Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the assembly local government Committee hearing. We're gonna go through some housekeeping items. Testimony for this hearing will be in person. We also accept written testimony to the position of the portal on the committee's website.

As we proceed with witnesses and public comment, I wanna make sure everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of a hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impeasy audit conduct of the legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rule for today's hearings include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today. No engaging no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of the rules may be subject to removal or other enforcement actions. Miss Colossa will be joining on the dias today.

She'll be stepping in for assembly member Stephanie who is absent today. When she comes, we'll welcome her. And in addition to assembly member Pelerin, she will also be presenting item number four AB 2134 on behalf of assembly member, Ades, who is also absent today. We have eight bills on our agenda this afternoon with no items on consent. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for each bill.

These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should say their name, their organization, and their position on the bill. We do not have a quorum, so we're going to conduct this as a subcommittee hearing. And the first bill up to date is citing one AB 1658 by Assembly member Cara. Missus Cara, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, once again, mister chair and members. First, I'd like to say thank you to you and your committee staff for working with us on committee amendments that we are happy to accept today. AB 2263 is a district bill that will give the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority the statutory authority to build affordable housing for their employees. VTA employs an estimated 2,300 employees who manage and operate Santa Clara County's public transportation services.

While VTA workers may be making competitive middle class wages, they work and hope to live in the most expensive housing market in the nation.

For instance, the median home sale price in 2025 was over $1,600,000, and the median rent was $3,400. A high cost of housing has priced many of the VTA workers out of the area, leading them to live outside the immediate work area or, in many cases, outside the county, thereby creating long commutes for these workers, which is counter to the transit agency's goals.

By allowing VTA to offer their employees affordable housing, we can help these workers achieve the dream of either owning a home in the city where they work in or just being able to live close to work. AB 2263 will give VTA the authority to build affordable housing for its employees, ensure their workers can live closer to work, decrease their commutes, reduce driver fatigue, and improve the overall safety for all drivers and pedestrians on the road.

With me to provide supporting testimony is, supervisor Margaret Abe Koga, who's a board member of VTA, and Jesse O'Malley Solis, VTA's director of multimodal planning and real estate, who's available to ask, to answer any technical questions.

Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo, Vice Chair Todd, and members of the committee. Thank you so much for how having me today. My name is Margaret Abe Koga. I serve on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors, as well as, the Santa Clara County Board Of Supervisors. Thank you for hearing our earlier bill.

And I just wanna thank you, Assemblymember, Kalra, for authoring AB 2263 and for your ongoing support of VTA and our employees. VTA has a robust transit oriented development program. This bill would enable VTA to designate a percentage of the housing units we provide with preference given to our own employees.

The majority of the housing units proposed under AB 2263 would be open to the general public and would serve a mix of households, including including low and moderate income residents, consistent with VTA's existing transit oriented communities program. This legislation would help VTA address workforce retention and commute challenges while still serving the broader community and ensuring compliance with federal and state fair housing principles.

With the median rent nearby nearly double the national average, VTA employees often choose more affordable communities as assembly member, Kalra mentioned, far from their work. One in four VTA employees commute more than an hour each way, and 10% commute more than two hours each way. And in an internal employee survey, 90% expressed interest in an employee housing program. By offering employees the option to live close to work, we hope to improve their quality of life and provide more opportunities to use our public transit system.

I want to thank Assemblymember Kalra again in this committee for hearing AB 2263 and respectfully ask for your approval.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and Vice Chair Ta and committee members. My name is Jessie O'Malley Solis, and I'm VTA's director of multimodal planning and real estate for VTA. I'm here to answer any technical questions that you may have about our TOD program or our employee need for this bill. And we are thankful to assembly member Kalra for authorship on this on behalf of our VTA employees, and we hope to have your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add in support? Seeing no one. What about primary opposition? No opposition at all.

Committee members. Comments, questions. Oh, now we have a quorum. Would you please start the roll?

Here.

Carillo?

Uh-uh. Present. I wasn't saying

Ta?

Johnson? Pacheco?

Here.

Aye. I mean, I'm sorry here.

Caroza, Ward.

Present.

Ramos? Ransom?

Present.

Rubio?

Hi.

Here.

and Wilson.

Assembly member Ward, do you have a question or comment?

Yeah. I wanna thank assemblymember Kalra for raising this bill. Just raises a broader question for me that we are, you know, continuing to be able to do these one off district related bills when it comes to employee housing or it comes to being able to use your public lands a little bit smarter.

Obviously, there was some background in here with SB 79 being an allowance with, you know, previous work that's been done as well to be able to use previous legislation, now law, that has been able to allow public entities to be able to use the lands a lot smarter. I know specifically there's broad legislation for school districts.

Right? I mean, I'd like to be able to see this, like, more as a standard for a lot of our transit agencies. I know MTS down in San Diego has been doing a lot of work to be able to use affordable housing on its properties. And, of course, it's right there on transit high high occupancy transit lines. So is there anything about VTAs sort of portfolio that, like, you know, you need to be able to expand the law beyond what is already there?

I'm gonna support the bill. I'm hoping to move the bill. But but what's what's the maybe extra special need here through this

Yeah. Our current legislative authority allows us to develop our properties via our TOD program or joint development program, but it does not allow us to provide any of that as preference to employees. And so that is the specific need and impetus for the bill before you.

Got it. Yeah. I'm very supportive of that too, just like we're doing for teacher housing as well. So I'm happy to support the bill.

See no one else. Was that a motion? Assemblymember ward? Is there a second? A second by Assemblyman Ransom.

Would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair, and thank you for the question. I think that Santa Clara County is not unique. I think when it comes to being able to provide housing for their workforce, including those that work for transit agencies, I'm hoping that this will be set an example and hopefully be successful so that other transit agencies can can follow suit, because we need all options on the table, especially for those that are choosing to do public service in our communities, especially as for my vote.

Thank you, Assemblyman Kalra, and your team for working with the committee for and and for taking the amendments, whichever you stated you're taking the amendments. Yes. I understand that there are there may be other further refinements, to the definition of employee housing project, And I'm happy to continue working with you on this definition as the bill moves forward. And you accept the, the amendments. The motion is to pass as amended.

Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number six, AB 2263, the motion is do passed as amended. Carrillo?

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. Ta?

Ta, aye. Johnson?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom?

Aye.

Aye.

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Rubio, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Ward, aye. Wilson.

Caloza? Ward?

Right now its, 6-0. We'll leave the roll open for add ons. Thank you. And the bill is out. The bill is out.

Thank you.

We can. Can can I get a motion for a B1658 item number one also, caller? Motion by Pacheco, seconded by Rubio. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The bill is out at six zero. Will it be we're open for add ons? Assemblymember Pellerin. Do you wanna start by

I'll start with the Addis Bill.

Yeah. This bill? Yeah. That's item number four AB2134. Addis presented by Pellerin.

Thank you, chair and members. And I'm filling in today for the Assembly member Addis to present AB 2134, the Family Friendly City Council's Act. This is a Legislative Women's Caucus Priority Bill.

Assembly member Addis would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill. She accepts the amendments outlined in the analysis. The idea came to her from a stunning story she read in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, originally published in the San Jose Mercury News by Grace Hace.

The story she read was about Alysa Cisneros, a seven months pregnant council member in Sunnyvale, who is expected to ask her council member colleagues at a public meeting to vote to approve a leave of absence so she could keep her seat. When Assembly member Addis read the story, she was stunned by two things.

Number one, how unfair this is to women and new parents. And number two, how this could be happening in 2024 in California where we've worked so hard to create the most representative democracy in America. Her team went back and searched and found out, excuse me, that it's true. There are massive gaps in family leave protections for public officials that can leave those serving in local office without the guarantee of parental leave and force them to divulge private medical information in public.

For these public servants, it creates an impossible choice between time off for a new family or keeping their seat, publicly and invasively divulging their personal health information or potentially facing removal.

Fortunately, we have an easy fix. AB 2134 will establish standard minimum protections for parental leave for City Council members across California. This bill will ensure that council members can have absences for parental leave without losing their seat, making City Councils more accessible to new parents. So specifically, AB 2134 will require cities to allow council members to take absences for parental leave.

It will exclude parental leave from counting toward the number of absences allowed for each council member, and it will prevent cities from requiring council members to seek approval for parental leaves at public meetings.

Californians should be able to grow their families and serve in local office. AB 2134 will remove barriers that create a stronger, more representative democracy for all of us. And joining me today to testify in support is Sunnyvale City Council member, Alysa Cisneros.

Hello. Thank you very much. Thank you for hearing, this really important bill today. My name is Alyssa Cisneros, and I serve on the Sunnyvale City Council where, I was first elected in 2020. I represent the downtown.

I've worn many professional hats in my life, but what calls me to leadership is the privilege of being a mother to my two incredible daughters. A few years ago, I needed to decide whether I was going to have a second child due to some health concerns if I were to hold off that decision too much longer. Whether I was up for re-election didn't matter, what my City's policy didn't matter, I needed to make that decision.

That was a challenging choice for a lot of the reasons that are it would normally be challenging for anyone, economic reasons, huge concern, other family milestones, long term goals that my family may have. But what was unique about my circumstances, I also had to consider whether I was willing to potentially lose the seat that I've won years, four years prior in favor of having this child.

And I was more fortunate than most because Former Mayor Melinda Hamilton had trod this path before me in 2003 for the first time, and I'm the next person to have experienced it. But she was able to give me fair warning, and I realized many council members do not have fair warning. Somebody to tell them this is what's gonna happen. Gonna need to have a public hearing, and there's gonna be public comment.

And they're invited to talk about your personal issues and, your family and those decisions and whether or not that makes you fit for leadership.

The fact that you've decided to expand your family. And comments that she received, in 2003 included, women should not be eligible for elected office at all when they're of childbearing age. And who is gonna watch your babies when you're at council meetings? And I don't think it's appropriate for you to be out of the home. And this was the discourse happening in a public meeting we are the lucky one's we have a city by us, colleagues who would not tolerate that, and we both got our leave without question.

But I got really angry that other women in California would have to ever make this choice any for that matter, any father or any parent. Because these are very personal decisions. How much leave is needed is a medical concern that you handle with staff. And any public discourse that could happen around that does not add to any value to the conversation.

In fact, I'm concerned about whether having these policies you know, locally controlled can dissuade other people from running or for making decisions that are best for their family.

And so I kept talking about it. I was also running for re-election at the same time. I won, hence my title still. That was tough, but I now get to enjoy that future that I want for every single woman elected official. And when we say elect women in this state, we can say it and say it and say it.

Like, get elected to your we we've all said it to leaders in our communities. Get elected to your local city council. Go for a commission. Do it. But we should not leave those people behind once they are there.

We need to foster continue to grow their leadership and make sure that nobody is making the decision between, what's best for their family and growing their commitment and civic engagement in their communities. That's we need families, young families represented. So thank you very much for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Anybody else that wants to add on in support? See, no one is in any primary opposition to this measure. No opposition.

Members, comment? questions? motion?

Just a comment, as a fellow woman. This is my 29th year as an elected official. I was 12 when I started, just in case you're trying to do math. And when I had my kids, I was running for the assembly. And so I was knocking on doors, talking to folks up here, and they said, what are you gonna do with your kids?

They multiple times. What are you gonna do with your kids? Finally, and one day, I got mad. I said, I'm gonna have to give them up. I can't keep them.

And they finally stopped telling me what I was gonna do with my kids. But to your point, we're the only ones that get asked those questions. And so, you know, I thank you for for this. I did a similar bill, but not specific for for this issue. But I've done some work on this because I think it is if we want equal representation, then we have to have equal representation.

So thank you for this, and thank Assemblymember Addis, and thank you for this bill.

Thank you. Assembly member Ransom?

Just briefly, I think this is a common sense bill, and I I know a lot of folks are shocked that this is a thing. But, when I think about, you know, serving in local government and having to go before your peers, I think about councils and communities like mine where there's constantly in the news for people just not getting along and finding ways to trip each other up.

And so, I mean, just having to go before people who you may not agree with or who try to trip each other up is just not fair. It should not be part of family planning, and it's really you know, shouldn't be part of the process. So I appreciate that this bill creates parity with the employees.

It's not giving any special privileges. It's just giving basic human rights. And so with that, I'm honored to support this bill today.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, would you like to close on behalf of Assemblymember Addis?

Yes. So I wanna thank the council member for being here with her. It's very compelling. And on behalf of assembly member Addis, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you for presenting on behalf of Assembly member Addis. This, is a real issue today. We already heard from your experience and others here on on the dais. Thank you also and your staff for working with the committee on clarifying amendments, and that's for Assembly member Addis.

With the amendment, I will be voting aye, and we had a motion by Rubio and seconded by Ransom. Please call the roll.

For item number four, AB 2134, the motion is do passed as amended. Carrillo?

Carrillo, aye. Ta?

Aye.

Aye.

Ta, aye. Johnson? Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom?

Aye.

Aye.

Ransom, aye. Rubio?

Aye.

Rubio, aye. Caloza? Ward?

Ward, aye. Wilson?

That measure south 6-0, we'll either allow for others to add on. Thank you.

Thank you.

And you have a bill of your own that that's agenda item number five, AB 2186?

And moving on to agenda item number 2, Assembly Member Bryan, AB1768. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Colleagues. I think this is my first time coming before you, Mister Chair. Thank you for having me. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1768. It's an important Bill, a rather routine Bill in the legislature.

We've passed nearly 30 of these in my time in the legislature. It gives state authorization to Los Angeles County and Contra Costa County to ask their voters if they wanna step up in this moment and protect the most vulnerable from the health care impacts due to the cuts from the big beautiful scam. The most vulnerable communities continue to be attacked by the Trump administration.

Trump has signed policies that strip health care resources away from those communities, the same communities that already face the greatest barriers to care. We know these cuts are coming.

They're imminent. In LA County, seven clinics have already closed, and our most vulnerable communities and the cuts haven't even hit yet. California is disproportionately feeling these negative impacts. Los Angeles County projects losses totaling 2,400,000,000 over the next three years after the big beautiful scam cuts go into effect. Without additional revenue sources, these cuts will affect the county departments that focus on providing Angelenos with quality care.

In other instances, the county has already instituted hiring freezes and warned of potential layoffs. Essentially, without the county asking its voters whether they can raise revenues or not, the default choices are layoff well over 5,000 county employees, that sheriffs, probation workers, social service workers, community health workers, or let thousands more die on our sidewalks because they don't have access to critical health care infrastructure. Contra Costa County faces similar pressures. AB1768 is simple.

It's about whether local communities have the state's authorization to respond to federal decisions that impact their most vulnerable members.

Without this authority, counties are left making impossible choices that will cost lives. It's clear about this Bill is this Bill does not raise taxes, which is why it's been rather routine in the legislature. In fact, we passed a number of these measures last year and didn't even blink an eye. It simply gives voters the ability to decide for themselves if they want to step up to meet the moment, to meet a crisis.

LA County sees this crisis so imminent they have already put a ballot measure on their June ballot because they know that without addressing this in real time, people will die.

More people than anywhere else in the country. AB1768 is grounded in local control. It ensures our communities are not left to observe the consequences of these federal decisions by themselves. Joining me to testify are Angela Pontes, the Senior VP of Government Affairs at Planned Parenthood California, and Jim Mongea, the president and CEO of St. John's Community Health Clinic.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and Members of the committee. My name is Jim Mangia, and I'm the president and CEO of St. John's Community Health. We're one of the largest nonprofit community health providers in California, serving hundreds of thousands of low income families, working people, immigrants, seniors, and patients who depend on the Health Care Safety Net for their primary care, behavioral health, dental care, and other essential services.

I'm here today on behalf of Saint John's Community Health and the 200 community clinic sites across Los Angeles County who serve 2,000,000 patients and the health care providers, workers, and patients who rely on the safety net system to express our strong support for AB1768. AB1768 does not itself impose a tax.

What it does is give Los Angeles County the legal authority through 12/31/2031 to place a temporary half cent transactions and use tax before the voters, even if that tax exceeds the current 2% statutory cap. In other words, the bill gives voters the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to approve that measure. And this is why this Bill matters so much.

It does not bypass the voters. It empowers them. For providers like Saint John's, this is not abstract. Los Angeles County is facing severe federal health care cuts, and those cuts are putting extraordinary pressure on public hospitals, community clinics, public health programs, and the broader system of care that millions of Angelenos depend on. We're talking about closing down a public hospital and laying off thousands of workers, dozens of community clinics closing down if this measure does not pass.

When the health care safety net is weakened, the consequences don't stop with uninsured patients. The strain reaches the emergency rooms, hospitals, school based health centers, public health infrastructure, and neighborhoods across the county. Because patients wait longer, routine care gets delayed, and communities lose access to services they depend on close to home. The LA County Board of Supervisors has already acted to place this measure on the June ballot and adopted a spending plan to prepare for implementation if voters approve it.

That plan is intended to help stabilize public hospitals, support nonprofit and community based providers, preserve public health functions, and protect access to care.

This measure has been endorsed by every angle, every part of the safety net. The hospitals, the clinics, the private doctors, as well as multiple community based organizations and unions. AB1768 is a necessary enabling step that makes implementing that measure possible. On behalf of St. John's Community Health, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Tarrant members. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. In Los Angeles County, Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valleys operate 28 community health centers and 26 community based sites. This is one quarter of the Planned Parenthood health centers in the state. We are in support, of course, of AB1768.

When President Trump signed HR 1 into law on 7/4/2025, Planned Parenthood health centers were immediately defunded nationwide. In dollars for California, this meant the state lost over $300,000,000 in federal matching funding for vital sexual and reproductive healthcare services. HR 1 also included many other devastating impacts to healthcare programs across the state. In LA County, as stated, it is projected to result in the loss of $2,400,000,000 over the next 3 years.

In response, LA County has proposed a local solution by placing the Essential Services Restoration Act on the June 2026 ballot for voter approval.

If passed, this measure may result in about $1,000,000,000 to support health care services across LA County, including for Planned Parenthood. AB1768 will allow this measure to be implemented legally if passed by the voters. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

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

Good afternoon. Matt Lege on behalf of SEIU California in support and also the California professional firefighters asked me to express their support as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Mister Chair Member Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union, Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Paneraya Avdis on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Mark you see John behalf of the county of Los Angeles and support.

Jeff Neil, representing the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, as well as L. A care also in support.

Alejandro Felice on behalf of CPCA advocates, Co-Sponsors of the Bill in support. Thank you.

Chair and members, Allison Raymew on behalf of Ultimate in support.

Thank you. Any primary opposition, please step to the table.

So item number two AB 1786. That's out six to two. We go back to the agenda, and that's item number seven, AB 2415 by Mr.Hoover.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2415. As Californians continue to face the housing crisis, we are tasked with increasing affordability and availability, in our housing stock policies such as SB 79 from last year do help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, there are some very pro housing communities such as a city in my district, the city of Folsom that wanna build housing but also still aim to protect the character of their historic districts specifically.

Our proposed solution is very narrowly tailored.

It will allow a city if the majority of the transit zone is part of a local historic district as defined to reduce the capacity in one transit oriented development zone by more than 50%. However, the criteria for doing so, means that the city must have more than one transit oriented development zone and a population of less than 150,000. The local historic district must also have been designated before 01/01/2000.

With me today is Folsom Mayor Justin Rethal to speak in support of the bill as well as Jerry Berno with Berno Development Corporation. We also have Desmond Perrington here to answer for technical assistance if needed.

Chair Carrillo and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Justin Rethal. I have the honor of serving as the mayor of the city of Folsom. I'm here to express our strong support for AB 2415. Folsom takes our housing responsibilities seriously.

Over the past two decades, we've consistently approved and built homes across the income spectrum. And we continue to lean into higher density development in the places where it makes the most sense, near jobs, services, and transit. At the same time, we have a duty to protect the Folsom Historic District. It's not just a neighborhood, it's our cultural heart and one of the most significant historic assets in the Sacramento region.

In 2024, we updated our general plan to increase allowable densities in several targeted areas, including our East Bidwell Commercial Corridor, Folsom plan area town center, and actually two transit station areas.

We intentionally did not apply these higher density overlays to the Historic District because its scale and character are what makes it special. Even so, the district continues to grow in a way that fits primarily through accessory dwelling units and mixed use that blend in to the neighborhood. The challenge that we face is that under current law, high density housing obligations are still assigned to the Historic District in the ways that simply don't align with its physical constraints, or its role as a regional cultural anchor.

AB 2415 gives us a practical way to fix that. It allows the city to shift those obligations to transit oriented development areas near our two additional light rail stations, places that are actually designed for height, density, and modern infrastructure.

And we also own some land next to one of those light rail stations that we're able to develop there. AB 2415 offers a thoughtful solution for how the state can support housing production while still respecting the unique historic assets that communities are trying to preserve. It shows that we don't have to choose between meeting statewide housing goals and honoring the places that tell our shared story. On behalf of the city of Folsom, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2415.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo, committee members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. My name is Jerry Bernal, the owner of Bernal Development Corporation. It came to Folsom about thirty five years ago to, actually develop the largest apartment project in Folsom at the time, a 400 unit project, that was built in 1991.

Since that time, I've been building housing in Folsom, including single family, multifamily, ADUs, and mixed use in Folsom's historic district. I'm here in support of AB 2415 because it gives cities like Folsom a practical way to meet their housing obligations without compromising an irreplaceable housing district or excuse me, historic district. As a developer, I wanna be clear. We are building housing in historic Folsom. We're doing it in a way that respects the district's small blocks, narrow streets, limited infrastructure, and unique historic character.

Our projects are modest in scale, designed to fit into the architectural fabric of the existing streetscape, adding new homes without overwhelming

infrastructure or overshadowing historic the to shift to parts of Folsom that can support the height, the intensity, and has the modern infrastructure, especially transfer oriented districts near the city's two additional light rail stations. These are areas where larger projects make sense and where developers like me can deliver housing project the state is asking for. It puts housing where it belongs while align allowing historic districts to continue contributing in ways compatible with their scale and purpose.

I sincerely appreciate your opportunity to speak today, and I would ask for a yes vote on AB 2415. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else that wants to honor any support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Mister chair, members, Jason Gonsalves representing and residing in the city of Folsom in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair. Kathy Cole. I'm a historic, Folsom resident as well as vice chair of the Folsom Historic District Commission and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition? Seeing no opposition committee members, comments, questions, so many member award.

Thank you, mister Cooper, for bringing us forward. With SB 79, you already have an opportunity, right, to be able to have a local alternative plan, which shifts away any development capacity from one TOD. And you mentioned there's two other TOD sites as well, SB 79 TOD sites within the city of Folsom. So I'm unclear why the need for additional legislation here.

So I'm gonna actually ask, Desmond to come up if you could and help me answer that question, but I'll start by saying, we had a lot of very detailed conversations about this because what we hoped for was to be able to use the preexisting language within SB 79 to allow this specific district to essentially shift some of its requirements. The problem is there is still a certain requirement that cannot be waived that, I'm gonna let, our

You could reduce it to 50% of the original SB 79.

Correct. So if I don't know if if I can allow my

And you wanna go more than 50%.

So just just a hi. I'm Desmond Perrington, planning manager with the city of Folsom. So just just a a there were a couple issues that, in SB 79 that were raising a concern. So, one, the first one is that while it it does allow, for that reduction, It's it's really kind of site specific as it relates to, you know, properties that are on the on a historic list.

One of the things that's unique about our historic district is that the the lauding pattern, the way it was laid out was planned by Theodore Judah, you know, the engineer for the, you know, the the transcontinental railroad.

Sure. And so it's kind of this u unique pattern. Yeah. So while there are individual properties on there that are listed either federally or state, the entire district was established, locally as a historic district. So that's kind of the that's the the first issue that it wouldn't really provide the protection for the whole district.

The second second problem is that with with the the provisions that are that are in here and the interpretations that we were getting from various different kind of, kind of legal advice and and really from also from the senator's office, it wasn't clear that we could shift, a lot of the growth out of the Historic District and to the other light rail stations. That was the the biggest concern because, again, we're not opposed to transit oriented development in our historic district.

It's the the height and the scale, is is really the the the key factor. And when we were hearing that we don't think that you're gonna be able to shift that that growth or to exclude portions of that area from SP 79, that's where I that's where we were concerned because, again, most of the historic district is it, you know, one to two stories.

This would allow six stories and up to 100 dwellings per acre. Again, we can do that. We could do development. We just want to do it in the scale. And the Berno Development Corporation is one of the examples.

They're doing a three story project there that's mixed use that fits within the character of the historic district.

I know that I know the not as well as you, but I know the Folsom Historic District and appreciate not just, you know, what a, you know, treasure resource it is, but also as an economic engine probably for the city. I I fully appreciate that. What I the detail that I'm curious here is that, first of all, you said when you were dealing when you were, liaising with the senator's office that it wasn't clear it was clear to me that cities can do an alternative plan.

Oh, you know, it's it's not that we can't do an alternative plan. But the the advice that we were getting from outside legal counsel was they did not believe that we could could could really shift a lot of the the assigned kind of growth to that area to a different TOD area. That was that was the concern.

And and this was verified as well by, you know, stakeholders that supported the bill last year as well as the senator's office. There just wasn't didn't appear to be a pathway to use existing law, so we had to get a little bit creative. So we we do understand that this is a, you know, obviously, narrowly tailored bill because we do wanna preserve, obviously, the the good things about SP 79, but that the this was based on conversations with those same stakeholders.

And so if you're saying here we wanna be clear in this bill if we're gonna for for understandable reasons, for arguable reasons, reduce the development capacity over here that you would accept and shift that development capacity to one or two of the other sites.

Correct. We're not trying to get out of our obligation

Is that in the bill?

I believe so. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Fantastic.

Well, great. I wanna be very clear about that as well. We're not we're not reducing what is required. We are simply shifting what is required or allowing that to be shifted.

Now they can support. Absolutely. Well, happy I really appreciate the clarification, and thank you for your attention to your disc.

Anybody else? Comments? Questions? No. Would you like to close the assembly member?

Just, appreciate the opportunity, and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting the bill today. We need a motion in a second. So moved by, Johnson. Second.

Seconded by Pacheco. Please call the roll.

For item number seven, AB 2415, the motion is do passed. Carrillo?

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson?

Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye.

Aye.

Ramos?

Ramos, aye. Ransom? Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye.

Rubio, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Ward?

Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson?

Aye.

Wilson, aye. Thank you. Thank you very much.

The bill is out; ten/zero. Thank you. We have just one item left on the agenda, and that's Item Number Eight: AB 2741 by Muratsuchi. Staff from Muratsuchi, please ask him to head over to Local Government. In the meantime, can we do add-ons on the rest of the items?

Add-ons for Item Number One: AB 1658 by Assembly Member Kalra. The motion is do pass. [Roll call].

That measure is out; ten/zero.

Add-ons for Item Number Four: AB 2134 by Assembly Member Addis. The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll call].

That measure is out; ten/zero.

Add-ons for Item Number Five: AB 2188 by Assembly Member Pellerin. The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll call].

That measure is out; ten/zero.

Add-ons for Item Number Six: AB 2263 by Assembly Member Kalra. [Roll call].

That item is out; ten/zero. And that's all for add-ons. We are just waiting on the last item on the agenda. I believe the author is on his way.

And we are back. Item Number Eight on the agenda, AB 2741. Whenever you're ready, Assembly Member.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I-- my timing, hopefully, is good?

Right on time. Welcome.

<inaudible>. The Housing Element was approved, but was subsequently challenged in court, and the court found that the Housing Element was out of compliance. And so we're presenting this bill with a simple request, which is to give cities a chance to be good actors, to comply with the Housing Law, to fix their Housing Element so that they will be in compliance with the housing requirements. So that is pretty much it.

You know, we're just asking for a break for cities to be able to comply, especially-- you know-- I know that the committee analysis focused on the residential overlay approach. There are over 100 cities--and the League of California Cities will be testifying in support of that--but there are over 100 cities that are in the similar situation. They submitted housing elements with residential overlays, and so, they are concerned, given the court case of the status of their housing elements.

So, you know, we're just trying to make sure that, as cities that are acting in good faith, get a chance to try to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. With me to testify in support of the bill is Brady Guertin with the League of California Cities, and representing the City of Redondo Beach, Marc Wiener.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities. We do have a support if amended position, but we do support the intent of what the Assembly member is trying to do. We think the support if amended is because of a larger conversation we need to have about the use of overlays in the future, but we support this bill in terms of what it's trying to do with the grace period as well as an attempt to look at overlays.

We wanted to chat today about, you know, the big concerns. As the Assembly member mentioned, there was over 100 cities that, through no faults of their own, listened to HCD guidance, which stated that the use of overlays was allowed. As a result of those decisions, the court came back and said that HCD had gotten it wrong. Now this is an unprecedented time where the court has overturned a previously certified housing element by HCD. Only a few court cases has happened historically for that.

So the bill proposal is to provide a grace period for cities to adequately respond to those should they get sued to do that. And also, the use of overlays is an important tool. In the long run, that needs to be a longer conversation that we are open to having with opposition, some of the groups that have expressed concerns about the use of overlays.

Zoning overlays are an important affordable housing tool for local governments and have been a state-endorsed method, as we mentioned through HCD guidance, as these overlays help support walkable infill development near transit jobs and services while promoting higher density affordable housing, which has been a priority of the Legislature over the last 10 years. The other thing that we think is really important is cities should not be unfairly penalized for listening to state guidance.

There has been a lot of bills that has deferred to HCD in terms of being the overseers around housing elements, and our cities work collaboratively with them. And if we're following state guidance and then get pulled through no fault of our own, we don't think that it's fair that cities should have Builder's Remedy occur.

Redondo Beach, I know, can talk to some of the experiences that they've had, but we're worried about the long-term implications for these over 100 cities that used overlays per HCD guidance and was certified by HCD, and we wanna give cities time to adequately respond accordingly.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions and look forward to continuing to work with the different groups opposed to this as well as working to have a longer conversation about overlays and adequate grace periods for cities, through no fault of their own, that lose certification. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair and committee, for hearing this item today. I also wanna thank Assembly Member Muratsuchi for sponsoring this. My name's Marc Wiener. I'm the Director of Community Development for the City of Redondo Beach, and I'm here representing the city.

I mean, really, we're an example of the city that is affected by this legislation. As the two prior speakers stated, we did go through the process of getting our Housing Element certified by state HCD. We did it in a timely manner back in 2022, and per HCD's direction, we use the overlay zone approach to meet our housing requirements. It's actually been a successful approach.

We currently have an application in right now for 170 units at one of these overlay sites. So it's proven in our city and in others, and we feel strongly about it. It's also important in terms of the land use balance in our city. Over 80% of our land is owned residential, and we support the housing legislation, the housing laws as they pertain to production of housing.

We feel it's also important to have some flexibility in the land uses and these underlying industrial and commercial land uses. Economic development factors into that--jobs, housing, balance. So it really is a balance of housing and other land uses cities are trying to achieve.

So as I said, we received certification from state HCD. Our Housing Element was recently deemed noncompliant by an appeals court, placing the city into the Builder's Remedy status potentially. That's of concern to us because we've received a number of applications during this window that are somewhat impactful to the community, and it's really challenging for city officials to explain to residents why we're in the status when the city acted in good faith and complied with the state's guidance.

So I do wanna ask that the committee supports the overlay zone concept, and then also the provision of the bill that provides a grace period for cities that have complied in good faith, we feel that's important that for cities that have followed the direction of the state, went through all the the processes, that they are given some time to cure the issue if the court determines there is a issue.

Builder's Remedy is really--while it's intended to produce housing, it's also somewhat of a penalty to the bad actors in the cities that don't comply. We are an example of the city that's fully complied. We supported the housing laws yet we are in this Builder's Remedy window.

We are diligently working with state HCD to correct the issues identified by the court, and we would appreciate if we had some time to do that prior to being placed in this Builder's Remedy status. So for those reasons, we strongly support the bill and thank you for your time.

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

Patrick Foy, also with the City of Redondo Beach, here in support. Thank you.

Mark Neuburger of California State Association of Counties. We have a support if amended position. Wanna agree with the comments provided by Cal Cities. Also registering the same position for Rural County Representatives of California and with the American Planning Association California Chapter.

Virginia Butler. I'm a resident of the South Bay of Los Angeles where Mr. Muratsuchi represents us; live next door to the City of Redondo Beach. I'm here with the California Association of Realtors, but I'm just representing myself. We strongly support this, and I think it will help homeowners. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sandi Pfister, South Bay Association of Realtors. We support Mr. Muratsuchi's bill.

Thank you.

Dave Fratello, realtor in Manhattan Beach, covering South Bay, here in personal support.

Nina Elizarraras, realtor in Torrance, one of the cities affected, in support of the bill and also Board of Director for the South Bay Association of Realtors.

John Defterios, resident of 66 District. I'm in support of the Assembly Member's bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Lori Converso. I'm a resident of Redondo Beach and a member of Muratsuchi's District 66, here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And I see opposition coming this way. Wanna come sit down?

I was waiting for you to call my name. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the Senior Director at California YIMBY, an AICP planner, here to speak in respectful opposition of AB 2741. One of this body's major accomplishments in recent years has been strengthening the Housing Element Law, ensuring that every jurisdiction permits its fair share of housing, but the law only works if jurisdictions face consequences when they do not comply.

This cycle, a subset of jurisdictions, adopted housing elements that relied on noncompliant overlay zones that wouldn't actually result in new housing in violation of the plain language of the statute and court precedent. They chose to take this risk. HCD certification of this misbehavior does not make it right, and more importantly, does not make it legal.

In the case at hand, Redondo Beach allocated hundreds of units to sites that, even with a minimum of due diligence, revealed would not actually be redeveloped. In the New Commune case, the court found those noncompliant overlay zones so clearly inconsistent with state law that it overcame the presumption of validity that normally follows HCD certification.

The court made it clear that HCD approval to flout State Housing Law does not override the law as written and passed by this body. That is the system working as intended, and yet, AB 2074 or 2741 rolls back this progress, allowing bad actor cities to fall out of compliance and receive 270-day, get-out-of-jail-free card.

It sets a dangerous precedent, not just for Redondo Beach, but for the dozens of jurisdictions that have adopted similarly unlawful overlay policies this cycle. It also sets a dangerous precedent that this body will intervene anytime courts faithfully implement State Housing Law. The vast majority of local jurisdictions did not play games like this. They faithfully implemented plans that are helping to get housing built across California. AB 2741 sends a message that bad actor jurisdictions can drag their feet and submit inadequate housing elements without consequence.

Existing law already strikes the right balance. Jurisdictions whose housing elements run afoul of New Commune can promptly amend their overlay ordinances and come into compliance without need for any change to the law or even a Housing Element amendment. This may force some jurisdictions to admit that they allocated units to sites that are extremely unlikely to be redeveloped, but again, that's the RHNA process working. That's the system working.

While we look forward to continuing conversations with the author's office, I must also make it clear that, as written, this bill effectively sanctions and opens a version of State Housing Law, and it imposes a 270-day cure period that effectively makes it impossible for applicants to enforce their rights. We respectfully request your no vote today. Thank you.

Good after-- excuse me. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brian Augusta, on behalf of both the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project. Our two legal services organizations have, over the last several decades, played a key role both in helping to shape Housing Element Law, but also, most importantly, enforce Housing Element Law. So we come to this conversation with both of those roles keenly in mind.

And it's very important to us, as it is to other stakeholders who are at the table, that we see adequate enforcement of Housing Element Law because that's how we're gonna get the units that we need. But in this instance, we remain opposed to the bill, but I wanna be clear that we are committed to working with the author and stakeholders to find a solution.

Listening to author and his supporters speak, it sounds like the goal is to find a way in which there's a safe harbor for those jurisdictions, who relied on erroneous advice about how to adopt a compliant housing element relying on an overlay, have time to fix that before they are sued. We think that's important. We think we need those sites.

The current bill does not provide for that. The current bill would allow for jurisdictions who adopted overlays that don't comply with what the court said, which is an interpretation we agree with, to nonetheless finish out this current cycle and not bring those sites into compliance. And here's why we think that matters. Site identification is one of the most critical parts of the Housing Element process.

And we have worked, as have others, over the years to plug many of the holes that make sites look okay on paper, but in reality, don't actually deliver us affordable housing or don't deliver additional housing units.

And we've plugged those holes, and one of them is making sure that if you use an overlay, there's a minimum residential density that will ensure that we get those residential units. This bill would, despite the court's interpretation of the law, allow jurisdictions not to apply that minimum residential density. And so we will see a lot of sites get developed without any housing, and we won't have the mechanism to bring that housing online.

And rather than waiving that requirement, which is gonna be very critical in small jurisdictions which only have maybe a handful of sites because they also have a lower RHNA number, that proportion that come off the table is gonna have a huge impact.

We think the solution is, rather, give them times to come into-- to give jurisdictions time to come into compliance, provide the safe harbor from suit for those that do it within that time period, and then put the rules back on the table that those who don't comply are back in a situation whether they are subject to suit. That's what we wanna do, and that's why we wanna work with the author. He's given me the thumbs up, so I'm sure we're gonna get there. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else that wants to vote in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Ali Sapirman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in respectful opposition.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association, in opposition.

Nicole Quinonez, on behalf of Cal Chamber, in opposition, and also asked to offer opposition from NAIOP Southern California. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, SPUR, Inner City Law Center, and Greenbelt Alliance, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. On behalf of the California Apartment Association, in opposition, and also registering opposition for California Business Properties Association. Thank you.

Thank you. Committee members, question? Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you. So we had a chance to-- a few of us in the room, actually, had a chance to look at this bill when it was in Housing, and one of the concerns that was brought up--and I brought it up and I--forgive me. To the Chair, I'm gonna narrow the Housing part and get to the Local Gov part, but I just wanna give context, if you don't mind--that the chair of that committee had proposed some amendments, committee amendments, and there were many members of the committee that weren't comfortable with the bill absent the amendments.

In that hearing, there was a commitment to work on those amendments because we were in the first committee of the process and that, you know, work on it before the second committee. We're in the second committee and there's been no progress on on those. And the-- as I stated, and I know a number of my colleagues did, that those were-- that they actually sided with the opposition's amendment without those not supporting. And it wasn't like a unanimous vote. You know, people laid off for that reason.

And so, I'm concerned that we're here today in this committee without any progress on that area. And when you think about from a Local Gov point of view, we do care about the fact that HCD--that cities, local governments--relied on whatever they relied on to turn in their HCD, and HCD accepted it. And so there's one portion of it that makes sense.

And part of the amendments that came out of Housing Committee was that the-- it would be allowed in the sixth RHNA cycle, and then in the seventh RHNA cycle was a new RHNA cycle, and you have to go through that process, but this allows for this safe harbor. With the intent of producing housing and cities being required to produce housing--not produce. They don't make-- I always say that, too. They don't build housing, but they zone for it.

With the city requiring to zone for within a HCD, and they're found out of compliance, and so many people sue cities, and I love local control, but I also know that not every city is-- some cities are using the system to prevent housing that they don't like. And I'm not sure why you still have the language in around them having the safe harbor of 270 days.

And in asking that, please comment on the fact that we're now in the second committee and no progress has been made on the amendments that were supposed to be accepted to get a hearing. And I know the Chair let you and told committee that he was gonna let it work so you can continue to work on it, and I haven't-- there's no progress. So please speak to the progress.

Okay. Well, the Housing Hearing Committee was last week so we are still in the process of working on amendments, but we have not been able to cross amendments between last week and today. But--

But you can't speak to the progress on-- because I think that's germane to what you're asking us--

Absolutely.

--to do today is you're asking for another courtesy vote. And there were so many people in that committee. The bill wouldn't have got out, right? The bill would not have gotten out without the courtesy vote. So why would we keep extending the courtesy vote when you made no meaningful progress?

Well, I would say that a week has not been enough to come to agreement on amendments, but let me make, on the record, the commitment that I will work with the Chair of the Housing Committee and with the Chair of the Local Government Committee to arrive at amendments to get to the intent of the bill. I mean, I think, you know, the opposition-- I appreciate the more reasonable opposition from the rural advocates.

You know, we shouldn't be punishing people that are trying to comply in good faith. I mean, the Department of Housing and Community Development put their stamp of approval on the Redondo Beach Housing Element. And so cities should be able to rely on the government as represented by HCD.

In terms of the amendments, one specific amendment that I discussed with Housing Committee Chair Haney is, you know, if the 270-day grace period is too long, you know, maybe limiting it from the time that a city submits a new housing element to the time that HCD acts on the new housing element, you know, if that would satisfy-- you know, shorten that grace period.

I mean, I'm just throwing that as a example of a good faith attempt to try to get, again, to the intent of the bill, which is to not punish cities that are trying to comply-- you know, who are the good actors, notwithstanding some of the unreasonable representations of a city that gets a housing element approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development.

And that-- when you noted that you said, what if that was offered and rejected?

He said he was open to that.

He being?

But-- the-- Mr. Haney.

Okay. But was that offered to the opposition and rejected, or that was just something that you talked to the chair about?

We offer that to the Housing Committee staff.

Okay. Okay. But not working with the opposition that you have who have concerns about--

You know, actually, I'm not sure if that has been communicated to the opposition. I'd have to ask my staff.

Oh, okay. I mean, I think the key part is is as we navigate through the legislative process and, you know, we're-- this is Local Gov, right? We wanna protect our locals from harm, right, especially ones that are in good faith, relying on advice to do the good work that they all do, right?

Many of the people who sit on this dais in this committee, you know, come from having served in local government, whether that be city, or county, or school boards of nature. So, you know, we give them, you know, the benefit of the doubt, but part of our rules around HCD and the ability to sue, that other people have the ability to sue, is also centered around that sometimes there are flaws and sometimes those things are intentional.

And so we have to be balanced in this regard. And so I'm very concerned that a bill that was likely not to get out of the other committee stands a courtesy by majority of the board with the intent of working on what you described as getting permission to narrow the amendment in comparison to what the committee worked on, which they thought struck a balance, and then having not made any progress to that, even in a week to say, this is the direction that we're headed in, is concerning-- is very concerning to me, so I won't be able to support your bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Ransom.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Assembly Member, for this bill. So I was-- I'm not on Housing Committee, I wasn't part of that conversation, but I do wanna say that some of what was just shared are the concerns that strike me, having served in Local Government, both in Planning Commission as well as in Council. You can check the record. I repeatedly would reject our Housing Element because it doesn't always comply with these-- these housing elements don't always comply with the spirit of what they should do.

And they get recorded, and they're symbolic, and they don't achieve what we're trying to do, which is housing for these communities. And so this particular-- this bill, there's several things that concern me, and even listening to your witness and hearing that your witness is saying, I support with amendments, but I don't even see what those amendments are.

I believe that's what your witness-- when your witness spoke, it was support with amendments, but we don't see a list of amendments to consider, and we have a 270-day grace period with no accountability, and that's not fair to our communities that we are supposed to be supporting through our Housing Element. And so, for me, this is just-- it seems like it's a work-in-progress, and I do understand that you just went through Housing, but I don't see an intent to even have us consider a bill with amendments, which is something that we typically do.

And in my time here, I've never seen a witness that says, I support this with amendments, and then we don't see amendments. And so it really makes it hard for me to support this, not because of your intent, but because we know that back in our different communities, while this may work for Redondo Beach and the communities that you serve, we have communities that don't wanna build for all of their community, and I live in one of those communities.

And so, we're writing-- we're passing laws for the state, and we don't have any amendments that have been fully baked to consider, and accountability is lacking. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting today, but it looks like you had a response.

Mr. Chair-- through the Chair, number one, I would say the big difference between the scenario that you described is this was approved by HCD. This wasn't just a city self-certifying, okay? So we have the state saying they are approving the Housing Element. So that's number one. Number two, I believe the League of Cities has--

Yeah. I'll just add, so the reason we have a support if amended is because we believe a longer conversation needs to happen about the use of overlay. So we support the intent of the grace period for sure and where the author's going. We also tried-- we've been working with the author trying to find something that was receptive in terms of the use of the overlays initially, but we think that there's a longer conversation that needs to happen with all the stakeholders that we've heard around the use of overlays.

You know, Cal Cities believes a longer grace period makes sense because this was through no fault of a local government listening to what HCD guidance had said. So that's where it comes in, but we support that this has, like, a really good first step. We just think that there's a longer conversation that needs to happen, and we don't know if that's gonna get there. We want it to get there with this bill, but, you know, those conversations are ongoing and we have set up meetings with opposition.

We had a couple calls this week, earlier this week, as well as-- we're trying-- we're, I believe, talking with YIMBY later this week as well to discuss their concerns as well. So just wanted to highlight that as well.

Thank you all.

Anybody else? Seeing none. Is there anything you wanna add? Anything that you wanna respond to? The opposition?

Well, I think this comes down, as Ms. Wilson pointed out, to, you know, my commitment to address the concerns raised by both the Housing Committee and by the Local Government Committee. I appreciate the Chair's recommendation to-- with my commitment to work with this committee to make sure that things work by this committee. I appreciate the Housing Committee's Chair's support recommendation with the commitment that I will address the concerns of the Housing Committee.

And again, I think-- the bottom line is, in order to make this work for all cities, we should not be punishing cities that got the stamp of approval from HCD. You should give them a chance. If the 270 days is too long, you have my commitment to work on that, but-- yeah. I'm--

Okay.

Just like the cities are asking for an opportunity to correct and address any concerns, I'm asking for the opportunity to--

Okay. We have Assembly Member Pacheco that wants to ask a question.

Okay. So I have a couple of questions, and I agree with the author that, you know, if there was a mistake done and it was through to-- it was due to HCD providing advice to our cities, then it should be at no fault from the cities. And I think we all agree as to that that we shouldn't give fault to our cities for relying on HCD.

But I think there were other concerns raised in Housing Committee, and I think there was a commitment on your behalf to amend the bill in that committee, and I'm assuming amendments were provided. And I think my colleague was trying to see where you were in that process, and I'm curious to know, were you willing to take the amendments that you promised to take in Housing?

So to clarify, the Housing Committee offered-- I believe it was four amendments. We accepted two amendments, but-- and the Housing Committee staff was recommending amendments three and four. I discussed with the Housing Committee Chair that we would like to continue to work on amendments three and four. With that commitment, he gave an aye reco to pass it out of the Housing Committee.

We have not had a chance to arrive at the amendments within a week's time span between last week's Housing Committee hearing and today, but just like I'm committing today to continue to work with the Local Government Committee, I am committed to addressing the concerns raised by those those amendments that the Housing Committee Chair agreed to continue.

And there was never-- there was never a commitment to arrive at the amendments between last week and today. The commitment was to-- was to address the concerns raised by both the Housing Committee, but, you know, I-- yeah.

Well, I actually don't sit on that committee, so I'm not aware of what was discussed, so that's why I'm trying to get to whether-- was your comments to the Housing Committee, whether it was, I will be taking the amendments within the next committee, or was it, I will be looking into having discussions about two of the amendments? So I would like to hear what was actually the commitment to Housing.

The commitment made to the Housing Committee Chair was that we would continue to work with the Housing Committee to discuss and to ultimately arrive at amendments that would address their concerns. It was not to accept the specific amendments that were originally offered by the committee staff because that is what I pushed back on and that is what the Housing Committee Chair said: okay. You know, you don't have to accept those amendments today, but I want your commitment to continue to work on it, and if we have any problems, if we see the bill going in the wrong direction, we're gonna pull it back to the committee.

Okay. And I know I already made a commitment, so I will be supporting your bill today because I do think we need to help our cities whenever possible, but I would like to see if you could work things out, especially with our Housing Committee Chair and with other members in the Assembly. So thank you.

Thank you.

So we're gonna go back to Wilson, then Caloza, and then Ransom.

I'll decline. I did talk for quite a bit.

Okay. Okay. Assembly Member Caloza.

Thank you, Chair. What a fun day to sub in Local Gov. But I want thank the author, and not to continue to bring the Housing Committee into this committee. I actually laid off in Housing. Assembly Member Wilson was kind enough to vote for this, and so I think that's why there's, you know, a lot of concern, and I understand the time constraints that, you know, you're sharing about being in Housing last week and being in Local Gov already. You know, I have to push back a little bit on that because we're all under those same time constraints.

I have to work on amendments within the same period of time and have to get them in true to my word, which has already happened to me many times, you know, in this cycle because that's a good faith effort that I've made. And so, you know, I know I had promises to support this bill when I saw you in passing, actually thinking that you had worked on those amendments.

And, you know, thank you for clarifying that you weren't planning to land in that same place. I think on the way here as well, heard from some of the opposition that it doesn't seem like, at least from their perspective, that you have been meeting to work on those amendments. I don't know if you wanna respond to that, but that was some of the information, I think, relayed to me just recently after we we communicated whether or not you're meeting with the opposition or what that progress looks like.

So, absolutely. I have a-- I've always had an open-door commitment to work with opposition, but I wanna make it clear that I never committed-- you know, the Housing Committee Chair or-- no one can-- you know, required me to land on amendments before I came today. So, you know, I feel like I'm-- you know, this is part of an ongoing process. No.

Neither the Housing Committee Chair nor anyone else asked me to come to an agreement by-- you know, by a week after the Housing Committee amendments. All I can do is say that you have my good faith commitment to address those concerns.

Yeah. Thanks for sharing that. I mean, I think for me it's like whether or not we see progress being made, and I'm not gonna continue to belabor it, but I just wanted to add that context for folks that-- Ms. Wilson and I are both on the Housing Committee and that's kind of what transpired, but I won't ask you any questions right now, but, you know, curious to see what my colleagues do on this, but it's-- I might still be in the same place, unfortunately. Thank you.

Okay. So after all of this discussion, the way that it was-- oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, no. I'm sorry. Let me say it on the record. I didn't say it on the mic, but I was, like, I have talked quite a bit, and there was a lot of back and forth, so I've declined to continue the discussion. Thank you.

Okay. No one else? You're okay, Ms. Ransom? Yeah? So I still support this bill the way that it was presented to me, not knowing all of this discussion that had happened at Housing Committee. The way that it came to my committee is the way that it is. With no amendments, again, not knowing what was or what's not agreed on, I still support the bill.

I just wanna let the members know that the way that it was brought to me, I still support the way it is without amendments, because, again, not knowing what happened in the Housing Committee. After all this discussion, again, it's gonna be clear that I still support the bill that it was presented to me in this committee, and I believe that you made your closing statement. And with that, is there a motion or a second? No motion, no second. Assembly Member Pacheco makes a motion. Is there a second? All right. I can make the second. I will make the second, Assembly Member. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

For Item Number Eight: AB 2741, the motion is do pass. [Roll call].

It is three/zero. Looks like the motion failed. There's still a roll to be open for Ms. Johnson, but still looks like it's gonna fail.

Ask for a request for reconsideration?

Granted. Yeah. Consideration is granted. So we're gonna wait just a couple of minutes for Ms. Johnson to see if she comes up. Yeah. You're good. We're gonna adjourn today's Local Government meeting.