Housing And Community Development — 2026-04-15 (partial)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh, welcome everyone, uh, to the assembly housing and community development committee hearing. We have 19 items on the agenda today. Five of the items are on consent. That's item number four, AB 1817 item or seven AB 20 2011 AB 2127 14 AB 2480 and 16 AB 2596. Item 5, AB 1892 Davies, was noticed for consent earlier, but has been pulled from consent and will be heard this morning. To facilitate the goals of the hearing, within the time we have, each bill will have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each witness will get two minutes. You can submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, which will become a part of the official record. We do not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. This morning we are in room 437 in the Capitol and the hearing room is open for in-person attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly website and thank you for your patience. This morning we do not have a quorum so we will start as a subcommittee and we are going to be hearing items in file order So I see we have our first author is here item number two AB 1708 Salashay Okay. Sure, your item was pulled by somebody who's not here, so that was a sensitivity. But we'll let item number five, Davies can go now. Go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Louie Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee. Ms. Davies passed a bill a couple years ago that allowed for election by acclamation, which states that an association would not have to use a paper ballot process if there were the same number or fewer candidates as there are vacancies for the board. This was meant to save associations money and expedite elections. In doing so, we added an additional 60 days to that election process. Now that the election by acclamation has been in process for quite some time, we've noticed that that additional 60 days becomes an obstacle for associations because it extends the election up to 180 days in full process. So we're asking that that additional 60 days be taken off. This would put the full election process in 150 day process, but with all the same notices and requirements as the normal election process. And with that, we ask for an aye vote.

Again, I appreciate you allowing me to go first, and I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Yes, this is it. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm going to first introduce my guest because I'm so excited to have him here today. I have two local leaders, mayors from my community. First, Mr. Santaynes to my left, who is a mayor of Bellflower, where I was born in my district. And, of course, one of my newest cities I get to represent, Mayor Peggy Lemons, who has been a champion for her community. So I just want to give them a little bit. You know, we do that as elected officials and always give our local leaders the best kudos because they're the ones that do the hard work locally. On that note, I'm grateful again to the committee and staff for your hard work. I'm here to present AB-1708. Your thoughtfulness analysis on this bill is really, really much appreciated. AB 1708 seeks to improve the existing homeless housing assistance and prevention program known as HAP by ensuring that smaller jurisdictions have the opportunity for more meaningful engagement, through the regional collaboration and homeless solutions. Currently, only 14 of the state's 483 cities can access HAP funding directly and there is no statutory requirement for direct HAP recipients to equally and immediately engage to allocate funds to smaller cities in the region. As a result, many small and mid-sized cities like a clear pathway to resources even as they invest significant local dollars to address homelessness. After working very closely with the committee and stakeholders, AB 1708 was amended to address concerns around funding uncertainty and ensure that any changes are not too burdensome. I especially want to thank the cities of Lakewood, Paramount, and Bellflower in my district for helping us take the feedback and receive to develop amendments. As we continue to advocate for renewed investment in HAP, AB1708 builds a framework that ensures that in the future program rounds can be more fully integrated, smaller cities and active partners in regional coordination and planning. As the state continues to demand meaningful results in addressing homelessness across California, there needs to be a stronger support framework to help smaller cities continue serving their unhoused residents. I am proud to again to join by these local mayors to find support again to do Mayor Peggy Lemons and then Mr. Somethingness.

Paramount is surrounded by state highways and freeways which are popular encampment locations When these locations are cleared out Paramount is left to pick up the pieces and provide support for countless individuals But our challenge is not a lack of commitment. It is a lack of access to consistent state funding. Programs like HHAP are essential, but smaller cities like Paramount often don't have a clear or direct path to access those funds. With equitable access to state resources, we could do more. Expand interim housing, strengthen outreach, and deepen partnerships to connect people to the care they need. Similar to the city of Mountain View, we've hired a community preservationist manager to find creative ways to secure stable housing for anyone experiencing homelessness in Paramount. Thanks to Assemblyman Solace, AB-1708 is a practical solution to our growing problem. It ensures smaller cities are included in regional planning and creates a clearer, more transparent path to funding. Homelessness is a regional issue, and it requires a regional response. That includes every city, not just the largest ones. For these reasons, the City of Paramount respectfully asks for your aye vote on AB1708. Thank you. Honorable Chair and members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak before you this morning. My name is Sunny Santaynez, Mayor of the City of Bellflower. Bellflower is a small city of 6.1 square miles with 79,000 population. We believe that homelessness is a regional and statewide issue. We know that what we need to do is share in addressing this issue. That is why in 2020, we opened a New Hope shelter to accommodate up to 50 unsheltered individuals. It's a small city, and yet we have a shelter. It costs lots of money to open and operate a shelter. Ten improvements alone to convert a warehouse into a shelter cost us $2.3 million. For the six years that the shelter has been operating, it cost us $15 million. Yes, we received grant funding from the state and L.A. County for a total of $5 million. The bulk of the funding, $10 million, came from our general fund, thus placing a substantial strain on our city's financial resources. To put things in perspective, during the eight-year life of the county's Measure H, Belfar collected $15.8 million, and yet we received zero from that county. Under the current structure of HAP, funding only flows to large cities with population over 300,000 counties and continuous care. This leaves cities like Belfar without access to this critical source of funding. We need help. AB 1708 is a thoughtful and balanced solution, strengthening the regional process to ensure that smaller cities are included. AB 1708 also maintains the accountability that the state expects. This bill would ensure cities like Bellflower can continue to support the most vulnerable residents while preserving the flexibility that regions need to make smart funding decisions. For these reasons, the city of Bellflower supports AB 1708 and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much to both of our mayors who are here. We appreciate your leadership and you being here with us. Are there others who are here in support of this bill Just as a formality we just have the League of Cities as a technical support Okay Thank you Thank you Sorry about that. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the city of Encinitas in support. Jack Wurston from Nausman on behalf of the city of Ventura in support. Mr. Chair and members, Jason Gonsalves, in addition to the cities of Bellflower and Paramount, that our clients will represent about 50 cities, all small and medium-sized cities that would become eligible under this bill. We thank the author and the committee for their support. Good morning. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority in support. Mr. Chair and members, Sylvia Solis-Shaw on behalf of the cities of Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Luis Sanchez on behalf of the city of San Bernardino in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of the city of Pico Rivera, strong support. Good morning, Patrick Foy with the city of Redondo Beach in support. Good morning, Kendra Bagley on behalf of the city of Carlsbad and city of Thousand Oaks in support. Great. Thank you all for being here. Are there any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing any witnesses, is there anyone here who would like to express opposition to this bill? Good morning. Nicole Curran on behalf of the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Lewis Brown on behalf of the Corporation for Supportive Housing. We oppose unless amended. While we agree with the goal of ensuring small cities are meaningfully involved in regional planning processes, we're concerned that the bill will impose additional excessive administrative burden on HAP grantees without meaningful benefit. HAP is showing signs of progress. The state recently reported that HAP-funded programs have helped over 100,000 people move out of homelessness into permanent housing. Obviously, more is needed. Rather than adding additional planning processes and bureaucracy to HAP grantees, we should be doubling down on programs that work. Thank you. All right. Ms. Quirk-Silver. I do support AB 1708. It's a little tricky in the sense that we have limited HHAP dollars. We have requests to double what is in the current budget. And I know that I have met with some of our big city mayors who definitely not only want those funds, but want to have the flexibility. But this is about allowing our smaller cities the opportunity to have access to these funds and to be able to move forward. But I'm sorry, the mayor of Belflower, that's what I thought. Your comments are exactly right, which is many times it's our smaller cities that are holding up these shelters. In my area of Orange County, North Orange County actually has a shelter in Placentia, Fullerton and Buena Park. and they not only the hosts but also putting in quite a bit of their own general funds So we have to do something to support smaller cities There is one little point that I don disagree with but I be happy to see happen It's item number four on page one. It says, allows a region receiving funding under HHAP round eight to allocate a portion of that funding to smaller jurisdictions to support the programs and regional plans. That is a great hope. I will tell you, as many of you know, when people get money, they don't like to share, whether it's a big city to the city next door. So I will be happy to see this move forward. And I know if anybody's going to get cities to share, it will be this assembly member. So with that, I support this bill. Thank you. All right. We'll give you an opportunity to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the committee members. And first and foremost, Mr. Chair, you are a local leader in a big city. I appreciate and commend the work you've been doing in this space, housing, and to all the big mayor cities and all the advocates. We are just saying we matter, too. This is not a or. This is an and. Right? So I think that's what it really comes down to. We want to make sure that as we all share boundaries and cities and freeways, that we all have common issues. And so this vehicle is really to move forward the conversation of these dollars to be shared with all of us and our small cities. And I tell people all the time, I represent eight communities. And seven of those eight communities are seven of 88 cities in Los Angeles County. So we want to just make sure that we're at the table and not on the menu for that matter, right? So we want to make sure that these small cities and my district is between Long Beach and downtown LA. We know, we understand the issues are happening in our own communities. And I commend people like Bellflower that have a shelter, that they're committing their actual dollars to provide for our in-house community. And at the end, it's a humanity issue. It's a humanity issue of ensuring that our in-house community has advocates in small cities and big cities alike. And so we are continuing the discussion. We are looking forward to just ensuring that as we combat and deal with these issues locally, that we always add a human touch to how we address the in-house community. I want to thank Liva Cities as they represent all cities throughout California and ensuring that we continue to be in the voice. And what better way than having the sub chair on this issue be a voice as well. And, you know, this is not a new issue for any of us, especially to those of you that are more senior to me as a new member. And I just want to applaud the work of this committee. I look forward to ensuring that more unhoused community members get housing soon, as we have the champion of housing here to my right, Ms. Buffy Wicks, who has been a champion in that space. And the more we all do collectively to ensure that we have more folks housed, and it takes all of us, not just some, to be part of the conversation. And the last thing I'll say, as we did some concerns from some bigger cities, that's amplifies why small cities need a voice as well. And as Ms. Quicksilver said, I will leave it at that. It will always be a voice for our small cities and our small communities. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Well, I definitely appreciate all of that, and I want to thank you for your leadership. It is so important to have state leaders and local leaders who step up and say, we want to actually be a part of the solution. We want to welcome services. We want to make investments in supporting people who are unhoused in our city. And as you all have said, there are so many cities and places and people who just want to act like this is not an issue in their community and want to just push people out or claim that this is something that comes from somewhere else. And it is so important that we treat it as a regional and statewide issue with a comprehensive regional plan. People who are unhoused or homelessness or affordable housing issues do not respect city boundaries. People who are unhoused don't know when they're crossing a city's boundary. So I think, you know, last thing I'll say as somebody who represents a larger city and was a local leader in a larger city, I think big cities should desperately need and want and support smaller cities who step up. And the challenges that we're facing in our cities The larger cities can only be met by having smaller cities in every city step up and do their part. So I hope that we see some big cities, even if there's a there's a limited amount of funds overall, want to see other cities, smaller cities, medium sized cities. The folks who do want to step up and provide for services or shelters or a street level response or navigation centers, supportive housing to be able to access the funds to do that. That's the only way that we are all going to be successful in tackling, I think, what is still one of the biggest challenges we face as a state. So appreciate your leadership. Appreciate working with us and the committee and taking the amendments. And we'll continue to work together on these issues moving forward. And I appreciate the mayors being here and all the cities who are here. And we'll take a motion on that when we have the quorum. We don't have a quorum yet. When we have a quorum. So thank you so much for being here. I gave you a sub today. Thank you. A lot of support there. Thank you. Thank you. For sure. Thank you. Thank you. We need one more person for a quorum, so we will. Thank you. All right. We will keep it moving. Mr. Harbedian, item number 9 and 15. Which one would you like to start with? 2058. Yes, number 9. Okay. Item number 9, AB 2058. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. I'll just say that the genesis of 2058 really was Assemblymember Wicks' select committee on housing, construction, innovation. And many of us, including some of the committee members here, have taken delegation trips with Assemblymember Wicks to explore factory-built housing. Everyone here knows that we need to build more housing. We need to build more housing faster. And that experience for me was transformative. Walking into these facilities where factory-built housing is being built was probably akin to, in the horse and buggy days, walking into the first factory that was building cars. You see the future in front of you. And it becomes so clear that the ways in which we have built housing up until this point are really antiquated. And you see how other countries are building housing just so much quicker and more efficient and cheaper than us. And really what they're trying to do is utilize factory-built housing. And the more that we explored this on this delegation that I was on in Boise, Idaho, the more I became confused because you talk to more and more folks who do this work and develop factory-built housing. And it was really only saving, and the Turner Center at Berkeley has done amazing work on this, 10% to 20% in costs and time. And that doesn't really make rational sense considering how quickly these units come off the factory floor. And a big reason why we learned the savings and the efficiencies aren't there is because there are duplicative barriers that have been put forward in the way of developers like Curtis Wong here from Cloud Apartments. And much of that is for the inspection and the permitting. For factory-built housing, HCD oversees the inspection. It oversees permitting for the state. They do a great job. The quality of the building is top But unfortunately after going through the HCD inspection and the permitting at the state level you then have to do duplicative inspection and permitting processes at the local level, which add time and add costs and really eat away at a lot of the efficiencies that factory-built housing provides. So this bill really is an elegant and narrow solution. There's a lot of hurdles, frankly, beyond permitting and inspections that need to be addressed. And there's a package of bills that Assemblymember Wicks has brought forward with other joint authors, and Assemblymember Wicks is a joint author on this bill. This is one piece of it. And really what this bill does is, one, say what we've seen in the past. Local inspections cannot disassemble factory-built housing and really do things that compromise the building itself. And we've seen that at the local level. This bill will require that any local inspection does not actually do that. And then Secondly, the big thing is it reduces the permit and the local permitting and inspection fees by 50 percent. And that is really critical not only to save costs, but I think it it it writes a wrong historically of double dipping on the permitting and inspection fees. And it also allows factory built housing developers to choose to use a third party to do the local inspection, because we've seen that when you're able to do that, it not only saves time, but it could save you money as well. And again, we're trying to incentivize more units coming online. With that, I want to hand it over to Mr. Wong to say a few words. I also know that Assemblymember Wix might want to say something as well at the right time. So thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Hi, chair members. So again, my name is Curtis Wong. We have a few thousand units using this method of construction. I personally dedicated my career to do this method. What I want to explain a little bit about the process, just very high level. In order to build, imagine apartment building where you have a portion that is factory built, you have a site built portion, be it a podium or just foundation. You have two different building permits you need, and you have an inspection process across two parties, right, the factory and the site. You can get a four-week permit, actually, for the factory boat portion, which is great because it's repeatable. You have units that should be able to fly down, right? The site portion with different jurisdictions can be a challenge. It can take over six months for almost no work, in my opinion, and it's a lengthy process. And so it makes perfect sense that some of the fees relate to how long it should take for each of those portions. Now, I will say with the inspections, right? It makes sense to be effective housing law where you have an insignia to approve the modules when they come out. They've been approved, inspected, ready to go. When they arrive on site, often the local inspectors will have a different interpretation, and that's where disassembly occurs, and this is very common. Code is fuzzy, so different interpretations on the individual level, again, is very common. So we have two different groups looking at the same thing. It is, again, very common that they tear it apart or something changes. Those have already been inspected, so we don't think that should happen. Repeatability and standardization at the inspection level makes sense. Again, Modger is supposed to streamline this. You want experts that look at Modger to do that. When they arrive, that is an issue, and installation, which is an expansion of the inspection scope from the third-party agency, makes sense because installation is also standardized. You can imagine boxes arriving on site with a standard process to install those, so we don't want different jurisdictions that have different interpretations, again, to do this. We support this bill. We'll ask for an aye vote and hear for questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Other folks who are here in support of the bill? Good morning, Chair members. Stephen Sensor with Brown CNA on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support Thank you Good morning Paul Schaefer with the California council for affordable housing here in support Thank you Harrison Linder with leading age, California here in support. Holly for me need to use the lighthouse public affairs on behalf of spur and abundant housing, Los Angeles in support. Rook Pritchard on behalf of California Yimby and support. Kate Rogers on behalf of the student homes coalition and support. Graciela Castillo-Kranks on behalf of the California Housing Consortium and strong support. Great. Thank you all. Is there anyone here in opposition, opposition witnesses or come on up? Good morning. My name is Isaac Lasseter. I'm a modular home manufacturer, factory housing manufacturer. I'm opposed unless amended because I believe that the delineation between installation and site work is not clear enough in this proposed law. And I think that the description of what is and what is not built on site, I painted out a nice orange area, which is built in the factory, the pink, which is built on site. And where is the line clearly drawn between the two? The first project that attempts to get permitted and inspected under this new regime will cause confusion. And I ask that you more clearly define the line between the factory and the site work. Thank you. I'm seeing nobody else in opposition. I'm bringing it back to the committee. Ms. Wiggs. Thank you. I want to thank the author for, one, being part of the select committee, putting a lot of time and energy into the select committee, coming on the tour to Boise, Idaho. I think the select committees are kind of only as good as the energy we all put into them. But I find them to be a very useful exercise to actually try to take a deeper dive in understanding what's working and what's not working. And I think some of the things that we learned are exactly what you said, Mr. Herbidian. You know, we want to realize the benefits of factory-built modular housing so that we can bring down the cost of construction so that our homes can be more affordable for our working-class families. We don't want factory-built housing for the sake of factories. We want it because we want to bring down the cost of housing. That's the goal. And when you look at our regulatory environment, you realize we don't allow ourselves to realize the benefits. And we have the ability here in this committee and in this body to actually create a better environment to bring down the cost. And that is what this is a this is a piece of a broader strategy to do so. But an important piece, you know, this package of bills is maybe the least controversial thing I've done in housing and could have a huge impact. So that's exciting to be working on this with you. I'd actually love to explore some of the conversation that the opposition or opposed unless amended gentleman raised, because I think we're in the first house or first committee of the first house. So let's entertain some of those conversations and see if we can make this the strongest bill possible. But I'm excited about the work, excited about this body of work. Hopefully, you know, when, you know, some of us went to Sweden, 85 percent of their single family homes are built in a factory. They are beautiful homes. 30 percent of their of their multifamily is built in a factory. Learned a lot from that. How can we learn here in California? Other places are doing well and try to incorporate that into what we're doing because we still have a crisis here to solve. So with that, I'm happy to make a motion to move the bill, to be a joint author. and happy to support this as it moves along. Thank you. Ms. Colosa. Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank and echo Assemblymember Wicks comment and thank the Chair for bringing this forward And just to add on you know in visiting other places to learn from factory housing and all these housing innovations that other states and countries are doing well, it would be great to see other people start to visit California to look for housing solutions. And I think one of the ways we need to do that is to continue to incentivize developers and builders to come to California to invest in an emerging industry that we're trying to build, thanks to the work of so many folks, including our select committee chair here. So thank you and would love to be added as a co-author. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. The opportunity to close. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the proper time. Thank you. All right. Well, I want to thank the author for looking at not only opportunities for innovation in how we build housing and do it faster and cheaper and get more of it done, but also some of the ways in which current policies may get in the way of that and sort of create unnecessary bureaucracy or additional fees or extend the timeline. So I think this is a thoughtful approach, and I know you're going to continue to work on it as it moves forward, and we will take a motion in a second and vote on it at the appropriate time. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Would you like me to go into 2577? Oh, yes. Sorry. We have a second bill. Yes. All right. Item number 15, AB 2576. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is a very straightforward, narrow clarification bill related to SB 79. I was a proud supporter of SB 79. And this bill really just clarifies that the historic resources that are protected under SB 79 not only include local, but also state and national historic resources and landmarks that communities have recognized. The bill was ambiguous on that, and so this bill would really just clarify that any community that is implementing SB 79 projects, historic resources on the local, state, and national level will be protected, as well as landmark districts. And here with me today is Keira Ross, who's representing the city of Pasadena in my district. Good morning. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Pasadena. And the city is synonymous with rich cultural resources and decades-long commitment to historic preservation. Thank you. The commitment is rooted in the community's genuine desire to protect its most cherished resources, like Old Pasadena, the Pasadena Civic Center, and the Pasadena Playhouse, historic resources that are currently listed on a state or national register of historic places, but not on a local register. Under SB 79, cities have the ability to delay the impact of the law until the seventh cycle of RENA for historic resources that were placed on a local register before January 1, 2025. However, this language does not apply to historic resources on a state or national register. AB 2576 addresses this issue by including resources listed on the local, state, or national historic register. In Pasadena, multiple historic resources fall within one-half mile of the A-Line metro stations, and these changes ensure that all resources are protected without an arbitrary limitation. Pasadena is acutely aware of the statewide housing crisis and the important steps that must be taken to address it. In recent years, it's undertaken a number of efforts to increase housing supply near transit as part of a holistic community planning strategy while still protecting our historic resources. We explicitly promote the use of a reuse, rehabilitation, and restoration as part of our preservation program. An example of this is the old Stewart Pharmaceutical Building, which is located across the street from a transit-oriented development stop and has been successfully adaptively reused with multifamily development around it. AB 2576 continues those efforts and allows us to continue pushing forward on housing while still honoring our commitment to historic preservation. We ask for your aye vote on this bill. Mr. Chair, just to be clear, I didn't make this at the top, but I am accepting the committee amendments. Thank you very much to you and your staff for the work on the bill. So thank you. Thank you. Other folks who are here are in support of this bill. Mr. Chair members, I'm Tony Gonzalez here on behalf of the California Preservation Foundation in support of the bill. And if I can just take five seconds, given the amendments that are being adopted today, those amendments would restore an ambiguity regarding alternative plans that we would like to work with the author and the committee and the Senate if the bill makes it that far to resolve if the bill moves forward today. Thank you. Good morning. Kendra Bagley on behalf of the City of Glendale in support. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments. We have a support position on the current version of the bill. We also suggested some amendments in a late letter, so I'll follow up with your office. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good morning. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG. We are supportive of the delay provisions in the current version of the bill. Thank you. Good morning, Terry members. Brady Gernon on behalf of the League of California Cities. Apologies, we didn't get a letter, and we are supportive of amended. and have had those conversations going on. We think there's a larger cleanup than these happen, so we look forward to those conversations. Thank you. Carrie West with the City of Sunnyvale. Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone here opposed to the bill to testify as a witness? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone here who is opposed to the bill or something in between? Good morning, Chair and members. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein here on behalf of the Bay Area Council. We were in an opposed to the last amended position, but with the new amendments, we are now moving to neutral. Thank you. Good morning. Brooke Pritchett on behalf of California Yimby and Street Sprawl, just echoing the same concerns. We look forward to the committee amendments, and we'll be reviewing the bill afterwards. Thank you. All right. We're back to the dais. Ms. Quirk-Silva. Yeah, I want to thank the author. My question is if you could go through the amendments and then after that I'll have a response. Yeah. So effectively, what's left after the amendments would be just the provisions that speak to the clarification that the historic resources would include state and national historic resources. Everything else that the bill had laid out has been amended out. And so it's a very narrowly tailored bill at this point. I appreciate that because it is a little bit conflicting for me. Last year I did the piece of legislation that was AB 1061 that chaptered the statues for narrowing historical preservation exclusions and I know this just refers to SB 79 but I do want to comment on that as a whole And I know Pasadena, a beautiful city, and some of the other cities, every city has a corridor, a building, a neighborhood that we believe is exceptional and may, in fact, be on these historic registers. Our issue or my issue and others have been when local jurisdictions use that to delay or stall or not build. And we've seen some real bad actors in this space where there could be one side of a building and now we can't build anywhere near that. So this is to say, in your narrow language, I can support this, but it is to say to the local jurisdictions that continue to find ways to stall and delay and not build, we're on it. We've seen this map before, and it continues to come to local governments, city councils, where they use this. So whether it's Livable California or any of these other groups under the guise of preserving historic, it's really to say we don't want these buildings in our community. And I'm sorry, I get a little wound up on this because it winds me up because it's something that we know we need housing. And it can't be in our neighborhood. We're going to do everything to protect and preserve, but you over there can build it. And that's just not acceptable. But I appreciate you taking the amendments and we'll support it. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. I was just sitting on the couch watching TV. Sorry, I missed the presentation. Feel free to obviously. I have a couple questions. One is, do we know an SB 79 pass, we could actually look at a map of where it would apply to? Do we have any kind of information like that on this bill where the historic districts are that would be preserved under this bill? So, yeah, I think for, for example, the city of Pasadena, they would have their own map and their own list that would be affected. And the maps would obviously align with the original maps in SB 79. So for each community, it would be different, right, based on which historic resources we're talking about. And in my district, I went through and staff worked with local cities to map out where the historic resources would be. And I just think that for every assembly district or senate district, it's going to be based on that local information. Yeah. And does this – how much leeway do – under this bill do cities have in creating these historic resources? So if the historic resource hasn't been designated by—and I think the date is— 2025. Yes, 2025, January 1, then that's it. I mean, I think that there was a lot of talk about trying to prospectively designate historic resources under the bill. And for all the reasons that Senator Quirk-Silva said, I think that would be problematic and dangerous. So really it up until that date which has passed us you either have to have a local state or national historic designation And if you don have that then it wouldn count No Well I think you going to have a fun time in the Senate But, you know, I know you've personally worked, you know, hard on increasing housing in California. And I know you take that seriously. I don't look at you as some, you know, anti-housing person or something like that. And so just based on the kind of trust that I have in you, you know, I'm willing to support this bill. I think, uh, you know, my concern is, you know, we try to intensify density, particularly around the urban core. I mean, that was kind of the objective of SB 79, you know, it's better for the air, you know, um, you know, reducing the number of cars that need to be on the road and all that sort of thing. You know, Pasadena is kind of an interesting area though, you know, that one in particular, because it's kind of like suburban out there, you know, that happens to be in a very large urban area, but, um, but yeah, you know, just given the trust and faith I have in you, you know, I'm willing to support this bill today. Appreciate that. Thank you. All right. I'll give you the opportunity to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the comments and the questions. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Well, I appreciate your leadership here and making sure that when we make these efforts like we did in SB 79 to spur housing construction, that we do it in the right places and that we have the most effective, limited in their own way, but important safeguards for historic buildings and certainly buildings that have been previously designated local, state or national should be included in that. I've dealt with this issue on some other bills, as has Ms. Quirk-Silva, and making sure that we don't allow this to be a tool that's misused, on the other hand, because we don't have a single way to designate historic structures that is universal. We do have to look at local, state, and national, and I've had bills that did that. And, of course, Pasadena is a wonderful place, and we want to protect its character at the same time as we look for opportunities to build housing. So, appreciate your leadership here at the appropriate time. We will take a motion and vote on the bill. Appreciate you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. We don't have any other non-committee authors, so we're going to take some committee authors. We'll start with Ms. Quirk-Silva and then maybe Ms. Coloza. Did you see me run up here as quick as I could? Speaking of streamlining and going fast. matter of fact my my uh ledge director put on my notes quick silva that was a mistake but it's okay i'll own that all right here we are and i do want to just make a note before i begin you know on when you're on housing for long enough you're going to be on all sides of the issues and so you're going to have people who support what you do, and then sometimes you're going to be with people who don't support. And it's just how this committee evolves. But today I'm proud to present AB 1751, Missing Middle Townhomes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I do want to thank your committee staff for their robust and thoughtful work on these committees and I am happy to accept the committee amendments I here to present AB 1751 which builds on recent housing reforms by expanding access to one of the most attainable pathways to home ownership, townhomes. Home ownership is moving further out of reach for too many Californians. Today, only 18% of households can afford the median price single family home. A family now needs an annual income of roughly $221,000 to purchase that home. These numbers reflect a market that is pushing people out of stability and out of their communities and in some cases out of the state. I just recently heard a headline news that 50,000 people have left Los Angeles. This is real for Californians. AB 1751 allows for ministerial approval of qualifying townhome projects that meet clear objective standards. This approach reduces delays, provides certainty, and helps bring more ownership opportunities within reach for working Californians. If we are serious about addressing affordability, we need to create more pathways into home ownership. And I'll just pause here. When we talk about townhomes, this is what we're talking about in this bill. But of course, I support very low affordable housing and market rate. We need all of the above. Townhomes are a critical part of that solution. With me today to testify and support is Ed Manning on behalf of the New California Coalition, our sponsor, Holly Fertani. For Manny. Oh, for Manny. For Manny de Jesus on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Thank you. One second. Let's establish quorum. With Sharon. Haney. Present. Haney present. Person. Person here. Avila Farias. Colosa. Colosa here. Garcia. Colra. Colra here. Lee. Lee here. Kirk Silva. Here. Kirk Silva here. Ta. Ta here. Thank you, Paul. Wicks. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the New California Coalition. New California Coalition has been around about four years. It's a nonpartisan statewide business and civic group coalition. We are working on mobilizing California leaders and voters to solve complex problems of affordability and livability in multiple areas. And one of the areas that we're focused on is housing. First of all, thank you to Ms. Cork-Silva for taking this bill on. It is ambitious. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for you spending the time on this bill and your staff to work with us on amendments. Um, the, uh, many raised the question, why, why does this bill focus on townhomes? And so, um, just talking about some numbers that are relevant in terms of homeownership in California and opportunities. Um, the last several years, we've had about 110,000 housing starts a year, building permits pulled, and about 25% of those have been for ADUs. So I guess the good news is that all the work that the chair and members of this committee done on ADUs is certainly working. But the bad news is the number of homeownership opportunities is not increasing in California, despite multiple efforts. Townhomes in particular, and this has been documented now by numerous studies and data, and we're doing further analysis that I'll mention, but roughly they're about 30% more affordable than single-family homes in every part of the state. In some areas, it's a little less. In some areas, it's significantly more. Our analysis, we have hired a firm called Mapcraft. That firm, I know, has done work in the legislature before work with Assemblymember Wicks on her legislation last year. Their analysis, which is preliminary, we'll have a final report in the next several weeks, but their data is showing that that dual income families, working families, working class families that make between 150 and 250 percent of AMI are going to have significantly increased opportunities to buy and establish housing if this bill is passed. And that's a significant directional shift. And so the townhomes in particular that are eligible for this bill are at a minimum density. And with the bill, with the amendments are significantly narrowed in suburban areas and rural areas to infill. but in particular in urban areas, we're looking for more and more opportunities and enough sites to move the needle to start to be able to build these products. The other thing about the townhomes, there's a lot that you've heard about construction defect liability, SB 800, which I worked on, which evidently isn't working so well, which is being revisited, the Right to Repair Act. But these types of products can be either condos or not condos. But even the condo structure, they, unlike high-rise condos, don't have the same complexity of construction liability issues. And so they are more insurable, they're financeable, and they're buildable. So for those reasons, we think this bill is important. It will help really move the needle to create more homeownership opportunities for entry-level buyers and middle-class buyers and ask you to support the bill. Thank you. Holly, for me to be with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California. As many of you know, they're building in 42 counties throughout the state that include urban, rural, and suburban. and some of you know or probably hopefully all of you know and if not you now know that the one program in the state of california that helps build affordable homes for low-income people at a price point they can afford the cal home program is out of funds like many other programs that are out of funds so now more than ever we need tools like 1751 to help us build more townhomes faster in every part of the state and it gives us more certainty so thank you for all the work that the and sponsors have done and the committee on this bill. And we look forward to your support. Thank you. Thank you. Other folks who are here in support of the bill. Good morning, Chair and members, Steven Sanzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you. Good morning members Jasmine Advin with the CalAsian Chamber in support Great Thank you all Is there anyone who is here as an opposition witness Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Gerton, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in a respectful, opposed, unless amended position, just wanted to commend the conversations we've had with the Assembly Member's Office and the sponsors. I know there are forthcoming amendments, so we'll look forward to reviewing them. I know our main concern was really treating all townhomes the same. The areas that you zone for, for multifamily versus single family, require different infrastructure and public service capabilities. So we want to make sure that the areas meant for the increased density, multifamily have all that infrastructure available. And we felt like a ministerial approval process doesn't allow that to happen. So, you know, we look forward to continuing those conversations. I mean, the big challenge that you have is the Subdivision Map Act for the different types of parcels that you have. If you have four or more or five or more, four or less or five or more, you have different terms of review that you have to look for because the infrastructure is much different. And that's where we're concerned from. So that's why our hope is to focus on the multifamily residential zones and to comply with local objective development standards and take out the single family zone area. But we look forward to those continued conversations and hope to move up to neutral should those negotiations go okay. Thank you. Great. Anyone else who is here in opposition to this bill? Not in opposition, but Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. We had sent in a letter of concerns. Really appreciate the hard work the committee did on this bill and all the good conversations we've had with Ed about it as well. The committee amendments address a lot of our issues. We have a few remaining things, but I'm pretty hopeful that we can get to a resolution on that as the bill moves forward. Thanks. Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. We are also not in opposition and submitted some concerns to the committee along with Anya. So I just want to echo her comments and thank the committee for your good work on the bill. Thank you. All right. Now, let's see anyone else in opposition. We'll bring it back to the committee. Ms. Wicks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for her work in this space. This is, I think, important and big bill. You know, I think one of the things that we haven't discussed or focused on enough as a legislature is homeownership. And for far too many people, it's just not affordable. And this is how you build wealth in this country, and it's particularly not affordable for our lowest income folks, disproportionately black and brown folks. So I'm excited to support this bill. Do we have a quorum? Have we established a quorum? We have. Okay. I'd love to make a motion. And I would also love to be added as a joint author, if you have me, Ms. Cork-Silva. So thank you for your work in this. All right. Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you. I have some questions and appreciate, you know, I spoke mostly with Mr. Manning about this bill on many occasions, and I appreciate the consideration of my comments as you moved along. So one thing I been thinking about is areas in which there are existing housing stock you know where people are living in you know neighborhoods and things like that And I noticed the there, I think in the amendments, there's something about, you know, underutilized housing or something like that, I think to address part of my concern, but what would stop somebody, you know, in the middle of like a relatively newish development or something like that from tearing down and and putting in some condos. You want to go ahead? Sure. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Patterson, so you're being polite. I've been stalking you. So yeah, that's correct. But the your question is and the hypothetical that you've talked to me about is in a residential neighborhood, single-family homes, what would be stopping someone from coming in and buying several lots and tearing them down and building town homes. Even just one. Even just one. And the answer is in the bill. Basically, there's a definition of underutilized, and it's on page 5 of the bill, line 36. and if there's a permanent residential structure, unless it's abandoned and uninhabitable, then you could not build on that site. I'm going to speak to the exemptions you made for mobile homes. Yeah, and then there's a litany of places that you also can't build listed in the bill, writ large environmentally sensitive sites, mobile home sites, and others. But I hope that answers your question. No, it does, and I appreciate that. And one question, sort of what the league brought up, and I'm sure your response is going to be it's in the bill, so that's kind of embarrassing. But what about, because in ADUs, part of the reason for success of ADUs has been being able to basically not get inundated with all these fees, right? I mean, and how does this bill approach connection fees and things like that? This bill does not touch the authority of local governments on the existing fee structure. I think our view is, well, there are certainly concerns about fees expressed in some areas, some communities. In this bill, you would have to pay building permit fees and development fees, and we think that's important because that helps pay for the infrastructure necessary to support the housing. So nobody's ever thrilled to pay the fees, but the fees are also necessary. Yeah. Well, at least, I mean, I could probably argue both sides of this argument. You know, at least that can help, you know, offset some of those concerns expressed by the league in terms of, you know, the infrastructure and things like that. Um, however, I can also see the other side where it's like some of these, some cities have absolutely disgusting fees. Um, you know, the park fees, you know, things like that. And it abusive and and uh I don think they justified in any way And just the fact that you have to put together I participated in these you know as a local city council member you know put it hire a consultant to you know basically, Hey, we need this much money. And then you backtrack from that. And that's what the fee is going to be. And it's abusive. It's an abusive practice. And so I, you can make a strong argument that to set some kind of limits to that in this bill, maybe that's a battle you don't want to take on, but it is a reasonable approach, at least to say, hey, we'll even pay the fees. We'll even pay the fees. And in a house that's not being used, it's uninhabitable, and we're going to expand it, put people in that housing. I think it's a pretty good compromise. Thank you. I'm not sure I need to answer that. I think, look, we're trying to find the balance. I mean, and it's it's it's difficult. There have been a lot of bills in this legislature that have attempted to address the fee issue and the nexus issue and the studies that need to be done over the past several years. It's it's you know, it's it's very difficult to solve that problem holistically in this bill. And so certainly the ADUs are being built in part because they're not burdened by excessive fees. And the legislature has emphasized that. But we're trying to find the right balance in this bill. So it's certainly something we'll think about. Yeah. Well, you know, also just thanks to the author. You know, I know she's giving you some latitude to work on this bill a lot and have those conversations that are necessary and seek out who would be concerned. You did call me very early on in this process, and I think that the collaborative approach of this bill has been really great. So I think I really appreciate that because I did have some concerns, and I actually think they've been addressed, like exactly what I raised to you. Seems months ago now. Yeah. So excellent job. So I look forward to supporting it today. All right. Not seeing any other comments from the committee. I'll give you the opportunity to close. Yeah, I want to just note that although there is opposition, we clearly have made some progress on the amendments and will continue conversations. I do want to note to those following out there on page two of our analysis is a whole list under number nine of where this bill would not apply to, but just farmland, wetlands, hazardous waste sites. quite a lengthy list. We are trying to, as was noted, find a balance to not only build, but to be respectful to some of the partners that I've worked with, particularly the housing consortium. I do want to reiterate, this is a narrow type of housing that we believe will ultimately, if passed and signed, will focus on the type of housing that we know is missing. And we are looking for that. But I am still very dedicated to all types of housing being built. And I think there's a space for us to do that. We can. I think one of the authors put it earlier. we can do missing middle townhomes and very low and affordable housing and market. We need to be doing them all. So with that, I ask. ask for, respectfully ask for your support. Thank you so much, Ms. Quicksilver. You know, you've led on so many different issues, and I really appreciate how you're continuing in your last year to tackle these huge policy areas where we know there's opportunity. I've learned a lot from your sponsors and from you and from working with the committee about townhomes and what townhomes are and what the opportunity is there. And we've seen a lot of bills, I think, that have focused on homeownership opportunities, knowing that we continue to be one of the states with the lowest homeownership rate and needing to see not only rental housing get built, but homes for ownership as well. And I know not all of these will be condos or for homeownership, but they do provide an opportunity for a type of housing that we think can get built, Maybe pencils in more places, maybe has a demand that is not being met in other areas. And so I'm excited to see this bill and appreciate the work on the amendments to address some of the concerns that came forward. I know it will continue to evolve as it moves, but I do hope that we are able to get this done and appreciate your leadership. So we had a motion and a second. All right. Let's take a vote. Motion to pass as amended to the committee on local government. Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson. Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias. Colosa. Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia. Colra. Aye. Colra, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Cork Silva. Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Ta. Aye. Tanqipa. Aye. Tanqipa, aye. Wicks. Wilson. Thank you, members. All right. 8 and 8-0, and we'll keep that open. Bill is out. All right. Looking at who we have over here, we are going to go in file order unless these folks have worked something else out. So I'll take Mr. Gabriel, which is item number six, AB 1924, and item number 19, AB 2626. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. It's nice to be back in this hearing room. And I am pleased today to present AB 1924, which ensure that homelessness prevention becomes a central pillar of California's homelessness response. As this committee is well aware, California continues to grapple with a statewide homelessness crisis. Unfortunately, while the state's critical investments are helping to move people off the streets, even more Californians are falling into homelessness. Current data shows that for each individual we house, nearly three new individuals become at risk of homelessness for the first time. In Los Angeles, the ratio is even greater at four to one. To make meaningful progress in addressing our homelessness crisis, we must shift towards prevention. AB 1924 would create a comprehensive statewide strategy for homelessness prevention, including coordinated action plans, identification of best practices, and accountability measures to track progress. This bill also would develop model best practices for homelessness prevention. These can include programs that involve short-term and emergency rental assistance or legal services, but also new and innovative programs that communities across the state have already implemented that can be expanded elsewhere These best practices would provide state and local agencies with data tools to prevent homelessness that have already been shown to work By centering homelessness prevention in the state response, this legislation will help our most vulnerable residents and will most effectively target limited state resources. This is both a moral and an economic imperative. I'm pleased that this legislation has support from a broad coalition of service providers and organizations who are working to end homelessness in our state. With me today to testify in support of the bill are Janie Roundtree, Executive Director of the California Policy Lab, Aaron Stanton from Sacred Heart Community Service, and also available for technical assistance as someone who probably needs no introduction, former Assemblymember, and someone who has dedicated his life to addressing issues like this, Mike Fior, Senior Policy Advisor for the Inner City Law Center. Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote. Good morning, Chair Haney, Honorable Committee Members. Thank you. I just want to say thank you to Assemblymember for your leadership on this issue. I'm Janie Rantry. I'm the Executive Director of the California Policy Lab at UCLA and author of multiple research reports on how to prevent homelessness in California. Ending homelessness in California requires not just responding to it, but preventing it before it occurs. You heard the ratio of four to one. Let me put it in slightly different terms. Every year in Los Angeles, 55% of everyone enrolling in homeless services is new that year. And that number is four times larger than the number of people the system can house. Preventing homelessness is good policy that helps reduce the demand for some of our most expensive public resources, but it's also more humane. And the good news is that we know how to do it. Effective prevention programs target resources to people who are at high risk of ending up on the street or in shelters. It gives them cash assistance, and multiple evaluations have shown that this strategy is effective. Some local programs do this well. Our research led to the creation of the LA County Homelessness Prevention Unit, the first program of its kind, to use artificial intelligence to target resources for people who are high risk, give them case management, and prevent them from becoming homelessness. It reduces homelessness among participants by 70%. There are Bay Area programs, including All Home and others that are leading on this as well. The state, however, has yet to develop a prevention strategy that lays out these best practices and leverages state funding to prioritize high-risk households. AB 1924 would address the gaps in the current state action plan. For example, it would require that prevention goals have accountability measures, something that the plan is lacking. It would require agency and department-specific strategies that are coordinated by the state, and it would set out what are evidence-based program models for prevention. Based on our research, it's imperative that the state make evidence-based prevention a centerpiece of its efforts. As a technical witness, I'm happy to answer questions. Good morning. I'm Erin Stanton with Sacred Heart Community Service in San Jose. We are the lead agency for the Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System. To solve our state's homelessness crisis, we must shift from focusing on reacting to the crisis to proactively reducing the inflow of people pushed into homelessness. In Santa Clara County, we've seen what's possible with an evidence-based coordinated prevention strategy. In 2017, we partnered with Destination Home to launch the Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System. Our model combines financial assistance, case management, and legal aid, and is targeted to assisting people at highest risk of homelessness. Since its launch this program has helped stabilize nearly 44 at people Two years after receiving assistance 93 of households remain housed We believe this effort is a big reason we been able to reduce inflow by nearly 20 over the past five years Our program was the subject of a randomized controlled trial conducted by Notre Dame, which found participants who received financial assistance were 81% less likely to experience homelessness in the next six months and 73% less likely to experience homelessness one year later. These results are cost-effective. We've successfully prevented homelessness at a significantly lower cost than rehousing someone. Our model returns nearly $2.50 for every dollar invested. These results are scalable, but we need the state to play an active role. That's why we are so excited about AB 1924. Right now, we're only able to help a fraction of the people seeking assistance, developing a comprehensive statewide homelessness prevention strategy, including goals and accountability measures and state agency-specific action plans, will serve as a critical step towards meeting the enormous need. In addition, as more service providers and local jurisdictions consider launching their own homelessness prevention programs, developing evidence-based practices will be an invaluable tool for helping localities develop effective prevention strategies. Thank you. Thank you so much and welcome back, Assemblymember. Thank you for your leadership. Other folks who are here in support of this measure. Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Girden on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Good morning, Jess Hudson on behalf of Destination Home in support. We're about to charge you with housing, California in support. Lewis Brown with the corporation for supportive housing and support. Check you with check you with the California community foundation in support. Is the Mark Dominguez with all home and support. JT Hirschmack with the nonprofit housing association of Northern California and support. Great. I don't imagine there would be opposition to this, but is there anyone opposed to this? not seeing anyone or maybe I scared them away. Colleagues, Mr. Calra. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Samara Gaber, for bringing this forward. And thank you for platforming some of the work being done in San Carreya County. I've always felt my county has been very innovative and collaborative in this. And it's great to have the opportunity to see what could be done at a statewide level. We kind of think about it in those terms as well of what we can do as a state, rather than having kind of these regional, we all know it's a statewide issue when it comes to housing and certainly appreciate our former legislators that continue to work on this. I would love to be at it as a co-author and would love to move the bill. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Tangipa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author as well for this bill. Yesterday we had a fairly robust conversation on accountability measures, numerical goals. And I think that this bill is perfect because not only under HCD and all of the other departments that are underneath us that we're asking for accountability, this puts us in that same position as legislators, asking for accountability. One of the areas that I would ask for in the future is a clear numerical goal and a direct timeline as well, that the goal of the state of California and its legislators is to reduce homelessness by 10 percent within three years. Or what are our clear numerical goals Because whenever we say that that makes sure that the people know our goals with a clear timeline So again I just want to make sure that I thanking the author as well for bringing this It puts everybody on record that we, the state of California, want to prioritize homelessness. We want to prevent homelessness. It's an area that I understand very, very well that if we stop them from getting on the streets, it's significantly cheaper. I shared yesterday, my mother's income is $24,000 a year. When it comes to our mortgage, if we ever fell behind after I lost my father, that was our number one goal. We cannot lose at home because our mortgage is $1,400. The average rent is over $2,500 in a majority of California. So the average rent of California exceeds my family's income. And that has to shock people that there are so many. And when we hear data points like one in every four individual that's applying for services is a new individual, I think that's indicative on the state of California for what's happening on the affordability end. And I think, again, this measure is something that puts all of us on record, that we demand accountability. We want to find some things. And if we can set some numerical goals that are very clear on a timeline, I think that would help everybody. So thank you to the author. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Well, great. I just wanted to watch to I'm supporting this bill and just wanted to comment on my good friends comments. He's absolutely right. You know, in fact, I had legislation just a few years ago that that passed out of this legislature, maybe unanimously. I don't know. But, you know, Republican bill passed out of the legislature. So probably pretty close unanimously. And and it required some kind of accountability and reporting from local governments about the HAP program. Unfortunately, that bill is vetoed by Governor Newsom. So that's too bad because we would have been able to see, you know, maybe some of the successes that Santa Clara has has had what they've done. and maybe get more insight into what's working and what's not. But unfortunately, that didn't transpire. So the good news is, though, as we have this legislation, which hopefully it fares better, and I look forward to supporting right now. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Quirk-Silva. I'm very talky today, so I apologize for that. But this bill is going to get the second Quirk-Silva Award. All right. because I'm doing my own awards this year. And why? Because I agree with my colleague right here, and we don't always agree, and where we may not agree related to this bill in the future is we do need the data. We do need the metrics, and we certainly have not focused enough on housing prevention. But what we are going to need into all of that is to really focus on how do we keep individuals in their existing housing arrangement, whether it's rent or even a home. And that will require some type of subsidy, which a lot of people get very upset about. And yet, I just did the math. Just say you have a renter in their home and they get $500 a month in subsidy to stay in their rental. That is $6,000 a year. Now, yesterday we talked about how much does it in my budget sub-five committee, our budget sub-five committee, How much does it cost once somebody has fallen into homelessness and they're actually in a shelter? And I think, was it $45,000? $45,000 on the low. low. So if we do the math on this, we can see that sometimes doing that gap funding, if you want to call it that, subsidy, if you want to call it that, whatever you call it, to keep someone in their home can actually save dollars. And I'll just end with this takes me back to my days as a California school teacher in the third grade classroom. And of course, our job as educators are to teach reading, math and writing. But I always knew that if somebody was housed, and they weren't worrying about where they were going to sleep the next day, all of those issues that we know surround families, they were going to have academic success. And unless we really look at families holistically, and sometimes it is this housing prevention to stabilize families, we will have more success. So you get the award and I say yes. That's a big deal. I'm very honored. I hope the bill gets signed, but that's a much bigger deal. Ms. Coloza. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to thank the author for putting together an important bill. When I read it, I was like, wow, this makes so much sense. Why haven't we done this before? So we appreciate all the sponsors and authors for this. And I also think that, as Ms. Cork-Silva mentioned, in yesterday's budget subhearing, we also heard from the governor's team around the reorganization. And so it seems like now is exactly the right time to do something like this as the reorg is happening for the new cabinet level agency to prioritize homelessness and housing in the governor's office. And so I think that this is great timing and would love to be added as a co-author. If you have me. Be honored to have you. All right. We close. Well, first of all, I just want to thank thank my colleagues for the thoughtful conversation. Appreciate all that. obviously would be delighted to and honored to have you as co-authors and also appreciate the very thoughtful comments from our Republican colleagues. I guess just what I would, and deeply honored by the award, that's definitely the highlight of my day. We do Rosebud and Thorne with my kids. This is the rose for my day. So thank you. But on a serious note, I mean, I think that there is, I've been talking since I was elected to the legislature about the importance of prevention and how we need to shift our strategy to focus size and emphasize prevention more. And what we have at this point a few years later are data research from UCLA, from the University of Notre Dame. We have real-world examples from here in Santa Clara County that this approach is working and that it's both a more humane approach. You think about what happens to a family when they become homeless, what happens to the children when a family becomes homeless, and that it also is the most effective use of scarce state resources. And all of you have heard me talk on and on about how we need to be more thoughtful, tighten our belt, and make sure that we're spending resources in a way that is going to advance our goals and priorities. And so, you know, it was talked about here, you mentioned the conversation you had in the budget committee about or more They are for under a year with very targeted interventions in Santa Clara County keeping people in their homes And they leveraging data to understand who needs the interventions and who doesn So it smart it targeted it effective And I think it could do a lot of good for a lot of families and do a lot of good for our state. So with that, I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you so much. And there's a lot of praise for this, bipartisan praise, which is great. It shows how much it is needed. I think there's also an opportunity as we are going to be launching under the governor's leadership at Housing and Homelessness Department for the first time. And so I think this aligns very well with that effort. And as you said, I think anyone who has studied this issue, anyone who has worked directly on this issue, anyone who has led would say we are under-investing and under-focusing on prevention. If we can get one person off the street but three people go out, we're not actually making any progress. And that's unfortunately what's happening. And there is a mismatch from all of the studies that have been done between how much folks are making in our state and how much housing costs. And that's leading people to become homeless. And so if we can help to address that on the front end, we will have a lot more success because it's a lot more expensive. It's a lot harder when people are ending up homeless to be able to get them back into a home they owned or a home they had or the stability that they previously had. So appreciate your focus on it in this bill and in prior efforts and would also love to be added as a co-author. And did we have a motion and a second? We do. All right. Let's take a vote. Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias? Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Thank you, pa. Thank you. Bye. Wicks Wilson. All right. Eight. We'll keep it open. Take your second bill. Item number 19. Thank you so much. Good to see you, Assemblymember. Item 19, AB 2626. Let's see if you can get a second Quirk Silva Award here. That would be... Less than one. You have a few months left. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you so much. Good. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues, and thank you again for the opportunity today to present AB 2626, which provide targeted flexibility to state government to protect low-income Californians from losing their homes. California's affordable housing developments already operate on razor-thin margins. Many are at risk of foreclosure because of skyrocketing insurance costs and other financial pressures. AB 2626 would address this challenge by authorizing HCD to waive annual monitoring fee payments when the department determines that such relief is necessary to maintain the fiscal integrity and long-term viability of a development. This is a targeted fiscally responsible tool. Fee waivers are only permitted when HCD determines a development's fiscal integrity requires it, ensuring relief goes only when it is truly needed. This bill will help stabilize vulnerable properties prevent foreclosure and safeguard long affordability so that we can keep our residence house This bill is supported by a broad coalition of affordable housing advocates and builders including the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California the California Housing Partnership, Enterprise Community Partners, and the California Housing Consortium. I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill, Taisha Watts on behalf of the California Housing Partnership, and J.T. Herichmark on behalf of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. I think I mostly got that wrong. Thank you and respectfully request your aye vote. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Tyesha Watts with the California Housing Partnership. The partnership was created in 1988 with a mission to increase sustainable homes and affordable housing in California. Over the past decade, California has made significant progress in advancing housing policy and increasing funding for affordable housing. We're beginning to see the results of this investment. However, that progress is now at risk. Affordable housing developments across the state are still recovering from impacts of COVID-19 writ moratorium, which forced many developers to draw down operating reserves just to keep tenants housed and services intact. At the same time, developments are facing growing insurance crises, with some properties seeing premium increases of up to 70% on average, in some cases far higher. These external pressures are now being compounded by state-imposed cost structures, particularly the current monitoring fee model tie loan size. Today, these fees average about $1,000 per unit per year, totaling around $11 million annually across recent projects. For properties operating on razor-thin margins, these significant costs that directly impact their ability to maintain operations make repairs and remain financially stable. AB 2626 offers a targeted, common-sense solution. The bill allows the Department of Housing and Community Development to waive residual receipts or required loan payments on a case-by-case basis when a development is at risk. This is not a blanket waiver. It is a discretionary tool to preserve housing that is otherwise viable but under financial strain. Importantly, this approach is fiscally responsible. By relieving pressure on operating budgets, developments can support more private financing, potentially unlocking up to $135 million annually, reducing the need for additional state subsidy. The alternative is far more costly. If these developments fail, the state risks losing affordable homes it has already invested in. At a time when California faces a housing shortage, preserving existing affordable housing is one of the most cost-effective strategies we have. AB 2626 helps ensure these homes remain stable and available to low-income Californians who depend on them. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Good morning. My name is JT Herchmack, the policy director at the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. NPH is a proud co-sponsor of AB 2626 alongside the California Housing Partnership, Enterprise Community Partners, and the California Coalition for Rural Housing. I want to give a specific example here. The California Multifamily Housing Program finances housing for low and very low income households with affordability restrictions of 55 years or more. This is the program that allows a lot of my members to do extremely deep targeting with their affordability levels. And these loans require annual monitoring payments to HCD. These payments are calculated as a percentage of development costs. And as we all know, development costs have skyrocketed. At one time, these were smaller monitoring fees than they are now. And the concern that we now have is as we are seeing these cost pressures rise, as many of my members in the Bay area and that that developed statewide are feeling the pinch and are feeling that the concern on the monitoring fees is there needs to be some kind of allowance We don have an allowance right now HCD has their hands tied and can waive these if they would like to So it a simple targeted fix It would give HCD this discretion It doesn't eliminate monitoring. It doesn't reduce oversight. It just gives the state a tool to respond when those compliance costs are themselves threatening the viability of affordable housing. So losing affordable housing development because of administrative costs the state has power to adjust would be a significant failure of our housing finance system. Preserving those existing affordable homes is far more cost effective than replacing them, especially for the residents living in these developments, the low income families, seniors, people with disabilities. They cannot afford to lose their homes. So we urge your aye vote on AB 2626. Thank you. Thank you. Other folks were here in support of the bill. Good morning. Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, proud co-sponsor of the bill in support. Harrison Linder with Leading Age California in support. Natalie Spivak with Housing California in strong support. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners in strong support. All right. Is there any opposition witnesses for this bill? Anyone who is here in opposition or something in between? Not seeing anyone. Bring it back to the committee. Mr. Tangipa. Yeah, I want to thank the author again for bringing this. The main thing that I want to point out is I hear all of the arguments that are going on. And the main reason why I hear all the arguments that are going on is because even private developers, private individuals side have stated the same thing. rising cost, insurance, utility cost. So what I just want to highlight is I never believe in hypocrisy, and I like to stay consistent. But when our private entities, when the apartment associations, when builders, when other ones are saying the exact same thing that you're saying, we should look at ways to not put more over-regulatory burdens on them, especially if we all see this as a solution, because we're choosing for nonprofits and affordable housing, things that I've heard arguments in this committee that were used to demonize private industry. So in the essence to stay consistent, I do believe that there are some solutions that we can do, especially if we're setting goals for a lot of these affordable housing and the payments and structures on it, that if we are going to provide relief there, we should also consider providing relief to the other industries, because it's an entire spectrum, from affordable housing to private housing to multifamily to the big businesses and developers as well. So I've thought about a lot of the arguments that you were making, and I've heard the same arguments from other industries talking about that, that we should also consider. And so for mine, Stay consistent. Look forward to supporting this bill. The one question I do have is if you could provide a real-life example for how this would be implemented. And I'm familiar with some of the affordable housing developers that have stated to me that because they're housing some of those that sometimes could be a little bit violent, sometimes addicted, their insurance costs are significantly higher. that is really, I mean, the margins there are actually now in the negative. I've seen that. I understand. So could you provide a real-life example? Would it apply to that individual and how long? for this to be implemented on the temporary pause? Yes. So for the bill, when it's implemented, what HCD will look at is to see if the development is at risk. It looks at its reserves and its positive cash flow. If it is determined that the cash flow is in the negative, then by waiving these monitoring fees and the residual receipts, it gives the development the opportunity to figure out ways to finance their development. So it gives them relief and temporary relief. I want to note that they still have to, you know, pay down their loan. They're in a 55-year regulatory agreement. But by waiving the monitoring fees and residual receipts, it allows them to keep their positive cash flow to help with their operating costs and any rising expenses that occurred, such as that rising insurance piece that you asked. Do we have the average number on what the monitoring fees typically are? Yes. On average, from looking at the 2025 awards, we saw that on average developers are paying $1,000 per unit, which equates to 11 million annually. 1,000 per unit, is that individual doors? Yes. Really? Yes. Okay. Yes. And this is something that I often refer to as the cost of government. What is the cost on government that people are going through because of things that we've imposed on this building? So if we can target more areas on the cost of government, again, not just for nonprofits and affordable housing, we should really look at that. What is our cost of government in other areas? And if this can provide relief, and all of those arguments, I believe, were 100% sound, we should look at that in the others. So thank you. I really do appreciate that because that's insane, especially if it's $1,000 per door. You know, this is immediate relief where, you know, multifamilies, different organizations, you know, if you're looking at margins of 6%, 7%, 8%, you know, nobody works for free. So thank you, and I thank you to the author for thinking creatively. Thank you. Great. May I close? Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you to my colleague for those thoughtful comments. And I just want to express my general agreement with you. I think we need to be thinking about this across the board for all types of housing. How do we make it cheaper, easier, quicker to build housing? We know we have a housing crisis in the state. We need missing middle housing. We need affordable housing. We need deeply subsidized affordable housing. We need market rate housing. And so, you know, I agree with all of you. I think what we have identified here is a very specific problem that is putting at risk affordable housing units, which are so essential. And I think the witnesses did a beautiful job of describing that. And we have developed what we believe is, again, a targeted intervention just by granting HCD this flexibility to make sure that we're going to preserve that housing. And so with that, I would respectfully request your aye vote. Great. Thank you. Thank you again to you and your sponsors for your leadership. and do we get a motion or a second? No, we need a motion and a second. Moved by Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Colosa. We'll take a roll call vote. Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias? Colosa? Colosa, aye. Garcia? Colora? Aye. Colora, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Thank you, Pa. Aye. Thank you by aye. Weeks Wilson. 7-0. Keep it open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, thank you everyone, I'll tell the authors who are here for your patience. I'm gonna try to be consistent here and stay in file order. And so we're called Mr. Ward. Item number 10 AB 2089 And then we will have Ms Papin who I see here as well Yes. Right. Enterprise. Community Park. Got it. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Good morning. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2089 and for the thoughtful engagement of our staff with this bill. AB 2089 supports affordable housing projects by ensuring the continuity of welfare exemptions during home ownership transitions and by promoting an efficient transparent application and recertification process. The property tax welfare exemption improves project feasibility for eligible affordable housing providers supporting long-term affordability and financial stability for low-income Californians. Affordability housing projects lose crucial and extremely limited affordable housing dollars by paying for property taxes up front, straining some of their limited resources. This bill, AB 2089, would reduce the cost of sustaining affordable housing by allowing eligible organizations to withhold relevant tax payments without penalty during periods of ownership transition. This bill would also ensure adequate time to complete recertification, including the labor-intensive process of verifying tenants' income. And by authorizing verified electronic signatures, AB 2089 would modernize and streamline the recertification process. I know that there are author's amendments, I believe, that are going to be processed as well as a part of this or the committee amendments. We've already processed those. Great. Okay. So, great. I'm glad that with your work in the committee, we've already had this bill is already fully amended before you. And so, for witnesses and support, I have Resinda Schaefer from the Riverside Charitable and Graciela Cristio Kings from the Enterprise Community Partners. Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Resinda Schaefer, and I'm the Deputy Executive Director of Riverside Charitable Corporation, a nonprofit affordable housing provider. RCC provides family, senior, supportive, and special needs housing to more than 20,000 families nationwide. We are also a proud member of the California Council for Affordable Housing. For over 26 years, I have managed and filed for property tax exemption, the documentation annually. I can say from experience that the current income verification and filing process is extremely resource intensive. Each year from January 1 through February 15, our staff spend the equivalent of more than a full workday each and every day, focused solely on the process, often working evenings and weekends to meet the statutory deadlines. This places a significant strain on our already limited nonprofit staffing resources. The most burdensome aspect is obtaining the tenant's signatures on required affidavits. Because county's mail certification forms after January 1, nonprofits cannot distribute these documents before then. As a result, thousands of tenants must complete and return forms within a very short window leaving little time for review correction and submission before February 15th deadline This challenge is magnified for many organizations processing income certifications for thousands or as RCC does, tens of thousands of residents each and every year. Allowing earlier release of the forms 45 days prior to year end and permitting verified electronic signatures would significantly reduce our administrative burden, potentially cutting our workload by half, and it would still preserve the program integrity. Greater uniformity and modernization of our processes at the county assessor level would improve efficiency statewide. It would reduce the backlogs in understaffed counties and allow nonprofit housing providers to focus more of their resources on serving our residents than navigating the inconsistent administrative requirements. We believe targeted reforms to affidavit requirements, verification procedures, and filing timelines would benefit the assessors, would benefit the property owners, and most importantly to the residents that we serve. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Graciela Casillo-Krings here representing Enterprise Community Partners. Enterprise is a national nonprofit that develops technical capacity for many nonprofit developers. We are very happy to be here today co-sponsoring this bill alongside California Council of Affordable Housing and the California Housing Partnership. Affordable housing operates on very thin margins, and the welfare exemption plays a critical role in the financial feasibility of production and preservation of units. However, given the complexity of the process itself, a lot of the times we have to also hire consultants to help the developers be able to apply. And we think that it is time for modernization of the process, and AB 2089 is a perfect way of doing that in advance of some critical reforms. Clearly specifying the documentation needed for an exemption is critical. Although the State Board of Equalization provides detailed guidance to county assessor's office regarding procedures for granting exemptions and annual recertification, affordable housing providers must also abide by locally imposed standards, which can vary from county to county. Additional requirements such as intensive backup documentation of household incomes are not standardized across the state. and can change year to year, adding to the complexity and difficulties with the program. A lack of consistency and transparency can prolong processing time significantly. With longer processing times, affordable housing groups must pay higher property taxes when their finances are already very stretched thin. So AB 2089 would increase transparency and decrease exemption processing times by requiring county assessors to post a list of required documentations on their website. But for those reasons, we ask that you support the measure in front of you. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Anyone else here in support of the bill? Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California here in support. Good morning. Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Forte Plowsing here as a proud sponsor. Thank you. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. and on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in strong support. Freddie Quintano with the California Apartment Association in support Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership a proud co of the bill All right. Is there anyone here in opposition to the bill? Not seeing anyone. I'll bring it back to the committee. Not seeing any questions or comments. May close. Respectfully ask for your arrival. Great. Thank you so much again for your leadership on this and your thoughtful common sense approach. And we will take a motion and a second. I don't think we have one yet. Moved and seconded. Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Avi Lafarrius? Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork-Silva? Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Wicks? Wilson? Thank you. Thank you. 6-0. We'll keep it open for absent members. Thank you. All right. Ms. Pappin, item number 12, AB 2296. All right, let's make it happen. Let's not remember if it happened. And so we have file item 12, AB 2296. You may begin whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm delighted to be with you this morning to prevent probably a bill that's in similar vein as I was sitting here listening to some of the previous bills. And this bill pertains to HCD and the effectiveness of HCD or lack thereof. So, and it deals with the housing element process. So local governments, as you know, play a key part in planning for new development. But I want to be clear, cities actually don't build. They just plan for building. And they do so through the housing element process. And in that process, they tell us how they're going to meet their regional housing needs assessment targets. So this bill is to help those good actors, those cities out there that are really trying to comply in their dealings with HCD. The current housing element process has become extremely complex and burdensome and is taking a real toll. Good faith cities are doing the work, but they're stuck in this endless cycle of revisions and resubmissions, often dealing with moving targets. The auditor's recent report on HCD and their performance found that the six cycle housing elements took over twice as long as the housing elements did in the fifth cycle. And these delays are slowing down housing production. They're draining local resources. you talk about having to spend a whole lot of money on consultants. I think cities could put that money aside for things like rental assistance rather than spending on housing elements and consultants to try to keep HCD happy in this ever-moving target, if you will. And it also exposes those cities that are really trying to potential penalties that they don't really deserve. So AB 2296 addresses these procedural challenges directly in three ways. Number one, it allows the reading process to start earlier. This bill moves the start of the regional housing needs allocation, the RENA process, up by six months, giving local governments more time to engage with HCD and begin planning for housing needs sooner. Number two, it requires clear and actionable feedback from HCD. You can't keep moving the target. So AB 2296 mandates that HCD provide clear, actionable feedback to local governments, and this feedback will help cities avoid the confusion, and costly delays that result from inconsistent or unclear guidance, allowing them to make informed revisions to their housing elements and get them over the finish line. And the third thing that the bill does is it will separate Southern California from Northern California. One of the things that the auditor suggested is that you implement the housing element process on different schedules. So the Council of Governments will operate, the ABAG in the north will operate on a different schedule than ESCAG in the south. So they'll have different due dates. They'll be three years apart, and they'll hopefully free up some of our bureaucratic resources to go over those housing elements. That way they're not getting them all at once. So I think this bill really represents a pragmatic, common-sense approach to improving the housing element process by providing clarity and consistency, and enable cities to meet their housing goals on time and avoid unnecessary penalties. The result will be a more transparent, efficient process that encourages housing production and supports Californians' broader goals of addressing our housing crisis. So with me today, without further ado, I have Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of Cities and Dane Hutchings on behalf of my beloved city of San Mateo. Thank you. Who's going to go first? I'll go. All right. Good morning again, chair and members. Brady Garten, proud sponsor on behalf of the League of Cities, proud to sponsor AB 2296 and I work with Assemblymember Papen's office on this. As the Assemblymember mentioned, AB 2296 focuses on two key solutions to improve the housing element process. It allows local governments to start updating their housing element earlier, and it requires HCD to provide clear direction and guidance to local governments. During the sixth cycle, local governments experience various challenges in obtaining certification from HCD. The good news is over 90% of our cities have gotten certified, but it came with a lot of challenges to do that. And with a fast-approaching seventh housing element cycle, we want to make sure that that process will go smoother for the upcoming seventh cycle. The California State Auditor's Office in this January report, for example, found that most local jurisdictions submitted two or more drafts to HCD before the department could determine compliance. That's the median time. If you look at some of the three or four rounds of drafts, it was a lot higher if you look at the data provided in the state auditor's report. It also, as the assembly member mentioned, required a median time that went from initial drafting to compliance by more than one year, which was a 126% increase in the time to get those certified compared to the fifth housing element cycle. Now, AB 2296 isn't the silver bullet to it, but it will help address a lot of these challenges by providing more certainty in the housing element review process. One of the challenges local governments face was the multiple rounds of back and forth before receiving certification, unclear guidance. Due to unclear guidance, there was a lot of department staff turnover. The audit reflects a lot of the challenges that we've heard from our cities for the last several years. By providing more data and findings in the review letters, it can reduce that guessing game and get cities their housing elements certified on time. Additionally under current law cities have less than 10 months to complete their housing elements if the RHNA process goes through the whole appeals By pushing up that allocation deadline for local governments to receive their final RENA numbers the state and local governments can have more time for technical assistance and feedback, helping reduce the number of times cities resubmit their housing element drafts. And for these reasons, we strongly recommend an iVote on AB 2296 and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, members. Dane Hutchings here on behalf of the City of San Mateo in strong support of AB 2296. As the largest city in the county, San Mateo is committed to partnering with the state, HCD, and our community to meet our regional housing needs. The City of San Mateo knows firsthand what it looks like when this process goes wrong, and AB 2296 is exactly the kind of reform that would have made a real difference for us. The initial work for the sixth cycle for our city began in 2020, and our first draft was not submitted until July of 2022. The city underwent three formal revisions and two informal revisions. Throughout that process, the city worked with multiple HCD reviewers, often offering different interpretations and new requirements. One of the biggest challenges the city faced was that HCD could not tell us clearly what compliance actually was required. Across five rounds of revisions, HCD could not provide context on why revisions were required, citations to legal authority for their requests, and this left our team trying to meet shifting expectations without clear direction. And as a result, the city spent nearly $2 million on specialized planning consultants and outside legal counsel to help navigate the sheer complexity of the process. This does not include the costs associated with the internal team, consisting of six new full-time community development staff, as well as significant support from the city attorney and the city manager's office. So despite these resources, the city did not receive formal certification until June of 2024, meaning that they were out of compliance for nearly 17 months. AB 2296 recognizes the real structural challenges cities face as we head into the seventh cycle. Six additional months for the RENA process, giving a longer runway, requirement for HCD to identify the specific legal basis for any deficiencies by statute, not just general findings, and a requirement for HGD to provide specific analysis or text needed to fix those definitions, not just finding us noncompliant, but an actionable direction. The state auditor confirmed what cities have been saying for years, that the current process asks local government to meet a moving target without adequate time or clear direction. AB 2296 seeks to address that, allowing cities like San Mateo to be effective partners with the state and planning for California's housing needs. On behalf of the city of San Mateo, I want to thank Assemblymember Papin for her continued leadership and respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2296. Thank you. And before we continue, Assemblymember Papin, do you accept the committee amendments? I do. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2296? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson from the hopefully still beloved City County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, also in support. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Kendra Vagli on behalf of the City of Foster City, City of Mountain View, City of Redwood City, City of Belmont, and Town of Hillsboro in support. Thank you. Morning, Chair and members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, in support. Thank you. And anyone in opposition to AB 2296? Ali Saverman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and respectful opposition We understand that there are new amendments and we look forward to reviewing those Thank you Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California Yimby in opposition. We also look forward to reviewing the amendments and having further conversations. Mr. Chair, members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf and, excuse me, Opposed unless amended on behalf of SPUR, Abundant Housing LA, circulate planning and policy, and like everyone else, look forward to reading the amendments. Thank you. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association here in opposition as well. Looking forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you. All right, bringing it back to the committee. Mr. Tangipa. I just want to thank the author. I think a lot of our cities have just been asking for more time, especially as the goalposts have been shifted coming down from the state. You know, so I look forward to supporting this bill in the sense of, one, I think we need a full scale look at the entire arena plan, what we need to do and where if our cities are being asked to meet these goals, they also need the tools and also the responsibility of state to help them. So while I understand the opposition's position on this, our cities need help. I mean, they've all been asking us. Our local municipalities are saying, you guys are telling us this is the goal you want us to meet. You're giving us a timeline that is unattainable because sometimes the state doesn't even work as fast as what you're asking for. And I think we've seen that. So look forward to supporting this. Thank you. All right. Give me a opportunity to close. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to say that cities really do need certainty and they need clarity because when they don't have that, it just ends up costing a whole lot more money on consultants. And I really think that we could use that money for things like rental assistance. It's a better use of our resources and it will help us meet that shared goal. And that shared goal is to help folks with housing. So respect the request and I vote. Great. Thank you so much. for your work on this, for accepting the committee amendments, for working with us and trying to make sure that as all of this that we're asking of our cities and counties to be able to move forward and planning to build more housing, that we're also giving them the clarity and the time that they need to be able to get it right. When they're moving in good faith, we should be able to work with them to be able to move forward. So appreciate your work on this and work with us. And do we have a motion? No, we do not have a motion from Ms. Wilson and a second. Call, please. A motion to pass as amended to the assembly committee and local government. Haney. All right. Haney. Aye. Patterson. Avila Farias. Colosa. Colosa. Aye. Garcia. Colora. Aye. Colora. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye. Cork Silva. Aye. Cork Silva. Aye. Kha. Aye. Kha. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Bye. weeks, Wilson. Wilson, I. All right. 8-0. Keep it open. All right. Miss Bonta. Thank you, brother. Appreciate you. See you next time. Bye, baby. Item 13 AB 2351 Good morning, Chair and members. I would like to begin by thanking the Chair and the Committee for working closely with my office on this bill. AB 2351 strengthens California's coordinated statewide response to homelessness by requiring local governments to report the number of shelter beds and housing units serving those experiencing and exiting homelessness operating within their jurisdiction as part of their annual progress report in the California Department of Housing and Community Development. California is making real progress on homelessness, a 9% drop in unsheltered homelessness in 2025, the largest decrease in over 15 years, following more than $5 billion in state investment. Yet still too many Californians are forced to live on our streets. In 2024, for my community, that number was 6,343 unsheltered residents in Alameda County alone, including 66 children under the age of 18 and 213 young adults between 18 and 24. Responding to homelessness is a top priority for my constituents and for many of us here in the legislature. Yet, when we try to understand the work being done at the local level, much of it can only be viewed through the lens of the state's 44 continuums of care. While these are valuable local bodies, COC's boundaries don't always align with city and county lines. And a single COC can serve populations as varied as a dense urban core and a sprawling rural community. AB 2351 addresses this by adding the number of shelter beds and housing units serving those experiencing or exiting homelessness as a required reporting element for local government's annual progress reports, giving the state and the legislature a clearer picture of local homelessness response at the city and county level. Critically, this bill imposes minimal new burden by allowing cities to report data they largely already collect through a state-level process that already exists and that local government already completes each year. We cannot solve a problem when we lack the data to understand where this progress is being made and where more work is needed. With me to testify today are Elizabeth Funk, CEO of Jignini Moves, and Adrian Covert, Senior Vice President of Public Policy for the Bay Area Council. Thank you, Chair Haney and committee members. I'm Elizabeth Funk, the founder and CEO of Dignity Moves, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2351, the Shelter Bed Transparency Act. And I want to commend the thoughtful leadership of Assemblymember Bonta on this issue. Dignity Moves is a nonprofit focused specifically on unsheltered homelessness. And over the past few years, I've been thrilled to see our state begin to focus increased attention on this critical issue. And through programs like half in the encampment resolution funding program, it's working. As the Assemblymember mentioned, we have seen a remarkable decrease of 9% in the last year. We need to keep up that momentum. We all know the data is essential for tracking and setting goals and measuring progress. Today, we already know how many individuals are homeless and how many are unsheltered, generally broken out by city in the annual point-in-time report counts. But even with all the work that I've been doing in this space for a while, I was shocked to learn that there is no parallel data for inventory of shelter beds. The inventory of shelter beds, both how many exist and how many are available, is reported on an aggregated basis through the continuum of care, one number, and it's often inconsistently reported and inconsistently through other channels. As we're starting to maintain our focus on ending unsheltered homelessness, we need both pieces of data. That's going to allow us to see which cities are performing well and which ones aren't. It will create a foundations. so that smaller cities could collaborate on finding shelter solutions that they could do together. And it holds transparency so that we can see our progress, measure that progress, and continue to put resources where it's working. AB 2351, the Shelter Bed Transparency Act, would provide that foundation of basic data. So I urge you to vote aye on this important measure. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Haney and members of the committee. My name is Adrian Covert. I'm with the Bay Area Council. And it's trite but true that you can't manage what you don't measure. And today, California is doing an improved but still poor job in managing its homelessness inventory, its inventory of beds and homeless housing. And that has negative implications for how we go about managing our homeless crisis. California's inventory of homeless shelter and housing is a patchwork of thousands of beds and housing units stitched together ad hoc over decades, with inventory expanding only where funding and political will aligned and not necessarily where it was most needed or most strategic. And this has very likely created vast iniquities in the distribution of homeless services. San Francisco, for instance, has 11% of the Bay Area's population, but about 40% of the Bay Area's permanent—of the entire region's permanent housing inventory. evidence of vast discrepancies in the accessibility of beds and of housing. Yet we know this about San Francisco only because it's a city and a county. Its inventory of housing is published in the annual housing inventory count, so we can see it. But with every other city, shelter and housing data is aggregated and reported at the continuum of care level, which for most jurisdictions is the county. The result is that we're unable to easily see who's investing in what, where, and how. AB 2351 helps fix this problem by requiring cities to report their inventories of homeless shelter beds and housing units as part of their annual housing element progress reports to HCD. This will greatly enhance transparency in California's homeless response system while adding negligible new burdens for local governments on a reporting process they're already doing. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you. Great. Thank you both. The folks here in support. Hello, Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support. We're about to charge you with Housing California in support, also representing National Alliance to End Homelessness, and we greatly thank the author's office on their collaboration with us. Thank you. Lewis Brown with the Corporation for Supportive Housing and Support. Are there folks here in opposition? Didn't think so. Bring it back to the committee. All right. We have a motion and a second. Ms. Pontamy, close. Thank you, members. This is a very straightforward transparency bill designed to ensure we have the data we need to make one of the fourth largest economy in the world. have the information they need so that everybody can have a place to sleep at night. And I respectfully request your aye vote. Great. I appreciate your leadership and thank you so much for this effort. It's hugely important that we have this data and information and transparency. We'd love to be at it as a co-author. And let's take a roll call though, as would Ms. Coloza. Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee on local government. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colossa? Aye Colossa aye Garcia Calra Aye Calra aye Lee aye Cork Silva Aye Cork Silva aye Ta Aye Ta aye Tangipa Aye Tangipa aye Wiggs. Wilson. Aye. All right. 9-0. Keep it open. Thank you. All right. Mr. Schultz. All right, we'll begin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm pleased to present AB 2612 this morning, and I want to thank committee staff for their hard work on the bill. And just to be clear, we will be accepting the proposed committee amendments as further described on page 7 of the committee analysis. AB 2612 requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to research, develop, and propose for adoption standards for a qualified plug-in photovoltaic system, or PV for short, to function as an energy source within residential and non-residential electrical circuits. The Building Standards Commission may then adopt, approve, codify, and publish mandatory building energy standards for new construction, building electrical circuit features to enable a qualified plug-in PV system to function as an energy source within residential and non-residential electrical circuits. These new standards could go into effect beginning with the first triennial edition of the building code adopted after January 1, 2031. Therefore, and the point that I'm making is that the bill works hand-in-hand with AB 130, which we passed last year and included a six-year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of new state building standards. Plug-in PV systems are attracting interest as a new low-cost pathway for households and businesses. This class of technologies allows electric customers to access affordable clean energy and help take control of their energy costs by deploying small-scale solar to offset their electrical use without major electrical modifications to the property. These systems can be bought today at your local Lowe's or Home Depot and used to lower your energy costs. And the cheaper systems, by the way, can be bought for as cheap as about $500. dollars. However, California lacks standardized requirements for how these systems should integrate within a building's wiring, raising both safety and consistency concerns. AB 2612 aims to close that gap by directing state agencies to establish clear, uniform electrical circuit standards for plug-in solar. In developing these standards, the Commission and HCD must consult with stakeholders and encourage public participation in the standard development process. In closing, by establishing uniform rules for plug-and-play solar, AB 2612 facilitates safer adoption of emerging distributed generation technologies, reducing barriers for households and businesses interested in deploying solar. With me today to speak in support of AB 2612 is Freddie Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We also have with us today Pete Jackson, the lead regulatory engineer for UL Solutions, who can provide technical background on Underwriter Laboratories' UL 3700 standard and speak to any safety concerns with plug-in PV systems. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We support AB 2612 which would allow households and property owners to bring down their electricity costs by reducing barriers to accessing plug photovoltaic systems in the multifamily homes This bill will increase access to affordable clean energy while not overwhelming a building electrical systems For these reasons, we support AB 2612, introduced by the Assemblymember. Thank you. Did you have anything? Yeah, I do. Oh, with the Chair's permission, please. Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Pete Jackson, and I am a chief or a lead regulatory engineer for UL Solutions. I'm also the former chief electrical inspector for the city of Bakersfield, California, and a former member of code-making panels 4, 8, and the correlating committee for the National Electrical Code, responsible for writing the requirements in the NEC for these types of systems. In the capacity of my chief electrical inspector for the city of Bakersfield, I have the responsibility for the inspection and approval of more than 70,000 rooftop PV systems. And for over 100 years in this country, safety for people has been facilitated through what we call the tripod of safety. And that's, first of all, products designed, manufactured to consensus-based U.S. product safety standards. Two, installation of those products in accordance with consensus-based installation codes, such as the National Electrical Code or the California Electrical Code here in California. And finally, inspection and approval of the above of the product and the installation of the product by the local jurisdiction. UL Solutions is a leading global safety science company founded in 1894 as underwriters labs. Through testing, inspection, and certification, we verify the products comply with the applicable U.S. product safety standard. In 2025, Utah legislature passed HB 340 to allow the use of plug-in photovoltaic systems, PIPV, without an interconnection agreement with utility. Under the language of the legislation, this exemption applied to PIPV systems that, quote, meet the standards of the most recent version of the National Electrical Code and are certified by underwriters laboratories. When the law was enacted, there was no U.S. product safety standard available to which a certifier like UL could do the testing and certification. So in 2025, UL Solutions produced a white paper, Interactions with Plug-in PV Protection of Existing Power Systems, to identify any safety concerns. And we developed a technical standard, a consensus-based U.S. product safety standard, UL 3700, to address the unique candidates. The 24-page white paper can be downloaded at ul.com forward slash PIPV. We did, in accordance with the NEC requirements, the CEC requirements, and those hazards that are addressed through those installation codes, we identified three basic hazards that need to be considered for plug-in PIPV systems. First of all, and I'll be brief, I won't get too much in the weeds, but introducing a second source of supply to an existing branch circuit in your home can provide overload or overcurrent to that circuit. It's only designed to have one power source, the utility, that circuit breaker in your panel board. When you plug in another power source to that same circuit, you can potentially bypass that overcurrent protection and oversupply the conductors, resulting in overheating. ground fault compatibility, the bidirectional current flow, current going both ways for receptacles where ground fault protection is required, which would be all outdoor receptacles, can damage or defeat that protection. And finally, touch safety. All systems are what we call utility interactive meaning when they lose power they stop producing However that lack of production or that shutoff takes 20 or 30 seconds So if you unplug a plug solar system those prongs, those blades that stick out of that male plug will still be energized at 120 volts or 240 volts, depending on the system, for 20 or 30 seconds before they automatically cease output and shut down. So all of those hazards can be mitigated, they can be eliminated, and that's why we produced the standard UL 3700. UL Solutions is neutral on the legislation. However, any legislation, any language that allows installation should be based on compliance with UL 3700 and the existing code requirements. All right. Is there anyone here in support of the bill? Good morning. Sylvia Solis-Shaw here on behalf of Advanced Energy United in support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to the bill? Not seeing anyone. We'll bring it back to the committee. Mr. Tangipa. I know I'm asking quite a few questions today, but so just for clarity on my part, is this an expansion of what can be used as different types of solar added to the building code? Is it because this is a different version than just rooftop solar? It's plug-in solar, right? That's the difference. Right. I will, after I answer, if my witnesses have anything they want to add, please do. But we're talking about small portable solar panels, typically under two kilowatts. So these are not panels that can power an entire home. This is not rooftop solar. This is small portable units that you might see plugged in or mounted on a fence or on a balcony, as noted in the committee analysis. And the really incredible part about that is the potential for cost savings doesn't just inure to the benefit of the property owner. Even renters who want to lower their energy costs could have the same benefit. But to both witnesses' points, making sure that we have standards to ensure consistency and safety, that's really why this bill is needed. And so is it to have that type of solar, is it the formation of a different style plug in what you were talking about that you have to have in that apartment complex for that? Is that – can I ask that? I defer to my technical witness on that one. That is one way to mitigate those hazards, what we call proprietary attachment receptacle, yes, or some type of adapter so that you cannot contact energized blades when you plug in or unplug a system. And the main reason why I ask that question is, again, then back to the Apartment Association, because we know a lot of the rules, regulations, you know, when you carry a mandatory, like you have to put rooftop solar, you have to do all of this. We know how much that increases the cost when it just comes even to the development of the building. the apartment association sees this as, but it wouldn't be on the apartment association to provide that to you. You're providing the plugin, right? Is that what we're looking at doing? It's providing the plugin. So people individual renters could then go and procure their own version of solar on the small scale and plug into the apartment. Is that what it is? That would be fair. Yes. Okay. So that's okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Seeing any other questions or comments, you may close. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your work on this and for working with our committee and we will take the roll call vote. Oh, no, we need a mission. You need a motion. You need a mission and motion. Moved by Ms. Colosa. Not your name. I was thinking what you... Motion moved. Seconded by... Mr. Lee, all right, take a vote, please. Motion to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Kabila Farias, aye. Calosa? Aye. Calosa, aye. Garcia? Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Kirk Silva? Kirk Silva, aye. Ta? Tanqipa? Aye. Tanqipa, aye. Weeks? Wilson? Great. Thank you all very much. For sure. All right. We will now go to committee members' bills, starting with the member who was here at the very beginning, Ms. Coloza. Kick us off. All right. Good afternoon, members and chair. Thanks for the opportunity to present AB 2050 today. I would like to thank the committee consultants for their hard work on this bill and accept the amendments extending the time between when a board can call for reserves, special assessment from three years to nine years. AB 2050 is a measured and thoughtful proposal aimed at promoting fairness and transparency for California residents living in common interest developments, also known as HOAs. Today, more than 13 million Californians live in 55,000 common interest developments. Condominiums continue to be an affordable option for first-time homebuyers, including in my own district in Los Angeles. While we focus on a considerable amount of time in the legislature on new housing, and rightfully so, we also cannot forget about our existing housing stock and how it's also aging. More than 50% of our condo associations in California are 20 years or older. In my district alone, 70% of associations are more than 20 years old, and 73% are condominiums, meaning many communities are managing aging buildings that require significant long-term maintenance. Deferred maintenance can also create serious safety risks. Recent building failures across the country highlight the dangers of inadequate reserve funding and the importance of responsible long-term planning. Also, many lenders are now refusing to write mortgages for condos if the association has underfunded reserves. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance, require an association to have a minimum of 10% in reserves and will increase that level to 15% starting in 2027. Current law requires associations to conduct reserve studies every three years to assess the cost of maintenance repair and replacement of the major components like roofs elevators balconies and other structural elements However there is no requirement to fund the reserves which means that many associations are not prepared to address these issues when they do happen. The absence of a required formula to fund reserves penalizes homeowners because the only remaining option to address these maintenance issues is a special assessment, which is neither fair nor compassionate to folks living there. AB 2050 provides associations with a formula to achieve a sustainable level of funding and reserves, and it also provides a ramp up of six years for them to get there. Predictability and transparency are essential for a well-functioning marketplace by setting clear standards, and this bill reduces disputes and improves compliance. With me today to testify, Stacey Donnelly, Chair of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee and an expert in the field, and also Louis Brown for the Community Associations Institute. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Stacey Donnelly, and I professionally am a CFO of Condominium Financial Management in Walnut Creek. Thank you chair and members of the committee for allowing me to speak. We are sponsors of AB 2050. Thank you Assemblymember Colosa for authoring this bill. I know that she already stated, but I want to reiterate that reserve studies while currently required in California Civil Code every three years, along with an annual update, there is no requirement to fund the reserves. And that is the missing piece that we are looking to get added with AB 2050. Adequate funding helps protect affordability and spreads the cost equitably, which avoids disruptive and costly special assessments. And I can tell you in my professional field, we provide financial management services to common interest developments to about 155 client associations. and the special assessments that we have seen in the last five years, and specifically even 2025, has been astronomical compared to my 30-plus years in this industry. Ms. Closa already addressed the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac challenges. When associations don't comply with those requirements, then homeowners cannot obtain financing. Another hurdle is the insurance market. You know, the insurance is a crisis in California all on its own. But insurance companies are looking at deferred maintenance and inadequate funding as risk for associations, and it is impacting premiums. AB 2050 provides solutions here with the ramp up that has already been described, which allows associations to catch up that need the ability to catch up. We need a solution for the sustainability of this housing model. So on behalf of our members and the millions of Californians that live in community associations, including myself, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2050. Mr. Chairman, Louie Brown here today to address any questions or issues that might be before the committee. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Anyone else here in support of the bill? Seeing anyone, are there any opposition witnesses? Anyone here in opposition or something in between? Nope Bring it back to the committee We have a motion from Ms Wilson and Vice Chair in second Vice Chair Patterson Great Thank you You know, my favorite topic, you know. Where's your button? So, you know, I am concerned about not so much the fine HOAs in my district or the one that I live in. But I am worried about abusive practices of this, just as I would be local governments using very similar studies to build their fee structure on new development. But the reason why I'm going to support this today is because consistent with my legislation that kind of does things to bring HOA transparency closer to what local governments have to do, this also brings HOAs closer to what local governments have to do to increase fees. And I do believe, unfortunately, some there will be bad actors out there. But just like with local governments, you know, that's something that, you know, we have to sort of we have to plan for what's best rather than, you know, the outliers who might be abusive. So so I'll support this today. And maybe that surprises you. But, you know, just kidding, Mr. Brown. But I do love HOAs. I think they're a beautiful thing. I'm just happy to bring them closer to local government kind of regulations and stuff like that. Thank you for your concern and just for the work that you've done on HOAs. I would love to work with you if you have any other thoughts for how we can do any preventative work in this bill to address any potential abuse. But, you know, I appreciate your support today. Thank you. All right. Let me close. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Chair. All right. We have a motion and a second. We'll take a vote. Motion to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and Judiciary. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Abilofarias? Aye. Abilofarias, aye. Colosa? Aye. He was distracting me. Garcia. Calra. Calra, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Cork Silva. Cork Silva, aye. Ta. Kankipa. Aye. Kankipa, aye. Wix. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Thank you. All right. 9-0. We'll keep it open. and Mr. Lee, agenda item number 17, AB 2601. To our absent members, we're on our last two bills here. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. First, I'd like to accept the amendments noted on page 7 of the committee analysis, removing the exemption for Department of Real Estate public reports. I would like to thank the committee staff for their excellent work on this bill on working with my office. As such, I think the analysis summed up this bill really well. I'll quote from page six. Taken together, this bill does not expand the underlying eligibility or increased density for SB 9 or SB 684-1123 projects, but instead focuses on improving how these projects move through the approval process and how resulting units may be structured and conveyed By allowing concurrent processes while maintaining key subdivision law checkpoints this bill seeks to reduce delays associated with sequential approvals while preserving local oversight of final map recordation and compliance with applicable standards. We in this committee and in the legislature have passed a lot of bills that shorten timelines, exempt housing projects from different kinds of review, and require ministerial approval, and I've supported most of those efforts. This bill seeks to complement those efforts, but without adding shot clocks or sidestepping review processes. Along concurrent review of parcel map splits and these housing projects can create efficiency in the development of new housing units. That efficiency can make project financing more certain and project delivery faster. Also, the benefit of providing more homes for people to live, which we all know is why we all spend so much time working on these issues. With me today in support is Stephanie Yee. Hi, dear chair and members. My name is Stephanie Yee. I'm here speaking on behalf of Small Builders Association, made up of more than 600 homeowners, architects, civil engineers, and contractors in Bay Area. I'm in strong support of AB2601 from the perspective of field experience. First, thank you for opening up more opportunities for small infill development. I think the process is still not realistic enough for many small projects to survive. Land cost actually went year over year because of the scarcity of the land in California. I think the financing cost is going to add up year over year because of a delay. In reality, a lot of small development didn't really pay for all. I think applications take two to three years to reach a final building permit, even for like five to ten units, which cause like two to three years, which is really, really painful. I think the jurisdiction have their own procedures. Each jurisdiction is really, really different. Some cities require first planning and the T-map and then parcel map. Some cities even require address being assigned and APN be assigned. And APN counties only really take APN once a year. So that's going to wait for two to three years. I think for AB 2601, address the problem by allowing certain small housing development and building permit applications to be processed concurrently with the MAP application instead of forcing every step waiting for the one before another. I think AB 2601 also helps create a clear path for small homes to be counter-living and sold individually. I think there are proofs in the city of San Jose, city of Sunnyvale, and city of Mendel Park. Instead of building one home, actually you can build like two homes and be condolized. I think if California truly wants more starter homes, the smaller part you need to pass away not only to be built, but also to be sold in a home ownership structure. I also recognize the comment, like concerns about the public report. I would like to share a real case. I think right now like DRE requires like pink, yellow, and white, which it takes like six to nine months. For smaller projects like five units under, don't really need any DRE approval. If you build a public street, you don't need DRE approval. But if you build a six, you are going to require DRE approval. I strongly recommend it to consider trying to move up a little bit. Since we're opening up like a six to nine units, that's a gap. So the developer is going to consider, okay, the 6 to 9, 10 units, what do we should do with it? I think, as everyone knows, AG laws have been really successful for 25-housand production in California. I think it's going to reduce the regulatory overspend. Our project and bringing more people into the housing production are really important. I think if we can lift all these regulations and trying to be more flexible, can you help? We're really trying to produce more housing affordable by design. I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. And we're here in support of the bill. Mr. Chair, members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of SPUR. Abundant Housing LA, as well as Circulate Planning and Policy San Diego, all in support. Thank you. Great. Anyone here in opposition to the bill? Seeing anyone? All right. Bring it back to the committee. Vice Chair Patterson. You guys probably enjoyed when I was out of the room. So you didn't have to nod, man. So, well, you know, on this particular piece of legislation, I had an opportunity to meet with you, I think, on a different piece of legislation a week ago or two. And, you know, my question during that meeting was, does this, did that piece of legislation at all potentially increase the number of units when this is occurring? And that piece of legislation was basically no, it allowed owner-occupied units. And so this piece of legislation, first of all, the first component of the bill, which is allow the processing and the housing plans at the same time, I mean, that's totally 100% supportable. Um, the second component, uh, I do have some concerns about, you know, SB nine in this, uh, pre that was pre Joe Patterson, but it was obviously a, a very, uh, controversial issue. And once it reached the city councils and I happened to sit on one at that particular time, and, you know, there were a lot of questions around it. I think cities know how to work on those now, but I'm going to lay off today because I want to see, you know, really get a better understanding of what, and feel free to respond to this, you know, about how many units we're looking at on a lot, you know, and things like that. This one particular area in my community that I'm talking about is kind of like a, it's like the last remaining like kind of farmland, you know, in the middle of this urbanized area. And an individual wanted to subdivide this farmland, which, you know, I don't know, I didn't have such a big issue with that. But, you know, to go from like 20 acres to now, you know, maybe like nine units or something like that by right would seem like a lot, but maybe that's a unique circumstance. So feel free to respond to that. Yeah, just to touch upon this point, you know, this bill is about delivering units faster by doing concurrent review, you don't have to go one step, two step, three step, four step. And I'm good with that one. Yeah, everything which is legal, right? But this bill doesn't mandate a local government has to do a lot of splitting. So it's just saying while you're reviewing everything simultaneously, you can do that too. I don't know, Stephanie, if you want to comment. But there was a second component of this bill, right, that allows more units than SB9. Is that correct? No, I don't think this bill, I think this bill doesn't really add more units or density. This bill focuses on two things. Process. Yeah, the process is number one. The second is it's kind of already built the house, right? So let's say we build like two units. It's been already two units. Some of our last split, some are going to build two units sitting there, right? And it's two homes. It's not homeownership, cannot go for sale. When you sell it, the total cost is going to go up. Then you counter it you might go down right You drop I would like to share a case So with evidence and we saw it like in the middle middle park which is very very expensive And all the neighborhood, like kind of a build like a $6 million homes, right? There are next generation trying to stay in that neighborhood, which cannot be. And there are 10,000 square feet lot. The only thing they can do is just build a house and ADU, right? With SB9 coming, they build like SB9 with the lot split and the mom leaving the house. And then another kind of small houses, you know, like another house can be sold to another person, which dropped the price dramatically to $3 million. I mean, $3 million is very expensive, but compared to Menlo Park, it still dropped half. That's what it would mean, yeah. Yeah. Well, I hope when I grow up I can afford a $3 million house. But so your intention on this bill is not to increase the number of units that were allowed under SB 9. That's okay. Yeah. Okay. Maybe that needs to be tightened up a little bit. Maybe not. I don't, you know, I'm not an expert in that, but if that's your intent, I'd be comfortable supporting the bill today. Thank you. Mr. Tangipa. Thank you. But I think the second portion, what some of them in Patterson was trying to talk about is touching on that this would allow for condominium. That's the alternative second portion of the building, right? is that, as it states right here, it says this bill would allow the primary dwellings in the urban lot split under these provisions to be developed or converted to condominiums upon request of the applicant. So the first portion of the bill streamlining the process. Second portion of the bill is the conversion and the request for a condominium, correct? Yes. Which is different than the current SB9. Current SB9 only allows you to build it, but not open for you to sell it. So it's kind of a sale as a whole parcel with two units or with ADU, four units on it. Then this way allows you to condolize both units. It's not ADU. It's not related to ADU. It's just like two units being built, being condolized, sale separately. Sale as a condo. And that's the second portion of the bill is the part that changes some of the definition, that it allows the sale of the condominium without the general requirements when it comes to, I mean, again, right now, you're not allowed to sell it, because we've talked about the stipulations on what's all happening under AB9 that I think has cleaned up quite a bit in a different bill, but that is just for clarity portion. That's the second half of the bill, is the sale of the condominium split side. Yeah, it's kind of for sale that condominium is, you're correct. Yeah, and that's why I just wanted to make sure it was touching on. You mind if I sort of ask? Just to clarify for somebody talking about, you know, again, this is allowing them to request the local government. It's not saying the local government has to accept it or have to do these things, just to clarify. No, I understand that's the first part. None of us are against the first part, but there is a second part to the bill. And in the second part to the bill, as I read, it changes the current structure of SB 9 to allow the sale and development of condominiums. That's what I just read. I don't think it's a build new. It's not really changing. It's not changing SB 9. It's just to add another for sale provision. Yeah. Which is a change. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah, it's a new view, yeah. So I was just asking primarily for clarity on that part. Because, again, that's where I see where Joe's talking, Assemblyman Patterson you know when there are layers to the bill I think a lot of us are fine with streamlining and concurrence when it comes to the permitting application and all of that And you and I have talked about that. I understand it from the real estate developing side. I just wanted to make sure what was accurate was out there. Yeah, I think what the witness is saying, and maybe right now if a person was to divide their property by SB 9, they could do condos, but it would be for rent only. Is that what I am? So there is a definition of duplex. In SB 9, they said a duplex, right? Duplex in some cities, they said, okay, duplex means you can be separated already, even without SB 9. before. A lot of jurisdictions already allow that. When SB9 come in to the duplex, some cities define as a dual home. Some cities say dual. So it's kind of a different definition. And then which is a lot for sale is not clear. Some cities like SB9 said, just a volunteer to adopt, like you know you can be counted for sale. It's the same density just for sale. It's the same amount. Yeah. I mean, what you're saying, I support. I mean, I think it's ridiculous that we wouldn't allow for sales under, you know, units for SB9. I mean, we need rental properties. But if, you know, who am I to say whether somebody's going to rent it or own it, you know? But, yeah, the condo language in here is on me, I guess. but it does seem like it could increase the density. But you are saying that's not your intention, and you don't believe it does. And that's where, further clear on that part, the condo, it's actually already approved. The change is only the same. So that's where the density would actually stay the same. It's just changing what you can do with that density. Yeah, I don't mind that. Yeah, which is exactly where I was trying to get out to when I was thinking about it. Okay, all right, okay. I trust you, Mr. Lee. Well, whose mailer would it be, though? And I just want to say thank you for that, because when it comes to this, it's that clarity that actually helps me potentially change my mind. So thank you. Thank you. I was just going to move the bell. Thank you for the conversation. Again, this is really about trying to make all of our fast-tracking bills work seamlessly together at the same time. Respectfully ask your aye vote. All right. Roll call, please. Motion is to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Abilafarias? Aye. Abilafarias, aye. Colosa? Colosa, aye. Garcia? Colra? Aye. Colra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Tab? Thank you, Pat. Not boring. Wix? Aye. Wix, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. 9 to 0. 9 to 0 was one member. That was 9 to 0. All right. There you go. Okay we have a motion an early birthday present for you Thank you I appreciate it All right This is AB 1556 Drug Recovery Housing This is my fourth year Hey good to see you My fourth year working on this particular issue, and we're hoping this is the year that we get it done. I am proud to present AB 1556, which will strengthen and clarify California's approach to drug-free recovery housing. Recovery housing is an evidence-based model that provides stable, supportive environments for individuals working to maintain sobriety and rebuild their lives. But under current law, recovery housing providers are navigating conflicting guidance between California's Housing First policy and administrative rules on maintaining drug-free environments. This lack of clarity makes it difficult for providers to protect the safety and stability of the residents by remaining compliant with state requirements. And for residents, the gap has real consequences. Not every person's recovery journey looks the same, and for many, a drug-free living environment is essential to maintaining stability. Yet today, individuals seeking sober living environments often face limited options and may instead end up in housing that does not support their recovery needs. AB 1556 provides a balanced, common-sense solution. It creates a clear statutory framework that allows recovery housing providers to maintain drug-free environments while ensuring that individuals who return to use are not pushed back into homelessness. The bill will require recovery residencies to adopt a return-to-use policy, ensuring transparency, consistency, and support for residents. These policies must include access to treatment providers, recovery support, and a non-punitive approach that prioritizes connection to services. Importantly, AB 1556 will ensure that individuals are offered a warm handoff to alternative housing or services before any discharge related to substance abuse. This bill is about meeting people where they are. AB 1556 will protect recovery environments, expand housing options, and help prevent relapse, overdose, and return to homelessness. here with me to testify today are Adrienne Covert, Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council, and Amber Richman, a San Francisco resident and an individual with lived experience battling homelessness and addiction. Okay. Oh, sorry. Good morning, Chair members of the committee.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, and thank you, Amber, for sharing your story.

Great. Thank you. Are there others in support? Name and affiliation, please.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Steven Sanzler with Brownstein. I've been asked to give a Me Too on behalf of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan in support of

All right name and affiliation please Yeah Port Vervata Chargy with Housing California also representing the National Alliance to End Homelessness We have concerns regarding this bill. We believe that according to the bill's current language, it will end up resulting in more evictions for folks with substance use disorders. We greatly appreciated the author's office collaboration with us last year on AB 255, and we believe this can be remedied with using that language for the return to eviction language from that bill last year.

Louis Brown, Jr., on behalf of the Corporation for Supportive Housing. We'd like to align ourselves with the comments of Housing California and the National Alliance to End Homelessness. We're also concerned that the bill that's drafted would undermine our Housing First law. There are specific provisions of the bill that we feel are inconsistent with that law. And I think, as we all know, Housing First is the only evidence-based model for solving homelessness. We have had very productive conversations with the chair's office, and we really thank your office, chair, for being open to having a dialogue with us. And we hope to continue that dialogue.

Mr. Haney, Mr. Chair, please close. Well, I first just really want to thank Amber for being here and for sharing her experience and her journey and speaking to the need of having these type of environments be available for people who want them and need them and know that it will help them reach stability and health and being a part of a community of recovery is so important for many people. And right now we're not providing those options. We haven't provided the funding. We haven't provided the clarity to folks who want to build out those options. and that's what this is about. It's about an important set of choices that we want to have be available and also the clarity that's needed for what happens if there is return to use to protect people and make sure we don't exit them to the homelessness but to other housing opportunities. So I hope that we get this done this year. The last version of the bill was vetoed last year so we hope we have it right this time. So I appreciate everyone's support and respectfully ask for your aye vote.