THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WILL COME TO
ORDER. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR
THIS MEETING OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
WE WELCOME THE PUBLIC IN PERSON,
AND WE ARE HOLDING OUR COMMITTEE
HEARINGS HERE IN THE Þ STREET
BUILDING. I ASK ALL MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, TO PLEASE JOIN US
TO ESTABLISH QUORUM. WE HAVE 13
BILLS ON TODAY'S AGENDA. WE
DON'T HAVE QUORUM. WE DON'T HAVE
QUORUM. SO WE'RE GOING TO
PROCEED AS A SUBCOMMITTEE AND
WE'RE READY TO HEAR FROM OUR
FIRST AUTHOR, SENATOR CORTEZ.
SURE. WELL, LET GO AHEAD.
GO AHEAD. MR. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
SENATORS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT SB
915 TO YOU TODAY, THE BILL
ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
WEIGH IN ON THE OPERATIONS OF
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE SERVICES, OR
AVS, IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.
CURRENTLY, AV OPERATIONS ARE
APPROVED OR DENIED AT THE STATE
LEVEL BY THE DMV OR THE PUC
THROUGH THOUGH THEY HOLD
PROCEEDINGS TO GATHER PUBLIC
INPUT, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT
THE STATE WILL CONSIDER LOCAL
CONCERNS. THESE CONCERNS ARE
JUSTIFIABLE. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN HUNDREDS
OF ACCIDENTS FOR EXAMPLE, IN SAN
FRANCISCO, THE FIRST CITY WHERE
THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE
IN 2023. AS MANY KNOW, BECAUSE
IT'S BEEN WELL PUBLICIZED, THE
SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT
REPORTED MORE THAN 70 INSTANCES
OF DRIVERLESS VEHICLES
INTERFERING WITH EMERGENCY
RESPONSE IN INCLUDING A VERY
SERIOUS ACCIDENT THERE.
GOVERNANCE OF LOCAL STREETS AND
ROADS HAS LONG FALLEN UNDER THE
SHARED JURISDICTIONS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. THE OPERATION OF AV
SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. IT
SHOULD BE A HYBRID OF STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OVERSEEING
MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATION WITH OR
WITHOUT DRIVERS. LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS CURRENTLY DO NOT
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO
RISING FREQUENCY OF INCIDENTS.
OPERATIONS CONTINUE TO BE
APPROVED AND MORE AND MORE
CITIES AND COUNTIES WITHOUT THE
OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMUNITIES
THEMSELVES. UNDER 915. SENATE
BILL 915. WHEN A STATE AGENCY
LIKE THE DMV OR THE PUC APPROVES
OPERATIONS FOR AN AV SERVICE,
THEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN PASS
ORDINANCES TO REGULATE THESE
VEHICLES WITHIN THEIR
JURISDICTIONS. THESE ORDINANCES
WOULD ALLOW FOR LIMITS ON
SERVICE RATES, HOURS OF
OPERATION, NUMBER OF VEHICLES
OPERATING IN A GIVEN TIME, AND
LOCAL ORDINANCES MUST INCLUDE A
POLICY FOR AVS TO ENTER INTO
THEIR JURISDICTION.
ADDITIONALLY, IF A STATE AGENCY
AUTHORIZES AV OPERATIONS, AV
COMPANIES CAN STILL MOVE FORWARD
WITH OPERATIONS EVEN IF A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS SLOW OR DOES NOT
PASS AN ORDINANCE. IF THERE'S NO
ORDINANCE, THE DEFAULT
GUIDELINES WILL BE WHAT THE
STATE AGENCY HAS ON THE BOOKS,
WHAT THEY'VE APPROVED AT THAT
POINT, SB 915 ALSO ALLOWS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO CREATE PERMITTING
PROCESSES AND ESTABLISH
PENALTIES FOR AVS THAT COMMIT
MOVING VIOLATIONS AND OBSTRUCT
TRAFFIC. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY
ALSO FORM JPAS IF THEY CHOOSE
TO, WHICH WOULD COLLABORATIVELY
REGULATE SERVICES ACROSS THEIR
JURISDICTIONS SHOULD THEY FEEL
THAT THAT'S NECESSARY. THIS BILL
REQUIRES ALL AV COMMERCIAL
PASSENGER SERVICE COMPANIES TO
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
DISABILITY ACCESS LAWS, PROVIDE
AN OVERRIDE SYSTEM FOR EMERGENCY
RESPONDERS, AND TRAIN EMERGENCY
RESPONDERS ON HOW TO MANUALLY
OVERRIDE THE VEHICLES. SB 915
HAS RECEIVED BROAD SUPPORT FROM
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND WORKERS
WITH US TODAY TO TESTIFY. WE
HAVE MATT BROAD WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS AND DAMON
CONKLIN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF CITIES, I'D
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE,
VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME,
MADAM CHAIR. I'LL TURN IT BACK
OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. JUST AS A REMINDER,
WELCOME IS, WE HAVE TWO MINUTES
EACH FOR OUR PRIMARY WITNESSES.
AFTER THE PRIMARY WITNESSES, WE
WILL ALLOW ME TO CHOOSE FROM ANY
ONE IN THE PUBLIC. GREAT. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, OR I SHOULD SAY,
MEMBER MATT BROAD HERE. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEAMSTERS, WE ARE PROUD TO
CO-SPONSOR SB 915, WHICH ALLOWS
LOCAL CITIES TO WORK
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE CPUC AND
DMV TO REGULATE AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLE SERVICES. THIS IS ABOUT
INSTILLING SORT OF SOME
SEMBLANCE OF LOCAL CONTROL WITH
RESPECT TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES. HOW WE GOT
HERE. WE WERE LOOKING AT WHAT WE
THINK IS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT
PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, WE AND
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS HAVE ENGAGED
THOROUGHLY WITH THE CPUC AND DMV
AND IT FELT THAT THERE HASN'T
NECESSARILY BEEN MEANINGFUL
INCORPORATION OF SOME OF OUR
FEEDBACK, OUR CONCERNS. I THINK
THAT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR,
THROUGHOUT THE LAST YEAR OR SO,
AS WE'VE SEEN, THESE SERVICES
CONTINUE TO BE DEPLOYED. AND
THAT'S WHERE SB 915 COMES IN
AFTER THE STATE ISSUES A
DEPLOYMENT PERMIT THROUGH ITS
RELEVANT AGENCY, A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT MAY. AND I'LL SAY
THAT AGAIN, MAY ENACT AN
ORDINANCE THAT CONTEMPLATES
AREAS SUCH AS VEHICLE CAPS,
HOURS OF SERVICE, INTERACTIONS
WITH FIRST RESPONDERS AND ADA
COMPLIANCE, THAT THE IDEA BEING
THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO
INCORPORATE THAT, THESE GROUPS
EXPERIENCES AND MAKE SURE THAT'S
REFLECTED IN A LOCAL ORDINANCE,
THAT DOESN'T PREEMPT WHAT THE
STATE'S DOING, BUT ALLOWS LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO GO BEYOND, ABOVE
AND BEYOND WHERE NECESSARY. I'LL
JUST SAY THAT THE BILL IS A
PRODUCT OF ITS SPONSORS AND
SUPPORTERS, WHICH INCLUDES
ORGANIZED LABOR, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, FIREFIGHTER,
DISABILITY RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA,
AND MORE. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GO
AHEAD. MR. CONKLIN. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND GOOD MORNING, DAIMON
CONKLIN WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, CALIFORNIA
CITIES, SUPPORT THE AV INDUSTRY.
WE WANT TO SEE THE INDUSTRY
CONTINUE TO GROW, INNOVATE AND
FLOURISH. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT
SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND LACKS
PARITY AND TRANSPARENCY. LOCAL
CITIES KNOW, MAINTAIN AND POLICE
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS BEST NOT
THE STATE. YET WE HAVE A SYSTEM
THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN THE DEPLOYMENT OF
AVS ONTO OUR STREETS. LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HAVE EXTENSIVE
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE,
OFFERING MORE FITTING SOLUTIONS
THAN THE DMV'S GENERALIZED
APPROACH. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
USED TO REGULATING TRAFFIC,
SCHOOL ZONES, AIRPORTS AND YET,
AND MUNICIPALITIES KNOW WHAT'S
BEST WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING
THEIR STREETS SAFE BECAUSE THEY
ARE RUN BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO
RESIDE IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY
OVERSEE. BUT RIGHT NOW, LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE ZERO CONTROL
OVER THE HUNDREDS OF AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLES WREAKING HAVOC UPON OUR
ROADS. IN FACT, THE STATE IS
ALLOWING AV COMPANIES TO EXPAND,
AND ROBO TAXIS WILL BE ABLE TO
OPERATE ON ANY PUBLIC ROAD
WITHIN ANY GIVEN MUNICIPALITY.
24 OVER SEVEN IN ANY WEATHER
CONDITION AROUND VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS SUCH AS ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS, REGARDLESS OF LOCAL
CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF
VEHICLES THAT ARE DEPLOYED
THROUGHOUT THEIR COMMUNITY, OR
EVEN TO PROTECT CONSUMERS BY
ESTABLISHING A CEILING RATE FOR
SERVICES WE RECOGNIZE AS THE
INDUSTRY GROWS, THERE ARE
CHALLENGES THAT REQUIRE
ADJUSTMENTS. SB 915 IS ONE OF
THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. SB 1915 WILL
PROVIDE MUNICIPALITIES A VOICE
IN AN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
DEPLOYMENT BY ALLOWING CITIES,
IF THEY SO CHOOSE, TO ADOPT A
LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT TAKES INTO
CONSIDERATION NECESSARY
GUARDRAILS FOR THAT LOCAL
COMMUNITY. CITIES SHOULD BE
INVOLVED, NOT IGNORED. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR SENATE
BILL 915. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
STEP UP AND IN SUPPORT OF SB
915? PLEASE COME UP. SCOTT BRANT
WITH THE SMART TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
SCOTT, WHICH ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
IN SUPPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE PIPE TRADES AND THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MEGAN SUPERS, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS CO-SPONSOR IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS,
ELMER LAZARD, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
CO-SPONSORS AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. MELISSA LOVATO, ON BEHALF
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MAKI SIDRA, ON BEHALF
OF THE SUPERVISORS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, GREGORY KRAMER, ON
BEHALF OF DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT,
IT HAS VERY BEDROCK PROTECTIONS
FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. SERGIO ARRANAGA
REPRESENTING TEAMSTERS LOCAL
350. AND WE'RE IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, JIMMY
THIESSEN, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 315.
I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 915.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, DALE
WENTZ ON BEHALF OF TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 150 WE SUPPORT THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, BRIAN MARSHALL
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 350. WE ARE IN
DEFINITE STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JOEY GÓMEZ
VICE PRESIDENT LOCAL 350 IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MATTHEW CASTILLO,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 350 IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. OKAY NOW WE'LL MOVE
ON, WE WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
ESTABLISH QUORUM. IF WE CAN.
SENATORS. DURAZZO. DURAZZO.
PRESIDENT SATO. SATO. PRESENT.
DOLLY. GLASER GLASER. PRESENT.
SKINNER. WAHAB WAHAB. PRESENT.
WIENER WIENER. PRESENT. YOU HAVE
A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED NOW
WITH ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
. THANK YOU. YOU CAN. WE HAVE
TWO. OKAY AND AGAIN, REMINDER
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. YES
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS KURT
AUGUSTINE. I'M THE SENIOR
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION. AND I'M ALSO HAPPY
TO SAY THAT I'M ALSO
REPRESENTING 68 OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE INCLUDING
DISABILITY ORGANIZATIONS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT LEADERS, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BILL.
AV COMPANIES ARE COMMITTED TO
SAFETY. AV TECHNOLOGY IS POISED
TO INCREASE SAFETY, MOBILITY AND
ECONOMIC BENEFITS IN OUR CITIES.
HOWEVER, SB 15 CREATES
ROADBLOCKS TO THIS PROGRESS.
THAT SAID, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SHOULD BE INVOLVED, BUT NOT IN
THE MANNER THAT SB 915
ENVISIONS. THIS BILL WOULD
CREATE A PLETHORA OF SEPARATE
ENTITIES CREATING THEIR OWN
OPERATING RULES, WHICH WOULD
CREATE AN UNWORKABLE, CRAZY
QUILT OF LAWS FOR COMPANIES TO
TRY TO COMPLY WITH. ALSO, THE
BILL IS IN CONFLICT WITH LONG
STANDING POLICY IN THIS STATE
REGARDING THE USE OF VEHICLES.
CALIFORNIA LAW DOES NOT ALLOW
CITIZENS TO DETERMINE WHAT
VEHICLES CAN ENTER THE CITY TO
OPERATE. YES, BUT ENTER THE
CITY. NO. THIS IS NOT LIKE
TAXIS. THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR
OUR CITIES TO BAN AV TECHNOLOGY
FROM ENTERING THEIR CITY. EVEN
IF IT'S EVEN IF IT IS LICENSED
BY ANOTHER CITY. CITIES CANNOT
DO THAT WITH TAXIS. THE
POTENTIAL EXISTS WITH THIS BILL.
AS I SAID, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
NEED TO AND ARE CURRENTLY
INVOLVED. THEY ARE INVOLVED
THROUGH LOCAL NOTIFICATION UNDER
THE DMV PROCESS, LAW ENFORCEMENT
INTERACTION PLANS, AND THERE ARE
MANY OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PARTICIPATE
DURING THE TESTING PERMIT
PROCESS, AV MANUFACTURERS MUST
CERTIFY AND LET LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS KNOW THAT THEY'RE
TESTING THEIR. THEY MUST ALSO
PROVIDE THE LIST OF VEHICLES AND
ALL ROADS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
BE TESTING ON. WHEN THE TESTING
IS OCCURRING, AND THE NUMBER OF
VEHICLES ALSO WORK CLOSELY WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, WITH
THE INTERACTION PLANS THAT TELL
AGENCIES, INCLUDING ALL FIRST
RESPONDERS, TO DO THAT. AND ALSO
OBVIOUSLY, CITIES CAN STILL
ENFORCE THE APPLICABLE TRAFFIC
LAWS AND LOCAL RULES OF THE
ROAD. WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN
ISSUES UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
DMV AND CUP REGULATORY PROCESS,
THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR OVER A
DECADE AND THERE HAVE BEEN
MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. SO IF
THERE'S IF THERE IS A
CONVERSATION TO BE HAD ABOUT
THIS AND IT'S IMPORTANT, IT IS
WE AND THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT BE
HEARD, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS
CONVERSATION SHOULD EXIST WITHIN
THE EXISTING CONFINES OF THE
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES HI. MY
NAME IS MIGUEL ARIAS. I'M
COUNCILMEMBER FOR THE CITY OF
FRESNO AND A BOARD MEMBER FOR
VTA THAT OVERSEES $1 BILLION
TRANSPORTATION TAX PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL VALLEY. FRESNO IS A
MAJOR METRO FOR THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. NEARLY 4 MILLION
RESIDENTS, THE VAST MAJORITY ARE
RURAL COMMUNITIES THAT PRODUCE A
NATION'S FOOD SUPPLY.
FURTHERMORE, OUR REPRESENTED ZIP
CODE THAT HAS THE HIGHEST
CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY AND THE
WORST AIR BASIN IN THE COUNTRY,
AND ALSO HOME TO FUTURE HIGH
SPEED RAIL STATION. WITH THAT, I
COME TO YOU TO EXPRESS MY
OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 915
THAT WOULD GRANT OUR CITY AND
500 OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THE
ABILITY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO REGULATE AND SIGNIFICANTLY
LIMIT THE AV INDUSTRY. YOU HEARD
ME RIGHT. I'M A LOCAL POLITICIAN
THAT DOESN'T WANT YOUR JOB. I
BELIEVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS
YOURS AND YOU HAVE ALL THE RIGHT
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ROOM. AS AN
ALLY OF LABOR, YOU HAVE THE
EXPERTS IN AV INDUSTRY. YOU HAVE
THE SIGNIFICANT STAFF SUPPORT TO
REGULATE THIS INDUSTRY
STATEWIDE. I'M FULLY CONFIDENT
THAT THE DMV, THE CPUC, FEDERAL
AGENCIES, MY STATE AND LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS, MEMBER
ARAMBULA AND SORIA, THE
GOVERNOR, THE TEAMSTERS, ALL ARE
BETTER POSITIONED PREPARED TO
REGULATE THIS INDUSTRY STATEWIDE
. FURTHERMORE, IT IS, VERY
DIFFICULT FOR US TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE US TO
FRONT THE COST OF RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT AT
BEST FOR A PATCHWORK OF
REGULATIONS ACROSS INVISIBLE
LINES AT A TIME THAT OUR BUDGETS
ARE DECREASING, OR ACCORDING TO
A STATE, AS THE VALLEY'S LARGEST
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, WE ONLY
HAVE TWO EMPLOYEES AND ONE IS
THE ADMINISTRATIVE,
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY. WE
DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO
ENGAGE IN THIS REGULATION
DEVELOPMENT. THIRD, THIS LOCAL
CONTROL IS BEING PROPOSED TO US,
IS NOT BEING REQUESTED BY US. IF
FRANKLY, IT FEELS LIKE A SETUP
FOR HUNDREDS OF LOCAL SCAPEGOATS
TO BLAME WHEN WE LIMIT THE
INNOVATION OF ABS IN CALIFORNIA,
A STATE THAT PRIDES ITSELF AS
LEADING THE WORLD IN TECH,
SIMPLY, I ASK THAT YOU NOT
ASSIGN US THIS RESPONSIBILITY
AND MICROMANAGE THIS WORK. I
SIMPLY ASK YOU TO LEAD. I'M
CONFIDENT THAT YOUR ABILITY AND
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT STAKEHOLDERS
IN THE ROOM TO ENGAGE IN THIS
PROCESS AND URGE YOUR OPPOSITION
TO SENATE BILL 915. THANK YOU.
WE REALLY DON'T NEED THAT WORK.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ANY FURTHER OPPOSITION FROM THE
PUBLIC? AND AGAIN, YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS THEO PIHOS REPRESENTING
FORD, ALSO IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING. TIM TAYLOR WITH THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DELIVERY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, CATHERINE CHARLES, ON
BEHALF OF BAY AREA COUNCIL IN
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUSINESS
FEDERATION, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. LIZZIE
KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF TESLA,
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. EMMA GONZALEZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HISPANIC CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE,
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. AIDEN LEE
SULLIVAN REPRESENTING WAYMO, THE
ONLY COMPANY OPERATING
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. COMMERCIALLY IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, AUSTIN
HAYWORTH, ON BEHALF OF WABI, A
SAN FRANCISCO BASED HEAVY DUTY
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE DEVELOPER.
OUR ISSUE IS THE INCLUSION OF
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. WE'RE
OPPOSED. THANKS. THANK YOU,
CHARLES WATSON, ON BEHALF OF
ZOOX, IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU,
DEAN TALLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. TIMOTHY BURR ON BEHALF
OF AURORA INNOVATION AND TECHNET
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. KATIE STEVENS ON BEHALF
OF NURO, CURRENTLY DEPLOYING IN
THE BAY AREA GOODS MOVEMENT
VEHICLE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. OKAY. NO MORE. ALL RIGHT. IF
THERE'S NO MORE, COMMENTS FROM
THE PUBLIC, THEN WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO OUR COMMITTEE,
MEMBERS COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. GO
AHEAD. I'M STILL TRYING TO
GATHER MY. YEAH YES, SENATOR,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR
AND I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND THE SPONSORS FOR ENGAGING
WITH ME, SO THE ORIGINAL VERSION
OF THIS BILL, IT CREATED A
GLOBAL STATEWIDE WIDE BAN ON ANY
AND ALL AVS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, LITERALLY JUST A
SHUTDOWN OF AVS IN CALIFORNIA
STARTING ON JANUARY 1ST. AND
THEN CITIES, IF THEY CHOSE TO,
COULD THEN OPT IN TO RE LEGALIZE
THEM. AND OF COURSE, WE KNOW
MANY CITIES PROBABLY WOULD NEVER
EVEN GET AROUND TO IT. IT'S YOU
KNOW, IT'S A BIG UNDERTAKING FOR
CITIES TO DO THAT, AND I MADE
CLEAR TO THE AUTHOR AND TO THE,
TO THE SPONSOR THAT THERE WAS NO
WAY THAT I WOULD CAST A VOTE IN
COMMITTEE OR OTHERWISE, TO
GLOBALLY BAN AVS IN CALIFORNIA.
I THOUGHT THAT WENT TOO FAR, AND
IT REALLY WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. THE INTENT OF
THE SUPPORTERS TO BE. AND I, SO
I MADE THAT VERY CLEAR. AND I'M
VERY APPRECIATIVE THAT THE
AUTHOR, AMENDED THE BILL TO
REMOVE OF THAT AND TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT IF THIS BILL WERE TO PASS
IN THIS FORM AND BE SIGNED INTO
LAW, THEN ON JANUARY FIRST, THE
STATUS QUO WOULD PREVAIL AND
THEN CITIES, IF THEY CHOSE TO AT
SOME POINT IN TIME, COULD ENACT
REGULATIONS. SO, THAT WILL,
BASED ON THAT. AND I'M VERY
APPRECIATIVE FOR THAT. I WILL BE
VOTING TODAY TO ADVANCE THIS
BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE SO THAT
THE CONVERSATION CAN CONTINUE,
AND THE AUTHOR AND SPONSORS CAN
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE BILL.
THIS IS THE FIRST COMMITTEE, AND
I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO
SHUT THAT CONVERSATION DOWN, I
DO BELIEVE THAT. I DO WANT TO
JUST STRESS. AND I'VE SAID THIS
TO THE SPONSORS AND TO THE
AUTHOR, THE BILL IMPRINT. NOW,
EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN AMENDED
TO THE POINT THAT WILL ALLOW ME
TO, TO SUPPORT PUTTING IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE, I STILL DO HAVE
SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE BILL
IN IN PRINT, AND IT'S I HAVE
HISTORICALLY BEEN VERY HESITANT
TO GIVE CITIES THE ABILITY TO. I
HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH CITIES
BEING HAVING SOME LATITUDE
AROUND MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.
I HAVE HISTORICALLY HAD SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT GIVING CITIES
BROAD LATITUDE TO SIGNIFICANTLY
RESTRICT OR EFFECTIVELY BAN
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, BECAUSE
IT CREATES ALL SORTS OF ISSUES
IN TERMS OF PATCHWORK. AND CAN
YOU BE IN THIS CITY OR THAT
CITY, YOU KNOW, I'VE GIVEN THIS
EXAMPLE, MY OWN BELOVED CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO EFFECTIVELY
DESTROYED THE E-SCOOTER INDUSTRY
IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND IT'S
REALLY HARD. YOU KNOW, WE HAD A
ROBUST E-SCOOTER SYSTEM IN THE
CITY. WE NO LONGER HAVE IT
BECAUSE OF JUST A LOT OF,
FRANKLY, THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF
DYNAMICS AT PLAY, INCLUDING A
LOT OF JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, GET
THE KIDS OFF MY PORCH KIND OF
ATTITUDES AROUND E-SCOOTERS AND
THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BASICALLY DESTROYED THAT
INDUSTRY. AND I DON'T THINK THE
CITY SHOULD HAVE HAD THE ABILITY
TO DO THAT. I KNOW IT'S A VERY
DIFFERENT THING, AND THERE ARE
MUCH OTHER ISSUES HERE AROUND
JOBS AND SUCH, SO I DON'T WANT
TO COMPARE THEM EXACTLY, BUT I,
I JUST HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS
ABOUT THAT. WHILE THE BILL DOES
NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOW CITIES TO
BAN AVS, THE LATITUDE IT GIVES
CITIES AROUND VEHICLE CAPS AND
HOURS OF OPERATION AND MAXIMUM
RATES AND SO FORTH IN
COMBINATION COULD COULD EFFECT
ORPHALI ALLOW CITIES TO BAN,
THIS MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. I
WANT TO SAY I'M VERY SENSITIVE
TO THE JOB, ISSUE, AND I, I, I,
YOU KNOW, AND I THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF CONCERN AROUND
PARTICULARLY DELIVERY, AND THIS
IS NOT A DELIVERY BILL. THIS
GOES WAY, WAY BEYOND JUST,
DELIVERY. IF IT WERE A DELIVERY
BILL, THAT'S ITS OWN SORT OF
CONVERSATION. AND BUT THIS IS A
VERY, VERY BROAD BILL, SO AND I
ALSO JUST WANT TO CLOSE JUST
BECAUSE I HAVE SINCE I HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT
TRANSPORTATION, WHICH I ALWAYS
LOVE TO TALK ABOUT, THAT WHILE,
YOU KNOW, AVS CAN SERVE A VERY,
VERY REAL PURPOSE CARS OR CARS,
WHETHER THEY HAVE HUMAN DRIVERS
OR ARE AUTONOMOUS OR WHETHER
THEY'RE FOSSIL FUEL OR ELECTRIC,
AND WE GOT TO HAVE A BETTER
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN
THE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
SO JUST PREACH ABOUT THAT,
SEPARATE FROM THE DISCUSSION
ABOUT AVS, SO WITH THAT, I WILL
BE VOTING TO ADVANCE THE BILL
TODAY AND I WILL SEE WHAT COMES
ON THE FLOOR. AND THEN I WILL
TAKE A LOOK AT THE BILL. BUT THE
BILL I'M PRINTED, I DO CONTINUE
TO HAVE SERIOUS, SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU. I FEEL
LIKE I'M A MILE AWAY FROM THIS
THING. OKAY, GREAT, SO I KIND OF
HAVE SOME SIMILAR CONCERNS, MY
CONCERN IS, IS I'M A LITTLE
CONFLICTED BECAUSE I'M ALL FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
TECHNOLOGIES AND BECAUSE SOME OF
THOSE NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE
REALLY BENEFICIAL TO PEOPLE THAT
CAN'T USE EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES.
AND IT CAN MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR
A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND AT THE SAME
TIME, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE
DEVELOPING THAT TECHNOLOGY
THROUGHOUT, LIKE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN ORDER TO DO THAT
TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOP IT THE
RIGHT WAY, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE
TO WORK IN THOSE DIFFERENT
AREAS, BUT I'M ALSO, VERY
COGNIZANT OF THE CITIES, HAVING,
YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY IS A LITTLE
DIFFERENT, THEIR STREET LAYOUTS
ARE DIFFERENT. THEIR DOWNTOWNS
ARE DIFFERENT. AND SO CITIES
NEED THE ABILITY TO CREATE SOME
GUARDRAILS. BUT I DON'T LOOK AT
THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR
THEM TO, YOU KNOW, CREATE MORE
FUNDING FOR EVERYTHING, BECAUSE
AND THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, I'M
SEEING A LITTLE BIT OF THAT IS,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU
START TALKING ABOUT PERMIT FEES
AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT SEEMS
LIKE MORE THE CONCERN IS MORE,
LET'S RAISE THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE SOME MONEY.
AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW,
EVERYBODY NEEDS TO RAISE MONEY
IN GOVERNMENT. BUT MY CONCERN IS
MORE ABOUT MAKING SURE WE HAVE
THE BALANCE BETWEEN NEW
TECHNOLOGY, HAVING THE ABILITY
TO DEVELOP AND THE APPROPRIATE
GUARDRAILS IS THE ABILITY TO, TO
, ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE
GUARDRAILS, FOR THAT NEW
TECHNOLOGY GIVEN THE UNIQUENESS
OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE.
SO CITIES DO HAVE TO HAVE A SAY,
BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT THIS
BILL EITHER. IT LOOKS LIKE IT
MAY GIVE THEM TOO MUCH OF A SAY,
AND IT MIGHT BE IN SOMETHING
DIFFERENT THAT WILL ACTUALLY
RESTRICT THE ABILITY FOR THE AV
INDUSTRY, TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP
THEIR TECHNOLOGY. AND AS THEY
DEVELOP THAT, YOU MAY FIND THAT
OR THEY MAY FIND THAT THERE ARE
AREAS THAT IT JUST DOESN'T WORK
THAT WELL. AND, AND, YOU KNOW,
AT THAT POINT THEY CAN DECIDE
NOT TO BE THERE. AND THE CITIES
CAN, CAN ALSO, ADDRESS IT AT
THAT TIME, SO YOU KNOW, FOR ME,
I'M KIND OF LOOKING AT BETWEEN
HERE AND WHEN WE SEE IT AGAIN,
THAT IT, THEY WORK ON THIS TO
MAKE SURE THOSE GUARDRAILS HAVE
A LITTLE BIT OF BALANCE TO THEM,
A LITTLE BIT OF THE LESS PERMITS
AND REGULATIONS, A LITTLE BIT
MORE OF SAFETY AND CONCERN ABOUT
HOW IT AFFECTS THE, THE, THE
CITY AND IN PARTICULAR, YOU
KNOW, THE PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT
EACH OF THESE CITIES MIGHT HAVE,
SO I'M PROBABLY LAYING OFF THIS
TODAY AND, AND THEN HOPEFULLY IF
IT DOES GET THROUGH THAT, WE CAN
GET THOSE THINGS ADDRESSED OUT.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THEN
HOPEFULLY THE BALANCE WILL BE
THERE THAT WILL MAKE ME
COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR IT. THANK
YOU. SENATOR GLASER, THANK YOU,
WELL, SENATOR CORTESE, I
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK IN THIS
AREA. I KNOW YOUR CONCERNS THAT
YOU'VE LAID OUT FOR SAFETY AND,
ADA COMPLIANCE, HOURS OF
SERVICE. I KNOW THEY'RE ALL
HEARTFELT, THEY THEY AND I THINK
ALL THOSE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT,
I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW,
ANYTIME WE'RE DEALING WITH NEW
TECHNOLOGY, THERE'S ALWAYS NEW
ISSUES, AS HAS BEEN JUST, YOU
KNOW, MENTIONED BY SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES, BUT A PART OF WHY WE
WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND NURTURE
THAT, THAT SPACE, NOT JUST
BECAUSE A LOT OF IT'S CALIFORNIA
BORN, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING
FOR WAYS TO HAVE GREATER
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY, FIND
WAYS TO LOWER COSTS, FIND WAYS
TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER,
AND WHILE YOU KNOW THERE IS AND
A PART OF NEW TECHNOLOGY IS
TESTING, I HAVE A MAJOR TESTING
FACILITY IN MY DISTRICT AND WAS
JUST OUT THERE A FEW MONTHS AGO
TRYING OUT SOME OF THE NEW
TECHNOLOGY, THE NEW VEHICLES,
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES THAT
HOPEFULLY WILL BE IN A COMMUNITY
NEAR ALL OF US SOON. AND I, BUT
BUT HERE'S WHERE I THINK MY
ENCOURAGEMENT TO YOU IS YOU. IF
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD, IS THAT
I. I THINK THERE'S A WAY TO
ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE ISSUES IN
THE EXISTING REGULATORY
ENVIRONMENT THAT WE HAVE THE DMV
AND THE PUC ALL, AS YOU KNOW,
HAVE AUTHORITY IN THIS SPACE.
AND SO ALL THOSE ISSUES OF
SAFETY STANDARDS AND I KNOW WE
HAD FOLKS, TESTIFY FROM THE
FIRE, THE FIRE ASSOCIATION A FEW
MINUTES AGO. THERE COULD BE A
REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE LOCAL
FIRE CHECKOFF AS AN EXAMPLE, OUR
STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES COULD
PUT ADA COMPLIANCE STANDARDS IN.
THEY COULD, THEY COULD EVEN
REQUIRE A CERTAIN TYPES OF LOCAL
CONSULTATION. THEY COULD PUT
LIMITATIONS ON HOURS OF SERVICE.
I MEAN, ALL THOSE THINGS, ALL
THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE
LEGITIMATE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE
BRINGING BEFORE US IN THE FORM
OF THIS BILL, ALL COULD BE DONE,
THROUGH THE EXISTING REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS THAT I DO
THINK THAT A THE OPTION FOR A
LOCAL ORDINANCE WILL BRING
POLITICS ABOUT AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLES TO A POLITICAL
CHECKERBOARD IN OUR STATE. WE
KNOW HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE FOR
THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS, WE'VE
HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS AND
BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN ADVANCED ON
AUTONOMOUS TRUCKS, AUTONOMOUS
THIS AUTONOMOUS THAT AUTONOMOUS
USE AT OUR PORTS. THAT WAS AN
ISSUE THAT CAME UP 5 OR 6 YEARS
AGO. WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE
STATE MONEY GO TO ALLOW
AUTONOMOUS, USE AT THE PORTS AND
THERE SPIRITED DEBATES. YOU
KNOW, A GOOD PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
COME AT THOSE ISSUES FROM
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. AND IT'S
A HEALTHY DEBATE, AND BUT IT'S A
DEBATE NOW UNDER A BILL LIKE
YOURS THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO
PUSH DOWN INTO, YOU KNOW, 500 OR
MORE JURISDICTIONS IN OUR STATE.
AND I AND THAT'S A CHECKERBOARD.
I DON'T THINK WE I DON'T THINK
WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE IT. I AM SO
ALIGNED WITH YOU ON THE, ON ON
LOCAL CONTROL ISSUES LIKE YOU
ARE ADDRESSING HERE IN YOUR
BILL. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A
MEMBER OF THE SENATE. I WILL GO
OUT ON A LIMB THAT AS I ENTER MY
10TH YEAR IN THE SENATE, THAT
HAS BEEN MORE, VIGILANT IN, IN
LOCAL CONTROL ISSUES WITH MY
PARTNERS AT THE LEAGUE OF
CITIES. BUT I DO THINK THIS JUST
GOES FOR ME JUST A LITTLE BIT
TOO FAR WHERE I THINK THERE IS A
REMEDY, THERE IS A WAY TO
RESOLVE ALL THOSE ISSUES WITH
LEGISLATION IF YOU DECIDE TO
AMEND IT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD
THAT DIRECTS THESE REGULATORY
AGENCIES TO DO THOSE THINGS THAT
THAT YOU LEGITIMATELY BELIEVE
SHOULD HAPPEN, IF IT'S A CONCERN
ABOUT FIRE SAFETY BECAUSE OF A
VEHICLE THAT STOPS WHERE IT
SHOULDN'T STOP OR IT NEEDS TO BE
MOVED, THERE SHOULD BE A LOCAL
FIRE CHECKOFF. I DON'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH THOSE THOSE
CHANGES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE
BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS
SOMETHING I CAN'T SUPPORT TODAY.
OKAY, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME
COMMENTS, IF I MAY, I WILL
SUPPORT YOUR BILL. VERY STRONGLY
BECAUSE, WE NEED, THE PRIMARY
REASON IS BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT MAY PASS
AN ORDINANCE THEY'RE NOT
REQUIRED TO PASS. THERE'S
NOTHING IN THERE OTHER THAN THEY
MAY PASS AN ORDINANCE AND THEY
CANNOT OVERRULE THE STATE. SO I
THINK THOSE ARE REALLY
FUNDAMENTAL THINGS THAT ARE IN
THIS BILL THAT MAKE ME, SUPPORT
IT. I KNOW THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FRESNO, BY THE WAY. I'M FROM
FRESNO AS WELL, YEAH, MADERA, I
UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR CONCERNS,
BUT IN THIS COMMITTEE, LOOKING
AT HOW FAR DO WE CONTINUE TO
ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO BE
ABLE TO IMPLEMENT, ON THE LOCAL
LEVEL, WHAT IS WHAT MATTERS ON
THE CONDITIONS OF THAT LOCAL
AREA? AND I, I WOKE UP ONE DAY
AND I SEE THE NEWS THAT DMV HAD
MADE THE DECISION TO ALLOW THIS
IN IN LA, AND I'M LIKE, WHOA,
THAT WAS, THAT WAS A PRETTY BIG
DECISION TO WAKE UP ONE DAY TO.
AND NOT HAVING HAD THE DEBATE
AND THE CONVERSATION AS TO HOW
IT WAS GOING TO IMPACT, HOW DO
WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE IN A
SAFE WAY, I THINK THERE'S A
THERE'S A, THERE'S ALSO THE
ISSUE OF THE PATCHWORK, LIKE,
THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
ANYWAY, THE STATE HAS MADE A
DECISION AS TO CERTAIN CITIES,
CERTAIN YOU KNOW, THEN ANOTHER
TIME THEY INCLUDE SOME OTHER
PART OF THE STATE, SO THAT'S
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. BUT LET'S
MAKE IT HAPPEN IN SUCH A WAY
THAT I THINK THE LOCAL, LOCAL
COMMUNITIES HAVE A REAL SAY IN
THIS. SO WITH THAT, I'LL BE
SUPPORTING YOUR BILL. DO YOU
WANT TO, CLOSE? THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. APPRECIATE ALL THE
COMMENTS. IT WAS REALLY HOPING
FOR SENATOR GLASER'S VOTE BASED
ON HIS HIS BASEBALL CARD, WHICH
HAS LOCAL CONTROL, I THINK
NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST. BUT HE
BUT HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT. SO I
APPRECIATE THE CANDOR, I
APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS,
FROM FROM THE VERY FIRST, PUBLIC
INTERVIEW ABOUT THIS BILL, I
INDICATED THAT WE WEREN'T GOING
TO ALLOW SOME KIND OF AN ON AND
OFF SWITCH THAT SHUTS DOWN, THE
INDUSTRY COMPLETELY IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM THAT, THAT, THAT
CROSSES WHAT SHOULD BE THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO, EMBRACE
THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF, BUT THE
REAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, IS
THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM RIGHT NOW,
AND I THINK IT'S BEEN IN PLACE
SINCE THE DAYS OF HENRY FORD,
WHERE THERE'S A COMBINATION OF
STATE PERMITTING, REGISTRATION,
AND CERTAIN LAWS THAT REGULATE
CERTAIN OF OUR ROADS AND
HIGHWAYS, LIKE HIGHWAY FIVE OR
HIGHWAY 101 AND, SOME OF SOME OF
THE OTHERS AT THE STATE LEVEL
AND THEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS,
YES, INDEED, HAVE THEIR OWN
LOCAL CONTROL AND UNIQUE
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SHOULD BE
DONE IN MADERA. IT'S DIFFERENT
RIGHT NOW FOR A DRIVER, A
VEHICLE DRIVEN BY YOU OR ME,
THAN IT IS IN ELK GROVE, THAN IT
IS IN STOCKTON OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
YOU MAY PULL OVER IF YOU'RE IF
YOU'RE DRIVING A VEHICLE UP AND
DOWN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AND WE AS HUMAN BEINGS, I THINK,
DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF
ASSIMILATING THAT INFORMATION IN
KNOWING WHERE TO LOOK, KNOWING
WHERE TO STOP, FIGURING OUT
WHERE THE DROP OFF POINTS ARE AT
AIRPORTS AND WHERE THE PICK UP
POINTS ARE. WE FIGURE THAT OUT.
THESE VEHICLES ARE SUPPOSED TO
BE SMARTER THAN US. THEY'RE THE
ABILITY TO CODE THEM AND PROGRAM
THEM IS ALMOST UNLIMITED ON A
CHIP. YOU KNOW, SMALLER THAN THE
TIP OF THIS PIN. YOU COULD PUT
IN EVERY RULE AND REGULATION IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
REGARDLESS OF THE JURISDICTION.
OAN. THAT'S THE TRUTH. LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MEET ON EVERY GIVEN
TUESDAY OR THURSDAY, WORST CASE
TWICE A MONTH. MAYBE THERE ARE
SOME JURISDICTIONS OUT THERE
THAT ARE ONLY MEETING ONCE A
MONTH TO ADOPT ORDINANCES TO
RECEIVE LOBBYING EFFORTS TO
NEGOTIATE RATE THINGS LIKE THIS
IN THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITIES. WE
MEET A LOT UP HERE, BUT WE
INTRODUCE A BILL ONCE A YEAR,
AND IF WE'RE LUCKY, WE GET IT
PASSED NINE MONTHS LATER. IF
WE'RE UNLUCKY, REGARDLESS OF
WHICH SIDE YOU'RE ON, IF YOU'RE
UNLUCKY, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT
THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS. IT GETS
VETOED, THAT PACE IS NOT GOING
TO KEEP UP WITH THE NEED FOR
REGULATION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.
THE NIMBLE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
THAT WE HAVE IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT
, THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT'S
CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE AND THE
SCHOOLS, THE DROP OFF POINTS AT
SCHOOLS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
THAT CONTROLS OUR AIRPORTS IS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CITY AND
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, NOT US. WE
HAVE A TENDENCY, AND I KNOW
BECAUSE I'VE BEEN UP HERE THREE
AND A HALF YEARS NOW, TO THINK
THAT WE'RE THE BE ALL AND END
ALL HERE, AND THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS SOME WAY OF
ORDAINING WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
EVERYWHERE. IT'S NOT A CONSCIOUS
DECISION. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING
THAT CREEPS UP ON US. THE BOTTOM
LINE IS, FOR DECADES AND DECADES
AND DECADES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
HAVE BEEN PROTECTING SCHOOL
CHILDREN ON SAFE ROUTES TO
SCHOOLS IN MADERA AND IN SAN
JOSE. IN SAN DIEGO AND LOS
ANGELES, IN ELK GROVE AND IN
STOCKTON. THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL FOR DECADES,
WHY WOULD THAT NOT HAPPEN IN THE
SAME MANNER? JUST BECAUSE
THERE'S NOT A HUMAN DRIVER
BEHIND THE WHEEL? LOCAL POLICE
DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN TICKETING
AND ENFORCING CARS, VEHICLES,
MOTOR VEHICLES OF ALL TYPES, ALL
TYPES, PERMITTED AND REGISTERED
BY THE STATE. BUT ENFORCED BY
LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, LOCAL
MAYORS, LOCAL CITY COUNCILS,
LOCAL COUNTY SUPERVISORS. WHY
WOULD THAT BE ANY DIFFERENT?
BECAUSE WE PULLED THE DRIVER OUT
FROM BEHIND THE WHEEL, AND WE'RE
USING A COATED CHIP TO RUN THE
CAR INSTEAD. WHY AREN'T WE? WHY
ARE WE TRYING TO REINVENT THE
WHEEL AT THE STATE AND BUILD A
NEW HIERARCHY AT THE DEPARTMENT
OF MOTOR VEHICLES, TO TRY TO
MICROMANAGE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES? WHEN WE
ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM THAT'S
DECADES OLD IN OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES FOR OVERSEEING MOTOR
VEHICLES. I KNOW YOU HAVE A LONG
AGENDA. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE, AND I APPRECIATE
THE SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE HAVE, AND WE WILL, BY
THE WAY, MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY.
I'M SORRY. I USUALLY DON'T DO
THIS. I JUST WANT TO SAY,
BESIDES THE COMMENTS, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE BILL.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL IS VERY
IMPORTANT. WE'LL KEEP WORKING
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL IN TERMS OF
FIGURING OUT HOW TO BALANCE
THESE INTERESTS, TO MAKE SURE
COST RECOVERY IS COST RECOVERY.
SENATOR SARDO. AND IT'S NOT A
IT'S NOT A WAY TO MAKE MONEY.
WE'RE WORKING ON THOSE ISSUES
AND WE'LL KEEP WORKING ON THOSE
ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THANK YOU.
AND I HAVE A MOTION. NO, NO, WE
CAN WE CAN WE CAN WAIT UNTIL SIR
. OKAY. GOT IT. GOT IT. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
ON THEN TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YES, YES. YEAH. NO. AS A
COURTESY, I'LL MOVE, I'LL MOVE.
OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MOTION IS TO PASS THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
SENATORS DURAZZO I DURAZZO. I
SEYARTO DOLLY GLASER. GLASER. NØ
SKINNER. WAHAB WIENER. WIENER I
2 TO 1. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN. THANK YOU TO
EVERYONE WHO WAS HERE. WE MOVE
ON NOW TO, SB 977. SENATOR LAIRD
. WELCOME, SIR. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, SENATE BILL
977 WILL ESTABLISH AN
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY FOR THE FIVE
SUPERVISORIAL SEATS YESTERDAY,
THIS BILL PASSED OUT OF THE
ELECTIONS COMMITTEE. AND THAT
COMMITTEE I PLEDGE TO TAKE
AMENDMENTS HERE, AND I ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENTS WITH REGARD TO
ALTERNATES AND THE SELECTION OF,
OF THEM IN THE BYLAWS OF THE OF
THE COMMISSION, AS YOU KNOW, IN
2008, THE VOTERS ESTABLISHED
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING FOR
THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND A FEW
OTHER STATE OFFICES. AND SINCE
THEN, SEVEN COUNTIES HAVE HAD
BILLS THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED
INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS, TO
REDISTRICT FOR THEIR BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS, IN THE LAST
REDISTRICTING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY, THERE WAS A PARTICULARLY
EGREGIOUS GERRYMANDER. AND MY
WITNESS MAY WELL DESCRIBE IT AS
ONE OF THE MAJOR PEOPLE WHO IT
HIT WHEN IT HAPPENED. AND AS A
RESULT, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SETTLED A LAWSUIT AND IN THE
END, TOOK AN ALTERNATIVE MAP
THAT WAS PROPOSED AT THE TIME
THAT JUST HAD MINIMAL CHANGES TO
UPDATE THE POPULATION ON THE
EXISTING DISTRICTS. AND IN
RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS THAT
CAME FROM THE COMMUNITY OUT OF
THAT WHOLE PROCESS, SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY ASKED ME TO
INTRODUCE THIS BILL, AND I HAVE
AND THE DIFFERENCES ARE THE
SEVEN THAT HAVE BEEN DONE THUS
FAR ARE ALMOST ALL FOR COUNTIES
THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER
THAN SAN LUIS OBISPO. SO THIS
BILL INCORPORATE THAT FRAMEWORK.
BUT IN THE NUMBER DRAWN IN THE
LOTTERY LOWERS THE NUMBER A
LITTLE, LOWERS THE NUMBER OF
ACTUAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
IN ORDER TO SORT OF ADJUST TO
THE SMALLER COUNTY, BUT STICK
WITH THE TEMPLATE THAT'S BEEN
ADOPTED THUS FAR. AND I THINK
THIS WILL LEAD TO AN OPEN AND
TRANSPARENT PROCESS IN THE NEXT
REDISTRICTING. IT'S SUPPORTED BY
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, AND IT'S
SUPPORTED BY AFSCME. AND HERE,
AS MY WITNESS IS SUPERVISOR
BRUCE GIBSON OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY, WHO IN HIS SPARE TIME
AND DOES NOT IMPLY AN
ENDORSEMENT OF THIS BILL,
HAPPENS TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF
THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
RIGHT NOW. SO I'M HAPPY TO HAVE
SUPERVISOR GIBSON WITH US TODAY.
AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
IPHONE. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.
AND, JUST A REMINDER, YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR. AND SENATORS, I AM BRUCE
GIBSON, SECOND DISTRICT
SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, AND APPRECIATE SENATOR
LAIRD'S AUTHORSHIP OF SB 977,
WHICH DOES CREATE AN INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION THAT SHARES THE
FORMAT OF PREVIOUS ONES. AND
IT'S TAILORED TO THE SPECIFIC
SIZE OF OUR COUNTY, WHICH IS
283,000 OR SO RESIDENTS AT THIS
TIME. HE SPOKE TO THE EGREGIOUS
GERRYMANDER. AND AT YOUR
PLEASURE, I CAN DESCRIBE THAT.
BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT, AS
YOU MIGHT EXPECT, IT WAS,
PRODUCED TO SERVE THE POLITICAL
INTERESTS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. AT THE
TIME. IT WAS SO BLATANT THAT IT
DREW SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC
OPPOSITION OVER A WIDE POLITICAL
SPECTRUM. BUT PEOPLE OFF THE
SIDELINES WHO HAD LONG NOT PAID
MUCH ATTENTION, THAT OPPOSITION
IN CONVERSELY, AMOUNTS TO HAS
BEEN EXPRESSED AS SUPPORT FOR
THE COMMISSION THAT SENATOR
LAIRD IS PROPOSING IN NINE,
SEVEN, SEVEN, IN ADDITION, THE
GERRYMANDER WAS SO RADICALLY
DIFFERENT THAT IT CAUSED TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF VOTERS TO HAVE
THEIR CYCLE SHIFTED, TO HAVE
THEIR VOTES DEFERRED OR
ACCELERATED AS THEIR CYCLE WAS
SHIFTED BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND
NON-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEARS.
IT REFLECTS AN EXTREME VERSION
OF THE GAPS AND OVERLAPS THAT
YOUR SENATE DISTRICTS HAVE
EXPERIENCED IN THE REDISTRICTING
THAT OCCURRED IN 2021. THIS MESS
HAS HAD IS CREATED LASTING
DAMAGE AS THE, GERRYMANDERED MAP
WAS OVERTURNED IN COURT. BUT IN
THE END THEN, SOME TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS OF OUR
COUNTY WILL VOTE FOR SUPERVISOR
THREE TIMES IN FOUR YEARS. WHILE
OTHERS WILL GO EIGHT YEARS
BETWEEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE
FOR A COUNTY SUPERVISOR. WE SEE
INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS EXISTING
FOR THE STATE, AND IN SOME
COUNTIES AS FUNDAMENTAL DEFENSE
MECHANISM FOR OUR DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF SB 977. GREAT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, ANY OTHER
WITNESSES, ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO SUPPORT SB 977,
SEEING NONE, ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION? ANY WITNESSES? OKAY.
NO WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION? OKAY SEEING NONE,
WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. COULD
YOU EXPAND ON WHAT THIS
GERRYMANDER. WHAT? IT CONSISTS.
OH, SORRY. WHAT THE GERRYMANDER
CONSISTED OF. BECAUSE THROUGH
THE LAST REDISTRICTING PROCESS,
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW MY
DISTRICTS DOWN IN THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY. YEAH, YEAH, I'M NOT
QUITE SURE THAT THEY ESCAPED.
WHATEVER THE GERRYMANDERING WAS,
WHETHER IT'S A PARTY,
GERRYMANDERING OR A PARTICULAR
PERSON GERRYMANDERING. BUT IT
WAS INTERESTING, TO SAY THE
LEAST. SO I CAN IMAGINE THE
DRAWING OF A DISTRICT. IT
CREATES SENSITIVITIES NO MATTER
WHAT I WOULD SAY THAT YOUR
DISTRICT, FOR BETTER OR WORSE,
WAS DRAWN BY AN INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION NOMINALLY FREE OF THE
POLITICAL PRESSURES THAT WERE
DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN. RIGHT. AND
THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME. IS ARE
WE REALLY ESCAPING THAT? WELL IF
YOU ASK PEOPLE DOWN THERE,
THEY'RE LOOKING, THINKING, WOW,
I WILL STIPULATE THAT DEMOCRACY
IS AN IMPERFECT, AN IMPERFECT
OPERATION. BUT I WILL TELL YOU
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
GERRYMANDER. IN 2022, I RAN FOR
MY AND WON MY FIFTH TERMS AS A
COUNTY SUPERVISOR BY 13 VOTES
OUT OF 23,000 CAST. THAT
DISTRICT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE
DISTRICT THAT I SERVED FOR THE
FOUR PREVIOUS RUNS. BY THE FACT
THAT IT HAD BEEN SO
SIGNIFICANTLY REDRAWN THAT TWO
THIRDS OF THE POPULATION WAS NEW
TO MY DISTRICT, AND A SIDEBAR
THE POLITICAL. YOU'RE NOT
SURPRISED TO KNOW THE POLITICAL
DEMOGRAPHIC HAD SHIFTED
SIGNIFICANTLY. IT ALSO WAS
GEOGRAPHICALLY A VERY MUCH MORE
CHALLENGING DISTRICT TO SERVE AS
THAT FROM ONE END OF THE
DISTRICT TO ANOTHER WAS AN HOUR
DRIVE, WHICH PREVIOUS IS ABOUT
TWICE WHAT IT TOOK FOR ME TO
DRIVE FROM ONE END OF MY
DISTRICT TO THE TO THE OTHER. SO
IT IT ALSO, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE
ALSO, IF I MIGHT, THE CONFUSION
THAT IT CAUSED BY HAVING TWO
THIRDS OF THE FOLKS NOT KNOW WHO
THEIR SUPERVISOR WAS, AND THAT
CONFUSION PERSISTS TO THIS DAY.
SO, IN THE END, OUR MAJORITY OF
OUR BOARD CHANGED, RESPONDING TO
THE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR AN
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION. WE'RE
HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. I'M
NOT SURE THAT WHAT WE DO NOW HAS
A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE,
BECAUSE MY DISTRICT IS MUCH THE
SAME AS YOURS. AND WE HAVE AN
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION THAT DID
IT UNDER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SIR. THANK YOU. NO OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. OKAY.
THERE'S, AND I WILL BE
SUPPORTING YOUR BILL TODAY,
SENATOR LAIRD, CLOSING REMARKS
JUST BRIEFLY IN RESPONSE TO THE
QUESTION, THE SUPERVISOR WAS
VERY DIPLOMATIC, HIS DISTRICT
WAS A COMPLETE COASTAL COMMUNITY
OF INTEREST FROM THE MONTEREY
LINE THROUGH SAN SIMEON. CAMBRIA
CAYUCOS, MORRO BAY, AND
COMPLETELY COASTAL. HE WAS LEFT
A LITTLE COASTAL THAT HAD HIS
HOME IN IT. AND THEN IT WENT TO
ATASCADERO AND SAN MIGUEL,
COMPLETE INLAND AREAS THAT HAD
NO COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WITH
THE COAST AND SO AND I AM
SYMPATHETIC AS SOMEBODY WHO IS
LOSING 300,000 PEOPLE AND
GAINING 300,000 PEOPLE IN THE
DISTRICT, I AM RUNNING IN RIGHT
NOW. BUT, THAT WAS DONE IN GOOD
FAITH AND WITH COMMUNITY OF
INTEREST IN MIND AND WITH NOT
BREAKING UP CITY BOUNDARIES IN
MIND. THAT WASN'T THE CASE HERE.
SO I JUST APPRECIATE THE DEBATE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE THE PROCESS AS WELL.
WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT IN LOS
ANGELES AND WE NEED IT, I WANT
TO VERIFY WITH YOU, SENATOR
LAIRD, THE TWO AMENDMENTS. YES
REQUIRE ONE MEMBER FROM EACH
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT AND SIX
AT LARGE. AND THE SECOND ONE IS
TO DIRECT THE COMMISSION TO
ADOPT BYLAWS THAT PROVIDE FOR
THE SELECTION OF. WHEN I SAID
I'D ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS, I
DIDN'T NAME THEM AS CLEARLY AS
YOU DID. SO I ACCEPT THOSE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR GLAZER DO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATOR DURAZZO
I DURAZZO I CIERTO. NO. CIERTO.
NO. DOLLY GLAZER. GLAZER I
SKINNER. WAHAB WIENER WIENER I 3
TO 1. THANK YOU MADAM. THANK
YOU. WE'LL HOLD THE VOTE OPEN,
NEXT. MISS BLAKE BLAKE IS NOT
HERE. SENATOR MINH IS HERE. OKAY
.
OKAY. SENATOR MINH, DO YOU WANT
TO. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
BEFORE I START, WANTED TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
HARD WORK ON THIS BILL, SB 1111
WOULD EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF
REMOTE INTEREST TO INCLUDE THE
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF A PUBLIC
OFFICERS CHILD, PARENT, SIBLING,
OR SPOUSE, AND GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF HANDLING
MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN
APPROVING CONTRACTS ON THEIR
BEHALF. AS SUCH, WE EXPECT THEM
TO BE HELD TO THE HIGHEST
ETHICAL STANDARDS IN ORDER TO
AVOID ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
OR THE PERCEPTION OF IMPROPRIETY
WHILE CONDUCTING BUSINESS ON THE
PUBLIC'S BEHALF. IN LATE 2023,
NEWS SURFACED THAT AN ORANGE
COUNTY SUPERVISOR HAD AWARDED
COVID 19 RELIEF FUNDING TO AN
ORGANIZATION RUN BY HIS DAUGHTER
WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT
CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC. AFTER
PUBLIC SCRUTINY OVER THE
CONTRACTS, NEWS SURFACED THAT
THE ORGANIZATION HAD ALSO NOT
COMPLETED ITS REQUIRED AUDITS.
DESPITE THESE CONCERNS, EXISTING
LAW DOES NOT EXPRESSLY FORBID
STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS FROM
AWARDING PUBLIC CONTRACTS TO
THEIR ADULTS, ADULT CHILDREN,
AND PARENTS, SIBLINGS, IN-LAWS
OR OTHER RELATIVES. OF COURSE,
PUBLIC OFFICIALS SHOULD BE HELD
TO A HIGH STANDARD AND SHOULD
NOT BE USING THEIR POSITIONS TO
ENRICH THEMSELVES FINANCIALLY,
WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.
SB 1111 TRIES TO STRIKE THE
RIGHT BALANCE BY CLEARLY
PROHIBITING A PUBLIC OFFICIALS
FROM VOTING ON PUBLIC CONTRACTS
THAT WOULD BENEFIT THEIR ADULT
CHILDREN. SIBLINGS PARENTS, OR
IN-LAWS, AND SIGNIFICANTLY
STIFFEN THE PENALTIES FOR PUBLIC
OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE THESE LAWS
. NO WITNESSES. SO, OKAY, ANYONE
IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SUPPORT
SUPPORT SB 1111 SEEING NONE. IS
THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO
OPPOSE SB 1111? SEEING NONE COME
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE? ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM OUR
MEMBERS? OKAY. SENATOR GLAZER
MOVES THE BILL. OKAY. SEEING
NONE. YOU WANT TO CLOSE THE GOOD
GOVERNMENT BILL? RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
MOTION IS TO PASS THE ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
COMMITTEE. SENATORS DURAZZO. Ã.
DURAZZO. AYE. SATO. SATO. AYE
DOLLY. GLASER. GLASER. AYE.
SKINNER WAHAB. NÓ. AYE. WAHAB.
AYE WIENER. WIENER. AYE. FIVE
ZERO. WE'LL LEAVE THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
MINH. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ON.
WE GOT TO TRACK DOWN SOME
MEMBERS HERE
.
Ó. IF YOU WANT ME TO. WHATEVER
YOU LIKE. YES I. MEAN IN AND OUT
. ANYWAY, LIFE GOES ON. HERE WE
ARE. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT
EITHER, SENATOR GLASER, HERE TO
PRESENT SB 1494. YOU CAN GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU
ASK PEOPLE ABOUT TAXES, I THINK
ONE THING YOU'LL HEAR VERY
QUICKLY FROM THEM, WHICH IS THAT
THEY DON'T LIKE PAYING THEM, BUT
IF THEY HAVE TO PAY THEM, THEY
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A
FAIR SYSTEM, THAT PEOPLE ARE
TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY UNDER
THE RULES. AND THAT'S REALLY WHY
I HAVE THIS BILL THAT I'M
PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY. BECAUSE
UNDER OUR CURRENT TAX STRUCTURE,
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT
UNFAIRNESS. AND IT GOES TO
ONLINE RETAILERS, YOU KNOW, 20
OR 30 YEARS AGO, WE DIDN'T HAVE
THE INTERNET WORKING SO ACTIVELY
TO SELL COMMERCE. AND NOW IT'S
KIND OF TAKEN OVER OUR WORLD FOR
MANY, NOT FOR EVERYBODY, BUT FOR
MANY, MUCH OF THE CHAGRIN OF OUR
BRICK AND MORTAR STORE OWNERS.
BUT THAT'S THAT'S OUR WORLD
TODAY. AND THAT ONLINE
PURCHASING OF GOODS HAS CHANGED
HOW TAXES ARE ASSESSED, AND IT'S
NOT THE WAY PEOPLE THINK THAT
JUST BECAUSE I ORDER AN APPLE
COMPUTER IN MY HOME, DOES IT
MEAN THAT THOSE TAX MONIES ARE
COMING TO MY JURISDICTION WHEN
THAT TRUCK RUMBLES UP THE STREET
AND MAKES, YOU KNOW, POTHOLES
AND ALL THE REST, IS MY CITY
GOING TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THAT
WEAR AND TEAR? AND THE ANSWER IS
NO, NO. WHERE YOU ORDER STUFF ON
THE INTERNET, IS A BIZARRE OF
APPLICATIONS OF WHERE TAXES ARE
COLLECTED. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF
SMART ACCOUNTANTS IN OUR WORLD,
AND THEY WORK FOR A LOT OF THE
BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD.
AND THEY FIGURED OUT THAT THEY
CAN MANIPULATE THAT TAX CODE SO
THAT NOT JUST THAT TAXES GO TO A
ONE JURISDICTION OR ANOTHER, BUT
THAT THEY CAN HAVE SOME OF THAT
TAX MONEY COME BACK TO THEM. AND
A GOOD EXAMPLE, SINCE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT APPLE, IS THAT IF
YOU ORDER A COMPUTER FROM APPLE,
THE TAX MONEY HAS BEEN ARRANGED
TO GO TO CUPERTINO, WHERE APPLE
IS BASED. THEY'VE DESIGNATED
THAT AS THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR
CALL CENTER. AND THEY MADE THAT
AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY WENT TO
CUPERTINO AND THEY SAID, HEY, IF
WE MAKE YOU IF WE DESIGNATE YOU
AS THE RECIPIENT OF THAT TAX
MONEY, HEY, LISTEN, WE'D LIKE TO
HAVE YOU, LIKE, SEND HALF OF IT
BACK TO US AS OUR ADDITIONAL
PROFIT. AND THEY MADE THAT DEAL.
THEY MADE THAT DEAL. AND THE
BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD
NOW HAVE MADE THOSE DEALS WITH
SELECT JURISDICTIONS, SO THAT
THE TAX MONEY THAT SHOULD GO TO
PAY FOR ALL THOSE OBLIGATIONS IN
COMMUNITIES AROUND OUR STATE
AREN'T GOING THERE ANYMORE,
THERE WAS A RECENT STUDY DONE BY
OUR TAX AUTHORITIES HERE IN THE
STATE. THEY DETERMINED THAT
ABOUT 7% OF, THE CITIES IN OUR
STATE HAVE MADE THOSE DEALS SO
THAT 93% OF THE CITIES GET NO
MONEY. THEY DON'T GET ANY OF THE
BURDENS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THAT
ORDERING. AND THAT OUT OF THOSE
THOSE IMPACTS, THEY DON'T GET
ANY OF THAT MONEY, SO YOU MAY
HEAR IN A FEW MINUTES FROM, FROM
FOLKS WHO ARE NOT HAPPY WITH
THIS BILL THAT'S BEFORE YOU THAT
WOULD SAY, NO NEW AGREEMENTS
PHASE OUT THE AGREEMENTS THAT
YOU HAVE BY 2030 AND POST THOSE
AGREEMENTS IN A ON A WEBSITE SO
EVERYBODY CAN SEE THEM, BECAUSE
THESE THINGS ARE BARELY
TRANSPARENT EVEN TODAY. TO GET
ALL THESE AGREEMENTS FROM THESE
7% OF THE CITIES THAT HAVE THEM.
AND WHEN YOU HEAR THE OPPOSITION
THAT MAY SPEAK TODAY, THAT SAY,
HEY, WE OUR BUDGETS COUNT ON
THIS MONEY, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE
THIS MONEY AWAY FROM US. I WOULD
ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT SOMETHING
IN ADDITION TO THEIR
PRESENTATION AND THAT WHAT ABOUT
THE CITY RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT'S
NOW GETTING NOTHING? BECAUSE YOU
ARE CAPTURING ALL THAT MONEY AND
GIVING HALF OF IT BACK TO THOSE
COMPANIES. WHAT ABOUT THAT
NEIGHBORING CITY? BECAUSE YOU'RE
GOING TO HEAR FROM THE FOLKS
THAT THAT HAVE MADE THESE DEALS
AND SO THE BILL BEFORE YOU SAYS,
NO MORE DEALS. LET'S HAVE
FAIRNESS IN OUR TAX CODE. GIVE
THEM THE TIME TO PHASE OUT OF
THESE DEALS. LET'S CREATE
TRANSPARENCY IN THESE DEALS. AND
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE MEASURE
PROPOSES TO DO. AND I
RESPECTFULLY AT THE RIGHT TIME,
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY.
THANK YOU. SENATOR GLASER, DO
YOU HAVE ANY SUPPORT WITNESSES?
NO. NOBODY. OKAY DO WE HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES? PLEASE
STEP FORWARD. IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU
COULD TAKE UP TO TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ANGIE MINETTI, AND I'M HERE
REPRESENTING THE MAYOR OF
FRESNO, JERRY DYER, WE ARE HERE
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO SB
1494. THIS BILL STRIKES A VERY
HEAVY BLOW TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
BY REMOVING OUR ABILITY TO
ATTRACT AND RETAIN BUSINESSES IN
AN ALREADY UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD
. THIS VALUABLE TOOL HELPS
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
PROMOTE ECONOMIC VITALITY
DEVELOPMENT AND CREATE JOBS,
ELIMINATE. PUTTING THEM
PROSPECTIVELY LEAVES THESE
COMMUNITIES WITH THE STATUS QUO,
AND IT STYMIES INVESTMENT. THE
SALES TAX INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS
ARE NOT CORPORATE TAX GIVEAWAYS
TO CORPORATIONS, BUT THEY ARE
JOB BASED. IF JOBS ARE NOT
CREATED, THE INCENTIVES ARE NOT
GIVEN. THE MORE JOBS THAT ARE
CREATED, THE HIGHER THE
INCENTIVES WE ATTRACTED GAP FROM
PHOENIX, AND THAT MEANS THAT WE
ATTRACTED ARIZONA JOBS. WE TOOK
JOBS FROM ARIZONA AND WE BROUGHT
THEM TO CALIFORNIA. THESE
AGREEMENTS HAVE TRANSFORMED OUR
ECONOMIC SITUATION LOCALLY IN A
DRAMATIC WAY, AND HAVE CREATED
3500 DIRECT JOBS AND UP TO 4000
INDIRECT JOBS. THIS ISSUE SHOULD
BE APPROACHED IN A COMPREHENSIVE
MANNER THAT DOES NOT DEVASTATE
RURAL OR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES, AND THAT DOESN'T
PERPETUATE WEALTH. WEALTH
INEQUALITY. SHOULD THE
LEGISLATURE DECIDE TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL, I WOULD IMPLORE THIS
COMMITTEE AND OTHERS TO EXPLORE
POLICIES THAT CAN PROVIDE
SIMILAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
TOOLS PRIOR TO REMOVING OUR
ABILITY TO PROVIDE FRESNO
RESIDENTS A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO
GET OUT OF POVERTY. WE THANK YOU
FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AGAIN, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO TWO
MINUTES. OKAY. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR, AND HONORABLE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. EXCUSE
ME. MY NAME IS JOAN ARMENTA
ROBERTS AND I'M A SALES TAX
CONSULTANT WITH CALTEX. CALTEX,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSES SB 1494.
SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENTS ARE
IMPORTANT FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL REVENUE.
THESE AGREEMENTS FOSTER
PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESSES THAT
BRING THAT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL
, LONG TIME ECONOMIC GROWTH.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RECEIVE
SUBSTANTIAL TAX REVENUE FROM
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. RESIDENTS
SEE INCREASED EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES IN THEIR COMMUNITY
, AND LOCAL BUSINESSES REINVEST
IN THE COMMUNITY. IT SHOULD BE
NOTED THAT BUSINESSES DO NOT
HAVE THE ABILITY TO ARBITRARILY
ALLOCATE REVENUE TO ANY LOCATION
IN THE STATE. THEY MUST HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT PRESENCE IN THE AREA
WHERE REVENUE IS LOCATED,
WHETHER THAT BE A BRICK AND
MORTAR RETAIL LOCATION, A SALES
OFFICE, OFFICE, A LOGISTICS
FACILITY, OR A LOCATION WHERE AN
ONLINE STORE IS MAINTAINED AND
OPERATED. THE WAY THE LAW AND
THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN,
THEY HAVE TO HAVE A PRESENCE AND
THEY HAVE TO HAVE A NEGOTIATED
PRINCIPLE NEGOTIATIONS IN THAT
AREA. THESE AGREEMENTS ARE
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO AREAS
OF THE STATE THAT STRUGGLE TO
RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS
FROM BUSINESSES, ESPECIALLY
RURAL AREAS WHERE RESIDENTS HAVE
TO COMMUTE EXTENSIVELY WHEN JOBS
ARE NOT AVAILABLE LOCALLY. THESE
RURAL RURAL COMMUNITIES LEVERAGE
SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENTS TO
ATTRACT AND RETAIN DEVELOPING
BUSINESSES AND PROVIDE LIVING
WAGES TO THEIR RESIDENTS.
GOVERNOR NEWSOM VETOED SB 5531
AND WROTE THAT THESE TAX
AGREEMENTS ARE AN IMPORTANT
LOCAL TOOL THAT CAPTURES
ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY,
PARTICULARLY IN RURAL AND INLAND
CALIFORNIA CITIES THAT CONTINUE
TO FACE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC
CHALLENGES LIKE HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES. WE URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO RESPECT THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF LOCAL
COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITIES AND
GOVERNMENTS TO ENTER INTO SALES
TAX SHARING AGREEMENTS AND
REJECT SB 1494. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION, IF YOU CAN COME UP
AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION, THEN SARAH POLYMOO
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. NICOLE WATERMAN, ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, IN
OPPOSITION. SHARON GONSALVES, ON
BEHALF OF THE CITIES OF EASTVALE
AND BEAUMONT IN OPPOSITION.
LAWRENCE GAYTAN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. PRESTON
YOUNG FROM THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE TODAY
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING,
CARLY SHELBY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITIES OF TRACY, DINUBA AND LA
PALMA IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, BEN TREVOR. WITH
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, SEEING NO
MORE OPPOSITION COME BACK TO
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. YES,
SENATOR. I UNDERSTAND YOUR
ANNOYANCE WITH THESE BIGS. LIKE,
YOU KNOW, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
THE APPLE AND CUPERTINO AND, AND
HOW THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF
THESE TAX SHARING AGREEMENTS IN
PERPETUITY, OR IS THERE A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YEARS THAT
THEY'RE MOST OF THEM THAT I'M
AWARE OF HAVE A DURATION RIGHT,
WOULD THIS AFFECT, IF A
COMMUNITY MADE A, A TAX SHARING
AGREEMENT FOR SIX YEARS TO WITH
A DEVELOPER THAT COMES IN AND
PUTS IN SOME ADDITIONAL,
INFRASTRUCTURE WORK, ADJACENT
INFRASTRUCTURE WORK THAT IS
REALLY EXPENSIVE OF THIS IS THIS
IS WHEN THESE THINGS GET USED,
AND INSTEAD OF THE CITY TRYING
TO DO IT LATER, THEY PUT IT IN,
AND THERE'S A AND THEY MAKE AN
AGREEMENT FOR, YOU KNOW, 40% OF
THE SALES TAX GOES TO, TO PAY
FOR THAT EVENTUALLY, IS WOULD
THAT AFFECT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR SOME
CITIES. AND I SAW IT IN USE. I
SAW IT IN ACTION IN A COMMUNITY
I REPRESENT CITIES, CONTINUOUSLY
FACE THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS
FOR ANY BUSINESS, ANY
DEVELOPMENT. TYPICALLY THAT'S
WHY IMPACT FEES ARE ASSESSED,
BECAUSE IT'S THE OPPOSITE. IT'S
BECAUSE THEY SHOULD PAY FOR
THEIR IMPACTS. RIGHT. IF IT'S ON
A TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR IF IT'S ON A
SEWER LINE, OR THESE THINGS ARE
COMMONLY NEGOTIATED, I WOULD
SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THESE TAX
SHARING AGREEMENTS OF MASSIVE
SCALE AND THAT ANY SMART CITY
WOULD ENSURE THAT THOSE EXPENSES
ARE COVERED THROUGH THE REGULAR
COURSE OF BUSINESS THAT THEY
UNDERTAKE. NOW, THEY COULD MAKE
THAT AGREEMENT. I DON'T THINK
THAT'S THE THAT'S THE COMMON,
ENGAGEMENT GIVEN. KEEP IN MIND
THAT I THINK CUPERTINO GETS $10
MILLION. YEAH OKAY. IN OTHER
WORDS, THEY MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN A
FRACTION OF A COUPLE OF HUNDRED
THOUSAND. BUT THAT DEAL GAVE
THEM $10 MILLION FROM YOU AND
ME, AND THEY GAVE $10 MILLION
BACK TO APPLE. SO THE SCALE OF
THESE AGREEMENTS, BY THESE
COMPANIES, I MEAN, WE HEARD SOME
OF THE CITIES THIS IS BEST BUY,
WALMART, TARGET, EBAY. THESE ARE
THE BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE
WORLD THAT HAVE GOT THESE SMART
ACCOUNTANTS TO KNOW HOW TO
MANIPULATE THESE DEALS. RIGHT,
BECAUSE THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS
THAT A COMMUNITY WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO MAKE THAT DEAL. AND WE
HAD THIS VERY, VERY SITUATION
WHEN WE HAD A GREAT AGREEMENT.
THERE WAS A SALES TAX, KICKBACK
FOR THEM TO GET THE, THE
INFRASTRUCTURE IN. AND SO THEY
WOULD WE HAD THE SHARES, THE,
THE TAX AGREEMENT. THE COUNCIL
KIND OF CHANGED AND THEY DECIDED
THEY DIDN'T LIKE TO DO THOSE
AGREEMENTS. THEY DIDN'T. AND
TODAY IT'S A VACANT LOT. AND WE
JUST NOW PUT IN THE PIECE OF, OF
, INFRASTRUCTURE, ROAD
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN PUT IN 20 YEARS AGO. AND IT
COST THE CITIZENS HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS, WELL, MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS MORE. FOR THAT PIECE OF
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE COULD
HAVE DONE THROUGH A TAX SHARING
AGREEMENT. IT WAS THE AGREEMENT
THAT THAT WOULD HAVE CREATED THE
CENTER. AND, AND TO THIS DAY,
LIKE I SAID, THAT WE GET NOTHING
. THE COMMUNITY GETS NOTHING
FROM THAT AS OPPOSED TO RIGHT
NOW, WE'D BE 15 YEARS IN THE IN
THE BLACK AS FAR AS, SALES TAX,
SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHAT MY
CONCERN IS, IS IT ELIMINATES
THAT. AND BECAUSE THERE'S I
THINK THAT'S ABUSE. WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT $10 MILLION FOR,
YOU KNOW, AN APPLE TO GO IN,
THEY'RE BUYING THEIR PLACE IN A
COMMUNITY AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY
IT'S NOT REALLY ASSOCIATED WITH
A COMMUNITY NEED FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE AND THINGS LIKE
THAT, BECAUSE THERE IS, YOU
KNOW, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW,
COLLECTING MITIGATION FEES AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S ALL
WELL AND GOOD, BUT YOU HAVE TO
COLLECT SO MUCH BEFORE YOU CAN
PUT IT INTO A PROJECT. AND WHILE
YOU'RE COLLECTING IT, THAT
PROJECT JUST ESCALATES. SO WHEN
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET IN
THERE, GET IT DONE, AND YOU
USUALLY DO THAT THROUGH A
DEVELOPER, THEY HAVE THE NEXUS
OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO, BUT
THEN THERE'S SOME EXTRAORDINARY
STUFF THAT THEY MAY HAVE TO DO,
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M AFRAID OF
IS, IS WITH THIS BILL THAT WILL
ELIMINATE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND
FOR SMALLER COMMUNITY LIKE THE
ONE I CAME FROM, THAT THAT'S
DEATH. THAT MEANS THE COMMUNITY
THAT'S RICH NEXT DOOR IS GOING
TO GET IT OR GET ALL OF THAT,
AND THAT THAT KIND OF, DYNAMIC
NEEDS, YOU KNOW, IT JUST
OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THIS HELPS SPREAD IT OUT BECAUSE
IT PUT EVERYBODY IN THE
CAPABILITY OF COMPETING, AND
ALSO LAND. THAT IS NOT AS
EXPENSIVE AS IT WAS IN OTHER
COMMUNITIES. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S
MY THAT'S MY ISSUE WITH THE BILL
, SO I PROBABLY WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU. DO YOU
WANT TO NO MORE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. DO YOU WANT TO CLOSE?
YEAH. THANK YOU FOR HEARING THE
BILL. LET ME MENTION THAT THE
GOVERNOR VETOED A PREVIOUS
VERSION OF THIS THAT WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED THAT THERE BE AN
ACCOUNTING FOR WHO WERE THE
WINNERS AND LOSERS WHEN HE MADE
THAT VETO AND THAT ASSERTION.
NOW THAT THAT STUDY WAS DONE
WITHOUT THE HELP OF LEGISLATION
THAT NOW SHOWED THAT MOST 93% OF
THE CITIES ARE LOSERS. AND I
THINK THAT HIS HIS CONCERN FOR
THE CENTRAL VALLEY AND FOR THEIR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, I HOPE,
WILL BE OUTWEIGHED NOW BY THE
FACT THAT HE KNOWS THAT THERE
ARE ALL KINDS OF CENTRAL VALLEY
CITIES THAT ARE LOSERS BECAUSE
THEY'RE LOSING THAT TAX MONEY.
THAT'S BEING CAPTURED AND
REFUNDED TO THOSE COMPANIES.
IT'S NOT GOING INTO PUBLIC
SERVICES, AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED
. IT'S A PROFIT MAKING MOTIVE.
THEY'RE USING OUR TAX CODE.
THEY'RE EXPLOITING OUR TAX CODE
TO MAKE MORE MONEY AT THE
EXPENSE OF PUBLIC SERVICES.
THAT'S THE, THE, THE GOAL OF THE
BILL. AND BY THE WAY, WE HEARD
ABOUT JOBS. THESE ARE WAREHOUSE
JOBS, BY THE WAY. ALL RIGHT.
SOME MAY SAY THEY'RE NOT THE
MOST HIGHLY PAID JOBS IN THE
WORLD. SO THERE'S A LOT OF
DEBATE ABOUT THE WAREHOUSE JOBS
IN SOME COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
CREATED BY THESE, THESE CALL
CENTERS OR THESE DISTRIBUTION
CENTERS. SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION MOTION BY SENATOR WIENER
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE REVENUE
AND TAXATION COMMITTEE. SENATORS
DURAZZO I DURAZZO I SATO. SATO.
NO. DOLLY. GLASER. GLASER I.
SKINNER. WAHAB. WAHHAB I WIENER.
WIENER I 4 TO 1 TO LEAVE THAT
OPEN. WE'LL LEAVE THAT. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR MORE VOTES.
OKAY, WE CAN GO AHEAD WITH
SENATOR CAVALLERO
.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
SB 1123, WHICH BUILDS UPON WORK
THAT I DID LAST YEAR TO
STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR
COMMUNITIES TO BUILD SMALL
SCALE, MORE AFFORDABLE INFILL
AND HOME OWNERSHIP PROJECTS.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THE
ANALYSIS AND WILL ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS TO DELAY
IMPLEMENTATION AND CLARIFY THAT
THE BILL WILL NOT BE USED TO
CONVERT EXISTING MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS INTO CONDOS. THIS
ENVISIONS VACANT LAND, NOT THE
CONVERSION, THE BILL WILL
INCENTIVIZE NEW CONSTRUCTION. I
WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE
FEEDBACK PROVIDED TO ENHANCE
TENANT PROTECTIONS, HOWEVER.
HOWEVER, THE BILL IS FOCUSED ON
PROVIDING HOME OWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES AS A MEANS TO
BREAK GENERATIONAL CYCLES OF
WEALTH. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE
UNITS CREATED SHOULD BE SUBJECT
TO TENANT PROTECTIONS, LAWS,
LAWS THAT DO NOT TRADITIONALLY
APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I
DO NOT BELIEVE I'M SORRY THAT
THE UNITS CREATED SHOULD BE
SUBJECT TO TENANT PROTECTION
LAWS THAT DO NOT TRADITIONALLY
APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
THAT ARE RENTED. TENANT
PROTECTIONS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT I
DON'T BELIEVE CREATING NEW
PRECEDENT IS APPROPRIATE. THESE
ARE FOR SALE HOMES. MORE THAN
HAPPY TO KEEP AN OPEN DIALOG
WITH INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS,
BUT AT THIS TIME WILL NOT BE
INCLUDING THAT AS AN AMENDMENT.
THE HIGH COST OF HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION AND REGULATORY
DELAY HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE
STATE'S AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
BECAUSE SUPPLY SIMPLY IS NOT
KEEPING PACE WITH DEMAND. THIS
CONSTRUCTION GRIDLOCK CONTINUES
TO DRIVE UP HOUSING COSTS AND
DRIVE DOWN CALIFORNIA'S
HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES. WE HAVE THE
LOWEST RATE SINCE THE 1940S,
JUST LIKE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
HAS DRIVEN HOME OWNERSHIP RATES
DOWN FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR,
LOCAL PLANNING RULES HAVE ALSO
CREATED BARRIERS TO
HOMEOWNERSHIP, AND MANY
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE
HAVE ENACTED POLICIES THAT
RESTRICT DENSER DEVELOPMENTS IN
SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND
THIS PREVENTS THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SMALLER STARTER HOMES.
WORKING FAMILIES CAN AFFORD THE
AMERICAN DREAM OF HOME OWNERSHIP
IS NOW OUT OF REACH FOR MANY
FAMILIES, ESPECIALLY FAMILIES OF
COLOR. TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES,
LAST YEAR I INTRODUCED SB 684 TO
STREAMLINE THE SUBDIVISION OF
PARCELS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SMALL SCALE HOME OWNERSHIP
PROJECTS OF UP TO TEN UNITS.
OVER THE COURSE OF THE FALL. I
HEARD FROM A VARIETY OF
STAKEHOLDERS ON THE NEED TO
INCLUDE IMPORTANT TECHNICAL AND
CLARIFYING CHANGES TO THE LAW.
SB 1123 INCORPORATES THE
FEEDBACK I RECEIVED.
SPECIFICALLY, THE BILL WILL
CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF
HABITABLE SQUARE FEET RELATED TO
HOUSING SIZE. ALLOW HOUSING
UNITS TO BE PART OF A TENANCY IN
COMMON, AND CLARIFY THAT WHEN A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, THEY
DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE SB 684
PROJECT. TEN UNIT CAP.
ADDITIONALLY, SB 1123
REESTABLISHES THE SUBDIVISION
AND PROJECT STREAMLINING
BENEFITS FOR SMALL PROJECTS OF
TEN UNITS OR LESS ON VACANT
PARCELS ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY
INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I REMAIN COMMITTED TO UNLOCKING
OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD SMALLER
HOMES ON SMALL LOTS TO INCREASE
TO INCREASE HOMEOWNERSHIP
PROJECTS IN SINGLE FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH HAVE A
HISTORY OF EXCLUDING LOW INCOME
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. BUT TO
ENSURE THE APPROPRIATE
GUARDRAILS IN PLACE, I'VE
INCLUDED THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MAY IMPOSE THE SAME HEIGHT
STANDARDS AS THAT OF NEIGHBORING
PARCELS. SO THEY ALL FIT IN AND
THEY LOOK THE SAME. THIS ONE
WILL UNLOCK NEW DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES, BUT ENSURES IT'S
CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING
COMMUNITY. WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS FRANCESC
MARTI. WITH CALIFORNIA YIMBY AND
SUSAN MARINO ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BUILDERS.
GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU, JOSE, I THINK YOU'RE LIKE
IT OR NOT. THERE IT IS. OKAY CAN
YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. PERFECT,
CHAIR HUESO AND DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
FRANCESC MARTI, AND I AM THE
SENIOR 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. TODAY, I STAND
BEFORE YOU TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR SB 1123 AUTHORED BY
SENATOR CABALLERO. SB 1123
BUILDS ON THE PROGRESS MADE LAST
YEAR BY SB 684, MOST NOTABLY BY
EXTENDING THE LAW'S
APPLICABILITY TO VACANT PARCELS
IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, ACCESS
TO HOMEOWNERSHIP, ESPECIALLY IN
HIGH OPPORTUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS
NEAR GOOD SCHOOLS, SPARKS JOBS
AND GROCERY STORES HAS
GENERATIONAL IMPACTS. AND BY THE
WAY, SO DOES THE LACK OF
AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES IN THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THAT WE SEE
SO OFTEN TODAY. THE PROHIBITION
OF SMALLER HOMES, ESPECIALLY IN
SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS,
CONTINUES THE LEGACY OF
DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING
POLICIES LIKE REDLINING AND
CONTINUES TO SEGREGATE
NEIGHBORHOODS BY RACE AND BY
CLASS. THIS BILL REPRESENTS A
STEP FORWARD IN OUR COLLECTIVE
EFFORT TO COMBAT CALIFORNIA'S
SEVERE HOUSING SHORTAGE, WHICH
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS LOW
INCOME FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR. IN CALIFORNIA, THE
DREAM OF HOMEOWNERSHIP HAS
BECOME INCREASINGLY,
INCREASINGLY ELUSIVE. IN 2020,
THE AVERAGE HOME COST WAS 8.5
TIMES A FAMILY'S ANNUAL SALARY,
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR FARE
EVEN WORSE, AFRICAN AMERICAN
HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES ARE 26%
LOWER, AND LATINO HOMEOWNERSHIP
RATES ARE 19% LOWER THAN WHITE
CALIFORNIANS. THIS BILL
ADDRESSES THESE CHALLENGES HEAD
ON BY FACILITATING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SMALLER, MORE
AFFORDABLE HOMES IN A HIGH
OPPORTUNITY. NEIGHBORHOODS,
WHICH ARE HISTORICALLY EXPENSIVE
AND EXCLUSIONARY. THIS IS NOT
JUST ABOUT BUILDING HOMES, IT'S
ABOUT BUILDING COMMUNITIES,
FOSTERING DIVERSITY, AND
PROMOTING ECONOMIC MOBILITY FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS. THE CHANGES
PROPOSED IN SB 684 WILL MAKE
SMALL HOMES FASTER, EASIER, AND
LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD. THIS
WILL INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOME
OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
FAMILIES THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT
BEHIND AND LEFT OUT OF THE
CALIFORNIA DREAM. IF YOU COULD
WRAP IT UP, PLEASE. YES, YES. ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY, I
URGE YOU TO VOTE AYE ON SB 1123.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GO AHEAD, GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SUSAN
MATINA. I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF ONE OF THE BILL'S
CO-SPONSORS, CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BUILDERS, AS THEIR CEO
IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY, KSBW
IS A NONPROFIT WORKING TO CLOSE
THE RACIAL WEALTH GAP, FOCUSING
ON HOUSING AND HOME OWNERSHIP AS
AN ORGANIZATION LED BY AND
SERVING PEOPLE OF COLOR, KSBW IS
PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR SB 1123.
CALIFORNIA FACES A HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS THAT HAS
SLAMMED THE DOOR SHUT ON HOME
OWNERSHIP FOR MILLIONS. THIS
ESSENTIAL LEGISLATION ALONE WILL
NOT FIX OUR HOUSING PRODUCTION
CRISIS, BUT IT WILL EXPEDITE
MORE HOMES THAT ARE LOWER COST
AND MORE ACCESSIBLE TO FIRST
TIME ENTRY LEVEL HOME BUYERS. BY
ENABLING THE PRODUCTION OF
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR TOWNHOMES
ON LOTS THAT ARE SMALLER AND
LESS EXPENSIVE, CALIFORNIANS.
MEDIAN. CALIFORNIA'S MEDIAN LOT
SIZE IS 80 300FT², AND RESEARCH
HAS FOUND THAT LAND COSTS MAKE
UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE PRICE
OF A HOME IN PLACES LIKE LA SAN
DIEGO, SALINAS, SAN JOSE AND SAN
FRANCISCO. THE MATH DRIVING SB
1123 IS SIMPLE A HOME THAT COMES
WITH LESS LAND WILL COST LESS.
MANY FAMILIES WANT AND CAN
AFFORD A LARGE HOME WITH A LARGE
BACKYARD. THESE FAMILIES HAVE
PLENTY OF OPTIONS IN TODAY'S
MARKET, BUT TOO MANY CAN'T BUY A
HOME AT ALL BECAUSE AFFORDABLE
OPTIONS DON'T EXIST. MANY
FAMILIES AND I WOULD ARGUE MANY
MORE FAMILIES OF COLOR, WOULD
LOVE TO BUY A HOME WITH LESS
LAND IF IT MADE THE AMERICAN
DREAM OF HOME OWNERSHIP POSSIBLE
. 1120 SB 1123 DOES JUST THAT,
MAKING THESE TYPES OF HOMES
MORE, MUCH MORE COMMON, CREATING
INCREASED CHOICE FOR DIVERSE
FAMILIES. CSUSB'S KSBI IS DEEPLY
INVESTED IN THIS TOPIC BECAUSE
WHILE HOME OWNERSHIP IS THE WAY
MOST AMERICANS BUILD
INTERGENERATIONAL WEALTH, ONLY 4
IN 10 BLACK AND LATINO
CALIFORNIANS OWN THEIR OWN HOME,
COMPARED TO 6 IN 10 WHITE
CALIFORNIANS. THAT'S ONE OF THE
MAIN REASONS WHY, FOR EVERY
DOLLAR OF WEALTH HELD BY A WHITE
FAMILY, BLACK AND LATINO
FAMILIES HAVE ABOUT $0.16. WE
CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER. HOME
OWNERSHIP IS A BROADLY SHARED
VALUE IN CALIFORNIA. SB 1123
REPRESENTS ONE IMPORTANT STEP IN
CREATING THE IMPORTANT,
ADMITTEDLY TECHNICAL STEPS
NEEDED TO ACTUALLY PRODUCE LOWER
COST FOR SALE HOUSING AND MAKING
THAT SHARED VALUE A REALITY.
THERE ARE NO SILVER BULLETS WHEN
IT COMES TO ADDRESSING
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING AND
HOMEOWNERSHIP CRISIS, BUT SB
1123 CREATES AN IMPORTANT TOOL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SB 1123?
CATHERINE CHARLES ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CORNELIUS BURKE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MARTIN RADOSEVICH WITH THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS AND
SUPPORT. SPUR BUILD CASA HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY, UNITED WAY, LA
YIMBY ACTION AND FIELDSTEAD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'VE BEEN
ASKED TO PROVIDE A ME TOO FOR
UNIDOS US IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
AS WELL. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO MORE,
IN SUPPORT, IS THERE ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION? NO ONE. OKAY. SEEING
NO ONE IN OPPOSITION. BRING IT
BACK TO OUR COMMITTEE. COMMENT
QUESTIONS. THE BILL HAS BEEN
MOVED BY SENATOR WIENER. ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
NONE, I DO DO WANT TO ADD A FEW
POINTS. I WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, EXPANDING THESE
SMALLER, LOWER COST HOMES TO
SINGLE FAMILY ZONES IS GOING TO
OPEN THEM UP, OPEN THEM UP TO
NEW RESIDENTS, THAT REALLY, AS
YOU SAY, REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE
TO BE IN A POSITION TO BUY A
HOME. AND ALSO THE AMENDMENT,
TODAY IS AN IMPORTANT ONE FOR
LOW INCOME RENTERS, IT CLOSES
THE LOOP LOOPHOLE THAT WOULD
ALLOW AN APARTMENT BUILDING
OWNER FROM CONVERTING AN
EXISTING BUILDING INTO CONDOS. I
KNOW THAT WAS NOT YOUR
INTENTION, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE ALL AGREED ON THAT. I
ALSO APPRECIATE THE CURRENT LAW
THAT FOCUSES ON LOW INCOME
FAMILIES. THE DEMOLITION
PROTECTIONS, AND THE LAW THAT
ENSURE THAT NO TENANTS CAN BE
REMOVED TO BUILD THESE, TO BUILD
THESE PROJECTS. AND IF A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAS AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD APPLY TO
THESE DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL. SO
THERE'S MUCH, MUCH MORE TO DO,
PARTICULARLY AS AS YOU'RE,
PROMOTING TODAY, TO HELP OUR
VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS, AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE. AND I'M VERY
HAPPY TO SUPPORT YOU, BECAUSE
YOU DO SO MUCH WORK IN THE
HOUSING AND YOU CARE SO MUCH
ABOUT OUR VULNERABLE, I HOPE
THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO
CONSIDER ADDITIONAL WAYS TO
PROTECT TENANTS AS WELL. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. SENATOR, WE
WANT TO CLOSE. THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS. AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. GREAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR WIENER. THE
MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS
DURAZZO I, DURAZZO I SATO. DOLLY
GLASER. SKINNER. WAHAB WIENER.
WIENER I 2 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT OPEN. OKAY THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND I SEE SENATOR LIMON,
THAT IS ITEM SIX, SB 1220. THANK
YOU. GO AHEAD, SENATOR. THANK
YOU. CHAIRS AND MEMBERS, FIRST,
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL YOUR
WORK ON THIS BILL. AND, JUST
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS
THAT AS THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD,
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
YOU, AND MAKE SURE TO KEEP YOU
APPRIZED OF ANY CHANGES. THE
BILL, GOES THROUGH. THIS BILL
WILL PROTECT THE QUALITY OF
PUBLIC SERVICES BY REQUIRING
HUMAN WORKERS TO REMAIN IN CALL
CENTERS FOR GOVERNMENT BENEFIT
PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF BEING
OUTSOURCED TO ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE. THESE CALL CENTERS
SERVE THE MOST VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIANS, ENROLLING IN
PROGRAMS LIKE CALWORKS, CALFRESH
, MEDI-CAL, HEALTHY FAMILIES,
AND COVERED CALIFORNIA OR OTHER
LOCAL STATE FUNDED PROGRAMS THAT
PROVIDE SIMILAR BENEFITS. THIS
BILL WILL ENSURE THAT THERE IS
HUMAN ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE WHEN
PEOPLE CALL TO RECEIVE HELP, BUT
OUR INTENT IS NOT TO PRECLUDE AI
FROM BEING USED AS A TOOL TO
ASSIST WORKERS. I WOULD ALSO
AGAIN LIKE TO COMMIT TO
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON OUTSTANDING ISSUES
AROUND THE APPLICATION TO
SERVICES LIKE 211 AND 988, AS
WELL AS CONTINUING TO REFINE THE
DEFINITION OF A LOCAL PUBLIC
BENEFIT PROGRAM. WITH ME TODAY,
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, WE HAVE
ELMER LESSARD WITH THE LABOR FED
AND ALSO KIMBERLY ROSENBERG
ROSENBERGER WITH SEIU. GO AHEAD
AGAIN, REMINDER YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS KIMBERLY
ROSENBERGER WITH SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION.
WE ARE PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR THIS
BILL. SB 1220, WE BELIEVE, IS AN
APPROPRIATE MODERN DAY UPDATE TO
EXISTING LAW. IT CARRIES THE
INTENT FORWARD OF 2012
LEGISLATION, AB 2058, BUT TAKES
INTO CONSIDERATION MODERN
TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCEMENTS WE
WEREN'T REALLY THINKING OF AT
THE TIME. CALL CENTERS ARE A
CRUCIAL POINT OF CONTACT FOR
PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY'VE ALREADY
HIT THEIR BREAKING POINT, TRYING
TO NAVIGATE ONLINE, OR THEY HAVE
LANGUAGE BARRIERS OR ACCESS
ISSUES. THEY ARE GOING TO CALL
CENTERS TO GET THAT HUMAN TOUCH.
FURTHER, THESE CALL CENTERS ARE
PROVIDING CRUCIAL, SAFETY NET
SERVICES, SO PEOPLE ARE AT THEIR
MOST VULNERABLE. AND WE ARE,
EMPHASIZING THAT THIS BILL IS
HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE OF
HUMAN TOUCH. IT'S WHEN YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR EMPATHY, WHEN YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND
THE NUANCES AND RECOGNIZE THE
ADDITIONAL CARE AND SERVICES
THAT THEY QUALIFY, QUALIFY FOR
THAT THEY MIGHT NEED, THIS BILL
DOESN'T PROHIBIT AI IN
TECHNOLOGY, AND WE KNOW WHEN
IT'S USED BY WORKERS. IT CAN
HELP SUPPLEMENT THEIR WORKLOAD
TO BETTER IMPROVE. WAIT TIME AND
CASELOAD. BUT THE WORKERS NEED
TO BE THE ONES DRIVING THE
OVERALL PURPOSE OF CALL CENTERS,
I ALSO WANT TO ECHO MY, GREAT
APPRECIATION FOR THIS COMMITTEE
AND THE STAFF, AS WELL AS
GEOSCIENCE AS THE ANALYSIS,
POINTED OUT, WE KIND OF SPEED
DATED ON THESE COMMITTEE ISSUES,
AND WE'RE TRYING TO TACKLE
TECHNOLOGY THAT I THINK AS A
STATE, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT THE ROLE OF, BUT WHAT WE
KNOW THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLE UP
FOR CALL CENTERS IS THAT HUMAN
COMPONENT. SO WE ARE CONTINUING
TO WORK ON LANGUAGE THAT CRAFTS
OUT, OUR INTENT WHILE ALSO BEING
CONSIDERATE OF WHAT THE GOAL IS
UNDERLYING OF THIS BILL. SO WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER,
AND FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. AND THANK
YOU FOR STANDING WITH WORKERS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, ELMER LEE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND
THE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US ON
SB 1220, A BILL THAT WILL
PROTECT CALL CENTER WORKERS AND
THE PUBLIC BY PUTTING GUARDRAILS
ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AT PUBLIC BENEFITS.
CALL CENTERS. THE EXPONENTIAL
GROWTH OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE WILL IMPACT EVERY
INDUSTRY AND WORKER IN
CALIFORNIA. AND WE KNOW THAT AI
CAN BE A PRODUCTIVE TOOL WHEN
USED TO SUPPORT WORKERS, BUT NOT
WHEN IT IS USED TO REPLACE OR
CONTROL THEM, WITHOUT WORKER
CENTERED GUARDRAILS PUT IN
PLACE, I CAN UNFORTUNATELY BE
USED TO EXPLOIT THESE SKILL OR
REPLACE WORKERS ALTOGETHER,
HARMING NOT ONLY THE WORKERS
THEMSELVES, BUT THE STATE AND
RESIDENTS OVERALL, SB 1220, AS
MENTIONED, DOES NOT BAN THE USE
OF AI, BUT RATHER ENSURES THAT
WORKERS ARE TRULY AT THE CENTER
OF THE PROCUREMENT AND
DEPLOYMENT OF AI IN THE
WORKPLACE. AS MENTIONED, THE
BILL HAS TWO MAIN PROVISIONS.
FIRST, IT WOULD PROHIBIT THE
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM
OUTSOURCING PUBLIC BENEFIT, CALL
CENTER JOBS TO FIRMS THAT ARE
USING AI TO AUTOMATE OR
ELIMINATE ESSENTIAL CORE JOB
FUNCTIONS. A PUBLIC BENEFIT CALL
CENTER WORKERS, AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, PUBLIC BENEFIT
PROGRAMS LIKE, LIKE THESE
INCLUDE CALWORKS, CALFRESH, EDD,
MEDI-CAL. THESE PROGRAMS THAT
ARE SERVING OUR MOST VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIANS, AND THEY SHOULD
NOT ONLY HAVE THE OPTION TO
SPEAK WITH AN AI SYSTEM WHEN
THEY ARE IN TIMES OF NEED.
SECONDLY, 1220 REQUIRES AN
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
PRODUCED BY AN AGENCY THAT
UTILIZES AN AI SYSTEM TO SUPPORT
CALL CENTER WORKERS. THE REPORT
IS INTENDED TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY FOR WORKERS AND
WOULD INCLUDE INFORMATION SUCH
AS INTENDED USES OF AI SYSTEMS
AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DATA USED
BY THE TECHNOLOGY TO PRODUCE
OUTCOMES. OVERALL, SB 1220
CREATES GUARDRAILS FOR WORKERS
AND ENSURES AI IS USED AS A TOOL
FOR CALL CENTER WORKERS TO
INCREASE EFFICIENCY,
PRODUCTIVITY, AND EFFECTIVENESS
WHEN THEY ARE RESPONDING TO
CALLERS WHO ARE IN NEED OF
SUPPORT FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1220? MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS, MATT BRAUDE HERE ON
BEHALF OF CTIA AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE IN SUPPORT SEEING NONE. IS
THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1220? SEEING NONE. OKAY. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK HERE TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS OR EMOTION? OKAY.
MOTION BY SENATOR. WIENER, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS. THANK YOU, SENATOR
LEMON, FOR BRINGING THIS UP. I
YOU HAVE A LOT OF COURAGE TO
BRING UP AN ISSUE LIKE AI. AND I
THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
BUT AS USUAL, IT TRIGGERS A
WHOLE LOT OF OTHER QUESTIONS
BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER, NEVER DEALT
WITH IT, BUT ESPECIALLY THIS IS
A TECHNOLOGY THAT'S WHERE
DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS
ENTITLED TO A SOCIAL SERVICE OR,
OR OTHER BENEFITS. SO WE'VE
DISCUSSED THIS, I THINK IT'S,
OVERLY BROAD AS IT APPLIES TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BECAUSE IT
JUST DOESN'T FOCUS ON SOCIAL
SERVICE, BENEFITS, SO I JUST
WANT YOUR COMMITMENT THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO NARROW THIS BILL BEFORE
IT GETS TO THE SENATE FLOOR, AND
THEN, AS I THINK YOU MENTIONED,
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AS
IT APPLIES TO, TO ONE ONE AND
988 SERVICES. SO I STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE YOU KEEP WORKING AS
HARD AS I KNOW THAT YOU'RE YOU
USUALLY DO, AND, WOULD LIKE TO
HEAR HOW THESE ISSUES ARE
RESOLVED BEFORE IT MAKES IT TO
THE FLOOR. WITH THAT, I SUPPORT
YOU AND THANK YOU. AND
ABSOLUTELY CLOSING REMARKS.
THANK YOU. AND ABSOLUTELY WE ARE
COMMITTED. I MEAN, THIS IS A NEW
ISSUE. THERE'S 50 BILLS IN THIS
PARTICULAR SPACE IN THE
LEGISLATURE, RIGHT? AND ALL OF
THEM TARGET DIFFERENT, KIND OF
ASPECT OF IT. SO WE ARE
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH YOU,
WITH THE COMMITTEE ON TRYING TO
NARROW IT DOWN, REFINE IT. OUR
GOAL IS REALLY TO UNDERSTAND
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE POPULATIONS
THAT CALFRESH CAL, YOU KNOW,
MEDI-CAL, CAL WORKS HEALTHY
FAMILIES, ALL THESE PROGRAMS
SERVE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT
POPULATIONS FOR US. BUT ALSO, IF
TECHNOLOGY WAS AN OPTION FOR
THEM, THEY WOULD HAVE SOLVED
THEIR PROBLEM WITH TECHNOLOGY.
AT SOME POINT, A PERSON IS WHAT
THEY NEED TO HELP THEM NAVIGATE.
AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CRAFT
LEGISLATION SO THAT WE ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. AND IF
THEY COULD HAVE FIGURED OUT THE
PROBLEM. AND TRUTHFULLY, IT'S
NOT JUST THE, YOU KNOW, THE
IMPORTANT POPULATION. IT'S ALL
OF US. IF WE COULD DO SOME OF
THIS WITH, YOU KNOW, TECHNOLOGY
WITH ASSISTANCE, WE WOULD HAVE
SOLVED IT. BUT THERE'S TIMES
WHERE WE JUST NEED A PERSON TO
ANSWER, A PERSON TO WALK US AND
GUIDE US THROUGH. AND WE ARE
TRYING TO CREATE A BILL THAT
WOULD ENSURE THAT AND ENSURE
THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT A
WORKER, A PERSON, IS STILL
NEEDED. SO WE WILL WORK ON, YOU
KNOW, KIND OF, NARROWING THE
DEFINITION AND ALSO
CONTEMPLATING PROGRAMS LIKE TWO
ON ONE AND NINE, EIGHT, EIGHT
AND FIGURING OUT HOW THOSE MAKE
SENSE OR DON'T MAKE SENSE TO
INCLUDE IN SOME OF THIS. BUT
ULTIMATELY, WE REALLY BELIEVE
THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A
PERSON AT THE END OF THE LINE
AND THAT GETS US THE OUTCOME. SO
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. GREAT. OKAY,
THEN WE HAVE A MOTION. THE
MOTION BY SENATOR WIENER IS Dð
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. SENATOR
DURAZO, I DURAZO I CIERTO
CIERTO. NO. DOLLY GLASER.
GLASER. I SKINNER. WAHAB.
WIENER. WIENER I 3 TO 1. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN. THANK YOU.
SENATOR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
GONZALEZ. I SEE YOU HERE. AND
THEN SENATOR ALLEN. TAKING OUT
OF ORDER HERE. I SAW HER FIRST.
SENATOR GONZALEZ, YOU CAN GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, BEFORE
I BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED
IN PAGE FOUR OF THE ANALYSIS. I
WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR HELP ON THIS BILL AS WELL,
SENATE BILL 1376 WILL ESTABLISH
A PILOT PROGRAM TO CREATE A
DATABASE FOR LOCAL AGENCIES TO
REPORT DETAILED INFORMATION ON
THEIR CONTRACTING ACTIVITY AND
BRING MUCH NEEDED TRANSPARENCY
TO THE PROCESS IN OUR STATE, WE
KNOW THAT LOCAL OFFICIALS HAVE
SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY OVER
CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT
PRACTICES ON BEHALF OF THIS
PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE. OVER THE
PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THERE HAVE
BEEN NUMEROUS HIGH PROFILE
INSTANCES OF COLLUSION WHERE
LOCAL OFFICIALS HAVE PUSHED
THROUGH NO BID CONTRACTS, OFTEN
FOR PERSONAL GAIN. SB 1376 WILL
ALLOW CALIFORNIA LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PIONEER BEST PRACTICES AROUND
CONTRACTING TRANSPARENCY, TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
TODAY I HAVE BRITTNEY BARSOTTI
FROM THE CALIFORNIA NEWS
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION AND
DANIEL FELIZARDO FROM THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU.
WELCOME. AND YOU EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. OH, THERE YOU GO. I
THINK YOU GOT TO KEEP IT ON. GO
AHEAD. OKAY. GO AHEAD. OKAY,
BRITTNEY BARSOTTI, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA NEWS PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION, SUPPORT OF SB 1376,
WE REPRESENT OVER 400 MEMBERS OF
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS. AND
WHILE YOU USUALLY SEE ME IN MY
LEGISLATIVE ROLE, I ALSO WEAR A
HAT OF RUNNING OUR LEGAL
HELPLINE FOR OUR MEMBERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I'D SAY
95% OF THE CALLS THAT WE GET ARE
USUALLY RELATED TO PUBLIC
RECORDS, ACT REQUESTS, OR, OPEN
MEETINGS LAWS AND HAVING THE
INFORMATION ON THAT IS COVERED
IN THIS BILL WOULD HELP OUR
REPORTERS, BE ABLE TO BETTER
COVER THESE CONTRACTS AND OFTEN
TIMES, THEY FACE SIGNIFICANT
OBSTACLES WHEN IT COMES TO
GETTING BASIC CONTACT
INFORMATION OUT OF CONTRACTS,
LIKE WHO HAS GOTTEN THE CONTRACT
METHODS FOR N NUMBER OF BIDS,
THE TOTAL PRICE, HOW LONG IT'S
GOING TO BE LASTED, AND ALL OF
THAT INFORMATION IS COVERED
UNDER THIS BILL AND WOULD BE
VERY HELPFUL FOR CONTINUING TO
DO THE TYPE OF REPORTING THAT
HAS RESULTED IN CHANGES SUCH AS
IN THE CITY OF BELL, ALSO,
PUBLIC NOTICES THAT ARE
ADDRESSED IN THE BILL ANALYSIS
ARE HELPFUL ON THE FRONT END TO
CREATE TRANSPARENCY. SO OUR
FOLKS KNOW THAT BIDS WILL BE
COMING, BUT WITHOUT HAVING THE
INFORMATION ON THE BACK END IN
TERMS OF WHAT THE CONTRACT WAS
AND HOW IT WAS AWARDED, WILL
ASSIST IN FURTHER COVERAGE AND
IT WILL ALLOW OUR FOLKS TO TRACK
TRENDS AND DIFFERENT,
RAMIFICATIONS FOR THESE CITIES.
AND I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GO
AHEAD. MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS DAN
FELIZARDO, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PUBLIC
PROCUREMENT IS A POWERFUL
ECONOMIC DRIVER NOT ONLY IN
CALIFORNIA BUT ACROSS THE GLOBE.
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT IS ALSO,
UNFORTUNATELY, GOVERNMENT'S MOST
PROMINENT PUBLIC CORRUPTION
RISK. DATA ON PUBLIC CORRUPTION
INVESTIGATIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT
NEARLY 60% OF BRIBES PROVIDED TO
LOCAL OFFICIALS WERE PAID TO WIN
PUBLIC CONTRACTS IN CALIFORNIA.
WE HAVE SEEN EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS ACCEPTING LAVISH
BRIBES, GIFTS, KICKBACKS, ALL IN
EXCHANGE FOR SUPPORTING BIDS BY
CERTAIN CONTRACTORS FOR PUBLIC
CONTRACTS GLOBALLY, THE MOVE
TOWARDS OPEN CONTRACTING HAS
BEEN ENDORSED BY MANY, MANY
ORGANIZATIONS. MANY PROMINENT
ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS THE G7,
THE UNITED NATIONS, THE WORLD
BANK, AND THE IMF. OPEN
CONTRACTING HELPS GOVERNMENTS
AND THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND WHAT
THEY'RE BUYING, WHO THEY'RE
DOING BUSINESS WITH, AND HOW
PUBLIC CONTRACTING SHAPES
ECONOMIC AND THE SOCIAL
LANDSCAPE. IT ALSO HELPS LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO BETTER TRACK DATA
ABOUT POTENTIAL RED FLAGS AND
WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IN MOST
PUBLIC, PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASES.
IT ALLOWS US TO BETTER AND MORE
EASILY TRACK THE MONEY. GIVEN
THE CLOSE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN
PUBLIC CONTRACTING AND INSTANCES
OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION, OUR OFFICE
BELIEVES THAT THE PILOT PROJECT
CALLED FOR IN THIS BILL IS NOT
ONLY REASONABLE, BUT WILL HELP,
THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1377 86? NO, IS
THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1376 SEEING NONE. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO DÍAS. COMMENTS.
QUESTIONS. MEMBERS SEEING NONE.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. WHO WAS
FIRST SENATOR? WIENER AGAIN?
OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY,
SENATOR WIENER, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. SENATOR GONZALEZ, FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I, I HAD
NEVER HEARD THAT, STATISTIC
BEFORE OF 60% OF BRIBES ARE
RELATED TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS,
THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CAUGHT,
ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. AND
CLOSING REMARKS. I JUST WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU TO OUR WITNESSES.
MISS BARSOTTI AND MR. FELIZARDO,
FOR THEIR TESTIMONY. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTION BY
SENATOR WIENER IS, Dð PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR DURAZZO I DURAZZO I
CIERTO CIERTO. NO. DOLLY. NO.
DOLLY. NO. GLASER GLASER I
SKINNER. WAHAB. WIENER WIENER I
3 TO 2. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE
HAD SENATOR ALLEN HERE A FEW
MINUTES AGO, YEAH. ABOUT FOR A
MINUTE
.
OKAY. PICK UP, SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER ON SB 1045, AND THEN WE'LL
MOVE AFTER THAT TO SENATOR GROVE
. SENATOR BLAKE, YOU'RE WELCOME.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND THANK YOU,
COLLEAGUES, IN A CRITICAL EFFORT
TO REDUCE METHANE AND OTHER
SHORT LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS
IN 2016, WE SET ORGANIC WASTE
DIVERSION TARGETS OF 75% BY
2025. WITH THE PASSAGE OF SENATE
BILL 1383 BY THEN SENATOR LARA
IN ORDER TO MEET THESE TARGETS,
CALRECYCLE ESTIMATES THAT THE
STATE NEEDS APPROXIMATELY 50 TO
100 NEW OR EXPANDED ORGANIC
WASTE RECYCLING FACILITIES. ONE
OBSTACLE TO GETTING THESE
FACILITIES UP AND RUNNING IS THE
TIME CONSUMING AND COMPLICATED
PROCESS TO GET THEM SITED AND
PERMITTED TO ADDRESS THIS, MY
LEGISLATION WOULD REQUIRE THE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
TO DEVELOP A TECHNICAL ADVISORY
ON BEST PRACTICES FOR
FACILITATING THE SITING OF
COMPOST FACILITIES, AND REQUIRE
LOCALS TO CONSIDER THIS ADVISORY
. IN ADDITION, SB 1045 WOULD
ESTABLISH TIMELINES FOR
REVIEWING PERMITS FOR COMPOST
FACILITIES TO ENSURE THAT THEY
ARE DECIDED UPON IN A TIMELY
MANNER. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY SPONSOR, WHO IS
NEIL EDGAR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CALIFORNIA COMPOST COALITION
. IS HE HERE? OH NO. IS THERE
ANY ANYONE ELSE HERE? MAYBE WE
SHOULD DO OPPOSITION FIRST AND
LET HIM COME BACK. NO, I CAN, I
CAN I'M GONNA DO IT. YOU CAN DO
IT. OKAY WE CAN DO THAT. THANK
YOU FOR PINCH HITTING. YOU CAN
OR CAN'T, CAN. I MEAN, I'M JUST
SAYING IF SOMEBODY ELSE. OKAY GO
AHEAD, TAYLOR ROBINSON, ON
BEHALF OF. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES
GO AHEAD, KAYLA ROBINSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPOST
COALITION. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M KAYLA ROBINSON,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMPOST COALITION, OUR MEMBERS
ARE PREDOMINANTLY SERVICE
PROVIDERS FOR MUNICIPALITIES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA WHO
PROCESS YARD TRIMMINGS AND,
INCREASINGLY, FOOD MATERIALS TO
MEET THE LOFTY CLIMATE GOALS
PRESCRIBED IN SB 1383. C
RECYCLE HAS PREDICTED THAT THE
STATE NEEDS TO DOUBLE OUR
EXISTING COMPOSTING CAPACITY,
ADDING SOME 550 TO 100
FACILITIES SINCE SB 1383 HAS
BEEN PASSED IN 2016. WE MAY HAVE
ADDED A DOZEN NEW FACILITIES,
ONLY TWO OF WHICH ARE PERMITTED
TO ACCEPT FOOD, WHICH REQUIRES A
HIGHER BAR FOR PERMITTING NEIL
AND HIS DAY JOB PERMITS AND
DEVELOPS COMPOSTING FACILITIES,
AND HE IS PERMITTED 44
FACILITIES AND 23 COUNTIES. AND
HE KNOWS FIRSTHAND THE
CHALLENGES IN GETTING THEM ON
THE GROUND AND OPERATING ACROSS
THE STATE. THIS BILL IS WORKING
TOWARDS RESOLVING A FEW HURDLES
WE ARE FACING AND MOVING FORWARD
WITH CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BY
PROVIDING MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE
LANGUAGE. WE ARE ALSO WORKING
WITH CAPCO TO COME TO SOME
AGREEMENT ON CONCEPTS THAT WOULD
MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE AIR
DISTRICT TO PERMIT THESE
FACILITIES. THE BILL ANALYSIS
POSITS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE TO PLAN FOR
AND PERMIT ORGANIC WASTE
FACILITIES. IN THE INTEREST OF
MEETING SB 1383 REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEY DO. I JUST DON'T
BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT
TOOLS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES THAT
DELAY NUMEROUS PROJECTS. THIS
BILL WILL HELP PROVIDE SOME OF
THOSE TOOLS. AGAMAN, ONE OF
CALIFORNIA COMPOST COALITION'S
MEMBERS, SPENT 12 YEARS TO
COMPLETE TWO ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENTS IN VENTURA COUNTY TO
EXPAND AN EXISTING FACILITY,
LARGELY BECAUSE THE ZONING
ORDINANCE DIDN'T EXPLICITLY
ALLOW COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING
OPERATIONS ON THE AGRICULTURE
ZONED LAND. CLOSING THE LOOP ON
ORGANIC MATERIALS WILL REQUIRE
THAT COMPOST BE RETURNED TO
AGRICULTURE. WE APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE STAFF WORKING TO
PROVIDE EXCELLENT AMENDMENTS,
AND I WANT TO THANK SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR FOR BRINGING SB 1045
FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1045? GOOD MORNING
WITH CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE,
WE'RE NOT A SECOND WITNESS, BUT
WE HAVE SPONSORED VARIATIONS OF
THIS BILL IN THE PAST, INCLUDING
SOME OF THE COMPONENTS IN HERE.
IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. OUR
CYCLE ESTIMATES. WE NEED
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 AND 100 NEW
COMPOSTING FACILITIES TO MEET
OUR SB 1383 TARGETS. AND IT
REALLY ISN'T A QUESTION OF A
TRADE OFF BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION VERSUS, YOU KNOW,
BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HAVING ALL THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, BUT
DOING IT IN A MORE TIMELY
MANNER. AND GETTING RID OF THE
RED TAPE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1045? GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, MICHAEL CAPRIO
WITH REPUBLIC SERVICES HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. DON KOEPKE WITH
MCHUGH. KOEPKE PADRON, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
BALANCE, ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. PRISCILLA, PRISCILLA, KUDOS
ON BEHALF OF STOP WASTE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. LINDSAY GOLDEN WITH
CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
THE RESOURCE RECOVERY COALITION
OF CALIFORNIA. AND SUPPORT.
THANKS JOHN MOFFITT ON BEHALF OF
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. WHERE, DO YOU STILL
NEED SINCE HE CAN'T BE HERE FOR
A TECHNICAL TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?
OKAY GREAT. ALL RIGHT,
OPPOSITION. DO WE HAVE ANYONE
SPEAKING OUT IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MY NAME
IS TANG LEE. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, OR COA, OUR
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL ARE
RELATED TO THE TIMELINES THAT
ARE BEING IMPOSED ON AIR
DISTRICTS TO PROCESS THOSE
PERMITS. THE 30 DAY LIMITATION
IS ALREADY IN STATE LAW. AND,
YOU KNOW, THE DISTRICTS WORK
VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
MEET THOSE TIMELINES. THE 60 DAY
LIMITATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED
IN THE BILL, HOWEVER, WOULD
PREVENT WOULD PREVENT US FROM
BEING ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE
PERMITS AND BE ABLE TO ISSUE
THEM. TO BE CLEAR, THE AIR
DISTRICTS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF
COMPOSTING OPERATIONS BECAUSE
THEY CAN HELP US TO MITIGATE THE
CLIMATE EFFECTS OF SHORT LIVED
CLIMATE POLLUTANTS WE SUPPORT.
CAL RECYCLES EFFORTS. WE WORKED
VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CALRECYCLE
TO DEVELOP THE REGULATION, AND
THAT IS OUT ON THE STREETS RIGHT
NOW FOR LANDFILL DIVERSION, BUT
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
NOT TRADING BENEFITS FOR IMPACTS
. AND SO WHEN YOU DIVERT
MATERIAL AWAY FROM LANDFILLS,
YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S
DONE CORRECTLY. AND THAT WE'RE
NOT ACTUALLY EXACERBATING THE
PROBLEM WITH THIS POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS THAT COME
FROM COMPOSTING OPERATIONS
WITHIN COMMUNITIES. AND SO IN
ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO
REVIEW THESE OPERATIONS
THOUGHTFULLY AND CAREFULLY TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE DESIGNED
AND THAT THEY'RE OPERATED SO AS
TO MINIMIZE THOSE EMISSIONS. AND
SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY THE
ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION TO
1045. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1045? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR DURAZO
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
ALAN ABS WITH THE BAY AREA AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ARE.
THE AIR DISTRICT HASN'T TAKEN A
FORMAL POSITION YET, BUT WE DO
HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AS
EXPRESSED BY CAPCO. AND I'M ALSO
HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IF
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE IT
ABOUT PERMITTING AS IT RESPECTS
THE BAY AREA AIR DISTRICT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION SEEING NONE.
OKAY, COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SENATOR SOLANO? YES.
ALL RIGHT. SO THE ORIGINAL BILL
1383, AND PROBABLY THIS IS A
TEAM EFFORT TO TRY AND ANSWER
SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. IT
REQUIRED. GOVERNOR, GOVERNMENTS
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DIVERT
THE ORGANIC WASTE FROM
LANDFILLS, INCLUDING COMPOST, BY
DOING MY MEANS, INCLUDING
COMPOSTING, MULCHING, BIOMASS
ENERGY PLANS AND ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION FACILITIES. AND THIS
IS JUST YOUR BILL IS FOCUSED ON
JUST THE COMPOSTING OR ALL THE
ABOVE. JUST THE COMPOSTING. OKAY
AND, BECAUSE I KNOW CURRENTLY WE
HAVE COMPOSTING FACILITIES LIKE
IN BAKERSFIELD THAT SERVICE OUR
AREA DOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
WE ACTUALLY TRUCK ALL OUR STUFF
UP THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH
AND SO FROM THE 1383 HAS A LOT
OF PROBLEMS. AND PART OF IT, AS
I THINK IT ENVISIONED THAT
BIOMASS AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
FACILITIES WOULD COME ONLINE AND
HELP TAKE THE, THE PRESSURE OFF
OF COMPOSTING, EVERYTHING. AND,
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE, THE, THE
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS HAVE A
BYPRODUCT THAT CALIFORNIA SAYS
THEY DON'T WANT, WHICH IS GAS,
NATURAL GAS, THAT WOULD BE
PUMPED BACK INTO THE GAS LINES.
SO THERE IS NO REAL INCENTIVE
FOR A WASTE HAULER TO GO OUT AND
SPEND THE. IT USED TO BE 100
MILLION, BUT $200 MILLION ON AN
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER, WHICH MEANS
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE EVEN
MORE COMPOSTING FACILITIES. BUT
PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEIR
COMPOSTING FACILITIES IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY EMIT
GAS. THE COMPOSTING ITSELF EMITS
GAS, RIGHT? SO YEAH. SO GO AHEAD
. YEAH. I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE
I'M GOING. IT'S JUST HOW. RIGHT?
I MEAN, DOES THIS HELP THAT. SO
WE NEED IN ALL OF THE ABOVE
STRATEGY TO MANAGING ORGANIC
WASTE. SO THE WASTE HAULER THAT
SERVES FOR EXAMPLE, MY HOME IN
SAN DIEGO DID BUILD A DIGESTER
AND GOT A GOT THE PERMITS TO DO
IT AND IS PICKING UP YARD WASTE
AND FOOD WASTE AND TAKING IT TO
THE DIGESTER. AND THEN THE, AND
BUT THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE
STATE THAT ARE MORE
AGRICULTURAL. AND COMPOSTING, OF
COURSE, MEANS THAT THE NUTRIENTS
GO BACK INTO THE LAND. AND SO WE
HAVE A BIG AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN
THIS STATE, AND THERE ARE USES
FOR COMPOSTED FOOD AND GREEN AND
GREEN MATTER, ORGANIC MATERIAL.
SO WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING TO
DO IS IT'S TRYING TO RECOGNIZE
THAT WE'RE HAVING SOME PROBLEMS
IN THIS AREA, AND WE NEED TO
MAKE IT EASIER TO ACTUALLY MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 1383. I
MEAN, THE ISSUES AROUND SITING,
WHETHER IT'S A DIGESTER OR IT'S,
A COMPOST FACILITY OR IT'S A
LANDFILL, I MEAN, ALL OF THESE
THINGS ARE DIFFICULT, BUT AND
THERE IS IT'S HIGHLY REGULATED.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS
TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE
AND MAKE IT GO FASTER. SO THAT'S
WHY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE INTERESTED
IN HAVING THE TIMELINES ALSO, BE
SHORTENED A LITTLE BIT. AND, AND
I'LL JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO JUST
ADDRESS THE CONCERN ABOUT THE
TIMELINES, YOU KNOW, WE VERY
MUCH NEED TO WORK WITH THE AIR
DISTRICTS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE
TO FIND TIMELINES THAT WORK. I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S
BEEN CLEAR TO ME FROM SERVING IN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SERVING ON
THIS COMMITTEE LAST YEAR AS
WELL, IS THAT THERE'S NO LEVEL
OF GOVERNMENT THAT'S REALLY
TRYING TO WORK AGAINST WHATEVER
THE GOALS ARE. BUT WHEN, WHEN
YOU WHEN YOU HAVE A LONG AND
INTENSIVE REGULATORY PROCESS
THAT IS NOT CLEARLY TIME BOUND,
IT CAN END UP EXPANDING IN SUCH
A WAY THAT IT CAN MAKE PROJECTS
INFEASIBLE. SO THIS IS SOMETHING
WE'VE DEALT WITH ON THE HOUSING
SIDE, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
DEAL WITH ON ON COMPOSTING
FACILITY SIDE AS WELL. SO YOU
KNOW, WE WILL BE CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE AIR DISTRICTS AND
WE IN NO WAY WANT TO CREATE
SOMETHING THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR
YOU TO DO YOUR JOB WELL. BUT WE
ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
IT'S BOUNDED IN SOME WAY. SO I
THINK THE GIST OF WHAT MY
CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE'RE
CREATING TIMELINES AGAIN. AND
THESE TIMELINES USUALLY GET
FOLLOWED WITH MANDATES, AND
THOSE MANDATES GET FOLLOWED WITH
SOME KIND OF FINE, FOR WHOEVER'S
NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET THE
TIMELINE. BUT AT THE AT THE SAME
TIME, WE'RE TAKING OFFLINE OR
WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE INCENTIVE
TO CREATE THE ALL OF THE ABOVE
STRATEGY, LIKE YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT. BECAUSE WE HAVE WE HAPPEN
TO HAVE AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTER IN
OUR AREA TOO. AND THEY SERVICE,
BUT THEY CAN ONLY SERVE SO MUCH
AND THEY'RE MAXED OUT AND SO
THEY WOULD NEED THOSE ALL OVER
THE STATE. THEY'RE EASIER ON THE
NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY DON'T
EMIT SMELL AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT WE'RE TAKING THOSE AWAY FROM
THE INCENTIVE FOR BUILDING THOSE
AWAY WITH OUR NO GAS STRATEGY.
AND SO THIS IS GOING TO BE AN
ALL ALL COMPOSTING STRATEGY,
WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO FIND THE
AREAS. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THE PROCESS, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
THOSE AREAS, YOU KNOW, FEASIBLE.
BEALL. AND, AND THAT'S, THERE'S,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIMELINE
IS FOR THAT, AND SO AS WE'RE
SWITCHING AS THIS THING IS, IF
THIS 1383 IS BEING MOVED, THE
PARTS ARE MOVING AROUND IN IT,
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO GET BEHIND
TIMELINES, THAT FORCE PEOPLE TO
DO SOMETHING WHEN IT'S A
CONSTANTLY MOVING PROCESS. AND
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT THE
BILL IS, IS WE DON'T NEED WE
DON'T NEED MORE MANDATES AND
FINES, WHAT WE DO NEED IS THE
ABILITY TO DO AN ALL OF THE
ABOVE STRATEGY. BUT WE'RE AT THE
SAME TIME TAKING THAT AWAY. AND
SO FOR ME, THE WHOLE THING
DOESN'T WORK. IT DOESN'T WORK
FOR A LOT OF COMMUNITIES. YOU'LL
SEE A LOT OF THERE'S BILLS THAT
COME ALL THE TIME RELATED TO
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND AND,
AND SO, SO YEAH, HARD FOR ME TO
GET BEHIND THE BILL. SO, CAN I
WEIGH IN ANYBODY ELSE THAT, HAS
A LOVE TO WEIGH IN? SENATOR?
NEIL EDGAR, CALIFORNIA COMPOST
COALITION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
DIGESTERS THAT ARE BEING BUILT.
THE FACILITY THAT SENATOR WAS
TALKING ABOUT IN HER DISTRICT,
EDCO IS EXPANDING THAT FACILITY
TO DOUBLE ITS CAPACITY.
CURRENTLY VEHICLE FUEL IS NOT
THE ONLY PATHWAY FORWARD FOR A
LOT OF THE DIGESTER GAS THAT
YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. THERE IS
A LOT OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION.
AND THEN WE'RE WORKING ACTIVELY
ON A NUMBER OF OTHER MEASURES TO
PROVIDE A PATHWAY FOR HYDROGEN,
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, UP FOR
DEBATE IN MANY OF THE
COMMITTEES. ALL OF THOSE ARE UP
FOR DEBATE. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
SO AND IF WE'RE GOING TO IF
WE'RE GOING TO SAY NO TO GAS
PRODUCTION AND USING GAS TO
CREATE ELECTRICITY, THEN THAT
MAKES THE DIGESTERS PRETTY MUCH
A WASTE OF MONEY. YEAH. AT THE
END OF THE DAY, WE NEED TO MOVE
ALL THIS AGRICULTURAL, ALL THIS
ORGANIC MATERIAL THAT'S PRODUCED
IN AGRICULTURE BACK TO THOSE
ORGANIC SOILS AND, AND ADD
ORGANICS TO GET MORE SUSTAINABLE
PRACTICES. BUT DIGESTION COULD
BE THAT. WHEN WOULD BE THE END
OF THE DAY? IS IT TOMORROW OR IS
IT IN A FEW, A COUPLE OF YEARS,
OR IS IT AS LONG? I BELIEVE LIKE
A LOT OF THESE. THAT'S A WORK IN
PROGRESS. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS QUESTIONS
? I JUST WANT TO COMMENT. IN
AGRICULTURE WE ARE DOING A LOT
OF THIS ALREADY. I MEAN WE DO
BIOCHAR ON OUR FARM. IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE USE FOR OUR
ORGANICS RIGHT NOW. AND SO
THERE'S A LOT AND I KNOW WHEN
THEY ORIGINALLY THE ORGANICS
BILLS CAME, THERE WAS A HUGE
CONFLICT OF THE WASTE HAULER IS
GOING TO GET THE WHO'S GOING TO
GET THE ORGANICS AND WHO IS
GOING TO BE CHARGED FOR IT, BUT
NOW SIDING IS THE NEXT ISSUE.
AND WHAT, PRODUCTS ARE WE GOING
TO DRIVE FROM THAT? I MEAN, CAN
WE USE HYDROGEN? CAN WE MAKE
HYDROGEN? CAN WE MAKE BIODIESEL?
THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.
AND THAT'S BEEN THE YOU KNOW, I
THINK THE AREA WHERE WE HAVE
NEEDS MORE DIRECTION ON WHICH
WAY WE'RE GOING TO GO SO WE CAN
PERMIT THEM. AND I THINK THE
LAST THING IS, IS THAT IT
DOESN'T WORK EVERYWHERE IN
CALIFORNIA, IN MY DISTRICT,
WHERE WE HAVE LITERALLY HUGE
SPANS OF AREAS THAT YOU HAVE TO
TRUCK THIS STUFF, YOU'RE
ACTUALLY MAKING THE ENVIRONMENT
WORSE BY USING FOSSIL FUELS TO
MOVE STUFF AROUND TO ACTUALLY
GET THE ORGANICS. SO IT NEEDS TO
BE NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL. OKAY,
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS?
NO, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE THE
BILL. AND THIS IS Dð PASS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, YOU WANT
TO CALL THE ROLL? OH, YOU WANT
TO CLOSE? I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.
I'M SORRY. YEAH. SO JUST TO BE
CLEAR, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S
ANYTHING IN THIS BILL THAT DIS
INCENTIVIZES ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
, THIS THIS BILL IS ONLY ABOUT
MAKING IT CLEARER. WHAT? WHEN IT
COMES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
COMPOSTING. SO WE'RE TRYING TO
CREATE THE STREAMLINING AND MORE
EFFICIENCY IN THE PROCESS. BUT
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO
DISINCENTIVIZE DIGESTION AND I
DON'T BELIEVE I'VE HEARD FROM
ANY WASTE HAULERS WHO'VE
SUGGESTED THAT THIS BILL WORKS
AT CROSS PURPOSES WITH WHAT
THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, THE
DIGESTERS THAT THEY'VE BUILT, OR
COULD BE CONSIDERING. AND, YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE WASTEWATER
DISTRICTS THAT THAT HAVE
DIGESTERS THAT COULD ALSO BE
PROCESSING FOOD WASTE. SO THIS
IS A MAJOR PART OF MANAGING OUR
ORGANICS. BUT THIS IS JUST ONE
SMALL AREA WHICH HAS
SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH
COMPOSTING. AND WE'LL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE AIR BOARD AIR
BOARDS IN THE STATE AS WELL.
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. GREAT. SO
THIS IS Dð PASS TO EQ. GO AHEAD
AND CALL ROLL. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE. SENATORS DURAZZO
CIERTO CIERTO NO. DOLLY. DOLLY.
NO. GLASER. GLASER AYE. SKINNER.
WAHAB. WIENER 122. THAT'S 1 TO
2. OKAY THAT'S 1 TO 2. WE'RE
GOING TO HOLD THAT OPEN. SENATOR
ALLEN, YOU'LL BE PRESENTING SB
1234. SENATOR, THIS WAS WELL,
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. I'M HERE PRESENTING
SB 1234. MY FAVORITE NUMBER.
BILL WHICH SEEKS TO STREAMLINE
THE PROCESS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO FINALIZE
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPONENTS OF
THEIR LOCAL COASTAL, LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAMS, OR LPS, LET ME
LET ME START BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND, I KNOW
THEY'VE ALL BEEN PROVIDED TO
EACH OF YOU, AND WE'LL JUST
DISCUSS THEM IN A MINUTE, AS YOU
KNOW, CITIES AND COUNTIES THAT
REPRESENT OUR COASTAL LANDS ARE
REQUIRED TO COORDINATE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TO
PROTECT COASTAL RESOURCES,
GUARANTEED PUBLIC ACCESS, AND
ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS
UNDERTAKEN SUSTAINABLY. OUR
COMMISSION, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, APPLIES ITS
OVERSIGHT BY CERTIFYING A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT'S LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM. THE COLLECTION OF
APPROVED PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT
LAY OUT THE FRAMEWORK FOR LAND
USE DEVELOPMENT, COASTAL
RESOURCE PROTECTION, ALONG WITH
THE NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION
ORDINANCES. JUST AS THE COASTAL
COMMISSION INITIALLY REVIEWS A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S LCP TO ENSURE
THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF
THE COASTAL ACT, ANY PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING LCP
MUST ALSO BE SUBMITTED FOR
REVIEW, AND IF THE COASTAL
COMMISSION IDENTIFIES ANY
DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES
WITH THE COASTAL ACT, THEY CAN
THEN CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE
AMENDMENT WITH CLARIFYING
MODIFICATIONS THAT, IF ACCEPTED
BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WILL
DEEM THE AMENDMENT CERTIFIED. SO
THE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE
RECOMMENDED BY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION ARE USUALLY
NON-SUBSTANTIVE, TECHNICAL OR
CLARIFYING MODIFICATIONS THAT
DON'T MEANINGFULLY CHANGE THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS COMPARED
TO THE VERSION LAST HEARD AND
PASSED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
SO THE COMMITTEE SOUGHT TO
NARROW THE BILL APPLYING ONLY TO
PROJECTS WITH AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING COMPONENT. AND THEY ALSO
WANTED TO CLEARLY DEFINE THE
TYPE OF NON-SUBSTANTIVE
MODIFICATIONS THAT MIGHT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THIS MODEL,
MAINTAINING THE FULL AND
DISCRETION AND OVERSIGHT OF THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO, AS
AMENDED, THE BILL WILL ALLOW
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT A
POLICY WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR TO ACCEPT
THESE NON-SUBSTANTIVE
MODIFICATIONS WITH THOROUGH
REQUIREMENTS FOR TIMELY NOTICE
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING
BODY AND THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS
PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE COUNCIL.
CAN ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL COULD
PULL IT BACK FOR A DISCUSSION OR
AN ITEM BEFORE THE COUNCIL? IF
THERE'S ANY CHALLENGE OR CONCERN
ABOUT WHATEVER DEAL WAS STRUCK
AT THE COMMISSION? THIS
PERMISSIVE APPROACH PROVIDES
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WITH SOME
SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY TO AVOID
THE TIME AND COST OF A
DUPLICATIVE HEARING AS THEY SEE
FIT. AND IT'S A TARGETED BILL
THAT WILL WILL HELP CITIES AND
COUNTIES. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE. GREAT. DO YOU HAVE
ANY WITNESSES WITH YOU TODAY,
SENATOR ALLEN? NO, NO, NO
WITNESSES TODAY. OKAY SO WE WILL
CALL UP ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.
COME UP. DID YOU WANT TO BE A
PRIMARY WITNESS, CHAIR? NO JUST
DO IT TO ME. TO ME, TO MARTIN
RADOSEVICH, ON BEHALF OF YIMBY
ACTION AND SUPPORT. GREAT. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? THERE'S NO
ONE ELSE. WE WILL TAKE ANYBODY
WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN PRIMARY
OPPOSITION THÀNH FOR THE BILL.
THAT MEANS YOU GET LIKE TWO
MINUTES TO TALK. IF NOT, THEN
YOU JUST COME UP TO THE MIC AND
SAY YOUR Ã ME TOO FOR
OPPOSITION. IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY
OF THOSE, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE
IT AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE DAIS. ANY QUESTIONS UP HERE
FROM THE DAIS? WE HAVE A MOTION
TO MOVE THE BILL. SENATOR ALLEN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
APPRECIATE THE MOTION A GREAT
DEAL. AND THE AUTHOR, THE
AUTHOR'S STAFF AND THE MOTION
MAKER. AND I RESPECTFULLY VOTE.
OKAY. SO SECRETARY, CALL THE
ROLL MOTION IS TO PASS THIS
AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATION
COMMITTEE. SENATORS DURAZZO,
SERATO, A SERATO A DOLLY. DOLLY
A GLASER. GLASER A SKINNER.
WAHAB WIENER 3 TO 0. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT BILL IS THREE ZERO.
WE'LL HOLD IT OPEN FOR
ADDITIONAL VOTES. SENATOR DOLLY,
I HEAR YOUR SENATOR GROVE. SO
SENATOR DOLLY WILL BE PRESENTING
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR GROVE FOR
SB 1232, WHICH ORGANIC WASTE
COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS
EXEMPTION, THANK YOU. MEMBERS,
I'M HERE, PRESENTING, SB 1232
FOR, SENATOR GROVE, IT'S AN
EXEMPTION. IT'S CLARIFYING
EXEMPTION FOR PROPOSITION 218,
PROTEST FOR ORGANIC WASTE
COLLECTION. WHEN SB 1383 BY
SENATOR LARA PASSED IN 2016, IT
REQUIRED CALRECYCLE TO IMPLEMENT
AN ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN.
IF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DID NOT
COMPLY, THERE WOULD BE PENALTIES
AS HIGH AS $10,000 A DAY, OR AS
MUCH AS $3.65 MILLION A YEAR. IN
ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THIS, SB
1383 KERN COUNTY PLANNED FOR
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE THREE BINS
FOR HOUSEHOLD WASTE, ORGANIC AND
RECYCLING, CREATING UNIVERSAL
COLLECTION AREAS WITH AN ANNUAL
FEE AS HIGH AS $600. TOWARDS THE
END OF 2023, 81% OF THE COUNTY
WAS COMPLETED, EXCEPT FOR 14
UNIVERSAL COLLECTION AREAS IN
THE WESTERN AND EASTERN KERN. IN
THESE 14 UNIVERSAL COLLECTION
AREAS, ABOUT 1 IN 5 OF THE
POPULATION IS OVER 65 AND OLD,
65 YEARS OLD, AND ARE ON FIXED
INCOMES, AND THEY CANNOT AFFORD
THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE. IN
RESPONSE TO THE POTENTIAL RATE
INCREASE, THE AREAS RALLIED
TOGETHER AND SIX OF THEM WERE
UNABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY, PASS A
PROP 218 PROTEST. AS A RESULT,
IN DECEMBER, THE KERN COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DID NOT
APPROVE ANY OF THE 14 UNIVERSAL
COLLECTION AREAS FOR THE FEE FOR
THE FEE INCREASE. THIS PUT THE
COUNTY AND CALRECYCLE IN
UNCHARTED TERRITORY, AS NO OTHER
COUNTY HAS SUCCESSFULLY
PROTESTED THE FEE INCREASE. THIS
IS WHY I'VE AUTHORED. THIS IS
WHY THE SENATOR HAS OFFERED SB
1232, WHICH WILL REQUIRE CAL
CYCLE TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION FROM
COMPLYING WITH THE ORGANIC WASTE
COLLECTION REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DESIGNATED AREAS IN A COUNTY
THAT HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PROTESTED
THE FEES THROUGH THE PROP 218
PROCESS. TODAY, WE HAVE PAUL
YODER REPRESENTING KERN COUNTY,
MEMBERS. WE CANNOT KEEP IMPOSING
FEES ON CALIFORNIANS WITHOUT
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHY
WHO THEY ARE AFFECTING. THE PROP
218 PROCESS WAS PUT IN PLACE TO
ALLOW PEOPLE TO VOICE AND RULE.
CALIFORNIA HAS SPOKEN. THEY
CANNOT AFFORD EXTRA $600 FOR A
BIN. THEY DON'T NEED. HERE WITH
ME, WE HAVE THE MR. YODER. GO
AHEAD. SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR
THAT PRESENTATION. AND WE'LL GO
TO YOUR TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. YEAH
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS
ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY EVEN THOSE
THE DISTRICT BILL. IT'S NOT A
DISTRICT BILL. IT'S A IT'S A
BILL OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE.
OKAY. AND HEY, NOW WE JUST
REALLY EMPHASIZE THAT POINT WITH
SENATOR DAWLEY PRESENTING FOR
SENATOR GROVE, PAUL YODER, ON
BEHALF OF KERN COUNTY, HERE
TODAY. THERE THERE'S A
DISCREPANCY. THERE'S AN ISSUE IN
STATE LAW. WE HAVE THE
CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE
PROPOSITION 218. RIGHT. AND THEN
WE HAVE STATUTE. WE HAVE 1383.
IN DECEMBER OF 2023, SEVERAL OF
THE AREAS IN KERN COUNTY AS THE
SENATOR MENTIONED, THEY WERE
THERE, WERE GOING TO BE SUBJECT
TO A RATE INCREASE. THEY
EXERCISED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO REJECT THE FEE THROUGH
A SUCCESSFUL MAJORITY PROTEST.
THERE IS A LEGAL CONUNDRUM THAT
MUST BE RESOLVED BY THE
LEGISLATURE. OUR COUNTIES HAVE
BEEN PROHIBITED FROM
IMPLEMENTING INCREASED SERVICES
AND FEES BY MAJORITY PROTESTS.
CAL RECYCLES DETERMINATION THAT
THIS PROGRAM IS NOT AN UNFUNDED
MANDATE NO LONGER HOLDS TRUE,
BECAUSE COUNTIES ARE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED FROM
ADOPTING REQUIRED FEES IN SIMPLE
TERMS, BECAUSE COUNTIES ARE NOW
PROHIBITED FROM IMPOSING
REQUIRED FEES, CAL RECYCLES
SHOULD NOT MANDATE THE
IMPOSITION WITHOUT PROVIDING THE
REQUIRED FUNDING TO DO SO.
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS IS ITS USUAL,
USUAL AWESOMENESS. THIS, PAGE
FOUR OF THE FIVE PAGE ANALYSIS
IN PARTICULAR, NUMBER THREE, I
WON'T READ THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE
IT, BUT IT RUNS THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS THROUGH EVERYTHING. KERN
COUNTY HAS, IN FACT, ALREADY
DONE TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE
LAW. AND THE DEAD ARE DEAD AIR,
DEAD SPACE THEY'RE GETTING FROM
CAL RECYCLE. RIGHT. THE AVENUES
THAT ARE NOT OPEN TO THEM. YOU
HAVE SENIORS WHO ARE FACING A
BILL OF $600 TO RECYCLE ORGANIC
WASTE IN MOUNTAINOUS, HARD TO
REACH PARTS OF CALIFORNIA. FOR
WHAT? WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY
WERE GOING TO DO OF COURSE THEY
WERE GOING TO SUCCESSFULLY
PROTEST THIS. NOW I KNOW THE
RECYCLING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS
GOING TO COME UP HERE AND OPPOSE
THIS BILL, AND THAT'S FINE. I
THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHY. BUT
I WANT TO SAY TO THE MEMBERS
AGAIN, IT'S NOT JUST THIS BILL.
YOU YOU HEARD ABOUT ISSUES WITH
THE BLAKE SPEAR BILL. YOU'RE
GOING TO KEEP HEARING YOU HAVE
IT IN YOUR DISTRICT. I'M NOT
GOING TO YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY
SENATOR WIENER DOESN'T. RIGHT.
PROBABLY. BUT OKAY. BUT A LOT OF
MEMBERS HAVE THIS IN THEIR
DISTRICTS AND IF YOU CAN
SUMMARIZE, PLEASE. YEAH. SOMEONE
HAS GOT TO WALK ACROSS THAT
BRIDGE TO RESOLVE WHAT IS IN THE
STATE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT GETS
LEGISLATED. AND FROM TIME TO
TIME HERE IN SACRAMENTO, THERE
HAS TO BE A FIX FOR THAT OR
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP DOING THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE A
SECOND PRIMARY WITNESS IN FAVOR,
SIR, SENATOR DOLLY, A SECOND
THINK SO? OKAY. SO WE'LL INVITE
OTHERS IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO COME UP FOR A. ME TOO.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME TO THE
MICROPHONE. ANYONE ELSE IN
FAVOR? OKAY, THEN WE'LL GO TO
OPPOSITION. IS THERE OPPOSITION
HERE WILL ALLOW TWO TWO SPEAKERS
AT TWO MINUTES EACH. IF THEY
WISH OR OR NOT. GOOD MORNING,
NICK LOPEZ WITH CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE RECYCLING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSING
SB 1232 FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS
. SB 1383 IS REALLY ONE OF THE
CORNERSTONES OF THE STATE'S
CLIMATE STRATEGY. WE HAVE AB 32,
WHICH IS REALLY FOCUSED ON ON
THE CO2 EMISSIONS. WE HAVE THE
NATURAL WORKING LANDS POLICIES,
FOCUS ON SEQUESTRATION, ETC. SB
1383 IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT
FOCUSES ON SHORT LIVED CLIMATE
POLLUTANTS. AND THESE ARE
GREENHOUSE GASES THAT NOT ONLY
HAVE A VERY POTENT IMPACT ON THE
CLIMATE, BUT ALSO DELIVER THEIR
ENTIRE IMPACT IN A VERY SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH MEANS THAT
THE ONLY WAY TO ACTUALLY AVERT
THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IS TO REDUCE THESE
EMISSIONS. METHANE BEING THE
BIGGEST AMONG THEM AND LANDFILLS
BEING THE ONE OF THE BIGGEST
SOURCES OF METHANE IN THAT
CATEGORY. THE THING ABOUT
LANDFILL EMISSIONS IS THAT THEY
ARE EASILY AVOIDABLE WHEN, YOU
KIND OF HEARD THIS A LITTLE BIT
EARLIER, BUT WHEN ORGANICS ARE
IN A LANDFILL, THEY ROT WITHOUT
OXYGEN. RELEASE METHANE. IF YOU
TAKE THAT SAME ORGANIC WASTE AND
YOU DIVERT IT TO A COMPOSTING
FACILITY OR AN ANAEROBIC
DIGESTER OR ONE OF THE OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES MENTIONED, YOU NOT
ONLY DO NOT MAKE THAT METHANE BY
KEEPING OXYGEN IN THE PROCESS,
BUT YOU ALSO MAKE A SOIL
AMENDMENT THAT THEN CONTINUES TO
PAY DIVIDENDS WHEN IT'S APPLIED
IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS. AND SO
YOU SEQUESTER CARBON, YOU REDUCE
THE NEED FOR SYNTHETIC
FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES.
THERE'S A VARIETY OF BENEFITS
THAT I BELIEVE YOU'VE ALL HEARD
OVER THE YEARS. THE PROBLEM WITH
THIS BILL IS THAT IT WOULD
ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO
SUCCESSFULLY OR TO FILE PROP 218
PROTESTS AND, AND THERE ARE KIND
OF TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
PROBLEMS WITH THAT. THE FIRST IS
THAT IT ADDS HUGE REGULATORY
UNCERTAINTY TO THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE
WE NEED. WE JUST HEARD ON THE
PREVIOUS BILL HOW WE NEED TO
REDUCE RED TAPE, HOW WE NEED TO
BUILD MORE COMPOSTING
FACILITIES, ALL OF THAT COMES
DOWN TO THE GARBAGE INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX OR RECYCLING INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX. HAVING REGULATORY
CERTAINTY THAT THEY WILL HAVE.
YOU CAN SUM UP THESE. I'LL SUM
UP THAT THEY HAVE THAT
REGULATORY CERTAINTY. AND
FINALLY, JUST ONE LAST COMMENT.
I ACTUALLY TAKE ISSUE WITH THEM
WITH KERN COUNTY GETTING DEAD
AIR FROM CAL RECYCLE. I KNOW FOR
A FACT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH
THEM AND TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO
COMPLY FOR MONTHS NOW. OKAY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CAN I HAVE
ONE ADDITIONAL SPEAKER IN
OPPOSITION? YOU CAN ADD THE TWO
MINUTES IF YOU WISH. GOOD
MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MR. CHAIR, JOHN
MOFFATT, ON BEHALF OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT, ALSO HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL TODAY,
YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA'S RECYCLING
SYSTEM WAS BASED ON WAS BUILT ON
TWO THINGS REGIONAL OPERATION
AND LONG TERME CONTRACTS, WHICH
WHICH ALLOW US AS A COMPANY TO
GO AND INVEST HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE IS SERVED THE
STATE PRETTY DARN WELL IN THE
RECYCLING. YOU KNOW, IN THE
RECYCLING SPACE IS IT A PERFECT
SYSTEM? NO, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY
ONE OF THE BETTER SYSTEMS IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND PROBABLY ONE
OF THE BETTER SYSTEMS IN THE
WORLD. WE'RE SEEING THAT SAME
THING START TO PLAY OUT ON
ORGANICS, WHETHER YOU LIKE 1383
AS A LAW OR NOT, IT IS THE LAW
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS A
AS A HAULER AND RECYCLER IN THE
STATE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO GO AND
HELP OUR CUSTOMERS, OUR LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS, MEET THAT LAW.
AND SO WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN YEARS
OF PLANNING AND ARE INVESTING
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
TO HELP OUR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW
. EARLIER, IN THE IN THE SUPPORT
TESTIMONY, IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT
THIS IS A STATEWIDE ISSUE. IT IS
A STATEWIDE ISSUE. MR. SARDO,
EARLIER TALKED ABOUT ON THE
PREVIOUS BILL, ORGANIC WASTE
FROM RIVERSIDE GOING TO A KERN
COUNTY FACILITY. ABSOLUTELY.
WHEN WE BUILD THESE FACILITIES,
THEY ARE BASED ON EXPECTED
VOLUMES AND IF THOSE VOLUMES
DON'T OCCUR BECAUSE HALF OF KERN
COUNTY IS NOW EXEMPTED FROM THE
LAW, THE COST OF THAT FACILITY
GET PASSED ON ELSEWHERE. AND SO,
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE BILL.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE TO
RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. WE THINK
THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT
OPENS THE DOOR TO UNDERMINE THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM MOVING FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL INVITE OTHERS
WITH ME TO, IN OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE.
KAYLA ROBINSON, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMPOST COALITION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.
MICHAEL CAPRIO, ON BEHALF OF
REPUBLIC SERVICES AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU SIR.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM? IN OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
PORTION, BRING THE MATTER BACK
TO THE DAIS HERE FOR COMMENTS
AND QUESTIONS. I WOULD LOVE TO
COMMENT. OKAY. WE I SEE A MEMBER
DOWN AT THE END, SENATOR SATO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD TO DEAL
WITH THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE
AS AS PART OF A CITY ALL THE WAY
UP THROUGH ITS IMPLEMENTATION
AND, AND NOWADAYS. AND IT WAS A
DISASTER WHEN THEY STARTED IT.
IT'S A DISASTER TODAY. IT'S A
DISASTER IN MY KITCHEN. IT'S A
DISASTER IN MY TRASH CAN. AND
THE IMPLEMENTATION NOW IS PEOPLE
COMING AROUND TAKING I MEAN, THE
TRASH TRUCKS HAVING TO OUTFIT
THEMSELVES WITH CAMERAS SO THAT
THEY CAN TAKE PICTURES OF OUR
TRASH TO SEE WHAT IS AND WHAT
ISN'T BEING PUT INTO THE
MULTITUDE OF TRASH CANS. BUT THE
BIGGER DISASTER IS WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CALIFORNIA AND OUR
OUR UNAFFORDABLE REALITY, MY
TRASH BILL USED TO BE $48, AND
THAT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO. IT'S
$96. IT'S GONE UP 100. AND WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT'S
IN AN AREA WHERE THEY CAN
ACTUALLY THERE'S MORE COST
SHARING GOING ON THE RURAL AREAS
THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, THEY
CAN'T AFFORD THIS. CITIES LIKE
BLYTHE CANNOT AFFORD THIS. AND
WHEN YOU SAY THAT A CALRECYCLE
IS WORKING WITH PEOPLE, NO,
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY
THEY'RE NOT. I GET MORE
COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE
NON-RESPONSIVENESS OF CALRECYCLE
FROM THE WASTE INDUSTRIES. BY
THE WAY, WASTE MANAGEMENT AT ALL
, THEIR THEIR INABILITY TO BE
ABLE TO WORK WITH CALRECYCLE ON
SOME OF THESE, THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF 1383, THAT'S
WHY THIS BILL IS HERE TODAY.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY WON'T WORK
WITH THEM. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M
SUPPORTING THIS BILL AND I'M
GOING TO MOVE THE BILL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, BECAUSE IT IS A
SYMPTOM OF SOMETHING THAT NEEDS
TO BE FIXED. WE DON'T NEED TO
FIX IT BY CREATING A BUNCH OF
FINES. WE DON'T NEED IT SO THAT
WE HAVE CAMERAS RUNNING AROUND
TAKING PICTURES OF OUR TRASH. WE
DON'T NEED SMELLY TRASH PILING
UP IN MY AUNT'S KITCHEN BECAUSE
YOU HAVE TO. SHE HAS TO SAVE IT
ALL IN HER BUCKET. SHE CAN'T PUT
IT OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT'S HOTTER
THAN HADES OUTSIDE IN THE
SUMMERTIME. SO THIS WAS AN A NOT
VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT BILL. AND
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE COMPLAINTS
ABOUT IT. NO MATTER WHAT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ARE.
THOSE THINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED BEFORE THEY DID THE
IMPLEMENTATION. IN OTHER WORDS,
THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO
HANDLE THIS NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE
BEFORE WE ACTUALLY START DOING
IT, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE HAVE
WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS THAT ARE
PRODUCING SOMETHING WE DON'T
WANT, AND THEN AND THEN REDUCING
THE INCENTIVE FOR THAT AND THEN
HAVING ALL OF THIS STUFF, ALL OF
OUR, OUR, OUR TRASH PILED INTO
AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE DON'T WANT
IT. SO I WOULD SAY, GO BACK TO
THE DRAWING BOARD. YOU'RE GOING
TO SEE A LOT MORE BILLS LIKE
THIS. IF THIS DOES SPUR PEOPLE
TO CHALLENGE TO THIS, DUE TO
218, I SAY HAVE AT IT BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW THEY'RE SICK AND TIRED
OF HOW MUCH IT COSTS THEM. THANK
YOU, SENATOR SATO, NOT SEEING
ANY OTHER, NOT SEEING ANY OTHER
MEMBERS HERE WISHING TO SPEAK.
WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE
AUTHORS REPRESENTATIVE FOR A
CLOSING COMMENT. LET ME MENTION
THAT THE CHAIR WHO HAS A
CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER HEARING
THAT SHE'S UNDER, SHE'S
PRESENTING A BILL AND HAS
INDICATED SHE UNFORTUNATELY IS
NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL. SO
WE'LL GO TO SENATOR, DARLING, ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR GROVE FOR
CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. I I ACTUALLY THINK I
CAN MAYBE DO SOME JUSTICE AT THE
END OF THE DAY, YEAH, OF COURSE,
THE WASTE HAULERS ARE GOING TO
COME IN HERE AND OPPOSE IT. THEY
HAVE A LICENSE TO GO BASICALLY
CHARGE, WHATEVER THEIR RECOVERY
FEE IS. BUT KERN COUNTY, 81,
ACCORDING TO THE SENATOR'S NOTES
HERE, 81% OF KERN COUNTY IS
COMPLIANT. SO THEY'VE DONE ALL
THE LOW HANGING FRUIT OUT THERE
THAT THEY COULD. AND QUITE
FRANKLY, IT'S AND I HAVE THE
SAME PROBLEM IN MY DISTRICT
WHERE IT'S VERY LONG DISTANCES
TO GET ALL THIS STUFF DONE. AND
I'M CONCERNED THAT EVEN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO TRY TO
COLLECT ALL THAT, IS PROBABLY AT
BEST BREAK, EVEN IF YOU WERE
ABLE TO PUT ALL THE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION THAT
CAUSED IN COLLECTING AND, AND
MAKING THE ORGANIC ORGANICS WORK
. SO BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE
PERSON THAT OWNS THE HOME THAT'S
OUT THERE THAT SAID, HAS THE
RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
WITH PROPOSITION 218 TO SAY NO,
YOU CAN'T JACK UP MY LOCAL FEES.
THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT WAS PUT INTO PLACE
BECAUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WERE
OUT OF CONTROL AND RAISING
RATES. AND THE VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA PASSED PROPOSITION
218. SO YOU HAVE A CONFLICT.
THEY SAID, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO
ACCEPT THE LOCAL FEE, BUT YOU
HAVE A STATE LAW THAT SAYS
YOU'RE MANDATED TO PICK IT UP.
SO WHAT DO THEY DO? WHERE ARE
THEY AT? WHAT DOES THE COUNTY
DO? ARE YOU JUST GOING TO WHAT
IS THE WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT NOW
AND WE'RE GOING TO WHAT? FIND
THESE PEOPLE OR WE'RE GOING TO
WHAT MANDATE IT THAT THEY PAY
IT. I MEAN, THEY'RE IN A THEY'RE
IN A CATCH 22. SOMETHING HAS TO
GIVE HERE BECAUSE THEY EXERCISE
THEIR RIGHT. THEY ACTUALLY USED
THE 218 PROCESS TO SAY, NO, WE
DON'T WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
SO IT'S KIND OF BEEN A THEME THE
LAST COUPLE DAYS IS THE PERFECT
IN IN THE WAY OF THE GOOD. LIKE
WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING
WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT AT THE
SAME TIME, WE'RE DRIVING PEOPLE
THAT OUT OF THEIR HOMES AND, AND
CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN
CALIFORNIA. SO I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THE COUNTY
HAS DONE A GREAT JOB, 81. THE
PEOPLE HAVE SAID NO. THEY HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, I ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE ON THIS. THANK YOU SIR, SO
ALL DEBATE HAVING CEASED, I'M
GOING TO RECOGNIZE A MOTION FROM
SENATOR SUGIARTO ON BEHALF OF
HIS AUNT. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?
ON BEHALF OF YOUR AUNT? YEAH.
THIS IS A DO PASS TO, EKE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR
DURAZZO. SATO. I SATO I DOLLY,
DOLLY I GLASER. GLASER. NO.
SKINNER. WAHAB. WIENER 2 TO 1.
THAT BILL WILL GO ON CALL FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS.
CAN WE CALL THE ROLL ON? OH,
YEAH. LET'S GO AHEAD. LET'S
CALL. ROLL ON BILLS. THAT MR.
CHAIR, WE HAVE MISSED. YES IS
THAT RESPECTFUL? SENATOR DOLLY,
DO YOU WANT TO GO IN THE
MARKLEEVILLE ORDER OR ORDER ONE?
OKAY OKAY, I CAN FOLLOW THAT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE, SB 915 BY
SENATOR CORTESE. MOTION IS TO
PASS TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. SEN
SATO. DOLLY. NO DOLLY. NO.
SKINNER. WAHAB. 2 TO 2. OH, THAT
BILL WILL BE ON CALL. FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 977 BY SENATOR
LAIRD. MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS, WITH
THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS
DOLLY. DOLLY NØ SKINNER. WAHAB 3
TO 2. LEAVE THAT BILL ON. CALL
FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE SB 1045,
BY SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR. MOTION
IS TO PASS THE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE. NO CURRENT
VOTE FOR THE CHAIR. SENATORS
DURAZZO. SKINNER. WAHAB WIENER
ONE AND TWO. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT ON CALL. SB FILE
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1111 BY SENATOR
MINH. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS COMMITTEE WITH THE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS DOLLY
. SKINNER FIVE ZERO. OKAY. WE'LL
LEAVE. THAT'S FIVE ONE. WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT ONE ON CALL
PEOPLE ADD ON. AS FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SB 1123 BY SENATOR
CABALLERO. MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATORS SATO. DOLLY.
GLASER. GLASER AYE. SKINNER.
WAHAB. 3 TO 0. THAT BILL IS
THREE ZERO RIGHT NOW. WE'LL
LEAVE IT ON. CALL FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX, SB 1220, BY SENATOR
LIMÓN. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE WITH
THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS
DOLLY SKINNER. WAHAB, 3 TO 1.
THAT BILL IS 3 TO 1. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT ON CALL FILE ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN SB 1232 BY SENATOR GROVE.
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE,
BUT NO CURRENT VOTE FOR THE
CHAIR. SENATORS DURAZZO,
SKINNER, WAHAB WIENER 2 TO 1.
THAT VOTE IS 2 TO 1 AT THIS
TIME. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL. I
THINK THAT'S IT. YEAH YEAH. 1494
FILE ITEM NUMBER 13, SB 1494 BY
SENATOR GLASER. MOTION IS TO
PASS TO REVENUE TAXATION
COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATORS DOLLY. DOLLY. AYE.
SKINNER. 5 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. THAT
THAT BILL IS 5 TO 1. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT ON CALL FOR MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. SO AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO TAKE A RECESS BECAUSE
WE HAVE NO AUTHORS. WE'RE A
LITTLE SHORT ON PEOPLE. SO WE'LL
JUST TAKE A RECESS UNTIL WHEN.
GET OFF. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GOING TO JUST TAKE A RECESS
UNTIL WE HAVE SOME AUTHORS. SO I
WOULD ENCOURAGE, IF YOU'RE AN
AUTHOR AND YOU'RE JUST WANDERING
THE HALLS, COME ON DOWN. PRESENT
YOUR BILL. THANK YOU. YES, SIR.
SO IF I MADE A COMMITMENT TO
THIS IS GOING BACK TO MY. YEAH,
I CAN GIVE YOU THAT. BUT I CAN
MAKE TO YOU, GET YOU THERE, BUT
IF YOU WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU COULD GIVE ME A AGREEMENT
THAT WAS ONE OF THE THAT THEY
ARE
.
ALL RIGHT. WAIT HERE. WE'RE
GOING TO CALL. CALL US BACK TO
ORDER AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH THE ROLL AGAIN, FOR
MEMBERS THAT WERE ABSENT OR
WANDERING THE HALLS TO ADD ON.
SO, WE WILL START WITH, ITEM
NUMBER SB 915, COURTESY MOTION
IS TO PASS THE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATOR SEYARTO SKINNER.
WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE. 3 TO 2. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN.
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 977 BY
SENATOR LAIRD. MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS, WITH THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. SENATOR SKINNER,
WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. 42. ALL RIGHT.
THAT ITEM IS 42. WE'LL KEEP THAT
ITEM OPEN. FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE, SB 1045 BY SENATOR BLAKE.
SPIRIT MOTION IS TO PASS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
NO CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS DURAZZO SKINNER. WAHAB.
WAHAB. AYE. WIENER 2 TO 2. ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS 2 TO 2.
WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1123, BY SENATOR
CABALLERO. MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATORS SATO, DOLLY.
SKINNER, WAHAB. WAHAB. I'M 40
ZERO. ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM IS
FOUR ZERO. WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN
FOR PEOPLE TO ADD ON. NEXT FILE,
ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB 1220 BY
SENATOR LIMÓN. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATORS DOLLY SKINNER,
WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. 41. ALL RIGHT.
THAT ITEM IS 4 TO 1. WE'LL HOLD
THAT OPEN NEXT. BILL FILE ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN, SB 1232, BY
SENATOR GROVE. MOTION IS TO PASS
THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE WITH NO CURRENT VOTE
FOR THE CHAIR. SENATORS DURAZZO
SKINNER. WAHAB. WAHAB. NØ WIENER
2 TO 2. ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM IS
2 TO 2. WILL HOLD IT OPEN. NEXT
ITEM FILE. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB
1234 BY SENATOR ALLEN. MOTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. NO
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS DURAZZO. SKINNER. WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE. WIENER 4 TO 0. OKAY.
THAT ITEM IS FOUR ZERO AND WE'RE
GOING TO HOLD THAT OPEN FILE OUR
NUMBER NINE SB 1376 BY SENATOR
GONZALEZ. MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATOR SKINNER, WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE. 42. ALL RIGHT. THAT
ITEM IS 42. WE'LL HOLD THAT OPEN
. AND THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE
FOR ADD ONS HERE. SO. OH, SHE'S
HERE. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR SKINNER
. OKAY.
THIS WILL BE FILE ITEM NUMBER
TEN, SB 1210 BY SENATOR SKINNER.
YOU MAY BEGIN TO PRESENT WHEN
YOU'RE READY. OKAY.
APOLOGIES IF THE COMMITTEE.
EXCUSE ME, WOULDN'T MIND. I
WOULD LIKE TO START WITH 1211.
OKAY. NO, NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.
YOU CAN. YOU CAN START WITH
NUMBER 11, SB 1211. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. FIRST AND
FOREMOST, I AM TAKING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENT, WHICH
ALLOW FOR UP TO EIGHT DETACHED
ADUS ON A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY.
AND WITH THE, THE QUALIFIER THAT
THE NUMBER OF DETACHED ADUS
CANNOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF
EXISTING UNITS ON THE
MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY, ADUS, I
THINK, AS MOST OF US KNOW, HAVE
BEEN A GREAT SUCCESS STORY IN
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING CRISIS
SINCE WE BEGAN OUR EFFORTS. WE,
THE LEGISLATURE, TO, PASS LAWS
THAT REMOVE BARRIERS TO ADU
CONSTRUCTION WAS APPROXIMATELY
SEVEN YEARS AGO OR SO. OVER
100,000 ADUS HAVE NOW BEEN
CONSTRUCTED AND THOSE ADUS ARE
NOW PROVIDING HOUSING FOR DOUBLE
TO TRIPLE THAT NUMBER OF
CALIFORNIANS. AND WHEN YOU
CONSIDER OUR SHORTAGE, THE
PROJECTED SHORTAGE WE HAVE OF
HOUSING UNITS, THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ADDITION. THÀNH, A
SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE OF ADUS IS
THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PERFECT
FOR INFILL. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY
CAN BE BUILT ON EXISTING
RESIDENTS. EXCUSE ME?
RESIDENTIAL SITES WITH EXISTING
WATER, SEWAGE, ROADS, OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY NEAR
SCHOOLS, PARKS, YOU NAME IT.
WHICH MAKES THEM AFFORDABLE
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE
ALL OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
ADDED. AND ADDITIONALLY, WE
HAVE, THEY TEND TO BE, SMALLER
AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. THERE'S MANY
ASPECTS OF THEM THAT MAKE THEM
MORE AFFORDABLE TO CONSTRUCT. SO
WHAT THE DATA IS ALSO SHOWING IS
THAT THEY TEND TO NOT ONLY
EITHER BE USED BY FAMILY MEMBERS
OR, BUT THAT THEIR COST, EITHER
FOR PURCHASE OR RENTAL, IS MUCH
MORE IN THE MODERATE TO LOW
INCOME, QUALITY, YOU KNOW,
COSTING FOR SUCH FAMILY THINGS
OF THAT SORT VERSUS OF SOME OF
OUR OTHER MARKET RATE HOUSING,
WHICH REQUIRES QUITE HIGHER
INCOME LEVELS. WHAT SB 1211
DOES, IT UPDATES OUR CURRENT
STATUTE THAT ALLOWS FOR ADUS ON
MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES BY GIVING
FLEXIBILITY TO WHERE THE ADUS
CAN BE SITED, THE DETACHED ONES.
SO IT'S THE MORE FLEXIBILITY
TOWARD THE DETACHED ADUS CAN BE
SITED AND ALLOWING FOR
ADDITIONAL DETACHED ADUS. NOT
NOT ABOVE, RATHER JUST NOT THE
CAP THAT'S IN THE LAW NOW. AS
LONG AS THAT NUMBER OF DETACHED
DO NOT DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF
EXISTING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE WITNESSES I WOULD LIKE
TO HAVE PRESENT ARE KARLA GUERRA
FROM THE UNITY COUNCIL OF
OAKLAND AND GRACIELA CASTILLO
FROM CASITA COALITION. GREAT.
WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST,
YOU MAY GO. YOU MAY PROCEED. AND
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. AND IF YOU
COULD STICK TO THAT, I
APPRECIATE IT. I'M TRYING TO.
WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OF A
TIME CRUNCH. THERE. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR SKINNER.
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS CARLA
GUERRA. I AM THE POLICY AND
ADVOCACY SENIOR MANAGER AT THE
UNITY COUNCIL. THE UNITY COUNCIL
HAS PROVIDED EQUITY FOCUSED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SERVICES AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IN EAST OAKLAND AND THE EAST BAY
FOR OVER 50 YEARS. WE CURRENTLY
OWN AND OPERATE THE FRUITVALE
TRANSIT VILLAGE AND NINE EAST
OAKLAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING THREE
SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, AND
WE HAVE TWO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS IN PRE-DEVELOPMENT
STAGE CURRENTLY. SO OUR
DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDE SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES AND WE HAVE CLOSE TO
600 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
UNDER MANAGEMENT IN AND AROUND
FRUITVALE. THE UNITY COUNCIL IS
ALWAYS WORKING TO EXPAND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR DIVERSE LOW INCOME, LARGELY
LATINO COMMUNITY IN THE EAST
BAY, MANY OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL
WORKERS. WE ARE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT SENATORS SENATE BILL SB
1211, WHICH WILL ALLOW EXISTING
NONPROFIT HOUSING OWNERS AND
BUILDERS TO ADD ADDITIONAL ADUS
TO UNDERUTILIZED BUILDINGS AND
SITE AREAS SO THAT WE CAN EXPAND
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE
LOW INCOME FAMILIES QUICKLY AND
COST EFFECTIVELY. THE CURRENT
LAW DOES NOT ALLOW US TO ADD
MORE THAN TWO ADUS TO
UNDERUTILIZED SITE AND PARKING
AREAS, DETACH FROM EXISTING
BUILDINGS, WHEREAS AS WE CAN ADD
25% MORE IF WE CONVERT EXISTING
SPACE. SO SB 1211 WILL GIVE
GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO LOCATE
MULTIFAMILY ADUS IN UNOCCUPIED
BUILDING AREAS OR AS DETACHED
NEW CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT
NONPROFITS CAN PROVIDE MORE
HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME CLIENTS
AND USE ADU REVENUES TO SUPPORT
PROPERTIES. WE THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS
IMPORTANT POLICY AND ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. GRACIELA
CASTILLO. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CASITA COALITION. THE
FOUNDER OF THE ORGANIZATION WAS
NOT ABLE TO BE HERE. SO I'M
STEPPING IN. THE CASITA
COALITION IS A STATEWIDE
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION DEDICATED
TO CREATING A MORE EQUITABLE,
INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE
CALIFORNIA BY RESTORING HOUSING
CHOICE FOR MANY FAMILIES AND
BOTH BUYERS AND RENTERS. THE
CASITA COALITION IS PLEASED TO
SPONSOR THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION BY ALLOWING ADUS TO
BE BUILT ON LOTS WITH APARTMENT
BUILDINGS THAT HAVE UNUSED
SPACE. THIS BILL WILL CREATE
MORE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS FOR
FAMILIES WHILE ALSO PROMOTING
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE
GROWTH. STUDIES BY UC BERKELEY
TERNER CENTER AND THE NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY FURMAN CENTER HAVE
DOCUMENTED THAT HAVE DOCUMENTED
THAT ADUS PRIMARILY SERVE LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES.
ADUS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO AN
UNUSUALLY SUCCESSFUL POLICY, AND
CONTINUING TO BUILD ON WHAT IS
WORKING IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO
ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE HOUSING
CRISIS. ULTIMATELY CALIFORNIA
WILL NOT SOLVE OUR HOUSING
CRISIS UNLESS POLICY MAKERS
DEVELOP A ROBUST PRO HOUSING
AGENDA. WHICH ONE? THAT INCLUDES
STREAMLINING DEVELOPMENT, I'M
SORRY, ONE THAT INCLUDES
STREAMLINING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
AND REFORMING ZONING SO THAT ALL
CITIES CAN BUILD THE HOUSING
THAT THEY NEED. AND FOR THAT
REASON, WE, THE CASITA
COALITION, IS A STRONG SPONSOR
OF THIS BILL. WE BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS DEFINITELY A PRO HOUSING
BILL. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD AT
THIS TIME WE'LL TAKE ME TOOS FOR
THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL,
PLEASE JUST YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION. YOU REPRESENT AND
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, DEBORAH
CARLTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION IN STRONG
SUPPORT, CATHERINE CHARLES WITH
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. DANITA STROMGREN,
VOLUNTEER WITH AARP CALIFORNIA
REPRESENTING OUR 3.2 MILLION
MEMBERS IN SUPPORT. MARTIN
RADOSEVICH WITH THE FOLLOWING
ORGANIZATIONS AND SUPPORT. BUILD
CASA SPUR, EDEN HOUSING YIMBY
ACTION, AND FIELDSTEAD. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, SUSAN MADDEN AT W
STRATEGIES HERE ON BEHALF OF
UNIDOS US AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE JORDAN CARVAJAL,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR
CALIFORNIA YIMBY HERE AS A PROUD
SPONSOR CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. HELLO. THANK
YOU. AARON ECKHOUSE WITH EAST
BAY FOR EVERYONE IN PROUD
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, CORNELIUS
BURKE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN
STRONG SUPPORT. AND I ENCOURAGE
EVERYONE TO BUILD AN ADU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW IS
THE TIME FOR ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES THAT MIGHT BE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. NO.
OKAY. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME
AND BE A ME TO THE OPPOSITION
WITNESS THAT DID NOT SPEAK, COME
ON UP. SINCE THERE'S NOBODY
SCRAMBLING TO THE MIC, WHAT
WE'LL DO NOW IS BRING IT BACK TO
THE DAIS. DO WE HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION BY
WAHAB TO MOVE THE BILL. SENATOR
GLAZER, THANK YOU, THE ANALYSIS
RAISES A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT I
DON'T THINK YOU ADDRESSED. OR
MAYBE I'LL GIVE YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS, ABOUT
SOME, CLARITY THAT'S NEEDED IN
TERMS OF WHAT'S CONSIDERED
UNUSED SPACE. UNDERUTILIZED
SPACE. THEY SAY THAT THERE'S
LACK OF CLARITY, THERE'S ANOTHER
ISSUE THAT'S RAISED, THIS IS ON
THE BOTTOM OF PAGE, I THINK
IT'S, SIX. CONFLICT WITH
EXISTING LAW, THEY'RE CONCERNED
THAT NOT REQUIRING THE
REPLACEMENT OF CARPORTS AND
GARAGES COULD LEAVE SOME
INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN VARIOUS
PROVISIONS ABOUT, COMMON SPACES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU
HAVE A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THOSE.
IF YOU. SO THE, ON THE ISSUE OF
THE UNDERUTILIZED SPACE TO PUT A
WAY TO TRY TO PUT A DEFINITION
IN WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE
PARCEL IN QUESTION IS A VERY
DIFFICULT THING TO DO, BECAUSE
ON ANY PARTICULAR MULTIFAMILY
UNIT, PARCEL OR PROJECT, THEY
CAUGHT FIRST MULTIFAMILY
PROJECTS, AS WE KNOW, VERY
HUGELY IN NUMBER OF UNITS AND
THE AMOUNT OF THE ACREAGE. SO IN
ONE ONE AND DEPENDING ON THE
TIME THEY WERE BUILT, THEY MAY
HAVE, LOTS OF ADDITIONAL, SPACE,
WHETHER IT'S. PARKING OR
AMENITIES THAT ARE NOT BEING
UTILIZED BY RESIDENTS. NOW THAT
THAT AGAIN FOR TO ADD THE TO
SAY, OKAY, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE,
YOU KNOW, TENNIS COURTS SHOULD
ALWAYS BE PROTECTED WHEN IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT THE PARTICULAR,
PROPERTY NOW IS, YOU KNOW, THE
TENNIS COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN IN
USE OR NOT BEEN MAINTAINED FOR,
YOU KNOW, A DECADE OR DECADES.
AND, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS
NOT FOUND, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN,
THIS AFFECTS EITHER CONDO
DEVELOPMENTS OR RENTAL. SAY, IF
YOU'RE PROVIDING IT AS RENTAL
YOU'VE NOT YOU'RE IT IS NOT
AFFECTED YOUR ABILITY TO RENT
THE PROPERTIES OR IF YOU'RE SAFE
, YOUR CONDO OWNERS THAT YOU
DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT ANY
LONGER. RIGHT. SO RATHER THAN
OUR TRYING TO PUT IN A
DEFINITION THAT IS NOT DOES NOT
DEAL WITH THE SPECIFICS OF THAT
PARTICULAR PROPERTY, IT IS IT
DOES ALLOW SOME DETERMINATION.
YES. BY THE OWNER. WE GIVE, WE
THERE IS SOME BOUNDARIES IN IT,
BUT THIS IS ONE OF THESE WHERE
IF YOU ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
OWNER OF A RENTAL PROPERTY, YOU
ARE NOT GOING TO ELIMINATE
AMENITIES THAT AFFECT YOUR
ABILITY TO RENT YOUR UNITS, IT
JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, AND OF
COURSE, IF YOU'RE WITHIN THE
CONDO OF THE HOMEOWNERS TYPE
ASSOCIATION, YOU'RE GOING TO
MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, SO, SO
HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES THAT
QUESTION. BUT SO I THINK I
UNDERSTAND AND I HEARD FROM
STAFF THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH
STAFF ON THESE QUESTIONS AND
WORKING TO RESOLVE SOME OF
THESE. YES. BUT WE'RE ALSO I'M
MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE REASON
THAT IT'S NOT AND THIS ONE IS
BECAUSE IT IS. WELL, THERE ARE
SOME GUIDELINES IN THERE TO TRY
TO COME UP AND WE'LL WORK ON IT.
BUT TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A
DEFINITION THAT, THAT, THAT
TRIES TO, HAVE THE. SENATOR, I
KNOW THAT PROJECTION OF WHAT
EACH BECAUSE WE KNOW EVERY
SINGLE PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT AND
THE TYPES OF, SPACES ARE I KNOW
THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THE BILL AS IT GOES FORWARD
TODAY. AND. OKAY, BUT I DID WANT
TO JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR ON THE
RECORD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY,
OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER, ISSUE
YOU RAISED, THERE WAS A SECOND
ISSUE. YEAH. BUT I JUST I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE
AWARE OF THOSE, ACKNOWLEDGE
THOSE THOSE ISSUES OF SOME OF
THEM TECHNICAL, SOME OF THEM NOT
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WORK ON AS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD, THAT
THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WAS
TRYING TO CLARIFY. OKAY. OKAY.
OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? I ALSO
FIGURED SINCE YOU ASKED THE
QUESTION, YOU MIGHT BE
INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT ARE
SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT AFFECT
THE ABILITY TO MAKE. YEAH,
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS AS YOU AS YOU DO
THIS WORK. GREAT OKAY. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS SINCE THERE'S NOBODY
DOWN THE OTHER SIDE THAT LEAVES
ME SO, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST WANT
TO EXPLAIN MY OPPOSITION TO
ESSENTIALLY THE DIRECTION THAT
THIS GOES IN, WHICH IS LESSENING
LOCAL CONTROL OVER THEIR
COMMUNITIES. AND I DO THIS FROM
A FROM WORKING IN SOME
COMMUNITIES OVER THE YEARS THAT
HAVE BEEN OVER IMPACTED BY WHAT
WAS THEN ILLEGAL, ADUS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. AND, AND THIS
IS ENCOURAGING. AND IN FACT,
TAKING THAT, IT FEELS LIKE IT'S
TAKING THAT AWAY FROM CITIES,
THE ABILITY TO GO INTO AREAS
LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, YOU DON'T
KNOW WHAT EACH PROPERTY LOOKS
LIKE AND WHAT WHAT CAN BE
ACCOMPLISHED ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND WHAT THE IMPACTS TO THE
SURROUNDING AREAS ARE. AND A LOT
OF TIMES THOSE IMPACTS ARE NOT
EASILY ADDRESSED, IMPACTS LIKE
INSTEAD OF PARKING ON THE
PROPERTY, THEY'RE PARKING IN THE
STREET. AND WHEN CARS ARE LINED
ON BOTH SIDES OF A STREET THAT
WAS NEVER MEANT TO HAVE THAT
MANY CARS ON IT, IT MAKES SOME,
IN SOME CASES, PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY
VEHICLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO
GET DOWN. WE HAD WE HAD, SOME
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE WOULD
HAVE TO STAGE UNITS UP THE
BLOCK, WAY UP THE BLOCK AND, AND
HAVE ONE COME DOWN SPECIFICALLY
AT A TIME BECAUSE THE
NEIGHBORHOODS NOW HAD STREETS
THAT WERE BARELY WIDE ENOUGH
FOR, FOR THE FIRE APPARATUS TO
GET DOWN. AND SO WHEN WE, WE
REMOVE LOCAL CONTROL FROM THAT,
THEN THEY DON'T GET TO ADDRESS
THOSE ISSUES. AND WHEN WE'RE
SAYING THAT YOU CAN THEY DON'T
HAVE TO REPLACE PARKING. WELL
WHAT IF THERE ARE AREAS WHERE
THEY DO HAVE TO IF THIS LAW
DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT IN
THOSE AREAS, THEN WE ARE GOING
TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
BECOME DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS. WHEN
IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY. SO
THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS, I'M,
I AM GOING TO DO YOU KNOW, I'M
NOT GOING TO ASK FOR THE
STATISTICS ON ADUS AND HOW
THEY'RE BEING USED. BUT I CAN
TELL YOU IN THE COMMUNITY THAT I
LIVE IN, THERE IS A ONE ONE
NEIGHBORHOOD IN PARTICULAR WHERE
PEOPLE ARE PUTTING UP ADUS LEFT
AND RIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
LARGER LOTS ON THEIR WITH THEIR
HOMES AND THEY'RE NOT BEING
RENTED OUT. THEY'RE JUST GUEST
HOUSES NOW. AND THEIR HOUSES
WENT FROM BEING 800,000 TO $1.1
MILLION, BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVE A
GUEST HOUSE ON THE PREMISES. SO
THEY'RE NOT ALL JUST BECAUSE
THEY'RE BEING BUILT DOESN'T MEAN
THEY'RE BEING USED, UTILIZED,
AND CERTAINLY NOT UTILIZED, FOR
LOW INCOME OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR PEOPLE, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
SOME MORE, DATA INTO WHAT HAS
OCCURRED SO FAR IN, IN PUTTING
IN A LOT OF THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE
FORMULATED OVER THE LAST THREE
YEARS. SO, YOU KNOW, UNTIL I SEE
SOME OF THOSE THINGS AND I'M
GOING TO DO THAT RESEARCH, YOU
KNOW, WITH MY STAFF, SO THAT I
CAN BE MORE COMFORTABLE AND, AND
GOING FORWARD WITH EVEN MORE
THAN WE HAVE ALREADY GOT. I NEED
TO SEE THE IMPACTS THAT WE OF
WHAT WE HAVE NOT JUST, YOU KNOW,
THE OVERALL BLANKET STATEMENT
THAT THIS HELPS THIS HELPS WITH
THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW I'M NOT SEEING IT. I'M
NOT SEEING IT IN A LOT OF THE
COMMUNITIES THAT PEOPLE WOULD
LIKE TO BE PARTICIPATING IN
THIS, THEY ARE, BUT IT'S NOT
DOING THE SAME. IT'S NOT DOING
WHAT WHAT THIS IS MEANT TO DO.
KELLY CAN I SPEAK ONE MORE TIME?
OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
VICE CHAIR, I'M A BIG FAN OF
ADUS. I'VE ALWAYS HAD ANGST AS
YOU. AS WE'VE SERVED FOR A LONG
TIME TOGETHER WITH THE ISSUE OF
LOCAL CONTROL, BUT I THINK THAT,
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, GIVEN OUR
EARLIER CONVERSATION THAT
BECAUSE IT, IT THAT I THINK THAT
I, I WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY. I HOPE THAT YOU'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT IN REGARD
TO SOME OF THESE UNIQUE ISSUES,
BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE MAY NEED TO
BECAUSE YOU'RE GIVEN SUCH A
BLANKET, OKAY. YOU MAY NEED TO
PUT SOME, GUARDRAILS OR SOME, AS
YOU MIGHT DESCRIBE IT, OR I
MIGHT DESCRIBE IT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SO
DIFFERENT OUT THERE. SO YOU JUST
I KNOW YOU WANT TO DO IT THE
RIGHT WAY. AND WITH THAT, I'M
HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME THAT I THINK
THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME. SO
WE DO HAVE A MOTION. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? CERTAINLY. AND I
DO WANT TO JUST CLARIFY THAT
WHILE THIS DOES GIVE MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL TO THE ITEMS THAT I
DESCRIBED, IT DOES NOT GIVE A
BLANKET ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL
TO ANY NUMBER OF DETACHED ADUS
ON ANY MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY. SO
THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS
BECAUSE IT'S STILL ALLOWS FOR
LOCAL CONTROL FOR IN THOSE CASES
WHERE, IT'S CONCEIVABLE ON A
VERY LARGE IF WE THINK ABOUT
THIS LIMIT OF EIGHT DETACHED
ADUS, WHICH THE BILL WHEN IT
CAME OUT OF HOUSING DID NOT HAVE
THAT LIMIT, THEN A LOCALITY
COULD NOT COME IN AND HAVE ANY
SAY OVER. YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT
WAS BEING, WHAT PORTION, WHAT
PARTS OF THE PARCEL WERE BEING
USED, THE WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
THAT, THERE ARE SOME MULTIFAMILY
, PROPERTIES THAT ARE 500 AND
MORE UNITS OR 250 UNITS.
CONCEIVABLY, AN OWNER MIGHT WANT
TO DO MORE DETACHED ADUS. AND AT
THAT POINT, THAT OWNER WOULD
HAVE TO GO FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO
GET THE FULL APPROVAL. IF THEY
WANT TO DO ADDITIONAL DETACHED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE DID, APPRECIATE THAT,
THAT THIS IS ONLY, ALLOWING FOR
A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL. AND I WOULD FINALLY
NOTE TO, SENATOR SATO'S COMMENTS
THAT THERE IS NO THE LEAGUE OF
CITIES OTHER, FORMAL
REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATIONS OF
OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. AND WITH
THAT, I'D ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO AHEAD
AND CALL. ROLL. MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SENATORS DURAZZO. SATO. SATO.
NØ. DOLLY. GLASER GLASER I.
SKINNER. SKINNER I. WAHAB WAHAB
I WIENER 3 TO 1. OKAY. THAT BILL
IS 3 TO 1 RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GOING
TO HOLD IT OPEN. AND, SENATOR
SKINNER, YOU HAVE SB 1210. GO
AHEAD. GREAT. THANK YOU, THIS
BILL IS A BROADER OF COURSE,
AFFECTS ADUS, BUT IT AFFECTS ALL
HOUSING UNITS, I WILL BEGIN
FIRST THAT I AM ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS THAT ADD
AN IMPLEMENTATION DATE. SO A
LITTLE BIT, OF DELAYED TO GIVE
THE VARIOUS UTILITIES TIME BY
REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT TO POST
BY ADDRESS AND THE REQUIREMENT
THAT, THAT THE THAT THE WEBSITE
SHOW THE STATUS OF AN
APPLICATION. I'M ALSO ADDING THE
POSTING OF FEE SCHEDULES BY
DEVELOPMENT TYPE, AND THE
POSTING OF ESTIMATES OF PROJECT
COMPLETION TIMING. SO THOSE ARE
THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE, THAT
I'M TAKING THAT ARE OUTLINED IN
THE ANALYSIS, THE PURPOSE OF THE
BILL. SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT ONE OF
THE SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT
MAKE BUILDING HOUSING HARD IN
CALIFORNIA ARE COSTS AND
ESPECIALLY COSTS THAT ARE HARD
TO ESTIMATE AND WITHOUT PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON WHAT
THE VARIOUS UTILITIES, WHETHER
IT'S WATER OR SEWAGE, ENERGY,
YOU NAME IT, CHARGE FOR A
DIFFERENT HOOKUP, IT IS HARD TO
THEN ESTIMATE WHAT YOUR TOTAL
COST, WHAT YOUR, YOU KNOW,
PROJECTED COST FOR THAT BUILDING
OF THAT UNIT IS GOING TO BE AND
TIME AND WHERE TIME IS A FACTOR
IS TIME MEANS MONEY. AND SO IF
THE HOOKUP IS DELAYED OR TAKES
MONTHS, AND I THINK MOST OF US
HAVE HEARD ABOUT WHETHER IT'S A
LARGE HOUSING, PROJECT OR A
SINGLE ADU THAT IT CAN IN, WE'VE
HEARD ANECDOTAL STORIES ABOUT
ENTITIES FACING SIX MONTHS TO
TWO YEARS BEFORE THAT
RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAN BE READY
FOR OCCUPANCY. AND YET, THE
HOOKUP FROM THE UTILITY OR SUCH
IS TAKING AN ADDITIONAL SIX
MONTHS TO TWO YEARS, ALL OF
THOSE MAKE HOUSING MORE COSTLY
IN CALIFORNIA. SO THE BILL I WAS
HOPING THAT IT COULD DO MORE,
BUT FOR NOW, IT PURELY PROVIDES
INFORMATION PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
TO HELP ENSURE THAT A HOMEOWNER
OR A CONTRACTOR OR A DEVELOPER,
ANY OR ALL BUILDER OF HOUSING,
KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT THESE
HOOKUPS WILL COST, AND THE
ESTIMATED TIMELINE. SO, THAT'S
WHAT THE BILL DOES. AND WITH
THAT, I WOULD LIKE CATHERINE
CHARLES FROM THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION TO PRESENT. THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MR. VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CATHERINE
CHARLES, AND I'M HERE WITH
BROWNSTEIN ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION, WHO IS
SPONSORING THE BILL, HOUSING
ACTION COALITION IS A MEMBER
SUPPORTED NONPROFIT WORKING TO
HELP SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS IN
CALIFORNIA. AND WE WORK WITH
STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPACE,
INCLUDING PRO HOUSING LAWMAKERS,
DEVELOPERS AND PARTNERS, TO HELP
INCREASE ACCESS TO HOUSING AT
ALL INCOME LEVELS. IN OUR
MEMBERS EXPERIENCE, PART OF WHAT
ACTS AS A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
ARE THE HIGH UTILITY HOOKUP
FEES, WHICH FURTHER EXACERBATE
ALREADY HIGH CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
THE HIGH FEES COME IN ESPECIALLY
WHEN DEVELOPERS ARE UNABLE TO
ANTICIPATE AND BUDGET FOR THEM
BECAUSE THE TIMELINES AROUND
HOOKUPS ARE SO UNCERTAIN, THE
SITUATION NOT ONLY ADDS TO THE
OVERALL EXPENSE OF HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, BUT ALSO
UNDERMINES EFFORTS TO STREAMLINE
AND REDUCE HOUSING COSTS IN THE
STATE. SB 1210 REMEDIES THIS BY
IMPLEMENTING COMMON SENSE
REFORMS THAT INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN UTILITY
COMPANIES AND THE COMMUNITIES
THEY SERVE. NOTABLY, THE BILL
MANDATES UTILITY COMPANIES TO
INFORM CUSTOMERS OF THEIR
ESTIMATED SERVICE COMPLETION
DATE AND FOR DEVELOPERS HAVING A
BETTER SENSE OF THIS TIMELINE IS
ESSENTIAL WHEN BUDGETING FOR
THEIR PROJECTS. SB 1210 IS AN
IMPORTANT FIRST STEP IN
ADDRESSING CONCERNS AND AROUND
UTILITY HOOKUPS, AND WILL
INCENTIVIZE GREATER HOUSING
PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA DURING
A CRUCIAL TIME. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO
ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
AND COME TO THE MIC NAME
ORGANIZATION, AND YOU SUPPORT
MARTIN RADOSEVICH ON BEHALF OF
YIMBY ACTION IN SUPPORT. CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, JORDAN
FAHAD, LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR
CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, EAST BAY
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT. WE
DON'T HAVE A FORMAL POSITION. I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
WORKING WITH US AND THE AUTHORS
STAFF FOR WORKING TO RESOLVE
CONCERNS AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
AS WELL. AND WITH THE AMENDMENTS
OUTLINED, I THINK THOSE RESOLVE
OUR CONCERNS. SPENCER SACHS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF SANITATION
AGENCIES, WE WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND THE AUTHOR FOR
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS, AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THEM
AND HOPEFULLY MOVING TO A
NEUTRAL POSITION. THANK YOU.
HELLO, AARON ECKHOUSE WITH EAST
BAY FOR EVERYONE. PROUD TO
SUPPORT. OKAY. NOW WOULD BE THE
TIME FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. COME ON UP. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. IF YOU WANT TO BE A
PRIMARY WITNESS, IT'LL BE QUICK.
MY NAME IS KELLY MORRIS. I WORK
WITH EDELSTEIN, GILBERT, ROBESON
AND SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
ASSOCIATION. WITH THE AMENDMENTS
TAKEN IN THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
KI¾M UA IS HAPPY TO REMOVE ITS
OPPOSITION TODAY. THANK YOU.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE WHO WANTS TO COME UP AND
EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION? WAS
THAT WAS IT? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
DAIS FOR WE HAVE A MOTION TO
MOVE THE BILL. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE
ANY COMMENTS MYSELF? NO OKAY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
APPRECIATE YOUR AYE VOTE. OKAY.
GO AHEAD AND CALL ROLL MOTION IS
TO PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SENATORS DURAZZO. SATO. SATO.
NØ. DOLLY. GLAZER GLAZER. AYE.
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE WAHAB.
WIENER 2 TO 1. GREAT. ALL RIGHT.
THAT HAS TWO VOTES AND? AND
WE'LL HOLD THAT BILL OPEN FOR
OTHERS TO ADD ON WHEN THEY
ARRIVE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE OTHER
MEMBERS TO COME DOWN SO THAT WE
CAN FINISH THE COMMITTEE
MEETING, RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING
TO RECESS UNTIL WE GET SOME MORE
MEMBERS. SO ALL LIFT CALLS. OH,
DID SHE KNOW SKINNER? YEAH, YOU
COULD. WE HAVE MATERIALS? WE
CAN. WE CAN. SKINNER. PRESENT.
OKAY OPEN THE ROLL. RIGHT
PRESENTER. WOULD YOU BE WELCOME?
YEAH TO PRESENT FOR. MATERIALS
ON. SURE. I'M HAPPY. TO. GO.
NANCY I CAN DO IT. YEAH I DON'T
I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO RUN. DO
I HAVE TO GET BACK TO EC RIGHT
NOW TO VOTE? NO NO, I DON'T
THINK YOU STILL HAVE TIME. OKAY
BUT AT LEAST WE COULD OPEN THE
ROLL. PERHAPS IN THE MEANTIME.
YEAH OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN
THE ROLL FOR WHO? DAD ON. OKAY.
I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY
YET ON BECAUSE I HAVE NOT VOTED
ON A BUNCH OF STUFF. ALL RIGHT,
I'M A MEMBER. YEAH, IT'S COOL,
IT'S COOL. YEAH, I DON'T MIND.
YEAH, I CAN PRESENT IF I NEED
TO. ALL RIGHT, I'LL GO. AND. ALL
RIGHT. IN NUMERICAL ORDER OR
FILE ORDER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO
WE'RE BACK IN SESSION. I DIDN'T
ACTUALLY GO ON A RECESS, AND
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE ROLL FOR
SENATOR SKINNER TO ADD ON. ALL
RIGHT. FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE, SB
915 BY SENATOR CORTESE. MOTION
IS TO PASS TO TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATOR SEYARTO SKINNER TO
SKINNER. AYE 42. ALL RIGHT. THAT
IS 4 TO 2. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY
ELSE THAT NEEDS. NO. WE CAN
CLOSE THE ROLL. OKAY. SO WE'LL
CLOSE THE ROLL ON THAT BILL
PASSES 4 TO 2 FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO, SB 977 BY SENATOR LAIRD.
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
SENATORS DURAZO. YEAH. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. SENATORS. SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE 5 TO 2. ALL RIGHT.
THAT BILL IS OUT. 5 TO 2. NEXT.
BILL FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE, SB
1045 FROM SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR.
MOTION IS TO PASS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
NO CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS DURAZO SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. WIENER 3 TO 2.
THAT BILL IS 3 TO 2. WE'RE GOING
TO LEAVE IT OPEN. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1111 BY SENATOR
MINH. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATORS DOLLY SKINNER.
SKINNER AYE. 620. OKAY WE'RE
GOING TO. THAT'S PASSED SIX
ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE
ROLL ON THAT. FILE ITEM NUMBER
FIVE SB 1123 BY SENATOR
CABALLERO. SENATE A MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, WITH
THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS
SATO, DOLLY, SKIP. SKINNER. AYE.
5520. YEAH. THAT BILL IS OUT. 5
TO 0. CLOSE THE ROLL ON THAT
FILE. ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB 1220
BY SENATOR LIMÓN. MOTION IS TO
PASS THE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
SENATORS DOLLY. SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE 531. THE BILL IS
OUT. 5 TO 1. WE'LL CLOSE THE
ROLL ON THAT ONE. OKAY. NEXT
ITEM, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SB 1232
BY SENATOR GROVE. MOTION IS TO
PASS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
NO CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS DURAZZO SKINNER. WIENER
2 TO 2. THAT BILL IS 2 TO 2. ALL
RIGHT. AND WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE
THAT OPEN. FILE NUMBER EIGHT, SB
1234 BY SENATOR ALLEN. MOTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. NO
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS DURAZZO SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. WIENER 520. OKAY.
THAT BILL, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP
OPEN. IT'S 5 TO 0 RIGHT NOW.
FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE, SB 1376
BY SENATOR GONZALEZ. MOTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, WITH
THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATORS.
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE 42. THAT
BILL IS OUT 42. SORRY. 5 TO 2. 5
TO 2. THAT BILL IS OUT. FILE ON
NUMBER TEN. SB 1210 BY SENATOR
SKINNER. MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. NO CURRENT VOTE FOR
THE CHAIR. SENATORS. DURAZZO,
DOLLY. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. WIENER
3 TO 1. THAT BILL HAS THREE
VOTES. WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN. FILE
ITEM NUMBER 11, SB 1211 BY
SENATOR SKINNER. MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. NO
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS. DURAZZO, DOLLY. WIENER
OH 3 TO 1. THAT BILL HAS THREE
VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 13 SB 1494, BY
SENATOR GLAZER. MOTION IS TO
PASS THE REVENUE AND TAXATION
COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. SENATOR SKINNER. SKINNER
AYE. 6 TO 1. THAT BILL IS OUT
SIX VOTES. NOW, IF I AM PREPARED
TO PRESENT YOUR BILL. OKAY.
SENATOR SKINNER WILL BE
PRESENTING. SB 1325 ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR DURAZZO. GO AHEAD, THANK
YOU, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, SB 1325
SIMPLIFIES THE PUBLIC
CONTRACTING PROCESS FOR STATE
AND LOCAL AGENCIES BY CREATING
AN AUTHORIZING STATUTE FOR BEST
VALUE PROCUREMENT AND THE
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, THE
COMMITTEE'S IS VERY, VERY, VERY
GOOD. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
FREQUENTLY AUTHORIZED THE USE OF
BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT ON AN AD
HOC BASIS FOR SPECIFIC ENTITIES.
THIS CAUSES CONFUSION AND
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN. THE AD
HOC OR THE FACT THAT IT'S AD HOC
CONTRACTING AUTHORITY, WHICH IS
OFTEN DONE IN VERY DIFFERENT
SECTIONS OF STATE CODE, MAKES IT
DIFFICULT FOR AGENCIES TO
UNDERSTAND IF THEY HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO ADOPT BEST VALUE
PROCUREMENT MODELS. SOME LOCAL
AGENCIES HAVE EXPLICIT
PERMISSION TO UTILIZE BEST VALUE
PROCUREMENT, WHILE OTHERS DO
NOT, AND SOME HAVE
AUTHORIZATION, BUT ONLY UNDER
SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. THE
AUTHOR IN FACT RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM THE WATER REPLENISHMENT
DISTRICT, THE LARGEST
GROUNDWATER AGENCY IN CALIFORNIA
, EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR
1325. BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THE
DISTRICT WITH A CLEAR
PROCUREMENT OPTION FOR NECESSARY
EQUIPMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
FATIMA. IQBAL ZUBERI FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF 1325.
IS ON. IT'LL BE ON. OKAY. OKAY.
THERE YOU GO. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. OKAY IF YOU COULD LIMIT
YOUR TESTIMONY TO THAT, I'D
APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, I'M FATIMA IQBAL ZUBAIR
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS. I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE
MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR SB 1325
AND TO HIGHLIGHT THE CRITICAL
IMPORTANCE OF THIS BILL IN
CREATING GOOD GREEN JOBS, AS
WELL AS THE PRODUCTION OF HIGH
QUALITY AND SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCTS. CALIFORNIA IS SET TO
RECEIVE TENS OF BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE COMING YEARS,
AND WITH MILLIONS IN CURRENT AND
FUTURE STATE INVESTMENTS IN A
CLIMATE JUST FUTURE, WE HAVE A
ONCE IN A GENERATION OPPORTUNITY
TO USE THESE FUNDS TO NOT JUST
ADDRESS CRITICAL GAPS IN OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE
ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE NEEDS,
BUT TO DO IT WHILE LIFTING UP
OUR WORKERS AND THUS BUILDING
OUR ECONOMY FROM THE BOTTOM UP.
SB 1325 ALIGNS PERFECTLY WITH
THESE GOALS. FOR THE FIRST TIME,
CALIFORNIA IS BEHIND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ON ACHIEVING JOB
QUALITY STANDARDS AND POLICY
TOOLS LIKE BEST VALUE
PROCUREMENT ARE AMONG THE FIRST
STEPS TO CATCH UP TO EQUITABLE
JOB QUALITY STANDARDS STANDARDS
IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE OUR PUBLIC
DOLLARS FOR THE MOST PUBLIC
GOOD. CURRENTLY, THERE'S A NEED
FOR CLEAR, PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE
FOR LOCAL AND STATE AGENCIES
REGARDING BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT
TO ACHIEVE THE MAXIMAL IMPACT OF
PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS. BY
PRIORITIZING THIS, SB 1325
ENSURES THAT LOCAL CONTRACTS AND
PUBLIC CONTRACTS HAVE THE
ABILITY TO CONSIDER FACTORS
BEYOND JUST COST, SUCH AS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, SOCIAL
EQUITY, AND JOB QUALITY. THIS
BILL ALIGNS WITH CALIFORNIA'S
AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS BY
LEVERAGING STATE PROCUREMENT
POWER TO PRIORITIZE GREEN
PRODUCTS, SERVICES, AND THE
CREATION OF CLIMATE JOBS, WE CAN
ACCELERATE OUR TRANSITION TO A
LOW CARBON ECONOMY AND REDUCE
EMISSIONS. HOWEVER, AS WE
TRANSITION TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE
GREEN ECONOMY, IT'S IMPERATIVE
THAT WE PRIORITIZE JOB CREATION
AND SECTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE
POSITIVELY TO OUR ENVIRONMENT,
BUT ALSO UPLIFTING OUR MOST
VULNERABLE WORKERS, SO IT'S
IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER FACTORS
LIKE JOB QUALITY, TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES AND FAIR WAGES
WHILE MAKING PROCUREMENT
DECISIONS. THE LAST POINT HERE,
SB 1325, EMPHASIZES THE
IMPORTANCE ALSO OF PRODUCT
QUALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY IN
TODAY'S WORLD, WHERE THE IMPACT
OF OUR CONSUMER PATTERNS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT IS MORE APPARENT
THAN EVER, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT
WE PRIORITIZE PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES THAT ARE NOT ONLY HIGH
QUALITY, BUT ALSO PRODUCE
SUSTAINABLY BEST VALUE
PROCUREMENT ENCOURAGES THE
SELECTION OF PRODUCTS THAT MEET
RIGOROUS ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIAL STANDARDS, LEADING TO A
MORE SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN
AND REDUCING OUR OVERALL
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT. BEST VALUE
PROCUREMENT FINALLY ALSO
PROMOTES COMPETITION INNOVATION
AMONG BUSINESSES. BY CONSIDERING
A BROADER RANGE OF FACTORS IN
PROCUREMENT DECISIONS, YOU CAN
WRAP IT UP I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU I WILL. YES, THIS
APPROACH ENCOURAGES COMPANIES TO
INNOVATE AND DEVELOP SUSTAINABLE
SOLUTIONS TO MEET THE STATE'S
NEEDS, WHICH DRIVES ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND BENEFITS. MORE THAN
JUST THE 1% OF THE 99. SO, IN
CONCLUSION, THIS BILL PROMOTES
ALL THE PRINCIPLES I MENTIONED
TO ENSURE CREATION OF HIGH
QUALITY GREEN JOBS, PRODUCTION
OF HIGH QUALITY AND SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCTS, AND OVERALL
ADVANCEMENT OF OUR CLIMATE AND
ECONOMIC GOALS OF THE STATE.
THANK YOU ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY
WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON THEIR
SUPPORT IN A METOO FASHION? YES.
ELMER LAZARD, WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.
ANYBODY ELSE OKAY. IS THERE
ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL AS A
PRIMARY WITNESS? ANYBODY WANTS
TO COME UP AND ADD ME TO NØ
PRIMARY WITNESS? NO. OKAY THEN
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS
FOR ANY QUESTIONS. DO I HEAR A
MOTION TO MOVE THE BILL? YOU MAY
CLOSE. SENATOR SKINNER. SENATOR
OZAWA HAD A GREAT CLOSE, BUT I
SEE EVERYONE NEEDING ANTSY. SO I
WILL ASK FOR YOUR. I VOTE ON HER
BEHALF. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND CALL. ROLL MOTION IS
TO PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. SENATORS. DURAZZO.
SATO. SATO. NO DOLLY. GLASER.
GLASER I. SKINNER SKINNER I.
WAHAB. WAHAB I WIENER 3 TO 1.
OKAY. THAT BILL IS 3 TO 1. WE
ARE GOING TO KEEP IT OPEN. AND
AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE A RECESS. WAS THERE WAS
THERE. YEAH. WE'RE GONNA HAVE.
WAS THERE A CONSENT CALENDAR
THAT I DID NOT KNOW. SO
OTHERWISE I'VE. I'M GREAT. YOU
ARE GOOD. NO, BUT YOU NEED TO
STAY AND CHAIR THE. NO, I'M JUST
KIDDING. WE'LL BE IN RECESS
RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE WILL RE
COMMENCE OUR, LOCAL GOVT,
HEARING. AND WE'RE GOING TO
RETURN TO A FEW BILLS WHERE WE
LEFT THEM OPEN. SO I WANT TO. DO
YOU WANT TO SAY WHICH ONES THERE
SHOULD I ANNOUNCE WHICH ONES
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON? OR
YOU'LL JUST DO THEM ONE BY ONE.
YEAH. OKAY. GO AHEAD. FILE ITEM
NUMBER THREE, SB 1045 BY SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR. MOTION IS TO PASS
THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE. NO CURRENT VOTE FOR
THE CHAIR. SENATOR DURAZZO I
DURAZZO I WIENER R WIENER I 5 TO
2. I'M SORRY. YEAH. CLOSE THE
ROLL FILE. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SB
1232 BY SENATOR GROVE. MOTION IS
TO PASS TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE. NO CURRENT VOTE FOR
THE CHAIR. SENATOR DURAZZO. NO.
DURAZZO. NO SKINNER. WIENER
WIENER. I I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR
RECONSIDERATION FOR HER. SO
CLOSE THE ROLL AND THEN SAY THAT
WE CAN'T. OKAY, SO. AND CLOSE.
CLOSE THE ROLL. THREE. TWO
THREE. OKAY. THE BILL FAILS. I'M
SORRY. 1232 I'M SORRY. I'M A NO
ON THAT ONE. WIENER. NO 2 TO 4.
THE BILL FAILS. ASK FOR
RECONSIDERATION. OKAY. AND
RECONSIDERATIONS GRANTED. RECON
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. ASSUMING NO
OBJECTION. OKAY FINAL ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT, SB 1234 BY SENATOR
ALLEN. MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. NO CURRENT VOTE FOR
THE CHAIR. SENATORS DURAZZO I
DURAZZO I WIENER I WIENER I 7 TO
0. CLOSE THE ROLL FILE. ITEM
NUMBER TEN SB 1210 BY SENATOR
SKINNER. MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. NO CURRENT VOTE FOR
THE CHAIR. SENATOR DURAZZO I.
DURAZZO I, DOLLY 1010. NO DOLLY.
NO. WIENER. WIENER I 5 TO 2.
CLOSE THE ROLL IS CLOSED. FILE
ITEM NUMBER 11 SB 1211 BY
SENATOR SKINNER. MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. NO
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS DURAZZO I DURAZZO I
DOLLY. DOLLY NÓ WIENER. WIENER I
5 TO 2. CLOSE THE ROLL ON SB
1211. FILE ITEM NUMBER 12 BY
SENATOR SB 1325 BY SENATOR
DURAZZO. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. NO
CURRENT VOTE FOR THE CHAIR.
SENATORS DURAZZO I, DURAZZO I
DOLLY. DOLLY NÓ WIENER. WIENER I
5 TO 2. CLOSE THE ROLLS ON SB
1325. THAT'S IT. OKAY. WE ARE
DONE, BEFORE WE, ADJOURN, BEFORE
WE END IT, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A
REALLY, REALLY SPECIAL THANK YOU
TO THE STAFF WHO'S, YOU KNOW,
EVERYTHING WENT SMOOTH TODAY,
BECAUSE THERE WAS ENORMOUS, LONG
HOURS PUT IN BY THE STAFF. AND I
WANT TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE ALL
THE HARD WORK. THANK YOU. AND DO
I HAVE TO SAY, DON'T BANG THE
GAVEL. BAM.