June 30, 2026 · Housing · 29,667 words · 15 speakers · 103 segments
Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Housing for Tuesday, June 30, 2026. Just a few announcements. Today's consent calendar consists of two items, AB 2110 by Assemblymember Johnson and AB 2397 by Assemblymember Ta. In addition, we had a special order in the file notice for a presentation on AB 11 by Assemblymember Lee. The Assemblymember has pulled that from the agenda, so we will not be taking up AB 11 today. So I see that we do not have a quorum, so we will begin as a subcommittee, begin with our first bill presentation. which is filed in one AB 748 by some pair of medium. And you may begin when you're ready.
I know how busy you are. Thank you for hearing this bill. Thank you for all the work by the committee. AB 748 actually is a bill to establish pre-approved housing plans for single-family homes and small multi-unit housing developments under 10 units. This probably looks familiar. We saw a similar bill last year, which made it out of this committee. And without any no votes, I brought it back because the bill got hung up in appropriations. We took some amendments after that process to delay implementation for cities and counties on the smaller side. Any county that is less than 250,000 will now delay implementation to 2029 and cities under 25,000 will delay implementation until that time as well. This is a proven model that we use currently in the state for ADUs. It would turn pre-approved housing plans to ministerial projects rather than projects that need bespoke attention from local agencies. We're currently using this model in my district after the Eaton Fire. This has helped residents rebuild their lives. It has sped up the process. we think communities throughout the state shouldn't necessarily need a disaster to implement smart policy. This certainly won't solve the housing crisis, but we hope it will do a small part in getting us to build more homes. And we just appreciate the committee's attention. And
Mr. Chair, thank you for your indulgence. Thank you so very much. Do you have any witnesses to support? No. Okay. So I will now invite anyone wishing to express support for AB 748 to please come forward. You can please take your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Good afternoon. Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse
Public Affairs here on behalf of Fieldstead and Company in support. Thank you.
Nolan Gray, California UMB in support. Thanks.
Stephen Sensor with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you all very much. I will now invite up to two opposition witnesses to speak in opposition to AB 748. Are there any opposition witnesses present? Okay, seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 748? Seeing no one. Okay.
Thank you Mr Chair Members Sharon Gonzalves on behalf of the cities of Burbank Carlsbad San Marcos and Thousand Oaks in opposition Thank you Thank you very much Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition Okay seeing no one else come forward I bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments from committee members
Senator Chaubeau.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I actually love the idea of having a preapproval process to speed and just helping our developers just get the process going really, really quick. You know, we have a lot of family members and family in the construction area, and it's incredibly just burdensome to see how long it takes for approval of homes. But I do also come from local control, and especially when it comes to small communities, cities, counties. We have the largest county, which is San Bernardino County, but we have really small rural communities. and the biggest concern that I have with something like this is a couple of things one is whether or not the cities have the actual staff and the resources to be able to create a plan that streamlines it for for themselves especially when they're they're still building their city out and number two is the the ability to accommodate and approve all of this without having enough time to figure out the infrastructure part of it. I have a lot of desert communities in my area. As a matter of fact, 55% of my district is in desert communities. There's a lot of land. They're still developing. They're still working things out, figuring things out. And so the biggest concern I have is whether or not they have the ability to get all that squared away in time to have these approvals for these particular developments. Have you had any conversations with small rural communities and cities? Many of them are actually not even cities. They're towns. trying to work with that in the county. So how would – any conversations on that angle?
I appreciate it, Senator. And we may have even talked about it last year when the bill came, and I appreciate the feedback. I was a council member of a town really of 11,000 people and a mayor, have spoken to a lot of representatives both in the Senate and the Assembly who represent more rural areas, which I do in my district as well. This – and we have ensured that there is total local control. So small cities, small county gets to build the program as they see fit, their own designs, their own plans. The only thing that is, I guess, uniform is the time in which once the program is established, a pre-approved plan that is used by an applicant, a developer, that plan needs to be approved in 30 days or less. That's the only thing that really is universal. Other than that, the cities, the towns that you represent, that I represent, they get to make the decisions. The plans that are submitted to them, they get to say yes or no. They get to continue to have all the land use authority. So the plan needs to actually adhere to the landscaping of the property, whether there's hills, whether it is a desert, whether there's actual facilities and infrastructure that's there. This merely talks about the design of the building and gives a ministerial review on that. So, yes, a lot of those conversations I've had actually inform the current version of the bill, and I actually agree with it. I do think that local control for a lot of this is still very important. We're just trying to take a piece of the pie that we think can be sped up. And so I think we're trying to do both. Is it perfect? Probably not, but we tried to meld the two.
And I don have I don think in my notes I see if there any I was going to look to see if you had any opposition on the bills and whether or not you working with them to address any of those concerns Sorry I didn mean to jump in there We had opposition
League of Cities was one of the opposing parties last year. We have worked with them to actually fix the bill so that they are no longer opposed. I know that there's a couple cities that just spoke in opposition, but we've come a long way. And as I guess the attendance shows, there really is no opposition, not that the three cities that spoke aren't significant. But we will continue to work with those cities, and I will continue to try to educate everyone on just how user-friendly this is and how much local control still goes into the pre-approval plan. And I think that should appease everyone that's involved.
Okay. As long as you're taking consideration and accommodations for the small rural communities and don't have a lot of the staff available to them, I think that's important for me. And then the other component, and it's just a comment. So last year I met one of the lead city planners for the city of Salt Lake. Yes. And it's incredible that they actually have an expedited approval process for the development. And I thought, how does a large city like Salt Lake actually able to do this in a way that's very efficient? I mean, the time, I don't remember exactly, and I don't want to put a false number out there, but I was very impressed. And if a big city, a large city can actually do this and be effective in that end, I thought, what a great idea. So actually, I was really grateful to see the bill again this year. And so I will be reluctantly, I didn't say reluctantly because I was going to actually not support the bill today. But I think if you have those accommodations, I will be able to support the bill today.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
We are on AB 748 by Assemblymember Herobedian. Unless there are any other questions or comments from the committee, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Many of the amendments came from conversations last year from Senator Koboldan. So he does know the bill well. Respectfully ask for an aye vote and appreciate the comments from Senator Chobo.
Okay. Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum yet, but at the appropriate time, we're going to motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have to go step out, and so Senator Cobalden will chair in my absence. Thank you very much, Senator.
And I believe next in file order is Assemblymember Wilson. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to Assemblymember Wilson, who has filed item 4, AB 1621, and you're welcome to proceed when you're ready.
Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, Chair, members. I'm pleased to present AB 1621. Okay. Sorry. I just want to clarify. All right. I'm pleased to present AB 1621, which aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California's housing approval process. Currently, delays in post-entitlement permits both slow down housing production and drive-up costs, making homes less affordable for Californians. Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's housing crisis, as highlighted by the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform. These delays continue to slow production, increase costs, and make housing less affordable. This is why I've chosen to introduce this legislation. It builds on AB 660, which I'm thankful had strong bipartisan support in the committee last year. AB 1621 builds on existing law by establishing clear timelines and real accountability for local agencies to process post entitlement permits ensuring that approved housing projects can actually move forward It also provides applicants with a clear path when agencies fail to meet their obligations. This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process, targeting areas where housing developers have experienced significant issues. It prohibits a local agency inspector from requiring a project to make changes in the field that would deviate from plans a local agency has already approved. It also stops local agencies from delaying the process by sending applications to outside reviewers and limiting how many times they can ask applicants to revise and resubmit their plans. Now, we have heard concerns around this bill. It's important to note that local agencies can go beyond the two plan check limit if there's strong evidence that more review is needed to address a serious health or safety issue. This bill simply closes the gaps and improves existing law regarding the timelines for local agencies to act on post-entitlement permits. With me today to testify on the importance of this legislation is Audrey Retejek on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I think she's coming from over there. Welcome, and you'll have two minutes.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Audrey Retejek on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, and we're here in strong support of AB 1621. This is critical legislation needed to improve the efficiency, fairness, and accountability of the post-entitlement permitting process for housing development projects. We're in the midst of an unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis, and despite legislative progress in recent years, particularly the enactment of AB 2234 by Assemblymember Revis, which established important procedural timelines for local agencies when processing post-entitlement permits, serious barriers remain to continue to delay much-needed housing across the state. AB 1621 addresses those barriers and strengthens the existing framework with a narrowly tailored approach by prohibiting last-minute field changes that contradict previously approved plans and limiting excessive plan check resubmittals. The need for these reforms is clearly documented. As highlighted in the final report from the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform last year, failures in the permitting process have played an outsized role in the overall housing crisis, with delays directly contributing to increased costs and uncertainty for developers. This not only affects the viability of projects, but also impacts affordability for future homeowners and renters. AB 1621 offers a balanced, common-sense solution that does not override local control or compromise safety. Instead, it creates a clear, consistent, and accountable framework that ensures timely permit processing, fair treatment of applicants, and ultimately the ability to deliver the housing our state so desperately needs. For these reasons, the California Building Industry Association asks for your aye vote.
All right. Thank you. So just one registered witness in support. All right. Then would anyone else wish to register support for the bill? Please share with us your name, affiliation, if any. No thanks to your lobbying firm and your position on the bill.
Bob Naylor, Robert W. Naylor, advocacy for Fuelset & Company.
That's Howard Amundsen, Jr., in support. Thank you. Ali Saperman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition in support. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium in support. Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.
Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you.
Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Filters also here in support. Good afternoon. Melina Manictus on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunulakis in support.
Mr. Chair, Michael Gunning on behalf of Circulate, Habitat California, San Diego Housing Commission, SPUR, CalIMBY, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support. Thank you.
Stephen Stensler on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.
Nolan Gray on behalf of California in support. Thank you.
Carrie West on behalf of Valley Sanitary District. The author did a lot with amendments. We appreciate you in support. All right. Are there two witnesses in opposition that would like to testify? Welcome, and you'll have two minutes as well. Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Brady Geertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. But I wanted to first commend the work that has been done throughout the conversations. It's really helpful. The changes still account for health and safety, so we definitely appreciate that. But I will say we do remain concerned about the two-plan check limit for a variety of reasons. A lot of times the multiple rounds of review tends to be applicants not fully understanding the laws. They're very complex, very challenging to get through. And instead of denying the project, cities can collaboratively work with the applicants to ensure that the codes, both local and state codes, are being met. So we do remain concerned about that. We also remain concerned that the language allowing only health and safety could potentially open local governments to litigation for non-health and safety reasons if they're denying a project given the Housing Accountability Act over time, so we do remain concerned. But I appreciate all the work we've had on this, and for those reasons we respectfully ask for a no vote today. Thank you. All right. Are there other folks here who would like to register their opposition? Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Royal County Representative of California. Align our comments with the league. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties. Also align our comments with those with the league, and we're opposed. Thank you. Chris Lee on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in opposition.
Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the cities of Belmont, Carlsbad, Corona, Rancho Cucamonga, Thousand Oaks with an opposed position and then the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers have an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.
Max Perry on behalf of the city of Camarillo also in respectful opposition. Thank you. We were top on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in opposition. Afternoon, chair members. Apologies. Took me a minute to run over here, so I'm a little bit late. Matt Klopfenstein on behalf of Zillow in support. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other testimony, let's turn it to the committee for any questions or comments. Sure. I'll help facilitate some conversation on the bill. So thank you for bringing this forward. I am actually supportive of the intent of the bill, which is to expedite the approval process. The concerns that I have, and I want the League of Cities to note on the concerns that I have, or that many people, not just I, but I speak on behalf of many folks, is the fact that we have cities that are incredibly pro that will do their checks and will get the plans back to the developers really quickly and without a problem But then we have cities that are taking two to three years to literally give feedback, have the plans going back and forth on that approval process. and factors such as new codes come into play where laws are passed and now they have to implement in that process of three years, two, three years, whatever it may take, sometimes four. Also, when you have changes in leadership, say the fire marshal changes or the city manager changes, new things are being brought up all the time. And so I think there has to be some sort of time frame where it is reasonable to say, okay, you have the review component. You have the ability to review the plans up to a certain period of time or times and say, okay, this is it. You are now going to follow this point in time with all the rules and regulations and codes of that period rather than extending it over and over again. So I do have a question for the League of Cities because if two times the review is not enough, what is a reasonable time frame in review? Because going back and forth every couple of months for three years, I think that's unreasonable. So what is a reasonable time frame? And of course, it varies from city to city. But what is really, truly a reasonable time when we can say, OK, review the plans, give us some feedback, go again. And I completely agree with the arguments that sometimes the first time around, it's not going to be OK. You're going to have a lot of findings, but you're having that that first time from the city's perspective to be able to review it and give feedback. so what is a reasonable time number of times that you can review and and give back if it's not a time frame yeah appreciate that question senator chobug and i and i understand where you're coming from and and uh get where you come from i mean i think it to your point it is very hard for depending on the staff levels of different cities to have a reasonable time to do that now i will say when we were having discussions with amendments one of our requests was hey after two additional times we need to be more clear in our findings of how we're missing the mark where why are we denying the application and then you can't move forward with those directly. So it still provides that flexibility for cities to be like, hey, here's where you're missing the mark. And it holds our feet to the fire to be like, this is why we're denying your project or why we're sending it back and for the sponsors. And it wasn't something that they were open to. So, you know, I think, you know, historically it depends on where you're at, but we've heard that it takes three, four rounds. But a lot of times it's not necessarily cities moving the goalposts. It tends to be, applicants just don't understand the building codes. They're really complex. So I think that's kind of how it is. So it's hard to put a time frame on it, which is also the challenge, I think, with this bill, where it's a set firm to deadline, and then you have to deny it. And we'd rather see it, like, let's have the back and forth to make sure we're getting things certified. We have to get housing built in the state. We're aware of that. But we also need to make sure that we're complying with all the mandates the state and locals are being required to place because of building codes and other regulations. So that's where we're coming from and in our concerns on the measure. So when you receive the plans originally, say there's a lot of mistakes, a lot of feedback is given to the plans When it comes back do you believe that they going to make when you talking about there a lot of mistakes and there more things that they don know what they doing and therefore you giving more feedback Are you referring to the fact that they done changes to the plans based on the feedback that you folks gave them and then it's coming back in ways that it doesn't meet the requirements of the cities? Is that what you're saying? I think I'm saying it depends on the situation, right? Sometimes it is not new, you know you have new changes that happen to your point you had mentioned earlier but for the most part when you're getting it back it could just be hey you know we flag for you this concern and you still haven't addressed it right like that's the challenge right it and again it depends on i'm i personally i'm not on the ground but from what we've heard from our cities a lot of it tends to be hey there's just so so much complexity we try to be clear and collaborate and sometimes it doesn't work and that's why we need three or four rounds we'd rather have those conversations rather than just denying a project and then restarting it all over again that doesn't seem helpful for anyone But it also happens when you don't approve the plans within, say, three years and you come back and say, you know, we want you to start the process all over again. That's a problem. So there is an actual issue at hand at the local level that needs to be addressed. So, Member Wilson, how did you come up with the two reviews? Right. How did that, you know, how did you decide, okay, this is the magic number, this is what we want to see moving forward? The two reviews really came about, and I want to be clear for members of the public, there is the plans that are approved by the local agency, which is a long and exhaustive, long and comprehensive process. And so those plans are done. And what we're talking about is once those plans are approved and now you're in the field and then the change is made. So when they go in and do that type of inspection and look through, there'll be those initial type of issues that the developer should fix. And then by the time you do the second one, maybe you found new things that you didn't necessarily see, but then that's it, right? Like you fix the other things, the other issues. And then you've now on your second turnaround, that should that should be done because you've had a time to do. You've approved plans. Now you're in this post entitlement permit process. Now you've had two times there. And so we're saying that should be enough. Sand something that's health and safety. Things come up. Right. And so if it's urgent and it relates to health and safety, then you can make adjustments. And so the two really was you should be trying to exhaust as much as possible that first time around. And then the second review, you're making sure they complete it the first time and then looking for any other outstanding issues that you missed the first time around. I don't think I think three would be a lot because it's just another it's just kicking the can down the road. and I don't think we've even talked about. If I remember correctly, I'm going to look at my sponsors. If it needed to be three, I think we've been with two and we haven't got a suggestion for three. We've really got suggestions as testimony noted, which was around clarifying when something is complete. Did you complete all the other items from the first time before you got to the second time so that we then can get a third time if you didn't? And then also this denying of it. Is there litigation if we deny it for a non-health and safety reason. So a new reason, because we came up with something after the second time and we deny it, will we get sued for doing that? And so those are the issues that are outstanding. I think the second one, the litigation, I don't know, I don't believe there to be a litigation risk. And then on the first one, I think we can, we've tried to address that in some of the amendments that we've taken. And I'm happy to continue to work on as we navigate the legislative process This is not the end This end of policy but not the end And so happy if we land on the right language happy to accommodate that But as I understand it it wasn having the third one It just having additional reasons for able to give a look back not necessarily just having one more So health and medicine right now would be the reason to be able to look back and come back with you. Right. I'm going to support your bill, and I do, you know, for my legal studies, because I know we've been at odds just on certain big bills with the legal studies, and I've always been a proponent of the League of Cities, a great partner of the League of Cities, but I just want you to know and share with your members, it is incredibly disheartening to hear and see where we have incredibly wonderful cities that are just on point when it comes to approval process, and we have cities that do not. And unfortunately, here's where the state comes in and says, okay, we have cities that are not doing their job effectively in conducting business, and therefore now we have to introduce legislation that kind of helps kind of move them in that way. And the problem that we have in the state coming from a local perspective is that now we have something that's going to be a one-size-fits-all. And that's where we start having problems because it doesn't address the cities that are not up to par. And the question is how do we tailor legislation to only those that are responsible, They're not being as responsible in their duties, in this case with the approval of housing. So just something to just consider, Mayor Wilson, is how do you maybe perhaps, and not that we're going to do negotiating anything on here, but just a thought, as we're working on legislation that really tries to address the cities that are not fulfilling their responsibility or doing their work effectively, how do we narrow the legislation so it's not a one-size-fits-all, but actually just really tailors to those that need a little more support in doing the work that they're supposed to be doing, especially in light of the housing crisis that we have in California. And that's my biggest takeaway from this. And I will talk to my local cities about that as well as far as that goes. But with the health and safety component, be able to go back and make those changes. I'm going to support the bill today. But I do want us to have those honest conversations about tailoring bills to jurisdictions that really are not fulfilling their full responsibility. Thank you for that feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
And if only we had a framework to identify those who are doing their job and producing actual housing so that we could distinguish between the top performers and the folks that need a little more accountability. And so I look forward that that bill did not move out of this committee. And I don't think the league supported it either. And we're in this situation as a result. We do end up writing one-size-fits-all legislation that is intended to make sure that we punish the wicked and we thereby prevent unleashing the great. And so it is a challenge, but it's a challenge more fundamentally in our approach. And we do need tools to distinguish between exactly those two populations, the really talented, highly motivated, performance outcome-based jurisdictions that are doing it right and we can trust that they know as much or better than we do and those that are either not caring or are affirmatively trying to skirt um the law and we we have both of those kinds so we we need to distinguish and i know that's hard for the associations they're like no we want to treat everybody the same well when when that's the answer we treat everybody like this i'm That's just the hard reality of it.
Mr. Garton, if you're still here, I can see that you are. I did have a question for you that wasn't that. And just looking at the opposition letter, I wanted to turn to this question around what happens, what would trigger an additional review. And the bill currently says, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the additional review is necessary to address a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, which you've argued is too strong. And the alternative that you proposed is written findings identifying the permit standards, which the plans do not comply with. Those seem pretty far apart, both in scope in terms of health and safety only versus any of the permit standards, both in scope but then also in kind of the level of, like, how do we really know? So you're saying written findings. The bill says substantial evidence in the record. Yours is a pretty broad door. I had similar concerns that you expressed about the languages in the bill, but yours seems to be as troubling in how broad that it is. So can you share with us why this level of discretion should be left to cities that if they just write down their reasons, that that's enough to go past the two turnarounds? Yeah, sure. Appreciate that question, Senator. And it's actually interesting to have the back and forth. I really appreciate this opportunity. So thank you all for this opportunity today. But I will say, you know, I think one of the challenges that local governments have, and I know with everyone's background in local government that's here right now, like one of the challenges is we have non-health and safety violations that we also have to enforce that the state has required us to do, right? So you look at solar mandates. You look at EV charging mandates. Those are things that we as locals have to account for. So the problem is if we are being tasked with – well, we're required by law to enforce those. We have to now enforce them and apply them locally to our communities. There could be non-health and safety issues that's requirements from the state that we now could be at risk for litigation because it's hard to go – I think it would be hard to go to a court and be like, well, they didn't have solar. That's why the permit was denied, and I know it's probably hard to argue that's a health and safety issue, right? So I think that's the challenge that we're grappling with locally. All right. I am largely persuaded on that point if there was language that said or health or safety or to comply with a state mandate of some kind. But can we turn next to the level of proof that's necessary here, written findings versus substantial evidence in the record? Written findings does seem like the most discretion possible. and have you had conversations either with the sponsor, with the author or with your coalition about why it would need to be so broad or such a low standard as written findings? I think the written findings provide more clarity so everyone's on the same page. So it seems like a better solution in terms of, hey, here's why we're denying the permit, for example, like what you're missing the mark on. The goal of that language is to say, hey, we want to make sure that everyone is on the same page and understands what we need to, what's expected moving forward. And they may already be required in state law to do that, but I don't know if it's as clear. And that's why we're saying, you know, hey, after two denials, if we're still denying it, let's be clear to the applicants so they understand where they're missing the mark and we can work with them so they understand where we're missing the mark. And, you know, if it includes adding language that's like, hey, you know, you can't ask for more beyond that, I think we definitely open to that So what would be wrong with based on substantial evidence in the record then Well substantial evidence has a higher legal finding than written findings does which is like a back and forth process So that's the challenge, right? But I think you said the purpose was to make sure everybody's on the same page, which that's the point of the back and forth process and establishing the record. Written findings is just a declaration that everybody's going to be on my page, which is not quite the same. So that's what I was trying to explore. Assemblymember Wilson?
And I would note that a part of the plan check process, as you know, there are written findings at each one of where you think you're out of sorts. And just thinking about the longstanding conversations we've had with opposition coming from local gov. I care about local control. I care about giving them the grace that they need to do their job, especially coming from a local city where you necessarily don't have all the resources. So I have that in mind as I do this bill and know that I introduced this bill last year as AB 1621. And there were lots of negotiations surrounding that bill. And some of the language that we have was specifically provided by the opposition that we took wholesale, which was a local agency or state agency may deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following two plan checks and specification reviews. So that is in this language and that includes that kind of written finding. And so now you've done all of that. At this point, now we're moving to if you want to do something, it has to be substantial evidence that it's related to health and safety. Otherwise, we would just get into this iterative process of another plan check, another plan check, another plan check, which is what the problem that we have now. This is a way for our cities to understand what is required of them and to be proactive, knowing that they only have two. They will then it will be much more comprehensive because they don't have multiple bites at the apple like they currently have now. And so now I know I only have two. So that means I'm going to be more thorough in each of my plan checks and make sure I get it right because I only have two. And he noted EV mandates and things of that nature. All of those state laws, we usually don't have urgency state laws around housing where it just brings up you overnight. Usually there's a determined time that something is into effect. And then there's a certain time where a project might be past that point or in front of that point. And I'm not, as a local leader, doing housing and doing development projects in general, or even in my purview as being a part of home building, have had that issue where we weren't clear about what law applied at what process, at what stage we were in the development of the project, whether that's from land acquisition to land development to actually building the homes. And so, you know, so that when I take a little bit exception with in regard to whether I can resolve that specific issue, because I don't think pertaining to here it is. And so we introduced this bill and we've made even after negotiating for a whole year and a half on that bill, we've continued to negotiate because I want to get it right. I think I say but can I can can I ask you about the yeah the reasonable person versus the maybe the alternative is the sort of reasonable inspector you know so at least the way that the opposition letter is framed it up is right that the bill sets a standard of like a reasonable person interpretation of the permit and the stands or whatever as opposed to somebody that would have knowledge or expertise or professional professional licensure in that field And that that And that right In this case it might be a strange Yeah And so what I would note is that if you look at all of our recent housing reform laws that this is now the common standard
And the courts have interpreted that this standard understands what is reasonable depends on the nature of the subject matter. So when you're saying reasonable, you're not saying Lori Wilson, who's never physically built anything. that is not a reasonable person but the person who is she's usually i'm pretty amazing i know that but but i'm saying like in the context of inspecting that they're using the reasonable person is the reasonable person who has the skills or whatever necessary to do whatever job they're doing and that is the reasonable person not just the standard reasonable person i am not a lawyer but from lawyers i understand that that is the standard okay okay well thank you and thanks I don't have any other questions, Mr. Gurdon. So I'm also going to support the bill and the chair is recommending, and I would, as a year of conversations continue to the end, it does seem to me reasonable if you're in the middle of the two reviews and a state mandate changes. And it can be a law. It could be finally you get guidance from HCD or something else. But that a state mandate changes in that period, that that's not an unreasonable issue to be contemplating. I think I agree 100 percent that just any state mandate, you should have known. If you knew about it, you could have known about it at the beginning. That should have been part of the first round of reviews. But I would encourage you to keep thinking about that as the bill is moving forward. We'll do. All right. We'll take the motion when we have a quorum. But after you have the opportunity to close.
I think I've said a lot. So I will just say, at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
All right. Thank you so much, and happy birthday. All right. We have next up Assemblymember Quirk-Silva for file item 3, AB 2748. Welcome.
Thank you, senators. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. First, I want to thank your committee consultants for working with our office, and I do accept the committee amendments. Today I present AB 2748, which delays the new electric vehicle readiness requirements in the California Green Building Standards Code for 100% affordable housing developments only. California has been tackling some of the state's most pressing needs, housing and climate. This bill is not about choosing one or the other. They are both important. However, when those goals come to an impasse, we need to work together to reach some sort of middle ground. The sponsors and my staff have met with several groups, environmental as well as electric vehicle groups, and have had roast bus discussions. I want to emphasize again that AB 2748 does not eliminate the installation of EV charges. It keeps the previous installation rule at 40% for fully affordable housing developments only and delays the recent 2026 increase which increased installation 100% for three years. And that is the current amendment just to delay for three years. We know that we need to move forward with putting in these chargers. So why would I bring a bill like this when I actually agree with having electric chargers Simply because of the cost The cost that it adds to our 100 affordable units We know for per unit they can be in the past up to Now we expecting them to be about $2,500 to $3,000. So if you add that, just say $2,500 for 100 units, that's where the additional thousands of dollars can arise. So again, it is not to have a two-tier system. It's just to give more time in order to get these units built, get people housed, and then secondly, make sure that once the three years have passed, move on to certainly building those EV chargers. With me today, I have Graciela Castillo-Krings, partner of Sacramento Advocates, representing the California Housing Consortium. Welcome, Graciela.
Good afternoon. I'm the other co-sponsor, Paul Schaefer of the California Council for Affordable Housing. Thank you very much, Chair and members. CCH represents the full continuum of the affordable housing industry, including tax credit investors, lenders, developers, and long-term property managers across the state. Affordable housing providers share the state's long-term climate and equity goals, and we recognize that electric vehicles are becoming an increasingly common transportation option. However, the EV charging requirements in the 2025 Green Building Standards Code create significant financial and operational challenges for affordable housing developers that already operate on extremely tight margins. The cost impacts are substantial. Based on real-world project experience, we are seeing EV-ready infrastructure costs increase by as much as three times compared to the 2024 code requirements. And because every affordable housing development is different, those costs can vary dramatically, depending on site conditions, parking layouts, wiring distancing, and the need for electrical upgrades. Utility coordination adds another layer of complexity. Developers must work with utilities to assess service capacity, conduct load studies, and determine whether panel, transformer, or meter upgrades are needed. These requirements can add both significant costs and project delays to developments that are already financially constrained. With the proposed committee amendments, AB 2748 offers a balanced and practical solution. The bill does not eliminate EV ready requirements. Instead, it gives affordable housing developers the option to continue using the 2024 standards, which require 40% of total parking spaces to be EV ready or comply with the new 2025 standard. This flexibility will keep projects feasible while providing time for the used EV market to mature, cost of decline, and utility programs and funding sources to better align with affordable housing financing. Most importantly, AB 2748 helps insurers that the most scarce affordable housing dollars remain focused on producing and preserving much-needed homes rather than being diverted to infrastructure that may be underutilized in the near term. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2748. Thank you.
Thank you. Now, Graciela. Oh, where did you come from? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Graciela Castillo-Krings. I am here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, a nonprofit organization working on the preservation and additional production of 100% affordable deed-restricted housing. I don't have to tell this committee how important dollars are. It's thanks to this body that we passed a $10 billion bond, highlighting the need for additional funding. And the reality is most of the programs that are funding units are running out of money. So what we are asking for is for an additional three years of delay, not to say no to EV charging, but just simply to let us go back to the 2024 supplemental, which again is 40 of EV readiness and 10% of EV charging or chargers. That actually is 50% of total. All we're saying is give us three years, and hopefully by then, in November, the voters will say yes to the bond, and we will be able to actually fulfill both the climate change goals that the state has and our affordability goals, because at the end of the day, our entire goal is to make sure that people continue to be housed. With that, I hope that we can get your support. Thank you. All right, thanks to you both. Do others wish to register their support of the bill? And if so, please come forward and share with us your name, your affiliation. But please, no advertisements for lobbying firms and your position on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michael Gunning here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, California in support and urgent eye vote. Stephen Stenzler here in support with Bay Area Council. Thank you. Natalie Spivak with Housing California and on behalf of the California Housing Partnership in support. Thank you. J.T. Herchmack with the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support. All right. Thank you to the witnesses in support. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? and you'll also have two minutes. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members. My name is Dennis Karelis, Deputy State Architect retired with the National Charging Access Coalition, joined in opposition by 50 groups including affordable housing developers, unions, and advocates for transportation equity, public health, climate stability, and green tech jobs. We support reducing the cost of affordable housing but this bill does not achieve that goal. It's based on a misunderstanding of the current 2025 code. Informed by expert stakeholders, the current code ensures each household with parking gets a simple charging outlet like this one here. And it also reduces construction costs by removing the 2022 code requirement for more expensive EV chargers. The 2025 code provides twice as much access to charging for about the same or less cost than the 2022 code. With either code, developers can reduce costs by assigning parking spaces to specific dwelling units and wiring the charging outlet to the corresponding unit's meter. This saves money for property managers by eliminating the need for third-party billing or management services. Here's an example of an urban 100-unit complex with 50 parking spaces. The 2022 code, showed in blue, requires 20 charging outlets and 5 full chargers, versus the 2025 code, shown in green, which requires 50 charging outlets. With assigned parking, complying with either code costs essentially the same, just a small fraction of the total project budget. Yet the 2025 code gives twice as many households access to charging. In suburban and rural areas, a 100-unit complex could have 250 spaces. In this example, with 200 assigned and 50 unassigned spaces, developers save about $96,000 by following the 2025 code. This is typically the case whenever there are more parking spaces than dwelling units. In conclusion AB 2748 does not save developers money as hoped and should not be advanced I be happy to take any questions you may have Thank you very much for your attention Thank you All right, you will also have two minutes. Okay, thank you. Hello, I'm Linda Hutchins-Knowles with NCAC. We appreciate the amendments. We remain deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. First, going back to the 2022 code would drive higher costs. It's much cheaper to add charging during original construction when concrete is being poured and panels are being sized. The state has spent $2.3 billion, and utilities have spent over half a billion to retrofit existing buildings. Rather than burden taxpayers and ratepayers with more future retrofits, developers should continue to follow the streamlined 2025 code. Second, the bill would establish a state-sanctioned double standard, where all residents of new market-rate apartments can charge at home, while only half the residents of affordable housing get access. This penalizes the lowest-income Californians and may even violate the Federal Fair Housing Act. It would also reduce jobs for electricians. Third, the bill makes it harder for residents to access the cost savings of driving electric. Used EVs are now the most affordable type of car to buy. The state and utilities are spending millions to help low-income residents access these health and economic benefits. Residents with older cars can get $12,000 toward an EV, essentially a free car, if they income qualify. And they can also access care and fare at charging rates, but only if they can charge at home. Here in Sacramento, if you charge at home, you pay between $0.85 to $2 per gallon, but gas is over $5 per gallon. Commercial charging is much costlier. It's often six times the cost of home charging. Reducing access to charging perpetuates this barrier. A 2023 survey of affordable housing residents found 70% said they would lease or buy an EV if home charging is available. We respectfully ask for your no vote on this unnecessary and harmful bill. Should you still choose to export it, in addition to the three proposed amendments, Please also require developers who follow the outdated 2022 code to make the remaining 50% of spaces EV capable. That means you'll run the raceways, put in the panel access in low capacity, making it much easier and less costly to provide EV charging access in the future for the three years of delay. Please ask us questions. Your time has expired, but thank you very much. Appreciate you. All right. Now we'll ask folks who wish to register their opposition to the bill. Julie Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in opposition. Michelle Canales in respectful opposition on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, Green Latinos, Redwood Energy, and the Climate Center. Thank you. Marie Lu representing NRDC in opposition. Thank you. Bill McGavin, coalition for Clean Air, also opposed. Mark Fenstermaker, Earthjustice, opposed. MS. Good afternoon. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong opposition. Thank you. MS. Good afternoon. Vanessa Warhite in strong opposition speaking on behalf of Moon5 Technology, recipient of CEC REACH funding for installing charging at affordable and low-income housing. Thank you. MS. Good afternoon Colleen Corrigan with Spur We took an opposed and less amended position but appreciate the author and sponsor willingness to ensure that at a minimum AB 2748 does not prevent developers from fully utilizing potential cost savings We withdraw our position upon seeing the amendments in print Thank you Run Matt Clemson on behalf of the Center for Sustainable Energy and Opposition Thank you All right. Thank you. That concludes all the testimony, so we'll turn back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Ochoa Bogue. Certainly. So, you know, it's interesting because from a construction perspective, you know, we talk about, we on our side talk a lot about the requirements that are placed on development in order to meet, you know, the goals of the legislature. and how every single – I remember receiving a list of everything that the legislature had required of developers to add to the cost of – that added to the cost of the development, and it's incredible on what it costs to build in California. I'm grateful that we're putting a pause on this particular mandate on the affordable housing building standards. But I do have a question which was intrigued. I did not know, and I appreciate it from the opposition that said that if you build it to a prior code, it would make it easier moving forward to add the infrastructure. Could you, through the chair, if it would be okay, just to clarify what standards would that be? And has there been any conversations on your end, Member Quirxilla, as to having that modification just to make construction more feasible moving forward? Would you mind explaining the requirement that you were? Yeah, we proposed this. We met with the bill sponsors and proposed to them five amendments. This was one of them. Basically, what we're saying is developers, if you accept amendments today, developers will have a choice of the 22 or the 25 standards. If they do the 2022 standards, we're simply asking that the 50% of spaces that will have no charging infrastructure whatsoever, that's where it costs so much later to dig the concrete, to resize the panels, bring in transformers. There's no transformer upgrades when you do it in the beginning. You size it right. So we're saying make the extra 50% of spaces EV capable. It's extremely inexpensive. We're just talking about raceways and panel capacity breaker space. And the old code, the original 2022 triennial before the supplemental that this code refers to, did require some of the spaces to be EV capable. That definition is in the code. So it basically would be taking the 2022 code and saying the 50% of spaces that don't have access need to be EV capable. They won't be wired, but they'll have the raceways already run before you pour the concrete, and they'll be sized properly to avoid those upgrades of transformers that cost so much. you got a letter from your co-housing, they spent $29,000 per port because they hadn't sized it properly. They literally did, and that's what we're trying to avoid. That seems pretty reasonable and kind of more of a wise perspective in moving forward. So has there been any conversations with regards to that particular port? We've actually taken that amendment to allow the flexibility so developers can choose if they want to use the 2025 standards. I believe it's at 25. Yeah, just to clarify, we're saying that if they get to use the 2022, they have to make the EV capable the other ones. So 50% have to be under 2022 code. We're saying the other things have EV capable. It was one of the amendments we proposed, but it wasn't taken up. But we love to have the committee support that It just makes sense if you moving forward on there to make it less expensive In my opinion if I were a builder I would say you know I would accommodate that But I not sure if that's something that the builders would consider or not. As far as the option, I guess that's what you're saying is you you're giving them the option in this bill to be able to do that. We want them to have the flexibility. But we also the goal of the bill is to shave off dollars from a 100% affordable housing project. Now, this space that I'm in is actually a little awkward for me personally as, you know, I've mostly worked in bringing affordable housing. And now that there's opposition, which respectful to the opposition, I think you can do two things at once. And one of the things that we have a really hard problem with is imagining two things can happen, and that is we want to build the units as quick as we can, knowing that affordability, 100% affordable housing units, the people that are going to be able to attain these units, it's life-changing for them. So getting in the unit, getting it built, and having those very sacred dollars, affordable housing dollars, used as quick as possible to build as many units as possible is imperative. Secondly, the EV charging is not only a state mandate. It's part of our climate goals. And we want to attain those, too. We're just asking for a pause. Within three years, again mentioned right before I came into committee, we have a housing bond, and we're imagining that that's going to get passed. We've also worked incredibly hard to put dollars into the state budget, fighting to keep dollars into the state budget until that bond is passed. So this pause would say, in the meantime, let's have this opportunity. opportunity, but certainly developers can, as you said, use the alternative if this bill passes as it is, to do the groundwork, as you would say, that could in essence be less costly. But for now, as we hear often through trades and others, is the project going to pencil? Is the project going to be able to be built with the dollars have? If you can shave off $25,000, that means something. But I don't like being in the position to, you know, being a housing advocate, and if you want to say for the opposition, being against climate goals. But sometimes we have to make the choice that gives people the best option. And the best option, there's three things people need. They need housing, they need food, and they need water. That's about it when we come to livelihood. Evie, yeah, you can shake your head, but when we look at people who are trying to pay their rent, who are trying to get to work, we know that our vulnerable communities' housing dollars are the largest part of their budget by far. That's why we have people leaving California. It's why many of us have stood on boxes about the crisis of California. So we're trying to put forward something that is not perfect. It makes people uncomfortable. It gets people angry. But it's a pause. We're not saying, you know, people who are in affordable units should never have the option to have a charger or an EV charge. But by the way, right now, Even if we say gas is more expensive, when we go and we look at the sales of EV for many of our most vulnerable, they're not out there buying them. Why? Senator Rooker-Selpen, could I ask you to defer this line until the close? All right. Well, that will be my close. It kind of gets me wound up when it's insinuated by the opposition that somehow we can't do two things at once. We must do two things at once. Thank you. All right. Senator Tofokobo? So just for the powers that are there listening, I've been trying to streamline the way that we construct in California because it's so expensive, and I hear that from the developers in my area all the time. I think about five years ago, six years ago, just to break ground and be able to build, it was about $125,000 to $145,000 just to break the ground on those homes. It's incredibly expensive. But by the same token, there are these climate change that the legislature has been pursuing. And I do want to give the opposition just the validation that I think you're absolutely right. You know, if you're going to create, you know, EVs moving forward, you know, fully electrify, it does make sense for developers to do the groundwork before the concrete gets poured. because once that concrete is poured, it does become much more expensive moving forward. So I understand that the bill before us is just trying to ensure that we put a pause on the whole scenario, but the powers that be and the developers, you know, planting that seed, I think it's important for them to know on that end. I'm going to support the bill today because I think it's important to build and to cost as much as possible. But if we're looking at long term, and it would be hard if it's not required at this point, for developers to move ahead and do that pre-planning and place the infrastructure to be ready when they're not required to do so because they're not going to be around to be, you know, doing the follow-up of the electrical charging stations. They're not going to be responsible. The developers are going to be long gone. It will be up to the owners of the properties to do that and facilitate that charging. So I get your point, but I also understand the effort by the assembly member to streamline and cut costs and build. So somewhere along the way, hopefully, someone will be listening, and the developers that are forward-thinking and proactive, maybe they'll take that consideration into place. But I absolutely hear what you're saying. with that I'll be happy to move the bill when the time is appropriate thank you I agree with Senator Tobog's analysis in every respect I think the suggested amendment is a totally reasonable one and I would encourage the author to continue to work that through because it is substantially more costly I mean, I guess in this, I'm sad that we are in this position, not just on this, but the coalition that we've seen over the last decade of sort of climate advocates and housing advocates has been one of the most potent contributions to both. and whether it's the actions we saw at CARB that have basically wiped out the entire Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program on the one hand or this I mean we we I hope we not going into our corners and just you know grabbing whatever crumbs that we can in order to try to we not going to be able to solve either the housing or the climate crisis if we can't refashion that coalition and figure out pragmatic ways to accomplish both goals at the same time. So So I share the concerns with strongly urge the consideration of that amendment. There may be others from the opposition in order to do this. I get the reason. And then I just want to say one other thing, and that is that this is likely the final hearing that we will have Assemblymember Quirk Silva with us. And I just wanted to say on behalf of the housing committee in the Senate, how much we have appreciated your colleagueship on housing issues and your leadership every single year fighting hard to make sure HCD gets the resources and the accountability that it needs, the dollars for affordable housing and for homelessness. and, of course, bill after bill after bill to make sure that the system is efficient and effective at producing the housing that we need. Thank you for all of your work. And with that, I'd like to invite you to close for real. Yeah, and we will continue to work with the opposition, and I hear them. I see you. I know that being in the middle of these two discussions, it's not the first time we've dealt with CEQA, other housing, But really the goal is to house people as quickly as possible, but not letting go of our climate goals. So we have work to do. We'll continue to do that. Thank you so much for those comments and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We do not yet have a quorum, but when we do, the motion will be placed and the motion will be due pass. Due pass is amended to appropriations. Thank you so much. All right. Next up is Assemblymember Wicks Alvarez. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. Didn't mean to give me a hard. attack assembly member alvarez who has ab file item number five ab 1732 welcome assembly member alvarez and please proceed whenever you're ready thank you uh and i will be brief thank you committee members for the work you do on housing i am really pleased to be with uh you before you today on assembly bill 1732 which builds on some of the work i've been doing over the last couple years on housing and this bill in particular is focused on student housing as you all well know we are very proud of California's being the leading state with the greatest public university system in our community college system but we've also had to face real decisions on on students and the challenges that they have including you know the large percentage of UC students and CSU students who have unstable housing and the very large number of community college students who face the same. We've done things like allowed for students to sleep in their vehicles and parking lots and many other things to try to address this. And as we've tried to address housing in general, we've done some pretty great things over the last few years, in particular the streamlining of projects through the CEQA process, projects who meet the needs of California, including affordability and the housing developments. And so this bill is really just along those lines. Current law allows private colleges and universities, cities, school, cities, and counties to streamline through the CEQA process their affordable projects that meet certain criteria that's outlined in the bill. And as we did I think excellent work last year to try to do this with AB 130 we neglected to include universities colleges and CSUs and UCs that have long planning documents as part of this. And so this bill addresses that. It allows them the same type of opportunity to build housing utilizing this tool whenever there are plans at universities and college campuses. You all know the data. I'm not even going to get into that at this point. We've been talking about this for a long time, of the need for affordable housing, but I'm really proud to say that this work is being led by students and to testify on behalf of sponsors for the Student Homes Coalition. I'd like to now introduce our first, or I think our only, testimony today, Kate Rogers. Good afternoon, members. My name is Kate Rogers here on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition. So as a member mentioned, student homelessness is directly downstream of the shortage of housing on our campuses. Every single year, 30,000 students across UCs and CSUs end up on housing wait lists. And competition for off-campus housing is just as intense as lease up begins in October for the following academic year, nearly 10 months before those lease terms even begin. So the current situation is absolutely untenable for California students. If we at Student Homes have learned anything about this, working on this for the last four years, it's that we cannot just keep nibbling around the edges of this problem. If we're going to restore the affordability of education in California, real structural change is necessary, and we believe AB 1732 is that change. So the lack of development on our campuses is not because our institutions don't want to build, but because they can't. Outdated state regulations increase the cost of development, lengthen project timelines, or prevent construction entirely. So from 2018 to 2023, seven UC student housing projects were tied up in CEQA litigation. Campus housing projects are not only critical to solving the student homelessness crisis, they're also incredibly environmentally friendly. They're located in dense, walkable areas and are subject to high environmental review standards outside of the CEQA process. Despite this, current law still allows local opponents to weaponize CEQA to block these units we desperately need from being built. While it is the campuses that shoulder these legal fees and compliance costs, it is the students that ultimately pay the price. Students, faculty, and campus leadership all want the same thing, to make higher education as accessible and affordable as possible. We're incredibly proud to be sponsoring AB 1732 to finally make this vision a reality. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Also happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to register their support for the bill? And just to recall, we'd like to hear your name, your organizational affiliation that you're representing, but not your lobbying firm, and your position on the bill. Allie Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Michael Gunning here on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate, Spur, and the San Diego Housing Commission. I urge your support. Thank you. Bob Naylor, one client, fuel set and company. That's Howard Amundsen, Jr. in support. Francisco Arnelas with the University of California Student Association. We're proud co-sponsor of this bill. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Teresa Brown on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office in support. Nolan Gray, California UMB in strong support. Alright thank you Are there lead witnesses in opposition to the bill Does anyone wish to register their opposition to the bill Let then return to the committee Any questions or comments Senator Ochoa So I'm in support of what is being proposed here today with this bill. I think one of the biggest challenges that we have for college affordability is the housing component. It's incredibly expensive for them to actually be able to find housing, first of all. I'm not a big proponent of vouchers, per se, because I don't think that does anything to add to the housing, and it just has an impact on the local communities when we're requiring our universities to increase enrollment, and that has an impact on the housing capacity of the communities that these universities are in. So I'm all about building housing on our campuses, for our campuses, for our students. So kudos on that. I was trying to figure out the difference between your bill and Senator's bill, SB 886. Senator Wiener, I'm sorry. Senator Wiener's bill on SB 886. Do you happen to know what the differences are between those two? You have to remind me what 886 is. In 2022, sorry, yes, that was in 2022. And it said it exempted faculty, staff and student housing projects at public universities from the California Environmental Quality Act. OK, basically. Do you remember that one? Our student house coalition. Yeah, I'm happy to take this one. So there's a couple of differences between 886 in this bill. I think really what we've seen since 886 was signed into law is that it hasn't been used. And there's a whole lot of reasons for that. There's it's a lot of provisions in there are incredibly burdensome that just, you know, cannot be met while still making these projects pencil. And so we've seen from our colleges, while that law was incredibly well intentioned, it ultimately hasn't resulted in the effects that we want, which is more development of student housing and affordable student housing on our campuses. So this bill is similar, but it has what we believe to be a much more workable set of provisions. And we've been working with the University of California, the community colleges, to make sure that this bill will be workable and these units will still pencil. And happy to share more details with you or your office at any point about the specific provisions that were in 886 but are no longer in our bill. Okay. I know my staff is listening, so I want to make sure that we meet and look into those provisions and what failed on that end. because the one concern that I have on here is what triggers my mind and my lens when I look at construction projects is a requirement for mostly union or union or project labor agreements on those because you're excluding about 80% of contractors in the state of California. And when we do that, there are less contractors bidding for these jobs, which has an impact on the cost of construction as a whole, and one, on the component of the cost, and number two, also on the ability for these projects to be constructed for the development to happen because we don't have enough on that end. So that's the one. Yeah, so our bill does still include labor standards. The primary reason for that is the UC and the CSU have their own labor standards. Even when they are still subject to CEQA, they also have their own labor standards as state entities. The sort of realm where these provisions are different between our bill and 886 are things like a LEED certification requirement or having cool roofs, solar-ready roofs. things of this nature that are just add little costs, one on top of the other, until ultimately these projects don't end up happening. But whether, you know, a project uses AB 1732 or it doesn't, it will still have those labor provisions in place due to unrelated labor language that the UC and CSU are subject to. Okay. And I guess if you do have that language, I'd be kind of curious to see that language, because I think that's one of the biggest, well, along with the requirements that your when the labor costs are incredibly. And I'm, you know, I'm an advocate of opportunity for all and having the most folks at, you know, especially if they follow the laws and they're qualified, they're trained, you know, they should have an opportunity to be able to bid. And I want to make sure that it's not cost-prohibited when we're excluding 80% of our contractors in our state in this. But other than that, I will be supporting the bill because I think it's incredibly needed. And thank you for bringing this bill forward. Thank you, Senator. I also just want to point out this bill is building on AB 1449, which is another bill that I introduced a couple years ago. And I'll get you more data, but our report to date this year, HCD is reporting that that bill, which streamlined affordable housing outside of university campuses but out in the community, has already produced 10 projects this year alone of affordable housing projects. So we're hoping that that utilization rate, which is much higher than the previous version that you just mentioned, would also be accepted by universities. And so we'll see similar results. But we'll get you that information as well. Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr. Alves, and I'm going to ask you a question. But if your answer is the reasons for the scope are where a hostile amendment by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, just let me know and I'll stop asking you. But this is with respect to the limitations on where the projects can – which kinds of projects are covered. So there is a geographic requirement here that the project is located on a parcel in a city that is at least partially urban or within walking distance to a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop in a low vehicle area or proximal to six or more amenities. Now, those are all urban standards. Correct. And I'm curious, you know, at College of the Siskiyous or Copper Mountain College or, you know, other rural campuses, which can't possibly meet those standards almost by definition, but also have needs for affordable housing, why we wouldn't include those? a part you know it's particularly sensitive now because we have the money in the bond right for student housing and so the extent to which the same project costs more at a rural community college than it would cost or in it because they don't they don't have sequa at the urban college are we are we categorically disadvantaged I would just thank you senator and sorry for I would point you to section in section one. Let's see. It's on the second page if you have the printed version, but it talks about within one mile for a parcel in a rural area. So those are the opportunities within those more rural communities. If they have those amenities within those two miles, then they would also qualify. So the goal was to try and not leave out those types of campuses but also not create a type of development that would be allowed in a rural community which usually is not we hear a lot of pushback on you know that kind of development in some of those communities So if you look at that, it's within one mile, or for a parcel that is within a rural area, within two miles with the following amenities, a supermarket, grocery store, public park, a community center, pharmacy, drugstore. And so there are some of those amenities are also considered as part of qualifying you for the utilization of this for projects in these areas. In addition to those urban areas that you just mentioned. Yeah. So we have several urban community colleges that are essentially completely by themselves. Right. They don't sit next to anything else. And so the requirement for a community center, a public library that presumably is not the college's library, grocery store, I mean, they're not – like what is this language accomplishing in terms of – I mean, what is it about like any college that just wants to build housing that's affordable for its students and that they wouldn't be able to qualify for the exemption? What are we worried about? So a lot of this is based on AB 1449, which is my bill from a couple years ago, and so that had to be narrowed down into specific criteria so we can get the support for the bill. And so that narrowed it to this list as a result of working with multiple stakeholders for that bill over the course of quite some time. And so rather than try and interject something that may cause any significant opposition, We were trying to fit it within those confines. We're certainly always interested in trying to make sure that colleges and universities that are in areas where they'd like to build housing but don't meet your typical urban scenario can also participate. And that's why that is in here. We're interested in learning if there are other criteria that might be of important significance to other campuses, I think we'd be open to that. Okay. Yeah, I think it's important now because of the bond. So before the bond. It would have been like, okay, AB 130 also doesn't apply to everybody, including most rural areas. But that's because we're specifically trying to make cases that are obvious under environmental conditions, a housing project in an existing city surrounded by other uses, whatever. But now we're talking, because of the money that's in the bond, about projects competing with one another. And so the extent to which we don't get the, like, what are we trying to accomplish in the rural areas? Sure. And it's not clear to me that for a CEQA purpose, like having a pharmacy next door is really – that's not important, and it will mean that several colleges just can't even – they can't compete because other campuses that will qualify for this exemption will have a substantially lower cost and won't be able to deliver. They'll be able to deliver faster than these rural colleges. So it would be great to connect afterwards. Sometimes we get stuff that's written for rural areas by staffers who are urban people who have, you know, leave it to beaver style notions of what rural looks like. But I think it really is important that we figure out, given that assuming that the bond passes, that there will be resources, that we're not disproportionately disadvantaging rural communities who may have even more of a need for affordable housing because there's no other provider nearby. And, again, the intent was not to disadvantage. We thought that a random list of items like these could maybe capture a lot more. But if there are other qualifiers we be interested in understanding what those could be to help more Okay All right Then with that would you like to close Again appreciate it Thanks for all the feedback This is building on some of the work that we felt has been successful in California, and hopefully we can extrapolate that success to our colleges to build housing for our students at the right time. Respectfully ask your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. We are still hoping to achieve an accord very soon, at which point the motion of due pass to appropriations will be made and with a recommendation from the chair of an aye vote. All right, next we're going to proceed to Mr. Carrillo, who has two bills. First is file item 6, AB 1738. Welcome, and please proceed when you're ready.
Thank you, Senator and committee members. First, I would like to thank the chair and committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Today I'm presenting AB 1738, which requires jurisdictions to offer a virtual option for four simple inspections for single-family homes. Before I was your colleague, I was an urban planner, and I would conduct final inspections, I saw firsthand how much of a backlog my building department colleagues face. This backlog further exacerbates the housing crisis as building departments juggle the multiple inspections required for new housing projects, with having to also travel to perform on-site inspections for routine home renovations. What should be a straightforward step in the process instead becomes a prolonged and unpredictable weight, illustrating how inspection backlogs can place added financial and logistical strain on Californian families. AB 1738 looks to address this issue and help alleviate the housing crisis by requiring remote virtual inspections for simple home renovations as well. Requiring these remote inspections will speed up the process for the homeowners and the building department, allowing homeowners quicker inspections and for building officials to focus on permitting more complex projects faster. AB 1738 takes a measured approach. It does not apply to all inspections, but instead focuses on the most common and appropriate use cases already being implemented successfully across California. Remote inspections will reduce delays, cut costs, and save time from homeowners and inspectors. Here with me, I have Colleen Corrigan from SPUR to testify in support, and Timothy Wagner, former Placer County Chief Building Official, to testify due to Placer County's robust virtual inspection offerings. Welcome to you both, and you'll each have two minutes.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Colleen Corrigan, and I'm a policy manager at SPUR, which is a proud co-sponsor of this bill. California's housing crisis is being exacerbated by outdated inspection processes that are quietly adding time and cost to housing production, renovation, and electrification. Homeowners and contractors often wait hours or even days for simple inspections that take just 5 to 10 minutes, adding hundreds to thousands of dollars to individual projects and administrative and standby costs. As a result, only 10 to 20 percent of HVAC installations statewide are permitted, and one CCA estimated that 30 percent of rebate or incentive money for electrification is spent on permitting and inspections. Remote inspections aren't a far-fetched technology of the future. They're a proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD the National Fire Protection Association and being used by over 20 jurisdictions in California small and large Life and safety concerns are not grounded in reality The most populous county in the state along with other jurisdictions has safely conducted hundreds of thousands of remote inspections for over seven years without a single incident Nothing about the inspection process or the plan check or code compliance actually changes, except that inspectors don't have to drive an hour and a half to look at a smoke detector. Contractors still bring the same tools and perform the same physical tests and check for things like grounding of solar systems or water heater drain pipe length. The City of Sacramento requires these permits and more to be inspected remotely because it saves them time and money. AB 1738 preserves full discretion for inspectors to require in-person when necessary while establishing much-needed best practices and standards. California's housing crisis requires rethinking the status quo and building on the innovation and expertise of local governments. I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1738. Thank you.
all right next witness yeah good afternoon chair and members my name is Tim Wegner I'm a retirement a retired local government safety official with 34 years of experience 19 of those here as the head of the Placer County Building Department I wanted here to discuss with you a little bit about video inspection today and I first wanted you know that community safety has been my primary objective really exemplified by my insurance service rating with Placer County where we've increased to nearly a perfect score. Really building co-compliance and safety equivalency were our objectives when developing the video inspection program. We developed a list of less complex inspections and established video requirements and protocols similar to in-field inspections. The county's video inspection program was born in 2019. As testimony of the program's success, the program has since expanded based on the inspection team's confidence in the video process and the intended safety outcomes Placer County offers more than 40 inspection types today this past year Placer County conducted more than 80 800 video inspections and during the six year period of the program the team did not encounter any fraud or other incidents that would question the integrity of safety inspections to implement video inspections there are really three low cost or no cost requirements a scheduling system many times the community already has in place for in-field inspections video streaming which is currently already a business practice by most local communities such as Microsoft Teams, Google Meeting, or Zoom. And the current business practice is for resulting system inspections which are already in place for in-field inspections. Really my experience is that video inspections keep jobs moving, save time and money for both the contractor, homeowner, and for the local community, the local jurisdiction, and the building department, and it was easily accomplishable with the same safety outcomes and results.
that. I'm here to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. You finished just in time. Clifton was about to bowl you over. We're now going to turn to folks registering their support for the bill. Again, you have just name and affiliation. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you. Danita Stromgren, volunteer with AARP California from Davis on behalf of 3.2 million members in support. Matt Clevenstein on behalf of the Center for Sustainable Energy and Zillow in support. Allie Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.
Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company in support. Michael Gunning for abundant housing Los Angeles and habitat for Humanity of California
Brian Garcia with Advanced Energy United in support. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support.
Nolan Gray, California MB in support.
Stephen Sensor on behalf of Permit Power, a proud co-sponsor of this legislation, and also been asked to give a Me Too for Climate Resolve, U.S. Green Building Council, Menlo Spark, and the Climate Center. Thank you.
Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Mr. Chairman and Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the California Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheep Mill Workers with the Committee of Amendments. We are neutral on the bill. Thank you. All right. With that then, are there any witnesses in opposition? Or does anyone wish to register opposition on the bill? Seeing none, we'll return to the committee for any questions or comments. we've been the only ones for quite a while okay I'm a stickler for ensuring that we have a little bit of conversations when it comes to bills I think so I'm I'm okay with virtual inspections for certain things but not all things I do have concerns about, you know, an inspection for smoking carbon monoxide detectors. Yeah, not a big deal. But I am concerned about other things where they're a little harder to view, especially with the camera and the logistics of it. So I will not be able to support your bill today on that end. And, you know, the roof component, I think, would be very difficult to do virtually. Even the the solar panels I think might be a bit difficult. Just from a realtor perspective, doing inspections, I had to meet the inspectors and be with them while they did the inspections and so forth, and I see the physical challenge of getting in and going out. So there are certain things that I'm okay with, and there are other things where I just do not feel comfortable. So I will not be able to support the bill today, but I do appreciate that you're trying to streamline and make it a little more feasible for folks who cut the cost of doing inspections, and I do appreciate the effort on the bill.
I appreciate the conversation. Thank you.
Just one question, which is, and it may relate to the size of the bill as well, but the bill has the standard state mandate disclaimer for fees being able to be charged. And I'm just, so I'm curious if a small, well, any city, but let's pick a small city in your district or mine that now has to offer this option. So they have to, you know, execute a contract. They're not unlikely to be developing the system in-house, so they'll have to hire something to happen. And over the long run, it might save money as they don't have to contract out for private inspectors and what have you. But in the short run, they have a cost, which is why it's key to the state mandate. The bill has the fee disclaimer that says cities can charge a fee in order to recover that cost. What fee would that, is it the inspection fee? Inspection fee, yeah.
I'm realizing that cities rely on fees, inspection fees, one of them. It typically is done through the permitting costs. When you pull a permit, the cost of the permit includes the inspections, in my experience.
There will be occasions when the inspector or in this case virtual inspections have to be done over because they fail After two or three inspections then there may be another charge for doing an additional inspection But the bill just talks about the fees that cities have to recover for providing a service. Yeah. Yeah, and this is a much bigger issue. I think if you've been in this committee with me at any point, I raise this on a lot of bills. It's just the cost of launching the actual service isn't associated with a specific applicant. And so whether or not under Prop 218 a city is on solid ground to say we're going to charge only users of the remote system the cost of paying for the remote system may be the case. But that's what I'm trying – I've just been on every bill trying to explore.
As we put that disclaimer in, is it real that a city could actually recover their costs?
So I understand that explanation.
No, absolutely. Yeah, this is not intended to waive any fees. Cities obviously recoup the cost of providing the service, the inspection. It may actually be a lower cost because then they'll be saving the staff time and, you know, the vehicle to send someone to do the inspection physically. So eventually, you know, it may become even a lower cost if they do a virtual inspection. Yes. Because cities can only recoup the cost of them providing the service.
Yeah, I agree with you. I think over the long run, that's almost certainly going to be the outcome. In the near term, you still have the cost. I appreciate the responses there. I do this is a very low definition of a small city. So as you're continuing to think about this, I would encourage somebody who represents cities from 700 people to, you know, the gigantic cities that are 120,000. The distinctions between 5,000 and 11,000 people cities aren't that big in terms of issues like this. So we just encourage you to reflect on whether that threshold is really the right one in terms of at least where we start. I mean, because they're very different from L.A., obviously, and it's a pretty low threshold, but I appreciate you. All right. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?
I simply request for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Okay. Well, it's appropriate time to ask, and we will take – hopefully we will get a quorum soon. Just a reminder, if any schedulers or chiefs of staff or legislative directors are watching right now, for members of the committee, please have your senator come to the committee so we can at least establish a quorum and begin taking motions on the bill. But thank you very much, Assemblymember. Next, we'll proceed to your second bill, which is file item 7, AB 2166.
Thank you again, Mr. Chair and committee members. Back in October of last year, I had the opportunity to visit Malmo in Sweden, along with other members, to learn how Sweden is successfully addressing their housing crisis. Just like our constituents, the Swedish face high prices and severe housing shortages. And just like California, Sweden is searching for innovative solutions to bring relief to their people. One of their most successful strategies has been investing in and expanding factory-built housing. Factory-built housing is when either the entire unit or various panels are constructed off-site in a factory before being shipped over to be assembled on-site. Factory-built housing is cheaper, more efficient, and has a wide variety of different designs. Unfortunately, off-site housing factories in California struggle to find projects and stay open because they are unable to get insurance coverage. Insurance coverage is important because for housing projects, each component is expected to have coverage for the percentage of costs that they contribute to the project So for example if the materials are 30 of the cost of the project the material providers are expected to have insurance to cover at least 30 of the value of the entire project Because factory-built housing is a relatively new industry in California, these factories do not have a long project history. This causes hesitance from insurers. This, in turn, makes some builders reluctant to contract with these factories, scared about what may happen if the factory fails. This then leads to these factories having even less projects and subsequently still having a short history. This cycle is a marked failure with broad public consequences. With that intervention that addresses this, California will struggle to stabilize factory capacity, preventing major cost reductions through repetition and scale. AB 2166 is that intervention. This bill will create a state financial backstop to allow companies to ensure state California-based factories for multifamily projects, allowing contractors to feel confident they will deliver on these promises and lifting these factories out of this negative cycle. Here with me is Marta Espinosa from California Housing Consortium to testify as a co-sponsor and Tyler Pullen with Eternal Labs as a technical witness to answer questions. Welcome. You'll have two minutes.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of affordable housing, and we are proud to co-sponsor AB2166. Factory-built housing presents the state with a meaningful opportunity to lower construction costs and reduce construction timelines for housing projects. There is a lot of interest in using innovative construction methods, like factory-built housing, to build more affordable housing in California. While there are many potential benefits to it, the perceived risks associated with this product type prevents the production of factory-built housing at scale. As a result of the challenges factories face in securing performance bonds, developers and lenders that pursue these projects often have to take on additional risk. This makes it difficult for factories to develop a steady pipeline of projects, which in turn affects their ability to secure the bonding they need. By creating a financial backstop to make it possible for surety companies to ensure more modular factories, AB 2166 will promote growth in the industry, prevent factory closure, and reduce financial risk. AB 2166 also ensures that factories have a greater level of stability and a steady pipeline of projects, giving factories and development teams the certainty they need to pursue more modular projects. This is smart policy that will allow factory-built housing to scale up more quickly and with more certainty to help California achieve its housing goals. I urge you to support this bill today. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Murray with the Weidemann Group on behalf of Autodesk in support.
Did you have a second witness? Yes, sir. From the Tarmer Center? Okay. I thought so. All right.
I am just here to answer questions. I'm not submitting any formal testimony.
Okay. I won't ask you for your opinion on the bill in two minutes, but okay.
Folks would like to register their support. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Partnership in support. Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support Thank you Good afternoon again chair and members Brady Guern on behalf of the League of California Cities in support Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Housing Trust Silicon Valley in support J.T. Herchmack with the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support.
Nolan Gray, California MB in support. Thank you.
Stephen Sanzer on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.
All right. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Does anyone wish to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none, let's return it to the committee. Any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Vogue? Yeah, we have a motion. Oh, sorry. What's that? Oh, we don't have a quorum yet. Oh, we don't. Not yet. So grateful for the bill. Glad you're bringing this measure forward. I think I just have one question. I understand that you've been working on the bill. Has there been a determination as to the percentage of the surety bond that would be covered by the credit backstop under this new program?
That's where my second witness comes in. Yeah, happy to answer that. It isn't specified in the bill. The idea is that iBank would be the one determining that amount. Okay, so it's not something that we're going to be seeing here that it would be pertinent to have before the bill gets signed into law, I'm assuming.
And that makes sense that the bank would determine that. I was just kind of curious. And then also, as far as being the priority of how this would be awarded, has there been an additional criteria that would be needed to be met in order for the surety company to receive priority under this program?
That also has not been called out in the bill yet. I think we would like the department, iBank specifically, to determine what that should be. Okay.
And then lastly, would it be limited to only those bonds that are issued to factories that are new to the market or classified as a small business? I will call Tyler up to phone a friend here.
Yeah, sorry. And to clarify, I've been providing technical assistance on these and many of the other bills, but we, Turner Labs and Turner Center at UC Berkeley, are non-advocate, non-lobby, so I can't issue a formal opinion. To your specific question, this is not, I don't think, intended to be designated for any specific new businesses, which would need a definition, or small businesses. For the most part, the factories that have been consulted in the ideation of this bill have been in the last five, or started in the last five to ten years, but typically operating facilities on the order of 50 to 100,000 square foot factories. So doing like multi-million dollar revenue per year would not qualify under most definitions of small businesses. I think the idea is that new factories are the ones in need of the support. More longstanding or tenured factories don't have as big of an issue getting the bonding capacity or having the cash flow to be able to support their own bonding already. Okay.
And for the record, I think it's important for the public who's listening, including some of my team and myself, Could you give us a formal description of factory-built housing and what that looks like?
I already includes. Yeah, short of quoting the HCD definition, this is generally categorized by some partial components or sometimes entire volumetric modular units, which can be an entire apartment unit, built partially or completely off-site in a facility that could be 20 miles from the construction site where the home would actually be located. It could be 700 miles away. I think most of the industry tends to follow volumetric modular, So where they're building entire apartment units or similar, trying to get as much of the work off-site and into an environmentally controlled factory facility as possible. But, which Assemblymember Carrillo mentioned, there are also hybrid methods like panelized construction where you can build wall panels that include electrical, mechanical, or plumbing. I think that is a smaller part of the market. Technically, they're still eligible as factory-built housing under current HED definition. but for the most part this applies to larger factories mostly doing volumetric modular construction.
Okay, and then last, last question. Examples of where we could see some of these projects already in place. The factory built housing projects?
Yeah. Around the country and world. In California there's been... Four blocks from here.
Four blocks from here? We just recently did a tour right here that we hosted together in downtown Sacramento as well. Okay, so I'm next on the tour. So I'll skip on that. I will go take a look.
Thank you very much. For sure.
Thank you. All right. The term state-backed credit backstop, not for the hearing, but I would appreciate as the bill moves forward, which has the recommendation of Chair Erdogan, I'm fully intending to support it. Glad to see this bill here. We need to be innovating financing tools, especially for the factory-built sector. I would like to understand the interaction of the state-backed terminology with the constitutional requirement and limitations on the state's own credit being used as backing for credit insurance or backstops and what have you. So I know a lot of smart people are involved in this, including the author, so I'm sure it's taken care of, but I'd like to understand it better as it goes into appropriations. But we don't need to – it's not a question for me about whether I'm going to support the bill today, So I'm going to vote for it, but I would appreciate a little bit of a briefing or background, if possible, on that at a later date. That will be true.
I think Ms. Spinoza, I think she just left. She's here.
Can you answer that question?
I think it's definitely something we can continue to explore and further specify, consider. Great.
All right. Then would you like to close?
I respectfully ask for an idea. Thank you so much.
All right. All right. Now Assemblymember Wicks is reclaiming her time. Welcome.
Assemblymember Wicks has file item 8, which is AB 1815. Thank you, members.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I was enjoying that conversation quite a bit as the chair of the Select Committee on Housing Construction Innovation and the person who led a delegation to Sweden and Idaho to look at some of the factories. I'd welcome you, Senator, if you want to come on some of those trips, because it's absolutely fascinating and was inspiring to me, and that's what's actually inspired this bill and the previous bill and a body of work to try to figure out how we can actually solve the housing crisis. So I was enjoying that conversation. At any rate, I'm here to present AB 1815, and I want to thank the committee staff for all their work on the bill and I will be accepting the committee amendments As you know I been leading a select committee on housing construction innovation with the goal of bringing down the cost of construction so that we can build housing that is affordable for our working class families. Factory-built housing has the potential to do exactly just that. Our goal is not to get rid of traditional stick-built construction, that's how we build the vast majority of housing, but instead to supplement it by creating a viable pathway for the factory-built housing industry to scale across the state. This is part of our yes and all of the above approach to housing. AB 1815 prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing or enforcing building standards that exceed the state minimum building standard on a factory-built housing project. Just like any other manufactured industry, standardization is crucial for these factories. It allows them to develop streamlined production processes and build consistent, high-quality products. But California has 540 local jurisdictions that can impose unique sets of standards. This building hood fragmentation forces factories to reconfigure their product and production lines to meet jurisdictions' bespoke building codes, which significantly diminish time and cost savings that factory-built housing may otherwise be able to achieve. This prevents the industry from scaling across California at a time when the state needs innovative housing solutions most. AB 1815 creates the necessary standardization to achieve economies of scale by clarifying and reinforcing the state's existing building standards framework, ensuring it is applied consistently to factory-built housing projects. Importantly, local jurisdictions maintain control over building code standards for wildfire risk mitigation and also for flood risk mitigation with the amendments I am accepting today. With mere to testify is Tyre Pullen from UC Berkeley's Turner Labs and Allie Saperman from the Housing Action Coalition.
And when the time is right, if we get quorum, respectfully ask for an i-book. Welcome. You all have two minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Allie Saperman, the Advocacy and Policy Manager at the Housing Action Coalition. The Housing Action Coalition is a statewide pro-housing nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all income levels. Our members include the developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners who build housing across California. The legislature has made tremendous progress over the last decade, removing regulatory barriers that make it so hard to approve and permit housing. But there's a frontier that remains largely untouched, the cost of construction itself. Factory-built housing is one of the most promising tools we have to bring those costs down, and AB 1815 takes direct aim at one of the biggest structural barriers preventing it from scaling. The data on costs and timeline savings is real. According to the Turner Center for Housing Innovation, off-site housing construction reliably cuts construction timelines by 10 to 30 percent, with estimates reaching closer to 50 percent. Turner's director testified that the factory-built housing has the potential to reduce hard costs, labor, materials, and equipment by 10 to 25 percent under the right conditions. Those are real dollars in a state where construction costs are one of the primary drivers for housing unaffordability. But those savings only materialize when factories can operate at scale, and scale requires standardization. When over 500 local jurisdictions can layer their own requirements on top of state minimums, manufacturers can't develop and replicate consistent product designs across markets. Every jurisdiction-specific speculation, specification, means a factory has to retool, re-engineer, and re-seek new approvals. Projects approved one time under varying rules make it nearly impossible to build a steady pipeline a factory needs to operate efficiently and competitively. AB 1815 directly solves this. By establishing a clear statewide standard limiting the local variation this bill gives manufacturers what they need to invest replicate and grow It doesn lower quality standards State standards remain fully enforced It removes the fragmentation that industrialized construction economically unavailable. HACS members have told us firsthand that this type of regulatory fragmentation is one of the most concrete obstacles to adopting off-site construction methods. This bill gives the industry a real path forward. We urge an aye vote and thank Assemblymember Wicks for her continued leadership. Thank you. Witness in a mode of inquiry? No, for real. Maybe I'll sit in analysis but not support? Extra detail. Good afternoon. My name is Tyler Pullen and I am the Building Industry Innovation Lead at Turner Labs and researcher at UC Berkeley's Turner Center. I'll provide extra information regarding this bill based on our research into innovative construction. Firstly, on local reach codes themselves. There's a lack of data and research on the full extent of local reach codes in and outside of California. Local code amendments should be submitted to the state and subjected to a reasonableness standard, but industry interviews suggested that enforcement in this process is inconsistent and that there is no database of specific reach codes in place across the state. Anecdotally, the codes include green building measures related to specific materials or design features such as solar and battery storage, wildfire risk mitigation measures such as increased ember protection, but with specific respect to wildfire and flood risk some reach codes may reflect an under accounting of risk in state hazard and federal hazard maps which the bill seeks to accommodate while maintaining uniform standards as is. Interviews also suggested that reach codes often do not offer significant health or safety improvements to the state model code but they do create inconsistency in design and construction requirements as well as code enforcement even when the building code and conditions or even when the building conditions are the same across jurisdictions. This makes it more difficult for innovative companies to standardize their production and achieve consistent quality and cost savings. Secondly, on the cost threshold defined by this bill, the factory-built ratio requires at least 15% of hard costs spent on factory-built components for a given residential structure to benefit from this bill's provisions. Practitioners reported that multifamily residential structures can achieve factory-built ratios as high as 40 to 50 percent of hard costs through volumetric modular construction. The remaining hard costs reflect the substantial amount of on-site work still required, such as podium floors, stairwells, and elevators, and the system connections in between factory-built components. And practitioners suggested that a lower threshold is inclusive of projects with more podium floors, where this can be 25 to 30 percent, or those using more hybrid methods such as advanced panelization. Overall, Turner's and others' research highlights the value that building code harmonization can offer innovative housing delivery in the industry writ large. Thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And we – really? There are five of us and not enough? Okay. All right. We're almost there. We're getting there. Thank you very much for your testimony. Other witnesses wishing to register their support for the bill. Good afternoon. Stephen Sanzler in support on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the California Council for Affordable Housing. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Murray with the Weidemann Group on behalf of Autodesk in support. Mr. Chair and members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation division in strong support. Thank you. Mr Chair members Michael Gunning here on behalf of SPUR and support Thank you Good afternoon Sean DePakian on behalf of Elevate California and the California Downtown Association in support Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium, proud co-sponsor in strong support. Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support. Nolan Gray, California MB in support. Graciela Casillo-Krings on behalf of the Abundance Network, in support. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, in support. JT Herichmack from the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, in support. Steven Stanzler again, I was asked to express support on behalf of the Casita Coalition. Thank you. All right, thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition? Welcome, and you'll have two minutes. Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wetsch on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees, the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, I'd like to thank the committee and the author. The amendments taken today make this a much better bill. We do believe that it's missing one major component. The author's statement in the analysis several times talks about wanting to scale up production in California, yet there's no by California or even a by America provision within the bill. You know, this bill provides for a lower standard of allowing manufactured housing to be built to a lower building standard than required in certain counties today. but we think it's going to be very difficult to enforce that in Indonesia or China or even in Idaho where they do major manufacturing. We have at least half a dozen to a dozen manufacturers in the state of California. I might point out, given recent discussions and concerns in this committee, that Idaho has a minimum wage of $7.25, no prevailing wage. China doesn't have any minimum wage and neither does Indonesia I would think in order to protect the integrity of what this bill intends to accomplish at a minimum there should be a by America provision of which we have many throughout the state statute or a by California requirement. Thank you. Alright, thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Lead witness? I'm sorry in opposition? All right, does anyone else wish to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none, let's turn it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Durazo. Thank you. I want to thank the author for working on this, on housing, tirelessly, and with many times, you know, facing some real problems that you go through. As you know, for me, bringing together the creation of good jobs together with issues around climate, standards in our community, opportunities for our community, all rolled up in one, is what I continuously fought for. So if you could answer, Madam Author, the concerns, because it's one thing to prohibit local building standards that exceed the state minimum. That's with regards to safeguards. But the other is about more factory built in California. We're proud of California, proud of our labor standards, and we always fight to have inclusiveness. labor standards. So how do you respond to that? Yeah, I appreciate the Opportunity Center, so thank you for asking. So my goal is to build more housing, particularly housing for our lowest income, middle income folks. And I've, as expressed, been pretty militant on it since I've been in the legislature. We haven't quite solved the problem yet, but we're going to keep working on it. So that is my North Star with everything that we're doing here as it pertains to the housing committee and the work that I do in the housing committee. HCD inspects everything. They go to Idaho and inspect the units there. So we do have inspectors certified inspectors that actually look at all of this product, regardless of where it's made. If it's going to be built here in California, it's going to be inspected. So I would respectfully disagree with the opposition's comment on that. The other thing I would say is, you know, we don't have a law in California that says EpiPens must be made in California, right? We need those EpiPens. Those are lifesaving devices. We haven't put those kind of standards on other things. And I would put housing similarly as a big need. You know, we have a deficit of 2.5 million homes of where we need to be here in California. Some of that, a couple thousand of those units are coming from Idaho. I went and toured those factories. Those units, I actually have one in El Cerrito in my district right now that just went up, took three weeks to get up. Actually amazing to watch to see how fast it goes up. that was built off-site with Carpenters Union. So Union Project built from a product that came from Idaho, inspected by HCD, built here with Union Workforce here in California, assembled here off-site. So I don't know why we would not want that. You know, those are 70 units serving our lowest-income folks, average 50% AMI right on a transit corridor. To me, that's an example of exactly what we should be doing. I do have a vision one day of having factories up and down the state of California, some of which are already organized, which I would welcome, because to your point, I think that's critical. That's why the Carpenters Union is sponsoring this bill and been a part of these conversations and has organized factories and has a whole facility in Las Vegas trained to do this and has been very active in this conversation because I think we need a broader vision board. The last thing I'll say is since Idaho was mentioned, there was a CEO of one of the companies who came and testified. We did hearings up and down, conversations up and down the state. We spoke to dozens and dozens of experts through the select committee. We went to Sweden. We went to Idaho. I've been to factories here in California. I've been to more factories now probably than like any other lawmaker in the United States, which I quite enjoy actually and find it to be interesting. But one of the CEOs was testifying in one of my hearings early in the year and used, for example, a project that he projected saved 18 million dollars of taxpayer money because it was using factory built housing of a product that he created in Idaho. That's 18 million dollars of public money that we can now put somewhere else into more housing units. So I would not want to turn that spigot off right now. I think we need a yes and approach. I would love and want to have factories up and down the state of California. And that's the goal. And that's where that's why this bill has been crafted with the input of factories in California who have this exact desire and need, along with the other bill we just heard earlier and another body of work. So I think hopefully that will help illuminate kind of my thinking on it. But I don think now is the time to diminish or reduce the effectiveness of these types of bills on housing I think we want to be expanding our ability to actually do this type of work Yes please continue Senator Well I would like you to reconsider Okay. Because we need to have good-paying jobs. Sure. I know you believe that. Yeah. We need to have good-paying jobs. We need to have standards. We can't fall and let our standards, whether it's for labor standards or inspection standards, we can't let those become the new lower standard for California. We pride ourselves in this. And we can't treat good-paying jobs as if they are a problem to housing because we're sending the wrong message. We can't make people feel like the only way you can support housing is if you have lower standards, if you don't have labor standards. Sure. We shouldn't put people in that position, and we shouldn't have to pick between one or the other. So I would like for you to reconsider, find a path to get to these various issues that have been brought up by others. But it's all I ever bring up. I'm a broken record on that front. So please reconsider because I would like to be supportive. I hear you on that. I will happily take that input genuinely, Senator Drosso, and I've always appreciated your leadership as it pertains to labor issues. You know, this bill isn't about labor standards. It's about building code. But I also understand how they're tied together. I'm happy to reconsider to have more conversations with Mr. Wetch. and yes I will I will reconsider I can't promise anything but I'm always open to conversation and and appreciate your point of view. Senator Grayson. Thank you Mr. Chair and if there is any legislature legislator in the legislature right now that knows how to find a path it's chair and assembly member Buffy Wicks so I've worked with you enough shoulder to shoulder and I've watched you from the time you've come in here and your ability to be able to negotiate, your ability to be able to make paths and create a door where there isn't a door. You've been able to do it. So I know that jobs are important to you. And I know that the work that you're doing, especially with factories, is important to you because of the fact that it is about housing and it is about safety and code. And so I'm reminded of your passion for this as well as Congressman Garamendi's passion for here in America, being made here in America. If there was a way for you to just be able to, as you're moving forward here, look at any possible way that we can secure pathways to where what we're doing, we're doing here. I'm also reminded of something I've been working on for several years now, and that is if you design here, then build here. And that's for the manufacturer's tax credit. No plug intended here. I just say it fits. It fits what you're trying to accomplish as well. So I appreciate your work and appreciate you continuing as you move forward to find that path. I'll be supported. Thank you. All right I will also be supporting the bill Earlier this year in February Harbinger Homes in my district in Balejo which had produced thousands of homes announced that they were going to be potentially closing if they didn get additional flow of orders and would have to lay off 290 workers workers these are folks that are in this industry right now creating um creating a whole new sector hopefully that will be up and down the state So it not a theoretical issue around what might happen. It's very real. And it wasn't because there's not demand for homes, there are demand for over a million homes in the state. It was simply that the uncertainties of the market, it. I've toured it, obviously, as well. And as a former mayor, I've queried them a lot. Well, how are you dealing with these codes? It's a very big challenge. And it's one of the major reasons why we don't have more throughput. And ultimately, one of the big reasons why the very existence of those jobs was at risk. And so I think it's really important that we tackle this. This isn't one of those issues where cities have been doing this and have developed like incredible expertise and immense knowledge over the last century, like many other building code issues, they're just figuring it out too. So it's exactly the right time to be doing this before, you know, the poor little city of Dixon or Rio Vista, my district, is putting the effort in to try to create their own bespoke building codes and what have you for to build housing. This is the right moment to be accomplishing this. And so I very much appreciate the amendments as well. I think the 15% definition tightening was really important. And if somebody represents a flood-prone, well, not flood-prone, flood-risk city and many, many fire-risk cities, the language that understands that they often need to or are legally mandated to or insurance mandated to impose different building code requirements is important as well. So in some sense, I mean, there are many things in our homes today that used to be building code approved part by part, which no longer are. I mean, you can just go and buy an entire shower. There was a point when in some cities you would permit each, like, 18 parts of a toilet one at a time. We don't do that anymore, and we don't need to. And toilets and sanitation and public health have been a big beneficiary of results. So I very much appreciate this was a completely novel area of policymaking just 24 months ago. And very much appreciate the authors' work in this space. And I hope that no one else, no other workers in this state have to go through what the 290 workers, factory workers at Harbinger Homes in Vallejo have had to go through in this bill. Had it been in place, it would have gone a long way to achieve that, and I intend to support it as well as soon as we get a quorum. Thank you so much. Thank you. Would you like to close? Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you for bringing up Harbinger. I've talked with them at length about some of their challenges. And I think the body of work we're doing, not just this bill, but the other five bills that we're working on collectively could fundamentally address those challenges that they were faced with and help to keep those 290 workers, union workers in their job if we had the ability to fix some of the pipeline issues, de-risk some of the issues, etc. And I think this is a piece of that. And this bill really allows the economies of scale to be realized so that we can actually realize the benefits of this type of product. Happy to continue conversations with the opposition. And when the time is right, respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. All right. We are going to continue to proceed, hoping we can complete every single bill before the actual chair arrives. So Assemblymember Arrins, you're up next. with file item 9, which is AB 2005, and please present when you're ready. Well good afternoon Mr Chair and Senators AB 2005 allows current owner-occupants to participate in the process of building more housing and protects the current guardrails and existing law that deter corporate participation in this process. Specifically, AB 2005 will allow the trustee of a living trust who is currently the primary resident of a single-family home or the owner or member of a limited liability company to apply for the urban lot split. Under existing law, these common estate planning tools can be used for lot split applications. This restricts the process to individuals with substantial financial resources and expertise. This bill does not increase the number of units that can be constructed on an SB 9 lot split or reduce the number of owner-occupied units. In fact, lot splits constructed under AB 2005's new pathway will create additional owner-occupied units. AB 2005 creates an alternative option where an existing homeowner may partner with a small home builder to manage the lot split and construction on the second lot. This option will create not just one, but two new owner-occupied units for sale. The current version of SB 9 only creates rentals after the lot split. I really want to thank all of the stakeholders who have engaged with me in my office regarding this bill. I care about everyone's viewpoints, especially those of the opposition, and I appreciate them that they came with me for their amendments. This is why I took author amendments to address some of the concerns raised by the opposition. Specifically, I added a five-year sunset provision, tightened the definition around living trusts, and LLCs eligible to apply for lot splits. Prohibited LLCs from using this bill to conduct lot splits on properties destroyed by the Palisades and Eaton fires. I look forward to ongoing conversations with stakeholders and remain open to any suggestions on how to improve the use of existing housing laws to produce more homeownership opportunities in our communities. With me today is Nolan Gray, the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California YIMBY, and Luis Mirante, the Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council. Welcome to you both. You'll each have two minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm an AICP planner and the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California IMB. California IMB is 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. AB 2005, which is under consideration today, addresses a practical problem with one of California's most recent housing reforms. While SB 9 was intended to empower homeowners to create additional housing and only modestly increase neighborhood density, the reality is that the law has not produced housing at the scale that was hoped when it was passed. One reason is that the process remains too difficult for the average homeowner to navigate. In working with property owners and small developers across the state, we found that many are interested in creating additional housing units, but lack the expertise, time, or resources necessary to manage lot splits in particular and facilitate construction on their own. AB 2005 recognizes that reality. The bill creates a pathway for homeowners to partner with experienced small-scale builders who will navigate the entitlement financing and construction process. By making these partnerships possible, the bill helps translate the promise of SB 9 into actual housing production, and in particular, homeownership housing production. This bill also addresses another common barrier. Many homeowners hold their property in a living trust or legal entity for entirely legitimate estate planning purposes. These ownership structures should not prevent otherwise eligible homeowners from participating in a program designed to create more housing opportunities. AB 2005 fixes this. ultimately AB 2005 is about making existing housing law work better to quote Hemingway writing is rewriting By reducing unnecessary barriers and providing small-scale housing projects, creating additional homeownership opportunities, and making better use of lands already developed, we can better use existing infrastructure and public services and in the California housing crisis. For this reason, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Morante? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Louis Morante on behalf of the Bay Area Council here in strong support of AB 2005. The Bay Area Council represents about 400 of the region's largest businesses. For businesses, especially in the Bay Area, housing is a core competitiveness issue. We simply can't expect our regions to continue to grow without the housing needed to put people in those regions. We have seen firsthand how SB 9's owner-occupancy requirement has inadvertently locked out homeowners who hold property through real estate planning tools, such as living trusts and limited liability companies. even though those homeowners are exactly whom the law was designed to serve. AB 2005 creates an alternative compliance pathway to SB 9's current requirement. Under current law, an SB 9 urban lot split applicant must personally occupy one of the units for three years. This bill adds a second option. The applicant may sell both resulting parcels, provided each buyer is required to owner-occupy a unit on the parcel for three years from the date of conveyance. Deed restrictions, recorded notices, and affidavits signed under the penalty of perjury enforce compliance at every transfer. This bill does not weaken owner-occupancy protections. In fact, the alternative pathway will generate more ownership opportunities in our communities as compared to existing law, since both parcels must be owner-occupied rather than just the one in current law. This bill also expressly prohibits local governments from singling out urban lot split projects from additional restrictions or eligibility barriers, another best practice that will accelerate the uptake of SB 9. We remain open to working with opposition to address some of their concerns, but I want to emphasize that this bill is going to have a net improvement on Californians' ability to own the homes that they live in. We respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank Assemblymember Ahrens for carrying this measure. Thank you. All right, thank you. Does anyone else wish to register support for the bill? If so, please come forward to share with us your name, your affiliation, not your lobbying firm, and your position on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michael Gunning here on behalf of AlphaX, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, and SPUR in support. Thank you. Allie Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support. Bob Naylor for Fieldstead & Company in support. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. I'm seeing no other witnesses in support. Are there lead witnesses in opposition? Are you coming forward Mr. Pizzotti? Yes I am. Alright. You have two minutes. Thank you Senators. Kobe Pizzotti on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We appreciate the author's willingness to work with the stakeholders. However, this bill removes one of the key safeguards that made SB 9 acceptable in the first place. When SB 9 was passed, the legislature made a deliberate policy decision. The streamlined ministerial urban lots process was intended primarily for homeowners, not speculative developers. That is why the applicant had to commit to occupy one of the resulting homes for three years AB 2005 fundamentally changes that compromise It allows the applicant to immediately sell both parcels and transfer the owner occupancy requirement to a future bar. It also authorizes a real estate investment trust, an LLC, to use this streamlined process throughout California. except within the Palisades and Eaton Fire's areas. I think that exception is telling. SB 1090 is before the legislature. Because speculative developers have been using SB 1123 in Altadena following the Eaton Fire, nearly 60% of all the properties purchased after the Eaton Fire were purchased by investors. This fact led the legislature to conclude that temporary safeguards are necessary to prevent speculative development from undermining community recovery. That raises an important question. If speculative developers present enough of a concern that we should suspend SB 9 and SB 1123 in Altadena until 2030, why are we simultaneously weakening SB 9's homeowner protections everywhere else? I need to ask you to please wrap up. Yes, sir. And if speculative acquisition threatens vulnerable homeowners after a California disaster, shouldn't we also be asking how AB 2005 will affect California's affordable communities like Richmond, Vallejo, Martinez, South Los Angeles, where working families already face intense competition from institutional vote? I wrap up, Mr. Pozzotti, and I urge you to vote. I humbly ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any others present here today that wish to register opposition to the bill? Sharon Consolva is on behalf of the City of Belmont in opposition, but will be reviewing the amendments. Thank you. All right. Anyone else coming forward? Seeing none, we'll return to the committee for any questions or discussion. Senator Grayson? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And by the way, I see the intent of what the author is trying to do here. And I agree. I was around for the SB9 conversation and the negotiations and how we had to really work and thread the needle for streamlined and administrative approvals and dealing with local governments and the community, especially with a lot of narratives that got out there of, in some cases, misinformation and purposeful misrepresentation of SB 9. So having said all of that, when it comes to one of the more important provisions of SB 9, and that was homeowner occupancy, what safeguards have you been able to secure here in your bill? Have you addressed homeowner occupancy and what safeguards? because I don't see where there may be an appetite to undo that important provision. Yeah, I would love to invite my technical witness up, but I will say we've kept a lot of the same provisions as SB 9, and we've also accepted in the assembly, some of my colleagues have wanted us to address to bolster some of the enforcement protections, as well as still keeping that three commitment but I would love to have my technical witness answer further Okay Thank you Assemblymember As you recall SB 9 allows up to four units on the subsequent parcel or parcels that is split pursuant to SB 9 Under current law, the applicant themselves must be one of the inhabitants of one of those homes. Under the option that this bill would create, we're keeping the option, the first option from SB 9, but under the option that this bill would create, the applicant would have to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the split lot, so one person per lot, so an increase of one to a total of two, would have to be owner-occupants of the home. The original requirement that the applicant be the owner-occupant of one of the units, the subsequent four units, was intended to keep them in the neighborhood and to increase homeownership, to reduce speculation, from, you know, however, you know, whatever, however that functions, this bill is going to double the number of owner applicants who will be eligible for living in an SB9 project as just a base minimum from the law. So if I can clarify, we have a homeowner occupancy provision that currently exists under SB9. This here would then say we're not getting rid of that. It's just whatever applicant it is would have to sign under perjury that there is going to be homeowner occupancy for minimum three years. That's correct. And if you elect the option that this bill would create, it would actually have to be two owner occupants because it would have to be one owner occupant per split lot. So per subsequent lot, there would have to be one owner applicant at least on the lot. So we're increasing the number of guaranteed owner-occupants under the law from one in current law to two by creating this new option. So, okay, because I'm not hearing that from the opposition. I'm actually hearing the opposite from opposition that the provision for homeowner occupancy is being dismissed or is being taken away. I can't speak to their concerns. I'll ask that of the opposition. Thanks. But I do appreciate this because I actually believe it's actually fulfilling the spirit of SB 9, and that was to assure that we were not going to get speculative LLCs coming in, buying up, you know, and creating a scenario that diminishes the quality of the community that folks work so hard to build. I very much agree. Okay. So with just real quick, I'm sorry, author, but to the opposition, how do you respond to the answer that I just heard? Yeah. Yeah. Through the chair. I appreciate the question. So there is a provision in the bill that says a LLC is the applicant and they must sign under penalty of perjury that they must sell the properties. then that goes downstream to the purchaser. The buyer is the purchaser who has to live in the property for three years. SB 9 says the homeowner has to be the applicant and live in the property for three years. That keeps the homeowner in the property and is not the one who is a speculative investor. An LLC, a real estate investment trust, they're the ones buying up large sums of properties and then splitting them and doing it in a buy process They doing it in a so say if you had a master plan community and it has yet to be developed you could effectively go through the process of splitting several lots in that community without having to go back to the commission, the planning commission or the zoning commission. So that's where we find it being a problem. And through the chair, Senator, I also just want to make it very clear that we also added civil penalties to any LLC who violates the provision of law and added the five-year sunset. So in case they're – to help try and address the opposition's concerns, adding the five-year sunset, adding civil penalties, and tightening this specific definition of an LLC to try and address those concerns. So if I understand it correctly, both sides, the end result is homeowner occupancy. Correct. It's just how we get there. Correct. And I think that's a conversation that could continue to be had as this bill would move forward. I'll defer back to the chair. Any other questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogue? Thank you. So I think with SB9, I think it was hoping not to have investors come in and benefit from the purchase and the sale of the properties that are being the lot split. And I think with this particular component of this bill, because we have an LLC that's going to sell it to a primary, that's still that component of where that is technically an investor selling it to a homeowner that will live there, that will vouch for living there. And I think that is where the discrepancy is between the opposition and yourself with this particular bill. That is correct, my realtors. And that's where we're coming in, where the opposition is having a concern, is that you are having an investor come in and profiting from the sale of a building And even though you're selling it to a primary homeowner, you still have a component where it's an investor coming in. And so I understand what they're talking about. I do have a question with regards to. So let me go back. So if the LLCs were to come in and say, OK, we're going to sell this, we're going to build, we're going to split, we're going to build and sell it to a homeowner. Are there any requirements on when they can or have to sell that property? Meaning, would there be a component in there where it would allow the LLC or the developer to hold on to that property until it's profitable to sell that property for a certain – I'll defer to my technical ones. My understanding is we're keeping that three-year moratorium under penalty of perjury. Of which part? of the occupant needing to stay there for at least three years before they can sell? When you sell it, but not the LLC who's buying, who's purchasing the property and committing to selling that property to a homeowner. So the LLC buys it, they split it, they develop it. They have signed before doing that that they will sell it to a homeowner that has to live there within three years. But is there a component within that LLC that says they have to sell it during a certain period of time or could... that potentially theoretically speaking keep that property for a while until it's financially conducive to actually sell it to a homeowner that then has to keep it for three years. So they would be signing an affidavit expressing their intent under the penalty of perjury to sell to a homeowner who would then be in turn obliged to reside as their primary residence. Same with any sort of federal housing finance, right? We do the exact same thing. You sign an affidavit, agreeing that you will be living in this property for a certain period of time. I would suspect that if an LLC sat on the property for an extended period of time, that could potentially be a violation of that affidavit that would subject them to civil penalties. Up to including losing their license. So, I mean, because they are LLCs, the punishment would be quite apparent that the law would allow that to go after them if they are not adhering to under penalty and perjury of their signed affidavit. But again, as I said to the opposition and to our Assembly Committee, I'm very much open to strengthening more protections and more penalties, which is why I added civil penalties, which was not originally added in the bill, which is why I added the five-year sunset, so we can take a review after five years to see, is this actually happening? Are these violations actually occurring? And we'll have that data to look at that at that time. So we don't know for a fact that you're assuming, but there is no specific language into that. It says that they have to sell it within a specific period of time, meaning that the opposition's concerns of having a non-owner investor could potentially hold on to that property because the language is not there. So here's my other – so I have another question. How does this work as far as if there is a deed on that property, if there is a loan on that property, how is the bank made whole on a property such as this where the properties are split and then perhaps held by an investor until it's sold to a primary home for three years versus how does that work? Because I just can't wrap around my mind on how that would work. If the bank were to repossess the property? Now we process if there is a mortgage on the property, if they own the property, and you're splitting the lot in two, and now you have an investor that's going to sell the other one, how does that work with the bank and making them whole on the title? I'm not sure that I totally understand the question. So you have a property. There's a mortgage on it. The title is owned by the bank. You're now splitting the property with an investor, potentially an investor, that with a developer that will then build that property and hold it or sell it, whatever they may do. How is a bank that currently holds that mortgage, how are they made whole, and how does that title part work for the bank? I need to investigate a little bit more. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. No worries. I just had some questions on the logistics of what that would look like on that. But thank you. So I think I understand the opposition's concerns with that respect. Thank you. Can I ask you about the, I appreciate what the bill's attempted to do, also the extension of the living trust option that is a very popular option But on the LLCs I trying to understand that we can do this We can pierce the corporate veil and assign individual liability to a manager of an LLC registered in Delaware or whatever, and we can assign specific and individual liability to them that's not immunized through the LLC structure. That's my understanding, Senator. Okay. All right. I think that was the only question I had. then we are still short of a quorum but we invite you to close respectfully ask for your aye vote and happy birthday Senator we had a couple of those today alright thank you very much did we lose Assemblymember Haney happy birthday oh she is oh there she is Assemblymember Stephanie come on down Welcome, and please begin whenever you're ready. Great. Thank you, Senator. Today I am presenting AB 2146, and this bill came out of my experience on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors when I would hear several times from people working in the industry that they were trying to place homeless individuals and that there were many vacant units, many people on the streets, yet it was very difficult to get them placed. Even when housing is available, people experiencing homelessness can be stuck waiting, not because there's nowhere for them to go, but because the system requires so much paperwork that they just simply cannot produce. Right now we are really asking people who are homeless to prove to us that they are homeless before we house them. We ask them for rental histories, verification letters and references, documents that many people do not have or really have no safe place to keep when they're homeless. And then while they're trying to track down those papers, they wait. And this is exactly the problem that AB 2146 is trying to fix. California has made significant investments in supportive housing. We've built all these units. We've created programs to help people, but too often there's unnecessary administrative barriers that keep people from that housing and a safe place to live. AB 2146 removes those barriers and helps people get housed faster. This bill allows individuals to self-certify that they are homeless instead of forcing them to chase down that paperwork that delays their path to housing. It recognizes that someone has finally reached the top of the list, that the system should be opening the doors and not shutting the doors and putting up more hurdles. It also addresses another challenge that we can't ignore. Across our state, there are supportive housing units that simply sit vacant for months at a time. And I know this because I had several people tell me this when I was on the Board of Supervisors. They showed me the vacant units. I would see the people on the streets, and they would tell me about the hurdles of getting them into that housing. To me, that just doesn't make sense, and I vowed to do something about it when I came up here. We are in the middle of a housing crisis, as you know, and also a homelessness crisis, so this is something I believe that we absolutely need to fix. AB 2146 creates a practical backstop so that if a unit has been vacant for too long, providers can act to fill it while still preserving fairness and protecting the role of the coordinated entry system. At its core, this bill is about removing unnecessary red tape so people can get housed faster. No one should have to prove they homeless and no home should be left empty while someone is still waiting for a place to live With me today are J Herich Mack with the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California and William Goodwin with Resources for Community Development and a member of the Resident United Network Committee at Housing California. Welcome. You'll each have two minutes. Thank you. J.T. Herich Mack, Policy Director of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. We're proud to co-sponsor AB 2146 with Housing California. This bill was conceived in NPH's Permanent Supportive Housing Working Group. It's informed by property managers and resident services staff from our nonprofit members who operate thousands of PSH units across the state. They told us the same thing over and over again. A small but persistent share of units sit vacant for six months or more, and the tenants at the top of the CES queue, the people with the least ability to produce eviction records or landlord references, get stuck proving what the system already knows about them. Every policy in AB 2146 has a precedent. Self-certification of homelessness was already accepted in Home Key. Alternative referrals exist in statute today after 30 days of no referral. The bill simply applies these proven tools to state funded units on a conservative 180 day timeline. Lastly, we believe in coordinated entry and its support for our most vulnerable. Under AB 2146, coordinated entry system still gets priority for the first 180 days. Every unit returns to the coordinated entry system at the next vacancy. This is an incremental fix to the most problematic vacancies for our members who work hard to end chronic homelessness every day. Thank you. All right, next witness, welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is William Goodwin. It is a pleasure to be here as this important bill addresses housing access head-on. My journey through housing insecurity began when I became disabled, and in a matter of months, I was terminated from my job, losing my apartment, and then everything that I owned in storage. I did not have the safety net of community and resources I was familiar with, and as a result, my medical condition worsened as I quickly realized you can't heal physically while you are experiencing mental trauma. It took some time to recover, but after seven long years, my daughter and I were fortunate enough to find our affordable unit, but there were 2,400 other applicants who also deserve housing, all vying for just 72 units of housing. We are the lucky ones. Our number came up in the lottery, but now, as you know, these lists are upwards of 1,000 or 5,000 to 10,000 folks waiting. As for us, it was touch and go. Sometimes it's just one thing that could determine whether a person will get housing or not. I recall being in the rental office and the property manager was speaking to someone on the phone, asking whether they had this document or that document, first and last, able to pass a background check, all of that, etc. Finally, after hanging up the phone, he turned to me and asked, do you have your documentation? And I felt so fortunate to be able to say yes. But what the manager did not know was that I had worked several months to gather all the documentation I needed. First, a birth certificate, then a Social Security card in order to get a license or an ID. And I thought I was good, but no. I needed a letter of reference, rental history and personal references, a letter of referral. But thank God I was able to obtain all the documentation I needed because me and my daughter we found our footing She began to accelerate in school and later was awarded the President Award for Academic Achievement And I enrolled in East Bay Housing Organization Leadership Academy and now I am board chair with Resources for Community Development. That is a very high note to ask you to please wrap up. Absolutely. No one should have to prove that they are homeless. The extensive documentation needed to move into a housing unit is already overwhelming. Just being homeless shouldn't mean that you have to endure cruel and unusual punishment. And I see both sides of this because I see the housing units that go. The two-minute rule applies to everyone equitably. So appreciate it. You're urging a support for the bill? I am. Please. Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today. All right. Are there other folks in the audience that wish to register their support for the bill? Hi, Natalie Spivak with Housing California, a proud co-sponsor and strong support. Thank you. Carrie West with All Home, the cities of Oakland, Sunnyvale, Emeryville, and Berkeley in support. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Does anyone wish to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we'll return it to the committee for any questions or discussion. All right. When we have a quorum, the motion will be made, and the motion will be due passed to appropriations. Would you like to close? Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's time. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. If you are one of our two remaining authors, this is your time. And so I would invite any authors or any schedulers, chiefs of staff, ledger directors who know where an author might be to please help us locate them to join the housing committee in room 1200. and more committee members so that we can establish a quorum and start voting on all the bills that we have heard today. We just need one. Yeah. All right. The committee is going to stand in recess for just a few moments. Okay, we're going to reconvene the Senate Housing Committee and proceed to Assemblymember Lee, who has a file item 14, AB 1997. Assemblymember Lee, welcome, and proceed when you're ready. All right. Good evening. Mr. Chair and Senators, I'm here to present AB 1997, a bill to shorten the review period for 90% affordable housing projects after the agency has certified the EIR. The bill is intended to accelerate one portion of the approval process for affordable housing projects for very low and extremely low-income households. These projects are the most critical for the most vulnerable and can make the difference between homelessness and a safer path towards housing. With me in support today is Rand Martin, representing the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Mr. Chair and members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation Division. I won't bore you with all the numbers that you all know very well about the housing challenge that we're facing. One number that I do want to assert that doesn't get asserted as much as it should is how many houses we're short in this state for people who are extremely low income. It's one of the areas that AHF has been very involved with developing housing for people in the city of Los Angeles across 15 different projects currently for people who are extremely low income. The problem, there are many problems, but one of the problems is how long it takes to get some of these projects approved. And when you're talking about housing for people who are extremely low income, it is particularly important to get those approved as fast as possible. There is a number out there that many people have not heard, and that is that more than a million houses are necessary in the state of California for people who are extremely low income. That's almost half of what the Housing and Community Development Department says is necessary for housing for all people in California. I do want to just read very quickly from two reports that have come out very recently. One is from the Rand Corporation, in which they talk about the biggest thing driving up California apartment costs is time. It takes twice as long to gain project approval and construction timeline is one and a half times longer in California than it is in other states. The Assembly Select Committee on Permit Reform just last February issued a report that said collectively the result of our failed approach to permitting is an anemic level of construction for the projects necessary to address our housing and climate crises. We think that this very modest bill will help to move things along for that one particular element of our housing need, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Does anyone wish to register support for the bill? Good evening, Stephen Sensler on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing and Support. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 1997? Does anyone wish to register their opposition to AB 1997? Seeing none, we'll turn to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Ochoa Boat. Assemblymember Lee, would you like to close? Or respectfully ask for aye vote. All right. When the committee achieves a quorum, any minute now. Oh, you're still waiting for it. The motion will be made, and it will be due to pass to appropriations. I'll sit in. If the chair has recommended, aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. New Chair. It's the actual chair. alright so we are anticipating an author and a quorum alright we're going to recess again for a few moments and we will reconvene momentarily Thank you Thank you Thank you. All right, the committee will convene in 30 seconds. I know, but we can vote. The chair is going to be here in a minute. The chair will be here in a minute. All right, we'll reconvene the Senate Committee on Housing, and we haven't even started. The four most important words in the 95814 zip code are a quorum is present and we have just achieved that, so please call the roll to establish a quorum. Senators Ergin, Ciarto. Here. Ciarto here. Cabaldon. Here. Cabaldon here. Caballero. Cortese, Durazo, Durazo here, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grayson here, Ochoa Bog, Ochoa Bog here, Padilla here. All right, let's proceed with motions on bills and begin to take votes. So let's start with file item 1, AB 748, Herbedian. Is there a motion? All right, the motion is due pass to appropriations. Please call the roll. Ochoa Book, aye. Badia. Badia, aye. File item three. File item three. What's up, Bo? All right. The current vote is five to one. We'll put the measure on call. File item three, AB 2748, Cork-Silva. The motion would be do pass as amended to appropriations. Is there a motion? I'm sorry. I'll figure it out. All right. It's moved by Senator Caballero. Please call the roll. Senator Zaragoza. Sayarto. Oh, look at that. Way down there. Aye. Sayarto, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese. Dorazo. Aye. Dorazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoeboke. Aye. Ochoeboke, aye. Padilla Aye 7 that zero bill we all here seven zero place that measure on call the second uh... most important four words in the nine five eight one zip code eight eight eight one four zip code our chair has returned so we'll turn over the gavel oh wait down the bill presentation Okay. Okay. Well, if we can continue lifting calls. Okay. Motion. We need a motion on AB 1621 Wilson, moved by Senator Grayson. Thank you very much. Motion due passed to appropriation. Senator Zerrigin? Aye. Zerrigin, aye. Ciarto? I'm still trying to get my act together. There it is. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cabaldin? Aye. Cabaldin, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Aye. Okay, we'll keep that on call. Next is file item 5AB1732 Alvarez. That needs a motion. Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you. Senator, motion do pass to appropriation. Senators Ergin. Aye. Ergin, aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. We'll keep that on call. Next is file item 6, AB 1738, Carrillo. Moved by Senator Caballero. Motion do pass as amended to appropriation. Senator Zerrigin? Aye. Zerrigin, aye. Ciaro? No. Ciaro, no. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoabog? No. Ochoabog, no. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Next, I believe, is AB 2166 by Carrillo. That also needs a motion. Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you. Motion due passed for appropriation. Senators Ergin. Aye. Ergin, aye. Ciarto. I'm voting. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochobog. Aye. Ochobog, aye. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. We'll keep that on call. Next, I believe is file item 8, AB 1815 by WICS. Move the bill. Move by Senator Cabaldon. Thank you. Motion due passes amended to appropriation. Senators Erguin. Aye. Erguin, aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochobog. Aye. Ochobog, aye. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. We'll keep that on call as well. I believe next is AB 2005, Arons. That needs a motion. Okay. Motion due pass to appropriation. Senators Erguin? Aye. Erguin, aye. Ciaro? No. Ciaro, no. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Ochobog? No. Ochobog, no. Badia? Aye. Badia, aye. We keep that bill on call I believe next is We did consent right No motion on the consent calendar is in order So moved. Moved by Vice Chair Ciarto. Thank you. Senators Ergin. Aye. Ergin, aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Gaballero. Aye. Gaballero, aye. Cortese. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochobog. Aye. Ochobog, aye. Padilla. Aye. Senator Cortese on the consent calendar. Aye. Cortese, aye. Okay, we'll keep that on call. Actually, no, I think everyone who's here has voted, right? Oh, yes. So consent is approved on a vote of 9-0. We'll move now to file item 12, AB 2146 by Assemblymember Stephanie. That needs a motion. Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you. Motion due pass to appropriation. Senators Aragene. Aye. Aragene, aye. Cierrto. AB 2146, Stephanie. No. Cerato, no. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Okay. That bill is out on a vote of 8 to 1. We'll move next to the last bill, I think, AB 1997, Lee. That needs a motion. Moved by Senator Razo. Thank you. Motion due passed to appropriation. Senator Zaragoza. Aye. Zaragoza. Aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto. No. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Ochobo. Aye. Ochobo. Aye. Padilla. Aye. Padilla. Aye. That bill's out in a vote of 8 to 1. Okay. We're going to do one more round of lifting of calls when we wait for Assembly Raheni for members who just arrived. So we'll start first with file item 1, AB 748, Herabedian. Motion due passed to appropriation. Senators Ergen? Aye. Ergen, aye. Cortese? I'm sorry. File item 1, AB 748, Harabedian. He's an aye. He's an aye. Cortese, aye. I think everyone's voted right. So that bill is out on a vote of 8 to 1. We'll go back to file item 3, AB 2748, Quirk Silva. Senators Erdogan. Aye. Erdogan, aye. Cortese. As amended, correct. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriation. Senator Zaregine? Aye. Zaregine, aye. Cortese? Not voting. I'm not going to be voting in Haney'sville. I'm leaving. Okay. So, um, AB 2748 is out on a vote of 8-0. Um, we'll go next to file item 4, AB 1621 Wilson. Motion due pass to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting aye. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. That bill is out in a vote of 9-0. We'll move now to Follin 5, AB 1732, Alvarez. Motion due pass to appropriation. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. That bill is out in a vote of 9-0. We'll move now to Follin 6, AB 1738, Carrillo. Motion due passed as amended to appropriation. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Is that two? Yeah. Okay, that bill is out in a vote of seven to two. We'll proceed now to file item 7AB2166, Cudillo. Motion due passed as amended to appropriation. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. 8-0 That bill is out in a vote of 8-0 We'll proceed now to file item 8-A-B-1815 WICS Motion due passed as amended to appropriation Senators Cortese Aye Cortese, aye That bill is out in a vote of 9-0 We'll proceed now to file item 9-A-B-2005 Aarons Motion due passed to appropriation Senators Cortese Aye Cortese, aye Okay. AB 2005 is out on a vote of 6-2. Right? File item 10, AB 2074, Haney, we're waiting. Consent calendar. Consent's approved. We've recorded Senator Cortese's vote on that. Next one. That's everything. I think we're caught up. Do we know when Assembly Rohingy is arriving? Okay. We'll recess the committee until his arrival. Thank you. All right. Reconvening the Senate Housing Committee, We're now going to proceed to item 10, AB 2074 by Assemblymember Haney, who will be presented by Senator Aragin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members, and pleased to present AB 2074, the Downtown Revitalization Act. On behalf of Assemblymember Haney, I want to start out by saying that he is accepting the committee's amendments, which will replace the revolving loan fund component of the bill with the requirement that California Housing Finance Agency conduct a housing construction loan and financing study by the end of next year. There is increasing demand for innovations in the housing finance space and the study is a stepping stone to help us eventually get there I want to acknowledge the work of our colleague Senator Cortese in this space as well AB 2074 addresses two overlapping challenges, and with that, I'll turn over the bill author. We're right on this paragraph. Who better to present than the chair, as he said. And just to catch you up so that he accepted all of this. Yes. He accepted all the spontaneous amendments that we had just come forward. Good. I'm sure it improved the bill. AB 2074 will include the same labor standards as SB 423, requiring prevailing wage for projects under 85 feet and skilled and trained workforce requirements for larger buildings. The bill also applies the same affordability requirements and anti-displacement protections as SB 79. Here to testify with me today are Vince Seguru, State Legislative Director of the Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and Nolan Gray from California Yimby.
Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Vince Seguru, State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and I'm before you today in strong support of AB 2074. California's housing crisis demands that we actually move projects forward, especially in our major downtown areas where housing can be built close to jobs, transit, and existing infrastructure. AB 2074 provides a practical framework to help make that happen. This bill recognizes that zoning reform alone is not enough. A project can be allowed on paper and still never get built. Financing, delay, uncertainty, and upfront costs can all stop housing before a shovel ever hits the ground. AB 2074 addresses that by establishing a state-backed revolving loan fund through CalHFA to help provide the early-stage capital that large housing projects often need to move forward. For construction workers, the benefits are just as important. High-rise housing is complex work. It requires trained and experienced workers who understand safety, coordination, mechanical systems, ventilation, energy efficiency, and many trades that must come together to deliver a durable building. AB 2074 helps create more opportunities for that work while maintaining strong labor standards. The bill requires prevailing wages and links project benefits to a skilled and trained workforce. That means the housing created under this framework will support families sustaining construction careers, apprenticeship opportunities, and high road contractors who invest in their workforce. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr Chair and Simul Murhaney My name is Nolan Gray I an AICP planner and the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California IMB We a proud co of AB 2074 This bill is a win It will revitalize our downtowns create good jobs and build a lot of housing We know that the changing nature of work after the pandemic hit downtowns hard. We know that more housing is a great way to bring them back, and we know that transit-rich downtowns of major cities are exactly the sorts of places where we should be building housing. AB 2074 applies to seven large transit-rich cities, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach, and my personal favorite, Sacramento. It combines land use standards to ensure high-rise housing is possible. It provides streamlined permitting to protect it from delays, and it applies labor standards to support workforce development. It also calls for studying using low-cost financing to make sure that these projects are actually financially feasible. I want to talk about the low-cost revolving loan fund that was in the bill and is now going to be studied by CalHFA and why it's such a powerful tool to catalyze sustained development in downtowns. Revolving loan funds support mixed-income housing, are an increasingly popular tool that has been adopted in other states, including Maryland, New York, and Oregon. The loans are structured to leverage private capital, magnifying their impact. They can pull millions of dollars of private investment off the sidelines, putting it to productive use, building housing at all income levels in downtown neighborhoods rich with transit and amenities. And because the loans revolve back into the fund, a modest one-time commitment from the legislature can unlock sustained support for housing growth and downtown revitalization. So we look forward to that study, and we appreciate that that's remaining in it, and we look forward to seeing what it comes up with. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2074. Thank you.
Thank you. Invite anyone else in support of the bill to please come forward and set your name, organization, position.
Stephen Senzer on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in support. Thank you.
Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the big city mayors in support. Bob Naylor on behalf of Fieldstead and Company in support. Danita Stromgren, volunteer with AARP California on behalf of our 3.2 million members in support. Thank you. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Bill McGavin Coalition for Clean Air and Support. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also in support. Thank you.
Okay is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2074 If not we now take two opposition witnesses Are there any opposition witnesses Is Justin opposition to me too okay right now? Yes, please. Okay, great.
Natalie Spivak with Housing California. We currently have an opposed unless amended position, but appreciate the committee amendments. I think they're moving in a good direction and look forward to seeing them in print to reconsider our position. I want to thank the committee chair and staff and author and sponsors for working with us. Thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon.
Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium. We currently hold an opposed position on the bill, but really appreciate the committee's proposed amendments and thank the author for accepting them. We will review them when they're in print, but I expect that those changes will move us to a neutral position. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any other opposition witnesses? Seeing no one come forward to bring them back to the dais for any questions or comments. Is there a motion moved by Senator Padilla? Okay, thank you. Colleagues, any additional questions or comments? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close. All right. I'm going to have the chair present the bill every time. That's how it works. Thank you all. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion by Sena Padilla. If we can please call the roll. Motion do pass to local government. Senators Erguin. Aye. Erguin, aye. Ciarto. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gerazo. Aye. Gerazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. That bill passes and is out on a vote of 6-0. And I believe that completes all our bills, right? Is there a copy here when I'm coming back? No. All right. It passes. We're done. Yeah. Okay. Are you sure we record all of our votes? Yeah. Completes our agenda. With that, the Senate Standing Committee on Housing is now adjourned. Thank you.