Housing And Community Development — 2026-06-24 (partial)

You want to do which one first? 10-0-3.

Good morning to the highly esteemed chair and members of the committee. SB-10-0-3 aims to provide state support for critical infrastructure for housing developments. Oftentimes, a common issue that many in the housing space run into are challenges related to housing infrastructure, as housing may fail to pencil out due to the cost of updating infrastructure, constraining the amount of housing that we can build in the state. It is difficult to expand new housing opportunities in the state without building out the necessary infrastructure to support that growth. So this bill will help create an incentive structure that will provide additional benefits to local jurisdictions who create pro-housing-enhanced infrastructure districts we refer to as PEIFDs. If a local jurisdiction creates a PEIFD, they will receive additional points towards programs that can help provide support for housing-related infrastructure. By providing state support for infrastructure, this program would allow more housing developments to pencil out and could result in cost savings and better efficiency for these developments. And with me through the chair, I do have a witness who can self-identify.

Great. Thank you so much. Are there other folks here who are in support of this bill? Not seeing anyone. I don't believe there's any opposition, but is there any opposition to this bill? Not seeing any colleagues, comments? Not seeing any of those. You may close.

All right. Well, thank you so much for your leadership on this. I love this bill. So it's, you know, we hear a lot about all of the things that we need to do to make sure that we can get projects moving. And one of those, of course, is housing, is financing and giving local localities the tools to do that, I think, is hugely critical and being more creative about it. So appreciate your leadership on this, and we will take a motion on that when we have a quorum. Why don't we move to the next bill, which is item number 8, SB 1014.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm an AICP planner and the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California EMB. we are a statewide organization of over 80,000 members committed to ending the California housing shortage and making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family. In a recent viral Instagram post, which is how many of us consume our news, unfortunately, a local California developer shared the total bill to build a 747-square-foot two-bedroom apartment, valued at The total bill was That is to say fees alone added up to roughly a quarter of the value of the home of which was to repave a nearby street As startling as this may seem, this was probably a good outcome because the developer knew up front what the fees and mandates were going to be. In many cases, developers are not quite so lucky, especially

Thank you, Chair. Senator, thank you for your bill and put some thoughtful consideration into this. I understand the spirit of what you are trying to do, but unfortunately today I will not be able to support your bill. You know, I always talk about the housing economic ladder that we need to create a housing infrastructure that allows people to have, you know, everything from homeless housing to transitional housing to permanent housing to homeownership. And the mobile home arena is a unique space and it has its own nuances. And I think this bill is going to present a lot of unintended consequences in the market where we start taking away property rights and telling individuals when and where and who they can sell to. I think it's a very dangerous territory policy wise. It is our responsibility as the legislature to create different types of housing types. But it's also our responsibility if we are really serious about housing affordability, then the state needs to put their money in their mouth and actually fund housing the way it needs to be funded in the state of California. We also need to change a lot of our state policies to encourage different types of housing development. When we want to go after a certain segment or economic group in the state of California around housing It isn the responsibility of residents to build housing It isn the responsibility of the owners It's the responsibility of our cities and our counties and the state working in tandem with municipalities to create the legislation to build the housing and streamlining. I think this bill, again, will create a lot of unintended consequences and attack a segment of a group providing housing, a different type of housing. And it's the wrong approach. And I'm always open to trying to figure out other solutions. But I think this would actually put more market pressures onto the housing market. So today, unfortunately, I will not be able to support this bill.

Well, saying that I'm the last one. Yeah, I think, you know, my perspective is it's, you know, I don't really understand. I just as an individual, if I own a property and then have to in somebody and I have an offer to, you know, to sell it to somebody and then I have to wait several months before I can sell it to that person. I just think it changes the entire dynamic of the sale process. And I can't imagine very many people or potential buyers wanting to go through that process. I think we know, I think we all know that the chances of the people living in a mobile home park of wanting to purchase the park is pretty slim that that will happen. but this applies to 100% of transactions out there. And I think it'd be great if the park owners or the park residents can go out and buy it. It's such a long time frame. I think I'm really concerned about just the amount of time that it would take for this to happen. And one other point that kind of was made by one of the witnesses in terms of the price being the same, you know, there are a lot of other things in a transaction that occur. And it might be in an offer that are very nuanced, like the, you know, time to close being a big one in terms of somebody makes an all cash offer. Obviously, that's going to be a very quick transaction, even if it's a finance offer. I mean, you know, it could be 30 to 60 to 90 days or something like that. But there's nothing in the bill, I don't think, that requires the actual terms of the deal to be the same because there could be a lot of other terms in that sales transaction in terms of repairs or improvements by the owner that need to be made or things that need to happen from the buyer in order for it to happen. So there's nothing in the bill that really kind of addresses that as well that actually makes it an equal offer other than the price. And so I think those are important considerations, you know, as you move forward here. So, you know, I can't support it. I don't know if that's a surprise by anybody. But those are all my comments I have on the bill today.

Everyone spoke.

No.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do appreciate the discussion in the committee. As you all know this is a difficult area of work because when you bring up the fact that we don have this kind of set of rules associated with a single-family home, that's because the person living in the single-family home actually has full control over the decision about whether and under what circumstances to sell. In this case, we've got the residents who typically own their mobile homes who are given so little power over their own futures. And we're trying to come up, all we're trying to do here with this bill is to come up with a reasonable proposal that recognizes this unique situations that these owners are in, these residents are in, make sure that the owners are made whole, and we do it in a fair way that doesn't skew the market, but allows folks to come together within a reasonable time frame that recognizes that these are complex purchases to stay in their homes if that's what they want to do. That's the goal here. You know, I'm very happy to work with the committee further, with the members who have concerns about the bill, to see if there's a way for us to get it to a place where you'll feel more comfortable that we're meeting those goals while also ensuring that there are adequate property rights protections. But if the opposition is just to kind of the basic, there's just a basic objection to the idea that we would provide these folks with any additional tool, any tools to allow them to stay in their homes in the case of a major sale, then obviously we're going to have a disagreement. agreement. We're talking about a vulnerable population, and I'm trying to figure out a path here that will maximize their chances of being able to stay in their homes if they're able to come up with a sales proposal that's meaningful and that matches the market price that's been offered on a property. So it's in that spirit that I offer this bill forward. I certainly appreciate the work that we've done with the committee on this, and I hope that members will see the wisdom of what we're doing and happy to continue working with people on this difficult area of policymaking that's all about trying to protect some of our most important housing stock while at the same time protecting the property rights of the owners. So with that, I respect for Gasser and I vote when the appropriate moment comes.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Zelda once again, a member of the Palisades Bowl Community Group, and I'm here in strong support of SB 1093. A year and a half after the fires destroyed our homes, we still have no idea what's happening to our community, because our park owners won't tell us. No timeline, no communication. They've ghosted us. For over a year, we have lived in limbo, unable to plan, unable to heal, unable to move forward. SB 1093 fixes the gap in current law. Today the law spells out what happens when an owner chooses to rebuild, but it says almost nothing when an owner simply goes silent. It requires communication on a real timeline. It guarantees residents the right to access our own property. It requires environmental testing before an owner can close a park for good. My personal journey is that my dream home in the palace age was my future. It was built from a lifetime of hard work after a soul-sucking divorce. There I found my community, family, my safety, and a legacy for my children. Now, my future vaporized into ashes. This bill won't undo what we've lost, but it makes sure no family ever again has to face a disaster and a wall of silence from the people who control our future. So, imagine your morning today. You know, you got up, you drank coffee from your favorite mug. you kissed your family goodbye you got in your car, you came to work and tonight you get to drive home maybe think about dinner, maybe you'll walk your dog and tuck your children into bed a normal, perfect day I used to have those perfect days too but now my neighbors and I Wake up every day not knowing at all where our future lies. We're just normal families, and we want our lives back. We're just normal, and we hope that your vote yes today on SB 93 will be able to send us home. Thank you.

Present. Painey here. Patterson. Patterson here. Avila Farias. Here. Avila Farias here. Colosa. Colosa here. Garcia. Calra. Here. Calra here. Lee. Ward. Ta. Here. Ta here.

Here.

Here. Wicks. Wilson. Here. Wilson here. Here.

Thank you. All right. Other folks who are here in support of this bill?

Great. Thank you. All right. Primary witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Once again, Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance, I want to echo the appreciation for the committee's work on the amendments related to leasehold interest. I mean, reverting back to existing law in this regard, as the analysis notes, ensures that when a park is destroyed and the owner is not responsible for that destruction, obviously they are not asked to be the insurer of last resort. when a park is destroyed just like any business that that might go through that the the owner is it sort of a pivotal point and they I think it's a natural point where you can understand that they would assess what they would do with their business are they going to continue to operate are they going to seek to to not do so and they are not even the only essential type of service if we want to call it that that would be in that position you could look at a grocery store you could look at a pharmacy. But despite the fact that it's a natural and reasonable thing to do to consider whether or not you want to continue to operate, we think that even beyond the points that Mr. Wysocki raised on liability, this bill asks an owner to really go above and beyond and truly kind of expose themselves, we believe, to some litigation in order to even explore the options to close a park. So the analysis notes on pages two and three that there are five analyses that a park owner would have to go through So the first two deal with the cost of rebuilding a park and the resources available to rebuild a park But then we go on to a really thorough assessment of soil sampling and various other environmental screenings. And aside, you know, obviously, if a park is going to reopen, it's relevant that it is safe. But I'm not sure actually what the relevance there is to a closure. But beyond that, that is a pretty complex set of analyses to ask park owners to go through. This is not a normal course of business for them. We go on to the feasibility of relocating the park within one month. What does it mean to be feasible in this context? I mean, if a property is available at an incredibly significant price or if several properties are, is that considered feasible? And then we move on to identifying the economic cost of the neighborhood, city and county of losing the mobile home ownership units. Again, this is a fairly complex analysis and embedded in the bill is the right to litigate against a park owner if they fail to comply with these analyses. When we look at the prior bill and this bill together, it is hard for our owners not to see on the one hand in SB 1093 a bill that makes it very challenging to close a park. But on the other hand, in SB 1092, a bill that makes it very challenging for them to not sell a park to a resident group at a reduced price. We are fundamentally opposed to that. I would conclude by saying that we've heard a lot about the need for transparency. The notice provisions at the start of this bill, if we were talking about that issue, we understand. And obviously don't disagree with the fact that there is some need to be transparent and to work through that. But this bill goes far beyond that, so we must respectfully oppose it and request your no vote today. Thank you.

I was looking for, I was leaving space for the follow-up to the motion. Anyway, so here's the deal, and I appreciate, I didn't get to hear the testimony the first time, so I'm sure you mentioned where you were from, and so my heart goes out to you and your community members who've really been displaced and others from the fires. It's tragic. And it's my first time being here in the assembly. Some major fires that were referenced happened prior to coming here. So this was my first time experiencing what it's like to be a state official and having so much devastation happen to communities. And then in some ways feeling helpless of not being able to quick enough or to really do something meaningful that matters. And so I've been mindful of the bills that come through to support my colleagues from the area who are boots on the ground, so to speak, who know how to address these better than I could being a legislator from up north. But I appreciate your testimony and I appreciate the author. And as he noted from my prior testimony, I think when it comes to notifications, any way that we can expand that and improve on that to ensure, especially when it comes to housing, because when we think about Maslow's hierarchy needs, the need for shelter, right, is at the core, right, to self-accusation. So you have to have shelter. When we get into the other things, that's where I think it becomes onerous. And so notifications, yes. The fact that you all have been displaced for over a year and a half and have not heard anything, there should be regular updates about what happening Even if it a status quo update it just feels good to know that somebody is keeping you in the loop and silence is not acceptable And so whoever owns that park if they listening absolutely unacceptable and not a way to do business, despite what may be going on in your personal life. If you have a business, then you have duties as a business. I think when we get into, and there were amendments in the committee, but I didn't know in your testimony whether you were taking them, I might have missed it and you're accepting those amends. So I think that definitely improves because there were some provisions out there that were amended out that I think were appropriately amended out. But I'm still concerned about some of the other things when you're deciding what are the clothes, all of those additional provisions. And so I'm wondering the intent. I'm trying to understand the intent behind those and how you saw that they added value to the process or protected the residents who owned a park, not the land, but I'm sorry, owned their home, not the land that it sit on, but how it provided greater protection or added value to them. You're referring to this consideration of the costs and benefits? Is that... Yeah, there were, I think, about six or five provisions of after it's been damaged, now, while the consideration of what's next, particularly around if I'm closing, if I understand it, or closing or not going to closing or changing its use, like selling it for somebody, but something else on there or whatever it is.

I think I hope we can all agree that that's a good least concept. So a lot of private entities do, thank you, a lot of private entities do some level of analysis before they, cost-benefit analysis, right, before they close. Every once in a while something is absolutely privately owned by one single owner and they can wake up in the morning and decide to do something without any analysis. But most people in business do some type of cost-benefit analysis. Based on their own needs. Based on their own specific needs. Right. Yes, absolutely. Why would we put a threshold on a private entity driven? Why would the state do that, though, to force analysis on whether they decide to continue or not continue or sell for different purposes?

Are you talking about the equity? So particularly in regarding mobile homes, are you talking about the equity the person has in their own trailer and... and the trailer being in that particular spot.

Right. And I know we can spend—this is not insurance committee, but we can spend a lot on—because I've had fires devastate my own community in small scale and having the issue with undervalue and insurance and all that. But the proper mechanism for that is with insurance, not with the landowner.

Thank you. I want to go back to something that we do now. And you said prior to closure, the government, the government, state government has intervened in the sense that you can't just automatically close. and there are steps you have to do that before you...

And are those different? Did you take those steps and put them in here?

To close seems a bit interesting to pay for that. So I'm in the same position, and I'd already notified that I wouldn't support, but I just wanted to understand better because there are portions of this I like and there's portions of this I don't. And so wondering, you know, is there an opportunity to say, okay well if this has changed I support today This is let see what happens on the floor I don think I there yet but I do want to note that part of your testimony where you said that if you have a property that has not been perfectly functioning fine and you wanted to close it, there are steps that you have

Well, but the disaster raises a set of new considerations that weren't there before. You know, we can talk about what's onerous or what's reasonable, and I'd be eager for that engagement with you. But the disaster, especially a fire, there are all sorts of implications that I think we ought to be considering. Right. You know, obviously, there's an environmental set of challenges that ought to be considered. There's a there's a whole set of economic costs to the greater community relocation. There's there's a follow on impact that we're feeling in the entire economy of Southern California. Again, not the fault of the homeowners of the mobile park owners, but but but relevant considerations in the public policy space that ought to be brought into the conversation when when these decisions are being made. As long as it's done in a reasonable way. Obviously, there's a disagreement over how reasonable this is. And, you know, I, you know, I would hope that we could come to some sort of accord together, given your expressed views on this question. But I would I would just submit back to you that the disaster does raise new implications and questions. This is not as simple as a mobile home park owner deciding they want to move into another business. There's a new set of circumstances on the ground, both economic and environmental, associated with the disaster that can't be just ignored. Understood. Thank you so much for the engaging back and forth. Office is always open to have these even offline. Thanks.

I'll just continue to tease out this. Hold on. I'll just continue to tease out this dialogue. So if we apply, because the test here is, can this policy be applied everywhere, right? And that's always the list of this test if this is trending in a good public policy. So if my single family home burned down and we layered this concept on top of it, do you think private homeowners and single family would be happy with this legislation? I mean, look, again, this is a different, it's, in the case of the single family home, the single family homeowner has so much more control over the situation in terms of the sale. This is, we're not talking about, they get to decide whether to sell or what to do. In the case of the mobile home residents, that decision is out of their hands. And so we're trying to figure out a way again, just like we were in the last bill to recognize this unique place that this particular type of housing has. There a reason why we regulate this area of housing much more than we regulate single family homes There a reason for that Right but it also has its nuances Totally You know we selectively wherever your affordability we choose to buy a townhouse, a plan unit development. I personally, you know, have had experiences in plan unit development. Did it once when I was younger, would never do it again. We all make personal choices of where we want to live and the conditions. So it and you know a lot of factors of economics as well play into that but neither is to say we make decisions individually of where we want to live and so you enter a mobile home park knowing that you don't own the land that you are renting you own the structure and you get insured that if something were to happen like a fire then you're dealing with the structure and not the land so So now we're saying the mobile park homeowners don't have any rights to their properties, and we need a layer on more complexities of how this is going to work. And we're definitely not saying they don't have any rights to their properties. Well, I mean, your legislation is making it more complex to operate in the space. It doesn't deny their rights to the properties. Why are we not? If you want to reform this space, then why aren't we looking? We're dealing with a housing market that was created many years ago to fill a niche. And so if we want to reform this housing market, then we have to look at it statewide and how when we design mobile home parks legislation and how they're going to operate. I think this is penalizing the homeowners again or the owners of the mobile home parks. And it's not favorable and it's not understanding what this housing type is supposed to be, the intent of it. And so I'm just curious why we're trying to change the structure of what the intent of mobile home parks of the type of housing that it is. Gosh, well, I mean, that question of intent is a very interesting one. And I think there's clearly major differences of opinion, I suppose. I think some people look at it as a simple kind of asset on a spreadsheet. Others look at it as their homes. and this is the debate over rent control. This is the debate over so many aspects of the regulation of our economy. Is this just a purely set of capital-related considerations or to what extent do we recognize the fact that this is an incredibly important housing option for real working people that's affordable, where they live, where they've built up equity and life and history. That's the challenge here. I mean, this is why we treat these parks differently than we do treat other types of properties. Right, but it's also rechanging. I mean, again, it's understanding housing that these are private developments, and if we as the state want to subsidize or the federal government wants to subsidize, we're trying to impose rules without the subsidy restrictions. And so it does not make sense to me that we're in this space trying to regulate a private environment, privately funded. We regulate all sorts of industries that we don't subsidize. Again, how affordable housing works is taxpayer money goes in. We have compliance and regulatory guidelines. You are now trying to regulate a private environment of private investment. And this is where the mechanics of this is wrong. Again I always open for dialogue and trying to figure out if we want to change how this environment is working then let reform it structurally and how the investment goes and how the investment goes out But again I see a lot of mechanical pieces wrong with this legislation but I always happy for dialogue on this space And again it it not making sense of how the housing economic ladder is going to help the community and also help the owners I'd love to give Ryan some opportunity. I saw he's antsy, wanting to jump into a couple of these. Well, I just want to highlight, you know, while there is no direct subsidization that's flowing in to park communities, you know, we aren't using LIHTC to build mobile home parks. True. There are a number of, you know, what I would say is silence within existing law that is effectively subsidy. I mean, manufactured housing communities, unless locally imposed are not subject to rent control ordinance like multifamily properties are. That in and of itself is a distinct opportunity provided to park owners that is not available to other multifamily housing owners. So I would argue in some regard that there is, whether official or non, it is a way in which communities are vulnerable and in which we have already as a state in the mobile home residency law expressed a vested interest in wanting to ensure that those units are kept affordable naturally. And so we are, with this 1093 legislation, with the requirements regarding considerations of what exactly closure looks like, you know, part of that is also just stemming from the concern that, you know, if a community were to be destroyed, as the Palisades Bowl was, Station Terrace was, those units, you know, those were locally restricted rent-controlled units. Those were units that were intentionally affordable. And while that may not be the case writ large, you know, the fact that you had a local RSO protecting those units and now you don't have any way to assess the loss of those, the economic toll that's caused by that protected unit, that is a significant loss to the community and warranting of further understanding and study. That's all I'll share on that point.

I would just, again, say, look, we're in a different world than we were 40 or 50 years ago, not just in terms of wildfires and disasters, but in terms of our housing market. And I think it's, quite frankly, a place of privilege to say we have the right to choose wherever we want to live. Yes, I guess literally that's true. But our housing crisis is putting people in a position where mobile home parks may be the only opportunity, affordability-wise, for them to find a place to live. And so they don't own the land under there, but that is their home. That's where they, and if you had a single family home, once the fire department and disaster relief clears the place for you to go return to get your property, you can do that. Why? Because it's a mobile home park, should you not be able to do that as well? Again, once it's made safe and the appropriate emergency personnel and disaster relief, what have you, says that it's safe to go there. and a lot of what's being asked here what actions or plans for debris removal environment, those are all things that a mobile park owner is going to do anyway on their own and maybe they decide they want to do A, B or C with it it's just a matter of ensuring that the folks actually live there have some transparency, some idea of what, if any, plan is there, because they have to plan the rest of their lives, too. And so I think this is, given what we've seen all too often, I think more often than we've seen before with wildfires and other disasters, this is critically important. We're not in the same place where we've been in the past. And many of these mobile home parks have, as mentioned, have been around for generations, many, many years, which also means the land was bought for pennies on the dollar of what that land is valued today. And so it's not just a matter of putting burdens on the mobile home park. It's not like they haven't benefited from this relationship of owning these parks. Let's all understand during a disaster that everyone is going through a crisis. Let's try to help each other through that crisis. And I think transparency is a big part of that, allowing folks to get their property, their valuables, whatever price possessions might be left is a part of the healing process for everyone. And so again, I think that if we're going to be serious about responding to wildfires and helping victims, I think this is a pretty modest way to do that in communities where they may not own the land, but they certainly have a home there. And so obviously I'm supporting the bill.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the Senator and your witness. I apologize for, you know, what you've been through. And, you know, I started my term with the E&M Palisades fires, unfortunately, and understand the intent of what you're working through and saw the support as well from our local elected officials in Los Angeles and the work that you're doing on this. I don't know if you wanted to take a moment to respond to some of what the opposition is saying. I do think that as a body, as we've tried to work and move through a lot of these bills to really look at and focus on the recovery process, How do we do that in the way that really tries to understand the full magnitude of the folks that are being impacted? I know that, for instance, a lot of the folks who are impacted are dealing with other industries in which they're also having issue. This is awkward for me to say only because of stuff happening, is the insurance industry, for instance. And so I just wanted to ask if you wanted to elaborate or respond to anything the opposition was saying. Anything in particular you want me to focus on? I'm happy to go through their letter, but if you wanted to respond to some of the concerns that they shared.

Well, they're concerned about, well, the communications, I think, is probably the least of your concerns. The access to the properties, you know, if I know there was a concern raised about liability. Happy, you know, if you want to provide us with some language about like indemnity you know happy to consider that with regards to people being able to access their properties I understand it a dangerous setting We don want to have people going to their properties and then suing because something goes wrong at the property for reasons that are outside of the reasonable scope of the responsibility of a mobile home park owner post-disaster. I understand how chaotic these sites are, having been there literally a couple days after the fire on the ground. so that is reasonable to me conceptually but I do want to make sure that we provide folks with the opportunity to go back to their properties. It was a very frustrating experience quite frankly to be able to bring constituents back to their homes their single family homes but the folks that were living in the mobile home park were not given that opportunity and often times other people were getting into the area, there was fears about people rummaging through their properties You know, you know, you know, you know, it did happen. Right. With people kind of breaking through the fence and then trying to steal things when they weren't even able to leave legally go back to their property. So, you know, the landlords, you know, the mobile home parks owners permission. So that was an issue. I will remind you know, Zelda reminded me, you know, she's got a mortgage. She's got a mortgage. Right. This is not just there is a property right here. This is not a simple rental. and by the way, their property rights associated with the rental too but this is, she's paying a monthly mortgage associated with their property and I just want to remind people of that finally, getting into this kind of broader dialogue that we were having with Assemblymember Wilson I think we recognize the fact that there is a set of rules that are already in place with regards to closure and we just want to make sure, given everything we know about the localized and regional impacts associated with a major disaster, burning down or destroying a park, that some of the considerations that we know are relevant be brought into the conversation. How do we do this in a way that's not onerous? We certainly have tried to craft it that way. We took amendments from the committee to try to hone the bill so this doesn't become a kind of an unnecessary set of onerous challenges for the owners. But I'm very open to continual honing of the language, if that's of interest to you, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Senator. And thanks to my colleagues, Assembly Member Avila Farias and Wilson for further comments on this too. And I would encourage you to support this today, but encourage you to work with the opposition and our colleagues who have done a lot of work as well on the housing space.

And happy to follow up as well. Thank you.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. And if this bill passes, going to judiciary, we're happy to work with the author and the mobile home park owners to work on the indemnity issue. because I don't think the intention... Not at all I totally understand the concerns of mobile home parks They going to an Even after it been cleared there still risks there And this is going to judiciary right It is If it passes today it goes to judiciary So I'm sure the judicial staff will be happy to work on that indemnity issue to ensure that the mobile home park owners are not made liable if someone does choose to go onto a site that may have been lost to a wildfire. Yeah, because they are dangerous sites. I've locked them. Even once they've been cleared to go and look for your property, there are still potential dangers there. And I think that's a very reasonable concern from the opposition. Including respiratory dangers. Yeah. So, okay. So would you like to close, Senator?

Motion to pass to the committee and judiciary. Haney, Patterson, Patterson, no. Avi Lafarrius, no. Abilafari is no. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Ta? No. Ta, no. Tangipa? No. Tangipa, no. Wicks? Wilson? That will be placed on call. All right. Thank you very much, Senator. Next, we have Senator Caballero, item 12.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify again. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm an AICP planner and the Senior Director of California Yimby. We're a statewide organization of over 80,000 members committed to ending the California housing shortage and making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family. The bad news is that when it comes to homeownership, our state has been failing middle-class families. The median home price in California is now over 10 times the median household income. For context, a healthy ratio tops out at about five. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of families have been forced to leave California in recent decades. This exodus is happening because our state has failed to build enough of the starter homes we need to sustain the California dream and create the next generation of homeowners. The good news is that we've already made substantial progress toward that solution. In recent years, this chamber and many members of this committee have helped to pass the Starter Home Revitalization Act, which streamlines the process of building townhouses and small lot single-family homes. And these are the starter homes of 2026. So why are we back here? To quote Ernest Hemingway, the only kind of writing is rewriting. As implementation has scaled up, we've learned a lot about a number of small ways that the Starter Harm Revitalization Act could be improved, and SB 1116 reflects a lot of those lessons. They call it a cleanup bill. As the son of a mechanic, I like to call it tune-up. SB 1116 clarifies definitions, strengthens oversight, and standardizes implementation, which provides certainty for planners, local elected officials, and developers alike. Indeed, every single fix in this bill addresses a real-world challenge that's been faced by one of those parties who have used this law to build housing. In questioning, I'm more than happy to elaborate on the specific technical amendments here. But in the meantime, we respectfully request your aye vote on 1116. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 1116. My name is Paul Steidle. I'm co-founder of Build Casa, a small-scale infill housing developer and a licensed architect. We're building some of the first homes in the state using the Starter Home Revitalization Act, the SHRA. We're currently permitting 44 units under this law and now completing construction on the first units. These are true starter homes. They're two and three bedroom units. They're on individual lots. And they'll be sold to buyers at roughly 30% below the average home price. I wanted to highlight a few issues that we've encountered on the ground. First, we frequently see stale CCNRs from decades ago that restrict subdivision and smaller lots. We've had to walk away from multiple good projects for new housing because of old restrictions on title, and this is pretty common around the state. The final mapping process doesn't have any timeline accountability. The phase has been a major source of delay for our projects. Regularly it takes three to four times longer than the tentative map approval, which does have a shot clock. Delays of this magnitude can threaten the viability of the projects. Third, because of gray areas in the text, we routinely run into design questions related to basic zoning definitions. In many cases, we've had to reduce the size of units to meet conservative local interpretations or seek HCD guidance. This is a common source of delay, and the livability of the units is affected. This bill directly addresses these problems and others. It clarifies definitions, it adds a shot clock for the final map stage, addresses the stale CCNRs, and it gives HCD oversight of local ordinances. The result will be a better law that produces four stale starter homes for Californians. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1116. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1116?

Ali Saberman on behalf of the housing action coalition and support. Thank you

Okay, is there anyone here in opposition to SP 1116? We'll bring it back to committee. We have a motion is there a second. Thank you. I'll second it. Any other comments or questions? Thank you, Senator. Would you like to close?

Motion to pass to the committee and local government. Haney, Harrison, Harrison, I have Lafarious I have Lafarious I callosa I callosa I Garcia cholera I call right I leave war ta thank you pa thank you bye I weeks weeks I Wilson on call so So we'll place that on call and we'll go ahead. Thank you, Senator. And then we have item one, SB 222, Senator Wiener. Senator Wiener, you ready to go? I think you have two items up. Items one and two. So we'll start with SB 222. Actually three. There's one that was later in the. Oh, there is. That's right. Item five as well. So we'll start with the Wiener show with SB 222. And actually would it be possible to start with SB 677 Sure. Okay, thank you. So item two, SB 677. Okay, thank you very much.

And as long as they are served by public water and sewer systems. and then while allowing public officials, advisory bodies, and the subdivision applicant to appeal a parcel map. And then the bill is currently written, ties TEFRA bond approvals to the HAA. We know there are some concerns about that approach, and that's why we're going to continue to work through that issue to make sure we come up with an approach that works. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today is John Lovell, the senior project developer with Mission Housing Development Corporation, and Greg Komenor, co-founder of Daylight Community Development. We also have several folks available for technical questions around TEFRA, John Ansel, and Steve Strain. Thank you. Whoever wants to go first. Sure, I'm happy to go. I just put the microphone a little closer to you if you could. Sure. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Committee member, Coloza, it's nice to see you. You are actually my representative. I live in Echo Park, so great to see you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Greg Commonor, and I'm an affordable housing developer in Los Angeles. Over the past decade I have founded two firms Daylight Community Development and Allegiant Housing We started the company at a graduate school at UCLA and we built everything from supportive housing on Skid Row for the Downtown Women Center modular housing senior adaptive reuse housing, workforce housing, and everything in between. We need all of it. We are actually closing on a new construction 316-unit family affordable housing development in Los Angeles tomorrow, so it's nice to be here at a bit of a stressful time. We're closing 808 units of new family affordable housing in the next 45 days. And it's very exciting to be with my friend and colleague, Steve Strain, who is buried in paperwork. So thank you for being here. At Elysian Housing, we believe everyone deserves a safe, stable place to live across the income spectrum, but especially for our most vulnerable neighbors. Our work focuses on building housing for individuals experiencing homelessness and creating pathways to lift people out of poverty. But none of this is possible without stable housing as a foundation. This will be a bit wonky, so please stick with me. SB 677 by Senator Weiner makes a targeted and important fix to the Housing Accountability Act to remove a key barrier that is currently delaying or preventing the delivery of much-needed affordable housing across California. Everything we do in our work is funded with tax-exempt bonds issued by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. SIDLAC was able, driven by recent federal legislation, to dramatically increase our industry-wide capacity to build affordable housing, but with that increased volume brings the need for technical fixes to improve and expedite these projects. As we talk about today, a federal requirement for tax-exempt bond issuance is TEFRA authority. The federal statute requires a jurisdiction to approve the issuance. This is not project approval. This is not land use approval, but rather a forum to discuss the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. Specifically, SB 677 clarifies that a failure by a local jurisdiction to provide a TEFRA endorsement or to at least hold that hearing constitutes a disapproval under the Housing Accountability Act, making that inaction subject to enforcement. Obviously, there is discussions on how to make sure that works within the federal statute. The HAA already applies when local governments deny or delay housing projects outright. This bill simply closes a loophole that allows jurisdictions to block projects indirectly through inaction rather than formal denial, an issue we have run into personally, which I will get into later. TEFRA is a federally required procedural step. It requires a public hearing and an endorsement by a local elected official before tax-exempt private activity bonds can be issued. It is not intended to be a policy decision point. However, in practice, certain jurisdictions have used it as leverage to delay or derail affordable housing projects that have already been vetted by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. To be clear, TEFRA happens after the state has awarded bonds and the development team has been allotted a hard deadline to close to begin construction. When a local official refuses to act, developers are left with no recourse. We've already completed for and have secured scarce bond allocations, completed extensive due diligence, and often have closing requirements on the land and the transaction, only to be stalled indefinitely by administrative inaction. On one of my current projects, Rosemead Family Apartments, we recently had this exact problem. We proposed 133-unit affordable housing development, which is both adaptive reuse and ground-up construction, just a third of a mile from the Eaton Fireburn. We chose this site to be a part of the rebuilding effort after thousands of homes and rental units were lost during the Eaton Fire This development will serve incomes from 30 to 80 AMI with a mix of ones twos and threes It a great project The project was awarded bonds from SIDLAC in December 2025 and we've all been racing to get this closed. In this situation, there was unfortunate NIMBY opposition, the same old tropes, and the electeds in this jurisdiction actually canceled the Teffra hearing without any notice. We were left with few to no options, and it could have killed the project. We ended up getting the hearing scheduled with a lot of advocacy, but we want to make sure this does not happen again. That is not the point of TEFRA. It is not meant to be a blanket veto. It is a federal requirement that lives outside of planning and funding approvals. Lastly, and I think it is crucial to mention, is that in this moment with increased capacity due to the 25% test and the increased amount of projects funding through SIDLAC, we need a variety of bond issuers and parties to move these projects through. Our projects have relied on a variety of issuers, city issuers, state issuers, and JPAs, and each of these issuers and decisions are made based on our funding requirements, the project, the locality, and other project attributes. These entities are all critical plumbing to the affordable housing community, and I believe we should ensure that all of these parties have the authority and ability to issue SIDLAC-issued bonds across the state. This will speed up development timelines and ensure we have the adequate team and environment to continue with the housing we all desperately need. California's housing crisis is, in many ways, a financing crisis. we simply cannot afford to lose projects that are already entitled, funded, and ready to move forward because of procedural obstruction. Tax-exempt bonds are that tool, and we've been able to get creative to use those tools, but we need to make sure that TEFRA does not stand in the way. SB 677 is a common-sense solution. It ensures accountability, prevents misuse of a federal procedural step, and helps critically needed affordable housing projects stay on track. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you to the witnesses. Oh, yeah. Oh, OK. All right. Morning, everyone. Thank you to Senator Wiener for inviting me here to speak to you all this morning. Mission Housing had to deal with the frivolous appeal of a subdivision map for one of our new construction projects last year. Our development dubbed the Marvel and the Mission by the community is a culmination of years of grassroots organizing to bring almost 400 units of affordable housing to a large infill site next to 16th and Mission BART station in San Francisco. Because of the widespread support this project enjoyed, we easily received our land use entitlements, approvals, but I have to admit everyone was caught off guard when a small handful of neighbors submitted a frivolous appeal of our subdivision map. The stated reasons in this appeal had nothing to do with the merits of the map itself and everything to do with the usual reasons we're all used to hearing about why people don't want affordable housing built in their neighborhood. Well, I'm pleased to be able to say that this appeal was rejected handily, and we were able to start construction on the marble earlier this year. Despite this victory, beating the appeal came at a cost, especially in legal fees for a land use attorney, but also staff time for my agency as well as all other city agencies who had to respond to the appeal. There's been a lot of talk in this legislature lately about how expensive it is to build affordable housing in the state, largely as a product of the complicated approvals and financing processes that projects have to navigate. Secondly, even though the While the appeal was handily defeated, the delay itself was enough to cause serious concern about whether the project funding would be jeopardized, particularly because of very strict drop-dead deadlines that come with awards from agencies like HCD and the State Treasurer's Office to start construction by a certain time or lose your funding. While we were able to beat this appeal with time to spare, the next affordable housing project that faces a frivolous appeal of its subdivision map might not be so fortunate. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully urge a yes vote. Thank you. Are there other folks were here in support of the bill? Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras of Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Circulate Planning and Policy. Thank you. Good afternoon. Allie Saverman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, a proud sponsor of 677. In support. Dolan Gray for California and be another co-sponsor and strong support. Thank you Harrison Linder with leading age California here in support Good afternoon Jenna Abbott with the California Council for affordable housing another proud co-sponsor of the bill and strongly in support. Thank you. Good morning Ben Barker Ben Barker municipal advisor to the California municipal finance authority which is a JPA the largest affordable housing issue in the state. We strongly support the bill. Great. Thank you all. Are there opposition witnesses here? Or anyone opposed? Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Rural County Representative of California. We do not have a formal position. However, we've been working with the author's office for the last two months to hopefully address the Teffra issue, and I appreciate the author's commitment to continue to work on that. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Anyone else here who is opposed? Anyone? We'll bring it back to the committee. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second from Ms. Coloza. All right. What? Oh, sure. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator, for this bill. Thank you for your testimony. It was great to meet you. and thanks for raising awareness of this TEFRA issue. I didn't know that this existed that there were delays that were happening not affirmatively but passively in some of the approvals that are happening and going down in this way for projects that are already approved and reviewed so happy to second and would love to be added as a co-author as well. Thanks. Alright All right. So we have a motion and a second. Mr. Weiner, you may close. Thank you. Given what we're about to do tomorrow, congratulations to Assemblymember Wicks and to Senator Cabaldon on the housing bond, which is very exciting. It's going to help us get tens of thousands and more new homes funded. We need to make sure that we are getting that money on the ground, deployed, converted into homes where people reside as quickly as possible. And this bill addresses two tangible issues to help make that happen. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Great. Thank you. And I appreciate you working with us on the bill and always looking for these areas where there might still be some loopholes that folks are using to really stop housing that desperately needs to move forward and closing those loopholes and working with folks who are seeing that firsthand. I know that we been in conversation about this section one of the bill and the TEFRA hearings and that you continuing to work on that and have your commitment there So we have a motion and a second and we can take a roll call vote. The motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Pearson? Avila Farias? Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Calra? Lee? Ward? Ta? Thank you, but not 40 weeks weeks. I Wilson I Wilson I and that was as amended to As amended the Amendments will be taken in local government great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, which one would you like to do now? Why don't we do? Why don't we do heat pumps, 222? All right. Item number 1, SB222. It's just you and me, Mr. Chair. Oh, wow. Y'all left me. Go for it. San Francisco running state government. Watch out. Exactly. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm here to present Senate Bill 222, the Heat Pump Access Act, which will make cost-saving heat pump, water heater, and HVAC installations faster, simpler, and more affordable by streamlining the permitting process. Heat pumps are a highly efficient zero pollution option for HVAC systems and water heaters that make heating and cooling homes cleaner, safer, and more affordable. They're so energy efficient that they reduce electricity use for heating by up to 75 percent and allow customers across the state to experience significantly lower energy bills. Replacing a fossil fuel HVAC or water pump system with a heat pump eliminates half of the, or excuse me, eliminates harmful pollutants that those systems then release into homes, which also improves health. Californians are facing sky-high energy costs, air pollution, and climate change-driven extreme weather. Heat pumps are part of the solution. The governor set a target of installing 6 million heat pumps by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Nearly 2 million heat pumps have been installed, so we have about 4 million left and hopefully will exceed the goal. and expediting and simplifying the permit process is a key part of that, and SB 222 will help. With me today to testify is Madison Vander Clay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition, a co-sponsor of SB 222, and Vince Segrew with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. My name is Madison Vander Clay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund, a nationwide network of equipment manufacturers, installers, energy providers, and advocates. Here is a proud co-sponsor of SB222. As the senator mentioned, California has set a goal of installing 6 million heat pumps by 2030, and state and local incentives do require permits. However, research from energy providers, incentive programs, and installer interviews have shown that permitting heat pumps is often a time-consuming and costly endeavor. Process and application requirements vary significantly from city to city and are often unclear. While some cities offer instant permits others require extensive review and multiple applications for a single installation Contractors and customers may face the price fees and some HOAs prohibit heat pumps altogether For example, we interviewed a homeowner whose AC broke down last July and it would have been about $4,000 cheaper for her to install a heat pump instead of a conventional system. Her HOA told her no and she's still negotiating with them a year later. Right now, 75 to 90 percent of installations are done without any permit, meaning no safety checks and no oversight. SB 222 will standardize best practices to improve permitting compliance and provide needed consistency for installers and customers. This bill requires cities to consolidate permits into one application, offer automated permitting for same-location swap-outs, and places a soft cap on permit fees that can be exceeded if the fee is flat and posted publicly. It also prevents HOAs from requiring onerous aesthetic review or banning heat pumps altogether. SB222 will ensure California is ready to permit and install heat pumps quickly and without imposing additional costs on consumers. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Vince Seguru, State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 to hear here today. And we're in very strong support of SB222. So our members are on the front lines of California's clean energy transition. Sheet metal workers are the skilled HVAC technicians designing, sizing, installing, and maintaining the heat pump systems that California homeowners are being asked to rely on for their comfort, indoor air quality, and energy efficiency needs. But for the clean energy transition to work, the process has to work in the real world. From what we hear from our union contractors and technicians, it's consistent. The permitting process for residential heat pump installations are often fragmented, slow, and potentially consistently inconsistent. Standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Timelines are unpredictable. And for contractors and technicians trying to do work the right way, that lack of standardization creates delays, added costs, and makes an unfortunate excuse for low-road contractors to avoid the permitting system altogether. SB 222 helps address this problem by creating a more standardized and efficient permitting process for qualifying residential heat pump installations while still preserving important safeguards. Notably, this bill also preserves the local authority to apply workforce labor standards, including prevailing wages and the use of approved apprentices. That matters because heat pump installation should be made more accessible and efficient without compromising safety, quality, or craftsmanship. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you to both the witnesses and the others who are here in support of the bill. Good afternoon, I believe. Will Brigger for Climate Action California, 350 Sacramento, 350 Humboldt, and the Climate Reality Project California Coalition. We all support the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon, Kai Clausen, on behalf of CREs and support. Thank you. Hello, Sophia Quach on behalf of the City of San Jose in support. Hello, Tim Deck with Climate Future California in support of the bill. Afternoon, Craig Schiller on behalf of AVA Community Energy in support. Alan Epps with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, co-sponsor in support. Also here on behalf of co-sponsor San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, SPUR, and also relaying support from the Center for Biological Diversity Climate Future California Climate Resolve Gradient Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility Thank you Thank you Mr Chair Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice in support Hi, Graciela Casillo-Kranks here on behalf of the Abundance Network in support. Good afternoon. Beverly Yu on behalf of Dyke and U.S. in support. Thank you. Marjorie Sampson-Advisors here on behalf of A.O. Smith Corporation in support. Hi, Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation California in support. Thanks. Steven Sensor with Brownstein on behalf of Permit Power in support. Great. Thank you all. Are there any opposition witnesses? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Louis Brown on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. We haven't opposed unless amended. I want to start by expressing our appreciation to the committee and to the senator for working with us. We really just have one issue is that when these types of installations impact the community property of a community association, I want to ensure that the reasonable checks and balances are there so that the other members and owners of the community association are not impacted negatively with construction costs, restoration repairs, and others. And we believe that we're getting really close there with the language that has recently come into the bill. And so we very much appreciate that. And then we're just looking for consistency in these practices that we go in. And we do believe that the language recently adopted into 222 is very close to that, which is in AB 1684, which shares very similar language and goals. And so I think with just a couple of additional minor tweaks that we want to work with the senator, that we can get to a point where our concerns are resolved. And so thank you very much for that. Mr. Chair, Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We appreciate the author's intent and actually everything I heard during his introduction of the bill, we completely agree with. We want to be a partner with the state in reaching these goals of installing energy-efficient appliances and apparatuses in homes. But the bill is premised under this false premise that local permitting is a barrier. We went and pulled the fee schedules from all the members on the dais, unfortunately are not here. San Jose, $0.00. Fresno, $40.00. And it's already prohibited in state law for local governments to overcharge. We have to demonstrate our fees. We have to do that in a fair and open and public process. And if there's any adjustments, they have to go through a very thoughtful and deep analysis. Permit fees are really not a meaningful contributor to the project costs. The CPUC has already done an analysis of this. They interviewed contractors and installers. And while these are the most profitable for installations, only 7.8% of applicants get a permit, which I think was on par with what was stated earlier. What happens? These systems fail. People need hot water in the cases of a hot water heater. They have a friend or a family member go to a big box store and swap it out like for like. In order to get a heat pump, these are $18,000. investments. They take days, if not weeks, to get onto the contractor's calendar. And if the state really wants to address affordability crisis, they will fully fund the CEC's rebate program, which sits right now at $0. So people don't have $20,000 burning a hole in their pocket to address the planning for a huge investment like this. That also typically requires an electrical panel upgrade with a dedicated circuit, that's another $5,000 to $7,000. So what we're asking for is not to be targeted as the bill is somehow a barrier to deploying these. All of our cities that we've pulled in this committee and the next committee, these are over-the-counter, same-day permits. but the bill requires us to acquire this new automated system, those are not free. And anybody who says that they are free, either there's a monthly permit or service fee or there's a cap on the system's utilization. And so the bill represents significant costs for cities, and for those reasons, we're opposed. Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses. Others who are here in opposition. Hi, good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Royal County, Represents of California, also on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in opposition. Thank you. Claire Sullivan, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, echoing the concerns of the league. Thank you. Great. All right. Nobody else here in opposition. Nobody else here with me up on the dais. They all went to a party I wasn't invited to. and turn it back to you, Senator. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You know, I think although there's certainly a range of cities and some cities where things are super fast and efficient, there are others that aren't, and you heard that from Mr. Segrou, and we also know that the reason or one reason why a lot of people do it without permits is that the permit process can be a lot. And so the simpler we can make it, the more people are going to adopt this. We put a delayed implementation for the automated online permitting, precisely understanding the cities will need to transition. The bill exempts out the smallest cities and counties. And we're living in California in the year 2026, I think, as we did with solar, moving to more online permitting makes a lot of sense. So I appreciate the committee's work, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your engagement with the committee. I know that we had a number of rounds of amendments that we worked on together, and I appreciate that. And it sounds like we all agree that we want to make this easier to do and streamline it getting done. And I appreciate you working with all of the folks to make sure that we can do that and being flexible around it. And when we have folks here, we'll take a motion and move that bill forward. Thank you all for being here. One more. Senator Wiener, Bill? Yes. We have SB908. SB908, item number five. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SB908 will streamline the permit process for energy code compliant windows for residential window replacements to make it easier for people to weatherize their windows lower their energy costs and have warmer or cooler homes And we'll make sure that cities and HOAs are not either categorically preventing people from weatherizing their homes with energy-efficient windows or requiring very, very costly replica replacements to satisfy aesthetic needs. We want people to weatherize their homes. We want people to lower their energy bills, and this bill will help. The bill does exclude local historic landmarks and districts as well as individually landmarked buildings at the state level. And so we think we strike a good balance there, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I will say that the bill, also specific to the city we represent, per an amendment in the other house, for new construction puts limitations on cities' ability to require specific kinds of windows. So with me today to testify is, again, John Lovell from Mission Housing. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to start by thanking the legislature for all the work you've done recently to make it so much easier for housing projects to be approved in the state of California, especially for 100% affordable housing developments like the kind that Mission Housing built. Despite that, there's still work to be done. One of the consistent areas where we still run into challenges is with arbitrary and subjective requirements on what kind of windows can be put into our buildings. Over the past 10 years, besides the new buildings we've built, some of the proudest accomplishments we've done at Mission Housing have involved the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing stock. In many cases, buildings that either Mission Housing built in the 1970s and the 80s or that were built by the Housing Authority in the same time period. In many cases, what should be simple, straightforward window replacement jobs often end up getting tied in red tape with arbitrary aesthetic prescriptions on what kind of materials can be used in window frames. Often it seems like the point of these rules is to treat a building built within the lifetime of many of us in this room as if it's a Victorian that survived the 1906 earthquake. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense. This is a consistent challenge with new construction as well. The city has what it calls objective design standards that outright prohibit vinyl frame windows on any part of a new building that can be seen from a public right-of-way. This despite the fact that in most cases, vinyl windows are substantially less expensive than their aluminum frame counterparts and are often superior heat insulators, which leads to long-term energy reductions in savings and energy costs over the lifetime of the building. On one of our recent new construction projects, we were only able to get vinyl frame windows approved by invoking one of the five cost-saving waivers that were allowed under the state density bonus program. While this move allowed us to save several six figures and hard costs for the project, it shouldn't take a density bonus waiver to get this done. It should just take some common sense. The other reason why this is important is reliability. The building industry lately has been rocked by a series of disruptions in the pandemic and global trade instability. I even had a project in Northern California where production on windows were delayed from wildfire impacts and PG power shutoffs In cases like this it critically important for us to not have our hands tied by arbitrary aesthetic preferences of a public agency Thank you for your time, and I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Others who are here in support of the bill. Allie Saperman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support Madison Banner Clay with the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support Nolan Gray for California MB in support Cindy Heisman, California Preservation Foundation We have not taken a position, but we thank the author for taking our amendments Thank you All right Are there any opposition witnesses? I do not believe so. Is there anyone at all here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. Senator, you may close. Respect for an aye vote. Great. Thanks for your leadership on this. Thanks for also working with our city and certainly for homeowners to be able to reduce their costs and have more energy efficient window installations is a win. And I appreciate your thoughtful approach with the historic exemptions as well. And we will take a motion and move this bill to local government when we have folks back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We are – I know that Senator Wahab was here and waiting patiently, but we may have lost her. And Senator Blakespear and Senator Eric Gein. That's who we have remaining. If you are watching or you are their staff and you want to come over here, we will take you up. And if you find where all my committee members went and where they're getting free pizza or something, you can let me know that as well. There's some, like, big World Cup game on that's happening right now. Everybody's like, oh, my God, go. I'm just kidding. I don't know that to be a fact. Thank you. I also will say that we have to finish at 1 p.m. We are going to lose this room, so we do need folks to come. That gives us about 34 minutes to do three bills. That's also for the members, for committee members. you have to wrap your party up early and because we don't have another room if you don't come and present your bills we may not have that opportunity for you And if you need it out today that probably important Aha, there we go. Senator Wahab, who I know is waiting patiently for a long time and has come back for a moment. All right, item 13, SB 1238. Welcome back. Thank you. Hello, Chair and members. I'd first like to accept the committee amendments as described in the committee analysis and understanding that due to timing, these will technically be taken to Assembly Judiciary, where this bill will go next. The Department of Real Estate reports that 99% of all new housing construction create an HOA to offset long-term infrastructure costs, but this also comes with long-term effects as the HOA board and management companies have little to no accountability to the homeowners whose property they are responsible for maintaining. Under current law, neither an HOA manager nor an HOA management company is subject to the licensing and oversight by any state agency. Homeowners seeking to hold an HOA management company accountable must file a court action in Superior Court to enforce the law in Davis-Stirling, a very expensive and cumbersome process where homeowners are at a distinct disadvantage. SB 1238 will protect homeowners who reside in communities with the Homeowners Association by requiring additional disclosures to the homeowner and ensuring HOA managers and board act in the homeowner's best interest. Specifically, SB 1238 will protect homeowners by requiring HOA managers provide a duty of care in the highest good faith effort to the HOA and its members. SB 1238 clarifies that HOA reserves are not expended on specific types of litigation that are not already authorized in existing law. This ensures that HOA managers can no longer exploit a loophole in current law that allows the HOA manager to use reserve funds that are intended for the maintenance and upkeep of the community for their legal defense. Further, SB 1238 ensures the legal defense line item is in the general fund and not hidden from the homeowner or board. Lastly, the bill will ensure that inspection ratings are transparent and understandable for the homeowner, HOA board, and HOA manager, who is responsible for ensuring buildings are habitable and compliant with the state's current health and safety standards. The bill will ensure property owners can obtain necessary information from the HOA to clarify the financial health of the association, which is particularly critical information homeowners need when selling a condo or a home within an HOA. With me to testify in support of this measure is Jennifer Speck, Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy for the California Association of Realtors. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. Building on the senator's comments, California relies on a self-enforcing HOA model. The only remedy available to homeowners is civil litigation in superior court, which is costly and out of reach for most families. HOAs can use reserve funds to defend themselves, but homeowners cannot. As a result, even serious misconduct goes unchallenged. SB 1238 does not change the enforcement structure. California will continue to rely on self-governance backed by homeowners legal rights. What the bill seeks to ensure is that when an HOA manager acts as an agent of the board and homeowners, they have a clear enforceable obligation to act competently, honestly, and in good faith towards both the board and homeowners who fund the HOA's operations and results. A duty of care to the HOA board alone is not enough. Homeowners bear the financial risk, pay the assessments, and rely on accurate disclosures to protect their homes and their values. They deserve the same basic protections California already requires in every other context where somebody manages another person's money. Some have raised concerns about increased liability for management companies, but the greater risk lies in maintaining the status quo. Weak standards have already produced costly litigation, deferred maintenance, inconsistent disclosures, and financing barriers that depress property values. SB 1238 supports responsible managers and ensures that bad actors cannot hide behind a contract clause that shields them from accountability. Finally, SB 1238 strengthens transparency, supports responsible management, and gives homeowners the information they need to protect their greatest resource of financial stability and generational wealth. The question is not whether standards will increase costs. The question is whether the absence of standards will continue to expose homeowners to financial loss, unsafe conditions, and barriers to homeownership. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I am available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. Others who are here in support of the bill? Not seeing anyone. Is there a primary witness in opposition? Like he should be. Welcome back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute with an opposed unless amended position. We have worked with the author and the sponsor to clarify a whole host of issues that we've had with this bill and really I think have made some good progress on the transparency issues that the senator is seeking. Our remaining issue does deal with the addition of Section 5390, which is the language that would create a new duty of care with the manager of the association and the members of the association. Managers are under contract with the association. And so we believe that agency agreement that's created through that contract is where that duty of care lies. And to extend that to the members of the association, we think will create costs. It will increase costs to the association. It will increase costs to the managers. And when it increased costs to the association, that ultimately increased costs to the members. There are just some situations where a manager, in having their relationship with the association, may not be able to provide that duty of care to the association members. There's also the phrase used within this new section of law, highest in good faith effort. That's not a phrase that we generally see used in commercial transactional law dealing with duty of care. And so believe that if this were to become law, that the ambiguity of that phrase alone could create litigation going forward. So we look forward to working with the author and the sponsor to attempt to clarify this. If 5390 was simply added to clarify that the manager does have a duty to the association, we would remove our opposition, but at this time remain opposed. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Anyone else here who is in opposition to the bill? Not seeing anyone. We will bring it back to the committee, which is just me. Senator, you may close. Thank you. First and foremost I think that we have seen for decades HOAs being built throughout the state And there are so many different experiences where residents have stated that they have concerns with the HOA that there is a lack of you know proactive action on the needs of the residents, specifically for maintenance, for fixing roofs, for things like that. And then eventually they are blindsided by these massive assessments and massive fees and massive just out of nowhere. So we're doing our best to really kind of rein in what we consider the wild, wild west, that is HOAs, and really just put some safeguards that protect the homeowner and make sure that people aren't going broke because of poor management. So with that, I respectfully ask for an eye. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership and your work on this and your work with the committee. I know that there's amendments in the analysis that will be taken in Judiciary Committee. So this will be passed on to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary once members get here. Appreciate your work. Thank you. All right. We have two authors left, Senators Araguin and Senator Blakespear. And we have 25 minutes to accomplish both. Yeah. I mean, and do a number of votes and motions and things. I see Senator Ariein coming in. All right, Senator, come on up. Oh, there we go. Item 14, SB 1383. Let's make sure my witnesses are here. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. It's my pleasure to present Senate Bill 1383, which is a narrowly tailored amendment to the state density bonus law to make clear that projects that qualify for incentives and concessions in exchange for providing on-site affordable units cannot waive locally adopted labor standards. I want to clarify, this amendment does not affect any state adopted labor standards, including those in recent state housing legislation. This only addresses labor standards adopted by a city council or board of supervisors, such as local prevailing wage requirements, health care standards, or the use of apprentices, which are applicable to and specific to that local jurisdiction. I think, as you all know, I'm a very strong advocate for building housing for people at all income levels in our state. I strongly support laws to streamline and incentivize the production of needed homes. I believe the density bonus law is a critical tool to not just produce market rate housing, but the needed deed-restricted housing that Californians need. We want developers to use the density bonus to provide on-site affordable housing. We want to see homes built in California. I do believe we have to strike a balance between those goals and not compromising local labor standards to ensure that we provide good wages and health care for people that are constructing the housing in our state. Currently, the statute is ambiguous and does not explicitly state that labor standards are excluded from the category of costs that can be waived using incentives and concessions. It my belief that the legislative history of the statute was intended to suggest that incentives and concessions are focused on addressing lot development standards such as parking requirements height floor error ratio or other standards that impact the physical form of a project We know that labor standards are essential to providing health care and sustaining wages for working families. Some of the hardest working Californians who are literally building our state to make sure that they can afford food, housing, and the cost of living. By allowing labor standards to be waived, this threatens worker safety, undermines training pipelines, and creates unfair competition by allowing bad actors to undercut responsible contractors. SB 1383 ensures that while we're increasing our housing supply, we can also balance that with good-paying, sustained jobs. In closing, I want to acknowledge that since this bill was introduced, I've been in conversation with a number of stakeholders, some of which you'll hear from today, including the Home Builders Alliance and other housing groups about the potential impacts of locally adopted labor standards. I'm committed to continuing these conversations. If this bill moves out today to see if we can find a way to address these concerns, while also making sure we can maintain these critical labor standards. And I want to also acknowledge my conversation with my Assemblymember, Assemblymember Wicks, this morning about this bill as well, and my commitment to engaging with her if this bill moves out to continue the conversation on these issues. I want to ensure that we are not undermining the production of housing in California, but rather we're doing the right thing of building homes and making sure we are honoring our workers as well. With me to testify in support of the bill is Andreas Kluver, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Alameda County Building and Constructing Trades Council, and Vince DeGruy, the State Legislative Director for Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. Good afternoon, Chair Haney and members of the committee. My name is Andreas Kluver, and I represent the Alameda County Building and Instructions Trades Council, and I'm here in strong support of SB 1383. For many years in Berkeley, we have been, and across the region, we've been working collaboratively with policymakers, stateholders, and developers to craft what became known as the Hard Hats Ordinance in Berkeley. This policy was developed carefully, deliberately, and with a clear goal, to protect construction workers with health care standards and support the apprenticeship pipeline while ensuring that housing projects still pencil out. We understood the balance needed to be struck. We knew housing must get built, but we also knew that men and women building that housing deserve basic protections in the most dangerous of professions. But what we are seeing now is deeply troubling. In Berkeley, we saw a proposed 20-story tower where the developer was successfully able to use the density bonus concessions to waive core labor standards and protections. These included prevailing wage, health care, and apprenticeship standards. On a building of that scale, 20 stories, where workers are operating at heights and at high-risk conditions, those protections are not optional. They are essential. That is not good faith. That is not what the law was meant to do. Developers are exploiting the density bonus law in ways never intended, using it not just for zoning relief, but as a loophole to strip away worker protections. SB 1383 is about restoring that balance. It clarifies that concessions cannot be used to strip away essential labor standards and ensures that we can continue to build housing without compromising worker safety, training, or fair competition. Let me be clear We support housing We want to build more of it but we want to build it the right way SB 1383 ensures that we can do both I respectfully request an aye vote Chair and members my name is Vince Segrew State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 and I'm before you today in strong support of SB 1383. Construction is hard, dangerous work. Everyday workers put themselves at risk, high above the ground, around heavy materials, in conditions where one mistake can change a life forever. When something goes wrong, the consequences aren't minor, they're life-altering. Last year alone, 78 construction workers were killed on the job in California. Tens of thousands more are injured every year, many of them seriously. Falls, crushed limbs, and incidents that take workers out of the workforce, making construction the deadliest industry in the state. Our union has worked closely with enforcement agencies in the aftermath of a variety of these cases. In housing construction, too many contractors still fail to provide even basic health coverage. So when a worker gets hurt, the cost doesn't disappear. It gets pushed onto the public and onto families already dealing with crisis. That is why construction labor standards set a necessary baseline in an industry where, without clear rules, standards can erode quickly. These standards directly impact the quality and durability of the housing we are building. There's a gap in California housing law that creates confusion in how these standards apply, particularly under density bonus, and we are beginning to see that used to justify lowering standards. This creates a race to the bottom. That was never the intent of the law. The goal was to build more housing, not do it in a way that compromises safety or quality. SB 1383 fixes this, and the people building our housing deserve to go home safe at the end of the day. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Others who are here in support of the bill? Mr. Chairman and members, Scott West on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Union in support. Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Judy Yee, State Building and Construction Trades Council in support. Frankie Gracie with the Blue-Green Alliance in support. Great, thank you. Opposition witnesses? Anyone here in opposition? Nolan Gray for California EMB. We have concerns, but we appreciate the collaborative posture of the member and the co-sponsors, and we look forward to continuing working together. Thank you. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council, echoing the concerns of California EMB. Kate Rogers here on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, also echoing the concerns of California EMB and the Bay Area Council. Thank you. Ali Sabron on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, also echoing concerns, but appreciate the authors' work with us, and we remain very respectful and happy to work on this with you. Raymond Contreras on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, echoing my colleagues. Thank you very much, Senator, for your talking points. Thank you. Audrey Ritajek on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, echoing those concerns and thank the Senator for working with us. Good afternoon, Graciela Castillo-Krains here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. Unfortunately, we're trying to find a solution and we look forward to working with the Senator on ensuring that we're able to pair worker safety and making sure that affordable units are built. Thank you. Great, thank you all for sharing your positions and for the witnesses. Bringing back to the committee, Ms. Wick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Senator and the best witnesses I can imagine from the building trees here, my home folks. So thank you for coming up to testify. I also want to apologize that you and I have not had as much time to work on this as I think the bill warrants and deserves. It's been a little busy, I think, for both of us. And I know we've had some chance to talk briefly, and so I just want to put those conversations on the record here, and obviously you already acknowledged them. So I have concerns about the bill. I don't object with the intent of what you're trying to do, and I understand the value of the Berkeley Hardhats ordinance in my own district, so I just appreciate that work. What I'm nervous about is the state density bonus laws, widely heralded as the most effective framework that we have to actually get to the housing production that we need. And I want to make sure we're still honoring that. We've obviously had other bills, such as Senator Alvarez's bill, which I think is in your committee right now, helping to really make sure that we can continue that good work in that spirit, which I support his bill. And what I'm nervous about with this bill is the potential unintended consequence that it could have. I could see a scenario where you have anti-housing cities actually implementing labor standards that make projects unfeasible, even without union participation, because it could be used as a tool of nimbyism. and someone who's lived and breathed these very difficult labor standards conversations over the past eight years. I reached out to the Carpenters Union. I've had some good conversations with them. I would love to have more conversations with building trades, both at the local level and the state level, to see if we can make some amendments that I could support the bill later. Also, some of the concerns that were raised by YIMBY and some of the other organizations that I know have expressed concerns today. I can't support the bill today. I think it's going to get out. But I would love to actually, now that we have a little bit more time, work with you, work with all the stakeholders to see if we can figure out some amendments where we can address some of those concerns so that this could be a bill that I could support on the floor. But for today, I won't be able to support it. But I know that you're an incredibly collaborative housing champion. And I think we can hopefully get there and trust that we can, taking all the input in and figuring out a place where we can land where it can be something that I can support on the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Great. I'll give you the opportunity to close. No, I want to thank my assembly member. I'm very proud to say that for the dialogue that we've had about this bill. And I want to just express my commitment to continue to engage and work with you on this. And I think all the stakeholders that we heard from today and try to find that balance. Because I think the last thing we want to see is homes not built. because those are homes that the workers need, and also jobs for the workers to build those homes and try to see how we can balance making sure health care, which should be a basic human right in California, in this country, is something that every construction worker has, and making sure that people have sustaining high road jobs as well. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote and look forward to the continued engagement and work on this bill if it moves forward today. Thank you so much, Senator, and thank you for your leadership and making sure that we both, build housing and support the people who build housing. And I come from a city, obviously, with very strong local labor standards, and we believe those are critical and should be maintained. And I appreciate your leadership in making sure that happens. I do also want to thank you for working with Ms Wicks your Assembly member who I know I sure has some thoughtful engagement on this as it moves forward to help to address some of the concerns that have come up and the other folks who come forward as well So I appreciate your commitment on that and your work with us. And at the time when, well, I guess we could, well, we'll handle this bill when everybody comes back. But thank you so much. The motion will be passed to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Do you need a motion, though? Sure. Yeah, I'll second it. Go ahead. All right. I'll second it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll bring up our last agenda item. Senator Blakespear, SCR 131. It's item number 15. We need all of the members to come back because literally we are going to need to vote on everything and get out of this room in the next 10 to 15 minutes. And if you're not here for that, we may not take your vote. Hello, Chair. Hey, hello, members. I know exactly how that feels to try to bring all the members back during the last bill so that you can get all the votes on the record. I'm here to present SCR 131. This resolution rallies our state and focuses our attention to urgently and unsheltered street homelessness in California. It is a true moral failing that more than 100,000 Californians live unsheltered every single night on our sidewalks, in our parks, under freeway overpasses and along riverbeds, all without access to privacy, safety or sanitation. Night after night, people are living right here within the shadow of our magnificent historic state capital. Every week, every member of our esteemed body comes to Sacramento and sees our neighbors who live in places not fit for human habitation. If there ever was a group of Californians who are disinvested and deserving of so much better, it's those who live unsheltered on our streets. Unsheltered homelessness is an absolute crisis in California, and it demands immediate and focused action. The longer someone remains unsheltered, the greater that person's risks. In fact, the life expectancy for someone living without a home is 17 years shorter than the general public. 17 years shorter. Over 50,000 people nationwide have died living unsheltered in the past decade. This is not something that we should normalize or accept. Unsheltered homelessness is not only a humanitarian crisis, but a systemic failure that undermines public health, community safety, and trust in government. And yet too often we seem to normalize encampments as a permanent condition of life in California. Even in a high-cost state with notably high housing costs, this is not inevitable. The Interagency Council on Homelessness has set a clear, measurable target. By next year, 2027, exits from unsheltered homelessness into shelter or housing need to rise from 42 percent to 70 percent. The ultimate objective is straightforward and doable. Ensure people experiencing unsheltered homelessness can access shelter or housing tonight with a clear pathway to permanent stability. But to address unsheltered homelessness, we have to do more as the legislature and the state. California must prioritize evidence-based solutions that are proven to work at scale. We often marvel in California and in this nation at what we can achieve when we work together toward a shared goal, such as sending people around the moon or developing the COVID vaccine in record time. But this is no moonshot. It's far easier, frankly. The problem is we have not focused on the entire continuum of housing. We are primarily focused on building people their forever homes whether that is affordable market rate or permanent supportive But what people need first and foremost is that housing tonight In San Diego when more than 12 people asked for a bed to sleep in tonight, less than 10% got one. That means that 90% of people who want a bed, who raise their hand and say, I would like a place to stay tonight, are told that there is no room available at the inn. We must deploy a full continuum of housing options, from interim shelter to permanent supportive housing, to addiction and mental health intervention, to building people's forever homes in order to meet people where they are. State, regional, and local governments must better align and coordinate limited resources to invest in both interim and long-term housing solutions. But it starts with us changing the narrative. We cannot accept encampments as inevitable. Right now, the streets are our waiting room, while housing construction takes multiple years and costs $700,000 a door. The undisputable fact is we do not have enough emergency and interim shelter capacity for our unsheltered homeless neighbors. Our constituents are demanding change, and we can do so much better by the folks we walk by every single day who continue to go without housing tonight. This SCR 131 is a call to match the scale of this crisis with urgency, coordination and evidence based investments in solutions that work so that no Californian is left to live on our streets. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. No witnesses. Are there anyone here in support of this resolution? No. And I'll just say that there is somebody behind. Oh, sorry, Senator. Catherine Charles-Math of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you. Great. And no, anyone here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. Colleagues? We have a motion and a second. And Mr. Lee? Yeah. I just want to thank the author for your steadfast efforts on trying to combat the issue of homelessness. And I also want to thank the committee for the very robust amendments as well. I'm very supportive of interim housing. We've done a lot of that in San Jose. but I am always very critical of interim housing being disguised as really the final step on the rung when I think a lot of people are content with the idea that people just aren't visible on the streets and really want to put them in interim sites, but it should be on a continuum of solutions where we get people off the streets, as you talked about in your remarks. And I do think it's important that people aren't waiting forever on the waiting rooms of the streets, but we also don't want people to never have their forever home at the same time. And And I just want to express the concern. And that's why I really do like a lot of the compromise and the amendments and things that have happened in this committee. Because, you know, in San Jose, where our mayor touts a lot of interim housing solutions, but that's taken from the affordable housing funds. We see literally in my own neighborhood where we spent $26 million on safe encampment sites and then they abandoned that. This is way too expensive, but that was all money that would have otherwise went to affordable housing. So we have a real totality problem here. But I do think what you're expressing is important in talking about how we do need immediate solutions, but they should all be on the continuum solutions for those who are experiencing homelessness. So happy to support the resolution today. And I just want to thank you for your work and your work at the committee on the scenes. Thank you. All right. Give you the opportunity to close. Yes, thank you. I just want to say that I think one of the problems in our conception of housing is that we talk about people's forever homes without recognizing that on average people stay in an apartment for three years. So if somebody is living in an encampment and then they move into interim housing for a year that means that they are somewhere that is stable that has sanitation that has privacy that has dignity And then moving on to the next thing and the next thing and the next thing most people aren staying in their homes forever So the idea that we have this big bright line between temporary and permanent housing, really, the big bright line should be between having nowhere to be an encampment on the street and having any type of managed indoor environment that has social service workers and a bathroom and a pillow that's not made of concrete. So I think really that's one of the really important things to recognize is that it's such a jump up to be staying inside than staying outside. The other thing that I just want to say is that I am personally deeply disappointed that our housing bond, which I support and just spoke publicly on and I'm posting about and everything, does not include anything for interim housing other than up to 15% of grants can be used for changing interim housing into permanent housing. So in many ways, it actually is sending the message that interim housing is not an acceptable form of housing or shelter in the state of California, because we're not using any of the housing bond money to provide for people to be moving out of encampments into something that's not permanent. And when we recognize how long it takes for us to build permanent housing, we are de facto accepting encampments and the disinvestment of the people who are living in encampments because we are not building the housing they could move into tonight. So collectively, as a legislature, as the staff who works for us, as the governor's office, we are collectively all creating this environment by our continuing decision-making. And one of the reasons that an SCR has to come to a housing committee at all when most of these things are just presented on the floor is because it is actually controversial to say that we should be providing for people to have a place to stay tonight. So that investment in interim housing is a controversial statement, which is why it's going through the full committee process on both sides of the legislature, because it is a statement. So I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak this truth, which I think really needs to be said, that we need to do better by our unsheltered neighbors. And that means looking at that rung up from unsheltered homelessness and investing in that level and that we are not quite getting there at the moment. And I appreciate your support and ongoing thought and consideration around this topic. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for your leadership in so many ways on reminding us that it's not that they're in competition, that we actually need both. We do We need an intentional, strategic, direct attention to those who are unsheltered, who may need more short-term or interim transitions into more permanent housing. And to port you in that, it should not be a controversial statement in any way. And I would actually love to be added as a co-author of this and appreciate, again, your leadership. Do we have a motion and a second already? And we will take a vote. Thank you. Thank you. Motion be adopted as amended. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila-Farias? Aye. Avila-Farias, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Cholera? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. Ta? Yeah. Correct. Assemblymember Ta is an aye. Tampa? Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Nice. All right, 9 to 0. All right, we are going to go through all the bills. And for some, we do need a motion. All right, yeah, we don't have motions on all of these either, so. We can start with a consent. All right, where are we on the consent calendar? We have a motion in a second. Motion, do we have any second on the consent calendar?

Second Redwigs. Consent calendar item number three, SB 799, do pass. Item number nine, SB 1072, do pass to the committee on revenue and taxation. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Calra? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Tangipa? Weeks? Aye. Weeks, aye. Wilson?

9 to 0. Item number 1, SB 2022, we do need a motion to move the bill. This is Assemblymember Winner. Item 1.

A second?

Okay, second by Wilson. Motion to pass to the committee and local government. Haney?

Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias?

Avila Farias, aye. Colosa?

Colosa, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Cholera? Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward? Assemblymember Ward, we're on item number one. Assemblymember Ward is an aye. Ta?

Ta, aye. Tangipa? Wicks?

Wicks, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. 9-0. Item number two, we do have a motion and a second for this. The motion is to pass to the committee and local government. Absent members, Patterson, Avi Lafarious. Aye. Abila Farias, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Calra? Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. Ta?

Ta, aye. 920 with one member not voting. Item number four. SB 802. We do need a motion and a second for this.

Thank you. A motion do pass to the committee on local government. Haney?

Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias?

Avila Farias, aye. Colosa?

Colosa, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Calra? Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. Ta?

Ta, aye. Thank you, Pa. Wix? Aye. Wix, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. 9-0. Item number 5. We do need a motion for this item also. Need a second and a first and a second. Assembly member Lee is moving the bill. May I have a second, please?

Thank you. Motion to pass to the committee and local government Haney Aye Haney aye Pearson Avi Lafarious Aye Avi Lafarious aye Colosa Aye Colosa aye Garcia Aye Garcia aye Calra Lee.

Lee, aye. Ward.

Ward, aye. Ta.

This is number five, SB908. Assembly member Taiz, aye. Tangipa. Wix.

Wix, aye. Wilson.

Wilson, aye. 9-2-0. Item number six, again, I need to move the bill. With your motion, item number six. Motion to pass to the committee in appropriations. Haney?

Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias?

Avila Farias, aye. Colosa?

Colosa, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Colra? Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. Ta?

Ta, aye. Ta, keep up. Wicks?

Wicks, aye. Wilson?

Wilson, aye. 920. Item number 8, SB 1014. We need a motion and a second, please.

Motion to pass to the committee in appropriations. Haney?

Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila-Farias?

Avila-Farias, aye. Colosa?

Colosa, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Calra? Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye.

Thank you.

Wilson?

Wilson, aye. 9-0. Item number 10, SB 1092. I do need to move the bill. Do I have a second?

This is item.

Yeah, I need a second. Item number 10.

Oh.

This is item number 10. This is item number 10, SB 1092.

All right. This is two pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Haynie?

Haynie, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias?

Avila Farias, no. Colosa?

Colosa, aye. Garcia?

Kalra? Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward?

Ta?

Ta, no. Tangipa?

Tangipa, no. Wicks?

Wicks, aye. Wilson?

Wilson, no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, with one member not voting, sir. Five to five with one member not voting. I think that's going to fail. We do have absent members. Well, okay. We will hold that open for absent members. Thank you. Moving to item 11 SB 1093 three absent members this is three I four no Absent members, Haney?

Haney, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. Wicks?

Wicks, aye. Wilson?

Correct. It is 1093, not boarding. There is 7 to 4 with one member not boarding. 7 to 4, one member not boarding. OK. Item number 11, SB 1093, is out 7 to 4. Item 12, Assemblymember Haney.

Assemblymember Haney.

Garcia.

Garcia, aye. Lee.

Lee, aye. Ward.

Ward, aye. Ta.

Ta, aye. Wilson.

This is Wilson, aye. So this is 12 to 0. Item 13. We do need a motion for this item, SB 1238. SB 1238, item number 13. We need a motion to second.

Thank you. Motion to pass to the committee and judiciary. Haney?

Haney, aye. Patterson, Avila Farias, aye.

Colosa, aye.

Garcia, aye.

Calra, Lee, aye.

Ward, aye.

Ta, not voting. Nat voting. Tangipa, not voting. Tangipa, not voting.

Wicks, aye.

Wilson, aye. Seven, eight. 8 to 0. 8 to 0. All right. Item number 14. We just need, we have motions on this. 14. 14. We have a first and a second. Haney?

Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias?

Avila Farias, aye. Colosa?

Colosa, aye. Garcia?

Garcia, aye. Colra? Lee?

Lee, I. Ward.

Ta.

Ta, I. Kageba.

No. Is that 14, right?

That's B1383. Wix.

Wix, no. Wilson.

Wilson, I. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

I think you did.

Yes. Okay. I have, just to clarify, I have Assemblymember Taikipa have you as a no and Assemblymember Wicks as a no. Okay. And then 15, Assemblymember Taikipa. 15. 15. 15 Not voting Not voting All right The last view I didn vote The last view right And SB 15, that's the...

You did. But let me go ahead and check and see there's some... Yes, let's check first and see what bill are you interested in.

You are not voting right now, sir, right?

From Assemblymember Tangifa from not voting to I, so that does bring the bill to you from 9 to 0. Now we're 10 to 0. All right. Sarah, you have a few consent calendar. How would you like to vote?

So that's 10 to 0. Item 1, SB 2022.

I think everyone else is good. Yes. Except for Mr. Calra and Mr. Patterson. We can't wait much longer. Assembly number four. But everyone else is good. No, not. One bill is still on call. Three was the consent calendar. Four. Four. Assemblymember Takipa, four, he's an I, so that's 10 to 0. Item number 5, SB 908.

Tangipa is I. That's 10 to 0. Item number 6, SB 1003. I remember Tangipa is an I. That's 10 to 0. Assemblymember Carla, we are on item number 6 and then we can go back.

That will be 11 to 0. Item number 8, Assemblymember Calra.

Aye. Assemblymember Tankepa. Correct. Aye. Aye. So that will be 11 to 0. Item number 10, Assemblymember Calra on item number 10. He is an aye, so that bill is 625 at the moment. Item number 11, Assemblymember, we are complete here. Item number 12, again complete. Assemblymember Karla, you had voted on that earlier. Item 13, item 13. Aye. Assemblymember Karla is an aye. Member Tengkipa, you already have voted on that. 14, SB 1383, Assemblymember Karla. Aye. Assemblymember Carla is an aye. So that's 9 to 2. And we are on item 15. That's the resolution is SCR 131. Assemblymember Carla? Aye. Aye. That will be 10 to 0. And let's go back to Assemblymember Carla adding on the consent calendar. Aye. That's 11 to 0. On number one, SB 22, Assemblymember Carla. Assemblymember Carla is an aye. That's 10 to 0. Item number two, SB 677, Assemblymember Carla. Aye. Aye. That will be 11 to 0. with one member not boarding item number four SB 808 Assemblymember Carla I 11 to 0 and item number five SB 908 Assemblymember Carla is an I so that will be 11 to zero and I believe sir that is it. All right. Thank you. Thank you.