Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Senate Committee on Local Government will come to order. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us for this meeting. The Senate welcomes the public in person, and we are holding our committee hearings here in the state capitol. I ask all members of the committee be present in room 112 so we can establish our quorum and begin our meeting.

We had 24 bills on today's agenda, six of which are on consent. Those items are item three, AB 353 by Assemblymember Cervantes; item eight, AB 2962 by Assemblymember Papan; item 13, AB 2430 by Assemblymember Alvarez; item 14, AB 2455 by Assemblymember Gabriel; item 18, AB 2663 by Assemblymember Grayson; and item 23, AB 3116, by Assemblymember Garcia. A few housekeeping notes.

We have a special order for two items, ACA 10 and AB 2813 both by Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry. We will need all members to be present to vote on these items as soon as we are done with them, so I encourage members to arrive quickly. Senate Local Government Committee has a hard stop at 6:00 p.m. today due to Senate Floor session.

I encourage authors to be watching our hearing and be prompted when your bill is up next. Due to the hard stop at 6:00 p.m. depending on what is left over, we will either come back after Senate Floor session around 9:00 p.m. or we will roll over your bills to our next hearing on July 3. I encourage all authors and the public to be quick and to the point so we can get through our agenda today. I don't yet.

How many bills we got.

Except in my room. Okay, we don't yet have a quorum, but I appreciate the members who are here on time. Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum, but we will begin as a subcommittee so that our Assembly majority leader can proceed. Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, welcome. Try to get you out of here.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present my bills in special order today. ACA 1 is on the ballot this November. Nothing about today's proceedings will change that. ACA 10 simply amends ACA 1 to remove the special tax provisions.

I firmly believe that our local government should have multiple financing tools available to them, including special taxes. But sometimes you have to be willing to accept incremental improvements so we can accomplish as much as we can.

With your support of ACA 10 today, our constituents and local government will have bonding availability to them at a 55% vote threshold, giving them reasonable access to this tool for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. The historic accountability and transparency measures remain in ACA 1.

So let us remember, no other state or local initiatives require the level of accountability and transparency in ACA 1. Finally, ACA 10 memorializes components of the compromise that removed the opposition from the California Association of Realtors. Senators, a vote for ACA 10 is a vote to remove special taxes from the November ballot.

So, not supporting this measure today will make clear to your constituents that you want special taxes on the ballot in the fall. I'm asking you to support this compromise measure. It's simple and it's straightforward.

With me to testify in support today is Doug Subers, Director of Governmental Affairs for the California Professional Firefighters, JT Hardgermak, excuse me, Senior Policy Manager for Nonprofit Housing of Northern California.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters pleased to be here in strong support of ACA 10.

As noted by the author, ACA 10 would remove the special tax provisions and add additional mechanisms to amend ACA 1 to affirm the agreements that were made with various stakeholders that were part of discussions over the last year.

And we do appreciate the leadership of the majority leader and the Committee and all the stakeholders that engaged in this process throughout the last several months.

As we discussed last year, fire agencies across the state have put forth local bond measures or local special tax measures that have secured more than 55% of the vote but failed to reach the two-thirds threshold.

We think it is entirely appropriate for the voters to consider the bonded indebtedness threshold of 55% as put forth in ACA 1 as proposed to be amended by ACA 10. And for those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We're going to take a very quick break to establish quorum. Can we do that?

[Roll call] You have a quorum.

Thank you very much. You can proceed. The next speaker.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is JT Harechmack with the Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, or NPH. NPH is in strong support of ACA 10. We believe that it's an essential component to help California meet its housing production goals.

This measure has the potential to unlock billions of dollars in local revenue for housing and much-needed infrastructure projects. State faces historic homelessness and affordability crises, and voters are increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress on these issues.

Despite state government's best efforts at addressing our housing crisis, Californians continue to name economic conditions, homelessness and housing as the most important problems facing the people of California by a wide margin. Passing this bill today is the first step towards addressing these issues. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone who wishes to do a me too in support, please come up to the mic and your organization.

Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Thank you.

Galen Dobbins with the California Coalition for Rural Housing, strong support.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Keith Dunn here for the State Building and Construction Trades Council in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Catherine Charles on behalf of Housing California and the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Carlin Shelby on behalf of All Home in the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Amy Jenkins on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you.

Graciela Castillo-Krings, on behalf of the California Housing Consortium and Enterprise Community Partners in support.

Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, the San Diego Housing Commission, SPUR, United Way Greater Los Angeles, Eden Housing and California YIMBY, all in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Obed Franco on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing. Okay, no more in support. Yes? No. In opposition. Do we have anyone who wants to step up and speak in opposition? You're welcome to sit down or stay at the microphone.

I'll be very quick.

Okay.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. While we appreciate the removal of the special tax provision in ACA 10, we still remain opposed. Bonds are largely paid, are almost always paid back via property-related fees and assessments. So, it's not enough that a majority or even 55% approve it.

We need a consent, a broad consensus that includes a majority of the people that are actually going to pay it, property owners. And we believe the two-thirds best does that. So, we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next in opposition.

And Jaime Minor, the California Stormwater Quality Association. We are a bit of a tweener, opposed and less amended position, you know, have no issue with the constitutional amendment, just have concerns with the definition of public infrastructure and specifically the exclusion of stormwater infrastructure.

Just given a lot of the complexities around Prop 2, that is important to our members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Tobias Wilkin with the California Taxpayers Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll come to the dais. Members, comments or questions?

Sort of, I guess. You made a comment that if we don't vote for this, we're somehow supporting ACA 1, including something you took out. You amended to do this. Because I don't support that either. I'm not a big fan of being told that that's what we're doing or that being characterized as that being what we're doing.

We just had a Supreme Court throw out the ability for people to weigh in on their tax measure that they put on the ballot. And given that, I'm not really in favor of doing anything to what they've already done, which has put these measures into place a long time ago.

And since we're not going to let them vote to keep or make it more restrictive, I'm not going to support making it less restrictive either. So, that's why I won't be. It's not because the provision that you took out, that means zero to me and what we've been doing. So, anyway, I'm sorry, I can't support this tax.

At the end of the day, it is the ability to raise taxes and make it easier instead of harder. And I realize it's been very difficult, but many cities have passed their bonds for schools and things like that, that people think that are important in order to get that.

But the other part of that is how do we go about getting some of these things done and why do we keep making it more and more expensive for public infrastructure to be put in place? Just, you know, just because we can go borrow money and then use that money to do it. And it doesn't really, the public doesn't feel it as much.

Doesn't mean we're still not, we're spending their money and we're driving costs to do that with all of the other regulatory issues and the labor issues, all those things that get put into the building of all this infrastructure that we now want to take bonds out for and make it easier to take bonds out for.

So, I won't be supporting this. And, you know, I would like people to have a say in both ways. If we're only going to have a one-way door, I'm just more intent with leaving it the way it is.

Thank you. Anyone else? No? Senator Wiener.

So, I really just want to thank the author for, I don't even know how many years she's been working on this. How many? Five, six, seven? And we came in together in 2016, and I think it was shortly after that you've been working on this.

And I'm so appreciative that you've just kept going and not given up with all of the rollercoaster that this is been. But it's been a roller coaster because it's a big deal. Right?

This is a significant, positive change to recognize that if we actually want local government to be able to serve the needs of people, fire protection, police, health services, having county hospitals, they're not going to fall down in an earthquake, having rec centers and pools and all the things that everyone wants local government to do that we need to stop preventing them from doing it.

And we know that the two-thirds on these bonds. How many bonds? And especially because the Legislature completely screwed up when we allowed our former colleague to pass a bill to put all sorts of extraneous language and the 75-word ballot label, which hopefully we'll fix one day.

But we've made it progressively harder and harder for cities to actually function and to engage in municipal finance, special districts, too. And this will help fix that so people can have the local services and infrastructure that they should have. So, thank you for doing it.

I'll be honest, as I've expressed to you, I don't like the compromise with the realtors. I'll say that if the realtors are here, I think the realtor's proposal, I don't agree with it. I've said this before as housing chair because they tried to get this into other bills. And so, I don't like that.

However, I'm a realist, and I understand that you're doing what you need to do to achieve the most good for the most number of people. And so, I'm very appreciative of that, and I'm happy to move the bill.

Okay. The bill has been moved by Senator Wehner. Senator Dahle.

I'd just like to make a comment that's or an observation, maybe, that we've seen a really big trend in the fact that we don't have a lot of people actually owning property and homes, and which is where the tax base comes from, is from assessment, and we've seen hedge funds and all kinds of other investors that own thousands and thousands of homes.

And that's been an issue in California. So, when you put something on the ballot and most people are, it's not affecting them. If you're a renter, this doesn't affect you, it will indirectly affect you. By the cost of rent going up so there's less people that are owners means that you have less impact.

It's the impacts on a smaller group. So, I just want to let you know that this will affect, that this will affect the most people vote for it, because if you don't have a property, you don't get an assessment. You get it indirectly, but you don't know it. So they go, oh, yeah, that's great.

I'm going to raise my local tax because it doesn't affect me because I'm renting. But the landowner gets the assessment. And so, the less landowners you have, the more people can vote to put taxes on them. But it's indirect cost for housing to go up. So, I just want to just make that point for the record.

Great. We have a motion on the bill. Would you like to say any closing remarks?

Oh, I have so many remarks, but let's be honest, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay, can we move with calling the roll call?

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] 4 to 2.

We'll leave that open.

Thank you very much. We'll move on to item number two, AB 20813.

Well, thank you once again, Madam Chair Members. AB 20813 is a companion measure to ACA one and will only, only become operative if ACA one is approved by the voters in November. This Bill does nothing to change the vote threshold for bonds AB 20813. It simply furthers the statutory accountability and transparency measures in ACA one.

And it memorializes the components of a compromise with the California Association of Realtors to remove their opposition to AB 20813 and ACA 10, and they therefore will not be opposing ACA one in November, whether or not you voted for ACA one, this builds upon our efforts to increase oversight and accountability in the initiative.

If voters approve ACA one, certainly all of us want it to be as accountable and transparent as possible. With me to testify and support is Doug Subers, Director of government affairs for the California Professional Firefighters, and JT Harnick, senior policy manager for the nonprofit Housing of Northern California.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Doug Suberson, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in strong support of this measure. I won't repeat what I said previously or what the majority leader said.

I will just note that this measure does include more definition on the citizens oversight commissions that are required as a result of ACA one is proposed to be amended by ACA 10 useful life provisions on the expenditure on all facilities or public infrastructure and equipment that would be purchased for the use for fire suppression or emergency response.

Specific provisions regarding auditing requirements that are required at the state level. It will make sense memorialized indebtedness caps of local jurisdictions as they have them today. And it provides an important mechanism to allow fire districts to pursue a measure should ACA one pass at the ballot. So for those reasons, we would respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you very much. Yes.

One more speaker, JT Herchmack with the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, NPH in strong support of this measure. Our nonprofit Members who developed affordable housing are strong stewards of public money. And welcome the opportunity to make this process transparent and accountable to the public. Thank you so much.

Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 20813?

Keith Dunn. On behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. Asking for your support.

Danita Stromgren, volunteer with AARP California. On behalf of our 3.2 million Members in strong support.

Good afternoon. Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association and strong support.

Graciela Castillo Krings on behalf of California Housing Consortium and enterprise community partners in support.

Kathryn Charles again, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and Housing California. And support.

Holly DeJesus with Lighthouse public affairs. On behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission. Spur United Way, Greater Los Angeles. Eden Housing California. YIMBY and I want to thank the author for the last set of amendments that called out the use of the funds for acquisition for sale units. On behalf of Habitat for Humanity California. Thank you.

Obed Franco. On behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the California Fire District. Sorry. The fire District Association of California in support.

Thank you. Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of Local Housing Finance agencies in support. Thank you very much.

Members. Comments? Questions? zero, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Before we come to the Members opposition. Is there anyone in opposition to AB 20813?

Scott Koppen, Howard Drivers Taxpayers Association in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Any more questions or comments, Members? Okay, Senator Glazer moves the Bill. Closing remarks simply ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, please do. The roll call motion is to pass to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call] Five to one, close the roll.

Thank you very much. And we're gonna go back to the first. The first Bill, ACA one or 10? Yeah. Wrong. Sorry, the wrong one. Okay, we're going to go back to ace item number one, ACA, 10 further votes.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is 422, with the chair voting aye. Senator Skinner. Skinner, I. Five to two.

Okay. Close the roll on these two bills. But I just want the roll to be upheld.

Someone is waiting here. Yes, right. There's nobody else here presenting their bills. Okay, which item? Which item is he? 19. You're a lucky guy today. Okay. Assemblymember Kalra will be presenting item 19. AB 2682 go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 2682 would amend the Santa Clara Valley Open Space authorities enabling act to improve its functions and align them with similar jurisdictions.

First, the bill would allow the authority to purchase lands and fee title from willing cellars in east of the westernmost ridge line of the Diablo range in the same manner that it already acquires lands throughout the rest of its jurisdiction.

Second, the bill allows the authority to authorize a General manager to bind the district to certain contracts like other regional and open space districts are able to do. Third, the bill increases the contracting threshold for materials and equipment. As these amounts were last set in 2012, this does not change the contracting thresholds for construction.

Fourth, the bill would enable the authority to finance facilities and issue bonds pursuant to the Mello Ruse Community Facilities Act of 1982. Lastly, AB 2682 amends the authorities uniformity clause to allow them to charge lower tax rates to seniors. This is the same ability school districts have with these updates to their enabling act.

AB 2682 will provide flexibility and greater efficiencies to the authority and help facilitate their mission to conserve the natural environment, support sustainable agriculture and connect people to nature. With me to testify and support is Mark Landgraf, Assistant General manager with the Open Space Authority.

Madam Chair, Committee Members Mark Landgraf, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. We're grateful to Assemblymember Kalra for authoring this legislation that updates our enabling act, which was established by the state Legislature in 1993.

Our independent special district serves 1.4 million constituents, and this set of updates would allow us to better serve those constituents through, as Assemblymember Kalra indicated, improved ability to protect wildlife habitat and conductivity in the Diablo Mountains in support of state 30 by 30 goals to update our general manager expenditure authority to make those aligned with those of other open space districts and the other provisions that the Assembly Member mentioned.

We really appreciate your allowing us to move this forward at this time, and I urge your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Anyone else in support, please step up.

Good afternoon, chair Members Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support.

Holly Fraumeni, Light House Public Affairs on behalf of Valley water, in support.

Okay, we're on opposition now. Yes, thank you. All right. At this time, is there anybody who would like to speak in opposition to this as a lead witness? That means you get a couple of minutes get to sit up here. It's really fun. Okay.

If not, I will entertain people who would just want to be me toos up at the thing in opposition to this bill. That's where you all scramble up and you just say your name, where your organization rep and that you oppose.

And since they're not doing that, we're going to bring it back to the dice for any questions. Senator Glazer.

Thank you. I'm very supportive of this work that you are doing. It's fantastic. I just had one simple question, which is that while this legislation will provide authorization, does it still require a vote of the board to specifically incorporate these new conditions and spending? Is that still a board decision? Your microphone is not.

Mic on, mic on.

There you go.

A little closer. Okay, so, thank you for the question. Our board has approved the direction that we are currently taking with this legislation. So that approval has already been authorized by our board.

Right. But do they take an action then, if this Bill passes, do they say, okay, we're authorizing, we're raising the level in which our Executive can. Is there some, their sponsors, the Bill? I know it almost implies that they're supportive, but I'm just wondering if there's an.

If there's an opportunity for the public to engage in this decision. That's really what I'm trying to get to.

Right. So there's no additional board authorization required to provide to put this into statute. That said, there have been two opportunities for the public to engage, as the board has heard this item multiple times over the past six months.

Okay, so the public has had an opportunity. They may not in the future if this passes. They could, but they could obviously bring it back as an agenda item if someone was distressed about the new authorization. That's correct. And with that, at the appropriate time, I'm happy to move the bill.

Thank you. Any questions?

Anybody have any questions? No, I'll entertain a motion. Did you make a motion? There has been a motion. Bye, Senator Glazer, so you may call. Oh, I'm sorry. You want to close?

Respectuflly ask for an aye vote.

You can go ahead and take roll. Thank you.

Motion is to pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call] Three to one? Three to two.

Okay, we'll keep that measure open for people to add on. Three to two right now. All right, next up, it looks like, oh, you have another bill. That's correct. Go ahead and present. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I want to thank the Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill, and I'll be accepting the Committee amendments today. AB 3122 is a simple measure that modifies the 15% rule in SB 35 to allow housing projects the flexibility to reduce the size of a project to better respond to market needs or increase the unit count to take advantage of changes in the State Density Bonus Law.

Under current law, approved SB 35 projects may be modified pursuant to the objective planning standards that were in place at the time of original approval, but only if the square footage of construction or unit count changes by less than 15%. Post pandemic has revealed changing market trends such as less demand for office space or rising cost of construction, leading developers to revise the project and make adjustments to complete the project. These current limitations are hampering the ability to change projects to reflect the current market realities and ultimately having the perverse effect of needing to include more square footage than the market can bear.

AB 3122 modifies the 15% rule in SB 35 to make the cap only apply to increases in square footage in excess of 15% and decreases in unit count that exceed 15%. AB 3122 will clarify the process, will help facilitate the right sizing of housing projects, move forward, and encourage more housing to be developed without unnecessary delays. This Bill has received bipartisan support in the Assembly as well as Senate Housing, and here to testify and support is Holly Fraumeni de Jesus on behalf of our Bill sponsor, SPUR.

You're still not on. Let's see if we can get that. Bring it closer. Is she on? There we go. Welcome.

Can you hear me? There it is.

Yes.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs. Again on behalf of SPUR. That's the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Research Association. SPUR has been a proud co sponsor of many of the measures that are listed in your analysis that have passed since the original passage of SB 35. All of these measures, including AB 3122, are aimed at keeping this policy to continue to be workable and ensure that projects that are attempting to use SB 35 can remain feasible.

AB 3122 will create just modest flexibility for developers to redesign and modify their projects to meet the current real estate demands, as mentioned by the author. But also reminder to the Committee, these projects still must comply with underlining zoning. That is the essence and the original objection - the original purpose of SB 35 is that the projects do have to still comply with underlining zoning. We urge your aye vote.

Very good. And this is your only witness. Excellent. Okay. At this time, we'll take 'Me Toos' in favor of this Bill and come on up. State your name, the organization you represent, and that you like this Bill a lot.

I like this Bill a lot. Graciela Castillo-Krings on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, really want to say thank you to policy consultants and Assemblymember Kalra for working with us and getting a small fix in. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of Cal YIMBY, CivicWell, ... and Sandhill Properties in support. Thank you.

Thank you for consolidating those supporters. All right, at this time, is there anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to this Bill as a lead witness? If not, are there anybody who wishes to - is there anybody who wishes to come up - it's singular - to come up to the microphone there and state your objection to the Bill. If there isn't, we'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or a motion. We have a motion to move the Bill by Senator Dahle. Would you like to close?

I just would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

That's a great closing. Go ahead and call roll. Thank you.

Motion is due passed as amendment to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Five to zero.

Okay. Okay, yeah, that measure will be on call, and I think we're gonna be staying in file order at this time. So, Mister. Oh, yes, Miss Cervantes, you are up with item four, which is AB 1807.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1807, which will make updates to the existing Riverside County Citizens Redistricting Commission. Governor Newsom signed my bill, AB 1307, into law in 2022. That bill created the Riverside County Redistricting Commission, which is empowered to redraw district boundaries for the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.

The commission would first be constituted after the next census in 2030 and would be reconstituted after every decennial census thereafter. The introduction of 1307 really kicked off the current wave of county redistricting committee bills that we are currently seeing.

In recent years, the committee approved independent redistricting commissions for Fresno, Kern, Orange, Sacramento counties, and the governor signed those bills into law. However, AB 34 by Assemblymember Valencia and SB 314 by Senator Ashby contained very useful innovations that none of the previous county redistricting commission bills included. And both of those bills were signed by the governor last year.

So the purpose of 1807 is to import many of those innovations to the Riverside County Citizens Redistricting Commission. This includes updating the redistricting criteria to really reflect the changes made by the enactment of the Fair Maps Act of 2023, which I was a proud author of.

AB 1807 would also impose stronger prohibitions on the ability of commissioners to have communications about redistricting issues outside of the public meeting of the commission. The bill would also require the commission to translate both on its website and many of the written materials it distributes into languages spoken by at least 3% of the total voting-age residents of Riverside County. The bill would also impose more restrictions on the activities of commissioners.

For instance, three years after being appointed to the commission, commissioners would not be able to accept employment from a candidate for office or an elected official of Riverside County. Commissioners would also be prohibited from receiving non-competitive bid contracts from Riverside County.

Finally, while serving on the commission, commissioners would be barred from endorsing, working for, or making financial contributions to the campaign of a candidate for elected office for Riverside County. These updates will make the registry process for the Board of Supervisors in Riverside County Fair, more accessible and more transparent, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. Did you bring anybody as a witness tonight? Oh, okay. You did not. Excellent. Do we have anybody who would like to come and be a me-too in support of this bill? If you want to come up to the microphone and do so now.

Is there anybody who wants to speak in opposition as a lead witness? If not, anybody wants to come up to the microphone? If not, we'll bring it back to the dais. Anybody have questions? We have a motion to move the bill. I believe I heard Senator Wiener first. Did you move the bill, Mr. Wiener? Okay, well, just trying to evenly distribute. With that, we have a motion by Mr. Wiener. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote, Senators.

All right. And this is a do pass to appropriations. Go ahead and call roll.

[Roll Call]

The bill will remain on call and for others to add on. That brings us to item number five, AB 1801 by Assemblymember Jackson. Welcome, Mr. Jackson.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. Committee Members AB 1801. First, I want to say that I'll be accepting the Committee's amendments. Thank you to the Committee Chair and staff for working with us as we continue to strengthen this bill.

AB 1801 is a common sense measure that provides clarity to existing law by allowing nonprofits the ability to use their property to build needed office space and parking in the same location as their supportive housing complexes. AB 1801 will help our nonprofits to continue in their work while consolidating.

So that if they have, if they own property, but they are unable to have their headquarters, then they have to use existing resources to rent or lease or other things. And we want to be able to make sure that particularly nonprofits of all sizes can be able to use their dollars more effectively.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you very much for the presentation. Do you have anybody that is going to be testifying as a lead witness? Is there anybody out there who wants to testify as lead witness? I'll give you two minutes. No, you want to come up to the microphone at this time and do me twos in favor of the bill.

Just name organization you represent and that you really like the bill.

Good afternoon, Mister Vice Chair and Members. Katherine Charles, on behalf of House in California in support.

Great. Thank you very much. All right, at this time, anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to this bill as a lead witness, if not anybody wants to come up to the microphone and just say, I oppose there being none. Back to the dais. Any questions or a motion?

We have a motion by Senator Glazer and this is do pass as amended to. You're going to find out in a minute. Go ahead and call roll.

Motion is to pass this amendment to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that has five votes, and we're gonna leave it open for others to add on later on. Assembly Member Waldron, welcome. This is item number six, AB 1819.

Thank you. Moving right along. Mr. Chair and Members, I would like to thank the Committee Chair for working with me on this bill, and firstly, I am accepting committee amendments. AB 1819 allows for the creation of special infrastructure financing districts in areas characterized as high or very high fire hazard severity zones, and how this all came about, historically, we had tried numerous times to get budget allocations to help fund heavy equipment and firefighting equipment in backcountry high fire risk areas.

And we found a study several years ago that shows that in San Diego County--and it relates statewide as well--almost 25 percent of wildfires in the backcountry are caused by vehicles pulling off the roadway. So the concern is to make sure we're getting those backcountry roads cleared of vegetation along the side and that could cut down a substantial amount of the fires that we are experiencing. By directing resources towards these high-risk areas, AB 1819 ensures that the most vulnerable communities are better protected against future wildfires.

These districts will generate funds specifically for wildfire mitigation efforts, such as heavy equipment to clear vegetation, creating fire breaks, and hardening infrastructure. As we've seen in recent years, the frequency and intensity of wildfires in California has posed significant risk to lives, properties, and our environment. Last year, over 7,000 fires burned close to 325,000 acres.

This is a clear signal that our current efforts must go further. In a time where our budget is in a deficit, creating a program that does not raise taxes or impact the state budget makes sense. Please welcome Fire Chief Joe Napier from Valley Center Fire Protection District to discuss the critical importance of AB 1819 for wildfire mitigation. And we also have Marcus Detwiler with the Special Districts Association.

Welcome to the witnesses, and if you can keep it fairly brief, that would be awesome. We have a long agenda today. Thank you.

I'll do my best, sir. Thank you. Assembly Member Waldron, and to the Chair and to the Committee, thank you for having me here. Again, Joe Napier. I'm the Fire Chief of the Valley Center Fire Protection District, which is an 85 square mile special district at the base of Palomar Mountain in North San Diego County, and I'm here to support AB 1819, which is written and designed to provide the much-needed and enhanced instrument to fund mitigation efforts against the devastating wildfires that we've seen in the State of California.

During my 38-year career, over 38 years in the fire service, I've seen firsthand the changes in climate and specifically the changes in fire behavior that has resulted in the loss of life, homes, and businesses throughout our beautiful state. It's my hope that this bill goes through this important process with your aye vote to give special districts, counties, and cities who are in the high or very high severity risk zones the ability to fund fire-hardened facilities, to improve fire response times to keep small fires small, to purchase vitally needed equipment to proactively perform vegetation management.

An example of that is recently we took down a 20-acre dead Valencia grove in Valley Center and they had to import the equipment from Texas and then return it back to Texas. So we don't have enough equipment to do these fire break and vegetation management.

The direct result of clearing vegetation using a combination of prescribed burning and brush clearing using this vital equipment will provide a much-needed fire breaks to mitigate and prevent a rapid spread of wildfire from our wildfire backcountry to urban areas to suburban areas with the real potential of fire spread all the way into metropolitan areas and the Great Pacific Fire Break.

I also hope that the results of these efforts will result in stabilizing the increase in fire insurance that our ratepayers are seeing throughout the State of California, giving homeowners and businesses financial relief and the peace of mind knowing that they are living and working in a fire-safe community through planning, funding, and mitigation. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and we have a second lead witnessed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this important bill forward. I'm here to speak in support. Public agencies, including municipal and district fire agencies and locally owned public utilities, are important stakeholders and partners in the stakes' fight against the devastating impacts of increasingly hazardous wildfires.

As such, it is entirely appropriate that we ensure that these agencies have every financial tool available at their disposal, including enhanced infrastructure financing districts. These districts, or EIFDs, are a form of tax increment financing that allow the districts to issue bonds for which the proceeds are used to fund specified public facilities and public projects.

Crucially, EIFDs are structured based on the voluntary participation of the affected taxing jurisdictions, whereas previous iterations of tax increment financing obligated taxing jurisdictions to forfeit portions of their shares of property tax revenue. By structuring it in this way, this bill avoids diverting any local revenue and empowers agencies to utilize this financing tool and provides them with that ability to finance those specified purchases, those facilities, those projects.

This bill specifically would provide that for districts located in at least partially in high or very high fire hazard severity zones, the ability to finance the undergrounding of public utilities, the heavy equipment used for vegetation and fire breaks, as well as equipment used for the suppression and fighting of fire subject to limitations. For these reasons, we would respectfully urge your yes vote on this measure and once again thank the Assembly Member for bringing this bill forward.

All right, thank you both for your testimony. At this time, we'll go to the audience for any MeToos. Anybody that is in support of the bill and would like to state so, please come to the mic. I don't see anybody scrambling up here. Does anybody dare--I mean, does anybody want to speak against this bill? No? Okay. Anybody want to come to the mic and just be a MeToo against it? No. Okay. We'll bring it back to the dais. We have a motion to move the bill from Senator Dahle. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I urge an aye vote on getting the ability for some funding for this very important issue. Thank you.

And I can say as a fire service professional previous, not quite as many years as that, but that this is desperately needed, especially for the smaller districts in those areas and have a lot of backcountry, and therefore, a lot of need for the equipment and somehow be able to attain it. So this is do pass as amended to the floor, and so you may call roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay, that measure has got five votes, and we're gonna keep it on call for others to come in and and add on. Thank you. Ms. Papan. Assembly Member Papan, you're next. AB 1827. Sorry, Joe. Yeah. We're trying to stay in file order, so if she goes relatively quickly, boom, you're next.

My pleasure to bump JP. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1827, which is all about keeping water rates fair. AB 1827 will help preserve water providers' ability to fairly allocate costs, thereby protecting low water users from the stress of high water bills. In every community, there are water consumers who use more water than others and those who use less. It's just a fact of life.

Water customers who use more water than others within the same class increase a water supplier's overall cost of providing service due to the higher costs associated with building, operating, and maintaining a larger water system that can meet those larger water demands.

Prop 218 allows water suppliers to recoup the legitimate costs attributable to that higher water use from those higher water-using customers. Recent lawsuits, however, have sought to call this into question. Trial courts have attempted to impose new and increasingly granular requirements beyond those required by Prop 218 on what suppliers who seek to justify charging higher water users for the costs associated with their higher water use.

AB 1827 will bring clarity to this issue as it simply reaffirms that California's water suppliers can continue to include the incrementally higher cost of water service within the water rates charged to customers who drive up those costs. AB 1827 does not permit a water supplier to violate Prop 218.

It simply preserves Prop 218's proportionality and cost of service principles, allowing water suppliers to continue using the reasonable and well-accepted methods they have used for decades. With me today, I have Ms. Christine Compton with the Irvine Ranch Water District and Cody Phillips with the California Coastkeeper Alliance to speak further on the importance of AB 1827.

Welcome to our two presenters. If you could keep it to five minutes between the two of you--split it up however you'd like--that would help us move the meeting along. Thank you for being here.

Thank you so much. I'm Christine Compton. I'm the Director of Strategic Communications and Advocacy and the Deputy General Counsel at Irvine Ranch Water District. We are, like the Assemblywoman said, the co-sponsors of this bill. We're a retail water agency serving the middle 20 percent of Orange County, and water suppliers design and maintain a water system to ensure they're meeting the maximum possible demand of their customers on any given day, any given hour, usually the hottest day, hottest hour of the year.

So when we design and operate those systems, we're taking into making sure that every customer has reliable service when they turn on their tap. Because of this, water users that use more water than other customers or have a larger meter, we have to build a larger system to ensure we can make sure that we're supplying everybody that reliable water. AB 1827 is fundamentally about who should pay for those costs and what tools a water supplier can use for allocating those costs consistent with Prop 218 amongst customers.

Water agencies use a variety of methods throughout, you know, and do rates a little bit differently from agency to agency, but universally, we all use meter size and peaking factors in some way to allocate those costs. And so this bill is about reaffirming that.

We don't anticipate that this will raise water rates or change them in any way across the state, and it won't allow for targeting of any customer type against another. It's simply about making sure that the tools that have been used for decades, we can continue to use. I certainly hope that you'll support it today.

Thank you very much. Next?

Yeah. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Cody Phillips. I'm a Staff Attorney with California CoastKeeper Alliance. We represent waterkeeper organizations throughout the state who are dedicated to swimmable, fishable, and drinkable water for all of, and a big portion of drinkable water has to be affordable water.

Just bringing it back here, Prop 218 mandates that water rates, quote, 'shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel,' and this bill just attempts to clarify what it means to attribute the cost of service to a parcel, and to build on why this is important for public utilities, water rate design can take many shapes and is an important conservation and equity tool.

Uniform rates, for example, are like gas prices. You just pay per gallon. Tiered rates, by comparison, increase the price per gallon when you enter specific tiers of water use. In both instances, you pay more for the water you use, but tiered rates have the added benefit of sending a clear signal to customers that above a certain threshold, water is going to get more expensive.

Rate structures, when designed correctly, not only incentivize conservation and efficiency, but they also help to allocate the incremental cost of higher water use on those customers that drive the need for a system capable of meeting that higher water use. In other words, they assign to parcels the proportional cost of service attributable to that parcel.

Under Prop 218's proportionality requirement, the perfect compliance scenario would be to track every individual water molecule and exactly when those molecules are used to perfectly map out the exact costs each parcel places on the system, and that is an impossible standard. Accordingly, California courts have repeatedly said that Prop 218 does not require perfection.

And there's an understanding that the methods that reasonably assess the cost of service attributable to a parcel comply with this proportionality requirement. But as we've said, what we've seen is that courts have leaned more into the perfect scenario requirements where rate structures have to be justified based on specific time of use metering and molecule by molecule data, else they violate Prop 218.

And this bill just tries to clarify that Prop 218's proportionality requirement is not so stringent and that water suppliers may use methods that reasonably, not perfectly, assess the cost of service attributed tool parcel. So with that, I urge your aye vote on this bill.

Very good. Thank you very much for your testimony. At this time, we'll take MeToos in favor of the measure. Your name, the organization you represent, and thank you so much for being lined up already.

Pilar Onate-Quintana, here on behalf of the East Valley Water District, in support, and I've also been asked to convey the support of the Association of California Water Agencies.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Ashley Walker with Nossaman, on behalf of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, in support.

Jaime Minor, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District and Santa Margarita Water District, in support. Thanks.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Santa Rosa and the Town of Hillsborough, in support.

Good afternoon. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association and the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support.

Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Kristy Foy with Arnold and Associates, here on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District, in strong support.

Hi. Debbie Michel, on behalf of East Bay Municipal Utility District, in support.

MJ Kushner with Community Water Center, in support.

Beth Olhasso for Cucamonga Valley Water District, in support.

Obed Franco, on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District, in support.

Thank you. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, CCEEB, in support. Thank you.

Good. Thank you very much. At this time, we will take anybody who wishes to be a lead witness on opposition to this. You can either come to the mic or come up and sit down at the chair.

I will be very quick.

Thank you.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. We do not believe this bill is declaratory of existing law, and in some ways, we think it directly conflicts with Proposition 218, and it's all related to a current court case, and we think that we should just simply let the courts decide this because they will anyways, and this bill is not necessary. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else who wishes to act as a lead witness? A lot of activity up there. All right. I don't see any lead witnesses coming in opposition, so anybody who wishes to express their opposition in just a MeToo fashion? No? Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais for any questions, comments, a motion. Okay. Anybody?

Okay, I do have a couple of questions really quick. Whenever you're doing tiered rate structures, there is a formula that's used to determine per household because some houses have four people, some houses have two people, and it also can be--it gets manipulated if there are different billing cycles, according to the water district.

And this can actually, as you get into higher tiered rates, if that is, if you have a 45-day period one time, and then next month it's a 28-day period, people get charged like they're using a higher tiered rate. How are they proposing to structure these rates so that they are consistent and they're true to what the people are that are in, you know, how many people are in a house? Because usually it was like 55 gallons per person per day, and then the formula went from there.

So, Senator, there are different types of tiered rates. One which you described as a budget-based rate structure, and in fact, IRWD has a budget-based rate structure. We, like most folks that have a budget-based rate structure--and there's only a small handful of us that have that sort of tiered rates--we actually, for, you know, if it's a 30-day period for the bill versus a 36, we pro-rate it so they're getting the same amount. We also provide, we make certain assumptions about the number of people in a household.

So, for example, in a single family home, we assume four. However, I grew up in a family with eight children, so there were ten of us in the household, and so my family was able to get a variance to accommodate. So you're getting that water budget for the total household without penalizing somebody that goes over it. Same with the landscape area. So you're not paying for that higher use in a budget-based rate structure until you go over the budget to give that sort--all of those factors account.

Right. And thank you for clarifying that because that's exactly how it's supposed to be done, but I have seen it done in instances, especially when you have water metering companies that do it the other way, and people wind up paying way more for water than they should be paying one month and then underpaying the next, and it can be as much as 1,000 dollars a year.

So that's my concern about these tiered rate structures. If somebody can show me that everybody is doing it the way it's supposed to be done, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm yet to see that, so I'm a little concerned about it. This is a do pass to the floor, so at this time, we go ahead and--did you want to close?

Just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. And, yeah, this has been moved by Senator Glazer.

[Roll Call]. Two to two.

Okay. That has--

You may start when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. First, let me begin by accepting the Committee amendments which ensure transparency by requiring that any compensation increase occurs during an open, regular meeting at the air district.

I want to thank the Committee staff and the Chair and all the Members for your all the work being done on this bill, and I am proud to present AB 2522 which increases the maximum compensation for board Members for various air districts, including the South Coast, Sacramento, San Diego, Bay Area, and the unified air districts.

Moreover, the bill authorizes a yearly increase in compensation not to exceed either 5% or inflation, up to 10%. Air District Board Members are dedicated public servants entrusted with improving air quality and establishing effective clean air programs despite their importance to our environment the compensation limit to the board Members was last set in the 1980s.

For example, compensation limits for South Coast AQMD was last amended in 1987 or 37 years ago. At this time, the compensation limit was set at $100 per day, not exceeding $1,000 per month. Over time, this figure has diminished with inflation and does not reflect the public service these board Members provide.

This bill would increase its figures to $200 a day, at most $2,000 a month, and provide that the board may further increase compensation by 5% or inflation up to 10%. Last year, SB 329 similarly increased the compensation limits for City Council Members.

This bill is sponsored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, supported by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, which represents California's 35 local air districts, and there is no registered opposition.

To testify in support of AB 2522 is senior public affairs manager for the South Coast AQMD, Philip Crabbe and Brendan Tuig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, I would respectfully request and aye vote.

All right, welcome, both of you, and the same thing if you. We got five minutes. If you can split it up however you'd like, go ahead.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Philip Crabbe. I represent South Coast AQMD and we are in strong support of AB 2522 and serve as the bill's sponsor.

We appreciate working with the author and Committee to amend the bill to specify that any increase in compensation must go through a public process. Hopefully, these amendments address Senator Dahle's comments on the bill at the last Committee hearing.

In general, compensation limits for Air District Board Members have not increased since the 1980s, last being set at $100 based on estimated inflation, an equivalent amount in 2024 will be over $270 per day. The bill would double current limits to modernized compensation to be more comparable to levels set nearly 40 years ago.

Air District Board Members throughout the state are dedicated in their efforts to clean the air and protect public health at the local level. They are public servants who travel long distances and perform an important public service with nominal compensation.

The outdated per deem limits present challenges for Air District Board Members who have other essential duties to perform as local elected officials or are private citizens with existing careers that provide their primary financial support. AB 2522 also creates an opportunity to enhance environmental equity in environmental governance.

Improved financial incentives could attract a more comprehensive array of candidates, including those from underrepresented and vulnerable communities. The bill enhances local control by empowering local agencies to appropriately update per diem rates going forward without impacting the state budget.

This is in line with SB 329, Dodd, signed into law in 2023 that more than tripled compensation limits for City Council Members. We respectfully request your support for this important bill. Thank you.

All right, next speaker, Mister Chair and Members. Brendan Tuig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts in support. My colleague, Mister Crabbe has done a good job, I think, making the case for this.

We think it's a reasonable approach, a transparent approach to adjusting these Cold War era rates, and we urge your aye vote.

Cold War era rates. All right, thank you very much for your testimony and for being keeping it brief at this time. We'll take me toos in favor of this bill if you come on up to the mic state. So I don't see anybody scrambling up here. So let's go to opposition.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak as an opposition lead opponent? Our lead witness? No? Okay. Anybody want to just say, I don't. I oppose this bill at the microphone? No, we don't have that. Let's bring it back to the dice. Questions. Mister Glazer.

I know the intentions are good in terms of trying to get a good quality board that serve and that their work is really important and valuable to us. But I must admit, I'm having trouble with it. I'd like to ask the South Coast Air Quality representative a question.

You have reps from throughout the region on your board, right? So I look at the membership. They all have jobs that they're paid for. I mean, many of them do. So you have a member from the Board of Supervisors from Los Angeles. How much is that person paid?

I mean, a lot of money. There's five of them. I don't know what the number is. And when were their salaries set? You probably don't know that, too. Okay. I imagine it wasn't set in the Cold War. Probably not. You have members from the Los Angeles City Council on the board. What's their compensation?

I don't know. Sorry sir.

Sorry, sir, I don't know that number.

I happen to know generally what it is. I think it matches a Superior Court judge. I think that's over $200,000 a year, and it adjusts. So I'm struggling because many of your board members are paid enormous amounts of money in their responsibilities as public officials.

Then they get to be appointed to your board, and yet they may not have all the time you'd like them to have, but it's like an extra bonus in their life, because now we're going to pay them. Gotta go from 12,000 to 20 something thousand dollars.

So it's not like these are impoverished individuals that have no job, and therefore you gotta compensate them. So this is the trouble that I'm having with this bill. Best of intentions. These are great public servants that are serving in these wards, but that's the struggle I'm having.

And if you don't know what your board members are paid, I think that's a blind spot, because this isn't all that they're making, and that's my struggle. So the author can address it if she wishes.

I know her intentions are the best here, but that's the trouble I'm having with this broad based increase that is being proposed before us. Thank you.

Anybody else have questions? Did you want to answer? You want to answer in your closing or. Go ahead.

Oh, just to respond, just briefly. So, no absolute points well taken. We do have a diverse array of board members throughout the state. So that includes also folks that work for nonprofits, local City Council Members who are just paid more of a per diem level. There's a combination in terms of who serves.

Also that's one of the aspects of the bill is providing for the folks that might get appointed to the board in different situations. Providing a little bit more compensation might make it more accessible in terms of an opportunity that they might present to put themselves forward, to be represented on the board or to be appointed.

It's a fair comment, but this measure doesn't have any of those differentials in it. So if you were saying that if you have an existing job that pays you, that this doesn't cover your per diem, unless you're going to subtract it from the money you're making from this is like a double dipping opportunity.

If you're going to eliminate the double dipping opportunity, then that makes the bill more appealing.

Right. And honestly, I would just say that the goal of the bill, too, is just to equalize. 37 years ago for our district, it was set at $100. We're just looking to get it even, not even to the equivalent of inflation. So right now it's progressively gotten to a smaller amount. This increase doesn't even go to what the original intent was. 37.

I got it. But that's just a framing that makes the bill seem appealing. And you're ignoring all the underlying factors involved, including the fact that these people are making a lot of money, not all of them, and that they're going to, it's going to allow them to double dip. It's going to give them even more.

It's like a bonus by. And they're going to use the time during the day when your meetings are, if they're not, maybe they're at night and they're supposed to be working their day job. And so there's no differential in here.

And then the last thing, and again, the author may wish to speak to this, is that it's not as if you have a- Who sets our salaries? Do we get to set our salaries? Senator Dahle, can we just set our salaries? I'd like to do a little adjustment. No, no, we don't get to do that.

Why is that? We have a conflict of interest in setting our salaries. So the fact that you're delegating this back to the local Air District Board for those same politicians to set their own rate is also a struggle because it's not like you're saying in the bill, we're going to go to this citizens compensation commission to help set the rates for us.

They're going to be a little more independent than us. This is the struggles I'm having with the bill. And I know the intentions are good and I know that these are good people doing their best work. The bill does not have any of these distinctions in it to make it seem like a reasonable bill.

Well, I saw this bill earlier and I did- you addressed some of the concerns I had. And I guess there was an amendment. I haven't seen that amendment, but I did want to ask a question. Where does the air district get their money to make to do the compensation to start with?

Well, I can speak for South Coast. It's a combination of things that will be potentially fees. Sometimes there's federal funding that we need to seek out state funding. There's a combination of different, we have permit types of things. So some of it is trying to just generate, but it's coming from many different sources.

And does it also come from fines?

It can't come from penalties.

Okay. And then the second. So I'm along the same lines as Senator Glazer is, but, but at large, members that aren't elected to an aboard or a council or something that get appointed, I do feel for that. I feel for them because they're the ones that really are the public that isn't already elected to a board.

And those are the ones I think we should focus in on because they're not already paid by some agency to sit on that board. So that's where I have those all throughout my district.

That large person that you want there that doesn't have a seat at the table at some other agency, they need compensated because they're truly taking time away from their business and their time or their family to go sit on this board that we need. So that's where I think this Bill should focus on is those who aren't.

And the ability to set your own salary too, I think is very disturbing. So it makes it tough. I want to support the person that you want to attract to the board, but not the other ones, as Senator Glazer stated.

Okay, any other questions? We have a motion to move the bill. Who would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to the Senators for the robust conversation. I totally understand. I think Los Angeles Board of Supervisors salaries, as well as the City of Los Angeles salaries are very unique in that they are probably some of the highest in the country.

The sentiment in the Legislature in California is that you go from the Legislature and your goal is to become a City Council Member in Los Angeles or a County Board of Supervisor versus the other way around. So I understand the criticism. This is not what this bill does. It's not about reformatting who is on these quality airboards.

This is about compensation levels to actually support mostly the at large members across the state, that if they do serve on a City Council, it's more than likely a per diem part time job, while they have other responsibilities in their day to day life.

And so the goal here is to ensure that we are keeping up to date with increases and that ultimately the people that are serving and are good public servants have compensation that benefits them. The Legislature has a commission that oversees our increases in salary as well as our per diem. There is a governing board that does that.

The governing board for AQMD's is the Legislature. So unless the Legislature is acting every year to do a policy annually, that's going to increase compensation, there is no compensation. So this is a bill with 37 years in the making.

And so the conversations and the concerns that we heard in previous committees that these increases should not be done in a closed session now addressed. It's now being done, and has always the intention that it would be done in public with a very public vote.

So there is absolute transparency and accountability as to what that increase is going to look like and the members that are going to vote for it. Understandably, that Los Angeles and other places, perhaps even San Francisco, are quite unique. But this is a situation in the current structure of AQMD's.

And so our goal at the end of the day is just to bring parity and pay parity when it comes to the compensation that's currently being adjusted for inflation. So, respectfully request and aye vote as we move forward. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much with that. This is a due pass recommendation as amended to the floor. So go ahead and call roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that vote is one to three right now. We'll remain open for others to add on as they come in. Thank you. And at this time, we're going to go take a- you're going to pass. Come back later. Okay. Very good. Miss Pellerin, come on up.

Yes, why don't we go ahead and take your item number 11. That's AB 2387.

Very good. Thank you so much, Chair and Senators. Mobile home parks provide hundreds of thousands of housing units in California, often at more affordable prices than other options. Oh, there we go. Manufactured homes are less expensive and faster to construct than traditional site built houses. They can be a key component of addressing the housing crisis.

However, in some areas, local permitting processes and excessive fees charged for adding lots in existing mobile home parks can reach the tens of thousands of dollars per lot being added, making the addition of lots in mobile home parks cost prohibitive.

AB 2387 allows California's existing mobile home parks to apply to local enforcement agencies to increase their number of lots by up to 10% and incentivizes increases in mobile home spaces by exempting added spaces from additional business taxes and local fees.

Safeguards in the bill ensure that additional spaces do not substantially impact the provision of utility services within the park and clarify that added units will not remove units for local rent control measures. With me to testify and support today is Jeff Neil, representing the California Manufactured Housing Institute.

Welcome, sir, and thank you for testifying today. If there's only one of you, you have five minutes, but you don't have to use it all if you don't want to.

There is only one of me, and I will not be using all five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the author for pursuing this policy change. I also want to thank the Committee staff for their excellent analysis. There is a housing crisis in California.

We know that. This bill is unlikely to solve it on its own, but it is part of an all of the above strategy for fighting the housing crisis. It will add at least hundreds, almost certainly thousands, of new homes in California that are naturally affordable.

As the Assemblymember was saying, it does this while protecting existing homeowners and their quality of life, ensuring the health and safety of the parks, and it does not affect any existing policies or laws around rent control in manufactured housing communities. So we appreciate Assemblymember Pellerin in authoring this bill and ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. At this time, we'll take the me too's coming up. State your name, organization you represent. You support the bill, and I'm going to be passing the Chair over.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Wysocki representing WMA and we want to thank the author for introducing this bill. It's an important part of the entire housing solution. It will help us create more inventory, which is a great goal for the Legislature, and we want to thank the author for her work on this. Thank you.

Great. Any other me toos in support? It's really a chaotic day here in the capital. Let me just say. What am I doing here? Okay, we're going to go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition to this really good bill? Oh, I didn't say that right. Anybody here in opposition to this bill?

All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Hello, Committee Members. Hope everybody's having a nice day today.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you, staff, for all your good work. Questions from the Committee. Well, it seems like a very reasonable bill to me.

Thank you. Thank you. It's been getting through committees very successfully. 2387.

All right, I think I hear something over there, but I'm going to let you close first.

Well, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. I'm going to recognize this incredible motion from Senator Dahle to move this bill. This is a do pass to Appropriations, but I do want to make sure that our new, our Chair that has just returned, whether she has anything to say before we take care of this bill.

Thank you very much.

Okay, sounds like. Sounds like a. Thank you for stepping in. Okay, so please call the roll on this really good bill.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Three to zero.

AB 2387 will be held on call.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And now Assembly Member Pellerin on AB 3035, item 12.

Yes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Durazo and senators. I'll start by accepting the committee amendments which exclude from the bill sites that are dedicated to industrial use. AB 3035 expands an existing streamlined approval process for agricultural employee housing in the two counties in my district, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz.

In 2019, Speaker Rivas authored the Farmworker Housing Act, which created a streamlined ministerial approval process for qualifying agricultural employee housing projects. The projects proposed pursuant to that bill are required to meet numerous criteria, including that they must be located on lands designated for agriculture in the general plan, and that projects must include no more than 36 units.

Unfortunately, these limitations mean that there are few projects that could potentially qualify for streamlining in my district. In particular, most sites in my district that could potentially qualify are outside of cities and other urbanized areas and lack the needed water and sewer infrastructure.

So we are here with AB 3035 which makes two changes to broaden the sites where agricultural employee housing can be streamlined in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. First, it expands the site qualification to include areas near agricultural land that are more likely to have water and sewer service that can support multi-unit housing.

Second, it increases the number of units that can be included in a qualifying development to reflect the economies of scale typically required to develop housing in expensive housing markets like those in my district. While AB 3035 is a district bill, we hope that this pilot project can help inform future opportunities to streamline this much-needed housing for farmworkers statewide. And with me to testify and support today is David Campos, the deputy county executive for the County of Santa Clara.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Pellerin, Madam Chair, honorable members. David Campos, deputy county executive for the County of Santa Clara. On behalf of the county, I'm here to simply ask you to give us this tool so that we can do better by our farm workers. The fact is that we as a county, we as a state must do better for the people that put food on the table.

And when you have before you is a pretty modest build that essentially builds on the work that Speaker Rivas has already done to expedite the building of this housing in areas that are zoned for agriculture. But as we, as was noted by Assemblymember Pellerin, that housing has not been built simply because those areas lack the infrastructure, the water, the sewer system to actually make housing affordable.

What this does is simply expands the geographic area to areas near the agricultural zones so that we can actually build housing not only that's affordable, but on the scale that is needed. In Santa Clara County alone, we need at least 700 units to house the people that put food on the table. The county has made an investment.

We have a master plan, we have identified funding, but we need this expedited process so that we can finally build this housing. This is a modest effort that will allow Santa Clara and Santa Cruz to begin this process and hopefully show the rest of the state how this is done.

Supervisor Sylvia Arenas has been leading this effort in Santa Clara. She couldn't be here today. But on behalf of the county, we are grateful to Assemblymember Pellerin and her staff and hope that you can join her and give us this ability. Thank you very much. We respectfully ask for your support.

And thank you very much for bringing up this issue and working on this. Any more? Anyone else in support? No. SB 3035? No. Seeing none. Is there any opposition? Okay, seeing none. We have any questions or comments from the dais. Thank you. Senator Glazer moves the bill. Seeing no comments or questions, please roll call. Oh. Closing.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Hold on call.

Thank you so much. Have a great afternoon.

Okay, which one is?

Okay, we're going to item number nine. AB 1950. Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo. Before we get started, I just want to thank the Assemblymember for holding off giving me time to get here. Thank you.

No problem. Hello. Okay. Well, should I. Should I start? Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, I'd like to acknowledge first, let me just thank the chair and the Committee staff for your hard work on this bill. Alongside with my staff, I'd like to acknowledge the Committee amendments that have been proposed.

And I have, and I am committed to taking those amendments in Senate Judiciary Committee, which is where this bill hopefully is headed next. The Senator and I are working on just a small piece of the policy related to the construction of the memorial, which we are hoping to come to a resolution as to what that looks like.

And today, I am proud to present AB 1950 the Chavez Ravine Accountability act. This bill acknowledges the historical displacement of the Palo Verde, La Loma, and Bishop communities known today as Chavez Ravine. This policy is sponsored by the California Department of Insurance and our insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara in 1950.

AB 1950 is a critical step forward and aims to correct an injustice that displays families and has lingered in the shadows of Los Angeles east side history for far too long.

Amid the 1950s, the vibrant communities of Palo Verde, La Loma, and bishop, home to mostly Mexican American families, as well as Italian American and Chinese American families, saw an upheaval. As families were uprooted and displaced in the name of progress. Families were promised a return to better housing. Instead were left destitute.

During this time, the City of Los Angeles undervalued the properties and offered very minimal compensation, and also called these communities slums. They were actually very vibrant communities with their own parks and schools and supermarkets. Ultimately, the city ended up using eminent domain to remove the remaining families of these communities. For generations.

Chavez Ravine as a beacon of hope and resilience, embodying the dreams and aspirations of families who built their life in its embrace with this legislation, we are addressing the past, giving voice to this injustice, acknowledging the pain of these families, and offering potential compensation measures, and ensuring that we honor and remember the legacy of these families and the communities of Palo Verde, La Loma and Bishop, as we move forward, I urge you to lend your support to establish the healing for the descendants of whom were displaced in relations to these communities.

This bill has received bipartisan support and is part of a larger conversation related to generational wealth and home ownership. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair Durazo and Members of the Committee. Josephine Figueroa, deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. First, I would like to thank Assemblymember Carrillo for authoring this important measure. I also wish to thank chair Durazo and Committee staff for their work in advancing AB 1950.

Throughout his career in public service, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has been steadfast in his commitment to serving underserved communities. From advocating for universal healthcare to championing environmental justice in the fight against climate change, Commissioner Latta's mission has always been to confront historical injustices and foster a more equitable society for all California.

His commitment continues as the proud sponsor of AB 1950, as amended. What we seek to address with AB 1950 is knowledge, understanding and healing. The neighborhoods of Palo Verde, La Loma and Bishop in Los Angeles served as a haven for historically marginalized populations seeking housing security amidst systematic discrimination.

Longstanding residents of these communities were never fairly compensated for their property. Both landowners and tenants, many of whom had lived there for generations, were coerced into leaving their homes. Although many resisted, all were eventually displaced. We have an opportunity to begin to address this, and we should.

This legislation presents a crucial first step in providing long overdue compensation to these residents. It also offers a path to reconciliation and healing for all those impacted. By adjusting past wrongs, AB 1950 paves the way for a more just and equitable Los Angeles.

It will help educate Angelenos about the true history of what is now known as Chavez Ravine. Promoting transparency and understanding AB 1950 marks a significant milestone in the journey towards achieving justice for these families.

We aim to rectify the erasure of their homes, their identity from the land, and to write a new chapter in Los Angeles history, one that acknowledges the past injustices and honors their enduring legacy. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 1950? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Anyone want to speak in opposition? No seeing none. Comments or questions? From dais. Yes, Senator Dahle.

So thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward. I need to get educated a little bit.

So first off, I've been working with the staff here and trying to figure out, I'm not from the area, so I don't know the history, but I am very dedicated to private property rights, and we have the ability for eminent domain, and eminent domain should be used for the good of the public. And when you.

When the public decides to take your land, they need to compensate you fairly for it. So I want to just maybe I'll tell you what I think I know, and then maybe you can correct me if I'm not right. So the property was taken for housing some other project besides the stadium originally, and then that fell through.

And then later on, somebody came in and said, hey, we'll build a stadium there. And they built a stadium there. The stadium is owned by some private people. It's not the government that owns it or the good of the public. So in my opinion, that's wrong.

You shouldn't take land from somebody unless it's for the good of the public. But we did have, in some cases, under redevelopment, there was an ability to be able to take blighted areas and redevelop those, and they had the power for eminent domain. There was a case that went through the Supreme Court that allowed that to happen.

So maybe you could educate me on were they fairly compensated at the time, number one. And number two, what happened at the juncture of when they decided to allow them to build a stadium there? And did they give the first right of refusal back to those families that had been displaced out of their properties?

Thank you, Senator, and appreciate your frame and the historical aspect. So between that era in the 1950s, the Los Angeles Housing Authority deemed these communities to be not desirable areas to live, and so they were deemed as slums by individuals in power. The community itself did not see themselves that way.

But there was a very pro housing agenda that the City of Los Angeles had at that time. And in fact, the Elysian Valley housing development that had already been slated with Truman era federal funding was moving forward.

Then an election happened, and the mayor that was very pro housing lost his election, and the mayor that came after was very anti housing. And in fact, it almost seems as if history repeats itself, because at the time, it was labeled as a socialist housing agenda.

And so in a communist, red scare era, at the same time, this is all happening all at once. A new election allowed for an anti housing mayor to come in. And so the promises made to the communities. The lowered valued offered for those homes in an effort to build housing was never actually fulfilled.

The families were not given the opportunity to have the first right of refusal to come back. And so the City of Los Angeles eventually became the property owner of all that area.

And in that following election, the first, the youngest city councilwoman, she was 22 years old at the time, campaigned on a promise to bring Major League baseball to Los Angeles.

And in all that conversation, the people that were hurt the most were the people of these three communities who were displaced, who were given less money for their property, who were promised housing and were promised the opportunity to return, and never had that promise fulfilled, that housing was never developed.

And then ultimately, for the remaining families that had refused to leave, eminent domain was used to kick them out, and the housing never happened.

And so we're trying to create justice for something that happened in Los Angeles and ultimately really tell the story of these families and how these lost, this loss of land, really happen in the promise for housing that never actually took place.

So what does this build? And this is a bill that does what to understand or to do a report or something back to who it's been amended, I know, to. Can you share with what. I know that.

So the tough part for somebody like me, who is getting educated on the history, number one, but we can't change history. And then who's liable in the future? Because some of the people that were there that made the wrong decisions aren't held accountable, but who's going to be held accountable at the end?

And who has to pay if there's compensation for wrong?

The education piece is critical to this bill and understanding and ensuring that this piece of a very Los Angeles focus history is told not only to LA, but really throughout the state, especially as land use and land use management and housing, and the way in which Los Angeles built its freeways.

This is only one example of many communities that were lost amid the use of eminent domain. Another prominent community is a sugar hill community of the West Adams area in Los Angeles, a very affluent African American community whose homes were torn down by the use of eminent domain. And the freeway, the 10 freeway being built.

We've seen that bill, like, five times.

Well, it's one of many. But what came out, what came out of that conversation and conversations that were strongly led by the black caucus on conversations or reparations was the importance of studies. And so this bill mirrors and the amendments that were taken, it mirrors some of that work that has already been done to create studies.

And most importantly, the task force associated with the three communities of Chavez Ravine would be influenced by actual community members working in collaboration with the City of Los Angeles to determine what happens next. It is not up to the Legislature to determine that.

So we are forming a community led task force with the City of Los Angeles to bring awareness, to think about next steps, and ultimately also create a memorial in this site. The families still gather. In fact, this 4 July weekend, the families will be honoring 50 years of them coming together after the last displacement. They're still descendants.

There are still families. If you look at recent story in the LA Times, folks talk about, like, where third base is of the stadium is where their home used to be. And this isn't about Major League Baseball or who plays there.

This is about the actions that the City of Los Angeles took against the families of these communities, trying to create a right for many wrongs and at the very minimum, start a healing conversation and not ignoring what happened in the past.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

Okay, so my dad was never a Dodger fan. You know why? Because of this. He did have friends that lived in that area. But then those friends, they relocated elsewhere. This is squarely in the middle of LA City.

And the LA City Council and the LA City's mayor and all of those folks have the capacity to deal with this issue in a way that they think is fair and they should. If they want to go back 70 years and try to untangle something, then I say more power to you.

If they want to spend their taxpayer dollars doing that, more power to them. The stadium also brought in a lot of wealth in the area. Los Vilas area is home to a lot of wealthier homes, not the wealthiest, because all those went up into Brentwood and the other hills a little bit more west.

But back in the early sixties and seventies, with the Chavez ravine there, pretty much the whole area was flourishing, the businesses were flourishing, and all of that was. And I don't know whether they allowed these people, these people stayed in the area or they didn't.

But when they get relocated, some of them might have relocated down by the beach areas. And then are we going to study to see what their economic condition was later on in life? Because sometimes that led to them being in an area that became even more prosperous.

So, you know, there's so many of these issues throughout California and everywhere. And if we're going to spend all of our time and efforts and money trying to unwind those and find out who was wronged and who was, you know, who came out better or who came out worse.

We're going to, that's what we're going to be doing for the rest of our lives. So, you know, hard for me to support bills like this just because of that. You can't unwind 70 years of history because you have to take the good and the bad, figure out all of what happened.

And at the end of the day, this is LA cities to deal with. They like this stuff. They need to deal with this stuff. This is not for the California taxpayers and my taxpayers out in Riverside County to be paying for. So I won't be supporting this bill because of that.

My dad, he went to his grave not being a dodger fan, though, if that makes anybody feel better.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Dahle, you had a follow up question.

So I supported the Browns beach resolute or bill that came through that Senator Bradford brought forward, quite frankly, because the city made a move first and said, hey, this is something we need to do. Then he brought the legislation and I think it was righteous. And at the same time, the city still owned the property.

So you could actually do something right here. In this case, why isn't the City Council doing something about why are we? I think Senator brings up a really great point. So can you maybe address that issue as well? Because I'm with him. Look, I trying to learn the history. I love private property rights.

I hate eminent domain unless it's absolutely necessary. But I also don't want to be on the hook to pay for something that I had nothing to do with.

Well, if I may, no one's on the hook for paying for anything. Your county, Riverside County, any other county is not on the hook for anything, first and foremost. In fact, the bill does not mandate any compensation, not even from the City of Los Angeles.

It establishes a task force that's going to make recommendations on how to bring people together, how to talk about this history that happened in Los Angeles and make recommendations as what happens moving forward. The City of Los Angeles will be involved in that conversation.

I would love for the City of Los Angeles, who has had decades to do something about this issue, to have acted, and sadly, it didn't. I represent this community. I grew up in this community. I love this community and I also love our baseball team. But I also believe in holding my city accountable.

And so these are tough conversations. They are not easy. But every day we move the needle towards justice. Every day a new story comes up from someone who grew up in that community, who was displaced, who is a descendant of Mister Senator Seyarto. Your family included.

I know you have family in my district, in the community of Eagle Rock and all the communities around it. And so it's very interesting to look at this.

This piece of property and see how much it's flourished and thrived throughout the decades, while also understanding that there were people who were given less than what would be, what any of us would have seen as appropriate numbers for those properties.

And when you have, and when you look at governments of the 1950s, the City of Los Angeles of the 1950s is not the City of Los Angeles today. People in power of the 1950s did not look like the representatives that represent the City of Los Angeles today.

And so, while, you know, I wish that the city would have acted sooner, it didn't. But we are in collaboration and in conversation as to how we move a policy forward that ultimately sets the goal of creating some kind of justice for the descendants. It is never too late to look at history.

It is never too late to say that something was done, was wrong. It is never too late to spend time to correct that and to think about, these are not families that no longer exist. They are still living in our community. They live in my district.

They gather every year and have been gathering for the past 50 years to commemorate what happened to them and what happened to their families. And they gather every 4th of July. And I think that's significant, and that's something that we should honor and that we should move forward and that we should ultimately allow for the conversation to happen.

And most importantly, for a memorial to be built that commemorates that history.

Any follow up questions? Senator? Okay, normally, I would say, I'll take that as your close, but since we don't have an author here, there's something I wanted to say, too, so I'll take the opportunity. First, I believe that the analysis, a great analysis to the staff, addresses the question that Senator Dahle raised about eminent domain.

It went all the way up to the Supreme Court, according to the analysis, and resolved that question. So it was settled law in terms of how it was handled and in a way that advance justice, depending on your point of view, but it was resolved.

Secondly, my general view is that while I don't profess to have great knowledge about what happened here, I think that any place where we believe there's been injustice in our history, it's incumbent upon us to own up to it, acknowledge it, and to get the facts.

And I think that's exactly what you're trying to do with the bill that's before us, is that it doesn't define a result, but it defines a process. And I think you're right that the City of Los Angeles could have done this on their own. And so part of why I'm hesitant, I'm a local control guy to.

But the question I always say is, have they been given the chance? So let's see how many decades now. Okay. So it overcomes my local control issue. This is local government, but they've been given the chance. This is a nudge, and I think it's an appropriate nudge from my point of view.

Of course, the thing that really got me in the analysis, it says, members of the task force are not entitled to compensation for those who were here earlier. You would laugh at that, but it was a silly point. But anyway, I'm supportive of your bill. I wish you well. Do you want to close?

Respectfully request an aye vote and appreciate the conversation.

Great. Thank you very much for bringing this forward. Okay. As a courtesy. Okay, so we have a motion this would be do pass to judiciary. Yes. Okay. Terrific. Amendments were agreed to. Secretary, please call the roll. Thank you.

Motion is to pass the Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Be on call for absent members.

We're going to move on with our agenda. We have another author here, Assembly Member Wilson. Hello. It's been so long since I've seen you. This is file item 17, AB 2632. Little did you know you'd see me so much today. Oh my gosh. But we're the fun Chair. We're the fun Chair, so don't worry.

Okay, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Well, good afternoon, interim Mister Chair. And Senator, I would like to begin by noting that I am accepting the three out of the four Committee amends and have committed to the Chair to continue working on the remaining issues as it relates to illegal dumping.

I also want to express my sincere thanks to the Chair and Committee staff for the extensive conversations and working with me in my office on this bill.

I'm pleased to present AB 2632 which strengthens the secondhand goods market that many of us are familiar with, having shopped in thrift stores, and will further develop the circular economy for used clothing and home goods in order to reduce landfill waste.

Not only will this Bill help California reach its waste reduction and recycling goals, but will also ensure lower income shoppers meet their basic needs by creating local parity for thrift stores with other more traditional retail stores. In 2020, Cal Recycle issued a report that California produced 77.4 million tons of trash and recycled only 42% of it.

California has a recycling goal of 75% of all material, and 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 continue to endanger our people and impair our planet.

This bill will help provide Californians with a better alternative to throwing their clothing away by providing easier access to secondhand clothing stores.

Now, currently, there is an equitable patchwork approach that often tends to favor traditional retail stores over thrift stores, seemingly due to misconceptions and antiquated beliefs about thrift stores and the shoppers who frequent them with local jurisdiction, sometimes using zoning and ordinances to exclude thrift stores from their shopping districts.

As someone who has personally spent a lot of time in thrift stores and gotten many great deals, I can assure you that the people who shop at thrift stores are no worse and no better than people who shop at stores to sell new clothes.

People may shop at a thrift store because they don't want to participate in fast fashion, because they are searching for a vintage look, or because they want the value that buying used clothes affords. And I'm spending a lot of time talking about clothing. But as you know from thrift stores you can buy anything. Appliances, toys, doesn't matter.

In fact, the success of the environmental and economic benefits of the secondhand goods market is plainly evident as many traditional big name retail chains that historically have only sold new goods are beginning to resell their own brands in secondhand market.

In the secondhand market, further blowing the line between thrift stores and traditional restores retail stores and underscoring the importance of creating parity in how we treat these markets. I've been recently made aware of concerns from local governments as the bill reached the second house after passing unanimously in the Senate.

And I will commit to continue to work with them to address their concerns should the Bill move forward today. With me today is Cassie Gilson of Acxiom Advisors to speak more on the importance of AB 2632 and to help answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you assemblywoman. Appreciate your presentation. Look forward to your witnesses remarks.

Thank you Mister Chair. Members Cassie Gilson with Acxiom Advisors on behalf of Savers value Village Savers operates thrift stores in communities around California, employs 1000 or more people, and benefits many more who shop there. First, I do want to thank the Committee and the chair and my colleagues and local government for working with us.

We approached them before we even introduced the Bill. I am a student of this Committee. So I understand that the ordering principle here is that we should, the default should be the sanctity of local government control. And only when there's a compelling state interest do we want to provide greater direction.

And then that direction should be very carefully scoped to be as narrow as possible. And I think that's exactly what we've done here. The only thing this Bill does is say local governments cannot banda thrift stores or retail stores.

It reserves for them the right to impose whatever operating conditions they want, whether it be traffic conditions, you know, operation of trash compactors, the color you can paint your stores when they can be operated, all of those things, as long as those rules also apply to regular retail.

So the idea here was really to allow local governments full control to ensure the safety and positive experience of folks using these stores and get rid of what I think is really a legacy issue and an outdated view of who shops and who donates to these facilities. So I would ask for your.

I vote and happy to entertain any questions.

Terrific. We're going to open it up to other me toos in favor of this legislation. Come on up to the microphone.

Mister Chair, Members, Rand Martin. On behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates 10 thrift stores across the state to help subsidize care to people with HIV in California in very strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else here in support? Okay, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition want to come forward to provide primary testimony? Come on up. I think the rule has been two people up to five minutes. Is that the between both of you? Hopefully you worked it out well.

I assure you it will not be five minutes. Okay. Tracey Ryan with the Royal County Representatives of California. Unfortunately, we still do have an opposed, unless amended position on the bill.

I do want to say a genuine thanks to the Member in particular for having a good conversation with us and her staff and the sponsors working with us for the last five months to try to work out this bill. The amendments and the analysis does take a giant step in helping address our issues.

We continue to have some concerns, especially with bigger thrift stores and the impacts of those in the donation facilities. And so we appreciate the commitment of the Assembly Member to help work on that over the summer and hopefully we can find a compromise that works for everybody. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair, Members, Brady Girton on behalf of the League of California Cities, echoing the concerns that RCRC had. And again, thanks to the summer Member and the sponsors on this.

We've been working very closely with them, look forward to those continued conversations and look to find those common ground over the recess and appreciate all the work that everyone's done on this and look forward to continuing those conversations in the future. Thank you.

Good. Thank you. All right, anybody else who is in opposition for me too, come on up.

Mark Newberger of California State Association of Counties. I want to thank the author, the sponsor and the Committee for the work on this bill and associate all my comments with those made by RCRC and Cal Cites.

The record will reflect. Okay, anybody else seeing them? We'll bring it back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members thoughts? All right, I will just say, assemblymember, you've come from local government. Your sensitivity I know is there. Your witness identified my philosophical thinking. Exactly.

And I think under those terms I think the Bill is a reasonable step forward. I have heard back from my community that have raised some concerns. I think you really do address them with your Bill and the amendments that you have taken.

I know the one that you are not accepting at the moment regarding donations from individuals at larger locations. It's still a matter of discussion with the chair and others. And I know that you will continue to work on that going forward. And happy to support it. And I understand the chair supports it.

More importantly, the real chair supports it. All right. Anything else further from colleagues? Say again, sir? You would be the artificial Vice Chair with seasoning and my Vice Chairman.

No dyes.

Okay. Assembly woman would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. This Bill will help California reach its waste reduction and recycling goals and will help shoppers meet their basic needs by prohibiting local governments from enacting or enforcing bans or limitations on thrift stores that are not placed on retail, other retail stores. That is the intent.

And happy that we've been able to accomplish that with the amendment so far. With that, I thank you all and I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Okay. This is a. She accepted three of the four amendments as we indicated. It's do pass as amended to appropriations motion formally made by the good Senator from Bieber. Senator Dahle. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Congratulations on that. That's almost a grand slam here. Thank you. Thank you for joining us today. Okay. We're gonna move on. We're making a lot of progress here. File item 15. Assembly Bill 2457 by our good Assemblymember McCarty. Sir, welcome to the Committee. Been eagerly awaiting your presentation today. And the floor is yours.

Yes, thank you. Committee, I present to you a district Bill. This is related to our utility district. Something that you're familiar with, Senator. This is the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD, our public power district. This Bill simply extends a sunset on a statute Bill that I created five years ago, allowing SMUD to enter into financial partnerships. The prior Bill limits these financial partnerships with energy and climate type projects here at a total of six. This Bill would certainly allow that to continue. These are nonstop options.

So this allows our public power entity to keep our energy and our power on, like hot days like today, pushing on our efforts to focus on clean energy, work on solar and storage and startup companies throughout the Sacramento SMUD area. And with me today is a representative from SMUD. And again, district Bill extends the sunset of prior law that's been successful. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And you have a distinguished witness here on your behalf that you want to introduce.

Scott Martin, Chief Financial Officer at SMUD.

Terrific. Do you have anything you want to add to this or just there for technical.

I do have a brief statement I'd like to.

Okay, very good, sir.

SMUD is the 6th largest community owned electric utility in the nation. We serve about one and a half million residents in Sacramento County and a small adjoining portions of Placer and Yolo County. As a public utility, every dollar in revenue that we generate is invested in the community and used to offset any future rate increases. Appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee on AB 2457 a Bill that would allow us to continue the authority to hold non stock security in a corporation.

This authority is important because it allows us the opportunity to realize a return on the products and services that we help develop, which will help keep our rates affordable for our customers. Importantly, SMUD does not pay anything in these deals beyond what we would normally pay to procure the product or service. There is no financial risk for SMUD customers. We often partner with companies to develop innovative products and services that enable us to achieve the state's clean energy goals, maintain affordability and reliability for our customers.

For some of these products and services, SMUD provides access to our intellectual property. We devote our staff time and provide critical field testing to ensure their effectiveness. The companies that we partner with may then capitalize on our contributions by marketing those products and services to other utilities. We exercised our authority under AB 689 to enter into a partnership with a company that is developing long duration energy storage.

That will be essential for us to help meet our carbon reduction goals and the goals of the state. To meet our carbon reduction goals, we're going to continue to develop these innovative partnerships regardless of whether we continue with this authority. This authority simply allows our customers to reap the potential financial upside of the partnerships should the company succeed. Appreciate your time.

Thank you. Terrific. Thank you. We'll give an opportunity for other 'Me Too' support to come to the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, in support.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Derek Dolfie, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Obed Franco, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. McKinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of the City of Sacramento, in support.

Thank you.

Chris Lee on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in support.

Terrific. Okay, we're going to finish the public side of the support of this Bill. We're going to go opposition. Anybody here in opposition to this Bill? Anybody here in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember, this looks like a good Bill. I understand the Chair, most importantly, likes it. I like it, too. Anything you want to say in closing? Is that a respectful aye vote kind of thing?

We're good. Thank you.

Okay. All right, we're looking for a motion from a colleague. Anybody want to do that now? Or we can wait till our full Committee is here. We'll wait. No worries. All right. It's a courtesy motion. I won't say by who, but by a Member of the Senate. This is due passed to the Senate Floor with enthusiasm. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Three to zero.

All right, we're gonna put that on call for absent Members.

Hey, that's such a. That's a motion. We have a motion on the consent calendar. I saw Senator Dahle's jumping up and down. This is file item three, AB 453. File item eight, AB 2962. File item 13, AB 2430. File item 14, AB 2455. And file item 18, AB 2663. And finally, file item 23, AB 3116. That motion is do pass to wherever they're supposed to go. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is adopt the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

We're going to put that on call for absent Members. So we're looking for authors. We're going to take a short recess while we wait for authors. Okay, we have an author in the House. This is file item 16, Assembly Bill 2488 by Assemblymember Ting. Sir, thank you for being here. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So 2488 is a bill that will allow San Francisco to create a downtown revitalization district to help finance the conversion of empty office buildings into housing. I want to start off by saying accepting the Committee amendments.

Due to the legislative deadlines, we were not able to incorporate all of the amendments from the Committee in time for Senate Housing to hear the bill next week. I've agreed to take the Committee's amendments and reduce the square footage exempt from affordability requirements from 3 million in Senate housing.

I'm also committing to not take up the bill up on the floor until the labor language is sorted out in consultation with all the committees that have jurisdiction on this bill. This bill is simple. It's a San Francisco bill. We are trying to create a downtown revitalization district.

This district would be created by our Board of Supervisors and our mayor. What would happen is once the values in that area were set, the additional tax increments, with the additional property taxes that came as that issue, as that community got better, would be set aside into this district would be used to incentivize the conversion of office buildings into housing.

We believe that many of the newer office buildings really wouldn't convert. It would really be a way to incentivize some of the older office buildings, because the new office buildings, like if you see the Transamerica Building or a Bank of America building with the large floor plates, the plumbing, the electricity, just wouldn't work to convert into housing.

Many of the older ones that are already sectioned off, they have more plumbing, more electricity. It's a little bit easier to get infrastructure into those buildings. We think those would be potential targets. So if you think about like a class B, class C kind of building, that is it. We also. This is not just about building housing.

This is really about trying to get more people into downtown San Francisco. Right now, our businesses are suffering. Restaurants have closed. Small businesses have closed because the hundreds of thousands of people that were going into downtown San Francisco every day for work are not there.

And so all those lunches, all those coffees, all those, you know, whether it's dry cleaners or pharmacies, those businesses have been put out of business. So we're trying to get more people there so we can revitalize that particular area. And again, this is just for San Francisco only. I do have Louis Mirante from Bay Area Council to testify as my witness.

Thank you for being here. You may begin.

Thank you, Members. My name is Louis Mirante. I represent the Bay Area Council on Housing Issues. I'm proud to be here today in support of 2488. The Bay Area Council represents some of the largest employers in San Francisco. I'm sorry.

I was proud to work with a large group of them in coming up with this creative idea. We're really excited to have worked with the city on this. We're excited that they're excited about this tool. And it responds to a really pressing problem that major employers are facing in the Bay Area.

Downtown San Francisco has about 100 million spare feet of office space. About 40 million square feet right now is vacant in downtown San Francisco. That means there just isn't the foot traffic to sustain those small businesses, those dry cleaners, those restaurants.

That's a huge issue both for the state, for the region, and for the city's public perception and for our competitiveness as a region. The goal here is downtown revitalization. The strategy is housing. This is a housing bill. It's about investing in housing construction.

But the goal here is really to reactivate downtown San Francisco so that it's the Regional Center of Northern California for employers, for people who want to live there, for people who remember what San Francisco used to be like. We're trying to shoot for that goal.

Just wanted to thank again the city and their staff for working with us on the amendments here, for your staff for working with us on the amendments. Our members are really excited about this bill and are ready to get to work once the city opts into it. Thank you.

Good. Thank you. All right, anybody else who wants to speak in support, come on up to the microphone for a me too.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Karen Lange on behalf of Mayor London Breed, the mayor of San Francisco. Very grateful for Mr. Ting's leadership and moving the bill forward. Thank you very much to the Committee staff for working through it and keeping us going. She needs every tool. So thank you very much. And ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Katherine Charles, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of SPUR in support.

Terrific. Seeing no one else here in support, we're going to move in opposition. Anyone here in opposition, please come on up. The table or the microphone, your choice.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. You know, as we've been over the last several years in this Committee and other committees, we're here on behalf of the workers who are going to be performing these conversions.

We are sensitive to what's going on in the City of San Francisco. We appreciate engaging with the Assemblymember, I believe back in March on this bill and conversations have continued and we look forward to those moving forward and you know, are happy that they are continuing and think that they're going to be fruitful ultimately.

So we're here as a tweener. I don't want to say we're opposed, but we're certainly watching this and have some concerns. And those are around the labor provisions that hopefully will go into this bill eventually. We look forward to those concluding those discussions, including in a positive manner. Thank you.

Terrific. Thank you. Anybody else here in opposition or any tweeners? All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee for Conversation. Debate. Discussion. Questions. Any questions? Okay, Senator Ting, let me just say thank you to your staff. I had a lot of questions. They were great in answering them. Makes me very comfortable in supporting your bill today. I understand the Chair is supporting it with those amendments. Would you like to close?

I forgot to thank the Chair. Forgot to thank the Committee staff. Really appreciate all the work that they've put in working with us to get this bill to this place. We still have more work to go, but respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 2488. Thank you.

Okay, terrific. Do we see if we have a motion or wait for a full Committee? Okay. Courtesy motion has been extended by a colleague here on the dais. It's just an efficiency point, I suppose. Unless you'd like the chairmanship gavel back and we can do okay. So this is a do pass to Housing. The amendments will be officially taken in Housing as the author has so indicated. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Got a strong start. We're going to leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, looking for authors here. Looking for authors. We're waiting on Assemblymember Joe Patterson, assemblymember Valencia, two authors. We're looking for you guys to come on down so we can complete our business. We'll take a short recess. You bet.

Okay, we're going to open the roll on two items to allow Members to add on. First one is file item 611, AB 2387. Please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is three to zero with the chair voting aye. Senator Seharto. Seharto I, Skinner, Bahab, Wiener I. Four to zero.

Back on call for ABC Members. We're going to move next to file item 16, AB 2488. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on Housing. Current vote is 120. No, current vote for the chair. Senators Durazo, se. Arto Seharto. No. Dahle Skinner, Wahab Wiener 101.

That's a cliffhanger. We're going to put that back on call for abstinent Members, so we'll take another short recess. Looking for authors. Looking for authors here. Joe Patterson and Sally Member of Valencia.

Wonderful. Thank you, Mister Chair. Buenos tardes Senators. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee team for diligently working on AB 2946. I will be accepting the Committee amendments today to address some of the concerns voiced by the County of Orange. AB 2946 will establish guidelines and criteria for appropriating district discretionary funds in Orange County. The amendments clarify that the County of Orange and its supervisors are prohibited from taking specified actions within 90 days preceding an election.

The prohibition does not apply to any projects that received funds prior to the 90 day period and have been completed within the 90 day period. I would also like to emphasize that this Bill will not preclude the county from allocating funds to entities like nonprofits. The goal of this Bill is to prevent the misuse of discretionary funds. During the Covid-19 pandemic, a nonprofit in Orange County received millions of dollars in discretionary funds for the purposes of delivering meals to seniors.

The nonprofit was unable to provide documentation to the county that demonstrated that the money was used in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, it was revealed that the nonprofit was allegedly led by an Orange County supervisor family member. This example highlights the need for more oversight of the county's appropriations of discretionary funds. With me to answer any technical questions is our ledge aid Katie Guthrie.

Terrific. Thank you, Assemblymember. So for technical questions, we have your aid here. Anybody here in support that want to come up to the microphone to add on in support? All right, seeing none. Anybody here in opposition that wants to come to the microphone or the desk up front? Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Mister Chairman and Members. Amy Jenkins on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in respectful opposition to the Bill. I'd first like to address the conflict of interest controversies highlighted on page one of the Committee analysis. While I am not here to condone or defend the actions of any particular supervisor, it is crucial to understand that AB 2946, if enacted, would not prevent such occurrences from happening again. There is, however, another Bill that will be presented next that does address that problem.

When the Orange County Board of Supervisors managed the allocation of federal Covid-19 funding, it established a transparent authorization process where they approved the allocation of discretionary funds based on board approved funding categories. Board actions, along with the priorities and projects awarded funds, are publicly posted on the county's website under Transparency Reports District Discretionary Priorities Project Program. This accessible website lists all project awards, the dates of board actions, corresponding agenda, staff reports, and a breakdown down of each supervisor's discretionary priorities by district.

The process exemplified the highest standards of transparency and ensured critical funding for essential nonprofit programs, including supporting veterans who are homelessness, youth programs, survivors of domestic violence, food assistance, autism support, etcetera. Policies that guarantee transparency and disclosure of public fund expenditures should always be upheld. However, AB 2946 does not address the underlying problem.

Instead, it enshrines a process for awarding discretionary funds specifically to one county, which is both unnecessary and inequitable. Moreover, while we acknowledge and appreciate the clarifying amendments taken today regarding the 90 day blackout period, the Orange County Board's ability to award discretionary funds for essential district projects is, should be provided to everybody without the 90 day. Otherwise, it effectively disenfranchises certain voters in the district. So for these reasons, the Orange County Board respectfully opposes this Bill and urges your no vote. Excuse me. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Jenkins. Anybody else here in opposition want to come to the microphone to indicate so? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Any Senator has a question or comments.

So at risk of.

Senator Dahle.

Thank you. So did they not have to come back to the board? So I was sat on board supervisors for 16 years, and we had - each supervisor was allocated a $5,000, was a very small amount, obviously, in the county I'm from. But we had to - we had to run it through the board, make a motion, had to make sure it was not a gift of public funds, all those things. Can you maybe give me a little background on what, what they're doing, how they're doing it? Not doing it, maybe.

So the allocation amount is voted on by the board. However, then the supervisor has the ability to allocate the resources from that direct account, which I think is the issue.

Okay. So, but at right, that's the same thing we did. We got a block amount. That was all you could get. But then if you took $1000 of it and you gave it to the veterans, whatever, you had to come back and get a motion. And then the money, the. No, this. They don't have to do that.

And in addition to that, it's not thousands of dollars, it's millions of dollars.

Right. Oh, yeah. That's interesting. So this Bill will force them to have to come back and make a motion to daylight, where the money goes.

Simply what I'm asking for. Exactly. Is a majority of the Board of Supervisors to allocate those resources to whatever nonprofit they so choose, as opposed to having sole propriety over what those dollars should do. I don't think that's how democracy works.

All right. Anything further, Senator Dahle? You're good. Okay. Senator Seyarto? You're good. Okay, well, so we've completed the discussion. Among our colleagues, I would say that this is a very reasonable Bill to me. I think the Chair, more importantly, supports it. And I would welcome your close if you have one.

Appreciate your comments and questions. Respectfully asked for a yes vote.

Okay. All debate having ceased. Is there a motion or. We'll wait for. All right. We have a courtesy motion. Due passed. Not a courtesy. A firmly held motion by Senator Dahle. Due passed as amended to the Floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. Two to one.

All right, that will be on call for absent Members. I understand, Assemblyman, that you're going to present another Bill on behalf of Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. If I've done that correctly. This is file item 24 for all those following at home. This is file item 24, Assembly Bill 3130 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, presented by Assemblymember Valencia. Sir, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Presenting AB 3130 on behalf of my good friend and fellow Orange County colleague, Sharon Quirk-Silva. AB 3130 promotes transparency and accountability by requiring that the Board of Supervisors discloses a known family relationship before allocating public funds to nonprofit organizations.

By preventing officials from prioritizing financial gain over the public good, conflict of interest laws will help ensure fairness and accountability across all levels of government. AB 3130 is a good government bill that values trust, integrity, and fairness in the allocation of public funds while practicing ethical conduct among members of Board of Supervisors. Happy to answer any technical questions if there are any.

Anyone here in support of the bill? Anyone here in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Come back to our Members. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Seyarto. We'll now do roll call. Oh, you didn't close.

Closing on behalf of a Senator Quirk-Silva, I respectfully ask for yes vote.

Thank you.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Is it on call? Oh, the bill remains on call. Who's next? Member Patterson, presenting item 21, AB 2729.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair. Senators, thank you for the opportunity to present this measure. First of all, I really want to sincerely thank you, Chair, and for discussing this measure with me and also the Committee staff.

I think we spent a lot of time back and forth on this over several weeks, and I really appreciate the sincere effort to get this right. As you know, this bill effectively delays the payment of impact fees from building permits, the certificate of occupancy. In absolutely no way does it stop the payment of fees from occurring.

The fees will get paid. Why is this necessary? Because at many times, these impact fees and connection fees can be millions and millions of dollars on a project. The carrying cost alone is cost prohibitive.

As a former mayor myself, I see a housing project in my own neighborhood being held up because of the size of special district fees and the cost of carrying it on a high density project. One fee alone is over $3 million.

But I have seen too many times where the fees are collected for infrastructure and the money just sits for years and maybe even a generation. For example, on major highway projects.

We're trying to build housing in this state, and as you know, we are in a difficult budget environment that will likely result in reduced help from the state and local governments.

This bill is simply a timing bill that ensures money gets there and helps with cash flow to get the projects off the ground, including in my own neighborhood. In the Assembly, we took many amendments to ensure that if there is any obligation or cost by a local government that it can be collected upfront and in advance.

This includes payment of bonds, processing and administrative costs, and to pay the infrastructure that is likely to occur within two years. We are also committed to ensuring schools are not impacted with potential future bond funding and the need for matches.

Impact fees might very well be the bridge to help a school get built, and everyone supports this idea. Your Committee has been so gracious to offer amendments to me to limit these deferrals to affordable housing or SB 35 or AB 2011 projects. That is density bonus law.

While I was encouraged to present the bill as is today, it's because SB 35 and AB 2011, which are great bills, are not tools that will be used in my district or many rural communities throughout California.

So as a result of our back and forth, we have about five sets of amendments that we are interested and always happy to move on any discussion, perhaps taking those amendments similar to Senator Wiener bill in term of when the fees are actually paid and what's exempt and things like that.

But some of the things that we were thinking about, for example, is that we can only apply this to cities that are not meeting their annual performance progress reports every year, and so that would actually incentivize cities to meet their housing obligations. And if they don't, then this tool would apply then, so we are open to discussions.

Finally, there may be concerns on what types of fees get paid and when. And again, we are more than happy to do amendments in this consistent with Senator Weiner's bills that passed out and also I heard today in housing Committee in the Assembly. We are happy to take darn near any amendment so long as we can have this apply to market rate housing because I'm trying to make this impactful on my district and other districts that aren't part of the urban core.

This is a government funding free way to help spur development. Fees will get paid. It does nothing to change zoning or local control of a project. With that, I'm more than happy to answer any questions I have with me. Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with SPUR.

Madam Chair, Members, on behalf of SPUR, that's the San Francisco Bay Area Planning Research Association. We're here to address support for this bill. SPUR has proudly been a sponsor, a co-sponsor and supporter of numerous bills that have passed since 2017 that aim at addressing the housing crisis through streamlining local project approvals, environmental review, and increasing enforceability standards of state housing laws, as well as creating more transparency for impact fees year after year.

Fortunately, many bills have passed in that regard. But we are all well aware that the state has been under producing new housing units for nearly 20 years, and all these new tools we have passed have barely made a dent in getting any more permits approved, let alone getting projects actually built.

And instead, the construction industry has now, in 2024, we've survived a global pandemic. But now new challenges are facing the construction industry at large, and especially residential construction. The crisis has now been exacerbated by an economic crisis.

As the author mentioned and the analysis stated, skyrocketing interest rates, cost of construction, everything continues to go up and now developers have to find new ways to try to save money.

As the author mentioned, in the areas, the rural areas that are disadvantaged by and not be able to use SB 35 and AB 2011, these market rate deals also that try to use those projects in those tools in other areas, they actually apply for subsidies. Those projects, though they feel, and they sound like they might be subsidy free, they're not.

Many market rate deals, especially the larger deals, actually have to apply for programs like the tax credit programs, local grant programs, or the MHP programs in order to make those projects pencil and actually fund the affordable units in those projects, or they partner with a nonprofit who builds them in a separate building or off site, or they pay in lieu fees to try to make sure that they can adhere to those standards.

And as you know, many of you sat on the subcommittees, those programs, most have been eliminated this year in your budget. So that's new information from the previous time that this Committee has heard other bills that are similarly situated. $1.1 billion has been eliminated in the state budget to pay for affordable housing units.

So these programs already disadvantaged rural communities in those projects and just those subsidies really just don't exist. So hopefully the reduction in impact fees, the deferral of impact fees, will actually save money we do. In the state Legislature, you don't have a lot of control over those costs, but what you do have control over is time.

Time is money. It seems very simple. The savings here is actually the savings on the interest payments that are made to financial institutions, on those funds that are sitting and are not used in the city budgets.

So we hope now more than ever, we need your support to defer these impact fee payments for every project in the State of California that is in the pipeline and is now on hold because they just can't fund the projects going forward. We urge your support.

Is there anyone here in support of the bill? AB 2729.

Yes, Madam Chair. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, California YIMBY, Habitat for Humanity California, and Fieldstead, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone here in opposition? You're welcome to come up to the front. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. We are in opposition to AB 2729. We find that the measure, while the goals are audible as we try to confront a these very real issues of housing, is rather broad and blunt in doing so.

The housing issue is what clearly gets all the attention and it deserves so, but it's hard to contemplate without the housing infrastructure issue. These things need to come together, and this measure, we find, is just a bit too broad and blunt to achieve that in a way that helps us deliver services and infrastructure fairly across all communities.

And it does so in a few different ways that local agencies find may shift some of the risk inherent in development from the marketplace into the local agencies. So with that, pass to my colleague.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition to the bill, echoing the concerns of CSDA, but also the concerns of one of the factors that we notice with fees and with the limit on the proposed shot clock on local governments is it takes multiple projects to achieve the infrastructure needed to provide quality of life benefits to low income communities.

And we think that this would have unintended consequences for these rural communities and rural cities, as well as rural counties, because they would not be able to have those fees available should they not break ground from the local level within two years of doing that. Understanding that housing is intent, we also understand that fees are a big factor that influences that.

But local governments need these fees to provide the best services for their community, and as a result, we're very concerned about the shot clock on local agencies. So with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in opposition, please come up to the microphone.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the cities of Belmont and Carlsbad, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Obed Franco on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Anna Ioakimedes, on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District, in opposition.

Thank you.

Mark Neuberger, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in opposition.

Thank you. Having heard from everyone, I just want to say a few words, and I know I was going to do it. Can I do it first? Yeah, I'll go and then ask my colleagues for any questions. I think most of us, if not all of us, have a shared goal of wanting to increase housing and address the housing crisis.

While this measure would help developers by delaying when they have to pay impact fees, many local agencies, as we've heard today, have raised concerns that they cannot take on the additional risk of receiving impact fees later in the process. Despite these concerns, I wanted to provide a path forward for the legislation. For your legislation.

Assemblymember Patterson, as you're aware, this Committee asked for amendments on a related bill authored by my colleague from San Francisco, that limited impact fee deferrals to small projects and projects with some percentage of dedicated affordable units. We ask for the same amendment to your measure to ensure when we offer benefits to a private developer, it comes with public benefits.

While I appreciate your willingness to address other issues the Committee raised, we were not able to come to an agreement on the key issue in the key amendment that for that reason, I am unable to support your bill today. I'd open it up to my other colleagues. Senator Seyarto.

Okay. So fortunately for you, I'm very, I've had a lot of experience with development impact fees from the time they're actually developed. The nexus that you have to go and establish before you can actually decide what an impact fee is and also the categories for those impact fees. One project does not pay for an impact.

It's usually multiple projects that put into the impact, into the fee, and that goes into an account. So when they do have enough money, then they build whatever it is that's going to offset the impacts for several projects altogether.

So this isn't, the claim that somehow this one impact fee is going to prevent them from building something and offsetting those impacts is not correct. If they don't have the money from one project, they're not going to have the money from the rest of it. That means they haven't collected enough money to do the project, period.

So it's really annoying to me when we start mixing up what a CSD and CFD and then impact fees are. Impact fees are entirely different. They're for building fire stations, for building arterial roadways through cities. So there's a lot of different impact fees that are developed. They collect them and when it's time to build, they build them.

All this does is move the collection of that to when they get a certificate occupancy, which is actually when the impact starts for the development, is the impact is from the people moving in and starting to flush toilets and starting to use water and starting to drive down the streets and starting to use schools.

That's when the impacts are starting to be felt. And that's part of community planning. So basically what this argument is, is who gets to collect the interest between when the developer starts building and when the developer finishes building and somebody actually moves in to begin the impact.

And there have been developments that somewhere in between that they go bankrupt. When they sit there for years and years because they paid all these impact fees, they don't get them back and their project is now dead because the economy turned or whatever it is.

Bottom line is, if it's sitting dead, there aren't any impacts to schools and things like that. So whether they collect it in the beginning or the end is all about who makes the interest in between. And there's $20 million of impact fees, that's a lot of interest. But that's, for me, it's not fair for a city to say, hey, while you guys have the pleasure of building, we're going to collect interest on your money. And that's where this lands for me is we're not collecting.

They need their money to finish this project, whether it's an affordable housing project or a market rate project, whatever the heck it is, they need their money until they're done. And once they're done, they turn that property over, they get their certificate of occupancy, and then they pay their fee, and the city can go about putting that money into the pot and building whatever it is they need building when they get the rest of their fees.

So for me, this is just instead of paying in the beginning, they pay at the end. And they don't wind up having this enormous holding costs, which can include a bunch of delays caused sometimes by communities themselves or by other stuff that they don't have control over. And in the meanwhile, they're paying the carrying costs.

Interest goes out and out and out on this money. So for those reasons I was supporting your bill, I think it is a good bill to try to help, especially in the, all those narrowed down categories that you have now, so that the projects have a better chance of getting done.