Assembly Local Government Committee, Wednesday, April 29, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Local Government Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
It also has an emergency psychiatric unit and also an urgent care mental health unit. This contract change authority provided us provided to us starting in 01/2024, allowed us to execute some 60 change orders thus far. We estimate that saved the project about twenty months in in project delivery time. So significant amount of impact. In summary, a b sixteen fifty eight makes permanent the existing change order authority that we've been using under the temporary authority.
And, we thank you for having me here today. Respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, chair and members. Keegan Fahey, principal engineer with Los Angeles County Public Works. On behalf of our director, Mark Pastrella, in support of a b sixteen fifty eight. From a delivery perspective, this bill addresses a recurring issue we encounter on large capital projects. During construction, change orders are often necessary to address field conditions, design refinements, or coordination issues.
Many of these changes are routine but time sensitive, especially when they affect the project's critical path. Under current law, even relatively modest change orders on large contracts can require board approval. That process can take several months. During that time, construction activities may be delayed, which can increase costs and extend project schedules. Since 2022, Los Angeles County has successfully applied this delegated authority on five major projects.
As a result, we have avoided over 40,000,000 projects in project costs and approximately twelve months of delay on the Harbor UCLA Medical Center replacement program alone. Any delays would place this project at risk of complying with the state's seismic requirements. These measurable project level outcomes are complemented by broader community benefits, including the timely delivery of critical projects and services to the county. At the same time, construction costs have increased significantly. Over the past decade, construction cost inflation has substantially outpaced general inflation, and current statutory thresholds have not kept pace.
Redner 14
As a result, increasingly more routine change orders now exceed existing limits. AB sixteen fifty eight allows us to process these changes more efficiently while maintaining effective oversight. All change orders are still subject to thorough internal evaluation, including cost verification and assessment of merits. From a project delivery standpoint, this allows us to keep projects moving while maintaining appropriate controls and accountability. For these reasons, the county of Los Angeles respectfully supports AB sixteen fifty eight.
Redner 4
Thank you all. Thank you to Assembly Member Kalra, and thank you to Santa Clara.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support? Seeing no one. How about primary opposition? No opposition at all either.
Assembly questions from Commission? No? Would you like to close?
Redner 1
Thank you. We don't have a form yet. As soon as we do, after a session a motion and a second, we will, take that motion. And thank you for presenting your bill once we get a forum.
Redner 1
You do have another bill, believe, and that's agenda item number six, SEB twenty two sixty three.
Redner 2
Thank you, once again, mister chair and members. First, I'd like to say thank you, to you and, your committee staff for working with us on committee amendments that we are happy to accept today. AB twenty two sixty three is a district bill that will give the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority the statutory authority to build affordable housing for their employees. VTA employs an estimated 2,300 employees who manage and operate Santa Clara County's public transportation services. While VTA workers may be making competitive middle class wages, they work and hope to live in the most expensive housing market in the nation.
Redner 1
For instance, the median home sale price of 2025 was over $1,600,000, and the median rent was $3,400. The high cost of housing has priced many of the VTE workers out of the area, leading them to live outside the immediate work area or, in many cases, outside the county, thereby creating long commutes for these workers, which is counter to the transit agency's goals. By allowing VTA to offer their employees affordable housing, we can help these workers achieve the dream of either owning a home in the city where they work in or just being able to live close to work. AB twenty two sixty three will give VTA the authority to build affordable housing for its employees, ensure their workers can live closer to work, decrease their commutes, reduce driver fatigue, and improve the overall safety for all drivers and pedestrians on the road. With me to provide supporting testimony is, supervisor Margaret Abe Koga, who's a board member of VTA, and Jesse O'Malley Solis, VTA's director of multimodal planning and real estate, who's available to ask, to answer any technical questions.
Redner 7
Good afternoon, Chair Korea, Vice Chair Todd, and members of the committee. Thank you so much for having me today. My name is Margaret Abe Koga. I serve on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors as well as, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Thank you for hearing our earlier bill.
Redner 6
And I just wanna thank you, Assembly Member Kalra, for authoring AB two two six three and for your ongoing support of VTA and our employees. VTA has a robust transit oriented development program. This bill would enable VTA to designate a percentage of the housing units we provide with preference given to our own employees. The majority of the housing units proposed under AB two two six three would be open to the general public and would serve a mix of households including including low and moderate income residents, consistent with BTA's existing transit oriented communities program. This legislation would help VTA address workforce retention and commute challenges while still serving the broader community and ensuring compliance with federal and state fair housing principles.
With the median rent nearby nearly double the national average, VTA employees often choose more affordable communities, as assembly member Kara mentioned, far from their work. One in four VTA employees commute more than an hour each way, and 10% commute more than two hours each way. And in an internal employee survey, 90% expressed interest in an employee housing program. By offering employees the option to live close to work, we hope to improve their quality of life and provide more opportunities to use our public transit system. I wanna thank assembly member Calra again and this committee for hearing AB two two six three and respectfully ask for your approval.
Thank you so much.
Redner 2
Good afternoon, chair Carrillo and vice chair Ta and committee members. My name is Jesse O'Malley Solis and I'm VTA's director of multimodal planning and real estate for VTA. I'm here to answer any technical questions that you may have about our TOD program or our employee need for this bill. And we are thankful to Assembly Member Kalra for authorship on this on behalf of our VTA employees and we hope to have your support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add in support? Seeing no one. What about primary opposition? No opposition at all.
Committee members, comments, questions? Oh, now we have a quorum. Would you please scroll the
Redner 10
I want to thank Assemblyman for raising this bill. Just raises a broader question for me that we are continuing to be able to do these one off district related bills when it comes to employee housing or it comes to being able to use your public lands a little bit smarter. Obviously, there was some background in here with SB 79 being an allowance with previous work that's been done as well to be able to use previous legislation, now law, that has been able to allow public entities to be able to use their lands a lot smarter. I know specifically there was broad legislation for school districts. Right?
I mean, I'd like to be able to see this, like, more as a standard for a lot of our transit agencies. Know the MTS down in San Diego has been doing a lot of work to be able to use affordable housing on its properties, and, of course, it's right there on transit high high occupancy transit lines. So is there anything about BTA's sort of portfolio that, like, you know, you need to be able to, expand the law beyond what is already there? I'm gonna support the bill. I'll have to move the bill.
But but, what's what's the, maybe extra special need here through this legislation?
Redner 7
Our current legislative authority allows us to develop our properties via our TOD program or joint development program, but it does not allow us to provide
Redner 7
that as preference to employees. And so that is the specific need and impetus for the bill before you.
Redner 10
Got it. Yeah. I'm very supportive of that too. Just like we're doing for teacher housing
Redner 1
Seeing no one else. Was there a motion, Assemblyman Reward? Is there a second? A second by Assemblyman Ransom. Would you like to close?
Redner 2
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you for the question. I think that Santa Clara County is not unique. Think when it comes to being able to provide housing for their workforce, including those that work for transit agencies, I'm hoping that this will be set an example and hopefully be successful so that other transit agencies can can follow suit because we need all options on the table, especially for those that are choosing to do public service in our communities, especially as for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you, Assemblyman Caldwell and your team for working with the community for and and for taking the amendments, which I believe you stated you're taking the amendments. Yes. I understand that there are, there may be other further refinements, to the definition of employee housing project, and I'm happy to continue working with you on this definition as the bill moves forward. And you accept the amendments? The motion is to pass as amendment.
Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 8
For item number six, a b twenty two sixty three, the motion is due pass as amended. Carrillo?
Redner 8
Carrillo? Aye. Taw? Aye. Johnson?
Pacheco, aye. Ramos, Ransom, aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio, aye. Rubio, aye.
Caloza, Ward, Ward, aye. Wilson?
Redner 1
Right now, six zero. We leave the roll open for add ons. Thank you. And the is out. The bill is out.
Redner 1
can. Count, can I get a motion for a B1658 item number one also color? Motion by Pacheco, seconded by Rubio. Please call the roll.
Redner 8
Curio? Aye. Ta? Aye. Ta?
Aye. Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco?
Aye. Ramos? Ransom?
Redner 1
The bill is sought at six zero. Will you be, roll open for add ons? Assembly member, Pellerin. Do you want to start by
Redner 1
The Addis Bill? Yeah. That's item number four a b 2,134 Addis presented by Pellerin.
Redner 12
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair and members. And I'm filling in today for Assemblymember Addis, to present AB two one three four, the Family Friendly City Councils Act. This is a legislative women's caucus priority bill.
Assembly member Addis would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill. She accepts the amendments outlined in the analysis. The idea came to her from a stunning story she read in the Santa Cruz Sentinel originally published in the San Jose Mercury News by Grace Hayes. The story she read was about Alyssa Cisneros, a seven months pregnant council member in Sunnyvale who is expected to ask her council member colleagues at a public meeting to vote to approve a leave of absence so she could keep her seat. When assembly member Addis read the story, she was stunned by two things.
Number one, how unfair this is to women and new parents. And number two, how this could be happening in 2024 in California where we've worked so hard to create the most representative democracy in America. Her team went back and searched and found out, excuse me, that it's true. There are massive gaps in family leave protections for public officials that can leave those serving in local office without the guarantee of parental leave and force them to divulge private medical information in public. For these public servants, it creates an impossible choice between time off for a new family or keeping their seat.
Publicly and invasively divulging their personal health information or potentially facing removal. Fortunately, we have an easy fix. AB two thousand one thirty four will establish standard minimum protections for parental leave for city council members across California. This bill will ensure that council members can have absences for parental leave without losing their seat, making city councils more accessible to new parents. So specifically, AB 2,134 will require cities to allow council members to take absences for parental leave.
It will exclude parental leave from counting toward the number of absences allowed for each council member, and it will prevent cities from requiring council members to seek approval for parental leaves at public meetings. Californians should be able to grow their families and serve in local office. AB 2,134 will remove barriers that create a stronger, more representative democracy for all of us. And joining me today to testify in support is Sunnyvale City Council Member, Alyssa Cisneros.
Redner 13
Hello. Thank you very much. Thank you for hearing, this really important bill today. My name is Alyssa Cisneros, I serve on the Sunnyvale City Council where, I was first elected in 2020. I represent the downtown.
I've worn many professional hats in my life, but what calls me to leadership is the privilege of being a mother to my two incredible daughters. A few years ago, I needed to decide whether I was going to have a second child due to some health concerns if I were to hold off that decision too much longer. Whether I was up for reelection didn't matter, what my city's policy didn't matter, I needed to make that decision. That was a challenging choice for a lot of the reasons that are it would normally be challenging for anyone, economic reasons, huge concern, other family milestones, long term goals that my family may have. But what was unique about my circumstances, I also had to consider whether I was willing to potentially lose the seat that I've won years four years prior, in favor of having this child.
And I was more fortunate than most because former mayor Melinda Hamilton had trod this path before me in 2003 for the first time, and I'm the next person to have experienced it. But she was able to give me fair warning, and I realized many council members do not have fair warning. Somebody to tell them this is what's gonna happen. Gonna need to have a public hearing and there's gonna be public comment and they're invited to talk about your personal issues and your family and those decisions and whether or not that makes you fit for leadership, the fact that you've decided to expand your family. Comments that she received, in 2003 included, women should not be eligible for elected office at all when they are of childbearing age, and who is gonna watch your babies when you're at council meetings?
And I don't think it's appropriate for you to be out of the home. And this was the discourse happening in a public meeting, and we are the lucky ones. We have a city who should bias colleagues who would not tolerate that, and we both got our leave without question. But I got really angry that other women in California would have to ever make this choice any for that matter, any father or any parent because these are very personal decisions. How much leave is needed is a medical concern that you handle with staff.
Redner 8
And any public discourse that can happen around that does not add to any value to the conversation. In fact, I'm concerned about whether having these policies, you know, locally controlled can dissuade other people from running or for making decisions that are best for their family. And so I kept talking about it. I was also running for reelection at the same time. I won, hence my title still.
Redner 13
That was tough, but I now get to enjoy that future that I want for every single woman elected official. And when we say elect women in this state, we can say it and say it and say it, like, get elected to your we we've all said it to leaders in our communities. Get elected to your local city council. Go for a commission. Do it.
But we should not leave those people behind once they are there. We need to foster continue to grow their leadership and make sure that nobody is making the decision between what's best for their family and growing their commitment and civic engagement in their communities. We need families, young families represented. So thank you very much for your time and your consideration.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you for being here. Anybody else that wants to add on in support? Seeing no one, is there any primary opposition to this measure? No opposition.
Members, comments, questions, motion?
Redner 11
Just a comment as a fellow woman. This is my twenty ninth year as an elected official. I was 12 when I started, just in case you're trying to do math. And when I had my kids, I was running for the assembly and so I was knocking on doors, talking to folks up here and they said, what are you gonna do with your kids? They multiple times.
What are you gonna do with your kids? Finally, and one day I got mad. I said, I'm gonna have to give them up. I can't keep them. And they finally stopped telling me what I was gonna do with my kids.
Redner 13
But to your point, we're the only ones that get asked those questions. And so, you know, I thank you for for this. I did a similar bill, but not specific for for this issue. But I've done some work on this because I think it is if we want equal representation, then we have to have equal representation. So thank you for this and thank, assembly member Addis and thank you
Redner 16
Just briefly, I think this is a a common sense bill, and I I know a lot of folks were shocked that this is a thing. But, when I think about, you know, serving in local government and having to go before your peers, I think about councils and communities like mine where there's constantly in the news for people just not getting along and finding ways to trip each other up. And so, I mean, just having to go before people who you may not agree with or who try to trip each other up is just not fair. It should not be part of family planning, and it's really, you know, shouldn't be part of the process. So I appreciate that this bill creates parity with the employees.
It's not giving any special privileges. It's just giving basic human rights. And so with that, I'm honored to support this bill today.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else, would you like to close on behalf of assembly member Artis?
Redner 12
Yes. So I wanna thank, the council member for being here with her testimony. It's very compelling. And on behalf of assembly member Artis, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you and thank you for presenting on behalf of Assembly Member Addis. This is a real issue today. We already heard from your experience and others here on on on the dais. Thank you also and your staff for working with the committee on clarifying amendments, and that's for Assembly Member Addis. Mhmm.
With the amendment, I will be voting aye. And we had a motion by Rubio and a seconded by Ransom. Please call the roll.
Redner 8
For item number four, a b twenty one thirty four, the motion is due passed as amended. Carrillo?
Redner 8
Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Johnson?
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Ransom?
Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye.
Caloza? Ward? Ward, I. Wilson.
Redner 1
That measures are six zero. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you.
Redner 1
And do you have a bill of your own? That's agenda item number five, a b twenty one eighty six?
Redner 12
Indeed, I do. So good afternoon again, chair and members. I wanna thank the chair and your committee staff for your work on this bill, a b twenty one eighty eight, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Founded in 1972, the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District or MIDPEN spans 17 cities in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties and serves nearly 770,000 residents. MIDPEN currently manages more than 73,000 acres of mountainous foothill and bay land.
Redner 16
However, their current administrative limits were set over a decade ago. With the surging costs in The Bay Area and an additional 10,000 acres added to the district since the original administrative limits were imposed, there is a need to update these limits to help the district stay on track of their measure AA project goals, which require the district to complete 33 more projects by 2044. The current limit has also sometimes delayed actions by several weeks to over a year and comes with an estimated cost of more than $6,000 per contract. As a result, Mid Pen has approximately $1,130,000 on around 200 contracts that were above $50,000 in the last five years on these administrative costs alone. Each dollar spent on administrative costs is a dollar that isn't spent on restoring forests, streams, and watersheds and advancing wildlife migration and expanding I'm sorry, advancing wildfire mitigation and improving public access.
Redner 12
This bill also streamlines the contracting process and allows the district to go back to its original goal of stewarding these beautiful lands. And with me to testify in support is MidPen's general manager, Anna Marie, Anna Maria Ruiz.
Redner 24
Chair Carrillo and members of the committee, you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ana Ruiz, General Manager of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, also known as Mid Pen. I am here in strong support of AB two thousand one eighty eight, which provides essential updates to our enabling legislation to improve contracting efficiency. First, I would like to thank the author, Assembly Member Pelerin, committee chair, and his staff and, staff for their hard work on what is particularly impactful legislation for MidPen to effectively accomplish its work and its many bond measure commitments on behalf of the public and our taxpayers. MidPen stores over 73,000 acres across 27 preserves within a global biodiversity hotspot.
Redner 17
We are the second largest park and open space district in California. In 2014, with two thirds approval of local voters, Midpen passed measure double a, a $300,000,000 general obligation bond to pursue and complete 25 priority project portfolios by 2044, identified through extensive public outreach. However, our current contracting authority set at $50,000 in 2015 has not kept pace with our growing responsibilities and the deadline set by Measure double a. Since 2015, we have added 10,000 acres of protected lands. Meanwhile, the cost of doing business in the Bay Area has soared.
Our staff must regularly contract for habitat restoration, new public recreational improvements, and critical repair work. Currently, the $50,000 cap adds problematic delays in bringing smaller contracts under $150,000 to our board of directors for approval as MidPen simultaneously works to navigate very tightly constrained scheduling conditions, including nesting and breeding seasons, flowering seasons of fresh species, periods of winter rains, and other seasonal conditions. As a result, we have experienced too many incidents where this additional administrative hurdle causes the start of these public and natural resource management projects to be pushed back weeks, if not even a full year, driving up the long term cost for Mid Pen and our taxpayers. The overhead cost is also significant. Each contract requiring board approval costs an estimated of $6,000 to process internally, totaling about 1,130,000 over the 200 contracts that we have been managing.
AB two thousand one eighty eight offers a practical solution by raising the General Manager's Contracting Authority 250,000 This level is consistent with inflation and the operational realities of peer agencies like San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, which have contract limits of $200,000 This change preserves all board adopted and legally required competitive pricing safeguards while allowing us to do our work more efficiently to protect our region's natural lands. I respectfully ask for your I vote for AB 2,188.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 5
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 18
Good afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Parks Districts in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else, anybody in opposition, primary opposition or opposition at all? Seeing no one, committee members, comments, questions? Assembly member Ramsden?
Redner 16
I do have questions. Thank you for the bill. I had several questions, I know that this was compared to AB seven sixty nine, a Wilson bill that was done for a different park. But just in doing the the research, your board meets every twice a month. Is that
Redner 16
So twice a month. So can you tell me about a scenario? Like, why would it take 6,000 extra dollars every time a board needs to approve the a a change or a a contract?
Redner 17
It will it has to do with the administrative requirements and processing to prepare for those board meetings, which is about a three month lead time in preparing all the documentation and and also then preparing for the board meeting itself. So it's the legwork to get these items, these contracts up for our board of directors for their review and their approval.
Redner 16
Okay. And then I was looking for the guardrail. I know the Wilson bill had a guardrail where it was 150 annual aggregate. What is the the cap or the annual aggregate for this request?
Redner 16
So annually so it's just unlimited, like, it's many $150,000 $150,000 requests as you need?
Redner 12
For for yeah. For each of the contracts. And and and bear in mind that MidPen stewards 73,000 acres and it is addressing, you know, the needs of 770,000 residents. And we did take the committee amendments to require that we get three informal bids for writing these contracts and that and that they're we removed the no advertisements so they're going to be advertised and that all these bids will then be reported to the board at each of those meetings. So they will be getting updates throughout the year as well.
Redner 16
Okay. And then when you say advertised, is this like for like publicly advertised for public comment or just just, hey, we advertising for people to bid on?
Redner 1
Thank you, assembly member and your staff for working with the committee on amendments. With the amendments, they will be supporting your bill, but we need motion and a second first. Moved by Pacheco, seconded by Rubio. Please call the roll.
Redner 8
For item number five, a b twenty one eighty eight, the motion is due passed as amended. Carreo?
Redner 8
Ta? Aye. Johnson? Pacheco? Aye.
Pacheco? Aye. Ramos? Ransom? Aye.
Ransom? Aye. Rubio? Rubio? Caloza?
Ward? Aye. Ward? Aye. Wilson?
Redner 1
That motion is out, six zero for now. We'll leave them roll open for others to add on.
Redner 1
Congratulations. And moving on to agenda item number two, assembly member Brian, AB seventeen sixty eight. Whenever you're ready, sir.
Redner 19
Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. I think this is my first time coming before you, mister chair. Thank you for having me. I'm here to present Assembly Bill seventeen sixty eight. It's an important bill, a rather routine bill in the legislature.
We've passed nearly 30 of these in my time in the legislature. It gives state authorization to Los Angeles County and Contra Costa County to ask their voters if they wanna step up in this moment and protect the most vulnerable from the health care impacts due to the cuts from the Big Beautiful scam. The most vulnerable communities continue to be attacked by the Trump administration. Trump has signed policies that strip health care resources away from those communities, the same communities that already face the greatest barriers to care. We know these cuts are coming.
They're imminent. In LA County, seven clinics have already closed in our most vulnerable communities, and the cuts haven't even hit yet. California is disproportionately feeling these negative impacts. Los Angeles County projects losses totaling 2,400,000,000 over the next three years after the big beautiful scam cuts go into effect. Without additional revenue sources, these cuts will affect the county departments that focus on providing Angelenos with quality care.
In other instances, the county has already instituted hiring freezes and warned of potential layoffs. Essentially, without the county asking its voters whether they can raise revenues or not, the default choices are layoff well over 5,000 county employees let sheriffs, probation workers, social service workers, community health workers, or let thousand more thousands more die on our sidewalks because they don't have access to critical health care infrastructure. Contra Costa County faces similar pressures. AB seventeen sixty eight is simple. It's about whether local communities have the state's authorization to respond to federal decisions that impact their most vulnerable members.
Without this authority, counties are left making impossible choices that will cost lives. What's clear about this bill is this bill does not raise taxes, which is why it's been rather routine in the legislature. In fact, we passed a number of these measures last year and didn't even blink an eye. It simply gives voters the ability to decide for themselves if they want to step up to meet the moment, to meet a crisis. LA County sees this crisis so imminent, they have already put a ballot measure on their June ballot because they know that without addressing this in real time, people will die, more people than anywhere else in the country.
AB seventeen sixty eight is grounded in local control. It ensures our communities are not left to observe the consequences of these federal decisions by themself. Joining me to testify are Angela Pontes, the senior VP of government affairs at Planned Parenthood California, and Jim Mongia, the president and CEO of Saint John's Community Health Clinic.
Redner 20
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Carrillo and members of the committee. My name is Jim Mongia, I'm the president and CEO of Saint John's Community Health. We're one of the largest nonprofit community health providers in California, serving hundreds of thousands of low income families, working people, immigrants, seniors, and patients who depend on the health care safety net for their primary care, behavioral health, dental care, and other essential services. I'm here today on behalf of St.
John's Community Health and the 200 community clinic sites across Los Angeles County who serve 2,000,000 patients, and the health care providers, workers, and patients who rely on the safety net system to express our strong support for a b seventeen sixty eight. A b seventeen sixty eight does not itself impose a tax. What it does is give Los Angeles County the legal authority through 12/31/2031 to place a temporary half cent transactions and use tax before the voters even if that tax exceeds the current 2% statutory cap. In other words, the bill gives voters the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to approve that measure. And this is why this bill matters so much.
It does not bypass the voters and empowers them. For providers like Saint John's, this is not abstract. Los Angeles County is facing severe federal health care cuts, and those cuts are putting extraordinary pressure on public hospitals, community clinics, public health programs, and the broader system of care that millions of Angelenos depend on. We're talking about closing down a public hospital and laying off thousands of workers, dozens of community clinics closing down if this measure does not pass. When the health care safety net is weakened, the consequences don't stop with uninsured patients, The strain reaches the emergency rooms, hospitals, school based health centers, public health infrastructure, and neighborhoods across the county because patients wait longer, routine care gets delayed, and communities lose access to services they depend on close to home.
Redner 19
The LA County Board of Supervisors has already acted to place this measure on the June ballot and adopted a spending plan to prepare for implementation if voters approve it. That plan is intended to help stabilize public hospitals, support nonprofit and community based providers, preserve public health functions, and protect access to care. This measure has been endorsed by every angle, every part of the safety net, the hospitals, the clinics, the private doctors, as well as multiple community based organizations and unions. A b seventeen sixty eight is a necessary enabling step that makes implementing that measure possible. On behalf of Saint John's Community Health, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 35
Thank you, mister Terran members. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. In Los Angeles County, Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valleys operate 28 community health centers and 26 community based sites. This is one quarter of the Planned Parenthood health centers in the state. We are in support, of course, of a b seventeen sixty eight.
Redner 21
When president Trump signed h r one into law on July, Planned Parenthood health centers were immediately defunded nationwide. In dollars for California, this meant the state lost over $300,000,000 in federal matching funding for vital sexual and reproductive health care services. HR one also included many other devastating impacts to health care programs across the state. In LA County, as stated, it is projected to result in the loss of $2,400,000,000 over the next three years. In response, LA County has proposed a local solution by placing the Essential Services Restoration Act on the June 2026 ballot for voter approval.
If passed, this measure may result in about $1,000,000,000 to support health care services across LA County, including for Planned Parenthood. AB seventeen sixty eight will allow this measure to be implemented legally if passed by the voters. For these reasons, we ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody that wants to vote in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 22
Good afternoon. Matt Lejuez on behalf of SEIU California in support and also the California professional firefighters asked me to express their support as well. Thank you.
Redner 5
Good afternoon, chair members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.
Redner 15
Mister chair members, Scott Wetchen on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union, Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. Thank you.
Redner 17
Good afternoon. Panarea Abdis on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.
Redner 25
Jeff Neal representing the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County as well as LA Care also in support.
Redner 1
Alejandro Feliz on behalf of CPCA advocates, cosponsors of the bill, support. Thank you.
Redner 18
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is JC Lee, and I'm from the California Taxpayers Association testifying in opposition to a v seventeen sixty eight, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today. California has the highest state imposed sales and use tax rate in The US at 7.25%. In both Los Angeles and Contra Costa Counties, the combined state and local sales tax rate is already over 10% in some cities. We consistently hear from taxpayers who are concerned about affordability in this state, and we believe that circumventing the transactions and use tax cap could drive the cost of goods even higher.
Redner 26
Because of the potential for an increased tax burden and affordability concerns, Caltax respectfully opposes this bill. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on? In opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 18
Afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of Glendale in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Redner 33
Mister chairman and members Jason Gonsalves, on behalf of the cities of Lakewood, Artesia, Norwalk, and Torrance, It's a timing issue. Great author, but we're respectfully opposed.
Redner 1
Thank you. Committee members, questions, comments, and what's in front of us is, assembly member Wilson.
Redner 28
Hi. Thank you, to the author, for advocating on behalf of your community as well as others. I have the, truly honor to be able to represent a portion of Contra Costa that is included in this bill. And, we had many discussions post the supervisors voting, you know, to have a, to put a self text on the ballot. There were many discussions amongst the Contra Costa Delegation.
I'll note for people that may not be aware, I have a very small portion of Contra Costa. It's the eastern portion. It's the city of Oakley. It's, unincorporated areas like Discovery Bay, Byron, Knights Inn, very rural. They have consistently, without a shadow of a doubt, historically voted down any tax that has been put forth in Contra Costa, even ones that would go to their benefit like when they did one fire.
And so I was very much concerned in my discussions with the supervisors about this direction being taken as a voice representing my portion of the county. At the same time, just the previous election cycle, I was able to, with the support of one of my cities in the county of Solano, where I have the I have the entire county. There were one city in particular that was coming up the cap that wanted to do something that was related to transportation. It was actually a citizens' initiative. And they couldn't do it with the current cap in place.
Redner 21
And other cities within the county had bumped up against that cap, so we we did a bill giving them, what I would call choice, knowing that, when we ever tried to do anything in Solano County, as a county as a whole, the majority of my district, will say no, or what the two thirds. And so we because there's a portion of my district that is no on tax every time, but felt comfortable putting it forth because it was about a choice to the voters, not whether it was, a tax or not. I mean, not not the actual raising of a tax, and so felt comfortable with that. I'm concerned myself as representing the portion that I know would say no, of of of supporting in this regard, but I'm going to lean to the fact that it is a choice, and and that community will have a choice to that portion of my committee will have a choice to say no. And I've committed, at the time when I was talking with the supervisor and stuff, that I couldn't lend my support to it because the portion I represent says no.
Redner 28
But as far as giving the whole entire county a choice, I'll be, supporting your bill today. And and just know in general on this issue is that, we've had a lot of, the the federal administration has been very antagonistic to California. And in this particular area, as it relates to HR one, it's antagonistic to the whole country.
Redner 28
There are a lot of populations that are are are so vulnerable, and this is just gonna set them back. So we have to do something. Whether this is the right something, attacks because it is regressive in nature and and we have an affordability crisis, not sure. But I do know, that I trust the voters enough to bring me here to be their voice, so I trust them enough to think thoughtfully, about that choice and make that decision, for themselves. But, finally, I keep saying I'll wrap up, but I'll the last thing I'll note is, my district, the the area that I represent is a very small portion of Contra Costa.
If the rest of them say yes, while they say no, it doesn't matter. And so we have to think through some of our minority voices and ensuring that, we're taking care of them, in this process, because I think that the reason why they're saying no is that they feel like they're not getting the best bang for their buck. Thank you, to the chair for
Redner 1
letting me go on for Thank a somebody, members. Anybody else? Seeing no one, before you close, I also want to voice the concern that I have. What you mentioned, the, witness yourself and what's been happening at the federal level, it is concerning. It is one of the ways that we can we can help keep those services, Planned Parenthood and health care and all of those things.
The what's been happening in the portion of LA County that I represent, Palmdale and Lancaster, We feel that we don't no, we don't feel we can prove that we don't get the the same results when we give our tax to LA County. We barely get anything back. To give you an example, Measure H, years ago. Ponderay Lancaster contributed millions of dollars to that Measure H because it's a real issue. So we supported Measure H.
And when it came down to see what we were getting back in you know, in return for what we gave L. A. County, we barely got anything back. So my concern, again, continues to be equitable distribution of these taxes that go to L. A.
County, because we do have Planned Parenthood in Lancaster and Palmdale, but we just don't get equal amount of return from what we provide. And I've expressed that to every opportunity that I have, this being one of them, because I do wanna make sure that it's an equitable tax return for our communities across the county, every corner of the county, not just the supervinaires, which I understand is the most populated, the densities there, but our money comes, too, when they come and take it, which is get pennies on the dollar. And, again, we do have services, like, again, Planned Parenthood under Lancaster, and other health care needs that we have. And when it comes down to it, what what I'm doing here is making it possible for our constituents, LA County residents, my constituents, to make that choice whether they wanna do that or not. They'll be pointing fingers on me against supporting another tax measure, but at the end of the day, it is our pride to choose whether we vote yes or no on this measure at county level.
Again, I just want to express again what the concerns are, and I believe that other parts of the county feel the same way. Having said that, I will support the measure because, again, it's something that we need to do because of the attacks that we have from the federal administration. And, again, this gives my constituents in the high desk upon the Lancaster the opportunity for them to decide whether they vote yes or no. And, again, with that, I'll be supportive. I see no other comments.
Would you like to close?
Redner 19
No. Absolutely. Mister chair, think that's a fair point. And and I think, I'm grateful for your leadership representing Palmdale and Lancaster. And and as you know, there's a a deep linkage between South LA communities and Palmdale and Lancaster.
We we are cousins, in many ways. And so I I think you're right and fair. And I think that also goes for areas like Downey and Baldwin Park and other parts of the counties where we need to make sure that community health care infrastructure is equitably distributed to this measure. I think in many instances, South LA also feels, unequally distributed to, and and that's important that we hold the county supervisors and the county accountable to implementation should this pass. But those to me are also questions for further down the road.
Redner 5
The question before us today, in my mind, is is really two part. We either allow the people of LA County and Coster County to decide for themselves if they wanna step up and meet this moment and take care of the most vulnerable, or we are deciding that the most vulnerable are expendable, or the county should shift resources away from fire, public safety, social service infrastructure to meet this impending $2,400,000,000 cut for health care infrastructure. I will also say on behalf of the LA delegation, oftentimes, the entire delegation feels like we don't get our fair resources from the state and the good new compared to what we put in. But I think the good news in this measure is we're not asking the state to backfill $2,400,000,000 in ongoing support for our health care infrastructure just in LA County because we know this is bigger than an LA issue. We're asking for the authority to decide for ourselves if we wanna meet this moment.
Redner 19
And I think we owe that to the voters. To me, that's the definition of local control, I respectfully ask for your vote.
Redner 1
Thank you for that. But it's just to make sure you did accept the amendments. I don't remembers Fully accept the amendments. Thank you. With that, we need a motion and a second.
Redner 8
For item number two, AB1768, the motion is due passed as amended. Carrillo?
Redner 8
Ta? No. Johnson? Johnson? No.
Pacheco? Not voting. Pacheco, not voting. Ramos? Aye.
Ramos, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom? Aye.
Aye. Rubio, not voting. Coloza? Ward?
Redner 1
At the moment, it's 52. We'll leave it open for others to add on. We need somebody else. So this measure is on call. Assembly member Pappen, item number three, AB 2,033.
Redner 14
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I want to start by saying that I truly appreciate the work the committee has put into this bill and of course we will be accepting the committee's amendments. I also want to acknowledge the ongoing conversation that we are having with AFSME, who I am committed to continuing to engage and as we move forward.
Today, I am presenting AB 2,033, which would authorize general law cities to use job order contracts, JFCs, for repair, renovation, and maintenance projects, and amount not to exceed $3,000,000 annually with no single job exceeding $750,000. Currently, the traditional design bid award system requires that even the most small, modest of public works projects undergoes full plan preparation, advertisement, bidding, and award before a contract can begin. The entire process can take six to twelve months, if not more, delaying crucial repairs and upgrades to facilities, all while driving up the cost of the project. For smaller value projects, agencies often receive no bids, which then requires them to for the projects to be re advertised leading to timeline extensions. The city of Belmont, which is one of the cities in my district, recently experienced these issues.
Redner 30
In one particular case, an emergency remediation of water intrusion at a city facility required urgent contractor negotiations with preset pricing resulting in a 30 to 40% cost increase. Job ordered contracting can help alleviate these recurring issues enabling agencies to complete several projects under a single competitively award bid. In fact, public city employees are not able to complete public works projects over a certain dollar amount, mandating an external contract anyway. Job order contracts are a streamlining tool for cities to use for projects that already have to be contracted out. The state has already authorized counties, school districts, and community colleges to use job order contracts.
Redner 14
There is a proven data showing that JOCs reduce costs and increase efficiency. This bill simply extends that tool of JOCs to general law cities. AB twenty thirty three maintains limits on its use by excluding new construction projects and includes safeguards to protect permanent city employees from displacement. My witnesses today are Dane Hutchings representing, the city of Belmont, and Edra Kwan, the city, public works director, who will explain a little bit more about job order contracts, its benefits, and why it will be an effective tool for cities in California.
Redner 36
Good afternoon, chair members. Dane Hutchings here on behalf of the city of Belmont. This bill is about efficient government. It's about giving cities the ability to complete routine maintenance and repair projects more quickly and more cost effectively without sacrificing transparency, labor standards, or oversight. AB 23 2,033 allows the use of job order contracting, a proven tool used by counties, school districts, community colleges, and the state to deliver routine maintenance and repair projects more efficiently.
Redner 30
For Belmont, we are seeing real delays and cost escalations on defined scope projects that already require formal public bidding. Just a quick few examples, an EV charger site preparation project, which included ADA modifications, received no initial bids, was delayed for nearly three years, and was estimated to cost about 30 to 40% higher to complete the project. Even a simple restroom renovation was delayed for over a year. And we and the assemblywoman already spoke to the water intrusion issue already. These are not large capital projects.
They're routine facility needs that should be completed quickly and cost effectively. I do wanna underscore that this bill does not displace any workers under existing law. Cities are already required to contract out the vast majority of their work, which means that this work is being performed outside by contractors anyways, regardless of whether this bill passes. And JOC does not, change that. It does not replace city staff or eliminate public jobs.
It simply allows cities to procure work that must already go out to bid. AB twenty thirty three includes strong safeguards, no new construction, no clear displacement provisions for layoffs, hours reductions, involuntary transfers. It requires skilled and trained workforce for applicable trades. It includes transparency both at the local and state level. Cities must report publicly to their governing bodies, and the bill also requires reporting to the legislature.
And finally, and with with work with the committee, we have initiated a five year sunset on the bill, so the legislature can come back and revisit this at a later time. The appropriate standard for cities is parity with those other local agencies. This bill places cities on equal footing with other public agencies. And with that, respectfully ask your I vote, and thank you for assembly member Pappin for carrying this bill for us.
Redner 29
Good afternoon, honorable chair and members of the committee. My name is Edward Kwan, and I serve as public works director for the city of Belmont. I'm here in strong support of a b twenty thirty three, and I wanna speak on what this bill means in practical terms, not just in a crisis, but on any given week in a city like ours. Most of what a public works director does is not dramatic. It's HVAC systems that need replacing before they fail.
It's ADA ramp upgrades that need to be that's been on the list for over two years. It's roof repairs that get deferred because by the time the bid cycle runs its course, the budget window closes. It's interior renovations that sit in queue because the design bid award process requires months of staff time before a single contractor shows up. Under current law, every one of those projects, no matter how routine, no matter how well defined, requires full plan preparation, public advertisement, a former bid period, evaluation, and award. For a small city like ours with a very lean public work staff, that means we are spending a disproportionate amount of time in administrative capacity, just moving projects through procurement alone before any actual work starts.
JOCs solves this solves this. With a pre competed master contract and a unit price catalog in place, I can issue a work order for a routine HVAC replacement or an ADA upgrade at the same week the need is identified. The competition already happened upfront. The pricing is already public. We move faster, and we move at a fair prenegotiated price.
Now let me tell you what happens when the same procurement dysfunction is compressed in twenty four hours. On January 6, a Belmont homeowner reported two sinkholes in their backyard right over a city storm drain easement. By the time our crews arrived, there were four sinkholes. The ground was actively collapsing. Rain was coming.
The risk of hillside failure and damaged neighboring properties and homes were real and immediate. We invoked emergency contracting authority, hired an engineering firm on the spot for fast track design, and found a contractor who could mobilize immediately. The work got done, but we paid for every hour of that urgency. The final contract came in over $100,000.
Redner 29
estimate prenegotiated unit pricing would have reduced the cost by 25 to 30%. This is not a story about a tool designed for emergencies. It's a story about what it costs when a city has no pre competed contract to fall back on. Whether the need is a sinkhole on a rainy Tuesday or a restroom renovation that has been on the deferred list for over a year, the problem is the same. JOC is the solution to both.
Redner 20
I wanna address directly the concern of JOCs and how it would take work away from city employees and specifically the argument that unions cannot meaningfully review the work being assigned. As a person who would prepare and publish this unit price catalog, I wanna be clear that that catalog is a public document. It's a core component of publicly advertised bid packages prepared before solicitation, published as part of the bid advertisement, and available to any party, including recognized employee organizations through the same public notice process that applies to every competitively bid project. There's nothing hidden about what work is covered and what it cost. On displacement, under California Public Contract Code, construction work above $5,000 must already go through a competitive bid.
Redner 29
That work goes to outside contractors today regardless of the bill. JOC changes how we select the price that, select and price the contractor, not whether the work is contracted out. The bill all also expressly prohibits JOCs to lay off, reduce hours, and involuntary transfer any permanent city employees. You. Cities like Belmont, we're small.
We don't have that large contract capacity. We don't have deep reserves to absorb this, premium cost of delayed procurements. Thank request for you to vote aye. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Anybody else that wants to add on in support? Please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 18
Claire Sullivan on behalf of the cities of Foster City, Rancho Cucamonga, and the city of Vernon in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 27
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. And on behalf of the members of local eight two nine, city of Belmont workers, we are respectfully opposed to a b twenty thirty three unless amended. First, I wanna acknowledge, and appreciate assembly member Pappin and her office on recent engagement with us. We believe those discussions have been productive, and we remain committed to working collaboratively towards solution and we feel confident that we can get there.
Redner 32
We understand why local agencies seek tools to complete maintenance repairs and and small public works projects in a timely manner. Cities need the ability to respond quickly to failing HVAC systems, facility repairs, ADA improvements, and other infrastructure needs. And our concern is not with efficiency or getting those projects done. Our concern is how JOCs can impact the public sector workforce if appropriate guardrails aren't included. Under a JOC, a city can award a long term master contract to a private contractor and then issue multiple work orders over time using a pre priced construction catalog rather than bidding each project individually.
And while that can speed delivery, it can also make it easier to route increasing amounts of work to outside contractors. Many cities already employ skilled public workers in maintenance streets, utilities, parks, and facilities classifications who perform this work every day. And the risk is often not immediate layoffs. It's attrition. As experienced employees retire or leave, vacancies may go unfilled and work that was historically performed in house may instead be assigned externally through JLCs.
Over time, that can reduce in house expertise, weaken emergency response capacity, and increase long term reliance on contractors. That's why we're seeking balance. We believe procurement efficiency and workforce protections can coexist. Reasonable safeguards such as non displacement language, which is in the bill, transparency and ensuring JOC supplement rather than replace existing employees would go a long way towards our concerns. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in opposition? Seeing none, members, comments, questions? Assembly member work?
Redner 10
Thank you, mister chair, and, thank you, miss Taubman, for addressing this issue. We definitely wanna think about ways to be more effective, with the way that we deliver, public works. I've got two chief concerns, I think, with, this approach that it sounds like, you know, you're open to continuing conversation as well, and I appreciate you listening closely to representatives of our city workers. One is where I've had some pretty consistent, opinion. Through bills in this, committee as well, I think, prior years, that we really wanna make sure that we are thinking about rightsizing our own public workforce to be able to do the ongoing work.
So I have great reservation when we talk about, especially, master contracting that's out there for up to three million dollars of opportunity. That tells me that there is ongoing work. And so, yes, you're right. I think if you're looking at at this issue narrowly that, you know, doing a design build opportunity and the additional cost and the additional time compared to a JOC structure, you know, yeah, apples to apples there, yes, I would like to be able to see that process go a little bit more effectively for the purposes of delivering the safe services. But an even more effective solution would be to have the city employee on hand and ready to go and ready to be dispatched right out there to that sinkhole site as soon as things are arriving.
Redner 4
And so that's just one, I think, point of view that I think as you're continuing these conversations that you can look for language, not just, I think, that's gonna look for transparency issues and some of the other items that, you know, were discussed here by the opposition witness, but really begging the question, can this work be transferred and can this work be assumed as a in house or as a as a public employee position for ongoing work. If you think about electricians, building maintenance facilities, that that's always going to have a need for our cities and and and for all of our our our public assets as well too. And and so that's something that I think that, you know, I I I encourage you. I'd like to see something go to the governor that was a little bit more, inclusive of a first check that to make sure that our public employee bargaining units are a part of that decision about whether or not this ongoing work is even present in the first place. If it's a one off job or a very specialty, very special kind of assignment, I get that.
Redner 10
Installing an EV charger or something here or there if you're not a very big city and you don't have the capacity for a very large workforce. But there's there's a balance there that I think that we wanna be able to defer because I think that something could be rather than, exporting $3,000,000 of public monies, we could be keeping that in house and supporting a great public workforce. And that's just a guiding value of mine that I'd wanna see in the end. The second thing that gives me concern is that you are interested in doing a lowest responsible bidder opportunity for these. I don't think it's always the the best solution, because often that can bring in materials that are a little substandard, labor conditions or labor, that might, you know, be a little bit more quick to do the job.
And long story short, I find that lowest responsible bidder contracts often need to be repeated, often have cost overruns because the job has to get redone. I'm much more proponent for best value contracting wherever we can because you can take in and you as decision makers can make a more wholesome decision about how you're gonna have longevity, in the investments that that you're making with these public dollars as opposed to having to redo the work every, more often and and really over time, raising the cost over time to keep that that that building looking good or whatever the the function is. So that's something I think that you wanna take a a second look at as well too just to make sure that from a cost effectiveness standpoint over time that that you're choosing the right system here. I'm happy to, I think, this ongoing dialogue, be able to support this here today, but I wanna reserve my right for a future vote as well too to make sure that some of these issues are addressed.
Redner 16
Thank you. Thank you, assembly member. I I wanna share the sentiment of my colleague here in regards to just the need for guardrails to ensure that we are not using this as in substitution of public workers. And I I knew it looks like there was a committee amendment that set the cap higher at $3,000,000 because that's to me, $3,000,000 is a large cap, for a job order contract. And so and it's $750,000 for an individual job order makes me concerned that we need to make sure that you are properly staffed as an agency, in order to respond to things that are, you know, typical in public work, whether it be things like HVAC and road repair and, you know, sewer pipes and things like that.
It's really important that we have the right staff on the team and not substitute the role of our public employees with $3,000,000, you know, outside contracts. I did want I did wanna confirm. I I believe I saw something that says contracts will be awarded awarded to the lowest possible bidder or something of that nature, which to me was also concerning because we we wanna make sure that we're getting quality work. I do realize that you were in con continuous conversations with opposition about how to ensure that we are not pushing out, or substituting our public employees. And so with that being said, I'm happy to support today, but we'll also be looking to ensure that more guardrails are put are put in place in the future.
But I I definitely do question, you know, why such a high cap, $3,000,000, for job order contracts and just really ensuring that we are, putting in something that really incentivizes proper staffing for the agencies. Thank you.
Redner 14
Well, I just I thank members so much for their their their words. And I agree with you coming out of local government. And I feel a certain affinity to the public works folks that I have worked with in the past. In the past life, I actually litigated public works construction projects. So I have a long history as it relates to public works.
And both of you, I think, articulated very well as did our friends that came from Maff Smith today. And and the word supplement as opposed to replace. Those are very key words here, and we're gonna have to get it right. No question about it, and we will continue our discussions about guardrails that you feel comfortable with. And, I thank the committee just for the discussion and request a I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you again for, working with the committee, on amendments. Thank you for that. And with the amendments, I will be supporting your bill, but we need a motion and a second. Moved by Pacheco.
Is there a second? Second. By Ransom. Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 8
Ramos not voting. Ransom? Aye. Ransom? Aye.
Rubio? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Coloza?
Coloza, I. Ward? I. Ward, I. Wilson?
I. Wilson, I.
Redner 1
The measure goes eight zero. The measure is out. Thank you. While we get mister Huber, can we go back to add ons on the bills that we already added? We will give you in a second.
Okay?
Redner 8
For item number two, a B1768 by assembly member Brian, the motion is due pass as amended. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye.
Redner 1
So item number two a b 17, 86. That's out six to two. We go back to the agenda, and that's item, number seven, AB twenty four fifteen by mister Huber.
Redner 5
Thank you, mister chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB twenty four fifteen. As Californians continue to face a housing crisis, we are tasked with increasing affordability and availability in our housing stock policies such as SB 79 from last year do help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, there are some very pro housing communities such as a city in my district, the city of Folsom, that wanna build housing but also still aim to protect the character of their historic districts specifically. Our proposed solution is very narrowly tailored.
Redner 17
It will allow a city, if the majority of the transit zone is part of a local historic district as defined to reduce the capacity in one transit oriented development zone by more than 50%. However, the criteria for doing so, means that the city must have more than one transit oriented development zone and a population of less than 150,000. The local historic district must also have been designated before 01/01/2000. With me today is Folsom Mayor Justin Rathel to speak in support of the bill as well as Jerry Burneau with Burneau Development Corporation. We also have Desmond Perrington here to answer for technical assistance if needed.
Redner 34
Chair Carrillo and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Justin Rathal. I have the honor of serving as the mayor of the city of Folsom. I'm here to express our strong support for a b twenty four fifteen. Folsom takes our housing responsibility seriously.
Over the past two decades, we've consistently approved and built homes across the income spectrum. And we continue to lean into higher density development in the places where it makes the most sense, near jobs, services, and transit. At the same time, we have a duty to protect the Folsom Historic District. It's not just a neighborhood, it's our cultural heart and one of the most significant historic assets in the Sacramento region. In 2024, we updated our general plan to increase allowable densities in several targeted areas, including our East Bidwell Commercial Corridor, Folsom Plan Area Town Center, and actually two transit station areas.
We intentionally did not apply these higher density overlays to the historic district because its scale and character are what makes it special. Even so, the district continues to grow in a way that fits, primarily through accessory dwelling units and mixed use that blend in to the neighborhood. The challenge that we face is that under current law, high density housing obligations are still a sign to the historic district in the ways that simply don't align with its physical constraints, or its role as a regional cultural anchor. AB twenty four fifteen gives us a practical way to fix that. It allows the city to shift those obligations to transit oriented development areas near our two additional light rail stations, places that are actually designed for height, density, and modern infrastructure.
Redner 22
And we also own some land next to one of those light rail stations that we're able to develop there. AB twenty four fifteen offers a thoughtful solution for how the state can support housing production while still respecting the unique historic assets that communities are trying to preserve. It shows that we don't have to choose between meeting statewide housing goals and honoring the places that tell our shared story. On behalf of the city of Folsom, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on a b twenty four fifteen. Thank you.
Redner 15
Good afternoon. Chair Carrillo, committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. My name is Jerry Bernal, the owner of Bernal Development Corporation. I came to Folsom about thirty five years ago to, actually develop the largest apartment project in Folsom at the time, a 400 unit project, that was built in 1991. Since that time, I've been building housing in Folsom including single family, multifamily, ADUs, and mixed use in Folsom's historic district.
I'm here in support of a b twenty four fifteen because it gives cities like Folsom a practical way to meet their housing obligations without compromising an irreplaceable housing district or, excuse me, historic district. As a developer, I wanna be clear. We are building housing in historic Folsom. We're doing it in a way that respects the district's small blocks, narrow streets, limited infrastructure, and unique historic character. Our projects are modest in scale, designed to fit into the architectural fabric of the existing streetscape, adding new homes without overwhelming infrastructure, or overshadowing historic assets.
Redner 31
This is the kind of context appropriate growth that keeps our historic district vibrant. A b twenty four fifteen strikes a balance. It allows those high density obligations to shift to parts of Folsom that can support the height, the intensity, and has the modern infrastructure, especially transfer oriented districts near the city's two additional light rail stations. These are areas where larger projects make sense and where developers like me can deliver housing project the state is asking for. It puts housing where it belongs while align allowing historic districts continue contributing in ways compatible with their scale and purpose.
Redner 15
I sincerely appreciate your opportunity to speak today, and I would, ask, for a yes vote on AB twenty four fifteen. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add any support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 27
Mister chair, members, Jason Gonsalves representing and residing in the city of Folsom in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kathy Cole. I am a historic Folsom resident as well as vice chair of the Folsom Historic District Commission and urge your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody in opposition? Seeing no opposition, committee members, comments, questions? Thank
Redner 10
you, Mr. Cooper, bringing this forward. With SB79, you already have an opportunity, right, to be able to have a local alternative plan which shifts away any development capacity from one TOD, and you mentioned there's two other TOD sites as well, SB 79 TOD sites within the city of Folsom. So I'm I'm I'm I'm unclear why the need for additional legislation here.
Redner 5
So I'm gonna actually ask Desmond to come up if you could and help me answer that question, but I'll start by saying we had a lot of very detailed conversations about this because what we hoped for was to be able to use the preexisting language within s p 79 to allow, this specific district to essentially shift some of its requirements. The problem is there is still a a certain requirement that cannot be waived that, I'm gonna let our
Redner 32
So just just a hi. I'm Desmond Perrington, planning manager with the city of Folsom. So just just a there were a couple issues that, in S B 79 that were raising a concern. So one, the first one is that while it does allow, for that reduction, it's it's really kind of site specific as it relates to, you know, properties that are on the on a list. One of the things that's unique about our historic district is that the lotting pattern, the way it was laid out was planned by Theodore Judah, know, the engineer for the, you know, the the Transcontinental Railroad.
Redner 36
Sure. And so it's kind of this u unique pattern. Yeah. So while there are individual properties on there that are lit listed either federally or state, the entire district was established, locally as a historic district. So that's kind of the that's the the first issue that it wouldn't really provide the protection for the whole district.
The second the second problem is that, with, with the the the provisions that are that are in here and the interpretations that we were getting from various different kind of, kind of legal advice and and really from also from the senator's office, it wasn't clear that we could shift, a a a lot of the growth out of the historic district and to the other light rail stations. That was the the biggest concern because, again, we're not opposed to transit oriented development in our historic district. Right. It's the the height and the scale, is is really the the the key factor. And when we were hearing that we don't think that you're gonna be able to shift that, that growth or to exclude, portions of that area from SB 79, that's where I that's where we were concerned because, again, most of the historic district is at, you know Right.
One to two stories. This would allow six stories and up to a 100 dwellings per acre. Again, we can do that. We could do development. We just wanna do it in the scale, and and the Brno Development Corporation is one of the examples.
They're doing a three story project there that's mixed use that fits within the character of the historic district.
Redner 10
I know that I know the not as well as you, but I know the Folsom Historic District and appreciate, not just, you know, what a, you know, treasure resource it is, but also as an economic engine probably for the city. I I fully appreciate that. What I the detail that I'm curious here is that, first of all, you said when you were dealing when you were, liaising with the senator's office that it wasn't clear it was clear to me that cities can do an alternative plan.
Redner 36
Oh, you know, it's it's not that we can't do an alternative plan. Right. But the the advice that we were getting from outside legal counsel was they did not believe that we could, could could really shift a lot of the, the assigned kind of growth to that area to a different TOD area. That was that was the concern.
Redner 5
And and this was verified as well by, you know, stakeholders that supported the bill last year as well as the senator's office. There just was it didn't appear to be a pathway to use existing law, so we had to get a little bit creative. So we we do understand that this is a, you know, obviously, a narrowly tailored bill because we do wanna preserve, obviously, the the good things about s b 79, but that, the this was based on conversations with those same stakeholders.
Redner 10
So if you're saying here, we wanna be clear in this bill if we're gonna, for for understandable reasons, for arguable reasons, reduce the development capacity over here that you would accept and shift that development capacity to one or two of the other sites.
Redner 5
Not we're not reducing what is required. We are simply shifting what is require or allowing that to be shifted.
Redner 10
Data can support. Absolutely. Well, I happy I really appreciate the clarification, and, thank you for your attention to your disc
Redner 1
Anybody else? Comments, questions? No. Would you like to close, assembly member?
Redner 5
Just, appreciate the opportunity, and respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting the bill today. We need a motion and a second. So moved by Johnson. Second.
Seconded by Pacheco. Please call the roll.
Redner 28
For item number seven, a b twenty four fifteen, the motion is due pass. Aye. Coloza, aye. Ward? Aye.
Redner 1
The bill is out ten zero. Thank you. We have just one item left on the agenda, and that's item number eight, AB twenty seven forty one by Muratsushi. Staff from Muratsushi, please ask them to head over to local government. In the meantime, can we do add ons on the rest of the items?
Redner 8
Add ons for item number one, a b sixteen fifty eight by assembly member Calra. The motion is due pass. Johnson? Aye. Johnson?
Johnson, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Caloza?
Aye. Caloza, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.
Redner 8
Item add ons for item number four, a b twenty one thirty four by assembly member Addis. The motion is due pass as amended. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye.
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Coloza? Aye.
Coloza, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.
Redner 8
Add ons for item number five a b twenty one eighty eight by assembly member Pelerin. The motion is due passed as amended. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye.
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Coloza? Aye.
Coloza, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.
Redner 8
Add ons for item number six, a b 20 2 63 by assembly member Carl Ra. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Ramos?
Aye. Ramos, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye.
Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.
Redner 1
That item is South100. And that's all for Adams. We're just waiting on the last item on the agenda. I believe the author is on his way. And we are back.
Item number eight on the agenda, a b twenty seven forty one. Whenever you're ready, assembly member. Right on time. Welcome.
Redner 33
Development. The housing element was approved, but was subsequently challenged in court, and the court found that the housing element was out of compliance. And so we're presenting this bill with a simple request, which is to give cities a chance to be good actors, to comply with the housing law, to fix their housing element so that they will be in compliance with the the housing requirements. So that that's is pretty much it. You know, we're we're just asking for a break for cities to be able to comply, especially, you know, I I I know that the committee analysis focused on the residential overlay approach.
There are over a 100 cities, and and the League of California cities will be testifying in support of that. But there are over a 100 cities that are in the similar situation. They they submitted housing elements with residential overlays. And and so they are concerned given the court case of the status of their housing element. So, you know, we're we're just trying to make sure that the cities that are acting in good faith get a chance to try to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
With me to testify in support of the bill is Brady Gurton with the League of California Cities and representing the city of Redondo Beach, Mark Wiener.
Redner 25
Good afternoon, chair members. Brady Gurton on behalf of the League of California Cities. We do have a supportive amended position, but we do support the intent of what the assembly member is trying to do. We think the support if amended is because of a larger conversation we need to have about the use of overlays in the future, but we support, this bill in in terms of what it's trying to do with the grace period as well as an attempt to look at overlays. We wanted to chat today about, you know, the big concerns.
As the assembly member mentioned, there was over a 100 cities that, through no fault of their own, listened to HCD guidance, which stated that the use of overlays was allowed. As a result of those decisions, the court came back and said that HCD had gotten it wrong. Now this is an unprecedented time where the court has overturned a previously certified housing element by HCD. Only a few court cases has happened historically for that. So the bill proposal is to provide a grace period for cities to adequately respond to those should they get sued to do that.
Redner 9
And, also, the use of overlays is an important tool in the long run that needs to be a longer conversation that we are open to having with opposition and some of the groups that have expressed concerns about the use of overlays. Zoning overlays are an important affordable housing tool for local governments and have been a state endorsed method as we mentioned through ACD guidance as these overlays help support walkable infill development near transit jobs and services while promoting higher density affordable housing, which has been a a a priority of the legislature over the last ten years. The other thing that we think is really important is cities should not be unfairly penalized for listening to state guidance. There has been a lot of bills that has deferred to HCD in terms of being the overseers around housing elements, and our cities work collaboratively with them. And if we're following state guidance and then get pulled through no fault of our own, we don't think that it's fair that city should have builders remedy occur.
Redner 25
Redondo Beach, I know, can talk to some of the experiences that they've had, but we're worried about the long term implications for these over a 100 cities that used overlays per HCD guidance and was certified by HCD, and we wanna give cities time to adequately respond accordingly. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions and look forward to continuing to work with the different part groups opposed to this as well as working to have a longer conversation about overlays and adequate grace periods for cities through no fault on their own that loose certification. Thank you.
Redner 37
Yeah. Thank you, chair and committee, for hearing this item today. I also wanna thank assembly member Marisucci for sponsoring this. My name is Mark Weiner. I'm the director of community development for the city of Redondo Beach, and I'm here representing the city.
I mean, really, we're an example of the city that is affected by this legislation. As the two prior speakers stated, we did did go through the process of getting our housing element certified by state HCD. We did it in a in a timely manner back in 2022. And per HCD's direction, we used the overlay zone approach to meet our housing requirements. It's actually been a successful approach.
We currently have an application in right now for a 170 units at one of these overlay sites. So it's proven in our city and in others, and we feel strongly about it. It's also important in terms of the land use balance in our city. Over 80% of our land is owned residential, and we support the housing legislation, the housing laws, as they pertain the production of housing. We feel it's also important to have some flexibility in the land uses in these underlying industrial and commercial land uses, economic development factors into that, jobs, housing balance.
Redner 12
So it really is a balance of housing and other land uses cities are trying to achieve. So as I said, we received certification from state HDD. Our housing element was recently deemed noncompliant by an appeals court, placing the city into the builder's remedy status potentially. That's of concern to us because we've received a number of applications during this window that are somewhat impactful to the community, and it's really challenging for city officials to explain to residents why we're in the status when the city acted in good faith and complied with the state's guidance. So I do wanna ask that the committee supports the overlay zone, concept and then also the provision of the bill that provides a grace period for cities that have complied in good faith.
Redner 37
We feel that's important that for cities that have followed the direction of the state, went through all the the processes, that they are given some time to cure the issue if the court determines there is a issue. Builders remedy is really, while it's intended to produce housing, it's also somewhat of a penalty to the bad actors in the cities that don't comply. We are an example of the city that's fully complied. We've supported the housing laws, yet we are in this builder's remedy window. We are diligently working with state HCD to correct the issues identified by the court, and we would appreciate if we had some time to do that prior to being placed in this builder's remedy status.
So for those reasons, we strongly support the bill, and thank you for your time.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anybody else that wants to add on in support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 36
Redondo Beach here in support. Thank you. Mark Newburger of the California State Association of Counties. We have a supportive amended position. Wanna agree with the comments provided by Cal Cities?
Also registering the same position for rural county representatives of California and the American Planning Association of California Chapter.
Redner 11
Virginia Butler. I'm a resident of South Bay Of Los Angeles, where Mr. Murasuchi represents us. I live next door to the city of Redondo Beach. I'm here with the California Association of Realtors, but I'm just representing myself.
Redner 35
Sandy Pfister, South Bay Association of Realtors. We support mister Merciergi's bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. Dave Futello, realtor in Manhattan Beach, covering South Bay here in personal support.
Redner 35
Nina Alisaridis, realtor in Torrance, one of the cities affected in support of the bill and also board of director for the South Bay Association of Realtors.
Redner 39
John DeFterios, resident, 66th District. I'm in support, of the Assemblyman Bill. Thank you very much.
Redner 17
Gloria, a resident of Redondo Beach and a member of District 66 here in support. Thank you.
Redner 24
Good afternoon, chair Carrillo and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the senior director at California Yimbi, an AICP planner, here to speak in respectful opposition of a b twenty seven forty one. One of this body's major accomplishments in recent years has been strengthening the housing element law, ensuring that every jurisdiction permits its fair share of housing.
But the law only works if jurisdictions face consequences when they do not comply. This cycle, a subset of jurisdictions adopted housing elements that relied on noncompliant overlay zones that wouldn't actually result in new housing in violation of the plain language of the statute and court precedent. They chose to take this risk. HCD certification of this misbehavior does not make it right and, more importantly, does not make it legal. In the case at hand, Redondo Beach allocated hundreds of units to sites that even with a minimum of due diligence revealed would not actually be redeveloped.
Redner 6
In the new commune case, the court found those noncompliant overlay zones so clearly inconsistent with state law that it overcame the presumption of validity that normally follows HCD certification. The court made it clear that HCD approval to, flout state housing law does not override the law as written and passed by this body. That is the system working as intended. And yet a b 2074 or 2741, rolls back this progress, allowing bad actor cities to fall out of compliance and receive a two hundred and seventy day get out of jail free card. It sets a dangerous precedent not just for Redondo Beach, but for the dozens of jurisdictions that have adopted similarly unlawful overlay policies this cycle.
Redner 24
It also sets a dangerous precedent that this body will intervene anytime courts faithfully implement state housing law. The vast majority of local jurisdictions did not play games like this. They faithfully implemented plans, that are helping to get housing built across California. AB twenty seven forty one sends a message that bad actor jurisdictions can drag their feet and submit inadequate housing elements without consequence. Existing law already strikes the right balance.
Jurisdictions whose housing elements run afoul of new commune can promptly amend their overlay ordinances and come into compliance without need for any change to the law or even a housing element amendment. This may force some jurisdictions to admit that they allocated units to sites that are extremely unlikely to be redeveloped, but, again, that's the arena process working. That's the system working. While we look forward to continuing conversations with the author's office, I must also make it clear that as written, this bill effectively sanctions and opens a version of state housing law, and it imposes imposes a two hundred and seventy day cure period that effectively makes it impossible for applicants to enforce their rights. We respectfully request your no vote today.
Thank you.
Redner 31
Good after. Excuse me. Good afternoon, chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of both the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project. Our two legal services organizations have, over the last several decades, played a key role both in helping to shape housing element law, but also, most importantly, enforce housing element law.
Redner 25
So we come to this conversation, with both of those roles keenly in mind. And it is very important to us as as it is to other stakeholders who are at the table that we see adequate enforcement of housing element law because that's how we're gonna get the units that we need. But in this instance, we remain opposed to the bill, but I wanna be clear that we are committed to working with the author and stakeholders to find a solution. Listening to author and his supporters speak, it sounds like the goal is to find a way in which there's a safe harbor for those jurisdictions who relied on erroneous, advice about how to adopt a compliant housing element relying on an overlay have time to fix that before they are sued. We think that's important.
Redner 31
We think we need those sites. The current bill does not provide for that. The current bill would allow for jurisdictions who adopted overlays that don't comply with what the court said, which is an interpretation we agree with, to, nonetheless, finish out this current cycle and not bring those sites into compliance. And and here's why we think that matters. Site identification is one of the most critical parts of the housing element process.
And we have worked as have others over the years to plug many of the holes that make sites look okay on paper, but in reality, don't actually deliver us affordable housing or don't deliver additional housing units. And we've plugged those holes. And one of them is making sure that if you use an overlay, there's a minimum residential density that will ensure that we get those residential units. This bill would, despite the court's, interpretation of law, allow jurisdictions not to apply that minimum residential density. And so we will see a lot of sites get developed without any housing, and we won't have the mechanism to bring that housing online.
And rather than than waiving that requirement, which is gonna be very critical in small jurisdictions, which only have maybe a handful of sites because they also have a lower RENE number, that proportion that come off the table is gonna have a huge impact. We think the solution is rather give them times to come into give jurisdictions time to come into compliance, provide the safe harbor from suit for those that do it within that time period, and then put the rules back on the table that those who don't comply are back in a situation where they are subject to suit. That's what we wanna do, and that's why we wanna work with the author. He's given me the thumbs up, so I'm sure we're gonna get there. Thank you, sir.
Redner 1
Anybody else that wants to vote on in opposition, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.
Redner 40
Ali Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, a respectful opposition. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in opposition.
Redner 28
Nicole Quinones on behalf of Cal Chamber in opposition and also asked to offer opposition from NAOF Southern California.
Redner 26
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Opponent Housing Los Angeles, Spur, Intercity Law Center, Greenbelt Alliance in opposition.
Redner 41
Good afternoon, chair and members. On behalf of the California Apartment Association in opposition and also registering opposition for California Business Properties Association. Thank you.
Redner 28
Thank you. So we had a chance to a few of us in the room, actually, had a chance to look at this bill when it was in, housing. And one of the concerns that was brought up I brought it up, and I and, forgive me, to the chair. I'm gonna narrow the housing part and then get to the local gov part. But I just wanna give context, you don't mind, that, the chair of that committee had proposed some amendments, committee amendments.
And there were many members of the committee that weren't comfortable with the bill absent the amendments. In that hearing, there was a commitment, to work on those amendments because we were in the first, committee of the process and that, you know, work on it before the second committee. We're in the second committee, and there's been no progress on on those. And the as I stated, and I know a number of my colleagues did, that those were that they actually sided with the opposition's amendment without those not not supporting. And it and it wasn't like a unanimous vote.
You know, people laid off for that reason. And so I'm concerned that we're here today in this committee without any progress on that area. And, when you think about from a local gov point of view, we do care about the fact that HED that cities, local governments, relied on whatever they relied on to turn in their HED, and HED accepted it. Mhmm. And so there's one portion of it that makes sense.
And and part of the amendment that came out of, housing committee was that the it would be allowed in the six Reno cycle, and then in the seventh Reno cycle is a new Reno cycle, and you have to go through that process. But this allows for this safe harbor.
Redner 28
With the intent of producing housing Mhmm. And cities being required to produce housing. Not produce. They don't make I always say that too. They don't build housing, but they zone for it.
Mhmm. With the city requiring to zone for within a HCD Mhmm. And they're found out of compliance, and so many people sue cities, and I'm love local control, but I also know that not every city is, there some cities are using the system to prevent housing that they don't like.
Redner 28
And I'm not sure why you still have the language in around them having the safe harbor of two hundred and seventy days. And and and in asking that, please comment on the fact that we're now in the second committee and no no progress has been made
Redner 28
on the amendments that were supposed to be accepted to get a hearing. And I and I know the chair let you, and and told committee that he was gonna let it work so you can continue to work on it. Yeah. And I haven't there's no progress. So please make no progress.
Redner 33
Well, the the housing hearing hearing committee was last week. So we are still in the process of of working on amendments, but we have not been able to cross amendments between last week and and and today.
Redner 28
But But you can't speak to the progress on because I think that's germane to what you're asking us Absolutely. To do today is you're asking for another courtesy vote. And there were so many people in that committee. The bill wouldn't have gotten out. Uh-huh.
Right? The bill would not have gotten out without the courtesy vote. So why would we ex keep extending the courtesy vote when you made a meaningful progress?
Redner 33
Well, I I would I would say that a week has not been enough to to come to agreement on amendments, but let me make on the record the commitment that I will work with the chair of the housing committee and with the chair of the local government committee, to, arrive at amendments to get to the intent of the bill. I mean, I I think, you know, the opposition I appreciate the the more reasonable opposition from the rural, advocates. You know? We shouldn't be punishing people that are trying to comply in good faith. I mean, the Department of Housing and Community Development put their stamp of approval on the Redondo Beach housing element.
Redner 10
And so cities should be able to rely on the government as represented by HCD. In terms of the amendments, one specific amendment that I discussed with with the housing committee chair Haney is, you know, if the two hundred seventy day grace period is too long, you know, maybe limiting it from the time that a city submits a new housing element to the time that HCD acts on the new housing element, you know, if if that would satisfy, you know, shorten that that grace period. I mean, I I I'm just throwing that as as a, example of a good faith attempt to try to get, again, to the intent of the bill, which is to not punish cities that are trying to comply, you know, who are the good actors, notwithstanding some of the unreasonable representations of a city that gets a housing element approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Redner 28
And that when you noted that you said what if that was offered and rejected?
Redner 28
Oh, okay. Yeah. But and was that offered to the opposition and rejected? Or that was just something that you talked to the chair about?
Redner 28
Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But not working with the the opposition that you have who have concerns
Redner 33
about Actually, I I'm I'm not sure if that has been communicated to the opposition. I'd have to ask my staff.
Redner 28
Oh, okay. No. I mean, I think the the key part is is as we navigate through the legislative process and and and, you know, we're this is local gov. Right? We wanna protect our locals from harm.
Mhmm. Right? Especially ones that are in good faith, relying on advice, to do the good work that they all do.
Redner 28
Uh-huh. Many of the people who sit on this, dais and this committee, you know, come from having served in local government, whether that be city or county or school boards of nature. So, you know, we give them, you know, the benefit of the doubt. Mhmm. But part of our rules around, HDD and the ability to sue, that other people have the ability to sue, is also centered around that sometimes there are flaws and sometimes those things are intentional.
Mhmm. And so we have to be balanced in this regard. And so I'm very concerned that a bill that, was was likely not to get out of the other committee sans a courtesy, by majority of the board with the intent of working on what you described as getting permission to narrow the amendment in comparison to what the committee worked on, which they thought struck a balance. And then having not made any progress, to that, even in a week to say, this is the direction that we're headed in, is is is concerning is very concerning to me, so I won't be able to support your bill today.
Redner 16
Thank you, chair, and thank you, assembly member, for this bill. So I was I'm not on the housing committee. I wasn't part of that conversation. But I do wanna say that some of what was just shared are the concerns that strike me. Having served in local government, both in planning commission as well as in council, you can check the record.
I repeatedly would reject our housing element
Redner 16
Because it doesn't always comply with these these housing elements don't always comply with the spirit of what they should do. And they get recorded, and they're symbolic, and they don't achieve what we're trying to do, which is housing for these communities. And so this particular there this bill, there are several things that concern me. And even listening to your witness and hearing that your witness is saying, I support with amendments, but I don't even see what those amendments are. I believe that's what your witness when your witness spoke, it was support with amendments, but we don't see a list of amendments to consider.
Redner 23
And we have a two hundred and seventy day grace period with no accountability, and that's not fair to our communities that we are supposed to be supporting with through our housing element. And so for me, this is just it seems like it's a work in progress. And and I do understand that you just went through housing, but I don't see an intent to even have us consider a bill with amendments, is something that we typically do. And and in my time here, I've never seen a witness that says, I support this with amendments, and then we don't see amendments. And so it really makes it hard for me to support this, not because of your intent, but because we know that back in our different communities, while this may work for Redondo Beach and the communities that you serve, we have communities that don't wanna build for all of their community.
Redner 16
And I live in one of those communities. And so we're writing we're passing laws for the for the state, and we don't have any amendments that have been fully baked to consider, and accountability is lacking. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting today, but it looks like you had a response.
Redner 33
Miss, mister chair through the chair. Number one, I I would say the the big difference between the scenario that you described is this was approved by HCD. This wasn't just a city self certifying. Okay? So we have the state saying they are approving the housing element.
So that's number one. Number two, I I I believe the League of Cities has.
Redner 25
Yeah. So the reason we have support from Mendez is we believe a longer conversation needs to happen about the use of overlay. So we support the intent of the grace period for sure and where the author's going. We also tried we're been working with the author trying to find something that was receptive in terms of the use of the overlays initially, but we think that there's a longer conversation that needs to happen with all the stakeholders that we've heard around the use of overlays. You know, Calcities believes a a longer grace period makes sense because this was through no fault of a local government listening to what ECD guidance had said.
So that's where it comes in, but we support that this as, like, a really good first step. We just think that there's a longer conversation that needs to happen, and we don't know if that's gonna get there. We're we want it to get there with this bill, but, you know, those conversations are ongoing. And we have set up meetings with opposition. We had a couple calls this week earlier this week as well as, we're trying we're, I believe, talking with UMB later this week as well to discuss their concerns as well.
So just wanted to highlight that as well.
Redner 1
Anybody else? Seeing none. Is there anything you wanna add? Anything that you wanna respond to the opposition?
Redner 33
Well, I I I think I think this comes down as as miss Wilson pointed out to, you know, my commitment to address the concerns raised by both the housing committee and by the local government committee. I appreciate the chair's recommendation to
Redner 33
With my commitment to work with this committee, to make sure that things work by this committee. I appreciate the housing committee's chair's support recommendation with the commitment that I will address the the concerns of the housing committee. And again, I I I think the the bottom line is in order to make this work for all cities, we should not be punishing cities that got the stamp of approval from HCD. You should give them a chance. If if if the two hundred seventy days is too long, you have my commitment to work work on that.
But,
Redner 33
Just like the cities are asking for an opportunity to correct and address any concerns, I'm asking for the opportunity to Okay.
Redner 9
So I have a couple of questions and I agree with the author that, you know, if there was a mistake done and it was due to ACD providing advice to our cities, then it should be at no fault from the cities. And I think we all agree as to that that we shouldn't give fault to our cities for relying on HCD. But I think there were other concerns raised in housing committee, and I think there was a commitment on your behalf to amend the bill in that committee, and I'm assuming amendments were provided. And I and I think my my colleague was trying to see where you were in that process. And I'm curious to
Redner 9
were you willing to take the amendments that you promised to take in housing?
Redner 33
So to clarify, the housing committee offered, I I believe it was four amendments. We accepted two amendments, but and and the housing committee staff was recommending amendments three and four. I I discussed with the housing committee chair that we would like to continue to work on amendments three and four. With that commitment, he gave an eye reco to pass it out of the housing committee. We have not had a chance to arrive at the amendments within a week's time span between last week's housing committee hearing and today.
But just like I'm committing today to continue to work with the local government committee, I am committed to addressing the concerns raised by those those amendments that that the housing committee chair agreed to continue. And and and and there was never there was never a commitment to arrive at the amendments between last week and today. The commitment was to was to address the concerns raised by both the housing committee, but, you know, I yeah. I Okay.
Redner 9
Well, I actually don't sit on that committee, so I'm not aware of what was discussed.
Redner 29
So that's why I'm trying to get to, whether was, your comments to the housing committee, whether it was I will be taking the amendments within the next committee or was it I will be looking into, having discussions about two of the amendments. So I would like to hear what was actually the commitment to housing.
Redner 33
The commitment made to the housing committee chair was that, we would continue to work with the housing committee to discuss and to ultimately arrive at amendments that would address their concerns. It was not to to accept the specific amendments that were originally offered by the committee staff because that is what I pushed back on, and and that is what the housing committee chair said, okay. You know, you don't have to accept those those amendments, today, but I want your commitment to continue to work on it. And and if and if we have any problems, if if if we see the bill going in the wrong direction, we're gonna pull it back to the committee.
Redner 9
And I know I already made a commitment, so I will be supporting your bill today because I do think we need to help our cities whenever possible. But I would like to see if you could work things out, especially with our housing committee chair and with other members, in the assembly. So thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. So we're gonna go back to Wilson, then Calosa, and then Ransom.
Redner 40
I want thank the author and, not to continue to bring the housing committee into this committee. I actually laid off in housing. Assembly member Wilson was kind enough to vote for this. And and so I think that's why there's, you know, a lot of concern, and I understand the time constraints that, you know, you're you're sharing about being in housing last week and being in local gov already. You know, I have to push back a little bit on that because we're all under those same time constraints.
Redner 34
I have to work on amendments within the same period of time and have to get them in, true to my word, which has already happened to me many times, you know, in this cycle because, that's a good faith effort that I've made. And so, you know, I know I I had promises to support this bill when I saw you in passing, actually thinking that you had worked on those amendments. And, you know, thank you for for clarifying that you weren't planning to land in in that same place. I think, on the way here as well, heard from some of the opposition that it doesn't seem like, at least from their perspective, that you have been needing to work on those amendments. I don't know if you wanna respond to that, but that was some of the information I think relayed to me, just just recently after we we communicated whether or not you're meeting with the opposite opposition or what that progress looks like.
Redner 33
So absolutely, I I I have a I I've always had an open door commitment to work with opposition. But I wanna make it clear that I never committed, you know, the the housing committee chair or or no one can you know, required me to to land on amendments before I came today. So, you know, I feel like I'm I'm you know, this is part of an ongoing process. No. Neither the housing committee chair nor anyone else asked me to to to come to an agreement by, you know, by a week after the the housing committee amendments.
All I can do is is say that you have my good faith commitment to to address those concerns. Yeah.
Redner 40
Thanks for for sharing that. I mean, I think for me, it's like whether or not we see progress being made, I'm not gonna continue to belabor it. But I just wanted to add that context for folks, that, miss Wilson and I are both on the housing committee and that's kind of what transpired. But, I won't ask you any questions right now, but, you know, curious to see what my my colleagues do on this, but, it's, I I might still be in in the same place, unfortunately. Thank you.
Redner 1
Okay. So after all of this discussion, the way that it was oh, I'm sorry.
Redner 28
Sorry. Let me say it on the record. I didn't say it on the mic, but I was like, I have talked quite a bit, and there was a lot of back and forth, so I declined to continue the discussion. Thank you.
Redner 1
No one else. You're okay, miss Ransom? Yeah. So I I still support this bill, the the way that it was presented to me. Mhmm.
Not knowing all of this discussion that had happened at the housing committee, way that it came to my committee is the way that it is, with no amendments, again, not knowing what was or what's not agreed on. I still support the bill. I just wanna let the members know that the way that it was brought to me, I still support the way it is without amendments because, again, not knowing what happened in the housing committee. After all this discussion, again, just gonna be clear that I still support the bill that it was presented to me in this committee. And I believe that you made your closing statement.
And with that, is there a motion or a second? No motion, no second. Assembly member Pacheco makes a motion. Is there a second? Alright.
I can make the second. I will make the second. Assembly member, madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 8
For item number eight, a b twenty seven forty one, the motion is due passed. Carrillo?
Redner 8
Carrillo? Aye. Taw? Ta, not voting. Johnson?
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco? Aye. Ramos?
Redner 8
Ramos, not voting. Ransom? Not voting. Ransom, not voting. Rubio?
Rubio not voting. Coloza? Coloza? Caloza, I. Ward?
Ward not voting. Wilson? Not voting. Wilson not voting.
Redner 1
It is three zero. Looks like the motion failed. There's still a roll to be open for miss Johnson.
Redner 1
Granted. Yeah. Consideration is blank. Yeah. So we're gonna wait just a couple of minutes for miss Johnson to see if she comes up.
Redner 37
Yeah. We're good. You're good. We're gonna adjourn today's local government meeting.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.