Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Again, welcome to the Assembly local government Committee hearing. I would like to remind the public that for this and future hearings, testimony will be in person, as we are no longer using a moderated telephone service. We also accept written testimony to the position letter portal on the Committee's website.

Again, I would like to go over some ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time audited, extended discussions on matters not related to the subject of the hearing or Bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps.

If an individual drops our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruption may result in removal from the capitol building. I will also document on the record the individual involved in the nature of the disruptive conduct and may temporarily recess the hearing if the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting individuals from the capitol building. As I said, we do have four items on the agenda this afternoon.

None of these items are proposed for consent, so we will be hearing all bills in the order shown in our agenda unless otherwise noted. In addition, Assemblymember Kate Sanchez will replace Assemblymember Bill Essayli for today's hearing only. As soon as she comes in and welcome her.

We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition. These witnesses will have up to three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the Bill.

As stated earlier, we do not have a quorum at this time, and we're going to be acting as a Subcommitee. And again, I see. Senator Caballero, are you ready to present? Whenever you are ready, please. Thank you. And that's the first item on the agenda, SB 1134. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members for the opportunity to present SB 1134.

SB 1134 requires the Department to follow the administrative procedure guidelines when promulgating Surplus Land Act guidelines. Last year, I authored SB 747 to clarify and improve the SLA process by adding a definition of surplus land disposal, creating additional categories of exempt surplus land, and additional activities that continue that constitute an agency's use.

One of the things that we discovered is that local government was having a really hard time determining whether the property that they sought to get rid of was subject to the Surplus Land act, and as a consequence, they were just sitting on property that could be moved and utilized either for affordable housing or for economic development for the community.

This bill and its partner, AB 480 by Assemblymember Ting, struck a balance to provide necessary clarity to ensure local governments disposing of land were doing so correctly under the provisions of the SLA. The Department of Housing and Community Development is responsible for drafting guidelines to implement this, including changes that were recently made.

The Department currently enjoys an exemption from the Administrative Procedure act when promulgating the SLA guidelines. And we left it although this was an extensive negotiation process, we continued to allow them to do their regulations through emergency regulations. The APA is an integral democratic tool requiring regulations to undergo a thorough public review process.

It also requires the Office of Administrative Law to review the regulations for clarity and legal conformity with the law. After the passage of SB 747 and AB 480, the Department of Housing and Community Development proposed draft revisions to their Surplus Land Act guidelines.

The draft guidelines, unfortunately go beyond the statute in numerous ways to make significant policy changes not consistent with recent legislation. In some cases, the changes are plainly contrary to the statute or the explicit legislative intent that we had in our bills.

Over the fall, I met with HCD to discuss this concern that the guidelines were not reflective of what we intended. Discussions continued into the spring, but based on the draft guidelines that were released, I'm concerned that the final guidelines will not be reflective of our legislative intent.

I have been transparent this year with the Senate Committee, and SB 1134 was to serve as the vehicle to monitor the final guidelines proposed by HCD to ensure that the agreements reached between the two bills that we passed and the stakeholders are faithfully adopted.

However, given legislative deadlines, I believe the best option for ensuring that HCD does what they're supposed to do is to require it to go through the Administrative Procedure Act.

By requiring them to do this, SB 1134 ensures that there is an unbiased third party outside of the Legislature and HCD, the Office of Administrative Law, to review these guidelines for their legal validity.

The APA process would also ensure a thorough public review process in which all questions and concerns with the guidelines are heard and addressed before they are adopted by the Department, and obviously that's local government has the input to look at these.

So I'm going to continue working with these organizations who have a supportive, if amended, position because of a drafting error. And I'll also work with the Committee to clarify which guidelines would be in effect if the bill becomes law.

Thank you, Senator. Before we proceed with your witnesses, I just want to welcome Assemblymember Sanchez to local overrun Committee, welcome. Place your first witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, my name is Aaron Avery. I'm the Director of State Legislative Affairs with the California Special Districts Association. CSDA represents over 1000 local governments using their lands to provide essential services from water to wastewater to electricity, fire protection, libraries and parks.

We currently hold a supportive amended position on the bill and we appreciate the author's intention to correct an error, a drafting error, in section two of the bill. With that said, we thank the author for bringing forward this important bill and respectfully request your aye vote today as this represents two priorities that we believe the Legislature shares.

First, affordable housing fundamentally depends on affordable infrastructure and affordable services to California residents. Local agencies need accurate, consistent, predictable implementation to support that infrastructure. And secondly, the SLA is intended to promote transparency and accountability. It deserves to be implemented in a transparent and accountable manner.

SB 1134 promotes these two priorities, and I want to thank the author and her staff for her commitment to this important issue. And I want to thank the Committee and Ms. Reyes as well for their time and attention. The SLA serves as an important purpose, but it is hyper technical and complex.

Because of this, stakeholders from both sides have carefully crafted good faith compromises throughout the article. Notwithstanding these efforts, the changes to the SLA over the past five years have imposed a significant and evolving change to local government operations.

Implementation of a law as important and sweeping and technical as the SLA merits an open and public process with standard rules of the road. We wholeheartedly support the application of the APA to the SLA rulemaking process, and we believe this change will foster good faith negotiations, collaboration, transparency and less conflict, hopefully.

Again, we want to thank the author and her staff for their hard and tireless work on this issue and respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California, representing the state's 14 largest counties, also testifying in support on behalf of my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California, here today, as my colleague mentioned, with a supportive amended position on Senate Bill 1334.

Local agencies continue to be challenged by the implementation of carefully negotiated language in the Surplus Land act and numerous bills over the last five years requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development to utilize the APA process will provide important opportunities for stakeholder input in the spirit of transparency, clarity of the law, and improved understanding of implementation requirements.

Urban counties agree that clarity in the implementation of the SLA statutes are critical to ensuring the effective disposition of local agency land and appropriate consideration of the potential to build much needed affordable housing. We greatly appreciate Senator Caballero's steadfast commitment to getting this right and respectfully request your aye vote today.

Thank you. Before we continue with more witnesses, we reach a quorum. So, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. With that, we'll continue with witnesses and support. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs, here in support on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Witnesses in opposition? I see someone coming this way. No, no one in opposition. With that, I take it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments on what's in front of us? I'm sorry. I thought you said. No, go ahead.

Thank you. J.T. Harechmak with Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. We have concerns about how the bill would impact the implementation of current HCD guidelines as they are being drafted right now. But other than that, we really appreciate the author and her staff, their open line of communication and discussing the implementation details. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? We had a motion to move the bill, and I believe we had a second. Madam Chair, please. I'm sorry. Would you like to close Senator Caballero?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

So, thank you for presenting your bill today, and thank you and your staff for making a commitment to continue working with the stakeholders and Committee moving forward. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1134, do pass to Appropriation. [Roll Call]

Looks like the bill is out 5 to 4 now, but we'll leave the roll open for others, too. I don't. Thank you, Senator. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, SB 1174, Senator Min, election board identification. When you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, Chair Carrillo and Committee Members. SB 1174 would ensure that local governments cannot implement their own unique voter identification laws in local elections and reinforces that election requirements are a matter of statewide concern.

Recently, Huntington Beach, which I represent, passed a charter amendment implementing voter ID laws in their local elections. Now, my read of the law is that it's very clear that any local ID laws that might impact state, federal, or county elections are per se illegal.

But I believe it is an ambiguous question whether a local jurisdiction implementing their own voter ID requirements on their own elections held in a different time and place than other elections, whether that might be permissible or not. The Attorney General and Secretary of State, I should note, have taken the position that this is also illegal.

But this bill, SB 1174, would make clear that this is absolutely not acceptable, that any voter identification requirements, or any election security requirements in general, would be under state jurisdiction exclusively. While charter cities are given certain privileges, they are not immune to state law.

There are 125 charter cities in California, and I don't think we want a situation where each of these cities is implementing their own unique voter ID requirements, which will serve to confuse the public and diminish trust in our elections process. Now, we have these competing goals we've always had in elections.

In a democracy as vibrant as the United States has, we want to ensure robust voter participation. That's the heart of any democracy. At the same time, we need to ensure that election integrity is there, that we maintain trust in our elections. I have told the people of Huntington Beach and multiple legislators here that I believe, if there is evidence of voter fraud, that we should address it with heightened security requirements, perhaps including voter ID.

But to date, I have not received any evidence from the members of Huntington Beach that are pushing this process forward of any voter fraud whatsoever. I will also note that our Attorney General, who is kind of known for being tough on crime, et cetera, and in fact, rank last cycle on the campaign of No LA in OC.

You can determine what that means for yourself. He has publicly stated that, each election cycle, he gets 10 to 15 complaints about voter ID fraud or voter fraud of some kind. He looks into each one of them, and to date, he has never found any evidence of any voter fraud, intentional, that could be prosecuted.

No credible evidence has been presented to me or, I believe, the Legislature demonstrating that there's widespread concern about voter fraud in the state. California runs one of the best voter systems in the country, and Orange County, which I represent, is known for having pristine elections.

We have carefully crafted our election requirements to ensure system integrity while balancing that priority with the rights of eligible voters. SB 1174 would ensure that voters do not face unnecessary barriers while trying to ensure that we have uniform statewide regulations around our elections processes. Here to testify with me in support of the bill, I have Ruth Dawson, Legislative Attorney with the ACLU, and Joey Flegel-Mishlove with AFSCME California.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for your time this afternoon. My name is Joey Flegel-Mishlove, and I'm here on behalf of the more than 200,000 working people who make up the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees here in California. AFSCME members work at all levels of state and local government.

We work at our UCs, at state hospitals, in our water and utility districts, and operate at almost every function of city and county government across California, including many counties where our members work in elections offices, maintaining fair, honest, and equally accessible elections in counties across California every year.

And so all of AFSCME's membership is deeply invested in our state's electoral apparatus because it is their duty to carry out the plans and policies enacted by elected officials, and our members know that they are best able to serve their communities when the elected officials they work for are are truly representative of their communities.

Right now, we recognize that California is a national leader in designing election systems that are fair and are just. But we also know that we're not immune to some national currents that pull our electoral processes towards something that is more arduous and ultimately more exclusive of working people. Cities implementing voter ID laws could take a major step backwards by enforcing policies that actually make it more difficult to vote and specifically tend to exclude Black, Latino, and indigenous community members from our electoral system.

Members of our union who are long term care workers have also pointed to many studies showing that voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities and our elderly communities. And so we know that these laws are a real threat to a thriving democracy and would allow our electoral process to misrepresent or ignore communities that our members work in, live in, and are part of.

And the step backwards represented by voter ID laws can't be justified by claims of voter fraud, which have been shown time and time again to be overblown and ultimately are dog whistles that serve to exclude targeted populations from our voting process. And so, to maintain a fair and just electoral system in California, AFSCME members strongly and respectfully recommend an aye vote on SB 1174. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Ruth Dawson, and I'm a Legislative Attorney with ACLU California Action, and I am pleased to testify in strong support of SB 1174 by Senator Min. This bill would do two things. One, it would reaffirm that voting rights and election integrity, including voter verification, are matters of statewide concern, and two, it would make clear that charter cities are prohibited from enacting voter ID requirements for municipal elections. Voter ID laws perpetuate the myth of voter fraud and do nothing to improve election integrity.

Elections officials, studies, experts, and courts have repeatedly confirmed that instances of voter fraud are exceedingly rare. However, numerous studies and data show that voter ID requirements do impose severe and disparate burdens on voters, particularly on voters of color. The California Legislature has long understood the harms of voter ID requirements, and state law does not impose a voter ID requirement at the ballot box.

The Secretary of State and county elections officials verify voter eligibility and ensure election integrity for local, state, and federal elections in a manner that is minimally burdensome on voters and supports a strong democracy in our state. Despite California's carefully balanced system, last year, the Huntington Beach City Council placed a voter ID measure on the March 2024 ballot, with the City Attorney erroneously arguing that Huntington Beach may impose a voter ID requirement because it is a charter city with home rule authority over municipal elections.

Huntington Beach's position ignores case law that makes the voter ID measure invalid because, one, voting rights and election integrity are matters of statewide concern, and two, because the measure conflicts with state law and burdens voting rights. The legal challenge to Huntington Beach's measure will no doubt be successful.

And in the meantime, SB 1174 will stop any other cities from attempting to pass similar measures that spread misinformation about the integrity of our elections. So we urge you to support this important bill to prevent the chipping away of democratic integrity in our state. Thank you.

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

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in support.

Anne Marie Trout on behalf of the Office of the Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Weber, in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? How about non-primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, take it back to the committee. Committee Members, questions, comments? Assembly Member Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you Senator, for bringing this forward. I think it's appropriate, given our the long history of how voter ID laws and poll taxes and what have you have been perpetrated, particularly against the African American community, that on Juneteenth, this is being brought before us.

And so I just want to make mention of that because that came to mind as you were discussing, especially kind of the fraud. The real fraud that gets perpetrated is those that claim there's a lot of voter fraud going on. And it's used as a political tool to create cynicism, as opposed to the opposite of creating trust in our voting system. So appreciate you bringing this forward, and I'd be happy to move the bill.

Thank you very much. And just in response, I'd note that, while in California, I don't believe we've seen a lot of documented instances of voter fraud that was successful. The instances we're seeing around the country are typically those who believe that elections are rigged, so they want to rig it back the other way by voting multiple times. And they tend to be people who are advocates of Donald Trump's view that all elections are stolen. And so we are facing a serious distrust of our elections processes at this time.

Any other Committee Member. I believe... Yes, Assembly Member Ward.

Thank you. Sorry to walk into presentation. I obviously support this very strongly for the goals that you're trying to achieve. But could you maybe restate as well... I never understood where, I think, you know, something lower than the state government thought that it ever had in the first place the ability to regulate elections code.

Yeah. And again, and I think my witness and I have different reasons, I think one can make a strong case, as the Secretary of State and Attorney General have, that all municipal elections should be governed by state election integrity. I think it's very clear that county, state, and federal elections cannot be touched by any local requirements. The open question, which, just note, the HB thing doesn't address, because HB purports to have its elections at the same time in places, state, federal, and county elections. So that would be per se illegal.

But what the open question is, is if you held your elections at a different place and time and you were charter city, would you be able to do that? I think there's some ambiguity there in reading law. I don't think there's, like, specific case law on point. I don't think the statutes address it. So this particular bill is meant to just say, hey, there is no justification at all for a charter city purporting to do its own voter ID or any kind of election security requirements.

Yeah, absolutely. Consistency across our state in how we process elections I think is key to the confidence that we have in our elections. So thank you for doing this bill. Happy to support.

Thank you, Assemblyman.

Anybody else? Seeing none. We do have a motion by Assembly Member Kalra. You need a second, second the motion. We have a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for presenting your bill today, and thank you for working with the committee. The motion is do pass. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1174, the motion is do pass the floor. [Roll Call]

The bill is out, 5-0, but we'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. We do have two other items on the agenda, one by Senator Cortese and one by Senator Ashby. Not seeing them here yet. We're going to just take a little recess. Thank you.

While we wait, we're going to do add ons to SB 1134 and SB 1174. Secretary, please call the roll for those that need to be add ons.

[Roll Call]

We'll still leave the roll open for that item.

We are back with Senator Cortese presenting item number three on the agenda, SB 1209. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 1209, which would explicitly authorize local agency formation commissions, LAFCOs, to indemnify. The purpose of LAFCO commissions include discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, encouraging the orderly formation development of local agencies, and ensuring the efficient delivery of government services.

As I think most of you know. LAFCO uses these principles for various local agency applications to modify boundaries, establish new services, and evaluate agencies through the preparation of municipal service reviews and spheres of influence. For most of those applications, such as those for land use, private parties indemnify the involved city or county.

LAFCOs also were indemnified by applicants until the 2nd District Court of Appeals determined that LAFCO could not require indemnification because it's not expressly authorized in the Cortese–Knox–Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000. Without the ability to indemnify, LAFCO will necessarily have to consider.

Whether to make concessions to the applicant or not to defend its actions. Funding for each LAFCO is provided by the respective county, city and special district members pursuant to a statutory defined formula that shares the costs proportionately. Allowing ALFCO's to use indemnification will prevent the expense of one entity from being shifted to all representative agencies that fund a LAFCO.

That, in turn, will protect the county, city and special district taxpayers and ratepayers from incurring the expenses of LAFCO applicants who stand to benefit from the approval of an application. After extensive negotiations with the California Building Industry Association, we agreed to limit indemnification to applications LAFCO actually approves with me today to testify on behalf of her client, the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions is Jean Hurst, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'm Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, CALAFCO, and we're the sponsors of Senate Bill 1209. This is a relatively straightforward Bill that authorizes LAFCOs explicitly to require an indemnification provision and applications that achieve approval. The statutory change is necessary, as Senator mentioned, as the courts have recently ruled that LAFCOs may not require nor rely upon indemnification because it isn't expressly authorized in the Cortese–Knox–Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000. Even though cities, counties and special districts routinely require indemnification when considering land use applications.

It's important to note that the Legislature has delegated the power to regulate the boundaries and services of local government agencies to LAFCOs. LAFCOs are tasked with discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies, and ensuring the efficient delivery of government services on the state's behalf. Without the ability to indemnify, any costs associated with litigation would be borne by the local agencies that fund the LAFCO.

Alternatively, the LAFCO will necessarily have to consider whether to make concessions to the applicant or to not defend its actions, undermining their fundamental statutory charge. We want to extend our appreciation for the Committee staff for the California Building Industry Association in working so closely with us, and to Senator Cortese for his willingness to champion this issue. We respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on, please state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Good afternoon. Mark Isidro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

See no one else. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. Respectfully and regretfully opposed to SB 1209, California is home to 95 RCDs serving local communities by implementing projects and providing technical assistance to public and private landowners to meet local conservation needs.

RCDs serve as a vital link between federal, state and local programs, helping these agencies meet their conservation goals, including watershed planning and management, forest health and wildfire resilience, sustainable agricultural practices and conservation education, amongst others. More and more is being asked of RCDs as the effects of climate change demand greater levels of resource conservation and restoration.

The services RCDs provide are largely funded by grants and agreements with federal, state, and local partners. Only about one third of the 95 RCDs in California receive some form of annual local tax base, and of those, the average is less than $300,000. For the other 60 some odd RCDs, they really operate off of the small amount of overhead from these grants and from these financial agreements, there is no base funding. RCDs are really good at operating on a bootstrap budget and leveraging funds across our levels of government.

With this Bill, the Senator noted the underlying lawsuit, that cost the local LAFCO - that lawsuit was about $400,000. That's more than the average annual tax base for RCDs. So we're really concerned about the ability for us to financially comply if we have to defend or indemnify a LAFCO in a lawsuit, or simply how we budget to accommodate the fact that we may have to put that money aside.

RCDs do not come too often to LAFCO's to request organizational changes, but they are doing so to, again, keep up with the effects of climate change and make sure that they are serving the communities and the counties in which they serve. I'm aware of two currently, one in Solano and one in San Diego, where the RCDs are considering either expanding their sphere of influence or annexing territories.

There are a lot of donut holes that exist within the service territories of RCDs, so we're concerned with the potential chilling effect this may have on RCDs coming forward and requesting these types of changes and ensuring that the local communities they serve get the services they need. For those reasons, we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on the record, in opposition? Seeing no one coming to the microphone, I take it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments? Seeing nobody. How about a motion? Senator, would you like to close?

Let me just say, we appreciate the concerns of the opposition that you heard here today, and we've gone back and forth to try to figure out some kind of elegant solution for that. There's thus far not been one, you know, other than a carve out, which would, of course, continue and continue to continue right on down the line, given the number of folks that have to come in before LAFCOs. We will keep in communication and see if there's still something that can be worked out. And with that, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We do have a motion and a second. Thank you for presenting your Bill today. I will be voting aye. The motion is due passed. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1209, the motion is due passed to the Floor. [Roll Call].

The vote is seven. Bill is out, we leave the roll open for others to add on. The last item on the agenda, SB 1439, by Senator Ashby. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Hi, colleagues. Thank you so much for having us today. Appreciate it. Want me to start? All right. Chair and Members, I am here today, we are here today to present SB 1439. SB 1439 is, at its heart, a district bill. It will allow Sutter Hospital here in Sacramento to build a state of the art cancer center on a former regional transit lot in a two block radius of my district.

Sutter has established themselves as a reputable provider of quality healthcare in many of our districts, right here in Northern California, in the Bay Area, in the Central Valley, and in Southern California. In fact, many of my colleagues and myself have relied on Sutter Health to provide critical life saving care for ourselves and our families.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in our state, with 189,000 new cases and over 60,000 deaths each year. According to a study from UC Davis, Sacramento County has a higher cancer mortality rate than the state average, indicating a need for this facility In my district.

There is also a great need for increased accessibility to critical life saving care for those who have Medi-Cal or Medicare. Of its 3.2 million patients served annually, Sutter serves over 1.2 million Medi-Cal and Medicare patients. And as Senate District 8's population grows, so too will those numbers.

Sutter Health is heavily invested in our local federally qualified health centers, such as WellSpace and the Sac Native American Health Center, who will provide care for cancer patients, and already do, for some of our most underserved populations. They are supporters of this bill.

Through these partnerships, Sutter Health has provided low cost medical care to 440,000 low income patients, absorbing the unreimbursed cost of that care. This bill was heavily amended. That's an understatement. Heavily amended in the Senate to include safeguards that ensure that the land is used for critical health care, remains accessible for marginalized communities, and provides a positive community benefit.

I am proud to have the support of WellSpace Health, Sacramento Native American Health Center, Sacramento City's Mayor Steinberg, the California Professional Firefighters, the Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation, the Pipe Trades, the Association of Electrical Workers, California Medical Association, the State Building and Trades, my local Building and Trades, the Sacramento LGBTQ Community Center, the Steinberg Mental Health Institute, California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, and dozens of local businesses, trade organizations, and community associations, some of which I am sure you will hear from today.

I know that the issue of precedent has been discussed. I want to face it head on. I want to assure my colleagues this bill is so narrow that it only applies to one landlocked hospital in a two block, non-residential area of my district and is only intended to create an opportunity to meet a very specific need, treating cancer in a county with a higher cancer mortality rate than the average of the state that we all serve.

And while I am also a housing advocate, and in fact, as a young, single mom, lived in low income, affordable housing in this city that I now serve, I too am an advocate for healthcare, particularly life saving health care. I'm a Senator that serves 1 million people, and those million people lack access to critical life saving cancer treatment.

While the Surplus Land Act is a very good tool for housing, it also puts government organizations in line ahead of healthcare. It prioritizes corp yards, administration buildings, fire stations, and civic buildings ahead of healthcare. Those of you in local government know that. We use that to get pieces of land. In Sacramento, our Housing Authority had a right of first refusal to this land. Let me say that again.

The Housing Authority for Sacramento had a right of first refusal to this land. They turned it down, stating that it was economically infeasible for affordable housing. Sac is a good actor on housing stock. SHRA has 25,000 low and very low affordable units in their portfolio. Last year alone, they added 640 more units, and in the immediate pipeline, there are 2218 more units.

I am asking you, my colleagues, to please allow me the opportunity to build my million constituents a critical project to help them address the healthcare needs that they face in Sacramento. I am asking you for an aye vote on SB 1439. With me today as my lead witnesses are Joe Gregorich on behalf of Sutter Health and Scott Wetch on behalf of several trade organizations.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Joe Gregorich, Vice President of Government Affairs for Sutter Health. Across our system, Sutter Health currently serves more than 3.2 million Californians, and just last year, it had more than 200,000 inpatient admissions in our acute care hospitals. With our state of the art facilities across Northern California and the Central Coast, we work day in and day out to meet the needs of our local patients on day to day care and with serious illness.

Throughout the last year, we have initiated plans to open more than two dozen ambulatory care centers and begun work to add more than 160 acute care hospital beds over the next three years. We've hired 700 new physicians and advanced practice clinicians. With the eye towards increasing clinical staff, we need more space.

But in Sacramento, as the Senator has alluded to our Center, Medical Center of Sacramento, which has been here for 100 years, we are limited and landlocked. To the east of Sutter Medical Center, we are blocked by a freeway. To the west, we are blocked by a state historic park, and to the east and to the north, we are blocked by private land. So our only real ability to grow would be to the south, which is currently occupied by regional transit, which is subject to the Surplus Land Act.

By passing SB 1439, this would allow Sutter Health the certainty that we need to plan for our future. Knowing that the regional transit property, which is the only land that we could reasonably develop, is viable for us, would allow us to expand our medical center and meet the needs of our patients. The service we provide and will continue to provide is much needed for our communities. We provide life saving and essential services to our 3 million patients. So with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western State Council of Sheet Metal Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union.

Obviously, I'm here today because this is a world class project, a project that comes along in a community like Sacramento once in a generation, perhaps, that's going to provide huge economic benefits to the City of Sacramento and to the men and women that I represent who live here. I've also, in this building, been involved with the Surplus Act, Surplus Land Act since going back to 1990 and 91 when I was a consultant to the Senate Housing Committee.

You know, there's hundred, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of parcels of state land in the State of California throughout all of your districts. Thousands of those are currently surplus land or one day will be surplus land. And while the Surplus Land Act and its provisions are there for good reason, to suggest that there's not going to be instances in probably each and every one of your districts where there's a piece of surplus land that just happens to be next to a use that's more conducive for a purpose other than housing.

It could be culturally sensitive land. It could be an existing community center. It could be, you know, it could be some other type of housing facility, a senior home or whatnot, that would benefit from a different use. And that's why the Surplus Land Act has that overall protection, but then it comes to committees like this to look at the specifics of the project and determine if that's really what's in the best interest of the community.

And I think the breadth of the support that you're going to hear and that you've heard about clearly demonstrates that the community of Sacramento believes that this is an essential project. And I just would also like to remind you that we're talking about a disproportionate share hospital. So this is a DSH hospital that already is serving a disadvantaged community. So with all of the, for all of those reasons, I would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to be added on in support, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg in support.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Hi. Daniel Conway, here as a private resident and former Chief of Staff to Kevin Johnson in strong support. Thank you, Senator.

I align my comments. Crystal Strait, Sacramento resident, former Chief of Staff to the mayor. Thank you.

I'm Dr. Jonathan Porteus. I'm the CEO of Wellspace Health. I serve 130,000 Medi-Cal beneficiaries in this area and 10,000 uninsured people. I'm also the Chair of the HUD Continuum of Care Advisory Board for the region. I'm in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Doug Subers is on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in strong support.

Dan Seaman also on behalf of WellSpace Health in strong support. And thank you to the Senator for bringing forward.

Kelly Hitt on behalf of the Sacramento Native American Health Center in strong support. Thank you.

Alison Ramey on behalf of the California Ambulatory Surgery Association in support.

Michael Ault, Executive Director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership here in Sacramento's downtown core in strong support.

Kevin Ferreira, Executive Director of the Sacramento-Sierra's Building and Construction Trades Council, in strong support.

Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association here in strong support. Thank you.

Mike Monagan on behalf of State Building Trades in support.

George Soares with the California Medical Association in support.

Charles Wright on behalf of the Sacramento Asian Chamber and the California Asian Chamber in support.

Michelle Smira on behalf of the R Street Sacramento Partnership in support.

Dion Dwyer on behalf of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, support.

Jameson Parker on behalf of the Midtown Association in strong support.

Thank you. And with that, we take it to any primary witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon. My name is Nora Kostra. I'm a business development manager with the nonprofit EAH Housing. I'm also a longtime resident of Sacramento, and I live about five blocks from from the sites in question, and I'm also on the board of directors of the Sacramento Housing alliance and representing them.

So for over 55 years, EAH has developed and operated affordable homes for lower income Californians. EAH is currently in a surplus land act process in Sacramento. For the sites listed in SB 1439, we are exercising our right of first refusal.

These sites are in a high resource area near parks, grocery, good school, high quality public transit, and have the opportunity to seek cap and trade investments in the tens of millions of dollars to create more bike, pedestrian and transit connectivity alongside the proposed housing.

These sites could even work for co locating housing with a healthcare space on the ground floor or adjacent with housing above, which is an efficient use of public land for public good.

The reason nonprofit affordable housing developers like myself seek out surplus land is because one of the challenges in building new affordable homes is acquiring land suitable for housing.

The state Legislature recognizes this as a barrier and has done an excellent job trying to reduce those barriers and strengthen the surplus Land act so that affordable housing continues to be prioritized. This current Sacramento SLA process is a great example of the SLA functioning as intended.

We submitted our proposal within the timeframe the SLA allows, and we are awaiting a decision from the public agency that owns the sites. They can choose not to proceed with us if we can't meet their price in their terms and they can sell to any other party. That's why SB 1439 to s is unnecessary.

This process should be allowed to be completed without interruption.

This Bill sets a bad precedent for one off exemptions, and nothing in this Bill requires any kind of preference for Low income patience beyond existing law, while the SLA offers priority to housing in exchange for a strict affordability requirement, and indeed, for these sites, EAH has proposed more than 200 units for seniors and families at very Low income in Sacramento.

That means a one person household earning 24 to 40,000 a year or a family of four earning 35 to 59,000 a year. The City of Sacramento's very Low income regional housing need from 2021 to 2029 is 10,000 units, and so far we've only permitted 1000.

Sacramento, like all cities in California, have to do a lot of work to increase homes affordable and accessible to very Low income households. And continuing exemptions to the SLA means fewer opportunities for affordable homes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Members JT Harishmack with the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, or NPH. NPH we represent affordable housing developers across the nine county Bay Area region. Many of our Members, like EAH, are statewide or larger.

We are also part of a statewide coalition to strengthen, improve and streamline the surplus Land act over the last five or six years. Now, a big effort in that was AB 480 and SB 747, which you heard mentioned earlier from Senator Caballero. Our goal there was to make it easier for agencies and local governments to comply.

And one of the major updates there was an exemption for sites at a half acre or less, which covers a number of the sites that we're talking about here today with 1439. This is an update that went into effect before this Bill was filed. It went into effect on January 1.

Meanwhile, HCD has been working hard to finish guideline updates for this new version of the SLA in which they will be speaking a lot on what these exemptions are and how to qualify for them.

They've been a very strong partner in this process, and they would like to see ease of compliance and they would like to see affordable units come out of the surplus land. Actual but housing and homelessness remain 1 and 2 on so many of the opinion polls here in California.

Still, PPIC's recent one in June found this as well. HCD, or the SLA, was created to be another tool in our efforts to address these top issues. When we talked with HCD last year, they had reviewed 237 dispositions of land, and in 11% of those cases, the locals decided they would like to pursue doing affordable housing.

But in 89% of those times, the locals decided they would like to do whatever else they would like to do with that land. So Sakhar T now has this window. Sacarte can decide if they would like to support affordable housing with this land or as their prerogative.

They can decide to do anything else with this land that they would so choose. They have a window here that is closing on their negotiations with EAh and with others. And if Sutter's proposed use is what SAC RT actually wants, then nothing in the current SLA precludes them from doing this.

And we really haven't heard a reason why this exemption is going to make or break this current project. But we believe that this Bill is not just superfluous, we believe that it sets alarming precedents. Three of them.

First is that the Legislature is okay with allowing a corporation to be the one that attempts to exempt a local agency or a local jurisdiction's land. From the SLA. This is the first time that this has happened. It's usually the local agency that approaches you all asking for this.

Second, and also as a local government Committee, I think this is a concern for you all concerning about your local governments being exposed to new pressures from other high powered actors that are interested in their land.

Second, the Legislature is okay with allowing these singular exemptions to the SLA, which invites the continuation of this parade of single exemption bills year after year. And it's a parade that we were trying to stop with the major updates we made last year to the Bill. And then third, this is intervening in an ongoing negotiation. Thank you.

Finally, housing and healthcare are two critical aspects, and we would like to work together on this. The SLA does allow for things like a clinic with affordable housing units. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Anybody else in the room that wants to add on an opposition, please state your name, organization, and position on the Bill. I'll be the first.

Hi, Katherine Charles. On behalf of Housing California and respectful opposition, Rachel Mueller, on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing and Public Interest Law Project, in opposition, Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies post.

Jonathan Cook, Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance, representing the Sacramento Housing Alliance and Public Advocates in opposition. Thank you.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership, also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Not seeing anyone else take it back to the Committee Members. Assembly Member Wilson.

Good afternoon, Senator. You know, I appreciate you bringing this forward, you know, for your district and the comments around trying to narrow and tailor it to you, notwithstanding precedent, and as I've shared my office, I know I've shared my concerns about precedent.

And before I get into my follow up questions, I do want to say that now being able to categorize myself as a cancer survivor, recognizing that cancer centers are extremely important, had the opportunity to go receive services through two different hospital institutions, mainly because my hospital institution had an agreement with somebody else which worked better for my schedule.

And so I was really happy to be able to get care, get quality care from two different systems, and both of those being cancer centers. So I know the type of care that they provide in those spaces. I also recognize the importance of projects, prioritizing workers to give them a quality of life, and I appreciate that.

So I think the comments that were made that you made, no real concern would understand, you know, the intention of the Bill. I think even from the testimony that was provided, agree with right in support of the Bill.

My concern really does still center around precedent and trying to understand why the carve out is needed and not going through the process. Because if we're going, I mean, if we're doing these types of carve outs and what's to say?

I mean, I've served as a local leader for such a long time, and it was frustrating when we knew we had a really good project that could go right here, but we had to go to the SLA process. But we felt like this was a better, best and highest use for this site was not.

Housing was actually something else, but we still had to go through that process. And so, although this is a great project, no faults on the projects, but I got to set the project itself aside and look at from the policy point of view, this standard of practice and what we're doing SLA, why not go through the process?

Why not let it play out? What is the danger there?

It's a great question. And first of all, let me start by saying I am ever so glad there was a cancer center or two there to serve you.

And I know I am not the only Member of the Legislature who has called you panicked from a test myself, asking you out of fear, through tears, is this going to be okay? So thank you for being that for all of us.

I know you know how special you are to all of us, and I don't want any of this to land on your shoulders, because you are a survivor. I know you're a champion of this cause. Let's let that be clear. Right? But what you're asking is the question.

So while I deeply respect the opposition's positions, they're doing their job. They're fighting for housing. I'm a Sacramento person, and you all know I have a chip on my shoulder about Sacramento as it is. But the Bay Area consortium doesn't move me. The person who's willing to actually invest and spend money in Sacramento does.

And I'm very grateful to them. However, this is really important. Nothing about this Bill stops that process. She gets to see it all the way through. You all know this better than I do. You've been here longer than me.

This Bill, after we vote it through, doesn't even go into effect until long after her process is over with. Which begs the question then, why? I submit to you all a beautiful Low income housing project through the surplus land actual from I and 15th in my district. What's that? Six blocks? Seven blocks up from you? Great project.

I love this project. It's 70 affordable housing units. Half of the land is surplus Land act. The other half the developer purchase. You know, lots of investment to make these things work. This project, because of the surplus Land act, has been in purgatory for two years and the developer is about to leave Sacramento.

I've spent the last two weeks fighting with DGs NHCD about helping me get this project through the surplus Land act so that these 70 units can be built. If she is successful in her bid to build housing on these sites, then that's wonderful. But the housing authority thinks that that is going to be cost prohibitive.

I am all for her. If she makes it through and she's the top bidder, that's great. If not, though, I don't want a surplus land act bureaucracy that takes two years before Sutter can build a cancer center on those pieces of property. And that is why the Bill is critically important.

One other thing, I did meet with HCD, the Director, Director Gustavo Velasquez and his team, and I talked about the narrow tailoring of this Bill. Gustavo said to me himself, of course, the same position we all have, that if there were something critically important, it would be a cancer treatment service sitter.

So I submit to you all that if this is some kind of bar, it's a really high bar, to clear a landlocked hospital needing to build cancer treatment services in an urban core in a multi block area where housing really is not feasible. One other thing, obviously, I don't know what regional transit's bids are.

We all know one now. We know there are a few. I know one more. I know it because the City of Sacramento told me that it is them. The City of Sacramento has bid on this property not for housing, not for moving healthcare forward, but for a civic building.

Those things also shortcut Sutter health because of the surplus Land act. That is why this Bill is critically important. If her proposal is successful, great. But if it's not, I don't want a two-year delay. And I don't want a fire station or a courtyard. I want a cancer center. And that's why I'm asking you for your aye vote.

So in essence, you are saying that the cancer center gets cut, gets the cut in front of the line. And you are saying that if Sacramento wanted a fire station or a civic building there, that they can't have it, they can't exercise their right, but actually.

They could win, too. They could win right now. That process will be over with. They could win. She might lose and I might lose too. And he might lose, and all of Sacramento might lose. It might be a fire station. That process will be over with as well.

But what I'm saying is there's 12 parcels. Right. And you're saying that within that, that you want someone to be able to cut the line in advance of let's go to the Land act. Right.

Since you brought it up, Low and moderate income housing, park and recreation and open space, school facilities or infill opportunity zones or transit village plans or another agency, public use.

So you're saying for the purposes of land that isn't in the surplus land or, or that would potentially be in the surplus Land act. That would be true, but the vast majority of these properties are already in the surplus Land act and already making their way through that process, which will be over with.

What I'm saying is I don't want them to get stuck after that. After that's over with, Sutter could bid against anybody else and RT has the right, even during the surplus Land act to ask for fair market value for the property.

So any housing, if that's what they want and need, which I believe they do, because they have to build a new facility when they leave this land, anybody that bid that didn't offer fair market value probably is not going to be successful.

So I'm not really seeking, they actually won't be cutting a line, but what they will be doing is not having to enter back into whatever oversight and process HCD has in place after the surplus Land Act RFP has been exhausted. And there is a process after that. But that's what I'm saying.

After. So you're saying instead of waiting. Right, that's what I'm saying. That they're in line right now instead of waiting. Instead of waiting in line, advancing forward. So here's my concern with it.

After hearing the exchange and appreciate the discourse, and I hate that we did not get a chance to talk in advance and we're in that period where things are crazy.

It's really centered around, you know, upending a process because although you say it's not precedent setting, because it's a high bar, every single local agency and the local agency is not here asking for it. So. But every mayor was here. Okay, so I used to be a mayor.

Yeah.

Right. And can't do anything about council. I had my own opinion on a lot of things, but if I'm sharing my opinion without the council, it's Lori sharing her.

Right.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So that, so it's not sponsored by the City of Sacramento.

Yep.

Okay. That's what I mean. And so what I'm trying to say is that my concern centers around that once you open the door for what isn't eligible use, that hasn't already been done. Right. You have to think about how someone else could then use that.

And there are lots of wonderful things across our state that local agencies will say that is, we absolutely need that. And this doesn't stop them from doing it. It just makes them wait. And that's where my rub is. I'm still not through this conversation.

I came in and, as you were aware, in a lean, no position, still not sure where I'll end up being by the time we get to vote. I'd love to hear if any other colleagues has issues, but, you know, we're upending it. Where I can just see this.

You know, literally, I can think of three projects that I would be like, hey, cities, y'all should get these exempt from SLA. You know, do you want to?

I'll carry that Bill because I think that they're important, and although they're not cancer center, they are very vitally important to the community and to the quality of life of my constituents. And so I feel like if we're eroding it for that, that concerns me. So I'll leave it with that. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Wilson, Assembly Member Ward.

Great. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward.

And I have a lot of deep thought in this, I think, aligned with the critical eye that our colleague from Susan City is looking at it as well, because we try to hold very strongly to the hard work that has developed under surplus lands acts and, of course, addressing the need we have for housing.

I, you know, respectful of, you know, certainly your representation of this city. I guess I am very curious about your statement that housing is not feasible here economically.

They're going to struggle with what the costs will be because it's along a freeway, because there's mitigation. The site was previously used for buses and trains and things that. There's going to be.

A lot of these parcels, though, are used for administrative buildings.

Yeah, but you would need more than that. To be the only ones large enough for housing are going to require a substantial amount of funding.

I'm going to jump ahead of my line of thought really quick. Because of the nine parcels that are subject here, three of those are not yet declared surplus for. Those are the three that house the current bus transit, bus maintenance facilities.

There are a couple of. Okay, those are the primary ones, yes. But there are other sites to be.

Contiguous with the medical campus. Those are the ones that you actually need the ones that we are, the first six that we are exempting, one of which is at least one of which is the subject of current bid that's under review. Sure will be under review.

It's already under review. It's partially through the process be over with before the Bill is right.

So what I'm saying is that, you know, to do what we would like to do for healthcare facilities, you've got to hop over a non parcel that's not yet declared surplus. We're going to exempt it. We would exempt it through this Bill as exempt from surplus, but it's not yet on the table.

There are. Yeah, there are three.

How are you going to achieve ultimately, you know, well, that's why we grouped up facilities. That's why we grouped all of them. Okay, so we're grouping all of them. And I guess for Sutter, you know, in your long range planning, you know, coming. Coming later to this conversation, where. Where was this last year?

If this is something that needs to be done for, you know, future vision, it just one of the hardships, I've got several on this, but one of the hardships is that we're already underway. You've got somebody that's made investments, that's done the planning, that's working on a housing need, of course, for the community, too.

And it's following a process. And so that's going to throw some of that into doubt. And if this is a critical element to something that's of consequence to your landlocked nature, you know, why not. Why not address this earlier?

To be honest, if you look at the original Bill, I think this project was a learning. And we were using this as an example as to why health facilities meet the need of being exempted because of how difficult this project has been to get off the ground because of the surplus Land act.

And to be clear, the cancer center is not where the bus depot will be. That is going to be one of the ones that is not directly next door. So our learning was not until later in 2023. So that's why we brought it this year and we had a bigger Bill because this was our learning.

And now we are narrowed down to needing help on this project.

I think he means learning is in part learning that RT's process was in play and learning that RT was moving out. This is new for.

I mean, RT has not been initiated.

Several on portions of them. But that's why you see three additional parcels.

Not yet. Right.

Because RT has not been really forthcoming about that whole long plan for them. So this is when Sutter learned that the parcels would be available, the surplus Land act, and raise their hand to say, we need some help.

I'm going to also state probably favorably to your position that, you know, as I'm trying to think about what uses are appropriate and how we're categorizing them, recognizing that we do need world class healthcare facilities in all of our communities, especially a major city like here.

And so I'm sensitive to that sort of as a quasi public use, albeit through a pilot. If this was, you know, UC Davis Medical center, right. That was publicly owned land and maybe would advance it then to a potentially, you know, public purpose.

I'm trying to almost rationalize apples to apples here, but, you know, I'm weighing that also with, in part, an unfairness for activities that have already, you know, been invested. And that that's, that may be a difficult decision. We have to, we have to, we have to make.

We have, we have got to make a judgment call on that, like right now here and in the moment, you know, the unfairness aside, I'm wrestling with, with President, I feel this might, for me, might rise to a level where it's exceptional and deserves, you know, a rare exception. But I'm also wondering how this actually could implement.

So, again, back to the timing of it. This would have become law, wouldn't even become in effect until January 1. This process will have concluded. Yes.

So she won't lose any investment. She'll either be selected or she won't.

And so if she is selected, then.

They move forward with their project. It doesn't, then this is moot. So she doesn't, not just her, anybody that has applied for that land.

If there's a signal, though, to rt, like, hey, like, maybe you should, like, not select them because we'll give you.

I don't think so. Because a price tag is a price tag. They're going to get. You know how this works. Fair market value is what they've asked for. That's what they're going to get. If they. They're not going to get additional resource, they're going to get fair market value. They've asked for fair market value.

If she bid fair market value, she's viable. If somebody else bid fair market value, then they're going to be competing. That will be resolved. There is potential. Same with the City of Sacramento's whatever it is, fire station or courtyard or whatever.

If they offered fair market value and they make it through that process, they're going to get this piece of land ahead of him that will be resolved. There is no dollars that have been expended by a bidder that wouldn't see their process all the way through and have an opportunity to be selected before this happens.

Like I said, the reason I'm doing it is, first of all because there's additional pieces of land, which you clearly understand, and second of all because there's a bureaucracy that exists after the surplus land piece is over with. That can be quite cumbersome. And I don't want Sutter to have to wait through that process.

Understand? Well, I kind of laid my issues out. I appreciate it, and I feel comfortable offering courtesy.

This will be coming before should I get out of this Committee, the Housing Committee, which I share in short time and want to continue that conversation as I kind of work on some of these elements, because this is both deeply appreciated by me, what investments and vision our affordable housing developers are trying to make.

And it's also a principle that we're trying to hold onto so that we don't run down a list of 100 bills where, I mean, we had a piece of land in my region.

It's not necessarily my Assembly District that the city was wrestling whether or not to try to achieve an exemption from the Surplus Lands act for a very big project. I might add that actually in part incorporates a lot of housing.

But they decided they were going to go through the process because it was important and all the work that had gone into SLA was important.

It would be more difficult and troublesome, I think, to try to look for exemptions, but again, get this special need for the community here for healthcare facilities, that really does also sit with me strongly today.

So I'll be supporting it going forward for the moment, but I want to continue the conversation as we wrestle with some of these issues. Sure.

Thank you, Assemblyman Ward .

Assemblyman Kalra, Mister chair, and I thank my colleagues for asking and the conversation on some of the questions and concerns that I've had on this as well. Obviously, it's not the underlying use and purpose, but that's because that's not the question before us. The question before us is an exemption. And I share concerns regarding the precedent setting.

Whether a precedent is set or not is not based upon the intention of whether we want a President or not want to set it set. And I think that they really could open up regardless of whether, if this were to go forward and become successful.

It doesn't mean that everyone that would come forward be successful, but what it does means we'll probably see dozens and dozens of these every single year.

Because in my district, if folks in my district come to me and say, hey, we have this really great project, I have my community there saying, we want it, I'm going to bring a Bill, and maybe two or three of them, and maybe every other Legislator will bring one or two bills once this precedent is set.

And I think that is, I think the sense of discomfort is really, that has nothing to do with building a cancer center. I think that that's something that everyone would support.

But the SLA process, even though it is cumbersome, is a process that for better or worse, even if it's more worse than better, folks have to go through and that vetting has to occur because of the dire need for housing and the lack of ability to find appropriate spaces for it.

And just to follow up on assignment rewards. Questions? There's nine parcels that are going through the process, three of which right now are being used by RT for maintenance. Or are there 12 parcels?

12 parcels. Nine going through the process. Three not in a process yet.

Three not in process. Okay. And those are the ones that are being used for maintenance. And the nine are already going through the process.

And so if the process is already going through, this is to, what I understand, because one of my questions would be, why you go, why is this necessary if it's already going through the process? From what you've said, is that so that if Sutter wins the bid, then they don't have to go through the lengthier?

No. So that when, if a different bidder is selected in the process, that's fine, it's over with, Sutter's out, if they're not. And some portion of those processes, by the way, it's possible, I don't know, won't speak for. I probably didn't bid on all nine, I'm guessing, chose a few bid on those.

So it's possible that some could come through and some don't. Whatever version of that afterwards has to go back to HCD because this is surplus land and then be discussed. It's not a new RFP, but there are some clearances, some discussions.

That is the piece that this Bill would protect Sutter from being getting stuck where this housing project is in a two year debate around a piece of surplus land. So that is, her process will be over with by Vench.

That will be done, as will the City of Sacramento, and that will have been resolved, and they'll either be building housing or they won't. And it is possible, as Assemblyman reward has said, that some pieces will get awarded, and some wouldn't.

And then Sutter could try to purchase the ones that weren't, and then also would have the ability to purchase the three, which some remark also accurately pointed out allows them to be contiguous, potentially, depending on which of the nine parcels they are, which is why we grouped them. So I think that's sort of to the point.

And I would just say two other things about your points. One, I would argue that you're right. We're looking at whether we're setting a precedent or we're not setting a precedent. Doesn't matter what the underlying item is, but I would argue it has everything to do with what the underlying item is.

Because a cancer treatment service center in a county with a high, higher than average statewide mortality rate for cancer is critically important. So is housing. I've been a big housing champ. 11 Low income inclusionary apartment complexes in the City Council district I represented alone.

I've used the surplus Land act to build housing in Sacramento, as I'm sure many of you have done in your districts. I wouldn't bring this forward, and I don't think any of you would bring forward a Bill for something you didn't think was so righteous that you could go through this.

And let me suggest to you, if you think this is an easy process, let me assure you it is not. I would highly recommend you tell people from your district, don't do it. Because this is easily my hardest Bill this year because of how serious you are all taking it. This is taking all of my efforts.

And then secondly, I know this has already been done.

UC Davis, Aggie Square in Sacramento was a Kevin Mccarty Bill that was folded into a budget where we took surplus land and gave it to UC Davis for Aggie Square, which is in part for a public hospital, but also in part for public entities that are also building on that space.

You heard Kevin Ferrar today from SAC building and trades, who's the leader of that PLA for that deal. So this has been done before.

Thank you, Senator. Do you have any more questions?

Yeah.

No, I'll just say that, like, I'm also on the Housing Committee, and we have our two esteemed chairs here, and I'll vote for this day to allow the continued conversations and to allow for a little deeper dive as we go to the Housing Committee and see what the Housing Committee, from that angle, I would like to add to the conversation, and we'll take it under deeper consideration at that time.

But for today, I'll vote to allow it at least from my perspective, to continue the conversation forward, we'll be very keen to see how much what we can continue to discuss in housing.

Deeply appreciate that, Senator.

Member Ramos.

Thank you so much, Mister chair. I just have a few questions. Knowing that the healthcare facility is already there and you're looking to expand, I would imagine that that's part of the local General plan as far as the uses in those areas. So it actually complements that within the General plan of the local jurisdiction.

And that's a fact, is that it is.

It's actually called the Sutter district, that whole area.

Thank you. And the expansion that you're wishing to do is within that General plan of the local jurisdiction that has been approved by the local jurisdiction in the area.

That is correct. It would be a permissible use under the existing General plan. Yes.

And an example of when I was on the county Board of Supervisors in San Bernardino, County, Lomba Linda University Healthcare was moving forward with areas that were zoned moving forward, the exempt status gave them the opportunity to be able to raise funds to construct that expansion. Is that is also an option that's here.

That's why we're talking about some of.

These things, that Sutter would have the ability to raise funds because their investors would then know that they're moving forward with the project. Yes.

Thank you for that. I think what we also see here is some of those constraints of what is truly important to here in the State of California is health care. Healthcare is important, housing is important.

So we're here talking about two very important issues in the State of California and specifically in this region for areas of treatment that need to be able to be done, especially when we start to talk about those that are underserved, those that have to go, certain areas out of the area to look for this service in particular.

So I think these areas, it's a tough Bill to move forward, but knowing that there's parameters that are there, General plan, local jurisdiction, voted on that that's moving forward.

You're staying within those guidelines that are there and servicing another important issue to the residents in the State of California, and particularly the residents here in this local area, healthcare. I think this is something that I will be supporting, and we'll move the Bill, Mister chair, when the time is appropriate.

Thank you. Anybody else wants? Assemblymember Pacheco?

Thank you, and thank you for answering all the questions, but I also, I'm trying to get my head wrapped around this Bill. So 13 parcels, three woods, I'm sorry, 12 parcels, three of which are not subject to the SLA process. But nine are and are going through the process right.

Three that aren't in the surplus Land act right now, and then nine that are going through the process right now, and that process will be over with before the Bill is implemented.

And that's what I'm trying to understand. Why do we need this legislation if nine of those parcels are complicated?

Because part of why we need it is, as Assembly Member award suggested, in order for the pieces to be contiguous, the three that are available are not necessarily contiguous without some of the nine. So that's one piece. In order for Sutter to build a cancer center, it has to be adjacent to the hospital.

That's one of the requirements, I'm sure, that the state put in place. And so if we can't do this, they'll have to build this cancer center not in Sacramento county, but at a different hospital somewhere else. I don't want that to happen because too many people in Sacramento don't have access to a cancer center.

So that's one of the reasons. And then the other reason is because once she's through her process, which this doesn't interfere with her process, if she gets it, she moves forward. And if she doesn't, HCD has to sign off to allow RT to go ahead and sell to whoever.

And I don't want the project to get hung up, like other projects have for several years, because I want either her or him to build out immediately. We don't have time in Sacramento to sit. I'm sure we could all agree on that.

And this cancer research center has to be built adjacent.

Well, so it's a functional requirement. So, like, in terms of patient mobility and physician mobility, it needs to be next to an acute care hospital because of the way that patient movement and physician movement. If it's not, every single one of these we are building are next to one of our medical centers.

So if we can't build it next to a medical center, we will not build it here. We will build it by another medical center in our system.

And what is the nearest, besides Sacramento, what is the nearest? Roseville.

So we can't build in Roseville because we don't have room there. So we are, we are, we are. We will be building one in Modesto, but that will be serving the Central Valley. The patients in the Sacramento region will not receive one of these if we don't build it here in Sacramento. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblyman Wilson, you have a follow up?

Just one follow up in regard to. There was an exchange about raising funds and needing to signal for raising funds. And I just want to understand that a little bit.

Yeah, I heard your voice in the back. I think what he was asking me or the way I took the question was, it's very hard for Sutter to go to their. For example, if you go down to Sutter Hospital right now, you'll see on the side of the wall Lucchetti Anderson, ob gYN maternity unit or whatever. Massive.

Right. Multi millionaires in our region who helped support a new Ob GYn facility be open up a birthing center. In order for him to go talk to Dave Luchetti and Jim Anderson, he needs to be able to say that there's a piece of land that's been identified in the moving forward.

Otherwise he can't raise the money because it's not going to be built here. That is his blame.

Okay, so you're talking about raising donations to build certain, but then that goes to. For the Bill, even if it gets, let's say it sells through, you know, in some form that is favorable, but it's still going through the process over the next few months. He wouldn't be able to do that.

Can't do that anyway. No, no, no. Okay. But if the Bill doesn't pass, she doesn't get it. City of Sac doesn't get it. It might be two years before he can do that, which I think is Ramos point.

Okay. And so I'll just note this is, you know, my final comments is that, you know, I first of all, trust my chair for local Governor who has done this at local level in terms of planning and been in that.

And so the fact that Hughes and I, you know, weighed heavily on me hearing from my chair of housing, because I also sit on that. And I trust him being a local leader and recognizing these issues as it relates to local Gov.

And putting the layer on housing, I'm going to defer to my two leaders right on the committees that I sit on and support this today. But I just want for both of you know, for this is really for my chair is, you know, being mindful of the precedent setting and thinking how we navigate.

This will be top of mind for me before. If this makes it through the next Committee and gets to the floor, that will be top of mind to whether I support. I appreciate you.

Thank you all for the discussion, bringing up really valuable points. I'll give you an opportunity to close if you like.

You know, we've talked about it enough, but I would say this is the most. Local Gov. Local Gov. Can get in a local gov. Committee in the Legislature. So thank you for running through local gov 101 with me on a very Sacramento local government project. I appreciate you. Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

And I hire Jen.

I heard a motion by Assembly Member Ramos. Is there a second? A second by the Vice Chair? I appreciate you presenting this Bill. You and I had conversations before we got to this point and I expressed how concerned I was up to this point with the conversations we had.

I vote.

And we talked a lot about President and you mentioned the high bar. There is one. I'm very concerned still with the many different needs that we have in the state, not only in your district, but throughout the state, housing being one of them and so many other challenges that we have.

I appreciate your attempt to provide more access to healthcare in your district, and I'm sure that we all wish we could do that. I myself wish I was able to do that. But through the different mechanisms.

Financial mechanisms are difficult this time, not only because of the state or the budget that we have, but so many different challenges. The price of land in more urbanized areas and the lack of access.

And I'm talking not only about my district again, even though it's a very clear concern that I have in my district, the high desert. We have to travel down to LA, down to San Bernardino, to Riverside so that we're able to have access that we don't have. The housing crisis that we have.

Again, fully understand what the big concerns we have. But again, just wanted to express on the record that appreciate the conversations we had and what a difficult decision this has been for me, having also lost my dad to cancer, having known other people that we've lost. And I'm sure that we all know somebody.

We know some survivors and are happy to have you here. And I also know that this center, and I'm really hoping that it gets built, that there's no other challenges, that financial challenges are already in place to be able to build it should this pass.

With that, I also want to say that I appreciate the amendments you took in the Senate local government Committee to ensure that the land remains dedicated for use by this proportionate shared hospital or a health facility that uses a 340 B drug program.

I do have concerns, again with the precedent that we might be sitting with a surplus Land act.

Expansive reform of the Surplus Land act was passed just last year as it was discussed through AB 480 and SB 747 to limit the number of one off exemptions to the surplus Land act that we have been seeing in recent years.

In this instance, a private entity is seeking an exemption for public land that has already been declared surplus. This begs the question as to the need for this Bill for those parcels, since the parcels are already going through the disposition process as it was discussed.

Plenty, they could be eligible to an open bid before the end of the year. Again, it was plenty of discussion about that before the Bill would be enacted if it were to become law.

Secondly, adding the three additional parcels that are currently still in the use of another point of another point of concern for me, we discussed local agencies have sole discretion what the land they choose to dispose of and when they choose to dispose of the land as well.

Identifying specific parcels that the local agency is actively using could put the local agency in an awkward position at best. This Committee has been supportive of increasing access to healthcare through streamlining the permitting of clinics that provide constitutionally protected healthcare.

While increasing access to healthcare is important, it is also important that we as a Committee think about who might be getting first pass at public land. Again, plenty of discussion at that point, too.

How might this impact schools, parks and affordable housing when they have to compete against entities with more capital and better financial positions to complete the jobs, complete the projects? The question that remains is whether this proportionate share hospital or enrollment in the 340 B drug program is high enough of a bar to avoid the SLA process.

Again, another point of discussion that we had that was brought up also with that said, given that this Bill is narrowly tailored to specifically parcels in a single jurisdiction in your district, I am comfortable supporting it and the underlying goals it is attempting to achieve. The healthcare, the cancer center that you are proposing.

But I hope that this does not become a playbook for bills in the future. Whether or not this President has been said before. As you mentioned, UC Davis, with your commitment to continue working with relevant policy committees and stakeholders, I will be supporting your Bill. The motion is passed to the House and Community Development Committee.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Do pass the Housing and Community Development. Carrillo, aye. Carrillo, aye. Waldron. Waldron I Sanchez, aye. Sanchez I Haney. Haney I cholera I. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, I Ramos, aye. Ramos, I Ward. Ward. I Wilson. Wilson, aye.

Thank you so much, colleagues. Thank you.

The vote is nine, zero. The Bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you. Before we adjourn this meeting, there's a couple of, couple of add ons that we need to take care of for those that were absent. Madam Secretary

[Roll Call]

7-2. The Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Bill is out 9-0. Thank you. Thank you all. And without we adjourn this meeting.