to increase opportunities for you. Civic engagement thank you.

Thank you. Second primary witness.

Hello, Sarah Dukett On behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties and the urban counties of California. First, we want to applaud the youth that really want to engage, and we do want to see that. And we believe we can find amendments to balance having them engage with our local bodies, but also the reality that we are struggling financially. This would probably be up to 24 meetings a year. Our average advisory bodies in rural counties are four times a year.

12 times a year. They would be meeting on the same schedule as like our planning commission, which is a semi quasi judicial body. And we, of course, will have to have staff time to make sure we meet the branch requirements. Unfortunately, the state doesn't always have the best track record in paying us for a local mandated program. I think the running total for counties is around 300 million. That hasn't been paid and about 1.6 billion that haven't been paid to localize governments.

So we're very mindful about how do we balance our needs locally, especially if we're going to be spending our own general fund and knowing that 10% and that 500 might look different in Sierra County, population 1300, versus LA County, population 10 million, and making sure that we can be responsive. So we have a lot of ideas. We want to work with them.

We want to find a way to get them engaged, but also make sure that the decision on taking on this big financial commitment is retained by the local body. And I think many of them, through a public process, would say yes. And some of them might say, hey, let's address it in a different way. Maybe we can do a plan, maybe we can do an ad hoc. So we're hoping that we can reach a conclusion with the authors to get that youth involved. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the audience want to add in opposition? Seeing none. Committee members, any questions? Comments?

Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. Thank you to the primary witnesses and support you. All three of you did an excellent job of, you know, being able to provide testimony. Very eloquent and just representing your generation in terms of bringing this forward at a macro level, very much support youth engagement and youth involvement and something that, you know, advocated for in my own community, ways to engage the youth beyond just the commission. But I also am a small community as well.

And it would not be lost to me to recognize that there are costs related to this. For instance, having whatever number it is, whether it's 10%, depending on the size of the community, or up to 500 from 13. So you have 13 to 18 year olds, you have to verify that. It's not as simple as verification, even when you're doing voting. Right, because there is a actual record of.

There's a voter record that you can verify against and say, this person has signed up on a voter registration, and this represents a legitimate person in a community. Whereas 13 to 18 year olds, it's not the same. They go to different schools, some are homeschooled. If you use even that program. So it is. There would be an actual cost factor that you wouldn't have to burden someone else.

Like right now, cities give a list to the county office of the registrar of voters, and then they do that work. Not yet. And so that is, you know, that is a concern. The fact that it requires by law an assigned staff person. So it's not like they can meet on their own. There has to be an assigned staff person related to the city or county associated. That is an actual cost requirement meeting two times a year.

I think it was noted from those that were respectfully opposed. Same issue. As you know, I created advisory committees in my community when I was mayor. Some met bimonthly. It was really based on the need. And some had planned meetings, but didn't meet because there wasn't business before them. And so the bill is really prescriptive into what that looks like. And it reminds me of what you would expect and really demand of a large community in comparison to a smaller community.

When it's time, when we have a quorum. Cause we haven't got one yet. Definitely will support at a macro level, because I know you'll continue to work to fine tune the bill as it goes forward. But I do think that you have to consider size as a factor of communities with this bill, because there is a distinction between our larger urban centers and our smaller rural areas.

I think some of the minimum requirements, like most commissions, only have a requirement to meet at least once a year. That's minimum. And then they can meet up to as needed. And so to have it where it's a minimum per month is, I think, is a pretty big deal. And recognizing that it is after hours, I'm assuming it's after school hours that they're not going during school.

And so you also have this recognition that it's more than just a staff person, you're having a public place open after hours. So all of the support that goes related to that is there is a cost. And I think on there, it says sending. There has to be, at least on the city, one Council Member. That's a whole other thing. So I think the intent is good. The thought is there, how do we engage our youth?

But even when it comes, like I said to those smaller communities, there might have to be flexibility. Where you're prescriptive if it's a population over a certain center, over a certain size, but if it's a smaller community, giving them the flexibility that there is a petition, they have to incorporate you youth in the decision making process and advisory capacity, and giving them the flexibility to determine that. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson. Would you like to respond.

Did you want to respond? Go ahead.

So I just had a few solutions for some of the problems I know you're talking about. For example, for the petition, we currently have student board member petitions for the State Board of Education. And how that works is really just using the email addresses through the schools. So basically every district has their own email addresses. You can just use a Google form and that's one of the best ways to do it.

And then I know you're talking a lot about also in terms of needing like the frequencies of meetings and stuff like that. As I'm aware, there's no requirement of like a staffer need to meet at every single one of those meetings. It's just one representative or one council member once a month, so they don't need to meet at every single meeting. And then also I know for venue, like I get out at 03:00 normally, or if not earlier on most school days.

So we could just as easily meet at like 3:30 when like the offices are still open and stuff like that.

And I think just to that point, that is what would be left up to the cities. And that's what my argument is in that. And then just noting, I don't think you might have understood when I talked about verification, is that the student board, you're already at a school and it's associated with the school, and then you're now trying to represent that school somewhere else. So the verification is through the school.

When you're talking about a city or a county, not every student goes to the school. Even in that district in the area of the jurisdiction might be different. Someone, we allow students to go to school where their parents work. So if they, if your parent works in San Francisco and you're going to school in San Francisco, but you live in, let's say, my city, Suisun City, then that verification would look very different.

If I'm homeschooled and I'm not associated with the district, what does that look like? So what I'm trying to communicate about the verification is not that it can't be verified, it just is not a simple process for it. So that is a cost to the city to be able to verify or the county to be able to verify the student. So the intent is there.

And there's a lot of things we do here in Sacramento at a macro level where the intent is perfect and everybody can agree, and then we get to the details and that's where there is consternation, right. And trying to figure out how do we do this? Because we're a big state, we're a diverse state, and that is our strength, right?

And then we have to think about how do we craft legislation that allows flexibility, because we commonly use a term that we don't want something that is one size fits all, because one size doesn't fit all. It fits one, even the best t shirt that's a one size fit all. Only one person really looks good in that t shirt. Everybody else is just kind of making do. And so I just want to make sure we have legislation because I support the intent.

We should have youth commissions, especially if the youth want to be engaged. Every city and county, every jurisdiction should find a way for them to be engaged and just allowing that flexibility. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson. Assembly Member Quirk Silva, would you like to close?

Yes. I appreciate the dialogue. This doesn't often happen. And just so you know, this is Assemblymember Lori Wilson, and she served on local government for quite a few years, as I did. So everything you mentioned is definitely well taken. The flexibility of the bill, we definitely can work on that. And I think it's important for all of us to engage under that topic because certainly there are great ideas and great energy, but it all has to be implemented and taken into account.

Either costs or location or verification certainly are important, but I do appreciate you saying that you'll support it, and we hope the other Members will as well. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Assembly member, I appreciate your efforts to increase access to local governments for our state's young people. I will be voting aye whenever we get a quorum and a motion to move the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Excellent job.

Good job. Assemblymember Wilson you have two other bills would you like to present?

Am I going to do my other or no?

Oh, you have another one?

Yes.

Let's see.

I'll do it fast.

Yes, please.

I'm getting to hear all of that.

Oh, all right.

I apologize. I didn't know you had another one. Go ahead, assembly member.

We will be pretty speedy on this. This is very narrow Bill AB 2904, and we want to again, thank the consultant for working with our office. And we do accept the Committee amendments. AB 2904 extends the timeframe within which cities must inform homeowners and property owners prior to implementing zoning code updates. So again, I want to take us out, out of this building and take us into our own homes. We walk in, we go through our mail.

Whether you're a property owner or a single family or even a renter, you see things. It may look kind of governmental, whatever, and a lot of times what do we do? We don't have to answer. We kind of lay it there to relook at it at another time or maybe not immediately, but this information relating to permitting the current law only provides a 10 day notice for zoning changes, which is not enough time for property owners to understand the implications.

So what this Bill would do is it would double it to 20 days, allowing property owners a better opportunity to review and respond to proposed zoning amendments, enhancing transparency in this process process. With me today is Jose Cornejo with Cornejo Strategies and senior Director of government relations with NAOIP Southern California.

Mister Chairman and Members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. This is an issue that's come across when doing development or business property specifically, or running across the information that their property has been designation changed after the fact. And many times they don't see these notices come through in time. I'll give you the example of most businesses, it gets, you know, it's 10 days, you get this notice, 10 days, snail mail. Takes you a little bit to get there.

By the time it hits somebody's desk, by the time it gets routed to the right person, by the time I see one of those, I've got a meeting that morning or that day, and I have to figure out what that impact is on those things. And so we're just simply asking for an extension. One of the good things, thank the Committee staff for being so helpful in working these things out.

But one of the big issues we had is we were really trying to figure out how to maybe modernize this discussion. We understand that that's going to take some more work and action later down the road, but this is really helps provide a nick a little extra time to be able to have, you know, if your property is being down zoned, you should be in be get an opportunity to understand what kind of taking that is.

The value of the property will be less if your property is down zoned in that case. So we are respectfully asking, I can give you plenty of examples, but we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any in the audience I want to add on? Please state your name.

Good afternoon Mister Chair and Members Skylar Wonnacott with the California Business Properties Association and NAOIP California in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? You can come to your desk if you like. And you have three minutes. Good afternoon.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with the YIMBY Action. Regretfully opposed unless amended to this Bill. While we agree with the intent of the Bill to notify property owners when there is a down zoning, because that affects property values, as currently drafted, this Bill would apply the additional timing for upzonings as well, and includes single family homeowners who are notoriously anti housing. So the additional amount of time that would be required to notice could impact the housing element rezoning process and would lead to more NIMBY opposition against housing.

So we would like to continue working with the sponsors and author on the Bill to narrow this down even more just to down zonings. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition on the public, please come to the microphone. Say your name, affiliation and position.

Jessica Blair, City of Half Moon Bay. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you. See no one else. Assembly Member Wilson, you have any comments or questions?

Since it's just you and I, we could just talk all day. Right. Thank you for bringing this forward. I think it's important for transparency and government to be able to communicate in a timely manner. And timely is different based on who the person is. But I think that the government should be in the position of providing the most advanced notice that's feasible. Feasible in 60 days, for even a small local government is sufficient.

You know about the issue and there's not increased cost because you would have had to do it anyway at some point. It's just moving that up. And I also, you know, I get the concern, as one of the opposition had noted, the difference between up zoning and down zoning. We created a good neighborhood policy in our Committee, in our community, and we knew that it was going to invite people to be aware of the project early and probably invite opposition.

But it's something that you have to deal with. Doing local government and doing policy is the people who are opposed. And I'd rather be upfront and let them know about it and let them have their say and take that into consideration and move forward than not at all and then hear the backlash later that we tried to hide something. So I think that that's just part of doing. Doing policy is making sure people are informed, even the opponents.

And so we always want someone to be a proponent of the Bill. But even the opponents have a right to know that something is happening in their community that they don't like.

Thank you. Assembly Member Kalra, any comments? No, thank you. Would you like to close Assembly Member Quirk-Silva?

Yes. In acknowledging the opposition, it is interesting because typically I'm on the same page with the opposition, and it's the second time today in two different committees that my housing friends are, I think, a little surprised. But I do think the transparency allowing this additional time, and yes, I've sat on the council when we full well know that we will have many people coming in opposed to a project. But those are the processes we have to go through. And as those are moved forward.

And here we talk about amendments at local government. We're talking about listening to the public and trying to get to the best place we can when we are trying to do the much needed housing production. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Did you say that you accept the amendments? Thank you for working with the Committee on the Amendments to the Bill, with the amendments that would support supporting your Bill today. As soon as we get a quorum and get a motion to move the Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you Members.

Now, Assemblymember Wilson, 2632 that's item number 12, maybe 2632 whenever you're ready.

Thank you mister chair and as well as the members who are present and those that are absolutely on their way coming to local gov to create a quorum, I'm pleased to present AB 2632 a bill that is not only great for the environment, but also savvy shoppers. I would like to start by thanking the committee and stakeholders for their work on this bill and say that I will accept the committee amendments and will continue to have conversations with opposition around the bill.

This bill will help California reach its waste reduction and recycling goals and will also help lower-income shoppers meet their basic needs by prohibiting local governments from enacting or enforcing bans or limitations on thrift stores that are not in place on other retail stores. In 2020, CalRecycle issued a report outlining the amount of waste in California, and the results were startling. In 2020, California produced 77.4 million tons of trash.

Of that, the state landfilled 40 million tons of material and recycled just 42%, or 32.5 million tons. California has a recycling goal of 75% of all material. We are falling far short of our 75% recycling goal and face clear evidence that an economy driven by resource extraction and single use disposable products continues to endanger our people and imperil our planet. California has clear and ambitious environmental goals for reducing waste and managing materials. The answer is simple.

Provide Californians with a better alternative to throwing their clothing away by providing easier access to secondhand clothing stores. However, some jurisdictions hold stereotypical and false beliefs that thrift store shoppers are less valuable or more problematic than shoppers of full price retail stores and sometimes use zoning and ordinances to exclude exclude thrift stores from their shopping districts. This bill will help California reach its waste reduction and recycling goals and will help California's shoppers meet their basic needs by prohibiting local governments from enacting or reinforcing I'm sorry.

Or enforcing bans or limitations on thrift stores that are not placed on other retail stores. With me today is Cassie Gilson of Axiom Advisors to speak more on the importance of AB 2632 and to help answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Good afternoon Mister chair and members. Cassie Gilson on behalf of Savers, Value Village. Savers operates thrift stores in communities around California, employing more than 1000 Californians and contributing more than $121 million annually to the economy. The assemblymember made the case for the environmental benefits of thrifting. Californians each throw away 81 pounds of clothing every year, 95% of which could get reused or repurposed, and 85% of that ends up in our landfills.

We spend a lot of time in Natural Resources Committee and over at CARB talking about landfill gas and how do we deal with that in the context of climate. So I think the environmental case is strong today. Retailers such as Lululemon, Eileen Fisher, J. Crew, the North Face, Timberland, all birds, they all have their own resale program. So you can take your J. Crew clothing and bring it back to a J. Crew store and they are reselling it.

There's also an increasing number of high end retailers who are doing sort of Louis Vuitton and Prada and fancy stuff. So I like to say like, today's thrift is not our grandfather's thrift. This bill really reflects that reality and is very targeted to say that to deal with this legacy and sort of outdated sense of who shops at thrift stores and what thrift stores entail, and says, hey, local governments, you cannot ban thrift stores, but you can treat them just like any other retail store.

So that includes like aesthetic regulations, health and safety regulations. You can say it all has to be painted pink, whatever you might do that applies to all retail establishments, you can do that in the context of thrift stores. I too am grateful to our partners and local government for their work with us on this bill and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody in the room that want to add on support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody in the room that want to add in opposition? Seeing none, I take it back to the committee members. Assembly Members, any comments? Questions? Good. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you for the robust discussion. Just kidding. No, thank you. Thank you to Cassie for being here today, speaking in support of this. As she stated, you know, the thrift stores today are not the thrift stores of yesterday. And all we're requesting is that thrift stores are. They are in essence retail stores and that they're treated like their retail store counterparts. With that, I respectfully, when the time is appropriate, ask for an aye vote.

I want to thank you for working on this issue. I appreciate your commitment to your constituents and to the the sanctions that led to the committee amendments. I will put an aye on the bill as soon as we get a quorum and get a motion to move the bill. Thank you.

Sounds good.

And you have another Bill?

I do, I do. AB 1957.

Good to see you.

Please proceed.

All right. Hello again. I am pleased to present AB 1957, a bill that would expand best value contracting to all counties. Best value contracting allows counties to award contracts for construction projects in excess of $1 million to the builder, sorry, to the bidder representing the best value. Best value contracting was established as a pilot program in 2016 and expanded in 2019. Currently, there are 10 counties participating in the program.

While this has been a highly successful program, the current authority is due to sunset on January 1, 2025. Extending best value contracting would allow counties to attract a more qualified and stronger contractor bidding board, reduce bad actors during the contractor selection process, and increase the percentage of skilled craft workers on county construction projects. Best value contracting also can reduce the administrative costs and time by increasing contract terms through renewal options, which allows increase which helps increase the capacity to achieve more projects in less time.

I would like to now introduce my witness Mark Hummel, capital projects manager for California County's Architects and Engineers Association.

Thank you Assembly Member Wilson thank you for allowing Solano county to offer its statement of support for AB 1957. As the leader of the Capital Projects Division for Solano county, we've been very pleased with the outcomes that we've had under best value delivery. As I've stated previously, best value project delivery has allowed Solano Coyote capital projects management division to bring aboard highly qualified contractors for important projects where timeliness, quality of work and a collaborative mindset were critical to project success.

It has attracted contractors not otherwise interested in competing on the basis of low bid only. Rather, the prospect of competing on the basis of project team experience, familiarity with similar projects, the soundness of project management and quality control programs, and the opportunity to propose project enhancements beyond the owners minimum requirements proved attractive to these more qualified contractors. Solano county looks forward to using best value project delivery again and encourages continuation and availability to all California counties.

Thank you. Those I want to add on support, please state your name, affiliation and position.

Chris Lee on behalf of the Urban counties of California, as well as the County of Riverside and the County of Santa Clara in support.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Good morning, chair Members. Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson, advocacy here on behalf of Gordian, technically here in support, if amended. This is a fantastic bill and we've worked with the author and Committee staff and look forward to continuing to work with them. Make it even better.

Thanks.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? See none. Anybody in the room that wants opposition of the bills? Seeing none? Take it back to the Committee Members. Nothing. Another one with the last of discussion. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you so much for the support chair and to the Committee Members who helped bring this along and get it to the place that it is today. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Wilson, for your work with the Committee on this deal. I'm pleased to support. Again, we don't have a quorum yet and we need a motion to move the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

I see Assemblymember Santiago in the room, whenever you're ready, sir. And that's Item 16, AB 2909.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

Thank you.

May I proceed, Mr. Chair?

You may proceed. Thank you, sir.

Yeah, thanks.

First, I want to thank you for your work and your committee and helping us to make this a better bill. And I'll be accepting all committee amendments, so thank you very much. And look, simply put, this would expand the Mills back to empower the City of Los Angeles to incentivize the commercial, sorry, the conversion of commercial buildings into residential uses. In the interest of time, I'll be brief on my statements. Unless you want me to go through my entire statement.

That's okay.

I appreciate that.

I just want to be respectful of the chair. Specifically, the bill would expand the definition of qualified historic properties to include buildings that have been at least thirty years or older that are located within commercial zones, making these properties eligible for the Mills Contract.

Thank you again, I repeat that we're taking all the amendments, and I'm extremely grateful for your hard work on this.

Thank you.

And we have a witness. Sorry, Mr. Chair, would that be okay with you?

Yeah.

Good afternoon. My name is Nella McOsker, CEO of Central City Association. CCA represents 300 businesses, institutions and nonprofits who are committed to advancing Downtown LA's vibrancy and increasing opportunity in the Southern California region.

We're strong advocates for policies that support adaptive reuse, and we're proud to sponsor this bill. CCA spearheaded back in the 1999 moment in which the City of Los Angeles put out an adaptive reuse ordinance that catalyzed the conversion of buildings to about 12,000 units of housing that transformed downtown LA into a 24/7 mixed-use urban hub. Today, amid historic levels of office vacancies, we're again looking to adaptive reuse to help address some of our biggest challenges.

Housing, of course, but climate and the economy diminished office values will soon have a very serious impact on property tax revenues and our government's ability to pay for basic services. Amongst our great housing needs, we have to take steps to convert these buildings. What we estimate in the City of LA alone is that conservatively, about five to 10% of the city's office space, if that were to be converted, could yield 8000 to 16,000 new units.

We face a serious challenge in that despite their many benefits, adaptive reuse projects are complex and largely financially infeasible. So we know that the state can act to support adaptive reuse and leverage established financing mechanism, the Mills Act Tax abatement program. And it requires that property tax savings be reinvested in retrofitting and repurposing existing buildings to create housing. This is a targeted expansion that has been proven to be successful and instrumental in this important benefit. So thank you.

Well, thank you. Anybody in the room that wants to support, please stay in affiliation and position.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in strong support. And on behalf of BOMA California and support.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jim Finnegan from AARP. We are strongly in support of this bill because of the affordable housing it provides.

Hi, my name is Ellen Brittingham. I'm here on behalf of the International Interior Design Association, both California chapters in support.

Thank you.

Francisco Morales, here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, also in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anybody in the audience wanted to add on his opposition? Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close? Oh, I'm sorry. Bring it back to the Committee Members. Okay. Would you like to close, sir?

Respectful and ask for aye vote. And thank you Mr. Chair and Members.

Thank you. Assemblymember Santiago, thank you for the lively discussion we had yesterday and days passing this measure. I appreciate the time you and your office are dedicated to working with the Committee. Thank you. I'm voting aye on this bill with the understanding that the Committee amendments will be adopted in the Housing Development Committee. We still don't have a quorum. As soon as we do and we get a motion to move the bill. We'll be doing so. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you.

And your staff. Thank you.

So we still have a couple of bills. I don't see any Members coming in. I do have a bill. Would it be okay if I present my bill? And if anybody's watching, please, Members, make their way down so we can get a quorum and present your bills. And I'm giving the gavel to the Vice Chair so that I can present my bill.

Item eight, AB 2533. Chairman Carrillo.

Thank you Madam Vice Chair, members, appreciate you giving me the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 2533. This bill prohibits a local agency from denying a permit to unpermitted ADUs and JDUs bill prior to 2020 unless the structure poses a threat to public health and safety. Over the past several years, the legislature has agreed that ADUs should be a part of the solution to address our housing crisis, and the legislature has passed laws that make permitting and authorizing ADUs easier.

It has also allowed amnesty for a permitted ADUs to come into compliance. Unpermitted or informally used, JDUs are widespread in neighborhoods throughout California and tend to be mostly in low income communities. These unpermitted units that have never received safety inspections are providing housing to family members, loved ones and tenants. ADUs are infill, they are affordable and they're often a critical stepping stone for middle class families to build generational wealth.

In fact, I've built a legal ADU and JDU on my property that I was able to provide to my daughter when she was attending college. Whether by providing an affordable option to family members and loved ones or as rental income, building and owning an ADU can be a life changing asset one of the first barriers homeowners run into when considering bringing an ADU into compliance is not knowing where to start and the necessary requirements.

With AB 2533 local agencies will be required to post a checklist that provides the conditions necessary to comply with health and safety standards and inform homeowners that they may seek a third party code inspection from a licensed contractor prior to the application. Homeowners are discouraged from seeking safety inspections due to the well-founded fear that safety upgrades will be too expensive to complete or once disclosed to local building officials, that means will be displaced.

Low-income homeowners may lack capital and equity to pay the thousands of dollars necessary for, quote, compliance and impact fees. A moderate-income homeowner may have the resources to make necessary corrections for health and safety by the addition of impact fees may outweigh the economic and ethical benefit of making corrections. AB 2533 will also waive impact fees, connections and capacity charges for households that are low and moderate-income households.

In practice, when a homeowner attempts to get a permit for their illegal ADU, they are still being required to meet the current state and local building standards and to pay impact and connection charges as if it were a completely new ADU, even if the unit has been connected and using utilities without putting more strain on utility infrastructure. Lastly, the bill allows local agency to inspect the unit for compliance with health and safety standards and requires approval of permits necessary to correct noncompliance. Here with me today in support and answering the questions is Louis Mirante with the Bay Area Council. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Carrillo. Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair and Members. My name is Louis Mirante. I work for the Bay Area Council as our Vice President, housing policy. I'm also though on the board of the Casita Coalition, which represents hundreds of ADU advocates and ADU companies across California. I'm happy to support this bill on behalf of both organizations today.

This bill kind of came out of a process that the Casita coalition started with our members in 2022, looking at the state's current framework for ad production, which I've been a big advocate for and is highly successful. We wanted to develop strategies to recommend to the legislature that would continue forward the race equity impacts of ADU law. And this idea rose to the top and is our top priority bill this year.

This bill, as Mister Carrillo mentioned, makes it much easier for folks who've built ADUs in the pre-reform era, the era predating 2016, to bring those ADUs into the legal market that has numerous benefits for the homeowner. It allows them to advertise their home at a higher rate. It allows them more confidence in renting out those ADUs. And it makes sure that in cities that have things like rent registries, those are recorded as legally operating units.

It helps, I think, everybody all around to have these in the legal market rather than in an unpermitted position. In working on the policy in this bill, we tried to identify the major barriers to reform, and we found that fees were a large barrier as well as building code rules. This bill strikes, I think, a very fair compromise on the issues posed by upgrading a structure and focuses the reviews on safety rather than building code. Those can be substantially different and much more costly.

For example, under the current building code, an unpermitted ADU might be required to upgrade the load-bearing nature of their roof to add solar panels. This is something that doesn't really have a health-life safety impact, but would add substantial tens of thousands of dollars to cost to folks and doesn't present a safety issue. I'm strongly supportive of this bill, in large part because it carries forward the Casita Coalition's race equity mission. And I strongly urge your support for it here today, too.

Thank you. It looks like we have a quorum right now, and we'd like to establish that. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. We can continue.

Thank you.

Do we have other witnesses? Any other witnesses in support?

Madam Chair Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, legislative advocate for California YIMBY in strong support.

Thank you, Mister chair and members. I'm Jim Finnegan from AARP. We are a strong supporter of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it to the committee. Mister Kalra.

I want to thank the chair for bringing this bill forward. You know, people think, because I represent San Jose, Silicon Valley, that everyone is wealthy and what have you. Well, maybe the land might be of value, but the reality is that when I go driving or knocking on doors in San Jose, particularly in East San Jose, there are oftentimes 2-3-4 families living in a home that are renting.

Oftentimes, or in some cases, you have families that have been there for a long time and can't really afford to move out of their home. And so they add on for their grandparent or for their kids or coming back and call, whatever it is, and they just, they do it haphazardly. And so the public, the health and safety aspect of this is huge. Folks want to come kind of bring, bring these units out from under the shadows. Now that we've actually created legislation, incentives create ADUs.

Let's not leave anyone behind. And that's actually create a healthier and safer environment with these ADUs. Allow those that are renting to be able to do it openly and, you know, with sunshine. So that's also good protecting, that's also helped protect the tenants as well, because the tenants know that they're living in an unpermitted ADU, and maybe they'd be hesitant to complain. And it's a liability issue too. If something happens and it's not permitted, is insurance going to cover it?

No, the liability of someone's renting part of their home. So there's so many different kind of boxes. This checks as to why it's good policy. It further extends and adds on to the good work that's been done in this building over the years, years on really creating housing stock in kind of neighborhoods that have no other way to create housing stock but for ADUs. And I think this is a natural extension of that work. And I appreciate you for your work on this.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments, questions? No, we do have a motion.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote, thank you.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to Housing and Community Development Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 6-0. We'll leave the roll open for add ons and your bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. And seeing Assembly Member Mccarty here, we're going to go to item number eight. AB 2593. Mccarty, when you're ready. Second.

Thank you. Mister chair, I have before you today. Am I the final Bill of the day? Am I the last one? No.

Second to last.

Second to last. This is a district bill, and it's a bipartisan district bill authored by myself, Assembly Member Nguyen and Assembly Member Hoover related to the homelessness response in Sacramento county. We all know that homelessness is an issue that we all need to work on together. We are all in this together, and that means all levels of local government. We have nearly 10,000 people sleeping on the streets of Sacramento county every night.

There are no easy solutions, but we know that the remedies and the fixes are when we are all working on these issues together. So last year, our grand jury of Sacramento county did a report and came out with some recommendations. And one of the recommendations is having more coordination with local governments and responding to homelessness. As you know, in our state budget, we give out the hat monies and we specifically say we want local governments to better coordinate amongst themselves.

So this bill delivers on that promise and has Sacramento county establishes a process where they would create a JPA, joint powers authority with the city and large with the county and the cities in Sacramento county to work on these issues together to better have a coordinated response. Respectfully ask your aye vote with me today is a representative from our Sacramento City Council, our vice mayor of the City of Sacramento, Katie Maple.

All right, thank you. Good afternoon. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Katie Maple and I probably serve as the vice mayor of the City of Sacramento. I'm here today in strong support of AB 2593 by Assembly Member Mccarty. There's no doubt that homelessness is the most important issue that's facing our region right now, and I'm sure that's certainly true in other areas of the state. It's something that requires both our compassion and a sense of urgency.

It's literally a matter of life and death. We have 200 unhoused people who die on the streets of Sacramento every year, many of them just blocks away from this very building. In my role in the City Council, I have the opportunity of serving on both the Sacramento Homeless Policy Council, which meets regularly or periodically to share best practices. And the informal Committee between the city and the county, which discusses the terms of our partnership agreement on homelessness.

Both are incredibly beneficial and underscore just how much great work is already happening in our region through the collaborative efforts of our continuum care agency, our local governments, and our community based organizations. This measure would be additive to those efforts. As noted in the analysis and by the Assembly Member, there was a Sacramento grand jury that noted that a JPA should be formed for this very action.

And by creating this formalized governing body with decision making power, I can see through the work that I'm doing every day on these bodies that that's really what we need. This is the right next step. So this is supported by groups that are doing work on the ground, including the Sacramento Regional Coalition and homelessness, and has no registered opposition. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in the audience that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. I'm doing a little audible here for volunteer group out of Sacramento. Who asked me to support this Bill on their behalf? Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair. My name is David O'Brien. I'm here in my capacity as a graduate student in the public policy and Administration program at Sacramento State University. We were pleased to do some work on this project with Vice Mayor Maple, and I'm pleased to enthusiastically support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition their primary or are not in opposition? Seeing none, take it to the Committee Members. Any Member want to add comment or questions? Assembly Member Ward.

Thank you for taking on this issue. You've done a lot to be able to help solve homelessness here in your hometown. And I guess I was curious about. Maybe I'll start with this question. What would you envision the decision making powers of this JPA to?

Yeah, that's an important question. And there was, there was some a bit consternation from some of the cities that we asked to do this when we came with this idea. So first of all, there would be no land use decision part of this JPA that, of course, would want to lie within the existing jurisdiction, they wouldn't be able to spend their HAP money. It would just be collaboration, coordination. I mean, many of you come from local government.

You serve on jpas related to, you know, air quality, transportation, wastewater. You know, this is the issue of our generation, where we don't have a structured way where these groups can work together. So it would just be a way for them to partnership pool resources and plan with the coordinated response.

So the Sacramento regional coalition to end homelessness, is this. What is the function and the makeup of that organization?

If I may?

So that's it. It's a community based organization. It's a nonprofit. So they're advocacy organization.

Yes.

Okay. And then your COC here, sort of. How would you characterize, maybe their activity and role in. In the ecosystem?

Sure. So Sacramento, the county has one nonprofit, Sacramento Steps Forward that runs its continuum of care, and they do wonderful work. In fact, they just came out with a regional action plan for our half dollar application. The problem, and this is my personal opinion, is that they don't have any ability or authority to make any governmental agency do anything. And that, in my opinion, is one of the biggest challenges that we have in our region is we create great plans.

But sometimes great plans sit on a shelf and collect dust. And I know that that's probably something we see here, too, at the state level. And so this is the next step to bring everyone together and to have some real decision making authority from these different, from the different agencies that would be a part of the JPA. So, literally, who's gonna do what? How is it gonna happen? Those kinds of conversations don't really happen right now.

And so I think that this is gonna be a great next step for that.

Well, they should be happening. You're right. And so I hope this is the vehicle that makes that happen. And I've noticed, you know, as I have been. So, by the way, background, Council Member. I was a Council Member in San Diego, was the chair of our COC, and at that time, in the late 2010s, really reformed that to be almost JPA like. Right. We have the county have seats there, the city has seats there.

And then, fortunately, because of half investments, you know, we became a vehicle to be able to help to make some of those decisions on. Our nonprofit partners were a part of this as well. And, of course, we had our federal functions that always exist, existed anyway. So there was. The coordination is key for making smart decisions. You're right that we had no land use authority there at that time, but because the county and the city were entitled to be at that table.

There was increased partnership, I guess, in making some of those decisions about where to cite facilities and then how to use investments that were coming in regionally. And I think you're trying to get to that end, too.

And I'm supporting this effort here today with maybe just if I made my own personal advice that we're not duplicating efforts or we're not continuing to create another overlay of regional body here, whether you have the Advisory Committee or your COC or possibly this JPA, that just adds time, Members time, and is diffusing in a way, maybe the conversation that you're trying to centralize. And hopefully this can be maybe the vehicle that brings everybody to the same table for better coordinations purposes.

And I appreciate your leadership on that here for this city, both of you. Thank you so much.

Any other Committee Member with comments, questions? Seeing none. Assembly Member McCarty, would you like to close?

Thank you for working with us on this issue. And, you know, this could potentially be a model for other counties. You know, in last year's budget, we said, hey, cities, counties, going forward, we're only going to give you money if you work together and have more regional planning. And so this does just this with a Sacramento county model. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

We do have a first and a second I want to thank you for presenting today. I will be voting aye. The motion is to pass to the House and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

7-0 the bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for the stratum. Thank you.

And with that, we go to item number 20 by assemblymember Ramos. EB 3276. Whenever you're ready, sir. Whenever you're ready, sir. Thank you. Mister Chairman and Committee Members, AB 3276 would expand on the changes we made last year to mitigation fee act and require that local governments post all related informational information regarding the collection of mitigation fees on their website. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

You don't have any witnesses in support? How about any Member of the public that wants to add on in support of the measures? Seeing none. How about any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Nobody in the audience wanted to add on his opposition? Seeing none. Committee Members? Assembly Member, Kalra.

Thank you, Senator Ramos. I will be supporting this Bill. And I want to wish Matt Haney and Blanca Pacheco a happy birthday.

Hey, hey, hey, hey. Happy birthday. Anybody else seeing? None. Would you like to close?

Thank you for the question. I do also wish them a happy birthday. Thank you so much. Ask for your aye vote

Ramos. Thank you for your. You work on this issue. We're voting I on the Bill. Do we have a motion a second? I made a motion and Wilson made a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Its's 8-0 The Bill is out. With that, we're going to go back and go on the calendar. The agenda first. We're going to do the consent calendar first and a second. May I please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

8-0 The consent calendar is out. Do you want us to go down the list or do you want to.

[Roll Call]