Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

The Senate Committee and local government will come to order. Good morning. 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 O Street building.

I ask all Members of the Committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. I encourage all authors and the public to be as short as you can to the point so we can get through our agenda without having to come back.

We will have to break a little bit before noon, and if we haven't finished our hearing, we'll need to come back later in the day. We have 22 bills on today's agenda. Seven bills are on consent. Let me go through them right now. Item number three, AB 598, by Assemblymember Wix. Item six, AB 1413, by Assemblymember Ting.

Item seven, AB 24, by Assemblymember Petrie Norris. Item eight, AB 2192 by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo. Item 11, AB 2533 by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo. Item 14, AB 2262 by Assemblymember Reyes. And item 21, AB 3062, by Assemblymember Barakahan. And a few housekeeping notes.

We have a special item today being considered under our Senate Rule 2910 d, and that is SB 739 by Senator Ashby. This Bill is coming back to us for concurrence. Is Senator Ashby here? No, she's not. Okay. We don't have a quorum. We don't have a quorum. We will operate as a Subcommitee.

We don't have a quorum, but we will start. So we have Senator Cortese, if you will come up. Welcome, Senator Cortese.

Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members. Appreciate the. opportunity to present SCR 163, which would reaffirm the responsibilities of local agency formation commissions. For over half a century, LAFCOs have promoted orderly development and balanced it with sometimes competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending government services.

Each county in the state has a LAFCO, which is composed of elected city and county members, at least one public member, and in 30 counties, special district members as well. The local LAFCO is responsible for the formation of county service areas, which enable essential services, including water and sanitation, to be provided in a given area.

These officials are uniquely qualified to determine whether a project is feasible in a given area. Without an application to any decision from LAFCO, guarantees about services from the proponents of urban developments have no weight behind them.

I know there's been some general concern as to whether or not the resolution is in some way dis-acknowledging, if you will, the acute need for more housing. I'm certainly a huge proponent of housing production, but I'm also a huge proponent of orderly growth.

And that's the only real reason for the resolution, is to come forward and remind folks on an act that was created in 1963, amended over a decade later after a four-year effort, and then amended again by our good former colleague, Madam Chair, Senator Hertzberg, after another four-year effort, that it's a body of work that's worked very, very well in terms of orderly growth.

And I suppose that there are a lot of Members either because of the fact that they haven't had a lot of experience at the local government level. Some of us have, some haven't. This is really just a restatement of what already exists with, of course, being a resolution. No, no intent whatsoever to change the law.

With that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses?

None.

Okay. Are there any witnesses-- Let's just do it in support. So all those in support, would you please come forward?

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa, here today on behalf of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning. I completely support this amendment or reaffirmation of LAFCOs. I'm Adriana Romo. I'm the Deputy Executive Officer for the Los Angeles LAFCO. Thank you, Mr. Cortese.

Okay. I had asked for opposition, but which are you?

I'm in the opposition case.

Okay, go ahead.

Nick Cameron, on behalf of California Building Industry Association. Just here to point out two concerns with the resolution as it's currently drafted. I think the first is that we are stating that LAFCOs have the sole and exclusive authority to engage in processing, initiating, conducting, and completing changes of organization and extraterritorial services or reorganizations as well.

I don't think it's even by the terms of the LAFCO law, I don't think that that's an accurate statement, because that process begins with cities and counties and districts adopting a resolution to begin the process. And in addition to that, landowners and voters by petition can do the same.

And we don't want to create the impression that somehow in this resolution, we're blocking that process. I know that the Committee analysis recognizes this fact. It is also available for LAFCOs themselves to initiate proceedings.

And so we want to have a resolution that more accurately, I think, states what the law is. I think that even in the conducting of these proceedings-- the County of Santa Clara has a unique situation where their cities actually in some circumstances conduct the organization, change, reorganization, those sorts of things as well.

So it's not a universal statement that they have, that LAFCOs have the sole and exclusive authority, the cities themselves, in that case, do it.

I think, finally, what we don't want to see is a reference to one particular project because the law, assuming that this becomes actually more accurately stated in the resolution that it should apply to all projects. And I think that's something we all agree on. So for those two reasons, we'd like to see the bill, the resolution, modified.

Anyone else in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Yes, Senator Wiener?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm, I'll be honest, I'm a little perplexed by the, maybe that's the wrong word, but I'm trying to get my head around this resolution. First of all, I'm trying to say why, why it's needed. The law is what it is, right, on LAFCOs and for California Forever--

And I want to-- For California Forever or any other situation, if LAFCO has the final say, despite other agencies approving something or the voters, then that is what it is. So why do we need to have a resolution stating what the law is?

I mean, putting aside that there's a dispute about whether the resolution accurately states the law, but why, what's the purpose of doing so?

Well, let me, and if I may, let me also address the opposition. We've already agreed that the language that the opposition brought out needs to be changed. That's communication that we've gone back and forth with CBIA, no dispute whatsoever in terms of the way it was just characterized.

And that's just something that needs to go back through legislative counsel. We'll need to amend the RN and then cross it before the floor if we get out of Committee today. And it doesn't impact, back to your question, the why or any of the general intent for the resolution.

It has been 24 years since the Legislature really took up and had a discussion in a Committee or on the floor to the extent members want to do that. Obviously you were interested enough to engage me today. That's the purpose. It's, I think, a tremendous body of work that's been first created in 1963 as I said, we all know that.

Years and years of work has gone into it on two separate occasions to make sure it's right. And it's a good corollary to the values of the State of California in terms of how we want growth to proceed. So this is just elevating that.

It's just creating awareness and really nothing more than that. There's nothing in it that would change the law whatsoever. And I think the Committee analysis did a great job of acknowledging that and really closing out the analysis by saying that.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And I will say in terms of California Forever, I have very consistently declined to take a position on that project, be involved with it. There are plenty of people who are involved. So it's just not a project that I am in any way involved with or have taken a position on.

I do have concerns that this potentially either is or could be perceived as the Legislature putting its thumb on the scale in terms of that project. And so that's sort of a concern that I have. But I'm glad you're working with the opposition to at least make sure that the resolution fully, accurately describes the law. So I appreciate that.

Yeah, let me just say that the resolution itself is project-neutral.

You know, it talks about general concerns about, you know, some of the things that one would be worried, worried about if we didn't, if we had not delegated state powers, you know, through the counties to LAFCOs in a, you know-- I don't know about thumb on the scale. These are state concerns.

LAFCO would have no power at all, and the counties would have no power at all if not for the State of California. So we're just, the act itself was created in the State of California. We're not amending it here. We're just, again, creating awareness around it.

The analysis does refer to that project, and I don't have a problem with that. Don't blame the Committee. You could hold out probably any number of a half dozen circumstances around the state where local LAFCOs are going to be engaged ultimately, I think, in, you know, establishing boundaries and making sure fire services and special districts are adequate for the developments that are being contemplated and the jurisdictional issues that are being contemplated.

So I want to make it clear I'm not faulting the Committee at all for holding out that project. We've certainly had discussions along the way about what are examples of areas that this may be of concern. And so I'm complicit in that. But I, too, have not taken any position, publicly or otherwise, on that particular project.

Right. Although I will note that I think at the end of the resolution, it does refer to corporate interests purchasing thousands of acres of formula. Maybe there's another project around the state where that's happening at that scale.

There's an entire documentary that's been premiered here over on K Street about land grabs are going on up and down the state, and I would recommend every single legislator amongst our colleagues watch that. It's compelling, it's powerful, and it's finally received global distribution. So we're not overreacting to that, I'm not overreacting to that.

But I think it makes one wonder if the level of awareness about the structure that we do have in place, the governmental structure we do have in place to deal with those things, is really out there.

It was just over a year ago, in part related, I think, to the Solano project that you're referring to, that informational hearings were held during the Legislature, John Garamendi, among others, the congressman, testified as to general concerns.

And one of the recommendations that came out of that Committee in the give and take with the panelists was, it's probably time for a reaffirmation of LAFCO. And here it is, so--

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto, any comments? Okay, thank you. Would you like to have closing remarks?

I think I've done enough of that, but I do respectfully ask for your aye vote. And again, I really appreciate the Committee's cooperation with this.

Thank you. Oh, we don't have the--okay. We'll have the vote later. Now we want to move on to Item One: SB 739. Senator Ashby. Good morning.

Good morning, colleagues, Madam Chair. Nice to see you this morning. I am here to present SB 739, which allows the City of Elk Grove to utilize construction manager at risk construction contracts for a new Sacramento regional zoo in Elk Grove.

Under a typical delivery process, a city is required to complete all construction drawings and bid the entire project as a comprehensive package, which extends the design time and construction duration, ultimately increasing costs on a project. However, a construction manager at risk, which is a CMAR model, allows a city to hire a construction manager early in the process.

This helps streamline the delivery methodology, it improves cost estimating, and quickly delivers construction related recommendations. SB 739 seeks to allow the City of Elk Grove to utilize this model during the construction of their new and exciting zoo.

Utilizing this model for the onset of the project can help further align the design and construction, but most importantly, control costs. SB 739 is a crucial step towards bringing this economic opportunity to my district. Bill has received unanimous bipartisan support so far.

I think there are a couple people here to testify: Rod Brewer on behalf of the City of Elk Grove--he is a council member--and Jason Jacobs, on behalf of the Sacramento Zoo Board.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Rod Brewer, in this capacity as the vice mayor of Elk Grove, the zoo is actually in my district.

And I want to thank Senator Ashby for her leadership in carrying this Bill and moving this project forward, because this project that we're doing is going to be transformational, not only for the City of Elk Grove before the Sacramento region itself.

And the construction of the new zoo will generate not only a short term economic impact from its construction, but would also deliver ongoing economic benefits that would support the regional economy. The project is estimated to produce 2400 construction jobs and have a $249 million total economic impact over five years.

The first five years, the city has a community workforce training agreement with local trade unions. The new zoo project would be subject to that agreement. Senate Bill 739 would not create any burden for the State of California. I want to thank you again for your support for SB 739.

With your leadership, the City of Veldgrove will be able to bring an entirely new level of experience to the Sacramento region that will forever redefine zoological parks, not only here, but nationwide. Thank you very much, and we ask for your. I vote.

Good morning. My name is Jason Jacobs, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Sacramento Zoo. Many animals that we care for, such as lions and giraffes, are facing tremendous challenges throughout the world that doesn't even count local species that we take care of, like the western pond turtles.

Accredited zoos provide a vital service not only for wildlife, but also for people. Zoos contribute resources for wildlife conservation, as well as caring for populations of rare and endangered species. Zoological parks also serve as cornerstones for our community.

With incredible educational experiences, the new regional zoo, located in Elk Grove, will serve as a conduit between people and wildlife.

The current zoo sees over half a million guests per year on a limited footprint, with no parking and no room for expansion, the new zoo will be capable of hosting well over half, I'm sorry, well over a million visitors per year. While serving a crucial role of conservation and education.

Certainly the majority of the visitors for this new proposal will never get the opportunity to travel to Africa to go on Safari. And that's what we are going to build in Elk Grove. We're going to give a window to the wild and provide an experience like none other.

It's a very complex project, and that's why we ask for your support on SB 739. We care for thousands of animals, ranging from a one and a half pound meerkat to a 4500 pound rhinoceros, who, by the way, is the largest resident of the Sacramento region.

It is an extremely complicated process to provide homes, incredible homes, for these animals, and we ask for your support. We thank Senator Ashby for her support on this project.

She's been a fan of this project since the beginning, and we hope that you will help us create something incredible, not only for animals, but for people in this region. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we have any others in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. Keith Dunn, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, in support. Appreciate the Senator and her efforts on the. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in support? SB 739 seeing none. Anyone in opposition? None. Okay. Bring it up to Dais. Senators, any comments or questions? Move the Bill.

Oh, right.

Okay. No comments or questions.

Senator, you may close. Well, I guess on behalf of my largest constituent and all the little ones, too, when the time is right, I would appreciate an. I vote. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Put that--AB--okay. Assembly Member Wicks, good morning. I think we're going to start with the 2243. Okay. All right. We will move to Item Five: AB 2243. Assembly Member Wicks.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 2243, a bill to clarify and expand AB 2011. First of all, I'll be accepting the committee amendments today and appreciate all the work of the committee on that. I want to call out that they restored the existing provision in AB 2011 that require projects to be at least 3,200 feet from oil and gas extraction and refinement. My goal as a Legislator is to facilitate abundant housing that is both climate-friendly and safe.

Towards that end, we've been spending the past couple of months working diligently with air quality experts, HVAC experts, and architects to find a way to ensure that the safety of residents in the building within 3,200 feet of oil and gas is sufficient. At the end of the day, though, we concluded that we just don't have the technology yet, which is why we proposed this amendment. So for now, I'll continue to help reduce oil extraction in our communities, to help existing residents, and to free up more land for AB 2011.

The other issue that we've been discussing with environmental justice groups is applying AB 2011 within 500 feet of freeways. While it's not being requested by the committee, we're also committed to amending the bill at the next opportunity to step up the air filtration in those areas to MERV and require central air.

And while we're working with--sorry--and we'll keep working with the EJ groups over the summer recess to fine-tune those details. They have been very helpful in the conversation. As far as the rest of the bill, AB 2011, also known as the Affordable Housing and High Roads Job Act of 2022, was a bill I authored in 2022.

It allows the development of multifamily infill housing in areas zoned for retail, office, and parking lots. In return for making those house--these housing developments by-right, developers need to provide affordable housing on site and ensure that the construction workers are paid the prevailing wage.

Since the enactment of AB 2011, there have been substantial changes to the economy, including the collapse of demand for office space, the reduced demand for brick and mortar retail, and the increasing interest rates. Those changes have created both the demand and opportunity for us to open up sites where housing might be economically feasible.

Additionally, since AB 2011's enactment, housing developers and local governments have identified aspects of the law's language that are subjective and open to interpretation. The subjectivity has led to project delays and dissuaded utilization of the law. It has also led to inconsistent application across jurisdictions and created the potential for unnecessary lawsuits.

AB 2243 would address both of these issues by expanding AB 2011's geographic applicability and clarifying aspects of the law that are subject to interpretation. In terms of geographic expansion, AB 2243 would apply AB 2011 to the following types of projects: sites within 500 feet of freeways, as I mentioned, regional malls that exceed 20 acres in size, the conversion of office to housing, even if the site is not along a major commercial corridor, and to existing high-rise districts, even if the site is not along a commercial corridor.

In terms of removing subjectivity, AB 2243 includes a series of clarifications, including clarifying that all aspects of AB 2011 projects are ministerial and not subject to CEQA, clarifying how AB 2011 intersects with Density Bonus Law, and subjecting--and specifying that any site remediation needs to occur after project approval but before the site can be occupied.

Importantly, AB 2243 does not touch AB 2011's labor standards or affordable housing standards, which is why it is still supported by 2011's diverse coalition of construction, labor, SEIU, CSEA, affordable and market rate developers, and other pro-housing organizations.

So AB 2011 has been in effect for about a year, actually almost a year to the day, July 1st. During this period, obviously, we've seen high interest rates. You know, we've seen projects that have--in my district, we've had the North Berkeley BART, which has been an ongoing conversation of how we're going to develop that, years and years in the making. They're now using AB 2011 to help expedite that process for thoughtful housing. We're seeing projects in San Francisco, projects all over the state trying to utilize AB 2011.

We're also recognizing some of the weaknesses, and I think, you know, and I said this in last committee, I'm in my sixth year of 12 years and so I think of myself now as like legislatively middle-aged, you know, and have a better understanding of how this works, and housing law is very complicated.

You know, we went through a lot to get AB 2011 passed. It was a big lift. We want to make sure it works, and so I think as important as the first bill that we put out there is equally as important as now its implementation and how we actually make it work better. So this is really born out of a lot of conversations with stakeholders to ensure that this bill can--this law can be used most effectively to build the housing that we need to, working with a diverse coalition of labor and others to support it.

So I'm honored to have been the original author, thrilled to be working on the crossing the t's and dotting the i's to make sure it applies in the most effective way possible, and when the time is right, respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me here to testify, I believe, is Corey Smith--yep--from the Housing Action Coalition, and Danny Curtin from the Carpenters.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Corey Smith, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. We're a home building, industry-funded nonprofit that advocates for more homes for all residents at all income levels and proud to co-sponsor AB 2243 because we understand the importance of creating more homes for Californians and this bill moves the needle.

With the passage of the landmark bill, AB 2011, it's been critical in expanding production of housing at all income levels, and we have members across the state who are using AB 2011 to build new homes, but there are opportunities to strengthen the bill and deliver even more housing, and that's what this is.

These clarifications will improve the law as currently written to allow for additional sites to be developed for housing. Sites that were previously ineligible for streamlining will now be feasible, and it will expand production throughout the state, including infill locations.

Since the time that AB 2011 was proposed and passed and then implemented, we've had a number of members who are trying to use the bill but are just unable to due to these criteria, and with these clarifications, additional sites will be eligible for streamlining, clearing the way for much-needed housing in really good locations near amenities, services, transit, and jobs.

This bill is ultimately also going to help increase the certainty for housing, which will in turn decrease the cost of construction for housing, which is something we desperately need to be doing right now. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Danny Curtin with the Carpenters Union. Assembly Member Wicks pointed out that the labor standards are the same, so I won't belabor it, but I do want to make a couple of points, especially Senator Durazo, you and I have been around working on labor issues for a long time.

I've been doing longer as you have. You're just like 42 years old, and I know how that goes. But the point is, the conditions of the working people in California and America are not that good anymore. It's a really difficult time. The labor standards in this bill are potentially going to change the nature of the situation in the workforce in this industry. It is one of the four industries that are rampant with wage theft. We've gone over all of this.

There's about five billion dollars a year between state and federal, and loss of taxes that go into subsidizing the worst actors in the industry because they wage theft, because they don't pay their taxes, and they workers need social supports. The one element that's critical to actually possibly changing that workforce around is the ability for the joint labor management committees to actually enforce the law directly because we cannot rely on the department relations, not because they're bad, because they're overwhelmed.

So this has the potential for actually changing that. Half the workforce in this industry is in poverty. A quarter of it works under the table. So we thank you for recognizing that the housing crisis is also a wage crisis. Thank you very much and ask for your support.

Thank you very much. We're now going to do the support. Anyone wishing to step up, give your name and organization in support. Please come forward.

Hello. My name is Alexander Hampton, Local 46, Sacramento, and I strongly support.

Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of SPUR, CivicWell, formerly known as the Local Government Commission, as well as Fieldstead and Company, in support.

Rafa Sonnenfeld, on behalf of YIMBY Action and our nearly two dozen chapters across California, in support.

Thank you.

Cesar Placencia, Local 405, Santa Clara County, in support.

Thank you.

Matt Kelly, Local 46, Sacramento, California, in support.

Maria Jordan, Local 46, in support.

Marcel Moore, Local 46, Sacramento. I'm in support.

Thank you.

Rod Finley, Local 46, in support.

Thank you.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Thank you.

Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Dan Branton, Drywall Lathers Local 9109, right here in Sacramento, in strong support.

Thank you.

Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian Sherman, Local 46, in support.

Thank you.

John Gillum, Local 46. I support.

Thank you.

Mahdi Manji with Inner City Law Center, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Matthew Beeston, NorCal Carpenters Union, in support.

Thank you.

Aiden Hall, Local 9109, in support.

Thank you.

Michael Whitley, Local 9109. I support.

Emilio Trevino, Local 46. I'm in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association, in support.

Thank you. Okay, is there anyone in opposition to AB 2243? Please come forward. Good morning.

Morning. Morning. Morning, Madam Chair and the Committee. My name is Jonathan Pruitt. I'm with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. We'd first like to start by thanking Assembly Member Wicks for reincorporating the oil and gas setback into the AB 2243.

This continues California's leadership on this issue, and we'd like to thank the Assembly Member and her staff and all the hard work for that. However, CEJA still respectfully remains in opposed unless amended position on AB 2243. We appreciate the direction of recent conversations and the author's commitment to meeting with us over the summer, the summer break, to continue to discuss our remaining concerns with the bill.

Our alliance agrees that deeply affordable housing is a key need for millions of Californians and appreciates the seriousness with which the author and the committee members take on this challenge, and at the same time, it is imperative that affordable housing developments are healthy and they are safe.

Our outstanding concern deals with the removal of the 500 foot buffer around freeways. This buffer provides residents with much-needed protections from our ticket matter, as well as other exposures presented by freeways, and so we do look forward to continuing those conversations with the Assembly Member and her staff to identify those equitable solutions that can build on this Legislature's commitment to creating healthy and affordable housing.

And again, thank you to the author for reinstating 3,200 foot setback and maintaining a key protection for environmental justice communities, and so we look forward to those continued conversations over July. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition for a couple issues. From a technical aspect, the shot clock goes from the completion of a submitted application. That's concerning because we can't control if the proponent has followed the regulations that's established.

So we're concerned that that shot clock with the deemed approved language would be concerning. From another aspect, AB 2011 just became law last year. Our cities are working diligently with HCD as well as the Attorney General's Office to find out how best to address environmental justice with the bill, with some of the changes that are proposed in 2011.

And we just feel like we're running too quickly to do again more by-right for extending the by-right to areas that were not once--were not meant for residential housing in the beginning. So we're concerned that we're moving too quickly with this and cities need more time to comply with 2011.

That said, wanted to appreciate Assembly Member Wicks's office. We've been working closely. I know we had concerns about the fee language, which was addressed, so we appreciate those conversations and look forward to continuing those over recess, should it continue. Thank you.

Thank you. In opposition? Anyone? Please come forward in opposition.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Reina Tello and I'm here with California Environmental Justice Alliance and PODER. We are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Oh, and I was also asked to do a MeToo for PSR-LA and for APEN.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Marisol Latello. I'm from PODER and CEJA, and I oppose unless amended to protect people like me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jessica Yu, and I'm with PODER and CEJA, and I strongly oppose unless amended to include all setback.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Ganata with Communities for a Better Environment and CEJA, registering the opposed unless amended positions of Esperanza Community Housing, Housing Equity and Advocacy Resource Team Los Angeles, and East Bay Community Law Center. Thank you.

Thank you.

Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, and we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Tiffany Ng, registering opposed unless amended positions for 350 Southland Legislative Alliance, 350 South Bay Los Angeles, the VISION Coalition, Stand.earth, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, and FracTracker Alliance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Morgan Gonzalez. I'm with California--or I'm with CEJA and also Communities for a Better Environment, and we're in opposition until amended. Also, I'm shouting out EHC, CCAEJ as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the cities of Simi Valley, Santa Clarita, and Thousand Oaks. We'd like to echo the comments of the League, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. Appreciate that there are amendments forthcoming. Once we've had a chance to review those, we'll review our position as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. We don't have an official position on this bill, but with great respect for the author and her work in this arena, I did need to state that we shared the concerns of our CEJA partners. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Casey Elliott, on behalf of the cities of Santa Ana, Lafayette, La Habra, and Newport Beach, with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters. We have an opposed unless amended position, but really appreciate the author's willingness to reinstate the oil setbacks language and pending further changes to the freeway setbacks language. After that, we'll be reconsidering. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Raquel Mason, with Standing Together Against Neighborhood Drilling, Los Angeles, in respectful opposed unless amended, but appreciative of the amendments.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Okay. Seeing none. Members? Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I fully support this bill, and I want to thank the author for all of her incredible work on a lot of housing issues, including AB 2011. That was the initial bill that helped break the log jam that, the paralysis we had seen in this building around some labor standards.

And I think it opened up a lot of doors for work we did last year on SB 423 and SB 4 and so on and so forth. So thank you so much for your leadership. I do just want to comment on some of these never-ending pushes to exclude more and more California geography from having housing.

And I'm not criticizing in any way or--I just want to--because we dealt with this last year as well. What we see, and this is very typical of why we have a deep housing crisis in San Francisco because everyone has a laundry list of why you can't build housing, where you can't build housing, never-ending geography that should be excluded from housing, and it grows and it grows and it grows without actually advocating for more housing.

And I have, you know, said this before, and I will say it again, and I know I irritate people when I do it, but I would love to see the environmental movement talk more about a pro-housing agenda. Not just 'we shouldn't build housing here,' but here are the places where we should make it super, super, super easy to do so. And there are some voices in the environmental movement who do that, and so I applaud that.

There are other voices in the environmental movement that it's just about where you're not allowed to build housing and never supporting making it easier to build housing in the other areas. And is it any wonder that we have so many people living on our streets, that we have so many low-income renters who, if they lose their apartment, they will be on the streets or out of California? Is it any wonder that working class families are getting pushed out of many parts of California?

And is it any wonder the kids can't afford to live in the communities where they grew up? Because it's all about, no, no, no. Here. This is bad. This is bad. Here's a reason here. Here's a reason there. And never yes. You know, in terms of the oil setback issue, I want to be clear.

This is not an oil setback provision. Oil setback means, what we did when we passed the oil setbacks--and I authored one of the various versions of those law, oil setback laws, before it was adopted and I support an oil setback--oil setbacks is about telling oil companies you are not allowed to drill in certain areas.

It was never about that the oil companies now get to decide where we put housing. It just completely flipped, and with this very significant buffer, which I was forced to take in SB 4 last year, we are now carved out big swaths of Los Angeles and parts of Orange County, some wealthy communities. Swaths of Huntington Beach and Beverly Hills now get carved out, wealthy areas, because they have technically a drilling site there. And so that's when we, when we start carving these big carve-outs, that's what happens.

And then on the freeway issue, that 500 foot buffer, which I have never accepted in any bill and I thank you for not accepting that, I, like you, agreed to the air filtration, which makes a lot of sense. To start saying we're not going to build within 500 feet on either side of a freeway, talk about the amount of geography that that would wipe out of a bill. So thank you for not agreeing to that.

So, you know, we're not allowed to build. We have to exclude the coastal zone. We have to exclude anywhere near freeway. We have to exclude anywhere near where an oil company decides to have a drilling site. We have to exclude in certain wildfire zones. Exclude, exclude, exclude, exclude, exclude.

And it gets to the point where, where are you allowed to build? So, you know, I just want to make that statement. I will move the bill once we have a quorum, but I think we need to really zoom out and look at the big picture here. And again, thank you so much for your leadership.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much. And what he said, a lot of this stuff, I have the same concerns about our approach to trying to get more housing, but we have to understand the interrelationship between housing, transportation corridors, jobs, roads--all of it is interrelated.

And this approach I have concerns about, and one of the reasons I have concerns about is I--take like a regional mall. Let's talk about Hawthorne Mall. If at the end of the day, it's easier to tear all that stuff down, just don't worry about the zoning and just rebuild the housing that you want to build in these commercial areas.

You know, the type of building construction and all of those things, eventually those things have, you know, you have safety concerns about, you know, you know, building and safety. Those--all these type of building are, all these type of housing and building requirements are different for the different types of--your commercial buildings you got.

And they're built with materials that are not necessarily adequate for a housing type of building. And so you spend more money and time trying to convert Type 1 and 2 buildings into Type 5 buildings for Type 5 use, and when you do that, you lose opportunities elsewhere to actually just build what you need with the materials that are environmentally what we want them to be.

And so we're not, you know, I feel like we're going down a path where we're spending a lot of money trying to fix a car when you should just go ahead and replace it because it costs more to, you know, more to buy all the parts and fix all the parts than it does just to buy another car.

And that's what we were doing with these buildings. A lot of these buildings are outdated as far as their construction use for today's environmental concerns, including windows, the type of cement that's being used. Remember, we want to get rid of the old type of cement because it's not environmentally friendly.

And yet we're going to continue to use these things. So when something has outlived its purpose, it's time to tear it down. And as far as putting residential into these areas that used to be zoned for commercial, that's something for the city.

And they're planning to, to make work because the transportation corridors, everything about those areas were all planned and built for that. And when you convert it, there's a lot more to converting than just putting up partitions inside, maybe trying to modify an HVAC system. That's another whole big issue, and then making it so that it's safe for people to live in if there's a fire or something like that.

So to me, this is building upon something that I think there may have been some conversions of 12,000 units or something, but we have yet to see the longer term result of those and whether those are more costly than they were if we just, like I said, tear it down, build what you want in the right way, in the right place, because then you can also focus your energies on building away from the freeway.

Some areas, you're going to have a tough time doing that, you know, and because those are the more dense areas and what Senator Wiener was talking about makes a lot of sense that our problem isn't necessarily enough room. It's the process that people have to go to, you know--cities used to spring up and, you know, and build houses and meet the demand, and they just can't do that anymore.

And so it's those processes that we have to look at if we want to fix this housing problem so that we can identify, you know, the real issues about, you know, when you're trying to offset some of the impacts from building and things versus this--it's a barrier of regulations and all of these other things that we make.

This is a self-made problem, we've created it, and yet we won't get rid of the things that we created that are making housing cost so dang much. And now we are caught in our own web, and that's what I feel like. It's like all of these things that we've talked about in the last three years that I've been here and long before I was here, we're now caught in that web and we can't get out. And we're going to have to try to do something different and I don't know that this is it.

Thank you, Senator. I just comment to the author. There was one that you didn't. Specific amendment that you didn't specifically mention. I just want to make sure it's restoring the existing law regarding inclusionary housing ordinances.

Yeah. Yes, we're accepting amendment.

Sorry.

Yes.

Okay. Just want to make sure with that. I do just want to make a couple of comments based on what my colleagues have said. I understand we all have the frustration of not building enough housing fast enough. There's no doubt about it.

But it also comes at a time when there are communities, poor communities, communities of color, who over the decades were ignored when it came to deciding where to build. And I think it's important that as we move towards a more deliberate. Okay.

Planning for where we're going to, you know, that we need this much housing, that issues that affect those poor communities and communities of color also be taken into consideration. So the frustration of, you know, my colleague said, don't build here. No, no, no, no. There are many good reasons why that's done.

We just have to figure out when those. And how to integrate those concerns, that environmental issues that come up. I have five freeways in my district. I don't know of any other district in the state that has that many. So these may be unique to certain areas, but they're very important to certain areas.

So I think it's our job to try and figure out how do we integrate and give it the right balance. So with that, I think there's no more comments. No. Okay. I think five free re. I'm sorry. zero, I'm sorry. We're going to take the. Do a roll call for the quorum.

[Roll Call]. Thank you.

So we have a motion by Senator Wiener. Do passes closing remarks.

Well, I appreciate the comments. I appreciate both the support and opposition. I, too, have a lot of freeways in my district. It is California. I think many of us do. Oh, my golf swings good, too.

And I genuinely welcome opposition, the environmental community, to the conversation around developing a pro housing agenda, because I think that benefits all of us. And we've had ongoing conversations. I've committed to having continued ongoing conversations. I want to land this in a place that works for everyone.

And I'm dead said, dead set, committed on ensuring that we are building the housing that we need for all of our communities. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, madam.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Are we going to hold that open? Yes. Yes, we'll hold that open for more votes. Okay, now. Okay, now, Assembly Member Wicks, we're going to hear on AB 1893.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present AB 1893, a Bill to modernize builders remedy.

The builder's remedy is part of housing element law that says that if a city or county does not have a compliant housing element, then local zoning does not apply and a developer can propose a project that can be any size, anywhere in the jurisdiction.

The goal of builders remedy is to compel cities and counties to complete their housing element. Why is this the goal? Because we have a massive housing crisis, and the only way we're climbing out of it is if every city and county does their part by adopting and implementing the housing element, is how we do that.

Unfortunately, one in three jurisdictions are out of compliance with housing element law. Those jurisdictions are essentially saying that solving the housing crisis is not their problem.

Theoretically, this wouldn't be a problem because in non compliant cities and counties, we'd be seeing lots of builders remedy projects that result in lots of housing, so that ignoring state law did not mean an end to housing production. Unfortunately, the builder's Normie has not functioned in that way.

One of the reasons is that the existing law is legally murky, adding a level of risk that turns off risk adverse developers and those that can't afford to litigate.

The law also includes an affordability requirement of 20%, which sounds noble and lofty, but actually makes most housing projects economically infeasible, even if the occasional project is able to pencil. And also, cities still have at their disposal a myriad of tools to thwart projects they dislike, even if they are code compliant.

That's why, while there are now at least 100 builders remedies projects proposed in the state, we don't have a single unit built from a builder's remedy project. We have a lot of discussion about builders remedy projects.

There's often talk of this on the twitterverse, but builders remedy projects have not actually resulted, to my knowledge, in a single family having a roof over their head. The result is that there are effectively no consequences for cities and counties that ignore housing element law, which is why we need to modernize this law.

Working with our sponsor, Attorney General Robanta, we have crafted a Bill that removes any ambiguity about where the builder's remedy would apply how much density would be allowed and what objective standards would apply. It also enhances feasibility by reducing the affordability requirement to something that does not render projects infeasible.

The aim is to create a self enforcing mechanism that facilitates a substantial amount of housing in those cities that have not complied with state housing element law.

This Bill is about striking a balance in the face of existing law that is quite marquee and doing so proactively, instead of waiting for the courts to make the case, which could not only take five to 10 years, but whose outcome is completely unpredictable.

To strike that balance, we've had to take actions that that the cities like but upset some of our pro housing friends, like putting a density maximum on build or so many projects.

We've also had to do some things that cities don't like that our pro housing friends do like, which is to remove the ability for jurisdictions to effectively deny projects by sitting on them in perpetuity.

The result is a Bill that has a broad and unusual coalition that spans from the inner city Law center, which represents pro Bono, the homeless on skid row, CBIA, Habitat for Humanity, affordable housing developers, California, YIMBY and others.

Everyone in that group has given up something for what they see as a greater good, which is more adoption of local housing element and more approval of housing when cities and counties fail to adopt them. And the delicate balance is the reason that I am unable to, unfortunately accept the proposed Committee amendments today.

Unfortunately, the proposed amendments tip the balance far in the favor of the jurisdictions that do not have existing housing element, giving them a range of tools to neutralize builder's nominee projects.

And while we've had very fruitful and long and deliberate conversations both with the chair and the staff, ones that I'm eager to continue should this Bill move out of Committee, I felt that the amendments undermine the Bill too substantially, unfortunately, and I don't take this lightly.

As you know, Madam Chair, I have the utmost respect for you and your team, and I know you've worked decades on a lot of these issues, but we went back and forth on this, trying to figure out if we can land this, if this Bill gets out of community. I'm committed to continuing those conversations with you.

I'd like to figure out a way that we can do that. But the amendments currently is written. Unfortunately, I can't take them. My belief is that the best way for cities to compel with their housing element, the best way for cities to complete their housing element is to do it or face the consequence which is more housing.

I have my witnesses here to testify in support. I'll let them self introduce to when the time is right, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. And so we'll have two at two minutes each or.

Yeah, two minutes each. We have Alex Fish from the Attorney General's Office who will be here for technical assistance. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jana Staniford. I'm a Legislative Advocate for Attorney General Rob Bonta. On behalf of the Attorney General, I want to start by thanking assemblymember Wicks for her leadership and for authoring this important Bill.

The builders remedy in the Housing Accountability act has been on the book since 1990. It says that if a local government doesn't have a compliant housing element, then it cannot disapprove a moderate or mixed income project, even if it's inconsistent with zoning or the local land use designation.

It's a consequence when local governments refuse to plan for the needs of their residents. The Legislature's intent in existing law is clear. The Housing Accountability act should, quote, be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of and the approval and provision of housing.

So the purpose of the builder's remedy is twofold. It was intended to serve as a compliance tool to encourage local governments to complete their housing elements, and it provides a path for housing development even when local governments fail to do so. Unfortunately, right now the builder's remedy isn't working as intended.

175 jurisdictions still don't have a compliant housing element one to three years past the deadline, and since 1990, the builder's remedy has not resulted in one project being built. Despite reports that over 150 builder's remedy projects have been had applications submitted, not one of those projects has been entitled or built to date.

Instead, the lack of clarity in the existing builder's remedy statute has led to local disputes and litigation. Our investigation revealed that local governments are employing a variety of tactics to delay or block builder's remedy projects from moving forward. These delays and effective denials of project applications have largely avoided consequence. By stopping short of a vote.

This has delayed or even prevented housing projects from being built, significantly increased the cost to develop new housing, and likely deterred some builders from submitting applications at all, especially smaller builders that can't afford to litigate. AB 1893 would respond to these issues.

Close loopholes, provide clarity for developers, city planners and courts, and unlock additional opportunities to build housing to meet the needs of hard working Californians. We respectfully ask for your I vote.

Good morning, honorable chair and Members. My name is Matthew Manji and I'm with inner city Law center. We're the only pro Bono legal services provider based in skid Row in Los Angeles, and we serve folks who are homeless and at risk of homelessness throughout La County.

The Reno process was created to ensure that every jurisdiction builds housing for residents at all income levels in every city, neighborhood and community in California. Working people drive the local economy, ensuring the stores are operated, mail is delivered, and the food and food is grown, cooked and served.

Working people are the heart and soul of our economy and our communities. But unfortunately, many communities have ignored their obligations to build housing for their community Members, especially housing for Low income families. AB 1893 ensures that no community can say no to affordable housing and to mixed income housing.

In Los Angeles County, some of the wealthiest cities, including South Pasadena, San Marino, La Habra Heights and Palos Verdes estates, have refused to do the bare minimum, not to build affordable housing, but to plan for it.

California has made it our top priority to acquire every city to build its fair share of affordable housing, and the builder's remedy process allows developers to propose affordable and mixed income projects if cities do not come into compliance. But so far, every project has faced lawsuits, and rising building costs have made projects infeasible.

If the builder's remedy is not a real option, there is no consequence for cities to break the law and refuse to come into compliance. When South Pasadena and Alhambra, both in noncompliance, refused to allow affordable and mixed income housing. This drive displacement and gentrification in East Los Angeles and Highland park.

We cannot allow the status quo to continue. AB 1893 proposes affordability requirements at feasible levels while creating rules and standards for builder's remedy projects. AB 1893 ensures that high income communities can no longer say no to housing, placing the burden solely on Low income communities.

If housing law, element law is to be enforced, the builder's remedy must be clear and mixed income projects must make economic sense. For the first time in this decade, homelessness fell in Los Angeles County this year. This is only possible because we built affordable housing in the City of La.

Every city, every neighboring city must do their fair share, and AB 1893 will ensure that. Thank you very much and thank somebody who works for her leadership and thanks to her community Members.

Okay, we're moving on now to others in support of AB 1893.

Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium in support. Holly for many days due to lighthouse public affairs on behalf of Civicwell Spur build, Casa Field, Ted and company Sandhill properties and Habitat for Humanity California and support.

Thank you.

Darlene Dupree, on behalf of the Association of Regional Center Agency in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Curley, on behalf of California. YIMBY and strong support. Thank you so much.

Danita Stromgren, volunteer with California AARP on behalf of our 3.2 million Members in California, in support. Thank you.

Cassie Gilson with Acxiom advisors, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and support. Thank you.

Leslie Rodriguez, on behalf of Housing Trust, Silicon Valley, in support. Thank you. Corey Smith, housing Action Coalition, in support. Matthew Harger with the California Business Properties Association in support.

Thank you. Any others in support? Okay, seeing none for opposition, I understand we have two witnesses who requested to testify. Arthur Wylene, General counsel for Rural County Representatives of California, and Mike Rossin, public interest law project. Hold on to. Okay, go ahead. Oh, there we go. Thank you. I'll just go ahead and go ahead and jump in.

So Arthur Wileen, General counsel for rural counties and formerly the county council for Tehama County, in respectful opposition to the Bill in its current form, I will say we do conceptually very much agree with the author and sponsors that the builder's remedy requires reform and clarification.

In its current form, the builder's remedy is basically a negative implication in the Housing Accountability act. And when it does apply, which is unclear, the scope of objective standards that can apply under what circumstances and with what limitations are also unclear. There definitely needs to be some reform in this area.

The builder's remedy, to be effective for its intended purposes needs to be clear. It needs to be administrable, and it needs to strike the right balance with the state's other very important public policies, some of which have been mentioned earlier here today, ensuring adequacy of public services, affordability and things of that nature.

Unfortunately, with great respect to the author and sponsors, AB 1893 in its current form does not do this. There are multiple points in the Bill of unclarity that will make it very difficult to administer. To give just one example, I think there's a lot of them that are mentioned, I think, very well in the Committee analysis.

Although such projects are ostensibly required to comply with objective standards, no combination of those standards can preclude the project from being constructed as proposed by the developer. Most standards that I've worked with imply some limitation on the whims of the applicant. How do we make that work?

That's kind of, sort of, that's what we're sort of our major concern with the Bill. Also. This Bill does, and I think is intended to, and this is really the policy issue, does reduce some of California's other public policies.

It certainly reduces local inclusionary housing requirements, but also very much reduces the incentives to use some of state law's other tools, including the density bonus law.

Moreover, the Bill has a new standard for denial of a project that I think if you just read it, unjustified delay, from which a reasonable person could conclude that the project was effectively denied, clearly shows a level of subjectivity that is certainly going to generate litigation. But I'm not sure it's actually going to generate housing.

We had a very similar issue that we worked on last year with Assembly Bill 1633 that dealt with a very similar issue of unjustified CEQA delayed there as here. We as local governments recognize that bad faith, unjustified delay, which I'm sure does happen in the state, that's not a good thing. That should not be encouraged.

That should be discouraged and prohibited. Yes, ma'am. But we spent close to two years working with a lot of stakeholders, working very hard in support of that effort, and came up with a very nuanced and balanced compromise. We did say yes to housing.

We did say yes to that Bill, and we would very much like to work with the author and sponsors over the interim to come up with something that really will accomplish the goal. Respectful opposition to the Bill in print. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mister Rossin?

Yes, I'm Michael Rossin. I'm the Director of litigation and advocacy at the Public Interest Law Project. It's a state support Center for local legal services and other public interest law programs in California. We have been working for housing element compliance and enforcement for 25 years, and there's been substantial increase in compliance over the years.

I note that two thirds of the cities in California are already in compliance with the 6th cycle. So we're not in a case where everybody is thumbing their noes at the housing element law.

Currently, I'm co counseling with the AG's office on the knockdown and drag out suit against the City of Huntington Beach, who steadfastly refused to adopt a housing element. So we worked together with the proponents of this Bill and the opponents to the Bill.

I'm here partly because I co drafted in 1990 the original HHA amendments that created the builder's remedy. And at that time, and that was Leroy Greene's SB 2011. At that time, the purpose of that Bill was to open the door for affordable housing developers to in nibby communities that had erected barriers against producing affordable housing.

That's why the 20% affordability requirement was in there, to make sure that that path was open for affordable housing development. There was, as you know, the affordable housing developers have fewer resources than the market developers, and there needed to be a way for them to overcome the extreme resistance to affordable housing development.

Affordable housing development is something that's much harder to get approved in communities than market rate development. Although I agree there's a lot of resistance to market rate development these days.

Second point I would like to make is that, and I concur with the opposition points that were, that were just made, is that what this Bill does is okay.

This Bill upends the inclusionary zoning laws of over 170 communities in California because what it says is that if you're going to do a builder's remedy project, you can't apply your inclusionary zoning law to that project unless you show that the project would be infeasible, unless you show that it would be feasible, you can't apply your inclusionary zoning.

That would require every community that gets a builder's remedy program to hire an expert and do that analysis. So I respectfully oppose and if, unless amended and happy to work with the author to amend going forward.

We want to open this up now to others in opposition, please come forward.

Ethan Naegler, on behalf of the city. Of Rancho Palos Verdes and respectful opposition.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YMB action and YMB law, we have an opposed unless amended position. Appreciate some of the amendments that were taken recently and would like to continue working with the author to get to. Neutral or support the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning again. Chair and Senators Matthew Baker, with Planning Conservation, again with with great respect to. The author for her leadership on these issues. We remain opposed unless amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members Brian Augusta, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance foundation, the California Coalition for Rural Housing, National Housing Law Project, Public Advocates and the 40 other organizations who have supported our letter submitted to the Committee in respectful opposition unless amended to this Bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Chairman, Members Brady Grin, on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful, opposing list, amended position. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. On behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members, in respectful opposition to the Bill.

Thank you.

Phoebe Setonwood, leadership Council for justice and Accountability and Leadership Council action in respectful opposed and less amended position. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Asha Sharma, on behalf of the center. For race, poverty and the environment, with an opposed and less amended position. Thank you. Thank you.

Jennifer Ganado, communities for a better environment. Registering respectfully and opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Soli Shaw here on behalf of the City of West Hollywood. We are unfortunately in an opposed unless amended position. I'm also here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, also with an opposed position. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Bring it up. Any more in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we have our Members at the dais. Anybody? Senator Wiener?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, some of us are like moths to the flame, and you are definitely the moth of the flame on this one, and I really commend you for taking this on. Builders remedy, of course, was sort of a dead letter for a long time.

This thing that had been in California law for decades, and just most people didn't even know about it. And the reason people know about it now and why it's become this contentious debate and why leading to this Bill is because we finally, over the last, you know68 years, put teeth into our state housing planning requirements.

We actually created RHNA numbers that were not a joke, and RhNA was just a joke for a long time in terms of the Low numbers that cities were receiving. And we changed that. And we actually, and then we said, you know, housing element has meaning. You actually have to do a housing element.

It's not just a piece of paper, paper that collects dust on the shelf and we put teeth into it. And that's a powerful thing. And it's created tension, but it's healthy, long overdue tension during this transition period. And so now builder's remedy has meaning because of the changes in the law that we've made.

And I know that this has been a tough one for a lot of us because I have, in terms of the coalitions that I work with in the pro housing world, the people who all agree that we need a lot more housing, there's disagreement within that coalition. And so it's a tough one.

And I know it's been challenging for you as well. And I just want to say to my friends on both sides of this issue, we'll figure it out. It's all going to be, it's all going to be good. And I do think that there is, you know, the current builder's remedy is a very chaotic thing.

It was not a well constructed law. It creates a lot of chaos and uncertainty. There are some who believe that that chaos and uncertainty is a good thing because it creates a stronger incentive for cities to actually get it together and follow the rules.

On the other hand, as you've noted, it's nothing leading to some explosion of new housing or really much housing or any housing at all. And so I think there is a really good argument to really strengthen the law, which you're doing here. And so I really do commend you for that.

Thank you. So this one, I'm really kind of torn on. On one hand, probably the worst way to get me to agree with or disagree with the bill is to start attacking cities and making it sound like it is all their fault and it's all the fault of the people that live there that don't want these things going on.

I have watched cities evolve, new cities that have gone through building phases and trying to do their update their housing elements and their General plans and all of those things.

And when they finally get done with one, a year later, a new law comes into place and they have to go out, fine, $2 million to go redo all of their general plan, their housing and all that. So there's a process that has created a lot of angst with cities.

And yes, on the other hand, there are people that absolutely want to keep their community at a certain building level of income and all of that, and that is equally as wrong.

So I'm looking at, from the perspective of some of the cities I represent, including the city I live in and all of the things that I've been hearing anti this and anti that on cities, somebody better get down to my area and look and see what's getting built there, because there's a lot of stuff getting built.

The reason it's getting built now and not eight years ago is not the city's fault. I was there when we had an affordable housing project in 2016. It was a good project. And the back and forth between HCD and all the other different housing agencies and the funding agencies and all of that, they are finally grading.

Eight years later, they're grading. So there's a process in there where cities are trying like hell to build and get what they're supposed to be doing. But there's also the other part which we've created that is impossible to get through. Cities don't have control over builder financing. Cities don't have control over HCD.

Fighting with cities over definitions and whether they're going back and forth trying to get a housing element that they just got done, done again. So it's like everybody needs to work together, stop blaming each other. I mean, our, like, HCD and other agencies that work with cities, they have to remember customer service cities are their customers, too.

They're not there to just come out and wield a hammer and beat them over the head because that's not going to accomplish anything. And in fact, some of this stuff is going to have a backlash to it because some of the stuff that is getting built right now people are looking at those and thinking, oh my God.

And if I were, I wouldn't want to rent one of those because they look horrible. Who wants to go and live in something that looks terrible? So that's why cities need the ability to be able to have some say in how something looks.

But a lot of the laws, we want the builder's remedy, and all these, these are just cramming those things in. And they're, and some of them are hideous looking, and they're in hideous locations right next to a freeway, right next to a busy street, no parking.

All of those things are coming to pass now, and you're going to get a bigger backlash from communities because there's no way for them to mitigate those things. So, you know, this is law. This, you know, the builder's remedy is law, and it does need fixed.

And so I'm kind of willing to try and keep this moving so you can continue to work on that. But for Pete's sake, you got to get off this anti city nonsense because I was there, and I'm not. I wasn't there as a city member. I was, I was on the City Council for sure.

I wasn't there as an advocate for the city, but I got to watch the process and how frustrating it is. And now we're listening to this, this nonsense about the city's this and the city's that, and they're just trying to help communities be great communities for everyone to live in.

And if everybody would cooperate, we could get there. And this is going to have to be hashed out somewhere, somehow so that we can find that sweet spot where they have enough incentive to do it, but also the ability to do it.

And the last thing I'm going to say on this subject matter, in California, there is no such thing as affordable housing to be built. There is no way to build an affordable house. The only thing we can do is subsidize whatever it costs to build to bring the price down somehow for a while.

So that's, you know, for me, that's the frustration of this. And I think you can tell that in my voice. For all of these years, I've been listening to this and watching this and working with cities and trying to find what, you know, where is the sweet spot? And we can't find it. So I appreciate your efforts.

It seems a little bit of heavy handedness, but I think it needs to be worked on a little more, and I'm willing to let it go in order to continue to work on it so that we can get something that really does work.

Thank you. Would you mind if I respond, Madam Chair, to that? Or I can also take other questions. Sure.

Thank you. Madam Chair, as is noted on our materials, the Housing Committee, which I chair, supported this bill, and I voted yes.

And our, if I take the issue of the affordable housing, which, of course, was a concern for our Committee as to whether we would allow for a modification on the affordable housing issue, but when we looked at all the data and the fact that even with our strengthened Housing Accountability Act, and there have many laws that have strengthened it, including my SB 330, and I'm going to forget the other one, I think it was SB 167, but I can't remember.

So don't hold me on bill numbers. And then the combination of HCD's willingness to enforce the RHNA, it has, of course, raised the specter of builder's remedy. However, even with the strengthening of the Housing Accountability Act and the number of local governments that are not in compliance, we've not yet seen a project built under builder's remedy.

So now, look, on the one hand, it would be great if there was never a project built under builder's remedy. It would be great if our cities would just come into compliance. I'm not trying to attack city, Senator Seyarto. I'm just being clear that we wouldn't have to have these enforcements if they would come into compliance.

However, if they don't, then the builder's remedy is a remedy, and it was in law well before it was put into law. I can't even remember the exact year. It was the late sixties, I believe. It's been a minute. Anyway, it's been a long time, decades. And yet we've not seen.

So if I'm now speaking just from the affordable housing point of view, if our commitment is to ensure that we achieve some affordable housing, if a builder's remedy project is built, then what the conclusion of the Housing Committee was is that we were open to the change in the requirement because we've not yet.

Our goal is to get affordable housing and we've not achieved it. And if we insist on a certain number, it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to get that which we want.

So our conclusion in the Housing Committee was that the changes, while, yes, on the face of it, look somehow like we are hurting affordable housing, in fact, might result in our achieving it. If any builder's remedies, projects go through.

And the other changes in the bill, we felt would make it more likely that a builder's project remedy project got built, and I can certainly appreciate some people and some of the opposition just doesn't like builder's remedy, period. But it is not before us to eliminate that aspect of the housing accountability law.

What's before us is whether we modify it or not. And it was the Housing Committee's conclusion that the modifications that were in the bill were appropriate in order to have the remedy on our housing accountability law be functional and work. There was an assertion that this overrode, what's the word? Inclusionary housing.

But anyway, I don't know if you want to address that author.

I would actually ask Mr. Fish if you want to respond to that.

Sure. Thank you, Senator. That is exactly the logic of the bill that we're trying to actually get the affordable housing or subsidized housing, if you will.

And the local inclusionary is an interesting issue because just in the opposition letters you can see the divergence of opinions all the way from one group submitted a letter saying that we were foolishly introducing local inclusionary into the builder's remedy and it doesn't exist under current law to we were destroying local inclusionary, which of course is preserved under existing law.

So those are obviously diametrically opposite opinions. That's the sort of thing that would get resolved in court over a number of years and we wouldn't know until a court of appeal decision. And everybody can this is the type legal ambiguity of these stakes. Everybody can put their dreams onto what the meaning is of the law.

Courts are going to do what they're going to do. So we tried to strike a balance in many areas of this text. You'll see that. And local inclusionary is a good example where we said we will allow local entities to use their local inclusionary programs if they're able to demonstrate the project is feasible.

Just since we're on that subject, Mr. Rawson, can you were around when this first got started.

I think one of the things that's misunderstood people have said. Some of the witnesses said there haven't been any builder's remedy projects approved. That's not true. But you have to understand what a builder's remedy project is, especially when it was for affordable housing developers or developers that were willing to provide 20%.

The nonprofit developer goes in, makes a proposal for an affordable housing project and the NIMBYs come out and they turn it down and they don't have a housing element that's in compliance. They also don't have a good health and safety reason as to why to turn it down.

And we call them up on the phone and we talk to the city attorney and we say, you know, you're going to get sued if you don't do this, and that's going to cost you even more money. So you should follow the law.

And most of the time, the city attorneys, they didn't know from the Housing Accountability Act. They read it and then the project was approved. That's a builder's remedy project. And there have been many, many of those approved by nonprofit developers over the course of almost 30 years of this law.

So I think you need to understand that, too, that this has opened the door for affordable housing developers to get over the NIMBY opposition that occurs in some communities, not all communities, but in some communities occurs.

Wasn't that the case in Santa Monica? There was 16.

Are we talking about the recent builder's remedy projects? Yeah, there were 16 proposed and they resisted and they went into, but they looked at the law and they said, well, we're probably going to have to approve these. So they sat down and negotiated and came to various decisions about each one. I'm not sure what those were.

They were settled. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. The author wanted to respond.

Yeah, I was just gonna, there was sort of a lot of comment here. I don't know if I'm also happy to. I don't know if anyone else wants to speak. I can kind of wrap.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry I went to you. Yes, Senator Dahle?

Well, I just, first of all, thank you for bringing a difficult bill, I believe, and, but I want, I just want to shed some light on maybe just the process and years of being at the local level, doing general plans and trying to do the right thing.

And I've said I'm kind of along the same lines as Senator Seyarto, that first of all, cities don't build houses, developers build houses. And we've seen the evolution of people that profit, that build houses to try to make a profit.

And we've seen now nonprofits, a lot of nonprofits, folks in the marketplace, because we're trying to manipulate what kind of housing we get out there. And I agree with the statement that there are no affordable houses in California, period. I don't care if you call it affordable. It's not affordable.

And it's unfortunate because it's difficult for those folks who are in that category, and those are my children, and they have no dream of ever owning a home in California because it is very hard to attain that. Now, in my district, this is the largest district in the state geographically.

The reason we're there we like open spaces, but the folks. So this is a battle more in areas that you all represent. And I can't imagine dealing with the frustrations that you all deal with. But I am also a Senator that represents my district and also represents the whole State of California.

We get to weigh in on these issues, and what happens in other areas will eventually come to my areas and parts of my area. I'm going to be supporting your bill today, and I think it does maybe need a little bit more work.

But I just want to say that somehow we have to get to the point where we're not having attorneys duel back and forth about what laws do what, because at the end of the day, we still need to drive the cost of housing down, truly drive it down.

And the only way you can do that is focus on some of the other policies, not what a city or county is doing for their housing element, but our green building standards, our cost of energy, our cost of producing materials that build houses in California.

I mean, we talk about, you know, it takes concrete, and our concrete is so much higher than everywhere else. Our labor is so much higher. Everything is higher in California because of regulations, and many factors play into it.

And we work around the edges on bills like this to try to get somebody to a place where they can actually build a house. And then on top of that, we have folks who don't want to have anything happen in their communities. They vote. They'll tell their representative, yeah, go pass all these policies.

But when you come to. When it comes down to their community, they push back. They don't want any neighbors or they don't. They don't want to change their community for the people that actually work in their community. Now, I have Truckee. I represent the City of Truckee and Tahoe, where the billionaires are kicking out the millionaires.

Literally. It's bizarre. And they don't care. The billionaires don't care. They're gonna have their space. But the people that serve them live in Reno, Nevada, and have to commute every day up to Truckee to try to serve their needs.

And I've been working on those issues to try to get those folks to be able to live in their community. Actually, Truckee used to be a little logging town, and that's where all those people that worked in the ski resorts lived. And now it's turned into a place where you can't afford either.

So I'm going to support your bill because I think we need to have these conversations where we actually make it available for those folks that serve those wealthy folks, have a place to be in part of that community as well, and not have to live someplace a long way and a way to serve them.

And so, for those reasons, I'll be supporting bill. I hope that we can get to a place where, and I know that all cities aren't here. Some of them have. Have done their job very well, and this has been an opportunity, I think, for some to push back.

And so I'll be supporting your bill today, hopefully, for the fact that we can get those people who actually work and are on those working wages in our communities. And I think this bill will actually help us get there. So, thank you.

Did you want to.

I just wanted to. On the Santa Monica example, and of course there were a couple, but our Housing Committee analysis of this bill cited the Santa Monica example. I don't know if it's exactly the same one, but in that negotiation, Santa Monica reduced the affordability requirement.

So that was the result of okaying the project to reduce the affordability requirement.

Okay. Okay. I have one more question for Mr. Rossin. The issue of inclusion. Could you explain that a little bit more?

Sure. So right now, the bill says that if you propose a builder's remedy project by one of the percentages that's in the current version of the bill. Yeah, I just turned off my mic. You have to apply the inclusionary percentage if it's a greater percentage, but you can only apply that inclusionary percentage if it's a greater percentage.

If you do study, if you can make a finding that by putting that greater percentage on the builder's learning project, putting that percentage on the builder's learning project is feasible, or putting that percentage on the builder's learning project will not render it infeasible. You have to do that.

And so every community in which a builder's remedy project is proposed would have to go through that process in order to propose their inclusionary zoning requirement.

And in Santa Monica, with 16 builder's remedies projects, they would have had to look at each project individually and come up with an analysis that said whether or not the inclusion area in Santa Monica was feasible or not feasible, it's just not workable.

The state. What do you mean it's not workable?

Well, especially with regards to the right now, the state, first of all, the State of California requires that when you do your housing, if you have an inclusionary zoning ordinance and over 170 communities do, if you have that, you have to put in your housing element an analysis that shows that your inclusionary zoning ordinance, including the percentage, does not create a constraint to develop.

You already have to do that in your housing element. I know we're talking about cities that haven't done their housing, but there are other remedies that the state has as well.

The state can require that any community that has a 15% requirement or higher inclusionary requirement, the state can require that they do a study over the whole city to see whether a 15% inclusionary requirement is feasible.

The last thing, all inclusionary ordinances have a provision in them that says if a developer doesn't believe or thinks that they can't make a fair return on their investment by providing that percentage of inclusionary, they can go to the city and say, you're not allowing me to get a fair return on investment.

Can I get my inclusionary reduced? And all ordinances, all the inclusionary ordinances in California that I've seen have that provision in them. And the city can say if the developer makes the case, they can reduce the percentage that's already there. So we don't need this now, especially if it has to be on every single builder's remedy project.

It's going to really, cities can't afford that, and so they will not apply their inclusionary law, which they've already looked at and decided that's what has to happen in their community in order to go forward and grow. We need to include affordable housing.

We're not doing what we need to do for communities of minority, communities of color that have not been able to afford to stay in our cities.

Thank you, Mr. Weiling.

Certainly. Thank you. And I would like to point out on the issue of feasibility. One of the provisions in this bill essentially puts the burden on the local government to prove that its objective standards, again, not subjective standards. Objective standards applicable to an appropriate zone as defined in the bill, are feasible.

I think one, even with an expert, that would be incredibly difficult. Difficult to affirmatively prove that feasibility has an economic element. And without access to the developers' finances, without access to a lot of information that we often don't have, even with an expert, that would be extremely difficult to do.

To the point made, allowing the developer to demonstrate infeasibility makes a lot of sense. They have access to that information and within the policy that the builder's remedy, that is an existing law and that we don't challenge within the policy, there is something to be said for offering them that opportunity.

Flipping the burden around, functionally is going to make it very, very difficult to enforce any objective standards, even the ones that this bill, one allows and that two don't physically preclude doing whatever it was the builder proposed. So I think that that's, again, another one of those sort of ambiguities. How's it going to work in practice?

How is it going to be administrable? That certainly affects inclusionary issues, but also affects the basic imposition of any form of standards. Thank you.

Okay, I would like to hear just quickly from Mr. Smith, if you could add anything on labor. I know you came in late.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Jeremy Smith here again, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. I think our concerns with the bill, as we discussed with Mr. Fisch from the Attorney General's Office, we appreciate those conversations, is around this idea of disapprovals under the Housing Accountability Act.

We read the bill now as allowing developers to challenge any permitting, environmental mitigation, or public health analysis, which they consider, quote, burdensome, as an illegal disapproval, even when those agency actions may be necessary to address environmental and public health concerns. We fear this could undermine the entire CEQA and land use process.

I don't think that's the author's intent, but that's how we read the bill in its current form in print. And we think this is going to undermine those processes by encouraging local governments to approve housing projects just to avoid litigation with potential negative consequences for the environment, environmental justice, and other stakeholders in the development process.

So our concerns are around that kind of definition of disapproval and how that would be dealt with in the Housing Accountability Act.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for the time. I think we go back to the author if you want to. Sure, wrap it up.

Thank you for the conversation. There's been a lot. My hope is that we never have to use builder's remedy, that this law will not apply to anyone. Because as Mr. Seyarto said, we've worked with our cities to make it easier for them to work with HCD to have a more seamless process.

I'm committed to working with you on that because I do hear that from some of my cities as well.

I do think we have a lot of cities out there who are doing, who are doing the right thing, who are, you know, compliant with housing element, who want to build, who are zoning the right way, who are doing everything they can.

Sorry to interrupt you for just a second. I just want to make sure I wasn't. I need to make my comments and then you wrap up, or if you want to.

Yes, I just wanted to respond to Mr. Seyarto.

Okay, finish that and then I'll make some comments. Thank you.

So my hope is that we can, you know, this bill is about creating clarity around the law. We do have a lot of legal ambiguity. I do think there's work that needs to be done with regard to HCD and how our local governments access and have relationship with our state agencies.

So I certainly would continue to work with you on that. It's definitely a complicated bill. And to Senator Skinner's point, there's been, and the conversation around inclusionary. There's been a lot of conversation around that.

And you've seen even cities reducing their inclusionary rate, because in the end of the day, we want to make sure that these projects pencil out or else they're not going to be feasible. So, again, that's something else.

I'm happy to continue to working with the Senator and others on around the inclusionary rate, but I'm happy to also hear out your questions and then provide a close.

Thank you very much. Well, everyone knows that you're a fighter for housing Assemblymembers, so I want to acknowledge that, and we all want to do much more. Everybody here talked about either their own situation, their own district, district, about how we need more housing.

We need more affordable housing, in my opinion, because that's what's keeping people out of finding a home or buying a home or just paying the rent. So we need more affordable housing. And it's, you know, we have been working, we've been talking the last couple of days. I can't support the bill in its current form.

It's a huge lift. It's major changes, many moving pieces, and to assess, we've had a difficult time to try to assess the impacts of the entire bill. There are parts of it. Some of them were mentioned by our pro and con witnesses. But this disapproval process will really expose local governments to litigation.

The objective standards, you know, keeps blocks local governments from imposing all kinds of things that we in the Legislature have asked the locals to develop policies on. We've asked locals to develop policies on climate adaptation, fire hazards, flooding, electrification, open space, labor requirements. We've done that. And so this blocks governments from being able to do that.

Affordability lowers affordability. So there are some very key things here that are being disrupted. The Legislature worked hard to make sure that we can quickly approve CEQA documents and exemptions for housing projects. I'm also not comfortable with the way, again, the objective standards.

So in many cases in this building, we've told the government, again, work hard, address these issues, and this bill would prevent local agencies from imposing the requirements that we expect of this so our greatest need in this state is housing, in my opinion, is housing for the lowest income individuals.

And this bill shifts from that focus, in my opinion. We tried, we've had some communications. We've had some, and I thought yesterday we were ready to go. You felt the amendments were unworkable. But we've been working hard on this. We've made suggestions since, for a week now.

And, you know, to me, the message is that, you know, unless you have the whole thing as is that you're unwilling to take amendments. And we tried really hard and you worked with your staff not to get any amendments from this and to be left with only the bill, I think, is not a good idea.

I think it really, again, for all these issues that we've been talking about. So I would be voting no on it.

No. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your, your position, and as I mentioned, have enormous amount of respect for the work you do. And I also agree with you on the need for affordable housing for our lowest income communities. I also think we need housing for folks at all income levels.

This has been a really tough bill, as I mentioned, with a pretty complicated coalition, which has been mentioned by other colleagues as well. I want to keep working with you on this and try to earn your vote on the floor if the bill gets out today.

And I'm committed to working with you on some of the stuff that's been raised today around, you know, the affordability issues and some of the objective standards, I think our staffs and us continue, you know, had a lot of fruitful conversations.

I do think there's some places where some of that stuff can land and want to keep working with you on that. I'd like to see the bill move forward so we can get it through into the next hurdle. Obviously, it'll go to, if it gets out sale, it'll go to Appropriations and genuinely have a collaborative approach.

We've taken a ton of amendments on this bill throughout the entire process. This is, I think it's gone through, I don't know, multiple Committees in the Assembly went through housing here, so maybe it's 5th or 6th Committee. So we've taken a lot of amendments along the way, and we'll continue to do so.

And I expect we'll continue to take more amendments as we move into the Appropriations Committee, and we'll want to work with you on that as this bill moves forward. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote so that we can keep that conversation going.

I'm happy to work with any of the Members on this Committee with concerns that were raised to see if we can refine the approach. But what we're trying to do here is to create some certainty for folks around a pretty ambiguous law that does need to be fixed again with the goal that it never actually applies because cities are doing the right thing. And we continue to work with HCD to ensure that cities can do the right thing.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, our vote. You are cutting off. We're cutting off discussion on the bill.

I asked for her.

Right. But I had raised my hand. While you had already spoken. I spoke once. True.

Yeah. I mean, I thought that's why I stopped her earlier to ask her.

I didn't realize that discussion was going to be cut off.

Told her, answer the question. And she was going to, I was going to make my remarks and then she was going to make it. Right.

And I raised my hand so, because, look, it's okay. It's okay. I don't.

With all due respect, Madam Chair, we are Senators. We. I think we should give the Senator an opportunity. Just, just my thing. We allowed a lot of testimony today, and this is a very big bill and a lot of controversy. I would ask that you give her the grace.

If you want me to withdraw my motion, I will. Until after the Senator speaks, I will. Okay.

It is never my preference to vote against, against a chair's recommendation. And when in listening to the author's opening comments, I heard the author indicate some willingness to move towards what the Committee was asking, but not in the form that is listed in the analysis. Now, I appreciate there's been lots of conversations.

However, I am not confident comfortable killing the Bill. My Committee already supported the Bill, and I gave my reasons for why. But I'm also always reluctant to not support a chair.

And unless I heard wrong, I heard the author indicate that there was willingness to move not to accept the amendments as written, but to move towards now, whether that happens in approps or.

But I just wanted to put that on the record because, again, while I'm not willing to have the Bill Die, it is also not my preference to override the chair.

Okay.

You know, every Bill that has come through here, we have worked really, really hard up until the last second before a vote is taken, worked really, really hard sometimes here to reach some amendments to show good faith that we're moving in the right direction.

Every time we got closer to that, the negotiations were stopped and the ideas were rejected every single time, all the way even up until this morning. So I don't take lightly voting no on this Bill. I don't take lightly.

But I also need to know, as chair, I need to know that there was a seriousness behind the commitment, that it was not just going to be, don't worry about it. We're going to take care of it down the line.

If I don't see that and I see just the current Bill, take it or leave it, I'll think about it. That's just not acceptable to me as a chair. And we're talking about really important issues, which is local government. We need to support local government, but we also need to push local government. I'm all for that.

But the process here has been that there's no acceptance of some serious amendments. None. So I really, you know, again, I want you to understand that I take this very, very serious, but it's my responsibility also, if somebody's going to make, if an author is going to make a commitment, where is the proof?

The proof is in what we have up until today, a whole week has gone by since we made the original suggestions for amendments. It's not like we didn't care or we ignored or we didn't discuss. So that's my explanation to you, Senator. Skinner, thank you.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate that. And I'm going to be supporting the motion supporting the Bill for all the reasons that I said earlier in the hearing. And I, as a Committee Member, I very, very rarely vote against the recommendation of the chair, but sometimes we all do from time to time.

And I just want to sort of acknowledge that on this Committee we have multiple strong housing leaders. We have a chair of our local government Committee.

We have the current chair of the Housing Committee, the immediate past chair of the Housing Committee, multiple Members of this Committee who have carried huge water in terms of housing policy for many, many years. And we all have some very well developed views on the direction of housing policy.

I think it's always good to try to resolve things. And I've resolved, you know, on a housing Bill that I had, we dispute I have with the chair, and we, and we resolved that. But sometimes the resolution doesn't, doesn't happen. And so I'll be voting for it today, which is, again, not something I typically do.

But I think under the circumstances, that's where I am with the greatest of respect to the chair and respect for her not supporting the Bill.

Madam Chair, thank you for allowing them to speak. I appreciate that. And I will make a motion now on AB 1893.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on appropriations. Senators Durazo, [Roll Call] Four to one. Thank you.

We have a motion.

All right, Mister Carillo, are you ready? Thank you for your patience. Really appreciate it. You'll be presenting 2192 first.Sorry. 2371.

Electrified security fences are proven to be safe and also used by various government agencies, including CAL FIRE, public works departments, and school bus storage yards. AB 2371 simply adds the consistency to the process so all entities can use the technology.

How about I start with 2371? Would that be okay?

Perfect. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Mister Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to present this Bill. AB 2371. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank your Committee team for their hard work on this important Bill and for the Committee's accommodation during this very difficult week for me and my team.

I believe the amendments include language negotiated with the Public Safety Committee last week which removed the remaining opposition to the Bill, as well as amendments negotiated with the Committee that add child care facilities, recreation centers and community centers to the list of sensitive facilities.

Senators, electrified security fences have proven to provide an effective and safe deterrent for businesses seeking to protect large and heavy products that must be stored outdoors. Previous legislation as well as international standards have ensured that these fences are safe.

In fact, despite the thousands of fences installed throughout the country, there has never been an injury, much less a fatality, caused by one of these fences. These fences do, however, serve as a deterrent in an effective alarm system, particularly for businesses that have equipment or inventory that must be stored outdoors.

Under existing law, an electrified security fence may only be installed and operated inside the exterior exterior fence or wall. On a commercial property, a person can only come into contact with electrified security fence if and only if he or she commits trespass and breaches defense or wall.

Some local governments have embraced existing law that governs the installation and operational standards for these security alarm systems and work quickly with businesses and government agencies. Unfortunately, some local governments have delayed a permit applications for years when issuing permits to install such security systems.

Currently, there are almost 400 businesses waiting for their local governments to issue approval, and most concerning these businesses have been waiting on average for more than one year and still don't have approval yet.

AB 2371 addresses this by requiring that the local permitting process is consistent with that of other security alarm systems and reinforces existing law that requires these security fences are installed and labeled in such a way that it will be virtually impossible for anyone to accidentally come in contact with one.

For the past eight years and at more than 1000 properties throughout the state, including public agencies such as CAL FIRE and city public works departments, electrified security fencing, basically a fencing site offense, having safely and effectively securing properties and employees without incident.

Under my Bill, local governments also retain the absolute right to make local zoning decisions that dictate where these types of systems can be used. For example, you cannot put an electrified security fence on your residential property.

Joining me to testify and support are Analee Augustine with the Family Business Association of California and Yolanda Benson with the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you for testifying today. We're going to give you each two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Family Business Association of, California, a nonprofit dedicated to helping the 1.4 million family businesses in California, we're proud to co sponsor this Bill. Many of our Members use this technology and credit it for the ability to remain in business.

Manufacturing and industrial businesses need to protect their long term investments such as vehicles, construction equipment, tractors, and other forms of large inventory. This is often what businesses rely on for their day to day operations, and they actually can't afford to replace it.

Oftentimes, significant amounts of theft, criminal trespass, and property damage threaten the safety of employees and customers and ultimately the ability to provide safe jobs. Electrified security fences have been proven through time and application to be nearly 100% effective at deterring crime and therefore are critical to combat the rising incidences of crime that communities face.

There's no reason why businesses should have to wait years when they've already identified a threat to the safety and their ability to protect their equipment and employees. For these reasons and more, we thank the author and our proud to co sponsor this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. That was right at two minutes. Good job.

I'll be less. Yolanda Benson, representing the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the 127 local Hispanic chambers throughout the state, serving 815 over 815,000 Hispanic owned businesses in California. We believe that 2371. We thank the author for carrying this important Bill.

We believe it offers a consistent framework for small businesses, especially small businesses like the Hispanic owned business who has an import export business. One of our Members, they specifically have cargo containers on their property. Because they're an import export business. They have had burglary and theft inside their cargo containers.

Even though the cargo containers were locked, there has been theft. They've lost thousands of dollars, which is a loss to a business as a small business that can't easily be made up the loss of these, the electrified fence, security fence would be an easy added security for this kind of business. It is their livelihood.

They need to have these kinds of choices in providing security for their businesses. We ask for your aye vote on this very common sense Bill. Thank you.

Mister Chairman, Members. Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC and CAL FIRE firefighters, in support. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. At this time, we'll take the me too s in support. Just your name, your organization you represent, and your support for the Bill.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, strong support.

Good morning. Sherry Mchugh, representing the self storage Association and support. Thank you.

Katherine Charles, on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.

Ryan Elaine. On behalf of the California Retailers Association, support.

Matthew Hargrove of the California Business Properties Association, in support.

Nick Chappie on behalf of the California Trucking Association and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Caprio with REIT public services and strong support.

Jack Yanos on behalf of the California fuels and convenience alliance in support.

Christopher Rodriguez on behalf of the California. Chamber of Commerce in Support. Thank you.

Annalee Augustine, also here on behalf of Copart in support. Thanks.

All right, thank you very much. Do we have any Members of the audience who want to be the primary opposition witness in which you'll get two minutes.

Good morning chair Members. Just wanted to clarify that after the Committee amendments and Senate judiciary, the League of California Cities as well as the California State Association of Counties has gone to neutral on the Bill wanted once they were printed and wanted to appreciate again the sponsors and authors office for the conversations on those.

And we appreciate them being open to our concerns with the Bill. So thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Do we have any me toos in opposition? If not, we'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have any questions or a motion?

Move the Bill.

We have a motion to move the Bill by Senator Skinner. You may close.

Thank you Mister Vice Chair. As many of you know, we unexpectedly lost Aldo Garcia. This happened last week. He was a rising star in my office and a beloved Member of the Capitol community. We went to his funeral services last night and I still cannot believe that he's gone.

It's been really hard for our office to deal with this event from last week. I say that because this Bill is one that he was responsible for in my office. And I just wanted to take a moment to remember him and acknowledge all of his hard work, not only in this Bill but in other bills as well.

I thank you for your attention. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, well from our Committee we extend our sincere condolences on that. That is a tough loss and we all feel that. So with that we'll go ahead and take roll.

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

All right, we'll keep that bill open on call. Next up we have AB 2443 by Mr. Carrillo again. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And Senators, thank you for allowing me to present this bill today. This is a very simple bill that we'd allow three cities in my district, the cities of Victorville, Pamphlet and Lancaster. The rest critically needed resources at the local level.

Senators, my district Assembly District 39 is a brand new district that straddles the Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County lines. One of the primary things the communities in my district have in common is that they have been left behind. When people think of Los Angeles County, they are not thinking about Palmdale and Lancaster.

And when people think of San Bernardino County, they are not thinking about the cities of Adelanto and Victorville. And I'll give you an example. Measure edge in Los Angeles County, which funds homelessness programs throughout the county, only returns about 15 cents to the dollar that is collected in the City of Palmdale for this measure.

My communities in the high desert are consistently forgetting about and left out of critical resources at both the state and the county level. This measure simply allows them to do it themselves, to raise funds locally to meet the local needs of these cities.

Heading support of the bill is Jason Gonsalves, on behalf of the cities of Palmdale and Victorville.

Thank you. Mr. Gonsalvis, you got two minutes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And thank you to the author, Assemblymember Carrillo. Jason Gonzalez on behalf of the cities of Victorville and Palmdale in strong support. As noted by the author, this bill simply allows the mayor and council to choose to put something before their voters, their constituents. We used to call it self help.

And as these communities grow, the infrastructure needs and the demands grow. And with that, we respectfully request this flexibility through January 2029 as noted in the bill and request your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. This is support. Okay. Any more support? No. This is. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Senator Wiener moves the bill. We'll do a roll call.

Okay. Seeing no more witnesses in support, we move on to opposition. Anyone in opposition of AB 2443? Okay. Seeing none come to the dais. Any questions or comments? No, seeing none. Would you like to.

I request an aye vote.

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

Okay. Thank you. Leave it open for more votes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay, we move on to. I need the other list. We're going to. We can have a motion. Motion for the consent calendar.

Yes.

The consent calendar. The motion is moved by Senator Wiener. We'll now do roll call on the consent calendar.

Motion is adopt a consent calendar. [Roll Call] Two to zero.

And we're gonna hold it open. Yes. Okay. And we did 2443. You already did that one. Okay. Okay.

Motion on the first two.

We're going back to vote on two bills. If we can have a motion. SB 739, moved by Senator Wiener. We have Ashby. SB 739. Senator Ashby. We'll have the roll call.

Motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. Senators [Second Roll] Two to zero.

Okay. And we need a motion. I'm sorry, leave it open. Okay, we need a motion on SCR 163. Okay, thank you. We have roll call.

Motion is be adopted and ordered to third reading. [Second Roll] One 20.

Okay, now we move on to AB 2235. Oh, here we go. Yay. Lucky you. Okay, we're going to move ahead then to AB 2735. Welcome, Assemblymember Rubio.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present AB 2735. I would like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments and would like to thank the Committee and staff for getting this Bill into a better place. This Bill arises out of a clear need to protect both consumers and the insurance market from uncertainty posed by the current State of California's insurance market. Sources estimate that there is 20% less availability for insurance options that there were just a year ago.

AB 2735 looks to provide stability for the existing market by establishing an alternative insurance option for our state's water providers. In 2015, the Legislature passed AB 656, authored by then Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, to allow for insurance risk pooling for mutual water companies. In addition to the provisions of AB 656, this Bill will allow a water corporation and a public agency to enter into a joint powers agreement for the provision of insurance and risk pooling. The California Fair Plan has provided a backstop for entities seeking coverage when they otherwise have not been able to.

However, it has become abundantly clear that this existing system is in jeopardy. This is being felt by water providers across the state. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Governor Gavin Newsom have both noted their preference to reduce the number of entities who utilize the Fair Plan, as a significant loss would cause reverberations for the market as a whole.

AB 2735 provides a unique, explicitly permissive solution to this complex problem for our water providers. JPAs can set lower premiums and offer broader coverage than otherwise available through the private marketplace due to the fact that they fall under unique regulatory and taxation parameters.

By allowing water providers that fall outside of the scope of AB 656 to participate in pooled insurance, this Bill would help stabilize water rates while simultaneously stabilizing the utilization of the Fair Plan. As this is a proven model for other utilities, AB 2735 is a common sense, novel solution for water providers across the state. Here with me today to testify is Jennifer Capitolo, Executive Director of the California Water Association, the sponsor of the measure, and Paul Fuller, Insurance Administrator for Cal Mutuals. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Paul Fuller. I am a licensed insurance broker and water operator in California. I represent approximately 4000 public water districts, mutual water companies and investor owned water utilities throughout the country, including 900 in California. Like many policyholders in California, we're experiencing, our water clients are experiencing rate shock in the commercial marketplace. It's not unusual for our water clients to see rates exceeding 100% from expiring levels.

And that is on top of rate increases from prior years and on top of higher deductibles, less coverage and lower limits. Now, fortunately, our public water district and mutual water company clients have an option, and that is an insurance pool or joint powers authority. I'm not here to suggest that insurance pools are a panacea to the insurance crisis, but I can confirm that insurance pools provide more affordability, more stability and more value compared to today's commercial marketplace.

There's three reasons for that. Number one is structure insurance pools utilize reinsurance, which is a more efficient way of buying insurance. Second would be the ability for ease of business for insurance pools to ultimately provide more risk management services without regulatory oversight and control. And then finally, it would be the value and the expectations that they have on their Members.

They can mandate a heightened level of safety performance. And for these reasons, insurance pools, at least compared to today's insurance marketplace, creates a better value, more affordability and more stability for public water districts, for mutual water companies. And we're asking for your consideration to allow investor owned water utilities that same privilege. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wants? Oh, I'm sorry, I jumped right over you, go ahead.

No problem. Jennifer Capitolo, Executive Director of the California Water Association. We're the statewide association co sponsoring the Bill with Cal Mutuals. We have about 90 Member companies here in the State of California, and our water utilities are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. This Bill for us is 100% about water affordability. We're seeing water rates steadily increase and we are looking everywhere possible to try to stabilize water rates for our customers.

We're looking at every line item in our water utilities budget and seeing if there's anywhere that we can look for adjustments. And we feel like this is an opportunity for us to reduce those costs related to insurance and directly then pass those savings onto our customers. This Bill idea came from a small company that's actually in Senator Dahle's district, even though he popped out. And it's called Lukins Brothers Water Company, 3000 service connections in the Tahoe area.

I think he was talking about the millionaires and the trillionaires. This is this little tiny, disadvantaged community that is the folks that work in the hotels and the casinos in Tahoe. And in 2020, their property insurance rates were $43,000 a year. Here we are now in 2024, their insurance costs are $279,000 a year. So $43,000 to $279,000. In three years, that's how much it's increased. And that's, of course, because of the Caldor Fire, the risk there. They weren't impacted by the Caldor Fire. They've never had a claim on their insurance ever in their history of a water utility.

But just that ever changing pressure on the private insurance market, that huge increase experienced there for those customers. So 21% rate increase for them resulted in about a $23 a month addition onto their utility water bill. And that's just not acceptable. Right. I think we can all agree like that is rate shock when we talk about it. So we met with Cal Mutuals. We came up with this idea. We're here hoping that this Bill moves forward today and we can help savings for our water utility customers. Thank you.

Perfect. Two minutes. Thank you. Others in support of AB 2735.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Steve Baker with Aaron Reed and Associates for the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group on behalf of California Water Service, in support.

Alison Ramey on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Workers, State Association of Electrical Workers and State Pipe Trades, in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Kendra Daijogo with the Gualco Group on behalf of the San Jose Water Company, thank the author for her efforts.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Ok, seeing none. Anyone in opposition, please come forward.

Faith Borges with the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities. We'd love to thank the author and the Committee for your work on the most recent amendments with looking forward to the opportunity to review them once they're in print. But we do expect to go neutral with that. So thank you for your work.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. Matt Broad here on behalf of ACWA JPIA and then also been deputized by AFSCME to remove opposition with the Committee amendments, which we think strikes a balance between addressing rate affordability but also protecting the JPA model. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, seeing none, I come to the dais. Any questions or comments from our. We have a motion to move the Bill. Would you like to close.

Again, would like to thank you, Madam Chair, and the Committee for their hard work to get us to this point. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, we have a motion to move the Bill.

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

Thank you. Okay, who do we have here? Assemblymember I guess we're stuck with you. We have a bunch of others, but I'll let you go up. Welcome, Assemblymember Lowenthal. You're here to present AB 2235 right?

That's correct, Madam Chair. And Senators, I will be brief. I want to begin by thanking the Chair and your staff for your patience and understanding, truly thoughtful consideration of this bill and where it's at. The Port of Long Beach is embarking on ambitious plan to build the largest off wind turbine facility at any US port.

The facility will help California meet its goal of producing 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2045 and help lower the national cost of offshore wind power by 70% by 2035.

Offshore wind will play a critical role in California's renewable energy portfolio, helping California achieve its SB 100 goals while delivering the renewable energy to support carbonization across multiple sectors, including the Port of Long Beach's transition to zero emissions.

AB 2235 provides for an express ability for the City of Long beach to procure contracts specifically relating to the peer wind project and describes the project delivery methods by which those contracts can be procured.

AB 2235 also provides specific requirements for business entities entering into contracts for peer win project relating to bonding a skilled and trained workforce and insurance. Madam Chair, I want to note that we are working on language at this time between the ILW and the state building trades regarding jurisdictional elements and will not move the bill.

You have my commitment to not move the bill off the Senate Floor without such an agreement.

Good news? Good news. Okay. Yes. Would you like to speak in favor?

Yes. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, my name is Dan Cha, representing the Port of Long Beach, the sponsor of this bill. Relatively straightforward bill to give the port the contracting flexibility to build the largest facility to support the offshore wind industry, as the Assemblymember described.

Once assembled, these two turbines will be towed out to sea from the Port of Long Beach to win lease areas in the central and Northern California that will generate clean, reliable power for the grid.

In addition to putting the state and the US at the forefront of this technology, pure wind will help the state meet its climate goals, while creating good paying union jobs and creating economic opportunities for local communities.

And just to be clear, these turbines are so large that there's no other way to actually assemble them but at a pier right near the coastal areas. But also to be clear, this bill only pertains to the construction of the pier itself. We're not talking about building the actual turbines with respect to this larger development.

Currently, the port is required to utilize a design build project delivery method for its public works infrastructure projects. But because of the project's complexity and aggressive delivery schedule, we need this flexibility as provided for in this bill. Time is of the essence as well to develop this infrastructure needed to enable offshore wind and tackle the climate crisis.

Without this legislation, our project would be delayed at least a year, with costs for a project that is already approaching $5 billion. But the delay would increase the project by another $250 million. So thank you for consideration, and we urge, and aye vote.