Housing And Community Development — 2026-06-10 (partial)

. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. All right, welcome to the assembly housing and community development committee hearing. We have eight items on our agenda today. Two of the items are on consent, SB 722 Wahab and SB 1426, which is a housing committee bill. To facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time we have, each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each witness will get two minutes each. Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, which will become part of the official record. We will not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. We are in room 447, which is a different room than normal for us. And the hearing room is open for in-person attendance of this hearing. And all are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. We do not have quorum yet, so we will start as a subcommittee. But I see we do have some authors. So we will go in file order. So we'll start with item number one, SB 457, Becker, and then quickly get to Mr. Seart, who I know is here on time as well.

we have the City Economist of San Francisco, Ted Egan, and noted UC Davis Professor of Law, Chris Elmendorf. Good morning, committee members. My name is Ted Egan, and I am the Chief Economist of the City and County of San Francisco. I direct an office under the City Controller that reports on the economic impact of pending city legislation, and I've held this position since 2007. Since that time, my office has analyzed many pieces of legislation related to housing, zoning, and development. Over the past 10 years, in collaboration with the Blue Sky Consulting Group, we have built models that allow us to understand how changes in fees, taxes, zoning, and other policies would affect housing production in San Francisco. The models we have built are similar to what SB 457 would require HCD to build. I'm here to describe our work and to answer any questions you might have. For our purposes, the value of these models comes from the fact that they use data on past construction to forecast the future. They look at every parcel in the city over a number of years and use statistics to answer what explains why each parcel did or did not develop new housing in that year. These factors include market factors like housing prices and construction costs. They also include characteristics of the parcel, like its size and location and existing use, as well as zoning policies like allowable land use and building heights. The model can tell us how sensitive citywide housing production is to proposed zoning changes or to other changes that would affect the developer's revenue or costs. Obviously, many decisions will need to be made about how exactly a model like this would fit into the housing element planning process. But having a credible way to estimate how much housing a rezoning would produce does seem like a missing piece of a planning approach that relies on zoning to meet housing targets. I believe this type of model while novel is no more complex than the transportation and land use models that are already being used by metropolitan planning organizations across the state I hope our experience is helpful as you consider this approach if this approach would be a feasible and worthwhile step forward for California planning Thank you

Thank you so much. Other folks who are here in support of this bill, name, organization, and position, please.

Morning. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

All right. Is there any opposition witnesses to this bill?

I would like to sincerely thank the committee for their work on the measure and also want to express my gratitude to the author and his staff for their tremendous engagement. The author has a tremendous open-door policy, so we really appreciate that. Again, thank you for accepting the committee amendments, and we look forward to continuing to engage with the author's office regarding our remaining outstanding concern. Thank you so much. Great. All right, anybody else here in opposition to the bill? Nots. Anyone? All right. We will bring it back to the committee. Committee members? Questions, comments? No, not seeing any. All right. Give you the chance to close. Well, thank you. I want to thank our experts here. And, you know, when I, my folks, you know, try to have practical bills that are focused on how can we get the housing development we need while streamlining processes. And, yeah, and just trying to take that that kind of practical approach. And I appreciate the research done by some experts that lead to this. Appreciate my team for the work. And thank you for hearing the bill. Respectfully ask for my vote. Thank you. And thank you, Senator, for your leadership. I agree with you that sometimes, you know, we write these laws or have these requirements and how it plays out in reality is not always how we thought it up. And I think this is going back and making sure that if our goal is to have the capacity and the zoning and the plans that is going to lead to housing actually being built, some of this parcel by parcel way of doing it may not be the only way to think about it. And I think this is an interesting approach and one that has some urgency with the coming cycle. So and of course, having my my own city economist here sways me a bit. But generally, really appreciate your leadership here and look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other ways that we can make sure that the housing element compliance works for localities and also accomplishes its goals. So we will take a vote on this when we have a quorum and again appreciate your work and your leadership. Thank you. Good to see you all. All right. We will call up item three, SB 904. Mr. Sayarta, welcome. Thank you very much, Honorable Chair. I'm here to present SB 904 in committee. SB 904 builds upon the broad and coordinated agency response efforts demonstrated in the LA County and Palisades fires last year and ensures similar responses will be undertaken for all future state of emergency wildfire disasters. Specifically, the bill codifies the provisions from Executive Order N-425 that focus on identifying permitting requirements and building codes that may impede rebuilding efforts. While there is a long road ahead for rebuilding in L.A. County, rebuilding permit reviews are averaging under 30 days in accordance with the goals of the Executive Order and roughly one for every five of the homes lost have been permitted as of January 2026. This exemplifies a relatively faster recovery process than in years past. Contrast this with the communities impacted by the campfire in 2018. Almost eight years later, only one in five homes have been rebuilt. While there are varying factors that impact recovery speed in different communities and contexts, One wonders how much similar regulatory relief efforts and agency coordination could have assisted in their recovery as well. The bottom line is that this sort of relief and urgent coordination ought to be standard procedure for all wildfire disasters moving forward. This bill will help to ensure no wildfire disaster communities get overlooked in future recovery efforts Furthermore this standard reporting mechanism with state and local agency expertise will equip the legislature with the best data to respond to each emergency context Should the bill pass out of committee today I also intend to introduce the author's amendments in Assembly Emergency Management Committee to further limit the scope of the provisions relating to electronic document submissions to exempt cities with the population less than 50,000 and delay implementation until 2028. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Do you have witnesses? No. I do not bring witnesses on your own. There you go. Let's hope it's not. Anyone here in support of the bill? All right. Hey, Okay. Brave man here. All right. Do we have any buddy here who's in opposition to the bill? Not seeing that either. Anybody want to register opposition? No. Okay. Committee members. Mr. Ward. Thanks. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I certainly understand your interest in working on the subject areas, your long-lived experience on emergency management and working on fire-related challenges and your commitment, of course, to working on expediting housing. But I'm having trouble understanding, I guess, the need for the bill, given that we've already passed legislation that is, I mean, this is a study bill that is really going to, yes, want to codify things that happen in the executive order, which, of course, can always be done for further executive orders. But we've also learned from those lessons pretty quickly and passed even legislation, Assembly bills, Senate bills that have now required certain action in the form of permitting streamlining. So what do you hope to gain out of a study bill that would not be implemented until 2028 that we're already doing to expedite housing and keeping our permit times under 30 days? Yeah, this isn't a study bill. This requires HCD to gather the information on each of these different fires on the various aspects of building codes and other related regulatory items so that they are considered by us. Because not every fire is the same. Some of them involve coastal commission. Some of them involve different habitat conservation agencies and things like that. And so each area has something to learn and something to be gained. And when we are able to coalesce this information, it doesn't require any changes to anything. And what it requires is that they get the information promptly so that they can make a plan and get these people back to building their homes and get their homes rebuilt. It is simply a streamlining process so that we can enable people to recover faster. And it is something that has been put into place and it obviously has worked to some extent. Probably not as well as we would like it to work, but when we compare it to past incidents, when they have to reinvent the wheel after every single incident, this is what we have done works better. And that's why I think it's a good idea to codify it so that HCD knows what their responsibilities are and local agencies and whatever regulatory agencies are out there know what their responsibilities are to be able to help us navigate that when we are trying to help people recover. I guess as much as I been paying attention to it too I haven heard that there a problem of understanding people responsibilities and jurisdictions And again I underscore that you know we been as a legislature responding to really compel expedited action And really, we know where the barriers are and we know we want to break through, whether it's a wildfire response and emergency rebuilding or just general need for more housing production. That, you know, we've had a tuned eye towards that over recent years right now. You said it's not a study bill, but maybe I'm sort of mincing words here, but literally this bill just requires reports to the legislature. It requires prompt reports to the legislators specific to the incident that happened. And that's, I'm not quite sure what you're... What the bill is asking, basically. Because you can't determine for every fire in advance what the impacts are or what the agencies are going to be involved in that are going to require, say, habitat studies and other things like that. You're talking about replacing a house that burned down. The house is already there. There are certain things that can be streamlined. And it doesn't even say we're waiving any of that stuff. All it's saying is it's identifying promptly those areas. And while some of our actions are related specifically to the two fires that we have had in L.A., they don't apply to other fires. We have the airport fire down in which is closer to our district. There's 150 homes that burned down, and those people are still standing there with their ashes. And because some of the regulatory relief that has occurred with the other fires is not occurring with theirs. And so as we have more and more of these fires statewide, we better have a plan to be able to help those people get recovery faster. Because for some of them, they don't recover. They're done. I specifically require legislation that we pass that requires a like-for-like replacement and automatic permit issuance for a like-for-like facility structure. Right. And so, again, so what the bill is asking here is, you know, what other impediments are there to getting that done specific to wherever that emergency is? Sure. What the bill is asking for is more governmental function, time, study, review, reports of the legislature in several years. And I'm wondering, you know, while I haven't opposed that in the past, to what end and what benefit are we getting for a bill that's being authored to ask for more governmental activity? And that would be good if I felt like there was something that we were going to get out of that investment. Right. So what we should be getting out of it is having one in five permits done in one year as opposed to one in five permits done in eight years. But that's the good that is being done by this bill. You would acknowledge that in recent efforts right now, we're seeing permits being issued with under less than 30 days. Right. Because of the actions that were taken to identify the impediments to begin for these people to get to the rebuilding process. And also making sure that permits are turned in in time. Like I said, not every incident has the exact same issues. And even the laws that we have passed are not going to necessarily cover every issue. This is specific to the fires, where they happen, and enable the agencies, all the regulatory agencies that are involved in that, to be able to quickly identify what their process would be so the HCD can report to us that hey these are the things that need to be done for these people to recover And these are some of the things that we probably can do to streamline that And if we have to take any legislative action to do more, like we have already done, then we can identify that and learn from that. And as we go on, there will probably be less and less of a burden for these agencies. But the biggest burden is on the people whose houses burned down. and they're standing there two years later looking at ashes and not cleared lots because they can't get through a process that everyone else has been able to get through because we finally figured it out. And that's what we're trying to do. That's all we're trying to do is help make sure that we have streamlining available and the information we need is at hand in a timely manner so that we can take the actions we need to do to help people. And I appreciate that. And I know we have another author right behind you too, all sort of wrap up and say, I think about that too, and have been to Paradise, and have been to many of these communities that have had, you know, were on the early front of this recent spate of devastation that we're seeing, and there need to be able to have government reduce these barriers and be able to rebuild faster right now. You know, thanks to now Congress Member Gallagher, we've been able to improve things for the Paradise community and others areas of Northern California. And I think, again, as we've seen, like, this continued evolution and more incidents of devastated communities, you know, the legislature has responded. So I'll think a little bit critically as this kind of comes up to vote time right now about, you know, the necessity for this. But I want to underscore, I just don't want to do something that is going to cause state agencies to have to, like, you know, basically spin their wheels when we may already be ahead of the game. Actually, we should be ahead of the game because we know what we need to do to be able to reduce these barriers. We're already analyzing it pretty quickly through these executive orders. And if we can, you know, wrap that up within a year to be able to reflect that in more direct legislation, direct action. That's what I'd like to be able to see about our work effort. So we'll think critically about this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Let's establish quorum first. Haney. Present. Haney here. Patterson. Avila Farias. Here. Avila Farias here. Colosa. Here. Colosa here. Ward. Here. Ward here. Kalra. Lee. Lee here. Kork Silva. Kork Silva here. Ta. I'm here. Ta here. Tangipa. I'm here. Tangipa here. Wix. Wilson. All right. We have quorum. Mr. Tangipa. Yeah, I just want to thank the senator for really bringing this forward. And I do believe that we understand the intentions here. And, you know, I know that the member from San Diego had some concerns, but I think the main point of this bill is if we can expedite housing and we can see that permitting can actually come through, it shouldn't take an emergency, an executive action to say whether we can or can't do it because the proof is there. And entire communities shouldn't burn down for us to learn from it. But if we are going to learn a lesson from it, we should be able to implement that to build housing quicker. And those are the lessons learned that we're seeing through a lot of what's happening with these catastrophic wildfires, that we should probably look at implementing that into our system to say, okay, if we can expedite permitting here, we can get people back into housing, maybe there are lessons learned that we should also implement into general permitting. So I want to thank the Senator for that. We need to get people back into their homes, and especially if we are on the precipice for some of the largest fires probably in American history due to some of the conditions of our forest we could work together to make sure that we're prepared for the next type of emergencies so thank you this works over I too want to thank the author I mean over and over almost during every hearing that we have in housing whether it's on the Senate side or the assembly side, it has been with the intent to not only build housing, but to streamline. And unfortunately, when we have had these fires up and down the state from Chico to Paradise to Los Angeles, we can go back to those communities as I have. I actually toured, I believe it was Chico and Paradise last year. And we saw that five years later, particularly with the Paradise Fire, there was still some building happening, but certainly not at the rate that we would expect. and we have seen that in Los Angeles, that even though the families are there moving through the steps that they are asked, we have many times a backlog in bureaucracy that keeps these units, or I should say family homes, being built. So I would move the bill today and continue to focus on streamlining. Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Mr. Sarate, you may close. I think we explored most of this issue pretty well, and I simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much for your leadership. As Ms. Quirk-Silva said, we have unfortunately had to have a lot of conversations about how to rebuild following fires in this committee, and we'll have to continue to, and making sure that it actually gets done, that we're looking at how to do it in a resilient way, but also a fast way, and any barriers and requirements that may exist that could help us do that, I think is a thoughtful approach, and I appreciate your leadership and commitment to it. And because we have a quorum, we can take a roll call vote. The motion is due pass to the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson, Avila Farias, Avila Farias, I call us a hello, I word. Calra. Lee Lee, I Cork Silva, I Cork Silva, I, I thank you, I thank you by weeks, Wilson. All right, can we do a motion and a second on the consent? Thank you. Yeah, for sure. Thank you. All right. Consent item number two, SP722, do pass to the Assembly Committee on local government. Item eight, SP1426, housing, do pass. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Ward? Cholera? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. I can give up. Thank you by weeks Wilson. All right, the consent calendar is out. All right, Miss Caballero. Welcome item number four SB 1091 You may begin when ready Thank you very much Mr Chair First let me a personal privilege thank you so much for doing a tour when you were going around the state last year It was great to see you in Fresno and really appreciate the time that you spent in the downtown area where they've really prioritized building up and creating economic opportunities. So thank you for that. So, Mr. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1091, an important bill to stabilize the low-income families, to stabilize low-income families in their communities and prevent tenant displacement through the acquisition, preservation, or otherwise known as AC rehab of existing rental housing. Specifically, the bill creates the Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program, or CAP, within the Department of Housing and Community Development. The program will provide financial resources and technical capacity building for community organizations, nonprofit affordable housing developers, and local jurisdictions that wish to acquire unsubsidized, naturally affordable housing developments that currently exist and preserve them as affordable rental or home ownership opportunities. opportunities. As California's affordable housing crisis worsened, unsubsidized affordable housing is disappearing at an alarming rate, and fewer low-income families can find stable housing. As rent outpaces demand, housing becomes less accessible and more unaffordable, displacing people from their homes and communities. Acquisition and preservation of unsubsidized affordable housing is a proven, successful local model that prevents displacement and grows the supply of affordable housing. SB 1091 is one important step to prevent displacement, homelessness, and to stabilize families in their communities in homes they can afford. With me today is Justine Marcus, Policy Director with Enterprise Community Partners, and also Tamika LeCleus, the Executive Director of Sacramento Community Land Rest. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I'm Justine Marcus, Policy Director with Enterprise Community Partners. We're a national nonprofit that develops technical assistance, advocates for policies, and delivers capital for affordable housing. We're proud to be one of the co-sponsors of SB 1091. There is no silver bullet for our housing crisis. We need a comprehensive approach for the state, and this bill would fill a niche yet unmet by the state with resources for acquisition preservation. In communities across California, nonprofits, community land trusts, cities, housing authorities have already been doing this innovative work for over a decade. These organizations are purchasing rental housing from the private market where low-income households live today and preserving it as deed-restricted affordable housing for the long run. CAP was envisioned and designed to build on these best practices from the local level and bring this model to scale. Drawing from the success of the state's Golden State Acquisition Fund, which for over a decade has provided acquisition capital for land to build new affordable housing, CAP is a partnership between the state and nonprofit lenders to quickly distribute program funds at the speed of the market. Local nonprofits, community-based organizations can then manage these buildings as deed-restricted affordable housing, rental, or ownership. We like to say that acquisition preservation is a two one approach It both prevents displacement and homelessness for the residents of these buildings today while also growing our supply of affordable housing for decades to come We hear from local partners regularly about the impact of their local work, but we also hear about the missed opportunities in the absence of state resources to scale this work. SB 1091 was designed to fill this gap and with a potential state affordable housing bond this November to provide the needed resources, we have the opportunity to jumpstart this program. We respectfully urge your aye vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Haney and members of the committee. My name is Tamika LaClouse. I'm the executive director of Sacramento Community Land Trust, and I'm here today representing the California CLT network. Sacramento CLT prevents displacement and builds power for historically discriminated communities to combat neighborhood deterioration and market speculation by fostering multi-generational equitable development. You all know about California's housing crisis, but what I want to tell you is about the power of affordable housing preservation and why it can have such a big impact here in Sacramento and communities across the state. In Sacramento County alone, there are more than 23,000 naturally occurring unsubsidized homes in multifamily buildings that are at risk of becoming unaffordable within the next five years. That represents 57% of unsubsidized affordable homes in the county. That's tens of thousands of families that could be priced out or displaced. And we see these similar trends across the state. But the good news is these buildings are generally fairly affordable to acquire, far cheaper than new construction and quicker than building from the ground up. We can readily move people into these homes. Across California, we have a strong and growing ecosystem of community land trusts and other nonprofit affordable housing organizations who are positioned to identify, purchase, rehab, and steward these properties as affordable for generations. And we know that this works because we've seen it at the local level. In 2020, LA County dedicated $14 million to preserve eight multifamily properties with 43 homes enabling 110 individuals to live in stable housing. And if you're doing the math, that's only about $325,000 per unit. However, there's no state program, zero state funding to acquire and preserve existing affordable homes on the private market before speculators come in and flip them and residents are priced out of our communities. At the local level, funding has been limited and consistent, and it's often one time in nature, meaning that today we're unable to bring this strategy to scale, a strategy that has proven to be successful, cost-effective, and quick. So, CAP will change that, and we urge your aye vote today on SB 1091. Thank you. Thank you. others who are here in support of the bill name organization and position please. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco board of supervisors in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members Graciela Castillo Krings here on behalf of all home and the California Housing Partnership. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission in strong support. Good morning Natalie Spivak with Housing California proud co in strong support Thank you Good morning Maddie Ribble on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network proud co and strong support Good morning, Chair and members, Andres Ramos with Public Advocates, but on behalf of the Housing Now Coalition and Tenants Together in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, committee members. My name is Annette Williams with Public Advocates. We are a proud co-sponsor of SB 1091. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Lauren de Valencia, representing the American Planning Association, in support. Hi, good morning. Leslie Rodriguez, on behalf of Mountain View Community Land Trust and Housing Trust, Silicon Valley, in support. Good morning. Brian Augusta, on behalf of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Coalition for Rural Housing and the Sacramento Housing Alliance in support. Yeah. Hey, Jen Collins on behalf of the Oakland Community Land Trust and the California Community Land Trust Network in strong support. Jean Diaz, St. Joseph Community Land Trust in Lake Tahoe. We very much support this bill. Good morning. Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of Public Council in strong support. Thank you all for being here and thank you for your work. Do we have any opposition witnesses? I don't believe so. Do we have any opposition at all? Not seeing any. Bringing it back to the committee. Have a motion. Second. And a second. Ms. Kukisova. I really like this bill. Thank you. And I have some housing words that I like to use, but this really lands in what I think this year is going to come down to, which is prevention, which means keeping people in their units. And we had an excellent bill from Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel a few weeks ago related to prevention and asking HCD to really be more focused on that. And this bill is about preservation. So prevention and preservation. And we can't underestimate how much that really means to keeping people housed. And we've spent so much time in this committee on homelessness and on building units. And sometimes the solutions are right there in front of us, and we haven't acted as aggressively as we can. So I expect that this is not only an excellent bill, but it will be something in the next years, which is prevention and preservation that we're going to have to really put at the top of the list. As we know, there's many other issues of how fast you can build a unit, what's the affordable price. But when we see these units that can be attained and yet we don't have the investment ready to move on, that's where we can lose opportunities and see more people in the house. So not only do I appreciate it, love to be added as a joint author in it, and it gets my third award of the year, Work Silva's Housing Awards. There you go, our third award of the year. If I don't get one by the time you leave, I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm going to feel some type of way. It moves me. She's only given out three. We hear a lot of bills. This is really hard to get award. Ms. Coloza. Thank you, Chair. And I echo the sentiment from Assemblymember Cork Silva. I was actually going to nominate this for an award as well. But thank you so much to the Senator, to the sponsors for your work on this. And, you know, I think there's we focus a lot on the pipeline and the building of the housing, which is really, really important. And to what the assembly member mentioned, you know, the preservation and prevention is really important. And so if we can focus on those three Ps, you know, I think we're going to really make a dent in our housing crisis. And so I would also love to be at it as a co-author. And thank you for your leadership and thank you to the advocates for coming to testify and support. All right, give you the opportunity to close. Thank you very much for the comments and for the offers of co-authorship. Bottom line is that in many of our communities, we have people who can no longer afford to live in those communities and they're moving out. Whether it's voluntary or a forced move out, it's the same thing. They lose the connection with the neighborhood where they've raised their children or where their children are going to school. And so this really creates an opportunity for us to take a proven model that has been quietly operating on limited funds and make it a statewide opportunity for communities to really look at where are their unsubsidized affordable housing and how can we preserve it into the future. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. And again, Senator, as you've heard, we really, really appreciate your commitment on this effort. I know it's been an issue that you've worked on for a number of years. And I know, sadly, we're not going to have you here forever. And so you have our commitment to continue this advocacy and to make sure that this is a part of and centered in the conversation around what we're going to do to address our housing needs. I had the opportunity to work on a number of small sites when I was on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. We have a small sites program. And just a few months ago, I ran into someone who stopped me at an event, and she said, you know, do you remember me? And I said, well, not exactly what she said. Well, you advocated for my family and I to receive funding to save our housing and to be able to stay in the building that we were in. And we just moved back in just a few weeks ago. This was a building that had three generations of Filipino family members in it in south of Market, which is a longstanding Filipino neighborhood that is experiencing a lot of displacement. And they were a part of that community for many, many decades. And the building was going to be rent controlled, but it was going to be sold and they were all going to be forced to leave. Instead, because of the small sites program, we not only purchased the building, renovated it, made sure it was up to code and everything else, and the families moved back in and they're going to be able to stay there in a permanently deed restricted home. That is so necessary and needed not only in San Francisco but many places across the state And the fact that the state does not invest in that I think is unfortunately not going to allow us to meet our broader needs as it relates to affordable housing. So I'm really excited about this bill. I also would love to be a co-author if I'm not already, and I hope to see it be in the bond as well so that we can make sure there's funding for it. I know we've worked together a lot on the budget ask on this as well. So with that, we have a motion in a second. Did you already close or you did close? I did and you are a co-author. I am a co-author. I thought so. I always join you on this effort. I know as we start off the year, whether it's the budget request or this bill. So again, I hope we get it done and get it in the bond as well. We have a motion in a second and we'll take a roll call vote. Haney? Hi. Oh, I'm sorry. The motion is to pass to the Assembly Committee and Judiciary. Haney? Aye. Haynie, aye. Patterson? Not voting. Patterson, not voting. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colossa? Aye. Colossa, aye. Ward? Cholera? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Ta? Tankipa? No. Tankipa, no. Wiggs? Wilson? No. We don't want people to... Just the two. All right, 5 to 1. So we'll keep that open. Thank you so much, Senator. Let's just start. Mr. Allen. Yep, we're ready. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and friends. So residents belonging to homeowner associations and condominium complexes oftentimes find it difficult to make the switch to an electric vehicle because unlike single-family homeowners, these residents need to use common area spaces to install the needed infrastructure to charge their vehicles. And we know that the biggest barrier to large-scale market proliferation of EVs is accessibility to charging stations. So more has to be done to help prospective EV drivers, including in HOAs. So last year, I sought to address this issue. And with your support, I authored SB 770, which removed a requirement for HOA residents to name an association as an additional insured on their homeowners policy. Many consumers were struggling to find insurers that would allow them to add an endorsement for the HOA. Now, we engaged in a lot of dialogue last year, and I made a commitment to Louie that we would get a key issue that remained unresolved from last year's bill addressed this year. And that's what we're coming together to present to you. So there are some concerns that folks from the HOA community had about uncertainty with regards to liability for damage or injury that might be caused by a charger. In many cases, the EV charger has to be installed in the common area of a shared parking lot. and privately owned chargers can then potentially create liability for an association for injury or damage that might occur in that common area space So this bill SB 1267 would require the installer of an EV charging station to indemnify the association during the installation of the charger and make homeowners liable for any costs arising from the use of a privately owned charger. You know, we certainly haven't seen any significant risk of damage or injury associated with these chargers, but I understand and I understood at the time and I continue to. I wanted to honor my commitment to the HOA community during last year's discussions. There's a lack of certainty that's worrying to the HOAs, and they're concerned about how it might make it more difficult for them to obtain adequate insurance policies in an increasingly unaffordable market. So we've we have the only reason why this is not a consent is because the realtors had some issues with particular language. We have we've worked closely with them on their opposition. We're going to be taking amendments in the next committee to address their concerns. And it's my understanding they'll be removing their opposition. Appreciate working with the committee and respect for your ass for an eye vote. We have Louis Brown here who represents the HOAs in their totality. Yes, in their totality. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. Yes, that is. In support of SB 1267. And just express our sincere appreciation for the senator following through on the conversations we had this last year to address some of these concerns. And we ask for an aye vote. All right. Anyone else here in support of the bill? Name, position, organization. Good morning, Committee Chair. Kai Clausen on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association in support. Thank you, Arthur. John McHale on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation here in support. Thank you. Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support. All right. Anyone here in opposition? Good morning. Kevin Rogers on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We want to thank the author, their staff, and sponsor for their efforts to address our members' concerns. As proposed to be amended, the amendments will remove the bill's application to subsequent buyers. So CR looks forward to formally removing opposition to SB 1267 once the amendments are in print. Thank you. There you go. All right. Anyone else here in opposition? Not seeing anyone? Any members of the committee? Mr. Tangipa? Motion to second. Yeah, I just want to thank the author, too, for working with the opposition. As a former realtor myself, you know, a lot of the questions that were being asked, I kind of understood, but a little bit of their concerns. But I do appreciate the author for working with them to do that. I was going to make a motion, but it's already done. So thank you for that and look forward to supporting. Thank you. Thank you. All right. May close. Yeah, I just appreciate all the work last year and this year, and respect for us for that vote. All right. Well, thank you for being a man of your word and addressing some of the concerns that came up with your work. I burned a vehicle, but it was worth it. I hope not. Yes, we want more at-home EV charging stations. Not an electric vehicle, yeah. Okay. I thought you said these things are safe All right We have a motion and a second Yeah you not here yet Yes you been indemnified by this bill I better pass it quickly. All right. Motion and a second. The motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson. Aye. Patterson, aye. Abilafarias. Aye. Abilafarias, aye. Colosa. Aye. Colosa, aye. Ward. Calra. Aye. Calra, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Cork Silva? Cork Silva, aye. Ta? Tangiba? Aye. Tangiba, aye. Wiggs? Wilson? Thank you, members. Thank you. All right, for sure. All right, let's take a motion to second on item number one, Becker. Motion from Mr. Lee. Second from Ms. Colosa. She did it like... I'm sorry. She gives me a hard time when she goes first and I didn't acknowledge that. Sorry. All right. Well, we have a motion a second. The motion is what is it? Do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on local government. This is item number one SB 457. Haney. I Haney I person. Harrison I have a lot of areas. I will have a lot of areas. I call us. I work. All right, 7 to 1. We will keep that open for absent members. We have two bills that we are waiting for the authors. Item number 5, Ms. Cervantes, SB 1117. If you're Mr. Vontaze or her staff and you're able to come to the committee room, we would appreciate it. Or Mr. Razo, SB 1361, item 7. Those are the two that we are still waiting on. We did already. We can take some votes. Go ahead. Adding in the consent calendar, item number 2, SB 722, and item number 8, SB 1426. Assemblymember Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Cholera? Aye. Cholera, aye. Wicks, Wilson. So that would be 8. No. No. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. And so if we are ready, we have one more item that we have members here that were absent at the time, and that's item number three, SB 904. This is Assemblymember Sayar, this bill. Assemblymember Patterson. Aye. All right. Harrison, aye. Chalra? Aye. Chalra, aye. Boyk's and Wilson, not here. And I'm right beside you were here, so. All right. Great. Thank you. Well, we are going to move to Senator Cervantes. We have SB 1117. Yes. and whenever you're ready. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 1117 today, which will clarify and strengthen existing accessory dwelling unit law. As many know, existing law requires fee charge for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with the Mitigation and Fee Act. Local governments are barred from imposing impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has interior livable space of 750 square feet or less and requires any impact fees charged for an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space to be charged proportionally in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit on the property. California's housing crisis continues to limit homeownership opportunities and increasing housing costs. Housing experts estimate a shortage of between 840,000 and 3.5 million housing units. ADUs are a key component of our housing strategy because they expand housing supply while enabling homeowners to increase the capacity of their homes and build home equity. The legislature has taken many steps to reduce local barriers to ADU-permitting, including limiting the imposition of impact fees and prohibiting impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller, and requiring that fees for larger ADUs be charged proportionally. However, some local governments are calculating the impact fee amount based on the entire square footage of the ADU once it exceeds 750 square feet, rather than basing the fees only on the portion above that threshold. This interpretation increases project costs far beyond what the legislature intended and may discourage the construction of ADUs. In jurisdictions where impact fees are more than $10 per square foot, that change can add more than $8,000 to a project cost. Property owners are often forced to either reduce the size of their design to stay under the cap, which limits their potential usefulness of their ADUs, or abandon their ADU plans altogether. SB 1117 will help reduce impact fees for homeowners in California. It clarifies the existing ADU law by ensuring local government assess impact fees only on the portion of the ADU exceeding 750 square feet. This does not increase, reduce, or alter the existing 750 square foot exemption in existing law. By aligning these fee calculations with the intent of the legislature, the bill promotes consistent statewide implementation. It reduces unnecessary cost burdens on homeowners and supports continued ADU permitting as a pathway to increase sustainable homeownership throughout the state of California. I understand that there are some concerns that have been raised that you may hear about today, but I'm certainly looking forward to working through those throughout this legislative process. process. With me today, we have experts on ADU, Stephanie Gutierrez, and we have Max Dubler with California at YIMBY, but I'll allow them to further give comments on the bill today. Great, thank you. I think we're going to do two minutes each. Is it? Two minutes each, and thank you very much. Hi, my name is Max Dubler. I'm a licensed city planner and policy analyst at California at YIMBY, here to answer any technical questions. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Stephanie Gutierrez. I'm an ADU strategist. Would you mind moving the mic a little bit closer? Sorry about that. My name is Stephanie Gutierrez. Is that good? Awesome. I an ADU strategist with ADU West Coast and I here to speak in support of SB 1117 ADU West Coast works directly with California homeowners and families navigating the accessory dwelling unit process every day from permitting to financing to construction We see firsthand how these fees impact real families. SB 1117 will make it less costly to build ADUs by removing an arbitrary financial penalty that many jurisdictions impose on ADUs over 750 square feet. This bill passed the Senate Housing Committee with full bipartisan support, which speaks to the importance of this policy. I want to share a real example of a family I'm currently working with in Orange County. They want to build two ADUs on their property, one for each set of grandparents on each side of the family. This is multi-generational housing at its best. And to comfortably house elderly family members, each ADU needs to be roughly 751 square feet to be exact. Because they crossed that threshold, they are facing impact fees between $12,000 to $14,000 per unit, totaling up to $28,000 in fees alone. The $20,000 plus difference is exactly what is killing their financing. Their lender confirmed it, and their project is on hold at this point because they're using a HELOC loan and were capped out at a certain amount. Most people building ADUs are everyday homeowners trying to house aging parents, support adult children, or offset their mortgage. Financing is already one of the biggest challenges in this space, adding, as I mentioned, of over $28,000 in impact. fees is the difference between a project moving forward or not. This small but meaningful change improves efficiency, it boosts accountability, and it gives local governments and families a clear path to delivering homes. No fee is eliminated under this bill. Local agencies still collect on the square footage above 750 square feet. The only thing that is removed is the disproportionate penalty imposed on the moment the family needs one to two additional square feet. This bill passed Senate Committee 10-0. That bipartisan support reflects agreement that this fix is reasonable, proportional, and necessary. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your A vote on SB 1117. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support? Name and affiliation, please. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. On behalf of Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Dirt to Keys, Southern California Obtainable Housing, Unidos, U.S., and Power of California Action in support. Thank you so much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras, White House Public Affairs. On behalf of Abundant Housing, Los Angeles, Circulate Planning and Policy, Inner City Law Center, and the 200 for Homeownership, all in strong support. Thank you. Mattie Hyatt with California Civil Rights Advocacy and the Capital Business Alliance in support. We feel it protects homeowners, small landlords, and families. It's one of the few tools that we have for housing and that is pro-business. Thank you. Charles Contrabecki, Intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate California in support. Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Thank you and you will each have two minutes Thank you Mr Chair and members I Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association I'm here to speak in opposition to 1117. The measure expands the policy set in 2019 by Senate Bill 13, which gave impact fee discounts to homeowners to build accessory dwelling units. And as we pointed out then, there was and is still no provision to offset these impacts as we incentivize the ADUs, but not the supporting infrastructure to provide the services to those ADUs. Many local agencies are heavily reliant on impact fees to fund infrastructure to serve that growth. And the special districts likely impacted by these policies may have limited revenue pathways and are yet still dedicated to providing the essential infrastructure services and the quality of life we want to come with this growth. Special districts may not have alternative funding to backfill for the discounts, and the mitigation fee already has very strict boundaries on how the fees are set, applied, and spent. We find that planning for growth and density should also come with a plan to serve that growth and density going forward to maintain quality infrastructure and services. While we applaud meeting our housing needs from multiple angles, we must also recognize that housing is inseparable from the broader development ecosystem that these fees support. And for those reasons, we respectfully oppose. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Gerton on behalf of the League of California Cities and respectful opposition. Our concerns relay a lot of what the special districts say, But I think one of the bigger challenges is as California has seen a lot of successes in ADU development, part of that has been getting communities on board with the development of ADUs and incentivizing homeowners to do that. Now, part of that ability to promote those is making sure that we have the infrastructure there to support the development. Now, the reduction of impact fees and the collection of those, which are strictly evidence-based reasoning and determined by NEXA studies, removing that and not providing the infrastructure will continue to be a challenge. I know Assemblymember Cork-Silva also has a bill moving to densify and increase the amount of ADUs development, but I think the challenges will continue to be for local governments to provide the infrastructure and public services we need to support that development. So although right now we've been able to get a lot of the communities, a lot of communities have been on board and we've seen an increase in the development of ADUs, that's partially because we can provide the infrastructure and services we need to make sure that it's protected. And we're concerned that by eliminating this and reducing that as we continue to densify, we're not going to have the necessary infrastructure and public services we need to provide thriving, equitable, and livable communities. So with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and affiliation, please. Good morning. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the cities of Belmont, Burbank, Foster City, Redwood City, Thousand Oaks, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members, all in respect of opposition. Thank you. Good morning. We're expressing opposition and wanting my comments to those provided by Cal Cities and CSTA with the California State Association counties also registering opposition to the rural county representative of California. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm with Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. We have an opposing less amended position. We been working with the author office and these sponsors on trying to find a solution but thank you Thanks Great Seeing no others we turn it over to committee for questions or comments To my colleague, Mr. Tangipa. Yeah. First and foremost, I want to thank the author, but I do have some technical questions that I wanted to ask, especially, and I appreciate you bringing a city planner here. everybody knows that I am a UMB myself. I do want more people to build, but I do understand some of the difficulties that a lot of our special districts are asking. The main reason why is because I represent some of the most special districts in the entire state of California. I represent 25,000 square miles, second largest district in the assembly. And I bring up this as an example is I have a county service area that has infrastructure that was built pre-1980. Fissure wells, they have their own local sanitation and leach field and everything else, but they were prepared for capacity and they're pretty much maxed out. What are we doing to make sure that we can have the proper infrastructure? I'm not the biggest fan of impact fees because I've seen cities actually not use it generally for where it's supposed to go. But for some of these areas that we've done, general city planning, load capacity, what would be something in this build to prepare that if we are overloading our sewer system, water systems, and development that we're trying to mitigate to make sure that we don't have system failures while we're also trying to make sure our goals of building more housing is there? Thank you for that question. I'm going to face this way because that's where the mic is. So right now, I think what's important here is to consider the status quo and what the proposed change is. Under the existing law, all ADUs under 750 square feet pay no impact fees. And the overwhelming majority of ADUs that are actually built are under 750 square feet and pay no impact fees. So my prediction, and I cannot look into the future, for what this bill will do is incentivize the construction of slightly larger ADUs that do pay impact fees on that marginal square footage. So my expectation is that this will increase the funding for this vital infrastructure. Does that make sense? No, I understand on that part, but it's just generally just talking about the general impacts on special districts that, you know, if we have some of these rural communities out there, CSAs, CSDs, that also increase their capacity. It's with outdated infrastructure. I do understand that that makes it hard. And I grew up in an 800 square foot house. We can call it an ADU, but they are homes. But I do know that when these areas are developed, you know, they consider how many people are going to live in a square mileage basis. You know, are they using three and a half inch pipes or are they using seven inch pipes? You know, all of that needs to be taken into consideration. And, you know, I represent the community of Tuolumne. I also represent Calaveras County as well. Their infrastructure, the way that they still get water is a wood flume. Most people don't know what a wood flume is. So I use Splash Mountain or the Matterhorn to tell people that in my district today, they still get their water. and their power from Splash Mountain. That is the type of infrastructure that I have in my district. I mean, it is a wood flume that can burn down at any point that supplies water to over 50,000 people. And I know sometimes my communities want to use those to upgrade their infrastructure. My only worry is that we are putting so much housing without the preparation of the services that are needed to make sure that we have adequate services in place, sewer, sanitation, water infrastructure, but we're increasing load. So those are only pretty much my main concerns is that typically we should be in the position where we're incentivizing or we're helping out our cities, special districts to say, well, let's get you to a point where you guys can increase your capacity by 10,000 people by building proper infrastructure, by building. I mean, the ask that I make for my district is we just want pipes, pipes that can't burn down in a fire. You know, I shouldn't be able to say that the Matterhorn is how my community gets water. You know, can we get to that point first prior to just increasing load? So those are just some of my general concerns, kind of what I have in those areas. And I do hear the concerns of our cities. I do believe we need to build more. I know we have to get there, but are there steps in place that we should take first prior to getting to load capacity? So thank you, and I appreciate that. And I understand the point of the bill. I just think sometimes we might be getting a little bit too far ahead prior to. And I hate impact fees as well. So I definitely understand the intentions. So thank you. Well, thank you, Ms. Wilson. My apologies for missing the presentation and the back and forth from the proponents and opponents of the bill. My concern with this, strong supporter of ADUs, wanting to see ADUs in our community, it's an additional way to add housing, especially multi-generational housing. So instead of someone who might be aging, you know, a grandparent or such, instead of them going to another type of apartment away from the family, they're getting to stay within the family structure. The same thing for college students. So I think ADUs are good and pretty much have been supportive of most of the things that we've done on ADUs. One thing that I haven't been supportive of and consistently as a local leader is surrounding ADUs as it relates to impact fees, because they do have an impact. The legislature decided at some point that 750 below didn't need impact fees, and I think that's what the legislature decided to do. It is state policy. But I think to go the step further and start inching away at, inching closer to where ADUs don't have to pay, quote-unquote, their fair share by taking off the 750s, making the first 750 not accounted for, I think is a bridge too far. When you consider that ADUs do not trigger property tax reassessments, so there's no way for a local government to capture the impact except for the impact fee. ADUs already over 750 square feet get a benefit because they don have to they not assessed on the full parcel only on the actual facility itself where impact fees has additional stuff related to the parcel So for me this is you know I don think it I don I think it might incentivize folks to do ADUs but it also hurts our cities our fire departments our public safety departments whether it fire police and all the other amenities that you get as it relates to impact fees and property tax as well as the additional infrastructure that may be needed by additional folks being there With 750, you're likely to get one or two larger. It could be more. And a city is planning for that and having the appropriate infrastructure for that. And now they won't have the resources to be able to upgrade that infrastructure if we get the level of ADUs that we would really want as a state to address this housing crisis. I won't be able to support that today, but happy to hear if you have any comments related to that. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? All right. Seeing none, a question maybe for one of your witnesses, if you wouldn't mind. What percentage of ADUs that you work on, or feel free either of you to answer, are over 750 square feet and under? I would say about 60% under, right, because many times they're avoiding impact fees, school fees, and they're already having to pay. Most of them have to pay for upgraded utilities like electrical panel, you know, and so they have all these other costs associated with it. But I'd say about 60% under $750. Okay. All right. And this bill allows prorated impact fees over 750 square feet. So I think, you know, I understood what my colleague, Ms. Wilson, was saying. And the way I look at it is this does cover the impact over 750 square feet by allowing the charge of the fee. But current law allows, you know, if it is state policy to say, hey, under 750 square feet, you know, there's no impact fees. And we go over that and then we charge for the entire amount. You know, I think this actually aligns with what our state policy is supposed to be. But I did have one technical question on this bill. And one thing that I think has made me so interested in this area is because I think, unfortunately, I mean, we have a lot of local governments. And when I was on a city council, we only controlled about 20 percent of our impact fees. The other 80 percent were special districts and things like that. And some of the connection fees were just straight up abusive. if you had a 10-square-foot unit, you know, paid the same impact fee if you had a 10,000-square-foot mansion. And so how would this bill apply in those cases in which, you know, and maybe it doesn't apply, and maybe we should consider amending it to that, but, you know, if you bid—I'll just give you an example. there a district that they charge it might be up to like now or something like that but for a connection fee right And again whether you 10 square feet or 10 So presumably if you 750 square feet

Does this bill also apply to where there's just like a set connection fee at a certain amount where it's not based on square footage?

Yeah. Well, I'm bad at math, and that's why I ran for public office. But in short, because I'm a picture book guy, this would apply to those situations based on the current law with proportionality and things like that.

Okay, so if you go to 751 square feet and let's say 25 percent, your ADU is 25 percent of the main unit, right? So your fee under current law would be 25 percent of whatever the fee is, right?

When you hit 750 square, 751 square feet under this bill, is it, are you only paying for that proportionality of the, because originally it'd be 25%, so you're only going to pay one foot of the 25% or are you going to pay the full, full 25%?

Okay. All right. Just have to make sure that this applied in those set fees also, I guess is what I'm saying. So, okay. Yeah. Well, I, you know, I think what's kind of interesting about this is I don't really know enough. It would be interesting to learn just how big a lot of these ADUs are. I know there are limitations to how big they can be based on the primary residence, although the strange wrinkle you discussed, but I do feel like this might actually, This is the only area in state law where we've had success building other homes, by the way. I mean, we've passed so many bills out of this place and with marginal success. And ADUs are the only levels of success. Now, I can understand that we need to collect impact fees for people who are going to be living there. But I also feel like if you're doing an 800-square-foot ADU, you shouldn't pay the full amount. Obviously, those people in many circumstances probably make the decision to limit it at 750. but this could allow for slightly larger homes and the ADU to, or the local governments to collect the fees that they need to accommodate for those. And I don't think it's really fair to charge the full fee because you went a little bit over the 750. So I think this actually strikes a nice balance with the intention of what the law was, or what the law was intended to do. So I'm going to be supporting this measure today, personally. Do we have more?

We have a motion from Ms. Wicks and a second from Mr. Calra. Yes, go ahead.

I will always continue to work with those who have concerns and work through those throughout the legislative process.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank the Senator for her leadership on this. I think calculating these impact fees fairly and proportionately makes sense and align with the state policy. I also know that you also talked about working with the opposition already and would love to be added as a co-author to your bill. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the conversation here today. Just in 2023 alone, more than 28,000 ADUs were built in the state of California. And to answer a question that was posed earlier, according to a UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, the majority of California ADUs, 61%, contain just one bedroom, while studios are the second most common type ADU, which is at 18%. This bill is simply removing the fee cleft, which would, we believe, encourage homeowners to build ADUs, more ADUs, which will likely increase the total amount of impact fees that local government collect on ADUs. And so, absent just any change, many homeowners will continue to build at the 750-square-foot threshold that is law today. We want to give homeowners more opportunities, especially with our housing crisis in the state. We know that our laws on ADUs have been successful. We want to continue down that path and provide more opportunities for California homeowners to increase their capacity as well as build home equity. And I respectfully

Aye.

Patterson? Aye.

Avila-Farias? Aye.

Colosa? Aye.

Ward? Aye.

Colra? Aye.

Lee? Aye.

Corksilver? Aye. Corksilver, aye. Tuck? Aye. Tuck, aye. Tuck, aye. Tuck, aye. Not voting.

All right. 10 to 0, 2 not voting. Thank you all. We will bring our last item here. Mr. Razo, welcome. Item number 7, SB 1361. And then after that, we will go through with all of the catch-up votes, if that hasn't already been done. Just going to let you know the Burbank lobbyist is here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members of the committee. As the senator mentioned, my name is Madeline Moore. I'm here representing LA Metro. I am pleased to be here to speak in support of SB 1361 and thank the author for her leadership on this issue. As Senator Razo mentioned, Metro supports increased housing near transit. Metro is also leading the nation's largest transit capital program, investing $120 billion over 40 years. These projects are critical to serving our customers, 89% of whom are very low income and 85% of whom are transit dependent. LA Metro works closely with cities to secure competitive funding and build transit projects throughout the region. We have a long history of working cooperatively with our municipalities on issues such as utility relocation, bus lane enforcement, and transit signal prioritization. However, we believe that SB 79 is threatening our transit progress by creating unintended consequences in Los Angeles County. By linking increased density and development standards to both existing and planned transit stops, opposition is forming against transit capital projects themselves. We are already seeing this on the ground. Local jurisdictions and stakeholder groups that otherwise support transit are expressing resistance to rail and bus rapid transit projects. SB 1361 removes the ability for objections to be made to transit projects on the basis of opposition to increased density requirements in SB 79. We believe this will better support our common goals of advancing both housing and transit in the state of California. I thank you for your time and look forward to taking any questions.

who are here in support of the bill. Ms. Wicks? You can do that from up here if you'd like.

Great. All right. Is there opposition to the bill? Anyone who would express opposition? Yes?

All right. Some SoCal beef there. All right. Members, questions, comments? Do we have a motion and a second? We have a motion moved by Ms. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Lee. You may close.

Great. Thank you so much for your work on this and your leadership. And we will take a roll call vote. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Haney? Aye.

Not voting.

Avila Farias?

Avila Farias, aye. Colosa?

Colosa, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Cork-Silva?

All right 9 to 0 to not voting right. So thank you. Thank you so much. All right. We will go through all of the others and make sure everybody gets to vote is there anyone we're missing mr. Todd we need mr. Todd back all right let's go through for everybody else all right this is a consent calendar items to SP 722 and item 8 SP 1426. Assemblymember Ward?

Wicks, aye. Wilson?

Wilson, aye.

Assemblymember Ward? Aye. Assemblymember Ward, aye. Assemblymember Ty is not here. Assemblymember Wicks? Aye. Assemblymember Wicks, aye. Assemblymember Wilson? Aye. Aye.

Wilson? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Cholera, aye.

Wicks? Aye.

Wilson? Aye.

Item number six, Assemblymember Ward? Aye.

Wilson, aye. Assemblymember Wicks. Aye. Wicks, aye.

Thank you. Thank you. I have some, I have like, yeah. I say like, right? You know? Yeah. It's like every three months ago, it's something that, you know, it's like, now they're out of school. So I have to focus on family stuff right now. My son, I'm here today. Matt's got to be here. Right? Help combat David. His big government. Big government David All right see you guys later We have trouble Thank you. Okay. Let me just check and see. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right, that is it. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.