Senate Housing Committee

So we'll go now to file in five, AB 2002 by Assemblymember Solace.

And whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, you may present on your bill. Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for the opportunity to present AB 2002. I'm grateful for the committee and staff for working with us. We gladly accept committee amendments. AB 2002 seeks to clarify the Regional Early Action Planning Grant Program, known as REAP 1.0. This program ensures regional government cities and counties have the technical assistance needed to get their housing elements done right and on time. We are facing a severe housing crisis and the demands on our regions have grown greater and greater. Without support, local governments, especially small and under-resourced communities like those in my district, will struggle to meet states' expectations. Luckily, we know what works. The 2019 REAP 1.0 program demonstrated one of the highest return on investment housing programs the state has ever funded. California's housing vision only works if every region has the tools to carry out the state's mandates. AB 2002 restrictions the state's housing commitment and ensures that no community gets left behind because they are under-resourced. I am joined today by Comey Agisay, Executive Director of the Southern California Council of Governments, SCAG, and Vinencio Coprali, Government Affairs with the California Association of Councils of Governments.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Aragon and Vice Chair Ciarto. Thank you for having us today. My name is Kome Adjise. I'm the Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments and a very proud co-sponsor of AB 2002 by Assemblymember Salachi. REAP1, which was established in 2019, transformed how the state and regions support local jurisdictions in the meeting of their RHNA obligations. More importantly, it allowed us to implement policies and processes that will accelerate housing production in our region and across the state. REAP 1 funding gave SCAG and MPOs the capacity to support housing planning beyond simply administering RENA and including taking the necessary steps for jurisdictions to actually build their housing. In the SCAG region, we used our REAP dollars to provide technical assistance and resources to help our local jurisdictions to update their housing elements and build their capacity for housing production. As a result today 186 out of the 197 jurisdictions in the Skag region that 94 have compliant housing elements A prime example is a successful REAP project that includes the city of Los Angeles being able to map and analyze the RENA capacity that they have in their region and create a zoning program as a result. As a result of the REAP1 program as well, Orange County partnered with Ventura and Gateway Cities Cogs to develop an ADEU suite of programs for model ordinances, websites, and how-to guides. And these three subregions include 71 cities, where we were able to provide some capacity for them. These are just some examples of projects and local planning efforts that we're able to build from scratch as a result of RIP 1 program. With AB 2002, NPOs and local jurisdictions will continue to have access to programs and resources that will enable critical planning work to meet the RENA obligations that is coming upon us in the seventh cycle. So I ask your support in maintaining this critical investment and sustaining the progress that's already been made as a result of RIP 1.0. So thank you for your time, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Vincenzo Caparelli, and I'm here on behalf of the California Association of Council of Governments, or CALCOG, also a proud sponsor of the bill. So I think at this point it goes without saying we're facing an unprecedented housing crisis born out of inadequate supply of housing, and resolving it will require everyone to do their part. Still, ensuring adequate supply of housing across the state starts with good planning, which is why the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or ARENA, is the foundation of everything the state does on housing. Recognizing this fact, the legislature has invested significant effort into refining and improving it over the last four or five legislative sessions. This included tightening up housing element process, building in more time for colleagues to work with HCD on determination, providing more oversight by HCD on our methodology approvals, and expanding income categories. However, effective planning requires funding, staffing, and technical capacity. And acknowledging this, in 2019, the legislature chose to provide funding for COGS, cities, and counties through the REAP1 program. This was an incredibly successful program which not only gave COGS adequate funding to fulfill their REIN obligations, but also funding to help cities with housing element compliance and to help them comply with other state laws like AFFH, ADUs, infrastructure assessments, and other policy toolkits. Unfortunately, the funding was one time and specifically for the sixth cycle. So RENA has, once again, become an unfunded mandate that COGS are expected to absorb the growing cost of. Although the funding expired, the need hasn't. Given the aforementioned policy changes by the legislature and the much larger RH&Ds that we are facing, we fully expect the 7th RENA cycle to be one of the most complex and expensive in state history. To understand the cost increases, we surveyed our members, and by way of example, during the 6th cycle, one of our mid-sized members spent roughly $350,000, or 15% of its annual budget, on that cycle, on complying with RENA. In the seventh cycle, they expect that to balloon up to nearly a quarter of their annual budget. And this type of increase was consistent across our membership. While REBOM was critical for our members to keep up with the growing cost arena, it was never codified as a standalone and ongoing program. If you could please wrap up your comments we appreciate it Of course I just end with I respectfully ask for your aye vote We looking to codify this as a standalone and ongoing program Thank you

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of San Mateo City County Association of Governments in support.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2002? If not, we'll now invite up to two principal opposition witnesses, if there are any.

Okay, there we go.

Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? Okay. Thank you. We appreciate the work with our committee staff on this bill. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2002? Okay, seeing no one come forward, I just want to summarize the committee amendments the author had accepted, which are referenced in the committee analysis under comments four and five. One of the amendments would require ACD to first adopt emergency regulations consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act, followed by the adoption of permanent regulations. The second would authorize councils of government to be able to sub-allocate funds to sub-regions to implement RENA and their housing element work. And then the third, require fund recipients to expend their funds within three years from the date of awards and allow HCD time to provide additional time for recipients as necessary. So those are the amendments the author has accepted. I will now turn to my fellow committee members to ask if there are any questions or comments on the bill. Okay, Vice Chair Ciarta.

us a little more assurance that it won't turn into something it's not supposed to and that the funding won't be used for something it's not supposed to be or shouldn't have been. At least the intent wasn't there for it to be used like that. So thank you. Thank you. Senator Cabaldon? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm carrying similarly purpose legislation that's currently pending in the Assembly, SB 1087, which seeks to modernize the SB 375 process, which is at the core of much of the work and also of REAP 1 and 2. And so I very much appreciate the author's willingness to wade into the alligator pit on this as well. It's really critical. We've said to regions and local governments, solve the housing crisis and climate change. don't let me wait in traffic anymore and build an effective transit and walking and biking system and do all of that and still get reelected as mayor or city council member it's a major task that we've put before California's regions and that's the only place where that can be accomplished really no matter how great our state agencies are and no matter how great our individual cities might be we cannot accomplish those objectives without effective regional action, and that regional action does need the structure of a funding source that can be deployed in order to do it. It does not pay for all of RENA. It doesn't pay for all the projects and all of that. And the chair knows this quite well, having been a former COG chair as well as I was, that these kinds of dollars are most important as grease in the system that allows for great things to happen by everybody else, you know, to build trust, to build some things that others can build on, and to help the final, the final 1% of a deal come together between different stakeholders and different developers and city governments at the local level. So the money is very important for the purposes that are laid out on the bill, but it's also fundamental to being Just being able to make regions effective and build the capacity to deliver on our bigger goals on housing, climate, air quality, congestion, and everything else. And so it's a modest but necessary improvement to the law to make sure we have a structure that hopefully this year, but even if not into the future, that we have a structure into which money can flow and help to achieve its purposes. So at the appropriate time, we're going to have a core message. I'd love to move the bill. Okay. Any other questions or comments? I'll just add before I go to you to close, I strongly support this bill. I would love to be added as a co-sponsor if this bill moves forward today. And as a former president of the Association of Bay Area Governments during the regional housing needs allocation process, When the first REAP program was started, this money was absolutely critical to allow for cities and counties to be able to do the work of identifying sites as well as preparing housing elements. Also, the technical assistance that our COG provided local governments, including those jurisdictions that had little or no staff, was absolutely essential. and this state legislature has put a lot of mandates on local governments to have to plan for and zone for more homes, rightfully so. But we need to give local governments the tools to be able to do that work, and that's what this program would do. So with that, I'll turn over you to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the three senators that spoke, thank you for your comments. Starting with our vice chair, I can't tell you how much I can acknowledge your comments. Not only was I a local council member and mayor myself, I sat on SCAC for about eight years and heard the 191 voices, cities represented in that space, the arena frustrations, all the things we already heard from your comments today, and I can't say we understand that. And to our chair and Mr. Cobaldon, I fully agree on your experiences coming from that local spaces and your leadership. For us, it just clarifies what the work that we already saw report no do for our communities as a planning agency that we are or that SCAG is I'm sorry I'm not part of SCAG anymore but I was part of SCAG and to our you know our friends that are opposed too we definitely are going to keep conversations going I think we need to be partners in this space and I think the more we could all work together to come up with the solutions that work for our communities but I definitely want to echo last thing the chair said is our cities want to feel supported and I think this is an opportunity to have them support while we figure out what what that next step is to our vice chair's comments earlier. So I remain committed, and I thank you for your words, and I look forward to asking for an ISA board today. Thank you. Once a COG member, always a COG member. That's right. Okay, we don't have a quorum, but we're entertaining Senator Cabaldon's motion when we establish a quorum. And thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you all. Okay, once again, going in file order, I see a summary reward here. We're going to go to file item 2, AB 1684. I was also on the chair reward. And then we'll go after that to file item 3, AB 1710, CUT-EO, and file order. Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, you may present your bill. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1684 and for the thoughtful engagement and work with the Chair and the staff here. AB 1684 prohibits a homeowner association from restricting a homeowner ability to install use or replace a home cooling system Today heat waves are some of the deadliest kinds of extreme weather in the United States with children seniors and people with respiratory illnesses being particularly vulnerable to heat illness and mortality Studies have shown that working home air conditioning is the number one protective factor against heat-related mortality. Approximately 65 percent of California homeowners belong to an HOA, many of which have governing documents that limit the kind of cooling system a homeowner may install if they can install one at all. This imposes a concerning barrier to adequate heat protection for the varied health and financial needs of California families. Now, the idea for this bill originated from a constituent who shared the following statement to read to you all today. A member of my household is particularly susceptible to heat, which makes reliable cooling a health and safety necessity. My HOA initially allowed only the use of a portable air conditioner in my home. However, the available portable units did not fit properly in my windows and were extremely energy inefficient. Ultimately, I was required to retain legal counsel to obtain permission to install a mini-split air conditioning system so that my household's cooling needs could safely be met. The mini-split system is substantially more energy efficient, requires no window modification, and effectively maintains safe indoor temperatures. No family should be denied access to the air conditioning systems that best meet their health, safety, and energy needs. I hope my experience demonstrates why AB 1684 is an important step toward preventing other families from enduring similar hardship. I appreciate some of the ongoing conversations with the opposition, and of course I will be accepting the committee's amendments today. With us we have a witness in support, and I would respectfully request your aye vote at the time. Thank you very much. Just to summarize the committee amendments, clarify the bill's provisions also to apply to successive owners of a separate interest, not just to current owners, but that nothing shall limit or restrict an HOA's ability to require a homeowner to engage a licensed electrical contractor. This does not apply for cooling systems that don't require a permit. Provided current owners shall disclose to prospective buyers the existence of the cooling system and related responsibilities. And to clarify, an HOA may prohibit or restrict the installation of a cooling system where a permit is required but is not granted. We do have a quorum, so before we go to Mr. Quintana, we'll establish a quorum. Senators Errigin. Here. Errigin here. Sayurto. Here. Sayurto here. Kabaljan. Here. Cobaltin here. Caballero. Cortese. Cortese here. Durazo. Yeah. Durazo here. Gonzalez. Grayson. Ochoa Bog. Yeah. Ochoa Bog here. Padilla. Thank you. We'll now go to you to present on the bell. Cool beans. Good afternoon, Chair and Senators. My name is Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association. We support this legislation because it preserves options for homeowners serving as landlords to purchase and install cooling systems in the properties they are renting. that denial and delays are restrictive, and the only recourse to a denial would be costly legal actions. For these reasons, we are asking for your vote, your aye vote on AB 1684. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other principal witnesses in support? None for Justin. Okay. We'll invite anyone who would like to express support for AB 1684 to please come forward, sit your name, organization, and position on the bill. Vince, we're at Majo with MCE in support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1684? Seeing no one else, we'd like to invite now two principal opposition witnesses to please come forward. They'd like to provide testimony. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. We have an opposed unless amended position I do want to express our sincere appreciation to the committee staff for working with us to address some of our issues and to the author staff I had a conversation with the author yesterday about his staff and how professional they have been in dealing with us with these issues. Please know that we're not trying to be cruel in saying that people shouldn't have air conditioning. What we're trying to do is protect these buildings that are owned by associations. And if we're talking about putting holes in walls or even replacing windows, there's potential damage that can be done to that, and we need to ensure the protection of that. We're also just looking for consistency in code as it relates to all of these types of issues that are now coming about. So the idea and the committee amendments that provide for and require a licensed contractor that provide for a permit go a long way to addressing our concerns. We also have just a concerned about older buildings in the state of California and whether or not they actually have the power to run air conditioners if everyone in the building wants to address those. We think that can be addressed by the author's amendment to require an electrical contractor to do an evaluation because we do not believe that an electrical contractor would move forward if, in fact, the addition of those units would cause harm to the overall power unit of the association. So we, again, appreciate our conversation. We're evaluating these amendments as we go forward. And thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1684? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Cabaldon and then Senator Chobo. Oh, although he just left. Mr. Brown, would you mind? So the letter we have on file from the Community Association Institute really just references the electrical issue. And we only have a summary, obviously, of the committee amendments. But if the HOA can require the engagement of a licensed electrical contractor to install the system, and the HOA has grounds to prohibit or restrict the installation of a cooling system because there was an electrical permit that was required but not granted, how would the HOA not have, like what's the path by which an unupgraded electrical issue would still be present for the HOA? If they can require the homeowner to have an electrician do the thing, and then the electrician says, hey, it needs to have this upgrade, and the co-owner doesn't do that upgrade, is that still not sufficient to mitigate the concerns of the associations? Through the chair. Mr. Cabaldon, yes, we actually think they might. The only issue is that our letter was due seven days before this hearing. We saw the amendments after that. So we're now evaluating those amendments. And if they do address the concerns that we've raised in our letter, then we will be reevaluating our position as it stands with that specific situation. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Senator Chobo. The question has to go with the responsibility. So when we're talking about this particular bill, it was interesting because the witness mentioned that it was a structure that's owned that wants to rent the unit and wants to put an AC unit in the unit Is that what you said I just want to make sure that I heard correctly Right So some of our members would own properties within the association yes Okay So individually owned properties within that So my question had to do with if there was an upgrade that needed to be done with the electrical system, who's responsible to upgrade that system, the electrical system within that unit? Would it be the HOA or would the homeowner? I'd have to look into that to be honest I don't have that answer immediately available. I would probably posit that it would be probably conditional whether or not it was something that was like affecting just that unit or a mix of the units it would be on a case-by-case basis and it would not be permitted if the capacity was not available to be able to provide sufficient and safe electricity to that unit. Because we're dealing with condos Right, exactly. We have something where there's a lot of shared facilities, shared walls, and that probably something would be conditional and then subject to negotiation, how much should that one unit pay because they're the one pushing it over the limit for the entire building versus an upgrade for the entire facility. And that's what I'm kind of wondering because then you're talking about a lot of funding. And per the bill, just make sure that I, you know, if we're barring the HOA from prohibiting or restricting the installation of a greater replacement, we have to also consider the cost to the association if they're responsible for upgrading the electrical system for the whole facility. Of course. And then I would say two things. One, the prohibition then would not apply where a permit was not issued and the evaluation, the electrical evaluation was done to say, hey, we're not able to basically accommodate something given sort of the upstream, the lack of upstream capacity. Nothing would still prohibit the unit owner and the HOA from, I think, further conversations about, well, what do we do about the capacity that we have in the building entirely and who's going to pay? But that, again, the bill wouldn't apply for the kind of direct allowance to be able to install your unit and to prohibit the HOA from declining you to install that unit. This wouldn't apply. It's a subsequent conversation that actually would apply today. Okay. And is that – I just want to confirm that that's how the HOAs would probably feel through the chair. An additional question to the witness in opposition. Yes. Yes, the amendments and subsequent language that we worked on with the author makes it clear that the owner is responsible for the installation, maintenance, repairs, restoration of those units that happen within the unit. And I do believe that if we went to the point where a number of members were asking for that started to reach the capacity of the electrical unit of the building, then those permits would be denied, and then that would create yet another conversation, right? Would that owner then need to downgrade, use something that causes less power? If the association got into some discussion about then the actual need to upgrade the entire electrical, then that would be a discussion of the board that wouldn't be borne by all members of the association if that activity took place. Okay. I just want to make sure that the HRA has recourse financially as far as, you know, if they're going to be responsible for it because I agree. I want to make sure that it's a balance. And it's always kind of a little tricky when you have an association, especially when we're talking about condos and the walls that are shared. the electrical system, the water systems, and who's in charge of what. And a lot of that is within the HOA rules. So that's what I wanted to mention. It wouldn't necessarily. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Certo. All right. Thank you. My concern on this is the same one I had with a previous bill on heat pumps. And it has to do with if you're putting an HVAC system in. You know, you've got your condenser that's outside. Does the association still have a say where that condenser would go or if it can go? Because if they don't, what happens is if I'm in unit A, I'm putting my condenser next door to unit C so that I don't have to listen to it. It's absolutely a fair scenario. Can the association have control of that, or do they get fined $2,000 for telling them no? Permitting I think would still be able to help to guide sort of the placement of physical infrastructure like that. I'll be happy to let my witnesses also elaborate. We saw this as to be a discretion of the property owner when it comes to the installation. So with the location, if we own the property, there are multiple units, we would work with that unit to try and make sure it has the best placement possible. However, that is a navigational point for how the HOA would react to something, be adjacent, and create a noise concern. Right, because they have an obligation to the other homeowners as well. Right. But if we're saying, in this case, because it's all about air conditioning inside this one unit, you guys don't get a say because otherwise it – then what happens? So it sounds to me like we need to clarify that a little bit. So the HOAs do have some say in the design and location of some of this equipment, because if you're going to put an air conditioner condenser outside, you know, for central air, that's a noisy piece of equipment. If I may, Mr. Chair, one of the issues that was raised that we had some improvement on in the assembly was the, I think, engagement with the HOA when it came to the common space. You're defining anything outside of that unit. It would be effectively common space for HOA kind of discussions. So there is more requirement for that unit owner to work with the HOA, whether it is a disruption of common space to be able to compensate for that or physical realignment. I think that there is a little bit of improvement there from some of the work that we did in the assembly. Happy to take a closer look at that with both. Yeah, I would like you to take a closer look at that, because right now all I see is it bars a homeowner association from prohibiting or restricting the installation. And if the installation cannot be done or the installation is being proposed one way and the HOA says you can't because you're actually getting it closer to somebody else's window than it is to yours, I don't know that I think that's the definition of a restriction, and that restriction may cause them, trigger them to be getting a fine. And so that needs to kind of be hashed out so that HOAs can't, just like cities, local control, you know, HOAs can't just be cut out of the decision-making process on these things, and that's why. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll turn it back over to Close. Thank you for the discussion here today. Obviously, continued conversation. Hopefully we make sure that we get our opposition removed and respectfully request your aye vote Is there a motion on the bill There a vote Moved by Senator Cabaldon Thank you If the committee system can please call the roll Motion is due. Passed as amended to Senate Judiciary. Senators Aragene? Aye. Aragene, aye. Cierto? Not broken. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Ochoa, Bogue? Aye. Ochoa, Bogue, aye. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. As Assembly of Carillos coming up, I'm going to entertain a motion on consent. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Moved by Senator Razo. If you can please call the roll on the consent calendar. Senators Erguin. Aye. Erguin, aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Padilla. We'll keep consent on call. And then there was a motion by Senator Cobaldon on AB 2002. So if we can call the roll on that motion. Do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Senators Erdogan? Aye. Erdogan, aye. Cerato? I'm sorry, what did we vote? AB 2002. Salache? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm laying off of that one else. Cobaldon? Aye. Cobaldon, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo? Aye. Tarrazo, aye. Gonzales. Grayson. Ochobo. Aye. Ochobo, aye. Padilla. We'll keep that bill on call. Welcome, Assemblymember Carillo, and I'll turn over you to present on AB 1710. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1710. I would like to thank the committee for their work on this measure, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments to make technical clarifying changes to the language of this bill. Thank you. The 1710 is a bipartisan effort to address California's unprecedented housing crisis, a crisis that has left too many people without a home, struggling to pay rent, and unable to achieve homeownership. This bill builds on the proven success of SB 330 in 2019 by ensuring that once a housing project begins the entitlement process, it is not subject to certain regulatory changes except for essential update related to health and safety concerns or to mitigate significant sequo environmental impacts, among others. As a former city planner, I've seen firsthand how bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistent regulations start projects for years, driving up costs and making building housing unattainable. A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive state to build multifamily housing, largely because of long approval timelines. Projects in California take over 22 months longer to finish than those in Texas, for example, which greatly increases costs. If we don't fix our permitting system, we will continue to lose housing investments to other states that offer a more predictable and efficient approval process. A strong, reliable housing supply is critical to keep workers in California supporting local businesses and fueling economic growth. Without enough housing, employers face hiring challenges and workers' commuters become longer and more costly. AB 17 addresses these challenges set on by increasing transparency, providing certainty, and ensuring fair and timely project approvals. With me to testify in support today is Audrey Ratajczek with Cruces Tragedies and Freddy Quintana with the California Department Association. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. Do you have two minutes to present the bill? Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Audrey Ratajczek here today on behalf of the California Building Industry Association to express our strong support for AB 1710. And with me is Nick Camerata our general counsel if there are technical questions AB 1710 builds on one of the most important housing reforms California has enacted in recent years which is SB 330 the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 SB 330 brought much-needed clarity to how housing projects are evaluated by local governments by establishing clear rules of the road. It gave developers predictability by locking in the local rules and standards that apply to a project at a time the preliminary application is submitted. And just as importantly, it clarified how those rules would be interpreted by applying a reasonable person standard to prevent arbitrary denials based on overly subjective consistency arguments. SB 330 has worked and delivered predictability, accountability, and results in moving forward much-needed housing in California. It also included strong common-sense safeguards, including exceptions for legitimate health and safety concerns and significant environmental impacts under CEQA. However, SB 330 only addressed local governments, and as the Select Committee on Permitting Reform emphasized in its 2025 final report, this leaves a massive gap. In California, housing projects often require approval from a dozen or more state and regional agencies, each with their own permitting authority rules and interpretations. The same problems SB 330 solved at the local level, unpredictability, shifting standards, and subjective interpretations are now manifesting at the state and regional level and are undermining the effectiveness of SB 330 itself. So that's where AB 1710 comes in. It applies the same pillars of SB 330 but to state and regional agencies. It's a practical, evidence-based extension of a policy we know works. So for those reasons, we urge your support today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Again, good afternoon, Chair and Senators. Freddy Contano with the California Apartment Association. I cannot overstate the importance of AB 1710. It will help lower housing costs, speed up construction, and expand affordable housing. In California, it can take up to eight years or longer from start to occupancy to complete a multifamily housing project. AB 1710 is incredibly important when it comes to expediting housing, and I ask for your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1710? You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Holly, for many days, the White House Public Affairs is here in support today on behalf of Abundant Housing, Los Angeles, Circulate Planning, Habitat for Mining, California, Spur, and California Gimby. Thank you. Bob Naylor, one client, Fieldstudent Company. That's Howard Amundsen, Jr., in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1710, but I'll take up to two principal opposition witnesses to the bill, if there are any. Yeah, if you'd like to. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. AB 1710 expands the list of the objectives, ordinances, policies, and standards that can be vested at the time of the application for the housing development. and specifically for things that special districts will be most involved in are post-entitlement permit standards. This will include certain materials requirements other rules regulations And our concerns are centered around the vesting portion or that it will put state and local agencies in conflict with any new rules or requirements from other local, regional, state, or federal entities. These are rules that could include efforts to improve or preserve public health, safety of the environment, say like water conservation or other resources. So we've offered some amendments to try to address that. While doing so, I should point out that in a prior iteration of the measure, some of these were narrowed by the author and the stakeholders, and that did carry over to this year. And I want to acknowledge that, and we found those to be positive amendments, but did not assuage our concerns entirely. So here I remain. And so I respectfully ask for your no vote unless the measure can be amended to address some of these concerns. I look forward to the continued dialogue. Appreciate you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1710? Good afternoon, Chair and members. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies. Respectfully opposed unless amended in alignment with CSDA. Thank you. Thank you. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments from committee members. Senator Chobo, and then Dorazo. I'm excited to see this bill. I'm excited to see this bill because one of the biggest concerns that I hear from both developers and anybody that's trying to start any project in any city is the fact that they're constantly coming back with more reviews and more requirements over and over and over again. And the delays, like as mentioned, eight years for some, you know, ten years, it's ridiculous. And the cost of materials and labor that happen due to those extensive delays, it's incredibly frustrating for anybody that works in this space. and especially in a state like California that continuously has legislation and requirements coming in from every single angle, you're in a no-win situation in California. And then we wonder why the cost of housing is so darn expensive. I want to be added as a co-author to this bill. I wish I had carried this bill. I am actually really excited because when you submit your plans to any city for approval, or the county per se, anywhere that you're submitting it, you should have a reasonable time to review by all the stakeholders and say this is what you're needed. Maybe have a revision of maybe one or two. But after that, you're done. You're committed and you've done your job in doing everything that you're required to do to come back over and over back again to require more. And I like the fact that it was mentioned by the witnesses that if there's a health or a safety concern, then it will be addressed within the language, within the amendments that have been accepted. So I think that covers the main concerns moving forward if it's a safety. And even with that, I am a little concerned about what would be considered safety, especially in California, that everything becomes so incredibly – I don't even know what the word is – Just what's up? Regulated. It's just so, I mean, we regulate everything. Technology is constantly, you know, advancing. And so when you talk about assessing and testing for different elements in our water, for instance, you know, they're continuously going to have so many things that we're going to be regulating because we're going to have better technology to assess everything that is in our waters, which is a good thing, a bad thing, but if we're requiring everybody to do higher standards, you know, a regulatory environment, we've got to give some leeway on there. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. It is much, much overdue in the state of California. If you don't mind, I would love to be a co-author in this bill, and I'm happy to move this bill when appropriate, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator Torazzo? Yes. I just want to say I'm going to be supporting the bill today to move it along. I look forward to talking to you in this next committee and my local gov committee to try to address what the water agencies are saying about the state and local, state and federal laws. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cobaldon. Yeah, thank you. The author and I have been going around and around and around on this, not this year, but last year on the same issue. And my heart is in the bill. I still continue to have concerns about how it will work operationally, particularly given the passage of a 130, ministry 131 last year. And the issue really is it is the extension of the definition of public agency, which is quite broad, and policies quite broadly. So, you know, under existing law, you know, essentially what's happening is that the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, and when it's considering a project in East L.A., they have to get their act together and say, this is the whole project and all of our policies and procedures and requirements. You're done, and you're really done now. I mean, that's what this law is supposed to say. It's exactly what Senator Chaupe-Bogue mentioned. You can't come back year after year. Oh, one more thing. We just came up with it or we just passed new ordinance or something. You can't do that. That process works because the L.A. County Board of Supervisors controls itself. And so it's able to account for everything that is in its general plan, it's in its specific plan, it's in its zoning ordinance and everything else. And so it can credibly say we are committing to this and the people who show up at the board meeting testify. They know it's at stake in all of that. But this bill is pretty radical in the sense that it says, no, no, all public agencies, including the state, all the state agencies, that now applies to two. The difference is they're not at the table. There's nobody from Cal EPA or the Regional Water Quality Board or the LA Air District or LAMTA sitting in the room when those commitments are being made. So essentially we're saying the local agency has not just the right but the ability to say that it is on behalf of all state agencies we're as of today cutting off any future changes. With the caveats about CEQA and about health and safety but the CEQA caveat is really a lot less important now that many projects are going to have various CEQA exemptions including the broad housing CEQA exemption that we passed last year. So even compared to the last year's version of the bill, the CEQA piece, it doesn't meet all the issues around water and air and everything else. I served on the Regional Water Quality Board for the Central Valley, and, you know, we're not independent operators. We regulate water quality in California other than by to a very significant extent by delegation from the federal government It a state it a state action by the regional water board fund to say waste discharge requirement for a housing project but Or for an MPDS permit for the sewer project for sewer Installation for a major project, but that is undertaken by the as a delegation from EPA So when EPA says hey, we are we have a new policy or we're we are sending out new guidance about the existing policy, you have to do it. No matter what the city of Rosemead said a year and a half ago in an investing map agreement, it doesn't matter. Rosemead cannot, you're legally mandated to do that thing. And so this bill would at least purport to say, no, you don't have to comply with the regional water board because it is a public agency under the definition of public agency. And it is, that standard is a rule, regulation, determination, or other requirement implemented by the regional water board as one example. But the same thing is true if we passed a law during that vesting period that said that, you know, all the projects will be, I'm not going to pick on skilled entrances. But, you know, if we passed a labor requirement, like laws that passed by this legislature would also be somehow suspended by a statute in that space. And that, to me, seems like that's a very large leap from vesting tentative subdivision maps to suddenly everything that this entire government of the state of California does being held in suspension. There's no notwithstanding clause. I don't know how this overcomes the Constitutional. So I'm still very, very concerned about how it operates. And it was last year, too. So no big surprise. The idea I'm supportive of, for sure. I think getting to a world that's closer to what Senator Ochoa-Boga has described is a very important objective to get to. To me, though, the language, the current language is so overbroad and too simple in some respects that it does bring in all the water districts and everything else, but it also includes every state policy and every state agency. And that's, for me, that's a road too far. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or comments? I'll turn it back over to Close. Thank you for your comments and your support. This is a bill designed to bring consistency and certainty to the housing approval process. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. And once again, you did accept the committee? I do accept committee amendments, yes. In your earlier comments. Okay. Is there a motion on the bill? That's right. Okay. We have a motion. If the committee system can please call the bill. Motion due passes amended to Senate Local Government. Senators Erdogan? Aye. Erdogan, aye. Ciarto? Aye. Thereto, aye. Cabaldon? Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Montreux-Bogue? Aye. Montreux-Bogue, aye. Padilla? We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Next in file order is file item 10, AB 2263 by Assemblyman Recallra. And I'm going to briefly pass the gavel over the vice chair. All right, so we're on AB 2263. Call around when you are ready. Go ahead and begin your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the committee for the work with us on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. AB 2263 will give the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority of the statutory authority to build affordable housing for their employees VTA is a transit agency that serves Santa Clara County It approximately 2 employees manage and operate the county bus and light rail services as well as paratransit, congestion management, and other services. While VTA workers may be making competitive middle-class wages, they are living in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. The high cost of housing has priced many of the VTA workers out of the area, leading them to live outside of the immediate work area or outside of the county and creating long commutes for them, which is ironic for folks working for a transit agency. AB 2263 will give VTA the authority to build affordable housing for its employees, ensure their workers can live closer to work, increase their commutes, reduce driver fatigue, and improve the overall safety for all drivers and pedestrians on the road. The bill has enjoyed bipartisan support and no opposition. With me to revise supporting testimony is Beverly Green, Chief Government Affairs Officer at VTA. And for technical questions, we also have Jesse O'Malley Solis, Director of Multimodal Planning and Real Estate. Thank you, Vice Chair Sayarto and members of the committee. Thank you, Assemblymember Calra for authoring AB 2263, and also to State Senator Cortese for your support of VTA and our employees. We'd also like to thank the committee and staff for amendments that have strengthened this bill. VTA has a very robust transit-oriented development program. This bill would enable VTA to designate a percentage of the housing units we provide with a preference for our employees. A majority of the housing units proposed under AB 2263 would be open to the general public and would serve a mix of households focused on low- and moderate-income residents consistent with VTA's Existent Transit-Oriented Development Communities Program. This legislation would help VTA to attract and retain a talented workforce by offering a transit commute alternative to people dedicating their careers to public service. In doing so, we will continue serving the broader community and complying with federal and state fair housing principles and encouraging transit use that mitigates congestion on our roads. With the median rent nearly double the national average, VTA employees often choose more affordable commuters rather that are farther from work. One in four VTA employees commute more than an hour each way, and 10% commute more than two hours each way. In a survey of our employees, 90% indicated an interest in an employee housing program. By offering opportunities for employees to live close to work, we hope to contribute to their quality of life and allow more opportunities to ride our public transit system. I want to thank Assemblymember Calra and State Senator Cortese and this committee for hearing AB 2263 and respectfully request your approval of this bill. Thank you. And just confirming you're here, did you want to make a presentation? I'm going to give a few brief comments. You're going to give a few brief comments. Okay, very good. You have two minutes. Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair Sayerto and members of the Housing Committee. My name is Jessie O'Malley-Solisse, and I'm VTA's Director of Multimodal Planning and Real Estate. And I want to share a few background stats about our workforce. 52% of our workforce households qualify for 80% of area median income and below affordable units. 90 of our workforce can qualify for 120 of area median income and below And these stats were before Santa Clara County area median income was just increased to per year The median home price in Santa Clara County is $1.5 million for a purchase. the average VTA household can afford a home at the $400,000 level, which provides a $1 million affordability gap for housing in our community. This effort has broad support from our employees and employee unions, and we're thankful to Assemblymember Calra for your authorship. And on behalf of VTA employees, we hope to have your support today, and I'm also here to help answer any technical questions. Okay, thank you very much. At this time we can take me tos in support of the bill. Anybody in support of the bill out there want to come up and state so? If not, we'll go to opposition witnesses. Anybody wants to speak as a primary witness in opposition? No? Does anybody want to come up to the microphone and say they oppose the bill? Oh, it looks like a popular bill. Okay, we're going to bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions, concerns? Thank you, Sheriff. Just appreciate the author taking the leadership role on this on behalf of our county. And if it wasn't emphasized, Valley Transportation Authority is actually a county-wide transit operator, or one of the few that you see in the Bay Area that isn't vulcanized all over the place. So they have a very cohesive strategy and a very strong management team and employees that carry out their mission. And I know that the author and I and most of our delegation is very confident about that. And I'm sure they will continue to succeed at these endeavors as well. So I'm happy to move the bill. Okay. Any other questions or comments from committee? Yes, Senator Troppo. Thank you. Not my area, but I will be supporting the bill because I think it's a good effort towards ensuring that families have housing. So thank you for moving that forward. I just had a question about being that you are public funded. How are you going to finance the purchase of the land and the construction for these families? How are you going to facilitate the financing part of it? Yeah. BTA has a very robust transit-oriented development program. We have over 140 developable acres in our ownership today. Transit-oriented development is a transit use because any development we do on our own property increases ridership. And so we own a tremendous amount of the assets and holdings that these properties and improvements will be built upon. Financing and funding of these efforts really happen on the private side. So we partner with developers to build out development on our land. There's funding that occurs at the state and local level for affordable housing units. As you know, affordable housing takes a whole financial village to bring together and move forward. So we will continue that model of working with our P3 partners and having them secure the funding necessary for the vertical build on our site. This bill provides for a preference of the units being built to go to VTA employees. Okay, so be exclusive to them? Not necessarily. Not necessarily. The units are open to the public and in line with fair housing law. There will be certain percentages that align with the demographics of our county to make sure that we're not exceeding fair housing law allocations of aligning with the county population. So the units will be open both to the public and to VTA employees with a preference to VTA employees. So will it be market rate housing with an allocation that meets the ability for your employees to be able to purchase them? Our program does both market rate and affordable housing. Every site that we build has a minimum percentage of 25% of our builds need to have units that are affordable to households earning 60% of area median income and below. We have historically done a tremendous amount of build-out in affordable rental product. We are piloting right now an affordable for-sale product on ground lease land, which is something that's new to our area. But we would like to, if we're successful in that endeavor, open up more affordable home ownership on VTA land as well. Okay, so just for, because it says here this bill would allow you or authorizes you to purchase or acquire property to construct affordable housing, but you already have the land. We do have a tremendous amount. So one of the things that the VTA TOD policy allows for, as we build capital projects in our county, meaning as we build extensions of our rail lines and transit service, we do purchase new property. And any property that is no longer utilized for construction staging or transit facilities automatically transfers into our transit-oriented development portfolio. And this is what this bill is going to authorize you to be able to do for those particular pieces of land that you're going to be? We are currently authorized and allowed to do transit-oriented development on our holdings today. What this bill authorizes is the ability to provide a preference for VTA employees on our land. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Just to summarize the amendments which were discussed on pages 5 and 6 of the committee analysis. this. One, provide a preference for VTA employees and also require compliance with existing federal and state fair housing laws. Two, revert VTA's TOD authority to sites identified in existing law. Three, define lower and moderate income households consistent with existing law. And four, require VTA to submit an annual report to the legislature about the bill implementation. So unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to you with similar call to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the questions. and appreciate Senator Cortese. We actually were at different times chair of VTA over the years and it's wonderful to see how this kind of idea has now evolved from many, many years ago of identifying vacant land to now actually using that land in its best use in my opinion next to transit next to light rail You have these massive parking lots these kind of old school kind of shopping centers with massive parking lots There's a much better use of that land, especially as we're trying to densify in our bigger cities so that we can alleviate some of the unintended consequences of folks having to go into the Central Valley or commute for long distances, raising housing prices in those areas. We need to build more. And I think in this case, so many of our transit employees do qualify for affordable housing. And this will give us an opportunity to, again, give a preference for a certain percentage of those units, most of which are going to go to market rate anyway, to ensure that there's an opportunity for some of these employees to actually live where they work and take advantage of the investments that are being put in, not just by VTA, but the private sector developers that are partnering with VTA to eventually make this happen. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We're reaching a motion on the bill, moved by Senator Cortese. Thank you. The committee assistant can please call the roll. Motion do passed as amended to Senate Appropriations. Senators Errigin? Aye. Errigin, aye. Ciarto? Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cobaldin? Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Ochoa, Bogue? Aye. Ochoa, Bogue, aye. Padilla? We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Okay. Assemblymember Hoover, good to see you. Assemblymember Rambo has been waiting for like an hour to present. Is it okay? If he just goes first. Okay. Thank you very much for your flexibility. So we'll now proceed to file item 11, Assembly Bill 2270 by Assemblymember Arambula. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for their hard work on this bill, and we'll be accepting the amendments that are on page 6 of your analysis. Senators, California's farm workers are essential to our state's economy and our food supply, yet they face some of the most severe housing instability in the state. Tax credits, such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, represent one of the best uses to encourage affordable housing development. But currently, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee evaluates eligibility based on the credit based on a scoring criteria prioritizing proximity to amenity-dense areas. This approach does not sufficiently take into account the land use realities of our rural regions, where farm workers most often live is where farm worker housing is located next to agricultural land, often miles from those same amenities such as public transit, libraries, or pharmacies. The result is that farmworker housing projects are consistently less competitive for the funding opportunities that the low-income housing tax credit program provides. And despite these demonstrated needs for these communities to have expanded access to quality and affordable living situations AB 2270 resolves the scoring disadvantages that farmworker housing projects have been facing by requiring the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee to consider a scoring system that recognizes the geographic realities of farmworker communities With me here to testify in support of the bill is Alejandro Solis on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina de California. Thank you. Great. Good afternoon. You have two minutes to present on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair and members, Alejandro Solis with California Advocacy on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina California in support of AB 2270. La Cooperativa and its members are the federally designated farmworker agencies. La Cooperativa and its members provide education, training, job placement, housing, energy, and other services to California's migrant and seasonal farmworkers and rural poor. La Cooperativa's members network serves over 153,000 clients per year. We would like to request your support on this legislation to ensure that farmworker housing projects can fairly compete for tax credits in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. As mentioned by Assemblymember Dr. Arambula, farmworker housing by necessity must be located near agricultural jobs, often in rural areas, far from these amenities. While farmworkers have become more mobile, many times they do not have transportation to travel long distances to their jobs. As a result, these projects are disadvantaged not because they are lower quality but because the scoring criteria do not reflect rural realities. This creates a structural barrier to housing projects in agricultural regions. To be eligible for the low-income housing tax credits, a project must receive at least 10 points in amenities. To be competitive, it must receive 15 points. Currently farmworker projects have a difficult time receiving even the 10 points. This is a fairness and equity bill ensuring that farmworker housing is evaluated based on the realities of where farmworkers live and work. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. to express support for AB 2270. Hello, good afternoon chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of UNIDOS US in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else who wishes to express support for AB 2270, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the data. for questions, comments, or a motion. I move the bill. I just want to thank also Assemblymember Arambula and everyone who moves this forward. Think about the term rig system. The system does not allow the way it's built to give people who need it the most to give them the housing. So you've got to unrig it, change the terminology because that has a big impact on who is available and who can be served. So thank you very much. I move the bill. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. I strongly support it, and I'll turn over you to Klus. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, for allowing me to present AB 2270 today, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Russell. If the committee assistant companies call the roll. Two passes amended to Senate Appropriations. Senators Errigin? Aye. Errigin, aye. Ciarto? Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Ochoa Bo? Padilla? Thank you. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay let go to file item 8 AB 2118 by Assemblymember Hoover and then we go to file item 6 AB 2050 by Assemblyman Colosa Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2118. California continues to face a severe housing crisis with rising home prices and rents, making it increasingly difficult for residents to find affordable housing. Despite ongoing efforts to develop affordable and mixed income housing developers still face regulatory hurdles that slow the construction of new units. AB 2118 simply refines the streamlined pathway created by AB 2011 in 2022 by prohibiting objective development standards imposed by local government from limiting or prohibiting mixed use projects. With me today is Kate Rogers, chair of the Student Homes Coalition in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair members. My name is Kate Rogers. I'm the chair of the Student Homes Coalition. Homes is sponsoring AB 2118 because we believe that it will not only build on our previous work to bring more student housing to campus development zones, but because it will deliver much-needed affordable units for all Californians. AB 2011 created a streamlined pathway for 100% affordable and mixed income housing projects along commercial corridors near transit stops. These types of developments have multiple advantages. They create affordable housing for low-income households near high-quality jobs in transit while simultaneously revitalizing struggling commercial districts. Last year, Student Homes sponsored AB 893 to expand those opportunities to students by extending those pathways to campus development zones. But despite the benefits that AB 2011 projects can bring to cities, local governments still look for ways to avoid approving affordable projects and deny applicants their right to ministerial review. As of 2024, thousands of proposed AB 2011 units were stuck in the approval pipeline. AB 2118 was drafted to help get these units built. AB 2118 does not expand AB 2011, but rather it closes loopholes that cities use to block projects by clarifying the original intent of the law. Student Homes has worked to strengthen AB 2011 because we believe it can be a powerful tool to help reduce housing costs in California. But if we do not close these loopholes the cities are using to block projects now, the work that we have done on AB 893 and the work the legislature has done on AB 2011 is at risk. For those reasons, a vote for AB 2118 is a vote to to support low-income tenants, a vote to support students, and a vote for more affordable California. So on behalf of the students that are members of the Student Homes Coalition and all low-income Californians, I urge you to vote aye on AB 2118 today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. I invite anyone else who'd like to express support for AB 2118 to please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs. here on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, Circulate Planning, SPUR, and California Yimby all in support and urge an eye. Thank you. Bob Naylor for Fields, Sedan, and Company. That's Howard Amundsen, Jr., in support. Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2118, we'll now take any opposition witnesses to the bill. I don't see anyone coming forward, So I'll bring it back to the deus for any questions, comments, or a motion. Senator Cobalt. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. I strongly support the policy here. This is a very important and well-thought-out change. I want to flag something. I flag it for one author each, and the chair can cover his ears because he's heard me say this a million times. The bill has minor costs to local governments, but they are flagged in the bill by the alleged council as appropriate as state And the bill then includes an all-too-common disclaimer that says those costs are not reimbursable, despite the fact that the Constitution says that they're supposed to be, because the local government can charge a fee or a fine in order to recover the cost. If you could identify the fee or the fine that could be increased, I'd love to hear it, but I suspect there isn't one because we're shifting projects into ministerial review, which makes it less likely that they will pay any additional fee to cover the cost of the bill. So it's likely to be a de minimis cost in the end, but there is a normal procedure in the Constitution, which is that we simply say if you have cost City of Rancho Cordova and it was $8,000, you're welcome to submit a claim. But too many of our bills have this, like, waiver that, no, you're not even eligible. So I would just encourage you to take a look at this. Appreciate it. as it moves forward, that we're not creating an unfunded state mandate where it's really not necessary, this is not super costly, but it does have a cost, and there is no possible fee or fine that I can imagine that you could charge at the municipal level in order to recover that modest cost. So this bill, I appreciate the flag, and I do think that's something we will definitely take a closer look at. But it's my understanding that under AB 2011, while it did shift things to ministerial approval, it actually does continue to allow local governments to charge impact fees. And so, you know, it's my understanding that these costs could be recovered via impact fees. Under this particular bill, I can't obviously speak for all the different legislation where this provision is, but I think under this bill, we're not trying to change any of the existing impact fees that can be charged under AB 2011. it understood and and and I know our system and communicating okay perfect yeah but the impact fees actually not the point I'm making it this that is a real issue too which is but the I'm talking about a much narrower set of costs which is why I don't think it's actually an issue it wouldn't be an issue to correct okay happy to take that is it so the bill says you can't apply a certain set of objective and subjective standards to these projects which is the right policy but that does mean the city of Rancho Cordova or the city of Folsom will then be required to update and change their standards and policies. They should be doing that. That's what we want them to do, and we are in this bill ordering them to do that. So the cost of that is not huge. It's a couple of staff hours to prepare an agenda item. But it is almost by definition what a Constitution says is a state mandate, and they should be eligible to file a claim. Understood. Thank you. Yeah, we'll definitely take a closer look at that. I appreciate that. Okay, are there any other questions or comments from the committee? Motion by Senator Chobo. Thank you. I'll turn it back for the author to close. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote and happy to continue looking at it as we move forward. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Chobo. If the committee is just going to please call the roll. I'm sorry, Senator Johnson. I'm sorry. I just wanted to say this is going to be going to a local gov committee. So I'll be looking at some of the unintended consequences that have been raised. Thank you. I look forward to working with you on that. Appreciate that. Thank you so much. Okay. Any other questions or comments? If not, let's call the roll on the motion. Do you pass to local government? Senators Erdogan? Erdogan, aye. CERTO. COBALDIAN. COBALDIAN. CABALDIAN. CABALDIAN. CORTESI. CORTESI DURASO DURASO GONZALES GONZALES GREYSON OCHOBO OCHOBO OCHOBO OCHOBO PADILLA Aye Gonzalez Aye Gonzalez Otrobo Aye Otrobo aye Okay We keep that bill on call for absent members Thank you Assemblymember Okay We'll now proceed to file Item 6, Assembly Bill 2050 by Assemblymember Calosa. And good afternoon. Oh. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2050, also known as HOA Rainy Day Fund. First, I'd like to thank the committee consultants for all their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments that give proper notification to residents, ensure the reserve funds hold a minimum percentage, and allow for a resident vote when necessary. 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. This bill has also received bipartisan support in the Assembly. Today, more than 13 million Californians live in 55,000 common interest developments. Condominiums continue to be an affordable option for many first-time homebuyers. And while in both houses we have focused a considerable amount of time on new housing, and rightfully so, we also cannot forget about our existing housing stock and how it's aging. More than 50% of the condominium 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 condominiums if associations have underfunded reserves. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 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 for reserves, which means 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 affordable. Additionally, current law strengthens protections for HOA reserve funds by requiring dual authorization for withdrawals, ensuring reserves are used only for their intended purpose, major repairs, maintenance, and related litigation. Any funds withdrawn must be paid back within a year. It also increases transparency by requiring homeowner notification and regular accounting when reserve funds are used for litigation expenses helping homeowners better understand how their association funds are being managed 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 to help get them there. Predictability and transparency are essential for a well-functioning marketplace by setting clear standards, and AB 2050 reduces disputes and improves compliance. With me today to testify in support is Stacey Donnelly, Chair of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee and an expert in the field, and Louie Brown, representing the Community Associations Institute. Okay, good afternoon. You should have two minutes to present on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I am Stacey Donnelly. Professionally, I'm the CFO of Condominium Financial Management in Walnut Creek. We are sponsors of AB 2050, and thank you to Assemblymember Colosa for authoring this bill. I want to reiterate the very important point made that reserve studies are currently required in the law, but the funding that this study recommends is not required, and that is what we are trying to get achieved with AB 2050. Adequate funding helps protect affordability by spreading the cost more equitably for homeownership. It provides for stable and gradual planned reserve funding over 30 years, rather than surprise special assessments any time a project comes up. I did a review of my own client database. We have 157 associations that we provide financial management services for. services for. In the last year, 32 of them, which is 20%, had a special assessment that represents 2,648 homes. And if I were to extrapolate that across the number of homeowners in California living in CIDs or HOAs, it's 2.6 million homeowners. To give you a couple actual examples that are happening currently live right now in my clients. I have a 792-unit condo association in Walnut Creek that just passed a $6 million special assessment due to balcony refurbishment, and that is going to equate to about $7,600 special assessment to each homeowner. Another example is I have a 12-unit condominium complex in Oakland that had a $900,000 special assessment due to underfunded reserves, which equates to $75,000 to each homeowner. Assemblymember Colosa discussed the importance of this bill relative to mortgage financing. I want to reiterate that because it limits homeowner financing options. insurance is another consideration you know insurance has been a crisis in california for a number of years and insurance companies are looking at deferred maintenance and inadequate funding is increased risk factors which translates to increased premiums i've read some correspondence relative to the opposition of this bill indicating that it contributes to the affordability crisis, I would argue that it's actually the opposite. What we're trying to achieve is an equitable affordability rather than these spikes that happen with special assessments. So with the six ramp period that afforded in this bill we funding at a level that will gradually increase rather than these spikes in special assessments And I been doing financial management for homeowners associations for over 30 years Special assessments used to be not very common. And now we're setting up special assessments on a monthly basis in our database. If you could please wrap up your comments, we appreciate it. You bet. We need a solution for the sustainability of this housing model. On behalf of our members and the millions of Californians that live in HOAs, including myself, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute and is also asked to express support on behalf of the California Association of Community Managers by Ms. Jennifer Wada. I thought I would just kind of briefly just explain the amendments that we were able to work with the committee and again express our appreciation to the committee. Previous version of the bill had no cap on the reserve special assessment that was originally in the bill. The amendments place a 5% cap on that reserve special assessment, same as the special assessment currently provided for in law. What it does in the alternative is it allows or requires an association that does project that it will be below zero at some point during that 30-year window of its reserve study to then set aside a percentage of its operating budget, 15%, because that's what we're hearing out of the federal government for Freddie May, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also, Veteran Affairs has limitations on loans if there's not adequate reserves. That 15% then is spread out through regular assessments over a period in between those special assessments, which in the bill is nine years. So as an example, Assemblymember Colose's district, the average operating budget of the associations in her district is $117,500. The average size of the associations in her district is $29,000. And you heard her say that most of the associations in her district are 20 years or older. If you follow the formula that we have now agreed to with the committee, that will come out to $5.60 a month that an individual homeowner would be paying in addition so that they could put the money aside necessary to keep their reserve funds above zero and then contemplate for these maintenance issues that we all know are coming. So we believe we worked out an extremely affordable and a very transparent process that will hopefully avoid some of the drastic consequences that we're now seeing across associations statewide, like we heard with these special assessments. And with that, we ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2050? Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in support and I just appreciate the author's leadership in this space. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2050? Seeing no one come forward, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses. Thank you. Marjorie Murray, Center for California Homeowner Association Law Good afternoon. Nice to be here, Senator and members of the committee. I'm Marjorie Murray, Center for California Homeowner Association Law. And even though we have been identified as opponents of the bill, we are in something of a unique position in that we were members of the working group 20 years ago that worked on AB 2718 that required associations to create reserve accounts and to create a funding plan and to make sure that the money got set aside in reserves. So what has happened in the intervening years? Associations simply have not done that. So our first concern about AB 2050 is that, again, there is no enforcement mechanism in this bill. There is no way to ensure or force or require. It's again relying on the goodwill and the scouts on it. We're going to save the money and put it in reserves. The other enforcement issue that we are very concerned about is that there is an enforcement issue, but it's laid on homeowners. And that enforcement issue is going to be foreclosure. We have talked extensively this afternoon about the fact that there is a home ownership and housing crisis in California. I couldn't agree with you more. But it's not enough to put people in housing. They have to be able to keep the housing. And what's happening in homeowner associations and we know because homeowners report it to us. There is an extraordinary use of the special assessment as was just described. So last week it was a $15,000 special assessment. Again it was a $32,000 assessment on to Alameda County homeowners. A $35,000 assessment and homeowners have no way to to come up with this cash because the associations have not methodically put the money in reserves and most important left it there. One of the issues addressed here is the movement of money out of the reserve accounts into the operating accounts and again there is existing law requiring that that money be restored to reserves, but it isn't. Again, it's a scout's honor, I'm going to do it, but it doesn't happen. And so when it comes time to fix the elevator or fix the reserves and to reach into the reserve accounts, the money is simply not there. So we have these concerns about giving associations the authority to levy more special assessments when the money is unprotected, when homeowners simply do not have the cash in the first place, and when money is moved out of reserves into operating accounts and never restored. So again, what we would like to see bottom line, Senator, is that this board, sorry, the legislation be sent back to the drawing boards. We do have ideas about how to fix this but the legislation as currently written is not the solution It a risk to associations and it a risk to homeowners Thank you very much Thank you Good afternoon Mr Chair and members Robert Harrell I the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California We have a respectful opposed position at this time on the bill. We have had a couple of productive conversations with the author's office. We expect those conversations to continue. I'll be quite brief. You've heard from Ms. Murray about the lack of enforcement, the 20-year history, that they were supposed to be doing this this whole time, but many of them haven't been. And let's be clear, there's a lot of HOAs out there when you have 55,000 of these. Some are really big. We heard a couple of examples from the lead witness for the proponents of the bill of some of the what I refer to as sticker shock that people are facing. And remember, HOA boards have the authority to foreclose on their members, and some do, and some are quite aggressive in that space in a shocking way. So there's lack of enforcement. You know, the author, in making a summary case for the bill, said, quote, a special assessment is neither fair nor affordable. We agree. But between regular assessments, and this committee has already seen bills to try to limit the increases in regular assessments, the Bill Besson or Menjabar, for example, and emergency assessments, which I think are easier to do now than they used to be, and then special assessments, that's where you get into the place where, especially your older, your low- and moderate-income folks in HOAs, they are struggling to hang on. And that is the challenge here. We appreciate the work of the committee and you and your staff, Mr. Chairman, in trying to improve the bill and set forth a pathway that those are improvements from where the bill was at. But I'll close with the notion that, you know, where the money goes and how it's being properly looked for now becomes, I think, a real focus. And when we've raised that issue, that it ought to be part of this legislation, we've been told that should be another bill. But we actually think it's incumbent that it be included in this bill because, as you heard from Mr. Brown himself and testifying in support, you're now going to start seeing this six-year ramp-up. Money is going to start being collected. It's going to start being accumulated. Is it being looked over properly? Is it being watched carefully enough? DAs have brought cases where folks have either absconded or misappropriated the money. That, I think, now becomes the other focus. I would just also note that unable to attend today is HERA, Housing and Economics Rights Advocates, and they oppose the bill as well. Continue to work with the author. I think you're headed slowly in the right direction, but a lot more work to be done. Thank you. Thank you. So anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2050? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Senator Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author. We spoke about this. I think I absolutely agree with you on the bill's merits and ensuring that there are reserve accounts. We want to make sure every HOA has accountability built into their financials and ensuring that there are reserves for that rainy day that could be used only for deferred maintenance. And that is the question, I think, in alignment with what the opposition is stating. You know, how do we ensure that that is, these reserve funds are intended solely for deferred maintenance versus, you know, meddling in and dipping into these operating expenses. As I shared you know in Long Beach I have a large resident group very vocal in a historic district that is very very much opposed to this bill And I understand, you know, where they're coming from. But I also want them to get the full understanding of, you know, you're continuing to work on this bill. And you've also shared you're willing to, like, sit down with them, which I think is also great. But can you explain a little bit about the deferred maintenance versus the operating expenses? And then I have a follow-up question. Thank you, Senator. I'm going to turn it to my witness, Mr. Brown, to talk about some of the guardrails that are in this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gonzalez, there has been and has been stated, Section 5510 of the Civil Code specifically states that a board shall not expend funds designated as reserve funds for the purposes other than repair, restoration, and replacement. Now, it does also, in Section 5515, allow for a temporary transfer of those monies to operating if and when that operating revenues are just not enough. I think this was, you know, one of those issues dealt with, just like we see in our real-life situations, is that if you don't have enough money in your checking account but you have some in savings, you can go ahead and move that over just for those short-term purposes. It is required by law to be paid back within a year. Now, the enforcement on that right now is just like the enforcement throughout the Davis-Earling Act, is that any member of a homeowners association can bring a claim against a board for a violation of the act. And if they prevail, they get attorney's fees for that action. So it is a self-governing community, and the association members are given notice if that short-term transfer takes place. It's required. It happens at a board meeting. If there's other specifications that come, more notice goes back to the homeowners members. And so they are involved. We're providing some additional notice in the six-year ramp-up with the committee amendments to start January of next year so that the annual disclosure that goes to every member of the association states, starting in 2032, we are going to be required to put money into our reserves account if we can't sustain above a zero balance. So we're hopefully utilizing that so that these associations do have enough runway to plan accordingly, can start putting that money in reserves so that they don't have to use that borrowing technique. Our goal overall with the ramp-up and with the, now, the distance, the years between the special assessments is to prevent a special assessment at all costs and allow for this more measured approach so that members of the association are better prepared and can plan more financially smart to actually participate in this process. And I want to thank you for that explanation because I think that's what was absolutely needed in conjunction with the amendments, which I think were really good amendments, to ensure that there are minimums and that you weren't dipping into the operating expenses and that it truly is going to be used for reserves for deferred maintenance when needed as well as a six ramp which I think is great I going to continue to sort of listen to my colleagues I don know if there any other issues or questions that are going to be raised but this is a really big issue back home for me, I will tell you, and I know the author understands that. And I need to just address my community before I vote on anything. And so I'm going to lay back, hang back, and ensure that they have adequate information and that they're understanding what's going on before I vote on this. So thank you. Thank you. Senator Chovo and then Cabaldon. Oh, I should have let Cabaldon speak first because he has better insights. Probably will address some of mine. I really appreciate the premise behind the bill because I think it's important to ensure that we have the ability to finance these condos. As a former realtor, I'm still a realtor, so I have my license, but I'm not full on practicing. But as a realtor, it's difficult to find, especially when it comes to condos, which usually are within the entry level of home ownership. And the fact that this is addressing the ability to finance those properties is incredibly important to note, and I'm glad that that has been highlighted. I think there's two things that I want to just ask and get a little further clarification on it. And one has to do with the concerns raised by CAR with the letter of opposition that we had that has to do with the zero minimum.

Why do we have that particular above zero and not just give like a minimum? And I'm assuming because of local control, depending, the needs will be different from association to association. But I think that kind of raises a red flag for folks that are thinking about having the ability to insure those properties and ensure that they have the ability to replace those properties or do a replacement of the facilities. So if you could address the concern by the realtors and how this is going to be addressed, or if you're thinking about how you're going to be addressing this within the bill. And number two, I think the opposition made a great point. The fact that it's actually really, really – I'm honored to see someone who is here legislating on behalf of the minimum reserves or the reserves for homeowners 20 years ago. So it's great to see you back, ma'am, and be working in this capacity. But the teeth, how do we enforce? If this is already a requirement that has existed, what are the teeth in order to ensure that these homeowner associations are actually fulfilling? And mind you, I'm coming from a mindset that when I've spoken to my colleagues about local homeowners association boards, You know, they're locally elected usually by the homeowners, and we've had many a times bills address the inability to engage the homeownership in moving forward with approving ordinances within the homeowners association. So there's a... lack of civic engagement that should be happening at every community. And unfortunately, how do you get, we have that just in government, just in general. So how do you enforce the ability for these HOAs to be able to fulfill this requirement?

Only if she asks you a question. I'm sorry. Mr. Brown, if you can briefly respond to the question. We have other authors waiting to present.

expenditure is required. Who makes them do that?

Thank you. Senator Cobaltin.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Senator Geraso?

Thank you, Senator. And, you know, I think you might have stepped away when we had some of this. I'm going to defer it back to Mr. Brown, who referenced some code sections 5510, as well as even some of the math that we were able to do for my district that we share. We share these HOAs in tackling some of those affordability questions and how these assessments and fiscal planning, knowing that there's a six-year ramp-up to implement this, is more fiscally responsible than a one-time hit of an overnight assessment, which is what's currently happening anyway. And so I'm going to turn it back to Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Durazzo, Section 5510 of the Civil Code prohibits the use of these funds for anything but reserve purposes. There is allowance for a short-term loan that can happen but must be repaid within one year. And then just our quick calculation of the formula that we've now agreed to with the Housing Committee and Assemblymember closes district if there was an association that needed to put aside 15% of its operating funds in order to go to reserves, it would be about $5.50 per owner per month to help achieve the goal of the bill.

Thank you, Senator. I really appreciate the thoughtful conversation from everyone here on this committee. I appreciate all the feedback and ways we can continue to work on this bill to strengthen it. I really thank the opposition for being here today as well as for your feedback and sharing some of the work that you did in the working group, given that we have also, as a state legislature, voted on our own state budget just last night. We know the importance of a rainy day fund. We know the importance of reserves and fiscally responsible planning, and that's what AB 2050 is. It fiscally responsible so that our homeowners don get hit with one cost like they are now So respectfully ask for your aye vote Once again as you had stated at the beginning of your presentation you are accepting the committee amendments That correct Thank you

Rubio, sorry.

At least you didn't call me Senator Rubio. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair and committee members for giving us the opportunity to present AB 2439. Imagine paying your homeowners, your HOA dues on time only to find out later that HOA, your HOA has changed payment vendors and never properly notified you. And now you're facing late fees, a lien on your home or collections. I'm here with my joint author, Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal. in conversations, we figured out that we were both in the same boat. It is not hypothetical. It's happening to us both. And if this is happening to Assemblymember Loenthal and myself, I can't imagine all of the other Californians who don't have the elevated voice that we do who are dealing with the same situation. HOA members are also dealing with confusing, inconsistent communication where basic information like where and how to pay is unclear if changes are made. And I want to give Assemblymember Lowenthal an opportunity to also address the issue.

Thank you.

Once again, to clarify, you are accepting the committee amendments.

I just want to get that on the record.

And the amendments deal with a notice piece and would shift the required notice of assessment recipient changing to electronic delivery for members who have consented to that for other general notices and mail with certificate of mail for all others. The members missed two consecutive assessment payments and a second notice by certified mail with return receipt will be required. And the HCOA shall make reasonable efforts to post a copy of the notice in the common areas of the association. And so with that, do you have any principal witnesses? No? Okay. Okay. Well, anyone would like to come forward and please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you, sir. We're just limiting it to your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2439? We'll now invite up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 2439. We should just sit there.

very much. So anyone else wishing to express opposition to AV 2439? Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais. And I want to ask Assemblymember Rubio, if you can just address the liability issue that the opposition witness had made. I know we had conversation about that when we met, I think, last week about the bill, and I agree that we should keep that piece in there. I wonder if you can address why you think that's important.

This bill goes to judiciary next.

Any other questions to comment, Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you, and I appreciate that. And that's the whole point of these conversations, because we had our own version of it. It flew out of the Assembly. And so being able to have these conversations is important. To your point about the participation of board members, that's the whole point of having a board, right, is to oversee what's happening in the association. And so that's the balance, right? So for me, it's like, well, if there is a threat of not having that oversight, then maybe there will be closer oversight, right? And so I'm not trying to penalize anybody. I'm just trying to make sure that homeowners have a recourse and have some kind of relief when this is happening so that, you know, folks that are living paycheck to paycheck don't have to take on the expense and somehow have some relief. But I appreciate that. And, you know, as as indicated, I will do everything that I can possible to make sure that in judiciary with Senator Umberg, we can work some of these issues out so that the goal is to have relief for for homeowners and not necessarily penalize folks that didn't have anything to do with whatever the the issue was. So I appreciate that, and if there's any other questions, I would happy to answer them,

I would like to nominate Senator Cabaldon to be our representative to negotiate with you.

Senator Cortese?

Okay. Any other questions or comments? I want to thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. You know, sometimes our own lived experience, you know, informs our work here. And I think you've clearly illustrated, I think, a need to strengthen protections for HOA members. I want to thank you for the work you've done with this committee on this bill. I strongly support the bill and turn it back over to close.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion on the bill? Moved by Senator Grayson. Thank you. Thank you. If the committee assistant can please call the roll. Motion due passed as amended to Judiciary. Senators Errigin? Aye. Errigin, aye. Ciarto? Balden? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue? No. Ochoa Bogue, no. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Okay. Thank you. We'll keep that bill in call for absent members. Thank you, Assembly members. We're going to go to our last bill presentation. If the sergeants can please contact those members who are absent. so that once we're done with this bill presentation, we can lift calls on bills. So we'll now proceed to file item 13, AB 2480 by Assemblymember Avila Farias. And whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Kate Rogers and I'm the Chair of the Student Homes Coalition. I want to start today by thanking staff for your hard work on this bill. And so, you know, you all know we are nowhere near solving California's housing crisis, especially not for our low income population but we have made some progress and a large part of that progress is due to the state density bonus law The density bonus has delivered tens of thousands of affordable homes That's over 10 times more than any other state streamlining law. But even as one in five California community college students is homeless, we are still not taking full advantage of the density bonus to alleviate the student housing crisis. And this is not because we don't have interest from the development community, but because the current law does not apply the full density bonus to be used for for student housing so we're proud to sponsor ab2480 to fix that this bill will harmonize the student housing density bonus with the super density bonus allowing developers to access an additional density bonus in concessions in exchange for building a mix of low income and moderate income units for students so i'm proud to say this bill is not just another well attention but ultimately an effective attempt at addressing student homelessness we're working with a developer on this bill who'll be building the first ever deed-restricted affordable units for students in your district, Mr. Chair. So we really look forward to having that project move forward. And so we know students need affordable housing desperately. We also know that the density bonus is a powerful tool for developers to provide affordable housing. So we don't want to reinvent the wheel here. AB 2480 will ensure that California's low-income students are not shut out as we make progress on the California housing crisis. So on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, I respectfully request an aye vote today. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chair, members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs, here on behalf of Spur, Abundant Housing LA, and Cal Yimby, and honored to support my former fellow Cal HFA board member,

Thank you, Chair and members. I would just also like to add that this bill has no opposition and simply would ask for an aye vote today.