COME DOWN TO ROOM 1200. THAT'S
WHERE WE ARE, RIGHT? PLEASE COME
DOWN TO ROOM 1200 BECAUSE WE
HAVE AUTHORS, AND WE WANT TO GET
GOING. BUT WE ARE GOING TO GET
GOING. SO WE WILL START WITH OUR
FIRST AUTHOR, WHO IS, I BELIEVE,
SENATOR WIENER. GO AHEAD.
SENATOR WIENER. LET'S SEE IF HE
WANTS TO START WITH 937. YOU
START WITH 937. SURE. OKAY. IT
IS GOOD TO BE BACK. MADAM CHAIR,
LIKE A LOT. I'VE MISSED THIS
COMMITTEE A LOT. SO JUST GOING
BY ORDER OF 937 FIRST. SURE
OKAY, COLLEAGUES, I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL 937, WHICH
TEMPORARILY EXTENDS ENTITLEMENTS
AND ALLOWS FOR DELAYED PAYMENT
OF IMPACT FEES FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS, MANY JURISDICTIONS
USE THIS INTERVENTION DURING THE
2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS, AND IT
REALLY THREW A LIFELINE TO MAKE
SURE THAT ENTITLED HOUSING
PROJECTS DIDN'T JUST FALL APART.
WE WERE IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION
NOW WITH HIGH INTEREST RATES AND
HIGH CONSTRUCTION COSTS, AND WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
HOUSING THAT'S GETTING APPROVED
ACTUALLY HAS A SHOT AT GETTING,
BUILT. WE KNOW THAT IMPACT FEES
CAN ADD SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE
COST OF A PROJECT, AND THERE'S
BROADER WORK HAPPENING AROUND
IMPACT FEES. BUT THIS BILL WILL
DO TWO THINGS. FIRST, IT ALLOWS
FOR, NOT ALL, BUT MANY OF THE
IMPACT FEES TO BE COLLECTED AT
THE END OF THE PROJECT AS
OPPOSED TO THE BEGINNING.
USUALLY THAT WOULD BE
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN SOME
CITIES, IT'S THE FINAL
INSPECTION. AND AND THEN THE
SECOND THING THAT IT DOES IS FOR
PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED,
THEIR, ENTITLEMENT BEFORE
JANUARY 1ST, 2024 AND THAT ARE
SET TO EXPIRE BEFORE DECEMBER
31ST, 2025. IT WOULD EXTEND
THOSE ENTITLEMENTS BY 24 MONTHS.
WE'VE DONE EXTENSIVE STAKEHOLDER
WORK, PARTICULARLY BEFORE THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
HEARING, WITH VARIOUS SPECIAL
DISTRICTS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
AND I THINK WE'VE REFINED THIS
BILL IN A, IN A REALLY IMPORTANT
WAY, AND I THINK IT WILL DO A
LOT OF GOOD. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE, VOTE WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY AS GRACIELA
CASTILLO ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM AND MUHAMMAD ALI
MELDON, A POLICY ASSOCIATE WITH
THE TERNER CENTER, GREAT. AND WE
GIVE OUR, Kò WITNESSES FIVE
MINUTES TOTAL TO SHARE BETWEEN
THEM. AND THAT'S BOTH FOR THE
KEY WITNESSES AND SUPPORT AND IN
OPPOSITION. AND PLEASE PROCEED.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. GRACIELA CASTILLO. I AM
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM. THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM IS
A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT
ADVOCATES FOR THE PRESERVATION
AND PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THAT IS AVAILABLE TO
BOTH LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
FAMILIES. EVERY MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE, I DON'T HAVE TO
EXPLAIN THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND
THE IMPACT THAT IT'S HAVING ON A
LOT OF CALIFORNIANS. THE PROBLEM
RIGHT NOW IS FURTHER FELT
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A
SUSTAINED FUNDING SOURCE. WE
DON'T HAVE A HOUSING BOND ON THE
BALLOT YET. WE DO NOT HAVE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE. THE GOVERNOR
IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO
ELIMINATE MOST OF THE GENERAL
FUND THAT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED. SO
JUST REALLY QUICKLY ON SB 937,
IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE ABILITY
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
ACTUALLY ENACT FEES. IT SIMPLY
DELAYS WHEN THOSE FEES ARE
COLLECTED AND THAT IS AN
INCREDIBLY BOOM TO THE
PRODUCTION. THÀNH. ONE OF THE
THINGS IS THAT IN RECENT YEARS,
THE LEGISLATURE HAS FOCUSED ON
THE COST AND STRUCTURE OF IMPACT
FEES, BUT NEW DATA IS SHOWING
THAT WHEN THOSE FEES ARE
COLLECTED REALLY IMPACTS THE
VIABILITY OF A PROJECT MOVING
FORWARD AND ACTUALLY GETTING
BUILT REALLY QUICKLY. JUST TO
CITE FROM A PAPER BY THE UCLA
LEWIS CENTER LOOKING AT FEE
DEFERRALS IN THE CITY OF L.A, IT
FOUND THAT, QUOTE, ASSESSING THE
FEES AT AN EARLIER STAGE CAN DO
REAL HARM AND DETER PRODUCTION.
IT FURTHER WENT ON TO SAY THAT
FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAMS CAN
EFFICIENTLY REDUCE COST AND
INCREASE THE VIABILITY OF
HOUSING PRODUCTIONS, AND THEY
CAN DO SO WITHOUT ASKING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO FORFEIT ANY
REVENUE AT A TIME WHEN IT'S
UNCLEAR HOW WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO PRODUCE HOUSING
BECAUSE THE FUNDING IS AT RISK,
WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. I'M SO SORRY. MUCH TALLER.
YOU'RE GOOD. I KNOW THE FEELING,
THANK YOU. CHAIR SKINNER AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON SB
937. MY NAME IS MOHAMED EL
MALDINI. I SERVE AS THE POLICY
ASSOCIATE FOR TURNER CENTER
HOUSING, TURNER CENTER FOR
HOUSING INNOVATION AT UC
BERKELEY, THE TURNER CENTER IS A
RESEARCH CENTER FOCUSED ON A
RANGE OF HOUSING ISSUES, FROM
LAND USE AND ZONING REFORM TO
ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE. MY AIM TODAY IS
TO SHARE RELEVANT INSIGHTS FROM
OUR RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF
IMPACT FEES ON NEW HOUSING
SUPPLY. SPECIFICALLY, OUR WORK
CONFIRMS THAT A LARGE MAJORITY
OF LOCALITIES IMPOSE IMPACT FEES
. AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT
SUBMISSION, ONLY A QUARTER OF
ONLY A QUARTER OF JURISDICTIONS
DEFERRED FEES TO FINAL
INSPECTION OR CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT
? FIVE MONTHS AGO, WE RELEASED A
PAPER JUST MAKING IT PENCIL THE
MATH BEHIND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
WE ANALYZED THE CURRENT
FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING HOUSING
IN THREE MAJOR CALIFORNIA
MARKETS USING THIS MODEL,
MODELING, WE ASSESSED THE IMPACT
OF DEFERRING FEES ON
PROTOTYPICAL MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS. WE FOUND THAT
RESULTS IN THE SAVINGS OF ABOUT
1% OF TOTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
COST, AS CONTEXTS WHEN IMPACT
FEES ARE COLLECTED AT THE TIME
OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE,
THOSE COSTS MUST BE FINANCED BY
THE DEVELOPER, TYPICALLY WITH A
MIX OF EQUITY AND DEBT. THE
DEVELOPER MUST PAY ALL INTEREST
ON ALL COSTS INCURRED DURING THE
ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THIS
IS PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING
DURING A HIGH INTEREST
ENVIRONMENT LEADS TO OVERALL
GREATER GENERAL COST AND ON THE
MARGINS TO SOME RESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS NOT BEING ABLE TO
PENCIL. FURTHERMORE, REQUIRING
FEES TO BE PAID LATER IN THE
PROCESS COULD BE EXPECTED TO
REDUCE THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT
COSTS FOR DEVELOPERS OF
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, REQUIRING
FEWER SUBSIDY DOLLARS PER UNIT
AND THUS FREEING UP SOME AMOUNT
OF SUBSIDY FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS
THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE
FUNDED. IN CONCLUSION, OUR
ANALYSIS DOES IMPLY THAT THIS
BILL WOULD HAVE THE LIKELY
EFFECT OF INCREASING THE SUPPLY
OF BOTH MARKET RATE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MOST
CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ME
TWOS NOW, PEOPLE THAT WANT TO
ADD ON AND SUPPORT JUST YOUR
NAME AND THAT YOU SUPPORT YOUR
IN AFFILIATION? CHRIS ROSA, ON
BEHALF OF SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP IN SUPPORT.
CATHERINE CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING ACTION COALITION AS A
CO-SPONSOR. SKYLER WONACOTT ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. RAFA SONNENFELD
WITH MBA ACTION ON BEHALF OF MBA
ACTIONS, CHAPTERS AND MEMBERS
INCLUDING EAST BAY, YIMBY,
MOUNTAIN VIEW, YIMBY, NORTHERN
NEIGHBORS, PENINSULA FOR
EVERYONE, SAN FRANCISCO, YIMBY,
SANTA CRUZ, YIMBY, SANTA ROSA,
YIMBY, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
YIMBY URBAN ENVIRONMENTALISTS
GROW THE RICHMOND, VENTURA
COUNTY M STREETS FOR PEOPLE
SOUTH SIDE FORWARD. HOW TO ADU
PEOPLE FOR HOUSING ORANGE COUNTY
PROGRESS NOE VALLEY, SOUTH BAY
YIMBY AND NAPA SOLANO FOR
EVERYONE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
HI, BROOKE PRITCHARD ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY AS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR. I, SEAMUS GARRITY
WITH LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS
HERE ON BEHALF OF SAND HILL
PROPERTIES. BUCKEYE PROPERTIES
BUILD CASA SPUR AND HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
OF Ó APOLOGIES NOW ANY OTHERS
WHO WANT TO ADD ON IS THIS
SUPPORT. WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR
OPEN POSITION NOW. AND OBVIOUSLY
FIVE MINUTES TOTAL SHARE FOR THE
KEY WITNESSES. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS. NANCY ESPINOSA,
ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR
ADEQUATE SCHOOL HOUSING,
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE SCHOOL
FACILITIES ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION, THE PLANNING AND
MULTIPLE AGENCY APPEALS THAT ARE
NECESSARY TO BUILD THE SCHOOL
FACILITIES TO SERVE THESE NEW
HOUSING UNITS, HAS A TIMELINE
THAT IS YEARS LONG. SO DELAYS
MEAN THAT THE SCHOOLS WILL NOT
BE AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE
STUDENTS THAT WILL LIVE IN THESE
HOUSING UNITS AND DELAYS IN THE
EDUCATION SECTOR, UNLIKE EVEN
OTHER AREAS OF INFRASTRUCTURE,
MEAN THAT WE WILL MISS AN ENTIRE
OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IN THE TIME
IT TAKES TO SECURE THOSE
APPROVALS, GET THE FUNDING AND
BUILD THE SCHOOL, A STUDENT WILL
HAVE MOVED ON FROM AN ENTIRE
GRADE SPAN, AND IN THE
INTERVENING YEARS, WE WILL HAVE
ALL OF THOSE STUDENTS CAUSING
OVERCROWDING, BOTH THE NEW
RESIDENTS AND THE EXISTING
RESIDENTS AND FOLKS, YOU KNOW,
DRIVING FARTHER. IT'S CERTAINLY
NOT THE EXPERIENCE THAT PEOPLE
ARE LOOKING FOR WHEN THEY MOVE
INTO NEW HOUSING. THE ANALYSIS
POINTS TO INCREASING COSTS OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INFLATION AS A
BARRIER TO HOUSING. ALL OF THOSE
FACTORS AFFECT THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SCHOOLS AS WELL. SO THE
DELAYS INCREASE OUR COSTS AS
WELL. SO, ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS
THAT APPLY TO EXEMPTIONS FOR
UTILITIES AND PARKS APPLY TO US
AS WELL, IF NOT MORE SO. AND I
WANT TO BE CLEAR, WE ARE PRO
HOUSING THE HOUSING ISSUES
AFFECT ALL OF US, RIGHT? IT
AFFECTS OUR STUDENTS. IT AFFECTS
OUR WORKFORCE. AND WE AGREE THAT
THE STATE SHOULD SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF MORE HOUSING. BUT
AS LONG AS THE STATE HAS MADE
THE POLICY CHOICE TO FUND SCHOOL
FACILITIES THIS WAY, IT'S NOT
FAIR TO PUT THAT BURDEN ON THE
BACK OF CALIFORNIA'S 6 MILLION
STUDENTS. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR, STAFF AND THE SPONSORS
FOR WORKING WITH ME. AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THAT
CONVERSATION. OTHER OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
ANTHONY TANNEHILL WITH
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION, A LOT OF MOVEMENT
AND AMENDMENTS COMING OUT OF THE
LAST HEARING, THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING, STILL KIND OF
PROCESSING AND DIGESTING THAT,
GETTING THE FEEDBACK FROM OUR
CONSTITUENT ORGANIZATIONS AND
MEMBERS APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD
WORK THAT ALL THE COMMITTEE
STAFF, AUTHOR AND AUTHOR STAFF
AND EVEN THE PROPONENTS HAVE PUT
INTO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
IT THOUGHTFUL, IF PERHAPS NOT
EXPEDITIOUS. ORPHALI AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR GRACE, BUT I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET
THIS RIGHT ON OUR END SO WE CAN
GIVE THE BEST REPRESENTATION ON
THE PROPONENTS AND THE AUTHORS.
STAFF HAVE BEEN QUITE OPEN TO
DIALOG AND CONTINUE IT, AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THAT. ANY
OTHER OPPOSITION? HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON, SHARON GONSALVES WITH
THE CITY OF BELMONT WITH AN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN
IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
WE DO STILL HAVE A FEW. IT'S
JUST A FEW. SO YOU'RE OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS. ERIC
O'DONNELL, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF LA VERNE AND A RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION POSITION. THANK YOU.
ELIZABETH HENRY, SAVE LAFAYETTE
AND LIVABLE CALIFORNIA AND
CATALYST IN, STRONG OPPOSITION
IN. CHRISTIE. CATALYST STRONG
OPPOSITION. ANY OTHER OPPOSITION
? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TURN TO
COMMITTEE COMMENTS. I DON'T HAVE
ANY. I'VE HEARD THE BILL BEFORE.
OKAY WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
YES, MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'VE BEEN WORKED
INTENSIVELY WITH, FOR EXAMPLE,
UTILITIES THAT CAME FORWARD AND
ALSO MADE AMENDMENTS AROUND IF
THERE'S LIKE ONGOING PROJECTS
THAT ARE BEING BUILT AND THE
CITIES HAVE TO LAY OUT FUNDS
RIGHT THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE
DELAYED, CASH REACHED OUT TO US
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WILL
CERTAINLY WORK WITH THEM. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE
COMMENT AROUND THE SCHOOL
FACILITIES THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S,
NUMBER ONE, IT'S NOT THE ONLY
WAY WE FUND SCHOOL FACILITIES,
BUT INDEPENDENT OF THAT, IT IS A
WAY TO FUND SCHOOL FACILITIES.
BUT IT IS WORTHWHILE TO POINT TO
THINK WE MAY NEED TO ADJUST
THAT, BECAUSE IF WE LOOK AT OUR
DEMOGRAPHICS, WE'RE NOT. THE
BIRTH RATE IS NOT UP AND THE OUR
SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS IS DOWN AND
PROJECTED TO, CONTINUE TO GO
DOWN. AND SO JUST THIS IS MY
KIND OF EDITORIAL COMMENT ON IT
TO HAVE SCHOOL FEES ON HOUSING
THAT IMPEDE HOUSING, WHICH WE
NEED AND IS, IS INDEPENDENT OF,
YOU KNOW, BIRTH RATE OR ANYTHING
ELSE. WE HAVE NOT ENOUGH UNITS.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THE
LEGISLATURE PROBABLY NEEDS TO
LOOK AT AT SOME POINT IN THE
FUTURE. BUT CERTAINLY WE SHOULD
NOT BE, THEY SHOULD BE SEMI
DIVORCED. THOSE ISSUES, IF I
MAY, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WAS VERY
ON POINT. AND I WILL JUST SAY
RIGHT NOW, THE CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO IS ABOUT TO GO INTO A
VERY PAINFUL PROCESS WHICH I
KNOW OAKLAND ALREADY WENT
THROUGH, WHERE OUR SCHOOL
DISTRICT IS GOING TO HAVE TO
CLOSE SCHOOLS. THAT IS
UNBELIEVABLY PAINFUL AND
TERRIBLE, BUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE
TO HAPPEN BECAUSE OF DECLINING
ENROLLMENT, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T
BUILD ENOUGH HOMES. AND SO I'M
VERY I WANT TO FUND SCHOOL
FACILITIES. ABSOLUTELY. AND I'M
VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THAT. BUT WE
HAVE TO HAVE STUDENTS FOR THOSE
SCHOOLS. AND WHEN WE PUSH
FAMILIES OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T
BUILD HOUSING THAT HARMS SCHOOLS
TO ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. YEAH. WE
CANNOT ASSUME THAT NEW HOUSING
UNITS MEANS MORE KIDS IN A
SCHOOL. ANYWAY, WE NEED A
MOTION. WE DON'T HAVE A WE DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM. OH, WE CAN'T EVEN
TAKE MOTIONS YET. I FORGOT,
SILLY ME. JUST TRYING TO GET
THIS. YOUR BILL WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION ONCE WE HAVE A QUORUM,
YOU MAY PRESENT YOUR NEXT BILL,
WHICH IS ITEM TWO, SB 951. I
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, SB 951.
DOES TWO THINGS WITH RESPECT TO
HOUSING IN THE COASTAL ZONE.
FIRST, IT ALIGNS THE TIMELINE
FOR, HOUSING ELEMENT REZONING
REQUIREMENTS TO, AMENDMENT OF A
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. RIGHT NOW,
AS YOU KNOW, ONCE A HOUSING
ELEMENT IS APPROVED, THE CITY
HAS A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME,
SOMETIMES ONE YEAR. OR IT COULD
BE THREE YEARS TO ACTUALLY
IMPLEMENT THAT HOUSING ELEMENT
VIA A REZONING, IF THEY ARE IN
THE COASTAL ZONE, THEY HAVE TO
SEEK A CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT
TO THEIR LOCAL COASTAL PLAN,
THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE THAT THE
COASTAL COMMISSION ACT ON THAT
OR THAT THAT PROCESS HAPPEN ON
THE SAME TIME FRAME AS THE
REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT,
REZONING SO THAT CITIES ARE NOT
PUT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD
PLACE WHERE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO
DO REZONING IN A CERTAIN PERIOD
OF TIME. BUT THEIR LCP HAS NOT
BEEN APPROVED, AND SO THEY ARE
IN VIOLATION FOR REASONS OUTSIDE
OF THEIR CONTROL, THE SECOND
THING THE BILL DOES IS, THAT
WITH RESPECT TO SITUATIONS WHERE
YOU HAVE ZONING WITHIN A LOCAL
COASTAL PLAN, WHERE MORE THAN
ONE USE IS ALLOWED ON THE
PARCEL, LET'S SAY THE PRIMARY
USE IS RESIDENTIAL, BUT WITH A
CONDITIONAL USE, YOU CAN HAVE
COMMERCIAL BEALL, UNDER THE,
UNDER EXISTING LAW, IF YOU ARE,
IF IT'S COUNTY JURISDICTION. SO
EITHER A SO UNINCORPORATED LAND,
THEN, GOING TO THAT SECONDARY
USE MEANS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S
PART OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN,
IT'S STILL APPEALABLE TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION. BUT IF IT'S
IN CITY LAND, IT'S NOT. AND THE
REASON FOR THAT IS THAT COASTAL
COUNTY LAND IS MORE LIKELY TO BE
RURAL AND MORE PERHAPS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. AND
SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A MORE
THOSE SECONDARY USES ARE
APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, BUT NOT IN CITIES
WHICH ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE
URBANIZED AND LESS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. AND
SO THE IF YOU ARE A BOTH A CITY
AND A COUNTY, WHICH I HAPPEN TO
REPRESENT THE ONLY CITY AND
COUNTY IN THE STATE, YOU ARE
CURRENTLY TREATED AS A COUNTY,
EVEN THOUGH THAT PARTICULAR CITY
AND COUNTY KNOWN AS SAN
FRANCISCO AS I SAID IN THE LAST
COMMITTEE, IS MANY THINGS, BUT
RURAL IS NOT ONE OF THEM. THIS
WILL CLARIFY THAT IF YOU ARE
BOTH A CITY AND A COUNTY, YOU'RE
TREATED AS A CITY, NOT AS A
COUNTY, WE WORKED WITH THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, THE ORIGINAL
VERSION OF THE BILL WAS A LITTLE
BROADER, WE WORKED WITH THE
COASTAL COMMISSION AND THEY'VE
REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. TO HAVE WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
AGAIN THE FIVE MINUTES FOR THE
Kò AND THEN THE ADD ONS. I THINK
IT MIGHT JUST BE ME TODAY. AND I
PROMISE I WON'T TAKE FIVE
MINUTES, GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN
OR AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS CATHERINE CHARLES, AND
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF HOUSING
ACTION COALITION IN SUPPORT OF
SB 951. I'D LIKE TO ECHO SENATOR
WEINER'S THANKS TO THE
COMMISSION FOR THEIR WORK ON
MOVING THE BILL FORWARD. SB 951
INTRODUCES TWO COMMON SENSE
REFORMS. FIRST, EXISTING LAW
ALLOWS PROJECTS WITHIN THE
COASTAL ZONE AND IN COASTAL
COUNTIES TO BE APPEALED TO THE
COMMISSION. IF A PROJECT DOES
NOT CONFORM WITH THE MAIN
PERMITTED USE, THIS IS ALLOWED.
THE COMMISSION HAVE A HAND IN
CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN
LANDS ACROSS THE COAST. HOWEVER,
THIS PROVISION IS INTENDED TO
APPLY TO RURAL COUNTIES, NOT
URBAN SAN FRANCISCO, WHICH, AS
THE SENATOR MENTIONED, IS BOTH A
CITY AND A COUNTY. SB 951
REFINES ITS APPEAL, MAINTAINING
ITS APPLICATION IN RURAL
CALIFORNIA WHILE TREATING SAN
FRANCISCO LIKE THE CITY THAT IT
IS. SECOND, WHEN LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO
UPZONE BY HCD, THEY'RE TYPICALLY
GIVEN 1 TO 3 YEARS TO COMPLY.
THESE REQUIRED ACTIONS, HOWEVER,
OFTEN RESULT IN UPDATES TO LCP,
WHICH REQUIRE COASTAL COMMISSION
REVIEW, WHICH TAKES TIME. LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS OFTEN END UP STUCK
BETWEEN TWO STATE AGENCIES
WORKING ON TWO DIFFERENT
SCHEDULES. SB 951 ALIGNS THESE
PROCESSES, GIVING 1 TO 3 YEARS
TO BOTH THE REQUIRED UPZONING
AND ITS ASSOCIATED LCP UPDATE.
THIS BILL SIMPLY PROVIDES
CLARITY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WHILE MAINTAINING COASTAL
RESOURCE PROTECTION TO HELP
CALIFORNIA ACHIEVE ITS HOUSING
GOALS. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW,
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
IN SUPPORT TO COME UP TO THE MIC
. SHEAMUS. SCAREDY WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF SPUR IN SUPPORT. RAFA
SONNENFELD WITH THE IMB ACTION
FOR BREVITY'S SAKE, I WON'T LIST
THE 19 OTHER CHAPTERS IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHERS IN SUPPORT? ALL RIGHT,
LET'S HEAR OUR WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR MEMBERS. BRADY, GIRTON, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND A
RESPECTFUL OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED. WE'VE HAD VERY
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE, BUT ONE OF
OUR MAIN CONCERNS WITH THE BILL.
SO WE REPRESENT THE 61 CITIES IN
THE COASTAL ZONE. WE BELIEVE
THAT REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO UPDATE THEIR LCP AND HOUSING
ELEMENTS AT THE SAME TIME WON'T
SOLVE THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE OF
INCREASING MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND MEETING HOUSING
GOALS IN THE COASTAL ZONE. OUR
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TO
SHIFT THE BURDEN OF DOUBLING
DOWN ON LOCAL PLANNING IN THE
LCP AND HOUSING ELEMENT, AND
RATHER PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO IDENTIFY
WHERE THERE ARE CHALLENGES IN
THE LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING AND
IN MEETING HOUSING GOALS. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS ON THE MEASURE AND
APPRECIATE ALL THE PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE. WE ARE
HOPING FOR SOME FINE TUNING IN
TERMS OF HAVING THE COASTAL
COMMISSION MAKE SURE WE APPROVE
THE LCP AT THE SAME TIME WHILE
WE'RE MOVING THROUGH THE
PROCESS, AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD
TO THOSE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR, MEMBERS, PAUL YODER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO, A SUPERMAJORITY
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS
STILL OPPOSED TO THE BILL AS
WRITTEN. IT DOES IN FACT, IN THE
SENATORS DESCRIBED IT REALLY
WELL. WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE
RESPECTFUL FAMILY FEUD HERE. IT
DOES REMOVE THE CITIES APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, PERIOD. THAT'S WHAT A
PROVISION OF THIS BILL DOES. AND
AGAIN, A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS OPPOSED
TO THAT. AND SO THUS THE CITY'S
POSITION IS DICTATED THAT WAY.
THANK YOU.
MAILING STEPHAN IN OPPOSITION ON
BEHALF OF SUNNYVALE UNITED
NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI. SUSAN KIRSCH REPRESENTING
CATALYST FOR LOCAL CONTROL,
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. WE'VE BEEN HERE TODAY
TALKING TO LEGISLATORS AND
VARIOUS PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE
CAPITOL AROUND THE FACT THAT THE
RENA NUMBERS HAVE BEEN IN AIR.
THEY'RE INFLATED. THIS IS PURELY
AN ADD ON. SO YOU'RE YOU ARE
OPPOSED. OPPOSED. OKAY. THANK
YOU. WHO WAS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ONLY
THOSE WHO ARE WHAT WE CONSIDER
THE WITNESSES WHO ARE THE
REGISTERED OPPOSITION.
EVERYTHING ELSE AFTER THAT IS
THE ADD ONS. OKAY, THEN THIS IS
STRONGLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT. ELIZABETH HENRY
LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA. SAVE
LAFAYETTE, LIVERPOOL,
CALIFORNIA. CATALYST IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. THIS IS A VIOLATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT.
THANK YOU, SUE DEGREE CATALYST,
PACIFICA. DEFINITELY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. KEN BUKOWSKI OF
BERKELEY OPPOSED. CHRISTIE
STRONGLY OPPOSED. WE ALL WANT TO
USE THE COAST. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER
OPPOSITION, LET ME BRING IT BACK
TO THE DAIS, I'VE HEARD IT
BEFORE. OKAY. I KNOW THAT THERE
WERE QUITE A FEW AMENDMENTS
TAKEN IN THE LAST COMMITTEE,
AND, SO THE BILL THAT'S BEFORE
US IS THOSE THAT WERE AS HOW IT
WAS AMENDED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU'RE RIGHT. THE, THE ORIGINAL
VERSION OF THE BILL WAS, BROADER
. WE WORKED THROUGH ISSUES WITH
THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND I'M
GRATEFUL TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION FOR ENGAGING WITH US
AND WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THIS IS A
VERY SOLID BILL, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, NO
QUORUM YET THAT I LOOKED AT MORE
AT THE RIGHT TIME. I SAW THESE
MORE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, AND I
THOUGHT MAYBE WE HAD IT. OKAY
OKAY, SENATOR, YOU CAN GO TO
YOUR NEXT BILL. OKAY THE LAST
FINAL BILL, SENATE BILL 1037, IS
A BILL TO, ENSURE THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE TOOLS
THAT HE NEEDS TO ENFORCE, STATE
HOUSING LAWS, THE LEGISLATURE
FOR OVER THE LAST DECADE HAS
SIGNIFICANTLY STRENGTHENED STATE
HOUSING LAW TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
DEEP HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE ARE
IN. WE'VE ALSO EMPOWERED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH VARIOUS
LAWS TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS. AND
HE IS REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THOSE
LAWS, AND THIS BILL APPLIES TO A
VERY NARROW SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE, WHERE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS ACTUALLY FILED A
LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY, WHERE
IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE
LITIGATION, AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL PREVAILS WITH A COURT
JUDGMENT. SO THAT IS A TINY,
TINY SUBSET. THIS IS NOT A RUN
OF YOUR MILL. A CITY HAS SOME
ISSUE. AND THERE'S BACK AND
FORTH. THIS IS LITERALLY WHEN
IT'S SO BAD THAT IT'S GOTTEN TO
THE POINT THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS FILED A LAWSUIT. AND
INSTEAD OF SETTLING IN THE
MIDDLE, IT'S GONE ALL THE WAY TO
THE END. AND A JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED AGAINST THE CITY, A
FINDING BY A COURT THAT THE CITY
HAS VIOLATED STATE HOUSING LAW
RIGHT NOW. IF THAT HAPPENS, THE
CITY CAN THEN JUST IMMEDIATELY
COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND START
FOLLOWING THE LAW AND THERE'S NO
PENALTY. YES, THEY HAD TO SPEND
ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THE
LITIGATION, BUT THERE'S NO
INCENTIVE OTHER THAN THE
ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THEM TO
ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE LAW, BECAUSE
THEY KNOW THAT IF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SUES THEM AND THEY GO
ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND LOSE,
THEN THEY HAVE AT A MINIMUM,
SEVERAL MONTHS TO JUST COMPLY
AND THEN THERE'S NO FINANCIAL
PENALTY, THAT CREATES A VERY,
INADEQUATE INCENTIVE SYSTEM IN
TERMS OF CITIES UNDERSTANDING
THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE
LAW, AND GIVING AN INCENTIVE TO
JUST WORK THINGS OUT INSTEAD OF
ACTUALLY INDUCING LITIGATION. SO
WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO, AND IT,
DOESN'T APPLY TO ALL STATE
HOUSING LAWS, BUT A SUBSET OF,
STREAMLINE LAWS, LIKE WHEN
CITIES REFUSE TO GRANT A PERMIT,
WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY REQUIRED
TO OR VIOLATE HOUSING ELEMENT
LAW. AND THEN IF THEY GET SUED
AND LOSE, THEN THE COURT WILL BE
ABLE TO IMPOSE FINANCIAL
PENALTIES, MONTHLY PENALTIES,
GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF
THE VIOLATION. AND THERE'S A
RANGE OF 10,000 TO $50,000 A
MONTH. I WANT TO THANK THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SPONSORING
THE BILL. I THINK IT'S A SOLID
ONE, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY. IS JANICE STANFORD,
WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. AND FRANCESC MARTI,
SENIOR DIRECTOR AND STRATEGY OF
STRATEGY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR CALIFORNIA. YIMBY GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M JANICE
STANFORD, I'M A LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE AND DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ROB BONTA. I HAVE WITH ME ALEX
FISCH, WHO'S A SPECIAL ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HOUSING FOR
THE AG, WHO CAN ALSO HELP ANSWER
ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE AND ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROB BONTA, I WANT TO
START BY THANKING SENATOR WIENER
FOR AUTHORING THIS BILL, WHICH
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PROUD TO
SPONSOR. AS YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA
IS FACING A SEVERE HOUSING
SHORTAGE AND AFFORDABILITY
CRISIS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
PASSED STRONG LAWS IN RECENT
YEARS TO ADDRESS THIS CRISIS,
INCLUDING OVER A DOZEN
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL LAWS. BUT
THOSE THOSE LAWS WILL ONLY MOVE
THE NEEDLE TO ADDRESS THE
HOUSING CRISIS IF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FOLLOW THEM.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA HAS
MADE ENFORCEMENT OF HOUSING LAWS
A TOP PRIORITY AND HAS TAKEN
ACTION AGAINST SOME OF THE MOST
EGREGIOUS VIOLATORS. BUT THE
REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER
EXISTING LAW ARE NOT EFFECTIVELY
DETERRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM
VIOLATING THESE LAWS IN THE
FIRST PLACE. DESPITE THE
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL LAWS ON THE
BOOKS, SEVERAL CITIES HAVE BEEN
RELUCTANT TO PROCESS QUALIFYING
APPLICATIONS MINISTERIALLY,
INSTEAD IMPOSING LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER CREATIVE
POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT
DEVIATE FROM THE CLEAR OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS THE LEGISLATURE HAS
ESTABLISHED. THIS FRUSTRATES THE
PURPOSE OF MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
LAWS, WHICH IS TO STREAMLINE
APPROVALS AND BUILD HOUSING
QUICKLY. AND WHILE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE TASKED WITH
PLANNING TO MEET HOUSING NEEDS
OF THEIR COMMUNITIES, THERE ARE
OVER 200 JURISDICTIONS IS OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING ELEMENT
LAW. THIS NONCOMPLIANCE CONSUMES
PUBLIC RESOURCES. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL COULD DO MORE TO ADVANCE
OTHER IMPORTANT STATE HOUSING
PRIORITIES. IF EVERY
JURISDICTION COMPLIED WITH A
SIMPLE BLACK AND WHITE DEADLINE
TO ADDRESS THESE RAMPANT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MUST BE DETERRED
FROM VIOLATING THE LAW.
EFFECTIVE MONETARY PENALTIES
WILL SERVE AS A DETERRENT AND
WILL STRENGTHEN THE STATE'S
HAND. WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WARNS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT
THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, AND
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT
REFUSE TO COMPLY, WHO SHIRK
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET
THEIR FAIR SHARE OF REGIONAL AND
STATEWIDE HOUSING NEEDS, SB 1037
WOULD ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT QUICKLY.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. HELLO, CHAIR SKINNER,
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS FRANCESC MARTI AND I AM
THE DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT CALIFORNIA
YIMBY, A GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION
WITH OVER 80,000 MEMBERS
DEDICATED TO ENSURING THAT
CALIFORNIA IS A PLACE OF
ABUNDANT, SECURE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR ALL. I AM HERE TODAY
TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG SUPPORT
FOR SB 1037 AUTHORED BY SENATOR
WIENER, WHICH AIMS TO STRENGTHEN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S
CRITICAL HOUSING LAWS. THE
CALIFORNIA YIMBY. WE FIRMLY
BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSING LAWS
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN
RECENT YEARS ARE ESSENTIAL TOOLS
IN ADDRESSING OUR STATE'S SEVERE
HOUSING SHORTAGE AND
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. THESE
LAWS, INCLUDING THE MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL APPROVAL LAWS, WERE
DESIGNED TO STREAMLINE HOUSING
PRODUCTION AND ENSURE THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING THEIR PART
TO MEET HOUSING NEEDS OF THEIR
COMMUNITIES. HOWEVER, WE HAVE
SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW THE LACK OF
COMPLIANCE BY SOME LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HAS HINDERED
PROGRESS TOWARDS OUR STATE
HOUSING GOALS. WHEN CITIES AND
COUNTIES FAIL TO PROCESS TO
PROCESS QUALIFYING APPLICATIONS,
MINISTERIALLY UPDATE THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENTS OR IMPOSE
ADDITIONAL LOCAL REQUIREMENTS,
THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY UNDERMINING
THE INTENT OF THESE LAWS AND
SLOWING DOWN MUCH NEEDED HOUSING
PRODUCTION. FURTHERMORE, THE
FACT THAT OVER 200 JURISDICTIONS
ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE
WITH HOUSING ELEMENT LAW IS
DEEPLY CONCERNING. WHEN CITIES
FAIL TO ADHERE TO THESE LAWS,
THEY IMPEDE THE STATE'S OVERALL
ABILITY TO MEET CRITICAL HOUSING
NEEDS. THIS NON COMPLIANCE NOT
ONLY OBSTRUCTS POTENTIAL HOUSING
PROJECTS, BUT ALSO PERPETUATES
INEQUALITY IN HOUSING ACCESS AND
AFFORDABILITY. IT'S A CYCLE THAT
DEEPENS THE CRISIS RATHER THAN
ALLEVIATING IT. WE BELIEVE THAT
SB 1037 IS A CRUCIAL STEP IN
ADDRESSING THESE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES AND ENSURING THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW BY
ALLOWING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
SEEK EFFECTIVE MONETARY
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. THIS
BILL WILL SERVE AS A STRONG
DETERRENT AND ENCOURAGE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE THEIR
HOUSING RESPONSIBILITIES
SERIOUSLY. THIS WILL CHANGE THE
LOCAL THE CALCULUS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND INSTILL A SENSE
OF URGENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
FURTHERMORE. FURTHERMORE, THE
FUNDS COLLECTED FROM THESE
PENALTIES ARE EARMARKED TO
DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WITHIN THOSE SAME COMMUNITIES,
CREATING A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN
THE PENALTIES IMPOSED AND THE
BENEFITS ACCRUED TO THE
COMMUNITY. ENSURING THAT THESE
FUNDS ARE REINVESTED WHERE THEY
ARE MOST NEEDED. A CALIFORNIA
YIMBY WE ENVISION A FUTURE WHERE
EVERY CALIFORNIAN HAS ACCESS TO
SAFE, AFFORDABLE AND ABUNDANT
HOUSING. TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL,
WE NEED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO BE
PARTNERS IN OUR EFFORTS, NOT
OBSTACLES. BY SUPPORTING SB
1037, WE CAN SEND A CLEAR
MESSAGE THAT COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE HOUSING LAWS IS NOT
OPTIONAL, BUT A REQUIREMENT FOR
BUILDING THE THRIVING, INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES WE ALL DESERVE. ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY, I
URGE YOU TO VOTE AYE ON SB 1037.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. NOW
WE'RE JUST GETTING THE ME TOO'S
FOR IN SUPPORT. RAFA SONNENFELD,
ON BEHALF OF IMB ACTION AND
YIMBY LAW IN SUPPORT. CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF HOUSING
ACTION COALITION AND SUPPORT.
SEAMUS KENNEDY ON BEHALF OF SPUR
AND CIVIC WELL IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. ANY MORE SEEING NONE.
LET'S GO TO OUR, REGISTERED
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS. BRADY GUERTIN,
AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE AS
CURRENTLY DRAFTED, SB 1037 DOES
NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
CITIES TO CORRECT AND HONEST
MISTAKE OR ADDRESS A GENUINE
DIFFERENCE IN INTERPRETING THE
LAW. EVEN THOSE JURISDICTIONS
ACTING IN GOOD FAITH COULD BE
SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT FINES AND
BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR ALL COSTS.
INVESTIGATING AND PROSECUTING
THE ACTION, INCLUDING EXPERT
WITNESS FEES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
. ADDITIONALLY, AS CURRENTLY
DRAFTED IN THE LAW, THE LANGUAGE
IS VERY VAGUE ABOUT WHAT
SPECIFIC STATUTES THIS BILL
WOULD APPLY TO. WE URGE THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OUR CONCERNS
THAT WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THEM AND THE AG'S OFFICE TO
ADDRESS THIS, BUT IT'S VERY
VAGUE, SO IT'S HARD TO KNOW
WHICH ONES. SPECIFICALLY, THIS
ADDRESSES. SO IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT THROUGH
AMENDMENTS IN THE FUTURE. THE
OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO POINT
OUT IS INSTEAD OF CREATING NEW
FINES AND PENALTIES, LAWMAKERS
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SHOULD
PROVIDE CITIES WITH CLEAR
GUIDANCE AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO HELP THEM FINALIZE
THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS AND PUT
THOSE PLANS TO WORK. SO MUCH
NEEDED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION CAN
OCCUR. WE THANK THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE FOR THE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS. WE LOOK FORWARD
TO THAT IN ADDRESSING OUR
CONCERNS AND APPRECIATE THE TIME
TODAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'M
GOING TO, ESTABLISH QUORUM
BEFORE I GO FURTHER. SENATOR
SKINNER, I'M HERE. SKINNER HERE.
OKOBOJI HERE. CHOBOQ HERE.
BLAKE. SPEAR. CABALLERO CORTEZ.
HERE. CORTEZ. HERE. MENGIBAR
HERE. MENGIBAR. HERE. PADILLA.
HERE. PADILLA. HERE. SATO HERE.
SERATO. HERE. WAHAB ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE ESTABLISHED QUORUM SO WE
CAN TAKE MOTIONS IN A MINUTE,
BUT LET ME JUST SEE IF THERE'S
ANYBODY ELSE IN OPPOSITION THAT
WANTS TO ADD EITHER AS A ME TO.
SO IT'S JUST ME. TWO OPPOSITION
MAILING STEPHAN SUNNYVALE. TO BE
FAIR, WE NEED. NO. THAT'S
ENOUGH. YOU'RE JUST TO ADD ON.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ELIZABETH HENRY
LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA, SAVE
LAFAYETTE. LIVERPOOL CALIFORNIA.
CATALYST. UNITED NEIGHBORS IN
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
FASCISM EXISTS. APPARENTLY.
SUSAN KIRSCH, CATALYST FOR LOCAL
CONTROL IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. KRISTI SMALL RURAL CITIES ARE
GOING BROKE IN OPPOSITION.
STRONG OPPOSITION. WE'VE HAD A
LOT OF THANK YOU. A LOT OF
CONTRACTORS TO DO OUR HOUSING
ELEMENT. THANK YOU. TIME
ACTIVISTS FOR TRULY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OBJECT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. TÍNH BUKOWSKI CATALYST FOR
LOCAL CONTROL OPPOSE. ALL RIGHT.
DÍAS GO AHEAD, SENATOR SEYARTO.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THE
OTHER TWO BILLS I AGREED WITH
THIS ONE I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH.
AND PART OF THE PROBLEMS I HAVE
WITH THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE
SEEMS TO BE THIS BIG BATTLE AND
THE BATTLE IS, YOU KNOW, THE
STATE THINKS IT'S ONE REASON THE
LOCAL, THE LOCAL CITIES, HAVE
OTHER REASONS THAT THEY HAVE
PROBLEMS COMPLYING WITH THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENTS THAT THEY'RE
GIVEN ARE THE HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY'RE GIVEN,
THERE'S A LOT IN THE PROCESS
LEADING UP TO AN APPROVAL FOR
HOUSING THAT THE CITIES DON'T
HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL OVER. AND
WHETHER YOU SAY IT'S A
MINISTERIAL OR WHATEVER IT IS,
MINISTERIAL DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF
A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS OF OUR THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, NOR DOES IT TAKE CARE OF
THE ELEMENTS IN THE NATIONAL EPA
AND NEPA, THEY HAVE TO DO
SEISMIC STUDIES. THEY HAVE TO DO
TRAFFIC STUDIES, THEY HAVE TO DO
WATER WASTE STUDIES, AIR
STUDIES. ALL OF THESE THINGS
HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT
WHEN THEY DO THEIR GENERAL PLAN,
AND THEN THEY HAVE TO BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT AGAIN, WHEN
SOMEBODY COMES IN TO DO A
DEVELOPMENT, IF THEY MISS THOSE,
THEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS
TO SUE THEM, IF THEY DON'T MISS
THEM AND IT TAKES TOO LONG TO
BUILD. NOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WANTS TO SUE THEM, THIS ISN'T
ALL A CITY PROBLEM. THIS IS A
PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN CREATED
OVER THE LAST 30 TO 35 YEARS
FROM A STATE LEVEL THAT DOES NOT
WANT TO RECOGNIZE ITS ROLE IN
SLOWING DOWN HOUSING AND
CREATING THIS THIS MORASS OF,
WHAT ALL THESE REGULATIONS THAT
WE'VE CREATED. AND I DON'T THINK
THAT ADDING ON ANOTHER FEE OR
NOT FEE, I'M SORRY, ANOTHER COST
, A FINE, ESPECIALLY OF $10,000
BECAUSE THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT
BETWEEN A CITY AND THE STATE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING
OR WHETHER THEY'RE BEING
COMPLIANT OR NOT. THAT IS WHERE
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GO. IF THEY
DIDN'T, THERE WOULDN'T BE A
COURT PROBLEM, PART OF PART OF
THIS. THE ONLY THING THEY WOULD
DO IS JUST SEND SEND THE FINE
DOWN TO THEM. IF THEY'RE IN
COURT, THEY'RE IN COURT BECAUSE
THEY'RE BATTLING. THEY'RE TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S RIGHT AND
WHO'S WRONG. AND AT THE END OF
THE DAY, THE CITY COULD BE RIGHT
. BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE
DISSUADED FROM THAT BY THESE
HUGE FINES, WHY, WHY ON EARTH
WOULD THEY DO THAT. THEY WOULD
JUST TAKE THEIR TAXPAYER DOLLARS
AND PAY THE FINE THAT THEY'VE
BEEN GIVEN, AND CONTINUE TO GO
THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF TRYING
TO GET THESE, THESE PLANS AND
THESE DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED.
AND, ACCORDING TO ALL OF THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT
THEY'RE TOLD THEY HAVE TO DO.
SO, I THINK THERE'S MORE TO
WORKING WITH CITIES THAT NEEDS
TO BE DONE, ESPECIALLY FROM THE
STATE LEVEL, IN ORDER TO GET A
HANDLE ON OUR OUR PROBLEM. THE
HOUSING PROBLEM ISN'T JUST IT'S
NOT CITIES DON'T WANT TO BUILD
HOUSING. I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY
THAT HAS BEEN BUILDING HOUSING.
WE'RE THE FASTEST GROWING CITY
IN THE 2000, ALONG WITH LINCOLN.
UP HERE, WE BUILT HOUSING AS
FAST AS THE HOUSING CAN BE
BUILT, BUT AS WE ADDED MORE AND
MORE REGULATIONS, MORE AND MORE
STUDIES, WHEN A TIRE PRINT ON
THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BECOMES A
FAIRY SHRIMP STUDY FOR TWO
YEARS, HOW WHAT ARE CITIES
SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THAT? ARE
THEY SUPPOSED TO JUST IGNORE IT
AND GET FINED? SO THAT'S THAT'S
THE PROBLEM. THAT'S THE
CONUNDRUM HERE WITH THE CITIES
AND THE STATE'S RELATIONSHIP.
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEY
HAVE A ROLE IN THIS, TOO. AND
SO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
APPROACHES THAT ACTUALLY WORK
WITH THE CITY. STOP VILLAINIZING
THEM AS THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOUSING
ELEMENT NOT BEING IN COMPLIANCE
IN THE YEAR. AND I'VE SAID THIS
BEFORE, THE 2010 TO 2020 ERA,
THERE WAS NOTHING BEING BUILT.
THERE WAS NOTHING COMING
THROUGH. NO DEVELOPERS WERE
PUTTING IN INTO THE HOPPER THEIR
DEVELOPMENTS UNTIL ABOUT 2016.
AND THEN BY THE TIME THEY TAKE
THE EIGHT YEARS, IT TAKES TO GET
THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT'S THE
MID 2020S, 2022, 2023 NOW. RIGHT
NOW WE ARE REALIZING A LOT OF
THOSE. AND IF YOU COME DOWN TO
MY DISTRICT, YOU'LL SEE TONS OF
APARTMENTS GOING UP. BUT THESE
ARE ALL BEEN THESE THESE WERE
ALL STARTED THE APPROVAL PROCESS
IN 2016. SO WHY ARE WE BLAMING
THEM FOR SOMETHING WE CREATED A
MONSTER THAT WE CREATED AN. AND
SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT MY PROBLEM
IS WITH THIS PARTICULAR BILL
WITH FINDING CITIES, ESPECIALLY
THESE AMOUNTS, IS NOT GOING TO
HELP A DANG THING. AND YOU'RE
NOT FINDING CITIES, YOU'RE
FINDING TAXPAYERS, AND THE
TAXPAYERS ARE FED UP WITH THE
COST OF THE AFFORDABILITY INDEX
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. AND THIS
ISN'T HELPING IT. IS THAT A
QUESTION OR A COMMENT, A
STATEMENT? I THINK IT WAS A
STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S MUCH. SO DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER ANYBODY ELSE ON THE DAIS
WHO, SENATOR PADILLA, JUST A
COMMENT, MADAM CHAIR. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR. I SERVED MANY
DECADES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND I THINK
THERE'S PLENTY OF EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE HERE. FIRST OF ALL, I
DON'T I DON'T INTERPRET THIS
BILL TO BE AIMED AT COMPLIANT,
GOOD ACTORS WHO SEEK TO COMPLY
WITH THE MANY REGULATIONS
DESIGNED TO HELP ASSIST THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE MIDST OF A
CRISIS. I THINK IT'S VERY
CLEARLY DESIGNED TO GIVE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALREADY,
GENERALLY, COMMON LAW HAS
DISCRETION WITH RESPECT TO
INITIATING A REQUEST TO SEEK
DAMAGES OR PENALTIES FOR
NONCOMPLIANCE. I THINK IT'S
PRETTY CLEARLY AIMED AT, AS THE
STAFF ANALYSIS TERME SAYS,
FLAGRANT FLOUTERS. AND I THINK
THAT ANALYSIS AND EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE PRETTY CLEARLY SHOWS
THAT IT'S NOT HAVING THE DESIRED
EFFECT ON FOLKS WHO SIMPLY DON'T
WANT TO COMPLY IN THE MIDST OF A
CRISIS, TO HELP PRODUCE MORE
HOUSING STOCK. I CAN TESTIFY
MYSELF THAT HAVING WORKED IN
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR YEARS IS
NOT A NEW DEBATE, AND IT'S ONE
THAT I WAS AT THE TABLE FIGHTING
EVERY YEAR AND OFTENTIMES WITH
COMMUNITIES THAT FLAGRANTLY DID
NOT WANT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE
PRODUCT IN THEIR COMMUNITIES FOR
A VARIETY OF, SHALL WE SAY,
UNSAVORY SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
CONSIDERATIONS, IT'S EXACTLY THE
KIND OF DISCRETION THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL NEEDS. IT'S MISSING.
IT'S CLEAR. I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL. YOU MAKING A MOTION? I
WILL. OKAY, SENATOR OTOBOKE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, SENATOR
WIENER, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS MEASURE FORWARD, THERE ARE
SOME CONCERNS I HAVE WITH
PARTICULARLY, MOVING FORWARD
WITH THIS, WITH THIS BILL, SO
SPEAKING TO, A COUPLE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM VARIOUS
CITIES UP NORTH, AND I WAS ALSO
TALKING TO SOME LEADERSHIP IN
MY, IN MY CURRENT DISTRICT, SOME
OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE
BROUGHT UP WERE THE FACT THAT
WHEN IT COMES TO THE NUMBERS
BEING DETERMINED WITHIN OUR
STATE, WITHIN DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONS, THAT THE FORMULA
THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED WITHIN
THAT ARENA, IS SOMEWHAT, KIND OF
RANDOM. IT'S NOT A, A, A VERY A
WELL REPRESENTED FORMULA, IN
DETERMINING WHAT THE
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EACH
JURISDICTION SHOULD BE WHEN IT
COMES TO BUILDING THE HOUSES.
NUMBER TWO, WHICH POSES SOME,
SOME, SOME, UNATTAINABLE GOALS
FOR SOME COMMUNITIES TO BE ABLE
TO BUILD IN ADDITION TO THAT. SO
THE PROCESS ITSELF IS, IS
SOMEWHAT BROKEN. AND I PROMISE
THEM THAT I WOULD LOOK A LITTLE
FURTHER INTO SETTING AS TO WHAT
WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE
PROCESSES IN DETERMINING WHAT
OUR COMMUNITIES NEED TO DEVELOP
WITHIN THAT PROCESS. BUT IT'S A
LITTLE LATE RIGHT NOW FOR THIS
PARTICULAR BILL, BUT THAT THAT
IS A CONCERN WHEN YOU'RE TRYING
TO IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM OF
ACCOUNTABILITY MOVING FORWARD.
NUMBER TWO, THE OTHER CONCERN
THAT I HAVE MOVING FORWARD IS
THAT RIGHT NOW, EVEN IF WE HAVE
CITIES WHO ARE, WILLING TO BUILD
AND ARE HAVE A APPROVED PLANS TO
BE ABLE TO BUILD IN SOME OF
THOSE COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE I'M
IN THE INLAND EMPIRE, ALONG WITH
SENATOR SALMON RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
WE STILL HAVE LAND. WE STILL ARE
WILLING AND ABLE TO BUILD IN
MANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES. SO IT'S
NOT A PROBLEM. HOWEVER, THE
CHALLENGE IS THAT THEY'RE POSING
LOCALLY IS THE FACT THAT THE
COST AND THE PERMITTING, AFTER
ALL OF THOSE STUDIES ARE BEING
MADE, ARE ADDING TO THE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT THE VERY
END, POSING AN IMPACT ON THE
FINAL UNITS FOR MANY OF THESE
HOUSES. SO THE COST IS A FACTOR
THAT IS CONTINUALLY INCREASING,
AND WE HAVE BUILDERS THAT WHEN
THEY LOOK AT EVERYTHING AS THE
TIME IS, IS MOVING FORWARD AND
THE DELAYS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S
COMING THROUGH, THAT IT'S POSING
A DIFFICULTY TO BUILD. SO
THERE'S THAT. EVEN THOUGH THE
CITIES IN GOOD WILL AND GOOD
EFFORT HAVE APPROVED THESE,
THESE DEVELOPMENTS, AT THE END,
THE DEVELOPERS CAN'T, CAN'T MOVE
FORWARD WITH BUILDING THESE
HOMES IN THOSE COMMUNITIES
BECAUSE OF THE COST. IT DOESN'T
BREAK DOWN BECAUSE OF THE
VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS THAT
THEY'RE, REQUIRED TO ADD ON OR
PARTICIPATE OR THE STUDIES,
EVERYTHING THAT'S IMPOSED ON
THEM AND CREATES AN INCREDIBLE
FINANCIAL BARRIER FOR THEM TO BE
ABLE TO, TO MOVE FORWARD ON
THAT. SO BASED ON THAT, IT'S
DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SUPPORT A
BILL THAT'S GOING TO PENALIZE
THE CITY FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR
ATTEMPTING. BUT CAN'T BUILD OR
IT WON'T. SORRY. I DON'T WANT TO
INTERRUPT. NO. NO WORRIES. GO
AHEAD. YOU CAN RESPOND. YEAH.
NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. FIRST OF
ALL, IN TERMS OF THE RENA
NUMBERS, LIKE WE RENO WAS SO
BADLY BROKEN, IT WAS TO THE
POINT WHERE THE MOST EGREGIOUS
EXAMPLE WAS IN THE LAST RINA
CYCLE, A EIGHT YEAR CYCLE. THE
RENA FOR THE CITY OF BEVERLY
HILLS WAS THREE ONE, 233 HOMES
FOR AN EIGHT YEAR PERIOD. WHY?
BECAUSE BEVERLY HILLS IS A
POLITICALLY POWERFUL CITY, AND
SO WE HAD WEALTHIER, OFTEN
WHITER CITIES PUSHING OFF RENA
ONTO LOWER INCOME, COMMUNITIES.
AND THAT'S JUST HOW IT WAS SO
POLITICIZED. SO NOW BEVERLY
HILLS, OVER AN EIGHT YEAR
PERIOD, THEIR ARENA IS 3000. AND
THAT'S NEW. AND I UNDERSTAND
THESE AND FROM MY OWN CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO ARENA WAS 27,000
OVER EIGHT YEARS. THAT WAS WAY
TOO LOW FOR A LARGE, THRIVING
METROPOLIS. WE NOW ARE AT
82,000. IT'S TRIPLING. AND ALL
OF THIS CAUSES TENSION. THERE'S
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. IT'S
DIFFERENT. IT'S DIFFERENT THAN
WHAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST 50
YEARS, WHICH IS JUST TO SAY, DO
WHATEVER YOU WANT. IF YOU WANT
TO BUILD A LOT OF HOMES, GO
BUILD A LOT OF HOMES. IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO BUILD, WE'LL MAYBE
HAVE SOME LAWS WITHOUT TEETH ON
THE BOOKS, AND WE'RE NOT GOING
TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. AND
THAT DROVE THE CAR INTO THE
DITCH AND WE SEE WHAT IT'S DONE
WITH LOW INCOME RENTERS, WAVE
AFTER WAVE, BECOMING THE NEXT
GENERATION OF HOMELESS PEOPLE.
WE'VE SEEN WHAT IT'S DONE WITH
MIDDLE, MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
BEING PUSHED OUT OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND LA AND SANTA
MONICA AND BERKELEY INTO THE
INLAND EMPIRE AND THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. BECAUSE MY COMMUNITY
WASN'T BUILDING ENOUGH HOMES.
AND SO WE CHANGED THE RULES TO
SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO IT
DIFFERENTLY. AND THAT CREATES
TENSION. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT
IT. BUT I'M CONFIDENT WE WILL
GET THROUGH THAT TENSION. I DO
WANT TO JUST STRESS THAT THAT
THERE ARE VERY THIS THE
POTENTIAL FINES HERE APPLY TO
TWO SPECIFIC CATEGORIES. WHEN A
CITY WRONGFULLY DENIES A PERMIT
FOR A PROJECT, THAT'S REQUIRED
TO BE APPROVED UNDER STATE LAW,
IT COULD BE AN ADU THAT THEY'RE
REQUIRED TO APPROVE. IT COULD BE
AN SP FOR TWO THREE STREAMLINED
PROJECT, AN AB 2011 STREAMLINED
PROJECT, IF THEY REFUSE TO GRANT
THE PERMIT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE
REQUIRED TO, THAT'S A THAT COULD
SUBJECT THEM TO THIS. OR IF THEY
DO NOT ADOPT A COMPLIANT HOUSING
ELEMENT AND THEY FAIL, REFUSE TO
DO SO IF THEY ARE APPROVING THE
PROJECTS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED
TO APPROVE AND THAT THEY HAVE A
COMPLIANT HOUSING ELEMENT, THIS
BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. SO
IF THE HOUSING, IF A PROJECT
DOESN'T GET BUILT BECAUSE THE
FINANCING FALLS APART OR, OR
THERE'S A SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUE OR
WHATEVER THE PROBLEM IS THAT
WOULD NOT TRIGGER THESE
PENALTIES. THIS IS ONLY WHEN
CITIES ARE THEMSELVES ARE NOT
FOLLOWING THE LAW, AND SO I JUST
WANT TO REALLY STRESS THAT AND
I, I'VE, I'VE BEEN SUPER CLEAR
THIS IS NOT I DON'T IT'S NOT
ABOUT DEMONIZING CITIES. I'M A
FORMER LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL,
AS WERE YOU, AND THIS IS ABOUT,
MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THAT THE
HOUSING WILL ACTUALLY, GET
BUILT, THIS IS NOT ABOUT, AN
HONEST DISAGREEMENT. I THINK THE
LEAGUE OF CITIES SAID THAT
HONEST DISAGREEMENT. AND THEN WE
ALSO HEARD, JUST JUST A
DISAGREEMENT. NO. IF IT'S AN
HONEST OR NOT HONEST
DISAGREEMENT, HONEST MISTAKE. AN
HONEST MISTAKE MEANS THAT
SOMEONE REACHES OUT TO YOU AND
SAYS, HEY, YOU MADE A MISTAKE
AND YOU CORRECT IT. THIS IS
ABOUT IF IT'S GOTTEN TO THE
EXTREME POINT THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS FILED A LAWSUIT,
WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN VERY OFTEN
, AND THEN GOES ALL THE WAY TO
THE END OF THE LITIGATION, AND A
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST THE
CITY THAT TRIGGERS THE
PENALTIES. AND THAT IS VERY
DIFFERENT THAN A CITY JUST
MAKING A MISTAKE OR HAVING A
VIOLATION THAT IT THEN CORRECTS.
AND SO I JUST THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO FOLKS, THIS IS A
VERY NARROW, FOCUSED BILLS ON
REALLY EGREGIOUS SITUATIONS
WHICH DO HAPPEN. UNFORTUNATELY
MADAM CHAIR, MAY I FOLLOW UP
JUST. YES A COUPLE. SO THE OTHER
QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, THE
CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO OUR
RURAL COUNTIES AND, AND THEIR
ABILITY TO, TO, TO BUILD OR PAY
FEES, IF, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY
IF THEY'RE DISTRESSED. AND THE
LAST POINT IS THE, THE, THE
ABILITY TO CURE, ON THAT END.
YEAH. SO IN TERMS OF CURING,
THERE ARE A MILLION
OPPORTUNITIES TO CURE. SO FOR
EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY A CITY,
DENIES A PROJECT THAT THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO REQUIRE, THEY WILL
BE TOLD, I'M SURE, BY THE
DEVELOPERS. HEY YOU'RE SUPPOSED
TO YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO THIS,
HCD COULD COME TO THEM WITH A
LETTER SAYING THIS HAS TO BE
APPROVED. WE THINK THAT'S A
VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND
POTENTIALLY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. AND THEY COULD DO IT
WITH PHONE CALLS, WITH LETTERS.
AND THE CITY WILL HAVE AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW
WHAT, WE MADE A MISTAKE OR WE'VE
REEVALUATED. WE'RE GRANTING THE
PERMIT, AND THAT WILL NOT RESULT
IN ANY FINES. THIS IS NOT A
GOTCHA. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
JUST IN REAL LIFE, WE CAN ALL
ENVISION OURSELVES IN A
SITUATION. IF IT'S TO THE POINT
WHERE YOU'RE HAVING A DISPUTE
WITH SOMEONE AND THEY SUE YOU
AND YOU GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH
THE ENTIRE LITIGATION, WHICH CAN
TAKE TIME AND THEN A COURT
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
THAT'S NOT JUST LIKE AN OOPS
SITUATION THAT THAT IS LIKE A
MILLION OPPORTUNITIES TO RESOLVE
IT AND NOT HAVE TO PAY THESE
FINES. THESE FINES ARE RESERVED
FOR TRULY EGREGIOUS SITUATIONS
WHERE A CITY VIOLATES CERTAIN
SPECIFIED LAWS, REFUSES TO
CORRECT, IS DESPITE AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY TO GET SUED, DOESN'T
SETTLE THE LAWSUIT AND SAY, OH
MY GOD, YOU SUED US. YEAH,
YOU'RE RIGHT. AND WE'RE GOING TO
WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE HOW WE'RE
DOING THINGS. IT GOES ALL THE
WAY THROUGH AND GETS A JUDGMENT
ENTERED AGAINST THEM. THAT'S A
VERY NARROW SET OF CASES, AND
THOSE ARE EGREGIOUS CASES. IN
TERMS OF RURAL CITIES. WE HAVE
SET UP VARIOUS FUNDS AND WE CAN
ALWAYS DO MORE FOR SMALLER
CITIES THAT DON'T HAVE LIKE A
ROBUST PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IN
SB TWO, WE DID THAT. IT SET UP
DEDICATED FUNDING FOR GRANTS FOR
CITIES TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR
ADDITIONAL PLANNING CAPACITY.
AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND
HCD ALSO PROVIDES TECHNICAL
SUPPORT FOR CITIES THAT, YOU
KNOW, ARE MAYBE STRUGGLING A
LITTLE BIT. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT
A GOTCHA. THIS IS FOR BAD ACTORS
RIGHT? YES. SENATOR CORTEZ, I
DON'T HAVE A LONG QUESTION OR
ANYTHING. I DON'T WANT TO EXTEND
THE DEBATE. I JUST WANTED TO,
SAY ON THIS ISSUE THAT I SERVED
WITH SENATOR WIENER IN REGIONAL
GOVERNMENT. HE REFERRED TO
SERVING IN LOCAL AND I THINK
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT AND HE
HASN'T EMPHASIZED IT VERY MUCH.
BUT IT DIDN'T SURPRISE ME AT ALL
THAT WHEN HE GOT TO THE
LEGISLATURE, HE WOULD START
DOING THIS KIND OF WORK BECAUSE
HE VERY MUCH EMPHASIZED ON THE
REGIONAL LEVEL THE NEXUS BETWEEN
THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK WE'RE
DOING, THE WORK FORCE, PROXIMITY
WORK, WE'RE DOING, THE VEHICLE
MILES TRAVELED, WORK WE'RE
DOING. AND THIS PROBLEM AND IT
WAS, I KNOW, VERY FRUSTRATING
FOR HIM TO SEE NO TEETH IN RENA.
AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO, YOU
KNOW, THE ESSENTIALLY THE, THE,
THE WORK TO BRING HOUSING IN
TRANSPORTATION CLOSER TOGETHER
TO REDUCE VEHICLE EMISSIONS,
WHICH ARE THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE
OF GHG IN THE BAY AREA, AND NOT
TO HAVE ANY COOPERATION. SO I
JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT ELEMENT.
THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL AND I
APPRECIATE IT. MADAM CHAIR, IS
THAT A MOTION? DO WE ALREADY HAD
ONE? SORRY OKAY, CLOSE, THANK
YOU FOR THE DEBATE. ONE THING
THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION AT THE
BEGINNING, ALTHOUGH ONE OF THE
COMMENTERS DID. THESE FUNDS WILL
GO INTO A TRUST FUND FOR THAT
CITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
THE CITY THAT PAID THE FINES. SO
THE FUNDING WILL STAY DEDICATED
FOR THAT CITY, AND THEY WILL
HAVE, FIVE YEARS TO USE IT. AND
IF THEY DON'T, THEN IT WOULD GO
INTO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
FOR THE ENTIRE STATE. SO IT'S
NOT JUST MONEY GOING INTO THE
GENERAL FUND. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. GREAT. LET'S
HAVE A ROLL CALL ON SB 1037. AND
THEN I'M GOING TO ASK FOR
MOTIONS ON THE PREVIOUS TWO
BILLS THAT WERE HEARD AND ON THE
CONSENT. GO AHEAD, SB 1037. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. SENATOR
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE OKUBO. NO.
CHO. BOGUE NO. BLAKE. SPEAR.
BLAKE. SPEAR. AYE. CABALLERO
CORTEZ. AYE. CORTEZ. AYE.
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR AYE. PADILLA.
AYE. PADILLA. AYE. CIERTO.
CIERTO NO. UMBERG. WAHAB IT'S 5
TO 2. ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS 5
TO 2. IT'S ON CALL. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON SB 951. I MOVE THE
BILL. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION NOW ON SB 951. THAT'S
ITEM TWO. LET'S DO ROLL CALL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR SKINNER A SKINNER. AYE.
OCHOA BOGH. SORRY. ITEM TWO SB
951. AYE O CHOBOQ. AYE. BLAKE.
SPEAR. BLAKE. SPEAR AYE.
CABALLERO. CORTEZ. AYE. CORTEZ.
AYE MENGIBAR. AYE. MENGIBAR AYE.
PADILLA AYE. PADILLA AYE. SATO.
SERRATO. AYE. UMBERG. WAHAB 7 TO
0. ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS,
SEVEN AHEAD, 8 TO 0. SO I HAVE
SEVEN. OKAY. THAT BILLS ON CALL.
AND NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION
ON ITEM ONE SB 937. SO MOVE.
GREAT. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
MOTION IS DUE. PASSED THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE.
OCHOA. BOGUE BLAKE. SPEAR. HI
BLAKE. SPEAR. AYE. CABALLERO.
CORTEZ. AYE CORTEZ. AYE.
MENGIBAR. AYE. MENGIBAR AYE.
PADILLA AYE. PADILLA AYE. SATO.
SATO. AYE YOUNGBERG. WAHAB SIX
ZERO. ALL RIGHT. THAT VOTES 6 TO
0. WE'LL PUT IT ON, CALL. AND
NOW MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR? THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY LET'S DO ROLL CALL ON
CONSENT. THOSE ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS SB 1443, SB 1361,
AND SB 1512. GO AHEAD, SENATOR
SKINNER, A SKINNER, A OCHOA BOG.
SO I VOTE AYE. BLAKE. SPEAR.
BLAKE. SPEER. AYE. CABRERA
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. MENGIBAR
AYE. MENGIBAR AYE. PADILLA AYE.
PADILLA. AYE. SATO SERRATO. AYE.
UMBERG. WAHAB 7 TO 0. ALL RIGHT.
THAT BILL IS ON CALL 7 TO 0. AND
WE WILL NOW GO WITH. LET'S SEE
SENATOR DURAZZO IN THE ROOM.
YES. LET US HEAR FROM SENATOR
DURAZZO SB 1500. READY? YES.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I
AM PROUD TO PRESENT SB 1500,
WHEN I WAS APPROACHED BY LA CITY
MAYOR BASS, I. ANYTHING THAT WE
COULD DO TO HELP HER
EXTRAORDINARY ENERGY ON
ADDRESSING HOUSING AND THE
HOMELESS. THIS BILL WILL CHANGE
STATUTORY GUIDELINES FOR THE
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND FOR THE TAX
CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE TO
REDUCE BARRIERS TO PERMANENT
HOUSING FOR UNHOUSED PEOPLE. THE
COST OF HOUSING, OF COURSE, HAS
INCREASED TREMENDOUS, ESPECIALLY
FOR LOW AND EXTREMELY LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS. IF YOU TAKE
HOMEOWNERS 78, OF EXTREMELY,
LOW, HOMEOWNERS ARE COST
BURDENED OF RENTERS, 82, ARE
EXTREMELY LOW RENTERS. AND
THEY'RE ALSO COST BURDENED TO
HELP PROVIDE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW INCOME
INDIVIDUALS. CITIES LIKE LOS
ANGELES PROVIDE VOUCHER PROGRAMS
TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS TO
HOUSE SUCH LOW INCOME
PROSPECTIVE TENANTS WHO MAY NOT
HAVE THE IMMEDIATELY MAY NOT
HAVE THE ECONOMIC MEANS TO
SECURE HOUSING INDEPENDENTLY,
THE DEPARTMENT, US DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GRANTED WAIVERS TO THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF LA FOR GREATER
FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE
ANGELENOS INTO TEMPORARY HOUSING
BY CUTTING THROUGH BUREAUCRACY.
ALTHOUGH THESE VOUCHERS SERVE AS
A CRITICAL RESOURCE TO HELP
SHELTER THE UNHOUSED, HOUSING
PROVIDERS HAVE EXPRESSED THE
RISK WITH THE CURRENT HOUSING
VOUCHER SYSTEM AND RULES. IF
THESE PROVIDERS HOUSE FAMILIES
BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS, ONCE
THEY HAVE PROPER DOCUMENTATION
OF ELIGIBILITY, THEY MAY LATER
FIND DISCREPANCIES SUCH AS
INCOME ELIGIBILITY. THE RISK ARE
THAT THE HOUSING PROVIDER MAY
EXPERIENCE SEVERE FINANCIAL
PENALTIES, AND THE VOUCHERS WILL
GO UNUSED. HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AND OPERATORS HAVE NOT FULLY
UTILIZED THE HUD WAIVERS OUT OF
FEAR OF FACING FINANCIAL OR
OTHER TYPES OF PENALTIES, HERE
WITH ME TODAY, WE HAVE KEVIN
KELLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOS
ANGELES CITY PLANNING, TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT, AS WELL AS
FREDDY QUINTANA, SENIOR DIRECTOR
OF STATE AFFAIRS FOR L.A. CITY
MAYOR BASS'S OFFICE, TO HELP
ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. GREAT. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS KEVIN KELLER. I WAS THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. NOW
I'M THE INTERIM DEPUTY MAYOR OF
HOMELESSNESS FOR MAYOR KAREN
BASS AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
LETTING ME SHARE A COUPLE WORDS
ON THIS IMPORTANT BILL AS PART
OF MAYOR BASS'S HOUSING FIRST
APPROACH TO HOMELESS CRISIS, THE
CITY HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO CUT
THROUGH THE BUREAUCRATIC RED
TAPE AND SWIFTLY BRING UNHOUSED
ANGELENOS INDOORS. JUST MONTHS
AGO, PEOPLE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS WERE REQUIRED TO
FILL OUT 30 PAGE QUESTIONNAIRES,
PROVIDE PROOF OF INCOME AND ID
TO BE PLACED IN A HOUSING ALL
DIFFICULT CHALLENGES FOR THOSE
LIVING ON THE STREETS. IN AN
EFFORT TO SPEED THIS PROCESS,
THE CITY SUCCESSFULLY APPEALED
LAST YEAR TO THE US DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, SECURING SEVERAL
WAIVERS FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES. THESE WAIVERS
PROVIDE THE CITY FLEXIBILITY TO
SPEED UP THE TEMPORARY TO
PERMANENT HOUSING PLACEMENT
PROCESS BY ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS TO
SELF-CERTIFY ESSENTIAL
INFORMATION, SUCH AS INCOME,
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DATE OF
BIRTH AND DISABILITY STATUS.
SECURING THESE WAIVERS
REPRESENTED THE REMOVAL OF MAJOR
BARRIER, BUT THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL ROADBLOCKS THAT EXIST
AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT ARE THE
SUBJECT OF THIS BILL. THE CITY
OF LÀ CURRENTLY HAS 36,000
HOUSING CHOICE CONTRACTS,
SERVING OVER 68,000 TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. WHEN PEOPLE
ACCEPT THESE VOUCHERS, THEY
COMMIT. I'M SORRY, WHEN A
DEVELOPER ACCEPTS THIS VOUCHER,
THEY COMMIT TO MEETING CERTAIN
INCOME ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
IN THEIR FUNDING. HOWEVER, WHEN
A HOUSING PROVIDER USES THE
SELF-CERTIFICATION WAIVER
ALLOWED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, THEY RISK FACING
MULTIPLE FINANCIAL AND
REPUTATIONAL PENALTIES IF A
MINOR DISCREPANCY IS UNCOVERED
BETWEEN SELF-REPORTED DATA AND
THE LATER DOCUMENTATION. ONE
EXAMPLE WOULD BE A PERSON
EXPERIENCING EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS WHO IS BELIEVED TO
BE AN INCOME LEVEL BELOW 30. AMI
IS THEN FOUND TO BE EVEN A
DOLLAR OVER 30% AMI, WHEN THEY
DO THEIR DOCUMENTATION ON TCAC,
NOTIFIES THE IRS OF AN
INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS DOES NOT HAVE
INCOME, VERIFIED WITHIN 60 DAYS,
OR HAS INCOME VERIFIED ABOVE AN
ESTABLISHED INCOME LIMIT. AS A
RESULT, UNFORTUNATELY, HOUSING
DEVELOPERS AND OPERATORS HAVE
NOT FULLY UTILIZED THE HUD
WAIVERS THAT LOS ANGELES AND LOS
ANGELES COUNTY HAVE RECEIVED OUT
OF FEAR OF THESE PENALTIES. EVEN
IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS LOW INCOME
AND IS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS, THE SITUATION CAN
BE RESOLVED. SB 1500 WOULD
CREATE A STATUTORY GUIDELINE FOR
HCD AND TCAC TO COUNT A TENANT
AT 30% AMI WHEN THE TENANT GETS
A THIRD PARTY INCOME
VERIFICATION ABOVE 30% AMI, BUT
BELOW 60% AMI AND WAS PLACED IN
AN INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING
UNIT USING HUD WAIVER AUTHORITY.
THIS COUNT WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF QUALIFYING A TENANT
FOR AN INCOME RESTRICTED UNIT.
ADDITIONALLY, SB 1500 WOULD
PROVIDE A 24 MONTH CURE PERIOD
FOR ANY ISSUES STEMMING FROM THE
USE OF THE HUD WAIVER. THIS BILL
IS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF
THE HUD PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY
WAIVERS, WHICH ALLOW DEVELOPERS
AND PROPERTY MANAGERS TO RELY ON
THE INCOME AND OTHER ELIGIBILITY
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS WHO
ARE APPLYING FOR UNITS FUNDED
THROUGH STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS,
AS WELL AS TAX CREDIT FUNDED
PROJECTS. FOR THESE REASONS, ON
BEHALF OF MAYOR KAREN BASS,
WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR AYE VOTE
ON ON SB 1500. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY DID YOU
WANT TO ADD. NO. OKAY. SO, NO
OTHER, PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF SPEAKING. SO CAN WE
HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
THAT WANT TO BE AN ADD ON? ALL
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? LOVELY. ALL RIGHT
, SENATOR BREAKSPEARE. YES.
THANK YOU. THIS IS A GREAT BILL.
AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE JUST
HEARD IS JUST SUCH A REALLY GOOD
EXAMPLE OF THE AMOUNT OF RED
TAPE AND THE DIFFICULTIES WITH
GETTING UNHOUSED PEOPLE HOUSED.
SO, YOU KNOW, I REALLY
APPRECIATE MAYOR BASS AND HER
STAFF DIGGING DEEP INTO, LIKE,
WHERE CAN WE STREAMLINE WHAT RED
TAPE CAN WE CUT? HOW CAN WE GET
PEOPLE HOUSED FASTER? BECAUSE
THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE
TO BE HIRED TO HELP PEOPLE FILL
OUT 30 PAGE FORMS AND CORRECT
PROBLEMS, AND I MEAN, IT JUST
MAGNIFIES THE PROBLEM. SO I
APPRECIATE YOU CARRYING THIS
BILL AND THEN BRINGING IT TO
YOU. AND I HOPE THAT THERE ARE
MANY MORE EXAMPLES OF THIS KIND
OF THING WHERE WE CAN HELP
STREAMLINE THE PROCESS SO WE CAN
MAKE REAL PROGRESS. THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS ON THE DÍAS, SENATOR
BLAKESPEAR, DID YOU WANT TO MOVE
THAT? OKAY ALL RIGHT, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE SENATOR DURAZZO,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND
APPRECIATE IT. AND I VOTE. OKAY,
SO WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS THE COMMITTEE
ON MILITARY AND VETERANS
AFFAIRS. SENATOR SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE NØ. OTOBOKE. NO.
BLAKE. SPEAR. BLAKE. SPEAR AYE.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. I MENGIBAR I
MENGIBAR I PADILLA I PADILLA I
CIERTO. CIERTO. NO. UMBERG.
WAHAB 5 TO 2. ALL RIGHT. THAT
BILLS 5 TO 2 WILL LEAVE IT ON
CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. SENATOR DURAZZO WILL NOW GO
TO. THANK YOU, SENATOR PADILLA.
ITEM SIX SB 1049.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SB 1049. I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR MEMBERS, AND I THANK
YOUR STAFF FOR WORKING WITH ME
ON THIS BILL. BACK AGAIN,
KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION ARE
POWER. AND AS WE CONTINUE THE
DIALOG ABOUT THE HOUSING CRISIS
IN CALIFORNIA, WE NEED TO STEP
BACK FROM JUST A CONVERSATION
ABOUT SCARCITY AND THE
PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL PRODUCT
AND ALL THE GOOD WORK WE'VE
TRIED TO DO TO FOSTER THAT. BUT
THERE'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT
ELEMENT THAT IS DIRECTLY
RELEVANT TO ACCESS TO
AFFORDABILITY, AND THAT IS
WORKING POVERTY IN THE STATE.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WE DON'T
HAVE DATA AND WE NEVER HAVE THAT
ESTABLISHED A BASELINE FORMULAIC
TO DETERMINE HOW WE ASCERTAIN,
FOR EXAMPLE, A MINIMUM WAGE
STANDARD IN THE STATE, HOW WE
ACCELERATE THAT. AND CERTAINLY
WE HAVE NO FORMULA TO DETERMINE
WHAT A LIVING HOUSING WAGE LOOKS
LIKE. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE
THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, ALONG WITH THE
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, TO
DEVELOP THAT STANDARD. BOTH BY
MARKET REGION AND AVERAGE ACROSS
THE STATE TO UNDERSTAND AT ANY
GIVEN TIME WHAT A LIVING HOUSING
WAGE LOOKS LIKE, WHAT IS
REQUIRED TO AFFORD TO PUT A ROOF
OVER YOUR HEAD IN THIS STATE?
NEVER MIND TO MOVE ECONOMICALLY
AHEAD. NEARLY A THIRD OF
CALIFORNIA'S ENTRY LEVEL
WORKFORCE IS ECONOMICALLY
STRANDED IN A WAY THAT NO PRIOR
GENERATION HAS BEEN, THAT MEANS
THAT MORE AND MORE OF OUR
WORKFORCE RELY ON LOW WAGE,
MINIMUM WAGE JOBS FOR THEIR
LIVELIHOOD IN A WAY THAT
GENERATIONS PRIOR DID NOT. IN
ADDITION, THE DEMAND ON THEIR
LABOR IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THE
MARKET FOR THEIR LABOR IS NOT
GOING ANYWHERE. BUT THE DEMAND
ON THE TIME THAT THEY PUT IN TO
MEET THE SAME LEVEL OF VALUE AND
BENEFIT IS INCREASING IN OTHER
WORDS, MORE WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE WORKING MORE
HOURS AND REMAIN STRANDED. THAT
MEANS THEY CAN'T BUILD WEALTH.
THEY CAN'T SAVE. THEY CAN WORK
60, 70, 80 HOURS A WEEK AND
STILL NOT MEET THEIR BASIC
NEEDS. THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS
AN ECONOMIC MODEL, AND IT SHOULD
BE INTOLERABLE TO US AS
POLICYMAKERS. WE HAVE BEEN A
LEADER IN THIS NATION ABOUT WAGE
STANDARDS, BUT IT IS FAR PAST
TIME THAT WE BEGAN COLLECTING
AND REPORTING THIS DATA SO THAT
WE COULD UTILIZE IT IN POSITIVE
WAYS WITH RESPECT TO HOUSING
ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY, WITH
RESPECT TO OUR THRESHOLD
STANDARDS FOR SOCIAL SAFETY NET
PROGRAMS AND SO ON. SO I'M BACK
AGAIN WITH A SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR BILL, BUT ALSO AN
ELEMENT THAT ALLOWS US TO CREATE
A PROGRAM OF CERTIFICATION SO
THAT EMPLOYERS WHO CHOOSE
EFFECTIVELY TO PAY A LIVING
HOUSING WAGE TO THEIR WORKFORCE
CAN RECEIVE CERTIFICATION THÀNH
BY THE STATE FOR THAT, AND THEY
CAN MARKET THAT TO POTENTIAL
EMPLOYEES. I BELIEVE THAT WHEN
WE ARE DEALING WITH THE HOUSING
CRISIS, IT NEEDS TO BE ALL HANDS
AND ALL TOOLS. ON DECK WITH ME
TODAY IS ANNA HASSELBLAD, SENIOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY FOR
UNITED WAYS OF CALIFORNIA, NHÀ.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ANNA HASSELBLAD WITH
UNITED WAYS OF CALIFORNIA. WE
ARE THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF ALL
LOCAL UNITED WAYS COVERING EVERY
COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE
HONORED AND THRILLED TO BE
SPONSORS OF SB 1049 BY SENATOR
PADILLA. WE BELIEVE THIS MEASURE
GOES A LONG WAY TO PROVIDING
BOTH INFORMATION AND INCENTIVES
THAT DO GOOD THINGS FOR
CALIFORNIANS, CITING THE REAL
COST MEASURE, WHICH IS OUR BI
ANNUAL STUDY ON WHAT IT TAKES
FOR HOUSEHOLDS TO LIVE WITH
DIGNITY IN CALIFORNIA. OF THE
3.7 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS THAT FALL
BELOW THE REAL COST MEASURE, 97
OF THEM, 97% OF THEM HAVE A
WORKING ADULT. PEOPLE ARE
ALREADY WORKING HARD, SOME
TAKING ON MULTIPLE JOBS, AS THE
SENATOR NOTED, AND STILL, IT IS
NOT ENOUGH IF SOMEONE WORKS ONE
FULL TIME JOB, AT MINIMUM, THEY
SHOULD BE ABLE TO COVER THEIR
HOUSING AND BASIC EXPENSES. BUT
THE REALITY IS CURRENTLY IN
CALIFORNIA, A MINIMUM WAGE
EARNER MUST WORK MORE THAN TWO
FULL TIME JOBS TO AFFORD A ONE
BEDROOM APARTMENT IN MOST MAJOR
MARKETS, THAT KIND OF WORKLOAD
IS SIMPLY NOT SUSTAINABLE, NOR
IS IT EQUITABLE TO PUT HOUSING
COSTS INTO CONTEXT FOR THE STATE
REGIONS THAT THE SENATE HOUSING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPRESENT.
HERE IS WHAT PERCENTAGE OF
HOUSEHOLDS IN THAT AREA PAY 30%
OR MORE ON HOUSING, WHICH, AS WE
KNOW, IS HUD'S MEASURE OF A
HOUSING BURDEN ACCORDING TO THE
REAL COST MEASURE. BAY AREA
REGION, 35% OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS
PAY OVER 30% FOR HOUSING INLAND
REGION 39, GREATER SAN DIEGO
REGION 42, CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
35. GREATER LOS ANGELES 44.
THOSE ARE REALLY STRIKING
NUMBERS AS, HOUSING INFLATION,
INFLATION, HOUSING SUPPLY,
GENERAL INFLATION AND INADEQUATE
WAGES HAVE ALL CONTRIBUTED TO A
HIGHER COST OF LIVING HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. AND NO ONE KNOWS
THAT BETTER THAN MINIMUM WAGE
EARNERS WHO STRUGGLE TO GET BY.
CALIFORNIANS NEED TO KNOW WHAT
THE BASELINES ARE WHEN IT COMES
TO DETERMINING A LIVING WAGE,
WHERE THEY RESIDE AND OR WORK.
CALIFORNIANS NEED TO KNOW WHICH
EMPLOYERS AND BUSINESSES PAY
ENOUGH TO COVER THE COST OF
LIVING IN THAT AREA.
CALIFORNIANS NEED SB 1049, AND
AS WAS ALSO NOTED, KNOWLEDGE IS
POWER. WHEN WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL
STATE LIVING WAGE FORMULA THAT
ALLOWS OUTLINES CLEARLY WHAT IT
COSTS FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE WITH
DIGNITY, WITH DIGNITY IN
CALIFORNIA VERSUS LIVING
PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK WILL HAVE
THE POWER TO ACT TO ADDRESS
THOSE GAPS. IN FACT, ADDRESSING
THOSE GAPS IN BUILDING
SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS THROUGH
STATE POLICY AND BUDGET
DECISIONS IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ROLES OF THE
LEGISLATURE. WOULDN'T IT BE NICE
TO HAVE THAT FORMULA DEVELOPED
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS TO INFORM
THOSE DECISIONS, KNOWING THAT IT
IS BASED IN EQUITY IN WHAT
COMMUNITIES NEED ACROSS THE
STATE? FOR THESE REASONS, WE
URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF SB 1049.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES. OTHER,
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR SKINNER AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS BRIAN
MIRAMONTEZ WITH ASK ME
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. GREAT.
ANY OTHERS? ALL RIGHT. DO WE
HAVE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
OKAY. SEEING NONE BACK TO THE
DAIS. MEMBERS. GO AHEAD. SENATOR
MENGIBAR. SENATOR, YOU MENTIONED
THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA, BUT
WE HAVE NONPROFITS THAT COLLECT
THIS DATA. SO WE DO HAVE SOME
DATA CURRENTLY. CORRECT. WE HAVE
SOME DATA. IT'S NOT EXACTLY ON
POINT. IT ISN'T ON POINT WITH
RESPECT TO FACTORING HOUSING
MARKET COSTS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. AND IT ISN'T WE DON'T
HAVE DATA THAT FORMS A BASELINE
FOR ESTABLISHING THE WAGE
STANDARDS THAT THE STATE HAS
SET. SO THIS WOULD BE A MORE
ROBUST COLLECTION. IT WOULD BE
MORE COMPLETE. IT WOULD BE, I
THINK, MORE ACCURATE AND I THINK
IT WOULD HAVE MUCH MORE DIRECT
IMPACT IN RELEVANCE TO POLICY,
ALONG A LOT OF FRONTS. THANK YOU
, SENATOR SATO, THANK YOU. I
THINK THIS TYPE OF, EFFORT, IT
WOULD BE A LOT MORE, BENEFICIAL
AND PROBABLY NOT MUCH AS AS MUCH
NEEDED, IF WE WERE A LITTLE BIT
BETTER AT ATTRACTING THE KIND OF
EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA, THAT
PAYS THOSE HIGHER WAGES, WE ARE
NOT DOING THAT VERY WELL. IN
CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE THE HIGHEST
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE NATION. AND
PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE THE TYPE
OF EMPLOYMENT THAT WE ARE
ATTRACTING ARE PRETTY MUCH, THE
SERVICE LEVEL JOBS. AND WE'VE
THUMBED OUR NOSES AT BIGGER
CORPORATIONS, THE EVERYONE KNOWS
THE ELON MUSK STORY, AND, AND
THE AUSTIN AREA HAS THE BENEFIT
OF A BUNCH OF JOBS THAT PAY
REALLY WELL AND WE DON'T. AND SO
I THINK CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO
REALLY LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING
TO SUPPORT OUR BUSINESSES THAT
ARE HERE, BECAUSE EVERY BUSINESS
I TALK TO, THEY'RE GETTING
HAMMERED AND, AND A LOT OF THEM
ARE CLOSING. WE CAN'T JUST KEEP
RAISING WAGES ON THE REMAINING
ONES TO TRY TO MAKE UP FOR A
LOSS IN GOOD PAYING JOBS,
ESPECIALLY IF THOSE AREN'T JOBS
THAT TRADITIONALLY PAY. WELL,
USUALLY IF THEY DON'T PAY WELL,
IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE
HIGHEST SKILLED JOBS. YOU DON'T
HAVE TO GO TO COLLEGE FOR, FOR
EIGHT YEARS TO, TO, TO DO THOSE
JOBS. OTHERWISE YOU THERE ARE
JOBS LIKE THAT. THE HEALTH CARE
INDUSTRY AND DOCTORS AND NURSES,
ETC. SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE,
BUT WITHOUT THAT OTHER PIECE OF
THE PUZZLE, BEING ADDRESSED, I
FEEL LIKE IT'S KIND OF A
FRUITLESS ADVENTURE. SO ALL
RIGHT, LET ME SEE, SENATOR
BOGUE, SORRY. SO, I COMPLETELY
UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM THAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLVE, SENATOR
PATTILLO AND I COMPLETELY AGREE
WITH YOU. THE AFFORDABILITY IN
CALIFORNIA IS INCREDIBLY,
EXPENSIVE. BUT AND I AM ALL FOR,
GATHERING DATA. I'M. I'M OKAY
WITH THAT. FOR THE MOST PART. IN
GENERAL, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE
IS THAT I DON'T THINK, THE IT'S
GOING TO HAVE THE IMPACT THAT
YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE IN
THE LONG RUN. SORT OF. I LIKEN
IT TO, THE BILLS THAT WE PASSED
LAST YEAR, INCREASING THE FOOD,
THE FAST FOOD WAGE, AND THE
HEALTH CARE WAGE, IN WHICH, YOU
KNOW, WE, WE, YOU KNOW, THE
LEGISLATURE STATED THAT, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS NOT A LIVABLE
WAGE. SO THEY INCREASE THE WAGES
OF THE FAST FOOD WORKERS. AND
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I JUST HAD
A TOWN HALL WHERE A 17, I THINK
17, 18 YEAR OLD, KID, A
DEMOCRAT, LATINO, CAME TO MY
TOWN HALL AND SAID, I'M I'M
CURIOUS AS TO YOUR OPINION ON,
ON THE ON THE WAGE INCREASES
THAT THE STATE, THE LEGISLATURE
CAME IN TO HELP PEOPLE, WITH
AFFORDABILITY IN CALIFORNIA.
AND, AND I SAID, WELL, I SHARED
MY OPINION, BUT I WANTED TO HEAR
HIS OPINION. AND I SAID, WELL,
WHAT'S YOUR OPINION? HE SAID,
WELL, I WORK IN ONE. AND WHAT I
SAW WAS THAT THE COST OF OUR OUR
BURGERS, THE FOOD THAT WE'RE
SERVING HAS GONE UP. SO IT
REALLY HAS NOT MADE MUCH OF A
DIFFERENCE IN, IN OUR SPACE
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVE
GONE UP AND I GO, SO IT'S ADDING
TO THE COST OF LIVING IN
CALIFORNIA. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING? AND HE SAID, YES.
OVERALL YES. AND IN THIS
PARTICULAR AREA, YES. IT'S
ADDING TO THE COST OF INCREASE
OF THE SERVICES OR PRODUCTS THAT
THEY'RE SELLING. AND THEN THE
OTHER, INTERESTING POINT THAT HE
SAID IS THAT NOT ONLY THAT THE
COST OF FOOD INCREASE, BUT ALSO
THE, THE HOURS THAT WERE GIVEN
WERE ACTUALLY BEING DIMINISHED.
SO HE WAS WORKING LESS HOURS. SO
A WELL INTENDED BILL TRYING TO
ADDRESS THE COSTS OF
AFFORDABILITY OR, YOU KNOW, THE
COST OF LIVING OR AFFORDABILITY
IN, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO INCREASE
THAT. BUT THE IMPACT, YOU KNOW,
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF A
WELL-INTENDED BILL WAS WHAT HE
WAS AT A VERY YOUNG AGE
OBSERVING, I'M NERVOUS THAT THIS
PARTICULAR BILL, BECAUSE IT
NOTES ON MY ANALYSIS HERE THAT
SAYS THE BENEFITS OF WAGE
INCREASES DISAPPEAR OVER TIME AS
THE MARKET RESPONDS AND RENTS
INCREASE. IF THE LIVING WAGE IS
BASED ON HOUSING COSTS. AND
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT WAGE
INCREASES RAISE HOUSING COSTS,
WHAT IS IT STOPPING OF A LIVING
WAGE FROM RESULTING IN A NEVER
ENDING INCREASE OF COST? SO
BASICALLY, IF WE INCREASE
CERTAIN WAGES, THERE'S MORE
MONEY OUT THERE, RIGHT? AND
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
AFFORD MORE. SO THE MARKET'S
GOING TO BE ABLE TO BEAR MORE IN
REAL ESTATE. RIGHT? I THINK YOU
DID. YOU DID REAL ESTATE I
THINK. DID YOU DO I DID A LOT OF
LAND USE WORK. OKAY. SO IN IN
REAL ESTATE AS THERE IS MORE
MONEY AVAILABLE WHAT DO PEOPLE
DO. THE INCREASE OF THE HOUSING
GOES UP. AND I'M AFRAID THAT
THIS BILL WILL HAVE THAT
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE IN THE
LONG RUN. THAT WELL INTENDED.
AND I AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE YOU'RE DOING HERE. BUT IF
WE'RE REALLY WANT TO ADDRESS HE
GOES BECAUSE IT WON'T MATTER
NOW. PEOPLE ALWAYS HEAR ME SAY
THIS. IT WON'T MATTER WHAT WE
PAY PEOPLE IF WE CREATE POLICIES
OR HAS UNINTENDED, HAS AN
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
RAISING THE, THE, THE GOODS AND
THE SERVICE. THE COST OF, OF THE
GOODS AND SERVICES. RIGHT. ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE THAT I
TRY TO POINT OUT IN VARIOUS
COMMITTEES IS THAT WHEN WE
INCREASE, YOU KNOW, WE EXPECT WE
HAVE EXPECTATIONS PLACED ON
BUSINESSES OR EVEN ON, ON
EVERYDAY CALIFORNIANS. THERE'S A
COST TO THAT, THAT COST HAS TO
BE BORNE BY THE CONSUMER. SO
THAT'S NOT HOW WE THAT'S NOT HOW
WE'RE GOING TO FIX THE
AFFORDABILITY. THE ONLY WAY THAT
I CAN THINK OF THAT, YOU KNOW,
MANY OF US AGREE THAT WE CAN
ACTUALLY FIX THE AFFORDABILITY
PART IN CALIFORNIA IS TO
LITERALLY LOWER THE COST. AND
HOW DO WE DO THAT? BY ENSURING
THAT WE LOWER TAXES. THE COST OF
DOING BUSINESS DOESN'T COST AS
MUCH BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT WE
IMPOSE ON ANY SPACE, IT'S GOING
TO BE PASSED DOWN TO THE
CONSUMER. AND I'M, I'M NERVOUS
THAT THIS BILL IS GOING TO HAVE
THAT UNINTENDED, WELL-INTENDED,
WELL-MEANING, BUT IN THE LONG
RUN, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO
HAVE THE IMPACT THAT, YOU KNOW,
I THINK YOU'RE HOPING FOR. SO I
WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY. BUT I DO I DO
SUPPORT PARTS OF IT. BUT JUST
THE OVERALL, I'M NERVOUS THAT IT
WILL HAVE AN UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, SENATOR PADILLA,
WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT, MADAM
CHAIR, IF I MIGHT, TO YOU AND
THE MEMBERS AND, SENATOR, JUST
TO CLARIFY, THE BILL DOES NOT
IMPACT DOES NOT SET A NEW WAGE
STANDARD. IT DOESN'T AMEND THE
STATUTE THAT SETS A MINIMUM WAGE
STANDARD IN CALIFORNIA. IT DOES
NOT RAISE WAGES. I WOULD ALSO
JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
INCREASE IN IN WAGES DOES NOT IS
NOT THE DRIVER OF THE INCREASE
IN COSTS OF HOUSING. AS A MATTER
OF FACT, PEOPLE'S ENHANCED,
MARKETABILITY OF THEIR LABOR,
THEIR ABILITY TO EARN A LIVING
OR HOUSING WAGE ACTUALLY
INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT
THEY'LL ULTIMATELY BE ABLE TO
AFFORD ACCESS TO HOUSING. ALL
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE IT? GO AHEAD,
SENATOR CORTEZ. I'M PREPARED TO
SUPPORT THE BILL, AND I'D BE
HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION WHEN
NEEDED. I JUST WANT TO SAY, I
KNOW SENATOR PADILLA IS WORKED
ON THIS NOW BEYOND JUST THIS
YEAR, PRIOR TO JUST THIS YEAR.
AND I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD A LOT
OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LABOR
SIDE OF THAT HERE IN HOUSING
COMMITTEE. BUT IF THERE WERE,
YOU KNOW, ANY, FURTHER
AFFIRMATION NEEDED AS TO WHY WE
NEED TO CENTRALIZE THIS DATA AND
GATHER THE DATA ON ON THE
HOUSING SIDE, JUST LOOK AT THE
RECENT HOMELESSNESS AUDIT, THAT
THAT CAME OUT, AND I THINK THE
BIGGEST CONCLUSION DRAWN THERE
WAS THAT THERE'S NO CENTRALIZED
DATA REPOSITORY BETWEEN THE CBOS
AND NONPROFITS AND THE CITIES.
THERE'S NONE BETWEEN THE CITIES
AND THE STATE. AND THEREFORE, WE
CAN'T DRAW CONCLUSIONS LIKE
THIS, IN ANY KIND OF A
DEFINITIVE WAY. SO I THINK, YOU
KNOW, MAYBE YOU WANT MAYBE YOU
CAN ADD SOME OF THAT TO SOME
SOMETHING ABOUT THIS MOST RECENT
AUDIT TO YOUR YOUR APPROACH,
SENATOR, JUST BECAUSE WE NOW
HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND I
THINK IT DOES SUPPORT, THE
NATURE OF YOUR BILL AND WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. SO
AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE
MOTION GREAT. WE'LL TAKE THAT AS
THE MOTION AND WE'LL SEE IF
THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS. IF
NOT, WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL. OH,
SORRY I DIDN'T GET YOU A CHANCE
TO CLOSE AT ALL. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NIVO.
GREAT. OKAY THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATOR SKINNER,
A SKINNER. AYE. OTRO BOGUE. NO
ACHO BOGUE. NO. BLAKE. SPEAR.
BLAKE. SPEAR. AYE. CABALLERO
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ
AYE. MENGIBAR. PADILLA PADILLA.
AYE. CIERTO. UMBERG WAHAB. IT'S
5 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. THE BILL WILL
STAND CALL. IT'S 5 TO 1 RIGHT
NOW. AND WE WILL GO TO, MUCH OF
OUR REAL QUICK IF YOU WANT TO Þ
ON WHICH ONE? SHE MISSED IT. OH.
THE ONE YOU WERE JUST READING.
OKAY. GO AHEAD. SORRY. MENGIBAR.
MENGIBAR. I SIX ONE. EXCELLENT.
THE BILL IS NOW 6 TO 1 ON CALL.
WE'LL GO TO OUR LAST TWO BILLS.
SAME AUTHOR ITEM SEVEN AND
EIGHT, SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR,
STARTING WITH SB 1077, WHICH IS
ITEM SEVEN.
I HOUSE THIS ARE JUST TO SUMMON
THE. OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, THEY
DON'T LOOK LIKE IT'S UNTIL SHE'S
ON HER WAY OUT, BUT. YEAH. I'M
SORRY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. AS WE ALL KNOW,
CALIFORNIA IS IN A HOUSING
CRISIS. SINCE 2010, HOMELESSNESS
HAS SKYROCKETED, SKYROCKETED 50,
AND LAST YEAR, 180,000
CALIFORNIANS DID NOT LIVE INSIDE
A HOME. WE IN THE LEGISLATURE
HAVE PASSED HUNDREDS OF BILLS TO
ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF THIS
CRISIS, WHICH IS THE
UNDERPRODUCTION OF HOUSING. ONE
OF THE MOST NOTABLE SUCCESSES
WE'VE SEEN SO FAR HAS BEEN THE
STATE'S LOOSENING OF THE
RESTRICTIONS AROUND ADDING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, OR
ADUS TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES,
WHILE ACROSS MOST OF THE STATE,
THE PROCESS OF PERMITTING AN ADU
OR A J. ADU HAS BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMPLIFIED FOR
HOMEOWNERS. HOMEOWNERS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE FACE SYSTEMIC
CHALLENGES IN PERMITTING ADU AND
J EDU PROJECTS BY HAVING TO GO
THROUGH SOMETIMES REDUNDANT CDP
PROCESS. THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF
THIS BILL, SB 1077, WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED A SIMPLE,
ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
SOLUTION BY EXEMPTING ADU AND J.
ADU PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT NEAR
SENSITIVE COASTAL NATURAL
RESOURCES FROM THE COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR CDP
PROCESS, BUT DUE TO AMENDMENTS
IN THE PREVIOUS NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE AND
OPPOSITION BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, THIS BILL NOW
DIRECTS THE COASTAL COMMISSION
TO PROVIDE IMPROVED GUIDANCE TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. THIS GUIDANCE
WILL PROVIDE CLARITY ON HOW THEY
MAY GO ABOUT UPDATING THEIR
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS OR LCP,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF STREAMLINING
THEIR ADU AND J ADU PERMITTING
PROCESSES. LSPS ARE THE PLANNING
DOCUMENTS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP AND GET
CERTIFIED BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION TO ENSURE LAND USE
AND DEVELOPMENT, MITIGATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND
PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE
COAST. CALIFORNIA'S COASTLINE
HAS SUBSTANTIAL DIVERSITY IN ITS
NATURAL RESOURCES AND
PREEXISTING LEVELS OF LAND USE
INTENSITY, SO REGULATING
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH LCP IS AN
ADVANTAGEOUS APPROACH BECAUSE IT
ALLOWS LAND USE PLANNING TO BE
TAILORED TO EACH JURISDICTION'S
INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT. OVER THE
PAST HANDFUL OF YEARS, ONLY
AROUND 19 OF THE 76 LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ON THE COAST HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY UPDATED THEIR LCP
TO STREAMLINE THE ADU PERMITTING
PROCESS. MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
HAVE REPORTED THAT THEY CHOSE
NOT TO UPDATE THEIR LCP BECAUSE
OF THE LACK OF CERTAINTY THE
COASTAL COMMISSION PROVIDES
REGARDING THE STANDARDS OF
REVIEW AND APPROVED TIMELINES
FOR THE UPDATE PROCESS. THE
GUIDANCE THAT SB 1077 REQUIRES
FROM THE COMMISSION WILL ADDRESS
THIS BY PROVIDING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS CLARITY ON THE
STANDARDS FOR ADU. RELATED LCP
UPDATES. THE GOAL OF THIS BILL
IS TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES
THAT HAVE DISINCENTIVIZED LOCALS
FROM UPDATING THEIR LPS AND
THEREBY PROMOTING LCP AMENDMENTS
THAT WILL SIMPLIFY THE ADU
PERMITTING PROCESS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE. WITH. AND. I'D
LIKE TO INVITE CATHERINE CHARLES
, WHO IS REPRESENTING BAY AREA
COUNCIL, AS MY LEAD WITNESS. IF
IT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR, SHE
WILL GIVE HER REMARKS. MY LEAD
WITNESS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CATHERINE
CHARLES AND THIS TIME I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL. THE BAY AREA COUNCIL
REPRESENTS 350 OF THE LARGEST
EMPLOYERS IN THE BAY AREA, AND
OUR MEMBERS INCLUDE MAJOR
BUSINESSES, NONPROFITS, PUBLIC
AGENCIES AND UNIONS. FEW ISSUES
ARE MORE COMPELLING TO OUR
MEMBERS THAN THAT OF HOUSING,
AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE
LEGISLATURE IN THIS AREA IN THE
PAST, SPECIFICALLY TO ACCELERATE
ADU PRODUCTION IN THE STATE.
ACCORDING TO THE TERNER CENTER,
ADUS ARE TYPICALLY AFFORDABLE
RENTALS TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE IN
THEIR AREA, MAKING THEM AN
EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF
UNSUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UNFORTUNATELY CALIFORNIA COASTAL
ZONE SEES LESS ADU PRODUCTION
BECAUSE OF EXISTING PROCESSES
MAINTAINED BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. IT'S MUCH HARDER AND
TAKES MORE TIME TO PERMIT AN ADU
IN THE COASTAL ZONE AS THE
PROCESS OFTEN REQUIRES A SQL
LIKE DOCUMENT THAT WOULD NOT BE
REQUIRED ELSEWHERE. SB 1077
SEEKS TO ADDRESS THIS BY
REQUIRING THE COASTAL COMMISSION
TO ADOPT GUIDANCE THAT CLARIFIES
AND SIMPLIFIES THE PERMITTING
PROCESS FOR ADUS. THE COUNCIL IS
PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR SB 1077, AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
HOLLY, FOR MANY DAYS IS WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF SPUR HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
HOUSING COMMISSION AND BUILD
CASA IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS SUSAN MADINET
W STRATEGIES ON BEHALF OF UNIDOS
US AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. HELLO BROOKE PRITCHARD ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, RAFA
SONNENFELD ON BEHALF OF SB
ACTION AND OUR 19 CHAPTERS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. FRANCISCO
MORALES HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION, ALSO
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS, PAUL YODER ON
THIS ONE, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA AND SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHERS
IN SPORTS SEEING NONE ANY IN
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE COMES BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. SENATOR CABALLERO,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. AND, SENATOR, I, THIS
THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OR UNITS THAT ARE
AFFORDABLE ON THE ON OR NEAR THE
COAST IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY
HEART. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
PROJECTS IN MONTEREY COUNTY THAT
WERE, STOPPED BECAUSE OF AN
OPINION BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION THAT IT WOULD
NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE COASTAL
REGION TO HAVE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE
IN THE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF, CASTROVILLE, WHICH IS A
FARM WORKER COMMUNITY THAT IS
THERE HAS BEEN LONG TIME
OPPOSITION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BY THE NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE WITHIN
A STONE'S THROW AND BIG HOUSES
AND, AND SOME OF THE INTERESTS
THAT DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY, ANY
AFFORDABLE NEAR THE NEAR NEAR
THE, THE COASTLINE. IT'S NOT
WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, QUITE
FRANKLY, BUT IT'S CLOSE AND, SO
I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE
BILL AS IT'S WRITTEN, BECAUSE IT
GIVES AN AGENCY THAT HAS
ANTIPATHY TOWARDS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. MY, MY ANALYSIS, THE
ABILITY TO TELL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WHERE AND HOW THEY SHOULD BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS THE, THE
DETERMINANT AND THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS THE COUNTY
HERE IN THIS, IN THIS EXAMPLE,
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO COME UP
WITH THEIR COASTAL PLAN AND THE
COASTAL PLAN ALLOWED HOUSING IN
THAT IN THAT REGION. SO I'M NOT
GOING TO BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL
TODAY. I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHERE
YOU'RE YOU WERE GOING WITH YOUR
ORIGINAL BILL. AND, BUT I THINK
IT'S JUST BEEN CHANGED AND IN,
IN A, IN THE DIRECTION THAT I
JUST CAN'T SUPPORT TODAY. SO I
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND,
AND, AND I WISH I COULD SUPPORT
IT, BUT QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK
IT STARTS MEDDLING WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IN A WAY THAT'S, THAT
DOES NOT HELP US TO SOLVE THE
HOUSING CRISIS. AND THAT, IS
EXTENDS THEIR REACH BEYOND WHAT
WAS INITIALLY INTENDED, WHICH IS
A CERTAIN REGION OF THE, OF THE
COAST, AND THAT IT'S ACCESS,
IT'S PROTECTING THAT ACCESS.
AND, AND PUBLIC INGRESS AND
EGRESS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT
THAT, THAT THIS IS GOING TO DO
THAT. SO THANK THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS, SENATOR. YES.
THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR. AND I KNOW THIS HAS NOT
BEEN EASY FOR SENATOR. AND I
JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE
BASED ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE TAKEN IN NAT RESOURCES AND
WHERE WE END UP HERE, AND I HAVE
SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THIS. JUST
TO BE CLEAR, THE BILL LANGUAGE
IS OBVIOUSLY SPECIFIC ONLY TO
PORTIONS OF LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAMS OR LCP, AMENDMENTS TO
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS AND
OTHERS THAT ARE WITHIN THE
COASTAL ZONE. SO THESE THE ADUS,
THE GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT THAT
THE BILL DIRECTS BE DONE BY THE
COASTAL COMMISSION IS NOT
SOMETHING NEW OR NOVEL. IT IS
THE COASTAL COMMISSION DEVELOPS
GUIDE GUIDELINES ALL THE TIME.
AND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF ONE STEP
BELOW RULEMAKING THAT OCCURS AT
THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
, SO THE MAKING OF GUIDELINES TO
GUIDE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND
UPDATING UPDATING THEIR LCP IS
NOT NEW OR UNIQUE. AND
ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO
HOUSING IN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND
YOUR BILL BASICALLY, IT SEEMS TO
ME, JUST DIRECTS THE DEVELOPMENT
OF GUIDANCE WHERE IN FACT THERE
MAY BE SOME AMBIGUITY OR A LACK
THEREOF. AND I CAN ATTEST
PERSONALLY TO THE MANY YEARS I
SERVED AT THE COMMISSION AND AS
CHAIRMAN, THAT THAT REMAINS
LACKING IN MANY AREAS. SO, I
KNOW IT'S NOT WHERE YOU STARTED
OUT AND WANTED TO GO, BUT I
DON'T I DON'T THINK THE VERSION
OF THE BILL TODAY IS ONE THAT,
IS HARMFUL OR DETRIMENTAL. I
THINK IT JUST SIMPLY ACTUALLY
FORMALIZES SOME DIRECTION TO THE
COMMISSION TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES
THAT'S LONG OVERDUE. AND SO I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL. THE
RIGHT TIME. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
SORRY, I FORGOT YOUR MIC, SO DO
WE HAVE A MOTION ON. OKAY.
SENATOR CORTESE HAS MOVED THE
BILL, LET'S, CLOSE. YOU MAY
CLOSE. YES. I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES,
SENATOR CABALLERO, YOUR SPECIFIC
EXAMPLE THAT YOU CITE. AND THEN
SENATOR PADILLA WAS THE CHAIR OF
THE COASTAL COMMISSION. SO IF
ANYTHING I SAY IS OFF, PLEASE
CORRECT ME ON THIS. BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THE
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS WORK IS
THAT WHEN A CITY HAS ADOPTED A
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LCP,
WHICH IS REQUIRED IN SENATOR
WIENER'S BILL FROM EARLIER,
WOULD WILL FORCE CITIES TO DO
THAT ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE CYCLE. SO CITIES THAT
HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO HAVE AN
APPROVED LCP WILL HAVE TO DO IT.
BUT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE ONLY 19
OF 76 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT
HAVE AN IMPROVED LCP. SO WHAT
THAT MEANS IS THAT AND CITIES
ARE NOT DOING IT BECAUSE THEY
DON'T WANT TO, TO GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS WHEN IT'S UNCERTAIN. AND
IT HAS IT WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF
MEETINGS AND STUDIES, AND THEY
DON'T SEE IT AS BEING TO THEIR
BENEFIT, SO BUT WHAT WHAT IT
WOULD DO IN PERMITTING AN ADU IS
THAT RIGHT NOW, IF A CITY
DOESN'T HAVE A LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, THE ADU PERMIT HAS TO
GO TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
AND SO WITH AN LCP, IT WOULD BE
THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO
ACTUALLY APPROVE THE ADU. AND SO
WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS
THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE
MULTIPLE LEVELS OF REGULATORY
REVIEW AND ALSO, CITIES THAT ARE
OR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE ABLE TO GET
INVOLVED AT MULTIPLE PROCESSES.
SO THIS CAN JUST TAKE A REALLY
LONG TIME. AND THERE THERE HAVE
TO BE SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES IN
ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO WANT TO RUN
THAT GANTLET. SO WHAT THIS BILL
IS DOING IS IT'S REQUIRING THE
COASTAL COMMISSION TO GIVE THIS
GUIDANCE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH
THIS BILL IS WHETHER HCD SHOULD
BE INVOLVED IN HELPING THE
COASTAL COMMISSION COME UP WITH
THE GUIDANCE, BECAUSE THEN IT
WOULD BE BASED AROUND THE
HOUSING SPECIFIC GOALS AND WHAT
MY EXPERIENCE IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, SIX YEARS AS MAYOR,
TWO ON CITY COUNCIL OF A COASTAL
CITY WAS THAT THERE WAS A SPLIT
IN THE APPROACH FROM COASTAL
COMMISSION AND HCD. SO HCD WOULD
BE ASKING THE CITY THAT WAS OUT
OF COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING LAW
TO DO SOMETHING. AND COASTAL
COMMISSION WAS SAYING, WELL,
WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, AND
WE WANT IT DONE THIS OTHER WAY
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE
IT. AND MEANWHILE, THERE'S A
TIMELINE AND BASICALLY THESE ARE
TWO EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES
THAT ARE WORKING AT CROSS
PURPOSES. AND SO ALIGNING THEM,
HAVING HCD AND THE COASTAL
COMMISSION ACTUALLY HAVE THE
SAME GOALS AND WORK TOWARD THE
SAME GOALS WITH THE SAME
UNDERSTANDING, WOULD SERVE ALL
OF US. AND IT WOULD JUST BE
BETTER. IT WOULD BE GOOD
GOVERNANCE, SO, SO WITH THAT, I
WILL, CONCLUDE AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THEN WE WILL, THIS MOTION IS DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. LET'S DO
A ROLL CALL. SENATOR SKINNER.
AYE. SKINNER. AYE. OKOBOJI. AYE.
ACHO BOGUE. AYE. BLAKE. SPEER.
AYE. BLAKE. SPEER. AYE.
CABALLERO CABALLERO. NØ. CORTEZ.
AYE. CORTEZ AYE. MENGIBAR.
MENGIBAR. AYE. PADILLA. AYE
PADILLA AYE. CIERTO. UMBERG.
WAHAB 6 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
NOW GO TO YOUR NEXT BILL, WHICH
IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB 1092.
OKAY THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. SO THIS IS ON A
SIMILAR TOPIC. SB 1092 AIMS TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AVOIDING THE COASTAL ZONE
BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF
THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
OR CDP PROCESS, APPEALS OF CDPS
CAN DRAG ON FOR YEARS, HAVE NO
TIMELINES, AND PROVIDE NO
CERTAINTY TO DEVELOP TO
DEVELOPERS. THIS CAN KILL
PROJECTS BEFORE DECISIONS ARE
EVEN MADE. THE BILL ORIGINALLY
PUT SOME TIMELINES AND FRAMEWORK
AROUND THE COASTAL COMMISSION
THAT WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE THE
LEGISLATURE HAS REQUIRED OF
CITIES, COUNTIES, AND SPECIAL
DISTRICTS, BUT WITH OPPOSITION
FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND
THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
THIS BILL NOW REQUIRES THE
COASTAL COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE AND REPORT
TO THE LEGISLATURE ON WHAT IS
CAUSING THE CDP APPEALS PROCESS
TO TAKE SO LONG. I BELIEVE THAT
THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOCUSING
ON THIS ISSUE, SPECIFICALLY OF
THE CDP APPEALS PROCESS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LETTING
THE LEGISLATURE KNOW WHAT THEY
CONSIDER TO BE THE CAUSES AND
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS IS VALUABLE.
SO THEREFORE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. DO
WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? CATHERINE CHARLES, ON
BEHALF OF HOUSING ACTION
COALITION IN SUPPORT. RAFA
SONNENFELD WITH THE NBA ACTION
IN SUPPORT. BROOKE PRITCHARD ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. SEAMUS GARRITY WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO HOUSING
COMMISSION. CIVIC WELL IN
SUPPORT. ANY OTHERS? OKAY. ANY
IN OPPOSITION? THÀNH. SO ALL
THESE PROVISIONS ARE IN IT NOW,
EVEN WITH THE GOVERNOR'S NOW?
YEAH. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION. APOLOGIES. I WAS
JUST MAKING SURE I KNOW THAT
YOUR BILL HAD, IN EFFECT, HAD TO
START ALL OVER AGAIN IN NATURAL
RESOURCES. WELL PERHAPS. I MEAN,
ANYWAY, THE LANGUAGE WAS GREATLY
CHANGED. SO I WAS JUST CHECKING
WITH THE CONSULTANT TO VERIFY
THAT OUR ANALYSIS IS THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL THAT WE
HAVE BEFORE US. OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
SO, YEAH, I DID. THERE WAS NONE,
I JUST WANT TO COMMENT BEFORE WE
TAKE A MOTION AND BEFORE YOU
CLOSE THAT IN. I AM A STRONG
SUPPORTER OF OUR COASTAL
PRESERVATION ACT. I THINK IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN ENTITY
LIKE THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO
PROTECT, THAT RESOURCE. AND, I
SHUDDER TO THINK OF WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF WE HAD NOT PASSED THAT
. BUT I ALSO FEEL THAT IT'S LIKE
IN ANY OF OUR, WELL-INTENDED
THAT WE HAVE SEEN. THAT MUCH
LESS HOUSING HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.
AND I'M NOT A PROPONENT OF
DEVELOPING HOUSING ON ANY ALONG
THE, LET'S USE THE RANDOM
EXAMPLE NOW OF, SAY, TO THE WEST
OF HIGHWAY ONE AND MOST EVERY
PLACE, AND YET THE COASTAL ZONE,
AS WE KNOW, IS LARGE, IS
RELATIVELY LARGE, AND THERE ARE
DEFINITELY AREAS OF IT THAT ARE,
YOU KNOW, THAT BOTH ARE
DEVELOPED AND COULD WITHOUT
HARMING THE RESOURCE, YOU KNOW,
BE HELP US ADDRESS OUR HOUSING
CRISIS. SO I KNOW THAT THAT WAS
YOUR INTENT WITH BOTH THESE
BILLS. AND I KNOW YOU WORKED
WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION. I
JUST HOPE THE COASTAL COMMISSION
HEARS LOUD AND CLEAR THAT WE
THAT THE THAT IS OUR INTENT. THE
LEGISLATURE WANTS US A, FOR THEM
TO BE MORE, OPEN MINDED AND
MORE, TAKE A RELOOK AT HOW THEY
HAVE DEALT WITH HOUSING AND TO
NOT, WHILE THEY MAY ACT TO, OR
AND LET'S PUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY
AND IN THEIR ACTIONS TO REVISE
THEIR, THEIR PLANS OR PROCESSES
TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT
ADD, A GREAT DEAL OF TIME OR, OR
FURTHER HURDLES. SO I JUST
WANTED TO SAY THAT BEFORE WE DO
THIS VOTE ON THIS FINAL BILL,
BECAUSE I THINK, I SHARED SOME
OF ITS DIFFERENT, BUT I JUST
WANTED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT
I REALLY WANT TO SEE THE COASTAL
COMMISSION BECOME A MUCH MORE
ACTIVE PARTNER WITH US IN
ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES, GO
AHEAD. YOU YES. YOU MAY CLOSE. I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THOSE
COMMENTS. AND I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT THAT ALL
OF US, MANY OF US, ME INCLUDED,
DEEPLY CARE ABOUT OUR COAST,
PRESERVING OUR COAST, OUR
ENVIRONMENT, AND THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S ROLE. WE IT IS IT'S
NOT THE CASE THAT IT'S MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE TO BOTH PROVIDE
HOUSING, ESPECIALLY MIXED INCOME
HOUSING, AND PROTECT OUR COAST.
WHAT WE SEE IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
THOUGH, IS THAT THERE'S A HIGH
DEGREE OF VARIABILITY,
VARIABILITY BETWEEN THE FIRST
ROAD TO THE WEST WHERE THERE'S
THE OCEAN, AND THEN SEVERAL
MILES INLAND, THAT IS A HIGHLY
DEVELOPED SUBURBAN AREA THAT'S
NOT NEAR ANY COASTAL RESOURCES.
AND THERE ARE CITIES LIKE THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, WHICH I
PARTIALLY REPRESENT, THAT HAVE
BOTH COASTAL ZONE AND NON
COASTAL ZONE AREAS. AND IT MIGHT
JUST BE ONE ROAD THAT CONTINUES
ALONG AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
BECOMES THE COASTAL ZONE. AND
THE HURDLES ONCE THAT IS THAT
THAT INVISIBLE IMAGINARY
IMPERCEPTIBLE LINE ARE ARE
CROSSED ARE JUST REALLY
SUBSTANTIAL BEALL. SO PART OF
WHAT MY BILL WAS, WAS ORIGINALLY
TRYING TO DO WAS WITH A SCALPEL
TO TRY TO CARVE OUT EXACTLY
WHICH AREAS ARE SENSITIVE
NATURAL RESOURCES, AND IT WOULD
HAVE ALLOWED THE COASTAL
COMMISSION TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.
SO IT WASN'T TAKING THEIR
AUTHORITY AWAY. BUT, BUT THE
REALITY OF, OF HAVING A COASTAL
I TAKE THE COASTAL COMMISSION
LEADERSHIP, EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP
AND BOARD MEMBERS AT THEIR WORD
THAT THEY ARE WORKING IN GOOD
FAITH AND THAT THEY WANT TO
BUILD HOUSING AS WELL, AND THEY
WANT TO HAVE TRANSIT AND THEY
WANT TO HAVE WALKABLE
COMMUNITIES. SO ALL THE THINGS,
THE POLICY GOALS AROUND CLIMATE
ACTION AND BUILDING LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES THAT WE TALK ABOUT A
LOT UP HERE, THAT THEY WANT THAT
TOO. AND PART OF IT, THOUGH, IS
THE REALITY. AND I THINK CITIES
WANT THIS, BUT THE REALITY IS
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SAID TO
CITIES, YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS
UNDER TIMELINES. YOU CAN ONLY
HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER. YOU CAN
ONLY HAVE FIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF TIME TO MAKE A
DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND THESE BASIC, SAFEGUARDS OR
REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE SURE
PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD ARE JUST
NOT THERE FOR THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. THEY HAVE A DE NOVO
REVIEW. IF SOMETHING'S APPEALED,
THEY CAN OPEN UP EVERY PART OF
THE APPEAL. THEY DO NOT HAVE
TIMELINES AND SO AS WE WORK YEAR
AFTER YEAR TO TRY TO MAKE
PROGRESS ON THIS, THESE ARE
THINGS THAT NEED ATTENTION. IT'S
OBVIOUSLY, AS THE CHAIR SAID,
AND I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING
THIS, MADAM CHAIR, HAVING THE
COASTAL COMMISSION BE AN ACTIVE
PARTNER IN COMING UP WITH
SOLUTIONS THAT WORK FOR THEM,
RECOMMENDING THINGS TO US WOULD
BE THE MOST USEFUL. I'M
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THEM ON THESE TWO BILLS,
WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIAL ORPHALI
REALLY REDUCED FROM THEIR
SHADOWS OF WHAT THEY WERE, BUT I
UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, AND I
THINK THERE'S STILL VALUABLE TO
DO, AND NOT INSTEAD OF NOT DO.
SO IT IS MOVING, SOMETHING
FORWARD. AND SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. SO I BELIEVE I
HAD A MOTION. DID I DID I NOT,
SENATOR MENGIBAR HAD MADE THE
MOTION. OKAY GREAT, WE HAD
CLOSED. LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL
THIS IS ON SB 1092. ITS DUE PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SENATOR SKINNER, A SKINNER. AYE
OKOBOJI. HI. OKOBOJI. I BLAKE
SPEAR. BLAKE. SPEAR, I
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I CORTEZ A
CORTEZ I MENGIBAR I MENGIBAR I
PADILLA I PADILLA I SERRATO I
SERRATO I UMBERG I BURKE I WAHAB
WAHHAB I 10 TO 0. ALL RIGHT, SB
1092 IS OUT 10 TO 0 WILL NOW
START. OPEN THE ROLL AND WE'LL
START WITH CONSENT CALENDAR
OKAY. CONSENT CALENDAR PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THE CURRENT VOTE
IS 7 TO 0 WITH THE CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING. AYE
CABALLERO. THIS IS CONSENT
CALENDAR. I THINK I. BURKE.
BURKE. I. WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE. 10
TO 0. ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS
OUT. THAT'S SB 937 OUT 10 TO 0.
WE'LL NOW GO TO SB 951. SENATOR
WIENER, WE JUST SENATE CALENDAR
I'M SORRY, THAT WAS THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. I'M LOOKING AT ITEM
ONE OKAY. THE CONSENT CALENDAR
IS OUT AT 10 TO 0. AND WE WILL
NOW GO TO ITEM ONE SB 937.
SENATOR WIENER. THE CURRENT VOTE
IS 6 TO 0. OKOBOJI CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I UMBERG I UMBERG I
WAHAB. WAHAB. I RETURN 9 TO 0.
ALL RIGHT. SB 937 IS OUT. THE
VOTE IS 9 TO 0. WE WILL NOW GO
TO SB 951. SENATOR WIENER, IT'S
Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 7
TO 0. SENATOR CABALLERO
CABALLERO I UMBERG I UMBERG I
WAHAB WAHAB I 10 TO 0. ALL RIGHT
SB 951 IS OUT 10 TO 0. WE'LL NOW
GO TO SB 1037. THE MOTION IS Dð.
PASS TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROLL
CALL. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO
2. THE CHAIR VOTING AYE AND THE
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. SENATOR.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
UMBERG WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE AND 7
TO 2. SO THAT BILL SB 1037 IS 7
TO 2. IT IS OUT. AND WE WILL NOW
GO TO SB 1440. NOPE. WE'LL GO TO
ITEM FIVE, SB 1500 DARAZO AND
IT'S Dð. PAST MILITARY AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS. THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 5 TO 2, WITH THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE AND THE VICE CHAIR
VOTING NO. SENATOR CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. UMBERG UMBERG.
AYE. WAHAB AND THIS IS DARAZO
WAHAB. AYE. 8 TO 2. ALL RIGHT.
THAT BILL, SB 1500 IS OUT. 8 TO
2 VOTE. WE'LL NOW GO TO SB 1049.
SENATOR PADILLA DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THE CURRENT VOTE
IS 6 TO 1 WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE AND THE VICE CHAIR VOTING NO
. SENATOR SATO, NO. SATO, NO.
UMBERG UMBERG. AYE. WAHAB WAHAB.
AYE. 8 TO 2. ALL RIGHT. SB 1049
IS OUT. 8 TO 2 WILL NOW GO TO SB
1077. BLAKE SPEAR DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THE CURRENT VOTE
IS 6 TO 1 WITH THE CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATOR
CIERTO. CIERTO AYE. UMBERG AYE.
UMBERG AYE. WAHAB. THAT IS 8 TO
1. ALL RIGHT SB 1077 BLAKE IS
OUT 8 TO 1. AND WE'LL GO TO THE
FINAL ONE. DO WE HAVE EVERYBODY
ON THE FINAL ONE. YES WE DID. SO
WE'VE NOW HAVE ALL THE BILLS
COMPLETED I APPRECIATE
EVERYONE'S AND STAFF. THANK YOU.
I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE PAUSE
NOW BEFORE ASSEMBLY BILLS COME
OVER. SO YOU WON'T SEE US FOR A
LITTLE WHILE. BUT THANK YOU,
STAFF. AND, THANK YOU MEMBERS.
AND WE ARE NOW CONCLUDE
ADJOURNED