June 24, 2026 · Housing · 32,834 words · 10 speakers · 50 segments
Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Housing. Just a few announcements as we begin today's hearing. Today's consent calendar consists of AB 1899, Colosa, AB 1924, Gabriel, AB 2020, Gabriel, AB 2626 Gabriel AB 2044 Petri Norris and AB 2174 Johnson and AB 2185 Cork Silva seeing that we do not have a quorum we will operate as a subcommittee I know we're waiting for Assemblymember Wicks who's going to present the first item on our agenda which is a special order to take up AB 1751 once we establish a quorum we'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar and I'd like to ask the sergeants So please call absent members to come to Capitol Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business. So the committee will be in recess until the first author shows up. Thank you. I know we have a lot of people here for the first item on our agenda, and we're going to do our best to help facilitate the public comment. I just want to summarize our public comment procedure for our bill hearings on each bill the author has designated two principal witnesses to speak in support of the bill they'll each have two minutes to speak on the bill and after that time we'll invite anyone else who wants to come up to express support but their testimony will be limited just state their name the organization or city they're from and their position on the bill we won't be able to take any other extemporaneous testimony. We'll then invite up to two opposition witnesses to testify in a bill and those opposition witnesses should be opposition that have filed a letter of opposition in the portal prior to today's hearing. And then we'll do the same thing. We'll invite people to come up and state their opposition by stating their name, organization, and position on the bill. Thank you all for being here today and just in order to facilitate the hearing we are going to to limit the testimony so we can get through our agenda. Thank you very much. The Senate Committee on Housing is back in session, and we're going to proceed with our special order, which consists of one item, Assembly Bill 1751 by Assembly Members Quirk Silva and Wicks and Assemblymember Wicks will be presenting the bill this afternoon and good afternoon Assemblymember and I want to invite any
principal witnesses also join us as well okay 1751 well thank you mr. chair members and staff I'm proud I'm a proud co-author of AB 1751 and I'm presenting today on behalf of Ms. Assemblymember Sharon Cork-Silva, who is not feeling well today. I'll do my best to channel my inner Cork-Silva. Before I begin, I want to thank the committee members and committee staff for their thoughtful conversations on this bill. After productive conversations with the chair, which we deeply appreciate, we are prepared to accept the following committee amendments today based on your recommendations. First, we are striking the wage provision in the bill. We continue to strongly believe that the tangible upside of raising wages for our lowest paid construction workers from to per hour greatly outweigh the theoretical downsides However, based on the staunch resistance to this change from the building trades, we are willing to drop this provision in order to let the bill proceed. We are also accepting amendments C and D in the analysis to limit the size of units of net average of 1750 square feet and limit on project sizes no more than 150 units At this point we are not accepting proposed amendments a B and E regarding down zoning demolition protections and site locations We're happy to work on each of these issues and think that there's a nuanced pathway for all of them and want to continue those conversations But collectively these amendments would have neutered the bill and we are not able to reach an agreement at this time But of course want to continue conversations with you As well as other committee chairs as we move forward and any members who have an opinion or concern our door is always open as well as with all Stakeholders of course now onto the bill itself AB 1751 builds on recent housing reforms by expanding access to one of the most attainable paths to homeownership which is townhomes home ownership is out of reach for far too many Californians only 18% of households can afford the median priced single-family home and family a family now needs an annual income of roughly two hundred and twenty one thousand dollars to purchase a home these numbers reflect a market that is pushing tradespeople nurses teachers firefighters and our young adults out of stability out of their communities and in many cases out of the state of of California. This is a structural failure that is pricing out people who keep our communities running, and frankly, this is a policy choice that we have made over time. AB-1751 allows for ministerial approval of qualifying townhome projects that meet clear objective standards. These townhomes would have to be on land zoned for multifamily housing or underdeveloped single family sites. They could be no higher than three stories of occupied living space. In keeping with other bills that allow ministerial housing, they would be required to meet all local inclusionary housing ordinances for projects over 10 units and avoid sites that are environmentally sensitive or hazardous. If we are serious about addressing affordability, we need to create more pathways into homeownership, and I strongly believe this bill delivers exactly that. With me here to testify and support is Ed Manning on behalf of the New California Coalition and Danny
Curtin on behalf of the California Conference of Carpenters. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members, Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the New California Coalition. New California Coalition is a statewide coalition of business and civic organizations focused on trying to improve the life of ordinary Californians we are proudly sponsoring this bill the bill is called the missing middle townhome ownership act which tells you a lot about why we're doing the bill in California the last five years we've had about a hundred thousand housing starts give or take a year and in the most recent data 20 to 25% of those starts are 80 use HCD says the need is over 300,000 new units a year just to keep up with demand so we're falling behind every year why townhomes townhomes are unique in that they are financeable they buildable and there is demand there are 30 on average below the price of a single family home which makes an enormous difference to people trying to get a mortgage and make payments They use land more wisely. There's a minimum density of this bill in urban areas at 25 units an acre. So we're trying to maximize every inch of space. and importantly the way this bill is structured we will create more sites which is the key there have to be enough sites to build townhomes on this bill will significantly increase the number of sites available we've done analysis by Mapcraft a consulting firm they've looked at sites across the state the the The result of that, based on their analysis, is that it will create significant new homeownership opportunities for working class families who make between 150 to 250 percent of area median income. And that really is the sweet spot to move the dial. The bill, as Assemblymember Wick says, reserves a whole bunch of sites that we cannot touch. In addition to the site she mentioned, you cannot down zone sites that are designated for affordable housing in the housing element. You can't touch sites that are under rent control. You can't touch sites where the housing is under restrictive covenant for affordability. So we've tried to go and look at any site that has any sort of affordability component or protections to make sure those sites are untouched. The promise of this bill is based on metrics and data and a lot of work. We appreciate the work of the committee and the committee consultant on this bill. And there are, I assume, going to be a lot of questions about how it would work and the mechanics. But the one thing I can say is that we're very, very confident that if this bill gets put into law, it will move the dial. We will create competition, and there will be pressure on pricing in a good way for this type of housing. Thank you, and I ask you to support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, members, Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. Thank you very much. The carpenters have co-sponsored this bill, AB 1751, for three reasons. One, a union carpenter at the top of their game does not earn enough today to qualify for a mortgage for a bottom-tier home in California. That was the first and foremost. Two, it contains and enhances stronger private enforcement provisions for our joint labor management programs, which we all know about, or at least many of us do. Three, it will begin to increase wages for housing construction workers. the most abused workers in the construction industry. You've asked, Mr. Chairman, you've asked the authors to drop the minimum wage increase.
We support this bill, and we will continue to support this bill, but we do not support that request. There is no public opposition registered to the increase in the minimum wage from any segment of the construction industry that I'm aware of, except for the building trades. We've heard no explanation to why the minimum wage increase should be dropped. And especially now since we limited the minimum wage in our proposal increase to the carpentry scope of work only determined by the Department of Industrial Relations it won affect any other craft or any other workers According to the Billing Trades AB 1751 effectively undermines California prevailing wage law By supporting it, you will turn your back on 100 years of prevailing wage law. Supporting it means no requirement to use apprentices like existing prevailing wage law. The point here, Senators, is this bill addresses private construction. It does not address public works construction. Corporations would never support a bill attacking prevailing wage laws. We are part of the architecture of what the laws are. If you were here 25 years ago, you'd know a lot more what I'm talking about. There are over 330,000 largely immigrant non-union housing construction workers in California, more than the entire union construction workforce in California. That's a fact. You can look it up. Wage theft and the underground economy are rampant in the housing construction industry. For the workers in that industry in today's America, and this is something that's extremely critical, just going to work in the daylight is an act of courage for those workers, considering what's going on in our country. No one in this room represents those workers. We do not see them as our competition or as a threat to our jobs. We see them as future members, but we must work for it. Raising the minimum wage in this industry to $28, a 60% wage, will make a huge difference in many of their lives. And it will definitely send a strong signal that the California legislature sees them and cares. now more than ever that matters we ask that you don't let politics get in the way of good policy this issue should be discussed in this housing commission committee and mr chairman i want to just let you know the carpenter strongly believe it needs to stay in this bill thank you for the time i know there's been discussions and it's been a little bit disappointing from our perspective, but we're realist and politics is a long game. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Curtin. Okay, we're going to invite anyone else who would like to express support for Assembly Bill 1751 to please approach the microphone. And if you can limit your testimony to state your name, the organization or city you are from and your position on the bill. I know that We have people outside, so we're going to do our best to kind of facilitate that public comment. So if there's anyone in the room or outside who wants to express support for Assembly Bill 1751, you can please state your support at this time. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Stephen Stensler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council and on behalf of Habitat for Humanity in support. thank you mr. chair members Bob Naylor for field said and company that's howard Amundsen jr. in support jasmine advent coola with the Cal Asian chamber in support thank you okay we'll wait a few a few more seconds to see if there's anyone out in the hallway who would like to express support. Thank you. And then after that, we'll take opposition witnesses. And I know that there may be people here who are tweeners, meaning you don't have a support or a position. So we'll take that testimony after that. Yeah. So we're just waiting for, see if there are any more support witnesses. Because we have a lot of people out in the hallway and the sergeants are helping bring people in. No one else? Okay. Okay. So that completes support testimony. We'll now take only opposition testimony. Are there two principal opposition witnesses? Thank you. And then after that time, we'll take any opposition or tweener testimony, meaning in between. And you both have two minutes. You want to go? Good afternoon. chair members Brian Augusta on behalf of the public interest law project project and a coalition of equity groups who have an opposed unless amended position on this bill we had raised three issues in our letter one of which is addressed in the amendments accepted today and one of which was in the proposed amendments that were among those that the co-author indicated are part of an ongoing conversation and I want to focus my remarks on those provisions because because they're extremely important to us and to our low income clients. And those are the provisions related to ensuring adequate demolition and displacement provisions. It's critical that as we add these new tools to remove barriers to construction of new housing that we also do so in a way that does not do so at the expense of existing households, with a loss of rent stabilized units, or in a fashion that results in other rental housing being lost. And in recognition of that, over the past many years, legislature has enacted a fairly uniform set of protections in that regard. This bill today deviates from those provisions in two important ways, which we hope will be addressed as the bill continues to move forward. The first is that while it protects rent stabilized units, as the co-author noted, it does so in using unusual language, and it says that only those units that were enacted by adopted ordinance. That phrase does not appear in any other similar provision in state law that's intended to protect rent controlled units. And I think it's worth noting that several local rent control ordinances, including the city of Berkeley and the city of Santa Monica, were enacted by voter initiative. So is that enacted by adopted ordinance? That seems to create enormous ambiguity about whether this rent controlled units in the city of Berkeley are protected or not. Secondly, and equally importantly, every measure in this regard has said that you can't use these streamlining tools on sites where there's existing rental housing or housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past X number of years, five years in most cases. And this bill deviates from that in two important ways. One, it only protects rental housing that's rent stabilized, so not other units occupied by tenants. But even worse, it does not include for one category of uses the protection on the five year look back, which means that a developer can easily or the seller can evict all the tenants, demolish the units. And then voila, they now have a vacant site that qualifies for streamlining, even though the intent was to ensure that those sites are off limits. And that why this look back provision is so important We have to ensure that it not just presently occupied units but also sites in which in the five years preceding they were occupied and Ellis was not used to remove those units Until we can address those issues, our organizations remain opposed, but we look forward to working with the author, sponsor, and subsequent committees to address those issues. Thank you, Mr. Augusta. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Gerton, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition to the measure. Our concerns results in or relay several things. I think the proposed amendments looking at ensuring that the density cities have planned for that are higher than the minimum density would have qualified. Unfortunately, aren't going to be accepted. But one of the concerns that we have from a city perspective is both sides of the coin in the housing debate. One, if a city has planned for more density in their multifamily zones, This measure says that you cannot have objective development standards that physically preclude the construction of minimum 75% of the Mullen densities, which therefore means that cities that have planned for more density, which has been the push for the legislature for the last 10 years, would be required to decrease the amount of density that they plan for. And then they have to go find additional sites in their state approved housing element, which is going to put challenges for built out cities and for cities that have planned for more density. So there's that side of the coin. On the other side of the coin, for areas that are single-family zones, the requirement would be that if they're vacant, they would have to be upzoned to the three stories. Now, the challenge with that is the infrastructure challenges that we have planned for. So we do remain concerned about this measure and continue to urge to ensure that objective development standards and those density and infrastructure that cities are planning for through their housing elements and through their general plan are relied upon and respected before approval. So with that, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, well now invite anyone wishing to express opposition to Assembly Bill 1751. If you'd like to express opposition, please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Can we check sergeants outside if there's anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 1751? I'm a lot of neutrality. A lot of Thank you. There's a lot of ... ... ... to address affordability, renter protections, and down zoning. Thank you. Thank you very much. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Providence and we are opposed unless amended. Thank you very much. I believe those are all the opposition witnesses. When I invite anyone else would like to come forward to state any in-between position. Once again name organization and position. Thank you Mr. Chair Jeremy Smith you're on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. If I just may have 10 seconds, just say we look forward to seeing the amendments in print. We understand the amendments that were taken today take the wage language out of the bill. We are pleased with that. I just want to remind everybody there's already a minimum construction worker wage. It's called the prevailing wage, and it's time in this building that we stop blaming workers' wages for why things aren't getting built. Thank you. Vince agree on behalf of sheet metal workers local 104 here to support the committee chairs amendments to protect the prevailing wage mr chairman and members Scott which on behalf the State Association of Electrical Workers the California State Pipe Trades Council the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees like to thank the committee and the authors for the work on the amendments and with that we're neutral thank you good afternoon my name is Erica Valentine with you a local 393 I stand before you on behalf of 27 locals in the state of California with over 50,000 members those standing behind me are you a local 38 62 159 228 246 342 393 442 447 448 DC 36 we ask that the workers be perfect and here to support the committee chairs amendments to protect the prevailing wage thank you hi my name is Casey Vanden Heuvel I'm here representing thousands of working class families from Monterey and Santa Cruz County as president and CEO of the building and construction trades council I am here today to support the chairs amendments to protect prevailing wage thank you good afternoon my name is Michael mark with the San Joaquin County Building Trades Council we appreciate the amendments from the committee here and we will be neutral thank you mr. chair member Sarah flocks California Federation of labor unions we are very supportive of the the amendments that the the committee proposed thank the committee and the author for their work on this and we look forward to seeing them in print so we can hopefully get to a neutral position thank you good afternoon chair committee members andreas Kluver Alameda County Building Trades Council also Northern California vice president for state building trades Council we're here to support the chairs amendments to protect prevailing wage thank you good evening committee members and said no Jake Estrada here on behalf of the San Diego building the construction trades council we're here to support the committee chairs amendments and protect the prevailing wage chair members Nick Romo on behalf of the city of San Jose we remain concerned that the proposal down zone to high quality transit areas costing us five thousand ready to go home in some areas. So we look forward to continuing working with the author and sponsors. Okay, thank you very much. I know that we have people entering and exiting the room. And so while that's happening, ask the sergeants if you can ask anyone in the corridor. There's anyone else wishing to give testimony. Okay, sounds like we have five more speakers. Thank you I believe that those are all the witnesses. So we'll bring it back to the committee for discussion, colleagues. And we do not yet have a quorum. We're waiting for three more members. I know the sergeants have a lot of work today. But I know that they're also reaching out to the member offices to make sure we can get a quorum. Because at the present time, we can't entertain a motion yet. but I want to now turn over to my colleagues for questions or comments whoever would like to begin the discussion okay I'll turn over to vice chair Certo to begin all right well thank you all for being here because this is an important issue one of the issues with housing is are we building the right kind of housing are we helping people launch their their personal lives in a in a right direction and this middle middle part where you're actually buying your first home you might not be able to home afford a single-family home but you can certainly you're a lot closer to affording a condominium or a townhome or something like that so we're talking about things that you can buy and build wealth on and and then when you're done with that you can move up to the next level right now what's happening is we are putting people into what I call temporary housing which is is mostly rental housing and that's what we're building lots and lots and lots of rental housing but the problem is once somebody has lived in rental housing especially if it's market rate eventually there comes a time when they have to make a decision because if they're paying market rate rental housing they're not going to be able to save for a down payment for a house no matter what kind of gimmicks we may come up with to get you a down payment if the prices aren't reasonable enough you won't be able to afford the mortgage even if you had the down payment and so people are left with a decision of whether to stay here in California or leave and in a lot of our young people are leaving because of that so it's important that we address this middle housing and you know from a housing perspective this bill makes a lot of sense it helps incentivize building the type of housing that we're missing right now that we're it's the step in the ladder that we need to make otherwise we're not there is no step the step is a big hole people fall through the hole they get up they dust themselves off and they go off to another state and buy a house or buy a townhome so so it's really important that that we we try to incorporate this now the other problem and we'll be addressing some of this in local gov next week I think is a lot of these come with what has become an interchangeable word but it really isn't interchangeable if you've ever been in local government by right housing is not the same as ministerial approval By right means you you have a right to it and really doesn't matter what anybody says you get to go build there you just check in with the this the city and let them know what you're doing ministerial approval actually all it does is bypass planning commission and city council and and then you have a hearing with the planning director and that's who does the ministerial approval on behalf of the city. they still have some control over what's going on and how this project looks and whether it meets all the requirements that are needed in the city, infrastructure requirements and things like that. So while we've kind of conflated those two things, so they almost mean the same thing to a lot of people, they don't mean the same to me. And as a former official on a, or as a former mayor and council member, I remember this issue long ago when it came up. And, you know, why have this big process for something that we already know is going to be approved? And all we're really doing is getting everybody mad. And so you have, you know, we set up something where we could have an easier process that allows it to still be heard, allows people still to have input. but it doesn't have to wait months and months for everything to get scheduled up through hearings. So with this, they're talking about ministerial approval, which to me means it goes to the city and they still have input. But the other part of this issue is HCD's role. I have some fairly new cities, and I'm talking new in the last 30 years. They've had some boom and bust in all the cities as far as their growth is concerned. And as HCD has become more and more of the buy-right organizer for the buy-right community, cities have had less and less input. They've had less and less control. And it's driving their citizens nuts, to be honest with you. When we're looking at these townhomes, this offers a different variety of home and a different asset for a community that HCD can play a role in. But if HCD is going to make cities comply with this and then replace it with even more density somewhere else, that's not going to be helpful. That's not going to be helpful for cities. And from a local gov perspective, I would say I would not vote for that. But from a housing perspective, trying to address this middle housing thing, that's a laudable goal. We just have to find the sweet spot where we don't give HCD the authority to do more damage to cities than they're already doing. I wish they would work with our cities I really do but I have not had that experience with them personally and and so I would like them to work with us to make sure that when we add assets into a community like this that they're not being punished for it elsewhere so you know today from a housing perspective I I am supportive of what they trying to do here And so I probably going to support this today but we do have this in local gov and local gov has different issues next week and and I hope there are some discussions about with HCD about how they going to react to this are they going to make them replace the units that and when it when they have a less dense units that you can buy are they going to make them replace it with other units somewhere else because they've already inundated some of our cities with so many apartments they can't even fill them right now we don't have enough jobs for if people moved into them for them to be out there and and so that's where our housing issues are going awry is we're building all the front end stuff entry-level apartments probably not enough affordable parts but there's nowhere for people to go after that because everything else is unaffordable there is no fix that we are going to do that's going to make prices go down prices are supply and demand and if there is not enough supply to meet the demand the prices are going to stay high if there's two if there's a lot of supply and not that much demand then the prices are going to drop we can't legislate a drop in prices however much it costs to build homes all of that counts it's not all labor it's all the other stuff the material the legal environment and I understand from the author you do have a bill regarding that right construction defect bill yes yeah so that has to be also addressed in order for something like this to work because we can pass all these we want and we don't if we don't fix that other stuff they're still not going to be able to build it because it won't pencil out once you get done building the thing and then add in your legal your legal liability for ten years or whatever it is it doesn't pencil out nobody's going build it you don't build stuff that is you can't make any money on at all so those are some of the challenges that we're having right now and I applaud people that are trying to work on this and trying to start looking at parts that are broken and fix them like the author's bill on another thing but I don't I don't see I see problems that need to be addressed beyond just this thing and and and hopefully we can continue to work on that I'm more than welcome to meet with anybody who wants to talk about the next phase which is going to be local gov this passes out a committee today and and what the effects are and and if HCD wants to have them that meeting about what their role can be that's a little more positive than it is today I'd be more than happy to sit down with them and talk about that but like I said I've had some meetings on some critical issues regarding housing and reasonableness all they're worried about is numbers we need to worry about numbers and we need to worry about what fits in communities and what what's missing in those communities so that we can create this balance because that balance balances out demand and that balancing out demand will help lower prices. So anyway, so I am probably going to support this today and appreciate the work that everybody has put in to this but next week is going to be a little bit of a challenge. So thank you. Thank you Vice Chair CR2 Any other members wishing to speak at this time No way Come on man Senator Cobaldon There are four bills today I haven't spoken on in committee. Come on, Kelly, Senator Sayardo. I am also going to support the bill today. I think that some of the reforms here are important to move forward, a key part of that, a key segment of the housing market. We need to build more of everything. apartments, townhouses, condos, yurts, whatever. We need it all. And this bill will help to make this segment of the market, which is particularly affordable in nature, not all the time, but much more viable. I do want to say the amendment package that's been adopted today, I understand the why. I am it's heartbreaking to me that we're that we are in this situation though I mean we last year had a same the same issue come forward around how do we how do we do right by the men and women the men and women of the state that are building a large amount of the housing in the state and and and we we we hope and we wish for them to be represented and defended and championed just like other construction workers in the state. state. But many of them are not. The majority of them are not. And they need to live their lives today and be able to afford a place to live and health care and everything else. And I understand all of the, I shouldn't say that. I understand some of the politics and organizational relationships. Those all matter. They're all real in the domains that they're in. But rather than sort of put this over for another year and say, let's keep thinking about it and not produce, I hope we can resolve as a legislature and as the labor family and others, let's seriously figure out how to take this on. We did do fast food minimum wage in advance of everybody being unionized. We were working on wage floors in other areas, and it just seems like the right thing to do in concept. I realize that concept is not everything. But for those who are feeling disappointed about the amendments today, I share your heartbreak. For those of you who are feeling excited about it, I hope you're also committed to making sure that we're doing right by these workers on their way, hopefully, to becoming represented. But in the meantime, making sure that they have a basic level of wage support in the state in order to keep doing it. Because we need more of them. We need more housing. And so thanks to the author and to the co-author for championing this. I know the chair's worked hard also to try to make something work together, and I support that. But really, let's not have one more battle where everybody goes home and we come back next year and have it all again. Let's really dedicate ourselves to coming up with solutions that will help this important segment of California's construction industry that will make sure that we can provide the housing that we need for California. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Rosso? Yeah, some of us have had these conversations multiple times over multiple years, and we are where we are. We'll keep on trying. I just want to clarify, Mr. Chair, in terms of the amendments. Yes. Just to be sure in terms of what I voting on Yes There is a wage provision that was struck as one of my Yeah. On page 14 of the analysis under number 10, summarizes six amendments that we had proposed to the authors and sponsors and in discussion with them. ultimately we came to agreement on three and those are 10C limit the size of the units to a standard net average of 1750 1750 square feet, limit the project size to no more than 150 units and strike the wage provisions in the bill. So those are the three amendments that we have negotiated with the authors that the authors have accepted today, and that would be part of a motion to advance the bill today. Okay. I just want to add that along with the amendments that were accepted that you proposed, that there were others that I agreed with, and unfortunately they were not accepted. But I do believe that they need to be addressed, and my intention is to address them in local gov. So just to make that real clear, on downzoning, on demolition protections, on preventing sprawl, affordability requirements, general plan consistency, the Coastal Act, tribal consultation, and wage standards for large projects. So I just want to make it clear those are all these issues that are still outstanding for me on local gov, and we'll take them up at that. That's all. Okay, thank you. We're on AB 1751, Senator Gonzalez. And would you like to speak at this time? Yeah, thank you so much. And I do want to say thank you to the chair and, you know, both parties for being able to come to the table. But, you know, it's been it's I will have to concur with Senator Cobald and a little bit frustrating. I know our good colleague in the assembly is no stranger to that. And I know that, you know, there's a lot of certainly a lot of work to go around. But I know that in this space, I am a little bit frustrated with the wage being taken out. just given that we do have a segment of folks that need to make more than just minimum wage. But I understand where we're coming from. I just wish that much of this would be taken care of ahead of time versus in committee here. And then now I've got a lot of projects going on in Long Beach where a lot of multi-unit projects happening that are really robust, really great. And I don't know how much those folks are going to make. I would hope that they'd make a bit more than minimum wage, but we don't know. But with that, the goal I think that we're all concentrated on is absolutely ensuring that we're building robust housing, and that is the goal, and that's what I'm committed to. I will certainly support this today. I just look forward to more conversations and hopefully not having this constant issue come up again and again. Thank you. We're still waiting for one more senator to join us so we can establish a quorum. So if you are the senators or staff for Senator Chobo, Senator Caballero, Senator Cortese, Senator Grayson or Senator Padilla, I know some members are in other committees as well, but if you are able to come to capital, room 112 we would greatly appreciate it so we can establish a quorum and entertain motions and conduct business. I will close and just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I know we had conversations earlier this year with the New California Coalition about this proposal. And I agree with everything Senator Ciarto said. This is meeting a critical need in California. We have done so much over the past decade to streamline the production of rental housing, but we are locking out a whole generation of Californians from entering the ownership market, including myself. And so by making it easier to build townhomes in urban and rural communities throughout California, which is a much more affordable type, we are going to be able to get more people to enter the ownership market. I will pause my comments, and we have a quorum. and if the committee assistant can please call vote. Senators Errigin. Here. Errigin here. Sayarto. Here. Sayarto here. Cobaldin. Here. Cobaldin here. Caballero. Cortesi. Durazo. Here. Durazo here. Gonzalez. Gonzalez here. Grayson. Ochobo. Ochobo here. Padilla. Okay. We do have a quorum. And just to pick up on my comments, which is why I'm committed to moving a bill out today and working with the authors. We landed on a set of amendments to help advance this bill and to continue the conversation because I think it's an important conversation. And I think part of that conversation, as Senator Cabaldon touched on, is the issue of how we are lifting up workers who are not represented by any union and who are, frankly, making sub-prevailing wage wages right now. As our friends in the Carpenters know, this is an issue I know all too well from what's happening in the East Bay, particularly in the city of Berkeley, where we have job sites where there are multiple Cal OSHA violations happening. People are getting injured. People don't have health care. People are living in their cars. That's completely unacceptable. And I think we all, both those representatives of the billing trades and our friends and the carpenters, and I think all the members of this committee, share the goal of making sure that we can create a path to high-wage, high-road jobs for all construction workers in California. So I do appreciate what the carpenters have proposed. while that that's not part of the set of amendments that I I have proposed to the authors I want to express my commitment to working with the carpenters and I think the trades as well to and and to the authors to continue this conversation at the next few months to see and to ensure that we can land on a path to establish some minimum floor it's a floor it's not a ceiling because it's unacceptable that we have construction workers, carpenters, and other crafts in California who are being exploited, who don't have access to housing, and who are working in dangerous conditions. So I want to thank the carpenters for advancing this conversation. I think it's an important conversation. It's a conversation that needs to continue. It's a conversation I want to be part of in working with you and working with our partners in the building trades as well. and I hope in the next several months we can advance that conversation and hopefully arrive at a solution that we can advance next year in the legislative session. So with that Senator Chobo I think left the room Yes I think everyone has spoken A motion is in order But before that, we will turn it back over to the author to Close.
Thank you. I just, and I'm speaking obviously on behalf of Assemblymember Cork-Silva as well, appreciate the conversation and all the issues that everyone raised. I appreciate the conversation from the opposition and want to continue those conversations. I appreciate the passionate neutrality that was expressed here in the committee as well. And obviously to the chair of local gov committee, I look forward to those conversations next week. I think it's imperative when you look at what's happening in California, and this I think speaks to your point, Mr. Sierdo, 90% of our infill housing is rental. We're 49th out of 50th in terms of ownership in this country. And again, those are policy choices we have actively made that have put us in that situation by design We have actively made these policy choices that have led to the housing crisis that we are in But the good news is we can change them We actually have the power to do that and many of us were sent here from our constituents to do exactly just that And so we want to make sure we're moving forward in conversation with you madam chair And obviously your support as well. Mr. Chair to craft a bill that will allow these types of projects to pencil allow them to be streamlined, allow them to exist so that our lowest income folks, predominantly people of color, immigrant community, can actually buy a home. We've done a lot of work in streamlining. We've done very limited work in home ownership opportunities. And I think that's a critical missing aspect of the work that we've done in this legislature. And I'm guilty of it myself, which is why I'm doing the construction defect liability bill this year, which is why I'm doing this townhome bill this year with Ms. Cork-Silva. So I agree and concur and look forward to more conversations in local gov next week. And just the last thing I'll say about the wage, you know, this bill is for private sector non-public works projects. Those are 90 plus percent non-union, if not more. And the idea to raise the floor from $16.90 to $28 seems like it should actually be an easy thing for us to do in this legislative body. Democrats who voted to support fast food increases and many other aspects like this and was said before this is an industry that is exploited many of these folks aren't paid under the table paid cash you know the exploitation is very real in this industry and whatever we can do to bring those workers out from the shadows and into the sunlight and I welcome conversations with the building trades to be an active part of that solution and try to solve for that problem that specific problem which I think needs to be solved and and welcome those conversations working alongside the carpenters and others to see if we can land that because I do think it's imperative and with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote thank you very much assembly member Argentina motion okay the
motion is do pass as amended to the committee on local government if you please call the roll senators air gain air gain ice ERTO CERTA I cabal did cabalden I caballero Cortese Durazo Durazo I Gonzales Gonzales I Grayson Ocho Bo by the we will keep that bill on call for absent senators I want to Thank you all for joining us today for this discussion. I know that we have a number of people here for the first item. As you are leaving the hearing room if you can please do so as quietly as possible We appreciate your participation in today hearing And I know that Assemblymember Wicks is going to present the next item on behalf of Assemblymember Cork-Silva.
Okay, yeah. The other one is fine. I'm not a co-author on this, yes.
Okay, I know folks are still filling out. Thank you. People are leaving the chamber. If you could please do so quietly. I want to turn it over to Assemblymember WICs to present now on file it into AB 750.
Thank you very much, and thank you for allowing me to present AB 750. by Ms. Cork-Silva. I am not a co-author on this bill, so I have less fluency, but we have some expert witnesses here. But Ms. Cork-Silva is not feeling well today, so I'm going to do my best here. So today I'm presenting this bill on behalf of her. AB 750 expands access to the Department of Housing and Community Development's portfolio reinvestment program to challenge developments in need of rehabilitation in order to avoid the loss of precious affordable housing in California. Affordable housing is at the center of California's housing crisis and disproportionately affects low-income families and households. As a result, homes and rentals have become out of reach even for mid- to high-income earners. In response to this, California has developed over 500,000 affordable rental homes for low-income families over the last few decades. After 15 years or more of occupancy, many of these developments require significant rehabilitation. Developments with the lowest rents designed to provide affordable units are not in a position to leverage debt or tax credits and therefore lack of financing options. Without rehabilitation, these developments can fall into disrepair and foreclosure, resulting in the loss of much-needed affordable housing options. In 2021, California created the Portfolio Reinvestment Program at the Department of Housing and Community Development. This program was established to provide loans and grants to HCD-funded developments that have expired affordability contracts or have remaining terms of 10 years. However, thousands of units of affordable housing without old HCD loans also need rehabilitation and remain unassisted. AB 750 expands these types of developments that can qualify for loans or grants to include developments that do not have HCD's loans, but are defined as challenge developments. Should the 2026 Veterans and Housing Bond pass, which I am very familiar with, it includes replenishing these funds for this vital program. Expanding access while prioritizing at-risk HCD projects will reduce the risk of loss of losing affordable housing to disrepair and foreclosure while maintaining safe and affordable housing for California's most vulnerable populations. We have two witnesses here who will self-identify, and with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and the time is right.
Thank you very much. And you each have two minutes, and whoever would like to begin.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Marina Espinoza here with the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of affordable housing and we are proud to co-sponsor AB 750. With housing prices climbing, our state has made affordable housing production a top priority, significantly increasing the number of new units in development over the past several years. To address the housing shortage, preserving California's existing stock of deed-restricted affordable housing is equally important. Tens of thousands of affordable units are at risk of being converted to market rate housing over the next 10 years The portfolio reinvestment program was created to help preserve these units The program has played a critical role in helping housing providers make repairs and rehabilitate properties facing expiring affordability restrictions AB 750 offers important updates to this program the bill expands the types of properties that qualify for PRP to include those which are at least 15 years old and those which have insufficient access to public and private resources as miss wicks mentioned the affordable housing bond will be a major boost to the state's rehabilitation efforts and we are thrilled that it allocates 750 million dollars to PRP to preserve all of our at-risk housing we need both bond resources and a B 750 I strongly urge you to support this bill today thank you very much good afternoon chair and
members my name is Tisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership the partnership is a private nonprofit created in 1988 to increase the supply of sustainable affordable homes in California we are proud to co-sponsor AB 750 alongside our partners at the California Housing Consortium this bill makes targeted common sense improvements to ACD's portfolio reinvestment program PRP for short that together protect affordable housing and preserve housing stability for working families across California California faces an acute and worsening affordable housing preservation crisis. Since 2001, California Housing Partnership has found that California has lost over 17,000 subsidized affordable homes due to expiring regulatory restrictions and owners' decisions to opt out and convert to market rate. Today, more than 46,000 affordable homes are at risk of losing affordability in the next 10 years, and more than 6,000 may lose affordability as soon as next year. Losing these homes would represent a significant loss to residents and surrounding communities, given California's need to produce 1.2 million homes for extremely low-income and very low-income renters over the next decade. So failing to preserve what we have already built is simply not an acceptable public policy option. AB 750 provides the relief needed to preserve California's housing stock. The portfolio reinvestment program was designed to decrease the risk of conversion to market rate housing, extend remaining useful life and long-term affordability, existing HDD-funded projects, and assist the most out-risk projects in HDD's loan portfolio, providing loans for rehabilitation and operating subsidies. AB 750 builds on that proven foundation. The PRP has demonstrated record of results. In just the first two rounds, the program preferred over 2,000 affordable homes and directly benefited nearly 4,000 individuals across Northern California, Southern California, and the Central Valley. Combining the policy outlined in AB 750 with the funding allocated in the Affordable Housing Bond will nearly double the amount of affordable homes we are able to preserve. We are grateful for being able to sponsor this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 750? If you can please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We're about to charge you with Housing California in support. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 750? see no one else come forward there was no registered opposition but if there are any opposition witnesses here in the room you're welcome to come forward see no opposition witness will bring it back to the dais for questions comments or a motion moved by Senator Gonzalez and vice chair CR2 kind of a question this has been here for four years now right yes and so what was the initial funding amount for that? Yes. It was funded At $200 million. $200 million? And how many homes have been held? I think you said 2,000? Yes, we were able to help 2,000 homes at the level of $200 million. Okay. I have to do the math in my head how much that is per house. So you're basically wanting to triple that amount, correct? Yeah, with the amount of getting $750 from the bond, we were projected to triple that amount. Okay. And is it used mostly to repurchase? Because you're talking about some of these that have, because we have some of these in our city that were deed restricted from way back. and they're coming up on their 30-year life, basically. Are they purchasing those back and keeping them deed restricted? How are they keeping them from going to getting turned into market rate by the owners, the currently owners? Yeah, so the portfolio reinvestment program for affordable housing developers, they have to do a needs assessment on the property that they are putting in the market. and a part of that agreement is that they have to make the needed improvements and upgrades in order to maintain their eligibility for it to be affordable. So with the portfolio reinvestment program, it provides the capital for them to be able to do that. So then when they are nearing their regulatory agreement approach that it expiring, because they've made those upgrades and have abided by the necessary affordability restrictions, they get to continue to have it on the market as a low-kim unit. So they can keep renting it? Yes. Because one of my concerns is that you have people that are renting homes. You know, one of the responsibilities of being a homeowner that rents a house is that you take care of the darn thing. And that's part of, you know, you get income from wherever, you know, your rental income, and part of that has to go towards maintaining. I don't want the state to be the de facto fixer of everybody's properties as they just let them dilapidate for 15 years and then have the state come in and do that. So that you know I I'm kind of looking that hopefully someday we have a little bit more accountability to ensure that those type of things aren't happening because it can be taken advantage of a little bit by some people and I want to make sure that the dollars that we do spend are spent on the people that can truly benefit from those dollars. So thank you and I will be supporting the Okay, unless there are any other questions or comments, I want to thank our special guest presenter today, particularly for four years of work. It's not on the agenda today, but it is relevant to this conversation. Four years of work to advance the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond, which we'll vote on tomorrow, both the Assembly and the Senate, of which a portion of this will help support the implementation of this bill. bill. I think so many generations of Californians will be better because of your leadership on that. So thank you very much, Assemblymember Wicks, and whenever you would like to close.
Thank you. I appreciate that. And it was in true partnership with you, Mr. Chair. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
By Senator Gonzalez, if we can please call the roll. Motion due passed to appropriation. Senators Ergin. Aye. Ergin, aye. Cierreto. And I was mistaken. I'm staying off. Not voting. Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye, Grayson, Ocho Bo, Padilla. Okay we keep that bill on call for absent senators Thank you very much Before we go to Assemblymember Schultz who has two bills to present I want to entertain a motion on the consent calendar which consists of AB 1899 Colosa, AB 1924 Gabriel, AB 2020 Gabriel, AB 2026 Gabriel, AB 2044 Petrie Norris, AB 2174 Johnson, and AB 2185 Cork-Silva. Moved by Senator Gonzalez, If the committee assistant can please call the roll. Senators Errigin. Aye. Errigin, aye. Cierreto. Aye. Cierreto, aye. Cabaldon. Caballero. Cortese. Durazo. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson. Ochovo. Padilla. We'll keep that on call for absent senators. Thank you. So we'll now proceed to our next bill in file order, which is filed in 4-AB-306 by Assemblyman Schultz. Assemblymember, whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to be with you this afternoon to present AB 306. Would like to begin by thanking the committee and your staff for your hard work on this bill. AB 306 would require the California Building Standards Commission to hear and decide appeals regarding a local agency's implementation of the state building code and to issue code interpretations. California's 540 unique jurisdictions independently interpret and amend state building standards leading to inconsistency and inefficiency. There is currently no mechanism in the state of California for a housing proponent to appeal a local code interpretation and no mechanism to apply for a code equivalency determination across our many jurisdictions. The current appeals process requires local agency participation which is extremely rare. It also requires prior exhaustion of all local appeals. The limitations of the current appeals process led to the following negative outcomes. Design solutions deemed acceptable in one jurisdiction that may not be accepted in surrounding jurisdictions. Manufacturers, design professionals, and others who create housing innovations must secure approvals one jurisdiction at a time. Navigating approvals across our 540 independent jurisdictions is a major impediment to scaling innovation statewide, and it significantly increases the cost of housing and the timelines for project delivery. AB 306 addresses the lack of a practical and effective statewide appeals process to resolve code-related issues of broad significance. More specifically, it establishes a more workable process for resolving building code issues that have statewide implications while preserving local authority over matters that are appropriately addressed at the local level. These reforms would help reduce unnecessary barriers to housing, improve consistency in code application, encourage innovation, and support more efficient project delivery statewide. I'd like to note that recent author amendments dealt with most of the concerns raised by labor, and yesterday we came to an agreement on language that would make them neutral on AB306. With me today to speak in support of AB306 is Bruce Monaghan, licensed architect and chair of the American Institute of Architects, California Housing Steering Committee, and Ali Sopriman, advocacy and policy manager with the Housing Action Coalition. At the appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. You each have two minutes to present the bill, and whoever would like to begin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Bruce Monaghan, and I'm a licensed architect, and I do represent the American Institute of Architects and the 11 members of architects and design professionals across the state I like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their time and collaboration on the amendments to this particular bill We are sponsoring AB 306 because California current system for building code interpretations and appeals creates unnecessary inconsistency, delay, and cost. Today, the same building code can be interpreted differently in 540 different jurisdictions, creating uncertainty and delay for homeowners, builders, and housing providers. In a state-facing housing shortage, those delays matter. AB 306 creates a workable process for appeals and statewide code interpretations, and significantly while preserving local control, local governments would continue to make decisions on local issues and projects, specific matters through their existing processes. This bill simply provides a pathway for a consistent interpretation on issues of statewide concern. The bill also builds on the models that already work. Both the state fire marshal and the Division of State Architects maintain successful code interpretation process. AB 306 extends a similar approach to other state building standards and makes those determinations publicly available. Finally, the bill supports housing innovation. Today, a new material, method, or technology may be approved in one jurisdiction, but face the same review process elsewhere. AB 306 helps ensure that lessons learned in an individual jurisdiction may be shared effectively across 540 state jurisdictions. AB 306 is a balanced practical reform that reduces unnecessary barriers while maintaining appropriate safeguards and local authority. For those reasons, AIA California respectfully asks for your aye vote.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. My name is Allie Saperman, Advocacy and Policy Manager for the Housing Action Coalition. I'm speaking today in strong support of AB 306. At HACC, we represent developers, architects, attorneys, construction professionals, and labor unions across California who encounter building code inconsistency as a daily barrier to housing delivery. California's 540 jurisdictions independently interpret state building standards, and there is currently no practical mechanism for an affected party to appeal a local interpretation on their own. The existing process requires a local agency participation, meaning a jurisdiction must essentially agree to appeal its own decision, which almost never happens. AB 306 fixed that. The bill's code interpretation request process is a meaningful addition. Giving any person the ability to request a determination from the California Building Standards Commission, the state body that adopts and publishes the California Building Standards Code, creates a real accessible pathway for resolving ambiguity that currently gets resolved from inconsistency across jurisdictions or not at all. For HACC members working on adaptive reuse, this matters especially. Local code amendment triggers for adaptive reuse projects very dramatically across the state, and there has been no state-level forum to address that. AB 306 begins to change that. The transparency requirement requiring local agencies to post their code interpretations and amendments online is simple and overdue. HACC members regularly discover local interpretations mid-project, making them publicly accessible up front and reduces costs and delay. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 306 Please come forward and state your name organization and position on the bill Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association in support
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spur and Habitat for Humanity California. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Porvada Treasury with Housing California in support.
Nolan Gray, California MB in support. me a calm council of info builders and support very much Stephen Sanzer on
behalf of with Brownstein on behalf of the barrier council and support thank you very much okay are there any opposition witnesses to a B 306 sounds
like you did a good job we try working with opposition let's sir is anyone coming forward express opposition we'll bring it back to the committee for questions comments or emotion vice chair CRT so from a local perspective local governments can write more restrictive building codes and ordinances but they can't they can't be less restrictive so are they finding that because you know when you're interpreting the code to the uniform fire code the uniform building code standards code whatever it is two feet is two feet but I think a lot of the angst comes when the local building code that's been injected into the the other code and those are all by local ordinance how is a state going to overturn what the local government has inserted as their own standard because otherwise that's just like a lawsuit in the thing in the courts well they would not there's a there's a process called alternative methods of beans and the AMM process has been used in local jurisdictions to go through and look at alternatives to both the state building code and any local amendments. This process would allow a conversation on AMMs to a state level for clarification as to an availability of that. It doesn't take away local control and it doesn't overturn it. But out of the 540 state jurisdictions statewide, there's a lot of different interpretations of a particular code. this is simply an opportunity to get a clarification on what that code can be interpreted as presented. It does not create a precedent, but it does create an opportunity for other building departments to look at as a model to consider within their own local jurisdiction. Okay. You know, this can be looked at if you're an opposition person. It can be looked at as another layer of bureaucracy that holds up the building of a unit over interpretations of the code. But if somebody wants to go down that avenue, that's their own choice, I would think. So if somebody wants to delay their project, then they could access this, and it's delayed for whatever, and then they get the answer they want eventually. So that would be a self-inflicted wound. But giving people an alternative process, I don't know that I'm necessarily opposed to that, as long as it's not imposed on them as opposed to a voluntary thing. Thank you. Thank you. So I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. This bill makes several changes in the appeal process at the California Building Standards Commission. It gives an individual the ability to appeal a decision of a local building department to the CBSC, provides that an appeal may include a request for approval of an alternative building material method of construction that is not included in the state building code. The codes are updated every several years in a three-year cycle. And so this will ensure there's an innovation in materials or construction methods that we're not waiting until that next code update happens, but we have the flexibility to be able to use different methods or different materials to help streamline the process and get more homes built in California because that's ultimately the goal that we all have. And then also allowing for an interpretation from the CBSC on the state building code. I want to thank the author for the work with opposition on amendments, which I think strengthened the bill. I do have an eye recommendation, and I'll turn it back over to Close. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. I just wanted to mention that this isn't some theoretical problem that we're trying to solve. In the interim, I was talking with housing providers in my community, and they were telling me horror stories of how in my district I represent the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and L.A., and they can't agree on the same interpretation of the state codes. This is a real impediment to housing production that I see in my district, and I would imagine that's true of all of our districts. The only thing I wanted to note, Mr. Chair, is I know that this bill is hopefully on its way to local government, and we look forward to continuing those conversations and looking to refine the bill. But for today, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion on AB 306. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Thank you. If we can please call the roll. Motion do pass to local government. Senators Erdogan. Aye. Erdogan, aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cabalgen. Gaballero. Cortese. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson. Ochoa Bogue. By the end. We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you very much. Thank you. And there will be one more bill Assemblymember Schultz are going to present as well, which is file item 5AB2612. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Staying true to my propensity for wonky bills, I'm really excited to talk about AB 2612 today. Again, I want to thank the committee for your work on this one. AB 2612 would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to research, develop, and propose for adoption standards for a qualified plug-in photovoltaic system, or plug-in PV for short, to function as an energy source within residential and non-residential electrical circuits. A little bit of background. The Building Standards Commission may then adopt, approve, and codify and publish mandatory building energy standards for new construction building electrical circuit features to enable this qualified plug-in PV system. And a very important note here, the new standards could go into effect beginning with the first triennial edition of the building code adopted after January 1 of 2031. I bring that up because this bill works in tandem with AB 130, which was passed last year and imposed a six-year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of the new state building code standards. So this is not an effort to undermine that legislation. This is very much working in tandem with that prior legislation. Plug-in PV is attracting interest as a new low-cost pathway for households and businesses. This new technology allows electric customers to access affordable clean energy and helps take control of their energy costs by deploying small scale solar to offset their electrical use without major electrical modifications to their property Just to put a little bit in context these systems can be bought at your local Lowe's or Home Depot or whatever your local store is, and they are used to lower your energy costs. Some of the cheaper systems that are available for purchase go for about $500. However, California lacks standardized requirements for how these systems should integrate with a building's wiring, raising both safety and consistency concerns. AB 2612 aims to close that gap by directing state agencies to establish clear, uniform electrical circuit standards for plug-in solar. And in developing these standards, the Commission and HCD must consult with stakeholders and encourage public participation in the standards development process. In closing, by establishing uniform standards for plug-in PV, The bill facilitates safer adoption of emerging renewable technologies, thereby reducing barriers for households and for businesses interested in deploying solar. I will note that 2612 has no known opposition, although I guess we'll find out today. And with me to testify in support of the bill is Freddie Quintana, Vice President of State Public Affairs with the California Apartment Association. Before we go to Mr. Quintana, there was a technical amendment, comment five of the analysis. Just want to confirm you're accepting that. Gladly accepting it, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Mr. Quintana, you have the floor. Sure. Chair and Senators, Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association. AB 2612 provides a road for plug-in PV systems. This will help households and property owners bring down costs. These systems are a type of technology that allow users to directly access affordable, clean energy, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2612? If so, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now invite up to two opposition witnesses to come forward to speak in opposition to the bill. Are there any opposition witnesses? Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 2612? Seeing no one, I'll bring back the dais for any questions, comments, or a motion. Senator Drosso. Since this bill doesn't establish safety standards, right? This bill doesn't require establishing safety standards or doesn't ask the state agency to adopt safety standards for these devices. I guess the question is, how do we address the fact that it won't be establishing safety standards? Sorry, Senator. I think the goal of the legislation is to adopt uniform standards through that standard development process so that we have a safe and consistent method for deploying that technology and new construction. So I think that's very much the aim of the bill. The other thing I would note is that on the Senate side, we have Senate Bill 868 navigating as well. That's by Senator Weiner. And I bring that up to say that this bill is very much complementary to that bill. And I think that the two bills taken together really make plug-in solar a reality for both business and residential holders in the state of California. And then just one other question is there's a, what is it, like a committee or something, a consultation? Yes, a public consultation process to bring in stakeholders. It's certain stakeholders, right? Yes, ma'am. I guess my only just taken into consideration is the electric utilities were interested in participating as stakeholders that what I got I appreciate it senator and I can tell you that we had good conversations with them so far and our door remains open so both in the development of the legislation but yes the aim is that all relevant stakeholders would be consulted as we develop those standards. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? I'll just say that this is permitting the Building Standards Commission to develop building standards for plug-in photovoltaic systems, which would apply to newly constructed buildings. You did the Economic Center and Wieners' Bill, which is also pending. I think this is absolutely critical, which is why I support the Center and Wieners' Bill as well. And this will just give the commission the opportunity to develop standards. They will go through a process, as they do with developing other building standards that will involve consultation with various stakeholders. This will be done in the 2031 coded option, consistent with AB 130. So I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And if you have any closing remarks, I'll turn over to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll quit while I'm ahead and ask for an aye vote. Okay. Colleagues, is there a motion on AB 2612? Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. We have a motion by Senator Gonzalez. If we can please call the roll. Motion due passed as amended to appropriation. Senators Errigin? Aye. Errigin, aye. Serato? Aye. Serato, aye. Cabalden? Caballero? Cortese? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Ochoa Boog? Badia? Okay, thank you. We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you very much. And we'll now move to Fodham 6, AB 1070 by Assemblymember Ward. Good afternoon. And if this is a support and support bill, just want to just acknowledge that. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. It's pretty straightforward, so we can be brief. I am pleased to present AB 1070. It would have each city initiate a study to explore allowing the missing middle housing developments between 3 and 10 units in size to be built under the requirements of the California Residential Code rather than the California Building Code. The shift from residential to commercial code for small housing projects as a change has already seen positive results in places like Memphis, Anchorage, and North Carolina. It's led to a streamlined plan check requirement, code modifications that cut costs while preserving the health and safety of our developments, and an expanded pool of smaller-scale residential contractors who are available to build these types of homes. You all know that development and construction costs are at all-time highs. We need to look for efficiencies and cost savings and recognize that better affordability might require more flexibility and innovation within our very own building codes. In addition, AB 1070 requires HCD to conduct a one-time evaluation of construction cost pressures for housing construction that are a result of existing and new building codes and provide a one-time report to the legislature. With me today to testify in support are Mia Kang, Chair of the Board of Directors for the Council of Infill Developers, and Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research for California EMD. Thank you very much. I want to just begin by saying thank you for the work with opposition. and California building officials have removed their opposition to this bill. So I'll turn it over to you to present, and you should have two minutes to present the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Mia Kong. I'm a housing developer and chair of the board of the Council of Infill Builders, a proud co-sponsor of AB 1070. California has taken important steps to legalize and streamline approvals for small-scale infill housing, such as ADUs, triplexes, fourplexes, apartments. California now encourages a broader range of housing options but California building code framework has just not kept pace today projects with one or two dwelling units are regulated under the residential building code The addition of a third dwelling unit moves a project into the California building code framework Many infill opportunities in California are on small lots in existing neighborhoods, where small-scale multifamily housing may be one of the most viable ways to add housing. AB 1070, as amended, is requiring HCD to commission an independent study conducted by outside experts to evaluate whether small-scale multifamily housing with 3 to 10 units can safely and feasibly be built under the Residential Building Code and to develop recommendations for further consideration. The study will evaluate life safety outcomes, fire loss history, fire prevention system performance, feasibility costs, and approaches used in other jurisdictions. The study aims to identify practical residential code pathways that maintain strong life safety and fire protections while reducing unnecessary costs and complexities for small-scale infill housing. The value of this study is that it can identify safe and predictable code pathways for multifamily housing of 10 units and under. And if successful, it could provide the basis for future code updates that help more small-scale INFIL projects pencil out and actually get built. Thank you. And for this reason, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, and I'm actually here for technical advisory questions. I'll just say that your committee staff analysis does an excellent job of explaining why this code is important and why other states, at least four other states, have already made this change. This bill would not make the change. It would fund a study that I think will provide the necessary research before we're ready to jump in. So thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1070? You can please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good afternoon, Chair members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition. Strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, Abundant Housing, Los Angeles, and San Diego Housing Fed. Thank you. Good afternoon chair and members Karen Stout here on behalf of the Casita Coalition sponsoring this measure, Hallos Communities and Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew Bungee with Inner City Law Center in support. Colin Parent with Circulate Planning and Policy here in support. Steven Stanzler with Brownstein on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing and support. Thank you. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Thank you. Hello, Nikki Dennis-Stevens, Executive Vice President of the American Institute of Architects, California, in support. Thank you all so much. We'll now invite up to two opposition witnesses to speak in opposition to AB 1070, if there are any. Seeing none, anyone wishing to express opposition to the bill? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais. Once again, thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward. It's really important. I think a study is going to be really instructive around how we can improve our building codes to create this missing middle type of housing which we so desperately need in California. And once again, thank you for working with opposition. And they have removed their opposition. So colleagues, any other questions or comments? Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Thank you. And I'll turn it back over to you to make a closing statement. Thank you Mr. Chair and Senators. Yes I do appreciate it. I also want to commend and thank the Senate analysis as well. I really like the chart that's in there that really shows exactly what we're talking about when you go from a duplex to a triplex all of a sudden all these new requirements are there and a triplex is a far cry from a hundred unit downtown high rise right so like very very different As we're talking about, we believe this will go a long way when it's fully implemented to reduce costs. And so to any extent that I think this will probably go into appropriations next, we certainly will prioritize it there because a little bit of state investment here means probably billions of dollars of impact on the private costs that we're trying to be able to hold back here from future development. So with that, respectfully request your aye vote. Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Senator Gonzalez. If the committee assistant can please call the roll. Motion do pass to appropriation. Senators Erguin. Aye. Erguin, aye. Cierto. Aye. Cierto, aye. Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson, Ochoa Bogue, Badia. Okay, thank you. We'll keep that bell on call for absent senators. Thank you very much. I don't think we have another author present. The next bill in file order is file item 7, AB 1237 by Assemblymember McKinner. then we have Asselin Rahini. Okay, we're going to recess the committee while we wait for another. Okay, we are going to reconvene the Senate Housing Committee hearing. and we do have an author present and so we're going to go out of file order to file in 16 a B 2181 by Assemblymember Zabur and welcome I know we have a couple witnesses here and whenever you're ready assembly member you may begin your presentation thank you mr. chair members I am proud today to present a AB 2181, co-sponsored by Unite Here International and Unite Here Local 11. AB 2181 is a narrow clarification that ensures that density bonus potential can only be used in valuations for hotels and motels when it is a real, approved, and vested. It simply ensures that ground lease rent resets reflect reality and not speculation. This is a pro-housing bill that promotes and protects the density bonus law, which is one of the state's most important tools to incentivize affordable housing. The bill does not change or limit density bonus eligibility in any way. Instead, it protects the integrity of the policy by ensuring that the benefits are tied to actual housing production. This bill addresses a real problem that has emerged. Appraisers are using hypothetical residential redevelopment scenarios to inflate land values when no housing development is planned or contemplated. Density bonuses that have not been pursued or approved are used to inflate property values, and that inflated value is then used to reset hotel and motel lease rents, creating real financial consequences impacting existing businesses and workers, especially in the hospitality industry. For example, I have a fully operating hotel in my district supporting jobs and tourism. It has a long-term ground lease that makes redevelopment on that parcel not feasible for decades. No housing project is proposed or approved. Yet the appraisal assumes high-density residential redevelopment using density bonus because of the density bonus law. No housing is being built, but the idea of housing is driving real consequences such as potential worker job loss, reduce tourism activity, and pressure on long-standing productive land uses. The state is appropriately expanding density bonus tools to increase housing production and new policies like higher density thresholds or double density concepts increase theoretical development capacity However, without guardrails, that expanded capacity can be misapplied in appraisal scenarios and used to further inflate land values based on hypotheticals. AB 2181 provides a simple guardrail where density bonus can only be considered in valuation when it is pursued, approved, and vested. That will ensure housing incentives remain tied to real projects and valuations reflect legally permissible realistic conditions. This bill is narrow in scope and intentionally focused on hotels and motels. This is where long-term ground leases are common, redevelopment is often constrained, and impacts are most acute. To be clear, this bill does not restrict housing development, it does not change density bonus law, and it does not prevent future redevelopment. development. This is a technical fix with real-world impact. It protects hospitality worker jobs, it prevents speculative valuation practices, and it keeps housing policy tied to actual production. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me today, in support, I'd like to introduce Matt Broad, representing Bill Cosponsor Unite Here International, and Maria Espinoza, member of Unite Here Local 11, and a housekeeper in the city of Santa Monica. Thank you very much, Assembly member. Good afternoon. You each have two minutes, and I'll turn over to you, and I know we'll have another witness. I believe you're interpreting for the witness as well. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Unite Here International. We are, as the Assemblymember said, proud co-sponsors of AB 2181. In this instance, as he described, we have a very good employer that's doing all the right things that's sort of being put in a tough situation due to this loophole that exists. But I think the more salient point is this bill is in line with here sponsored legislation, including SB 838 and SB 92, which moved through this committee last year, were signed by the governor that were principally about making sure housing laws are being used for housing purposes. And that's not just for the creation of good housing, which of course we want, but clarity of rules ensures no gamesmanship and a clear playing field. So with that, I'd just like to thank committee staff. I know this moved very quickly on a short notice, and we would urge your aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Buenas tardes, miembro del comité. Me llamo María Espinosa y he trabajado por 22 años as a employee of the lavanderia in a hotel in Santa Monica, California, and I am a proud member of United Hair Local 11. Every day I wash my hands on the floors. This ensures that the guests have a good experience. It's a hard work, but it's the one that maintains our hotels in functioning. But with too often, the people who do this work, the staff of cleaning, the staff, the staff, the reception staff, no tenemos voz ni voto en las decisiones que afectan nuestros empleos y a nuestros lugares de trabajo. Por eso, este proyecto de ley es importante. La Ley AB 2181 busca garantizar que la industria hotelera beneficie no solo a propietarios e inversores, sino también a los trabajadores que la mantienen en funcionamiento día a día. Se trata de equidad, respeto y de asegurar que las decisiones no se tomen expensas de las personas que trabajan directamente en el sector. For workers like me, stability is important, the justice is important, knowing that our employees are protected and that our work is valued That is important This law project helps us to advance in that direction recognizes that protegidos y que nuestro trabajo es valorado Eso importa Este proyecto de ley nos ayuda a avanzar en esa direcci Reconoce que los trabajadores del sector de la hosteler son esenciales para la econom de California y merecen ser tratados como tal Estoy orgullosa del trabajo que hago y solo quiero saber que el sistema en el que trabajamos también nos apoya. I request your support for the project AB 2181. Thank you very much. But too often the people who do this work, the housekeepers, the servers, the front desk staff, don't have a real voice in the decisions that affect our jobs and our workplaces. That's why this bill matters. AB 2181 is about making sure that the hospitality industry works not just for owners and investors, but also for the workers who keep it going every day. every day. It's about fairness, respect, and making sure that when decisions are made, they don't come at the expense of the people on the ground. For workers like me, stability matters. Fair treatment matters. Knowing that our jobs are protected and that our work is valued, that matters. This bill helps move us in that direction. It recognizes that hospitality workers are essential to California's economy and deserve to be treated that way. I'm proud of the work that I do. I just want to know that the systems we work in support us to. I respectfully ask for your support on AB 2181. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, well, I invite anyone else who'd like to express support for AB 2181 to please come forward to the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Andrea Herrera. Soy empleada de limpieza en el hotel in Santa Monica, California. Soy miembro orgulloso de United Head Local 11 and I support the law 2181. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you. Leah Barrows on behalf of California Hotel and Lodging Association, in support. Thank you very much. Are there any opposition witnesses to AB 2181? Seeing no one come forward, Does anyone wish to express opposition to AB 2181? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions, comments, or motion. Okay, moved by Senator Rasso. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Okay, if not, let's go back over to the Assemblymember to close. Again, this is a very narrow bill. It's intended to preserve density bonus laws, which are a good thing, but also make sure that they're not misused to basically, in a speculative way, increase ground rents and drive good hotels out of business, which would affect our workers. So with that, I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you very much. If you have to make amendments to the bill, because the Senate operates differently from the Assembly, you can't add co-authors unless you make an amendment. I'd love to be added as a co-author. And I don't want to speak for the chair of local government, but I'm sure she would as well. and thank you very much for bringing this forward. This builds on work that we've done to focus our housing laws, particularly the density bonus on housing not hotels So we have a motion by Senator Rosso If you can please call the roll Motion due passed to local government Senators Erdogan Aye Erdogan aye Ciaro Aye Ciaro aye Cabalgen Caballero Cortese Durazo Durazo, aye. Gonzales, Grayson, Ochoa, Bo, Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I see a few assembly colleagues here. and colleagues we do take bills and file orders so we're going to go next to Assemblymember McKinner and file item 7 AB 1 2 3 7 hello good afternoon we are now on AB 1 2 3 7 if there are any witnesses and support you're welcome to join us here and each witness will have two minutes and whenever you are ready assemblymember you may present on the bill mr. chair and members AB 1237 aligns California law with development trends found across the nation and around the world where hotels and condominiums now offer private in-unit swimming pools. While this is a new development trend for California, AB 1237 takes a smart approach to ensure appropriate health and safety standards to keep residents and visitors to the Golden State safe while enjoying this new amenity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Witness today is John Moffitt on behalf of Kane Development. Stakeholders are available Alan Lee and Steve Barrow and Kathy Barankin and we thank you for joining us we're just gonna hear from two witnesses today so whoever like to begin you have two minutes good afternoon mr. chair members of the committee John Moffitt on behalf of cane development we appreciate the assembly member carrying this bill the one Beverly Hills project is probably one of the largest single-site construction projects happening in the state of California right now, maybe even west of the Mississippi, $5 billion development, new condominium tower, new hotel that we are trying to get ready in time for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics. As we're going through building the project, these new unique swimming pools here in California, we're looking at the law. Are they private pools? Are they public pools? The California law didn't really, wasn't clear. AB 1237 clarifies that, and we appreciate the bill and happy to answer any technical questions you may have. Hi, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, members, I'm Kathy Barankin with the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, and we were the sponsors of the original Pool Safety Act and are so grateful to our author and to the sponsor of the bill for making sure that kids are going to be safe in these pools. We appreciate it and support as amended. Want to add anything, sir? Me too. I'm the vice chair of the state's Drowning Prevention Foundation and the whole drowning prevention community, and we're in support of the bill as amendments, and we're really pleased that the author and the sponsors will work so well with the drowning prevention community. Great. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support? for AB 1237. Good afternoon, Chair and members. George Coventa on behalf of the California Pool and Spa Association and the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance in support. Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1237, Are there any opposition witnesses to AB 1237? Seeing no one come forward, does anyone wish you expressed opposition to AB 1237? And seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierta. Thank you. The only concerns I had were about pool safety and kids, just like you had said. What were the amendments that were taken that make the indoor pools secure, just like a pool at home has to be? So happy to go through those. They aren't in the bill yet. We actually just got to agreement on the language on the different provisions. So these pools will follow the Private Pool Safety Act, which already requires two of seven different safety measures. In addition to that, what we are also going to be doing for these pools, they're going to have pool depth indicators, emergency communication devices on the patio that are geolocated so that they can connect directly with hotel operator emergency services we're going to have certified pool operators will be maintaining the pools for water quality and other issues related to that we will be disclosing to all guests that they will if they once they check into the or when they check into the hotel that their room does have a pool and that the hotel either will have a cover or a mesh fence available for installation on the pool if they have children or if they like those things covered and that the hotel is the only ones who can take those things off and I feel I feel like I forgot one did I forget one basis of the issues that I was concerned about you have kids that go into these that are unfamiliar even with a pool and it only takes a minute for somebody to take their eyes off of them and they're in so as long as the year the safety part of it is addressed I'm okay with it thank you and I apologize one more aeds on every floor with pools right thank you very much any other questions or comments Senator Cortese we are on 5 7 a B 1237 McKinner any other questions or comments moved by vice chair Certo you know it's always interesting you find that there's some quirk in the law and so I thank you for bringing this bill forward to align the law and with that I'll turn it back over the author to close I respectfully ask for your aye vote motion by vice chair Certo if we can please call the roll motion do pass to health senators ericene I ericene I serra serra to I cabalden gabarito cortesi cortesi I dirazo dirazo I Gonzales Grayson a trobo by the F keep that bell and call for absent centers thank you very much thank you senator thank you okay I saw some remember Hoover but I see a similar Haney so we're gonna go to similar Haney now and he is next in file order we're going to have a file item 8 a B AB 1556. Yes, please. And if there are any principal witnesses support on the bill, you're welcome to join us here. Great. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Chair, you may begin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 1556, which strengthens and clarifies California's approach to drug-free recovery housing. Recovery housing is an evidence-based model that provides stable support of environments for individuals working to maintain sobriety and rebuild their lives. But under current law recovery housing providers are navigating conflicting guidance between California Housing First policy and administrative rules on maintaining drug environments This lack of clarity makes it difficult for providers to protect the safety and stability of their residents while remaining compliant with state requirements And for residents, this gap has real consequences. Not every person's recovery journey looks the same, and for many, a drug-free living environment is essential to maintaining stability. Yet today, individuals seeking sober living environments often face limited options and may instead end up in housing that does not support the recovery needs. AB 1556 provides a balanced common sense solution. It creates a clear statutory framework that allows recovery housing providers to maintain drug-free environments while ensuring that individuals who return to use are not pushed back into homelessness. This bill requires recovery residences to adopt a written return to use policy ensuring transparency, consistency, and support for residents. And these policies must include access to treatment providers, recovery support, and a non-punitive approach that prioritizes connection to services. Importantly, AB 1556 ensures that individuals are offered a warm handoff to alternative housing or services before any discharge related to substance use. This bill is about meeting people where they are, protecting recovery environments, expanding housing options, and helping prevent relapse, overdose, and returns to homelessness. Here with me to testify today are Marian Sanders from the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and Amber Richmond, a San Francisco resident and an individual with lived experience battling homelessness and addiction. Mr. Chair, before we go to the witnesses, there were amendments that were reflected in comment 12 in the analysis, which I believe will need to be taken in the Senate Health Committee. Yes. I want to confirm that you are accepting this amendment. Yes, we will accept those amendments and take them in the Senate Health Committee. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. You have two minutes here and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1556. My name is Marian Sanders, and I am the chief deputy director of the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. Over the past decade, California has faced a devastating addiction crisis that has taken thousands of lives and deeply impacted communities across our state. In San Francisco, thousands of lives. I'm sorry. We see more people experiencing homelessness also struggling with substance use disorders and seeking recovery oriented services. We need a full continuum of options to meet people where they are, including recovery focused housing for those actively seeking sobriety. AB 1556 is important because it would clarify that local governments can use state funding to support recovery residences. That flexibility matters. We know this model can make a difference. According to the Benioff Center for Homelessness and Housing, 46 percent of homeless Californians, roughly 86,000 people, report substance use as currently leading to health, legal and social or financial problems. problems. Between 2011 and 2020, overdose deaths among homeless Californians surged 488%. We also know recovery housing is associated with decreased substance use, reduced likely to return to use, lower rates of incarceration, increased employment and income, and stronger family relationships. We have already seen the promise of this model locally. San Francisco recently open two new recovery focused transitional housing sites and both filled quickly. Their early success show there is a real demand for these spaces and real value in having recovery oriented housing as a part of a broader homelessness response With greater state funding flexibility we would like to be able to do more of this AB 1556 is a practical step that would help save lives support recovery and give local governments another important tool to the overlapping crisis of homelessness and substance use Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Hi. Okay. My turn. Good afternoon, honorable chair and members of the committee. My name is Amber Richmond, and I'm from San Francisco. I started using drugs my junior year of high school. It began with Oxycontin and then whatever pills I could find. I swore I would never touch heroin. My father died from it when I was 12, but that's exactly where I ended up. I could list everything heroin has cost me, but we don't have time for that. I will say this. Few people survived two open-heart surgeries from injecting drugs. I did. After those surgeries, I went right back to using. Later, I spent six months in a San Francisco navigation center before receiving Section 8 housing in 2020. Today, I have six months of sobriety, and I work as a housing navigator with Episcopal Community Services Adult Coordinated Entry Program, helping people access housing every day. I have not only lived in the system, I now help people navigate it. What I see is that people are not one-size-fits-all. Last week, I met a man who had spent nearly three years waiting for permanent supportive housing. He had recently gotten sober and was working hard to maintain his recovery. When his name finally came up for housing, his only question was whether or not there were any options available that would support the recovery he had worked so hard for. He wasn't asking for a private kitchen. He wasn't asking for a private bathroom. He wasn't demanding special accommodations. He was simply asking if there were housing options that aligned with his recovery goals. We often talk about meeting people where they are, but meeting people where they are means recognizing that people have different goals, different challenges, and different paths forward. Harm reduction-based housing should remain available for those who want it. AB 1556 does not take housing away from anyone. It does not force anyone into recovery. It simply creates another pathway for people who want a recovery-oriented environment. This bill creates the kind of environment I needed, but makes it intentional, not accidental. Housing gives people stability, recovery-supportive environments give many people a real chance, and people deserve both. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. I want to thank you for joining us today. Your story is really, truly inspiring, and I really appreciate the courage to come and tell your story and the work you do to help so many people. So thank you very much. With that, we'll invite anyone else who wishes to express support for AB 1556. So please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association and proud support. Thank you. Clifton Wilson, on behalf of Mayor Daniel Lurie, proud sponsor of the bill, as well as the City and County of San Francisco, and also the California State Association of Psychiatrists, all in support. Thank you to the witnesses. Thank you for being a champion, Haney. Run in again. Appreciate it. Catherine Charles, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, a proud co-sponsor and support. Pete Nielsen, on behalf of the California Addiction Recovery Advocates. Good afternoon. Christina Padilla, on behalf and support, California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, support. Thank you all very much. Are there any opposition witnesses? Okay. You welcome to sit here or whatever you comfortable with Also each have two minutes and whoever like to begin. Good afternoon chair and members. We're about a tragedy here with housing California in respectful opposition to AB 1556 unless amended. 1556 is a reiteration of last year's AB 255 which was vetoed because of existing Cal ICH guidance which already outlines how existing state dollars can support recovery residences. Rather than building on that Cal ICH framework, we are concerned that the bill introduces new complexities to at a time when we're seeing a decline in federal funding as well. State homelessness funding should support a variety of different evidence-based practices rather than creating incentives to shift limited resources solely towards recovery housing at the expense of the full continuum of evidence-based homelessness interventions. The bill is also inconsistent with existing state law. California Housing First statutes make it clear that the use of alcohol or drugs by itself is not grounds for addiction, yet AB 1556 requires recovery homes to adopt return to use policies that imply tenants may be removed from housing simply due to relapse. We believe there is a better path forward. We urge the committee to either codify the existing CalICH guidance or amend the bill to ensure tenants cannot be evicted for relapse alone and eliminate provisions that conflict with California's existing Housing First laws. We've deeply appreciated the continued engagement with Assemblymember Haney's office as well as the bill's sponsors and thank them for continued dialogue to address our concerns. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Hi, my name is Mari Castaldi, and I'm the director of state housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Center on Budget doesn't actually take positions on legislation, so we have no formal position on the bill, but rather context for the committee to consider. Decades of research evidence supports that housing-first models overwhelmingly end people's homelessness and support their recovery. That's why the state of California adopted it as a model to guide state investments 10 years ago, with a lot to show for it. The latest data show homelessness decreasing, led in large part by HAP investments that have supported over 110,000 Californians exiting homelessness in just the past two years. Unfortunately, that progress is threatened by ongoing fiscal pressures that leave most California communities just struggling to maintain the current level of housing and services, which of course we know is insufficient to meet the scale of need. This underfunding could get a lot worse because California is also at great risk of losing out on a huge portion of federal homelessness funding that supports formerly homeless Californians. The most recent funding notice from HUD's Continuum of Care program could take housing assistance away from at least 14,000 Californians in 2027 alone through diverting funding away from permanent supportive housing models and harm reduction services. Quality recovery housing models can be an important part of the continuum of substance use treatment options, but are notably less effective when it comes to the outcome of housing stability. As such, AB 1556 could compound federal funding cuts by diverting state funding away from homelessness programs with the strongest track record of solving homelessness and towards more short-term program models, including enforced sobriety. Instead, California leaders could consider prioritizing state funds to protect permanent housing for the over 10,000 people at risk of returning to homelessness due to misguided and punitive Trump administration policy. Does that complete your testimony? Yes. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1556? Please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. And if there's anyone after this gentleman, if you can please line up. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property, and we respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you very much. Seeing no one else come forward, I'm going to bring it back to the dais, and I want to just summarize the amendments that the author has agreed to take in the Health Committee. Amendment 1, remove a reference to eviction solely on the basis of possession of drugs or alcohol. And the rest of the bill states otherwise. So just really providing clarification and ensuring that we're advancing a housing-first approach. require documentation of eviction for alleged program violations that are submitted to local grantors be remitted to the state during the existing state funding annual reporting requirements. This ensures that we have state oversight over evictions occurring for recovery housing programs. And lastly, the last amendment replaces references to recovery residents to recovery housing consistent with the Cal ICH guidance the bill has been drafted to codify the Cal ICH guidance on sober living specifically refers to housing recovery programs that meet the core components of housing first and also offering tenants choice this bill incorporates protections to ensure that tenants are not a victim solely on the basis of relapse and I know that there may be additional work I think the next committee this bill is going to go to a Senate health but I think the author's goal is to ensure that we are advancing a housing a first approach we're providing options for people and so with that I want to turn over to any committee members or any questions or comments on the bill okay senator Cortez and we'll go to vice chair Certa I'm supportive of the bill like you know it's probably one of those bills that we could you know use that trite line with it might never be perfect, but it is supportable, especially with the amendments. And I just wanted, I'm so happy to hear some of those amendments because I think one of the most devastating things you could possibly do to somebody who's diligently in recovery, somebody who's going, you know, there are people that go to meetings three times a day and they'll do that for 10 days, 15 days in a row, 30 days in a row and they'll have what you're calling a relapse, you know, people in those meetings call it a slip and they're right back three meetings a day the next day, three meetings a day the next day, they're working on a recovery and there's 40, 45 percent, you know, sobriety that comes out of those kind of efforts ultimately and pulling the rug out from under them on their housing is you know just probably I don't know I would guess I would guess in one of the most traumatizing things that could possibly happen and one of the most disruptive things to their recovery that could happen at that stage because suddenly they're out looking for housing they're not able to you know continue in the very programs that you know they're keeping them sober in the first place so I'm glad that those amendments have been accepted I know the authors worked very hard in this and understands all those principles of Both housing and recovery particularly you know the housing side and the sensitivity of that or you wouldn be doing this So I be I the bill Thank you And thank you to the committee for you know working on those amendments Thank you Maestro Serta. One of those people that look at the actual effect of people going into a home. And I think that there are different methods for different people. And for some people, one of the methods that they need is to not be around the social or the actual environment where drugs are constantly being introduced or alcohol is constantly being introduced. Because there's no faster way to turn a sober living home or a drug-free home into a drug den than to have one person start and then the domino effect of others in the home also starting to relapse. with them. People should be able to choose a place that doesn't offer that, or that offers a drug-free, alcohol-free environment. And in the name of housing, which we, I mean, it doesn't say you can't have sober-living homes that you can't be evicted from. I mean, where people that do relapse can't be evicted. You can have those, but you should also be able to offer others as well, because that's meeting people where they are. And, you know, I think while the amendments, you know, we're going more towards housing instead of the drug rehabilitation part of it, and I don't think we meet everybody's needs that way. and so I'm not a big fan of making everybody have to acquiesce to people that keep relapsing. If that's not going to help them, they're not going to go into those homes and then they're going to have those issues. So in the interest of meeting people where they are, I think we should have both available to people and not close the door to either one. So I'll support this bill. I was going to support it the way it was before, before these amendments. Basically, it just turns us over living what we have now back to what it is. And it shuts those people that need a sterile environment, shall we say, away. And I don't like that. questions or comments from committee members on AB 1556 if not I'll turn it back over to the chair to close thank you mr. chair and thank you for your work on this and and and your the amendments I appreciate both of both of those comments I think they were reflect the the challenge that we have in striking the right balance here the goal is never to evict somebody who enters a sober living environment or recovery housing environment for relapse alone that this is not about creating zero tolerance environments we understand anybody who does this work to help people on their path to sobriety knows that very often it is one step forward two steps back three steps forward two steps back you're you're you're you're you're struggling along the way this is about creating environments where people are committed to that path of recovery where they're intentionally supported with their peers with the staff who were there and that the folks who choose to live there have that option and have the necessary support on their journey to sobriety and recovery and having a thoughtful approach that protects the community protects the environment protects the overall goal of a housing environment but also protects the individual so that they not returned to the street It's actually something I think that we need to be more thoughtful about in the types of permanent supportive housing that are not of this type, where there are a lot of evictions, unfortunately, in some cases for behavior that's related to use. But this is an important step for us to provide options and provide clarity both for the providers the cities counties and also for the individuals who I know and there are many of them who want to enter these environments and we tried to strike a balance here and we'll continue to work on this as this moves forward and appreciate that the feedback and the input from the opposition and we will continue to work with them as well. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Do we have a motion on the bill? Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Thank you very much. If we can please call the roll. Motion do pass to Senate Health. Senators Erguin. Aye. Erguin, aye. Sayurto. Aye. Sayurto, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Badia. If that bill and call for absents centers, thank you all very much. We have Assemblymember Hoover here and we'll move now to file item 18, AB 2415. Mr. Vice Chair, do you mind taking over one minute? Okay, Mr. Hoover, do you have any witnesses that are going to be? There they are. They're going to be joining you. Great. All right, this is AB 2415. Assemblymember Hoover, you have the floor. Go ahead when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2415. As California continues to face a housing crisis, we are tasked with increasing affordability and availability. A policy such as SB 79 from 2025 do help increase housing development near public transit. However, there are some pro housing communities such as one of the cities in my community that still aim to protect the character of their historic districts. Our bill proposes a solution that is narrowly tailored. It would allow a city if the majority of the transit oriented development zone is part of a local historic district to reduce the capacity in one zone by more than 50%. percent the the criteria for doing this would would mean the city would have to have more than one transit oriented development zone and a population of less than 150,000 the local historic district must also have been designated prior to 2000 with me today is Folsom mayor Justin Rathel and Jerry Berno with Berno Development Corporation to share their thoughts we also have Desmond Parrington from City of Folsom for technical assistance if needed thank you Thank you very much for being here today and you each have two minutes. Vice Chair, members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Justin Rathel. I have the privilege of serving the city of Folsom as the mayor this year. I'm here to express our strong support for AB 2415, authored by Assemblymember Hoover. Folsom takes its housing responsibilities seriously. For more than 20 years, we've consistently approved and built homes across the income spectrum, and we continue to embrace higher density development in the areas where it makes the most sense near jobs services and transit At the same time we have a responsibility to protect our Folsom Historic District It the cultural heart of our community and one of the most significant historic assets in the Sacramento region In 2024 we had updated our general plan to increase allowable densities in the targeted areas including the East Bidwell Commercial Corridor, the Folsom Plan Area Town Center, and two transit station areas. We intentionally did not apply these higher density overlays to the historic district because its scale and character are essential to its identity. Even so, the district continues to grow in a compatible way through accessory dwelling units that blend naturally into the neighborhood. The challenge is that the current law still assigns that high density housing obligations to the historic district in ways that do not reflect its physical constraints or its regional cultural role. AB 2415 provides a practical fix. It allows Folsom to shift those obligations to transit-oriented development areas near our two additional light rail stations, places that are specifically designed for height, density, and modern infrastructure. AB 2415 shows that the state can support housing production while respecting the historic resources communities are working to preserve. We can meet statewide housing goals without sacrificing the places that tell our shared story. On behalf of the City of Folsom, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2415. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. next speaker. Two minutes. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jerry Bernow with Bernow Development Corporation. I've been developing and building in Folsom for 35 years. In 1990, my first project was a 400-unit apartment project, the largest of its kind in Folsom at the time. Today, we just completed a gradient on a three-story mixed-use building across from the historic Folsom light rail station, the historic district with the density of 62 dwelling units per acre. I'm here today in support of AB 2415 because it gives cities like Folsom a practical way to meet housing obligations without compromising a irreplaceable historic district. As a developer, I want to be clear. We are building housing in historic Folsom, and we're doing it in a way that respects the district's small blocks, narrow streets, limited infrastructure, and unique historical character. These are not abstract concerns. They are real physical conditions that define what responsible development looks like. Our projects are modest in scale, designed to fit the architectural fabric of the existing streetscape, adding new single-family homes, ADUs, and mixed-use projects without overwhelming the infrastructure or overshadowing our historic assets. This is the kind of context-appropriate growth that keeps a historic district vibrant. If we were required to build densities mandated under the existing law, the result would be out of scale, out of character, and out of step with what makes historic, fulsome economically and culturally important. B2415 strikes a balance. It allows those high-sensitivity obligations to shift to parts of Folsom that can support the height, the density, and has modern infrastructure, especially transfer-oriented districts in the two additional light rail stations. These are areas where larger projects make sense and where developers like me can deliver housing production that the state is asking for. This bill does not reduce housing. It puts housing where it belongs while allowing the historic district to continue contributing in ways compatible with their scale and purpose. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. I sincerely appreciate it and respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2415? Yes to Mr. Chair and members. Tony Gonzalez here on behalf of the California Preservation Foundation. Very delighted to support the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Kathy Cole, I'm a resident of Historic Folsom and also Vice Chair of the Folsom Historic District Commission in strong support. Thank you. wishing to express support for AB 2415? Seeing no one come forward, are there any opposition? witnesses see no opposition witnesses anyone wishing to express opposition AB 2415 seeing no one come forward I bring back to the dais this is a very narrowly tailored bill I understand sent you have center weiner's agreement since this would amend we've been working with them very closely SB 79 very specific to the needs of your districts I fully support this bill in vice your sir yeah so this is the kind of issue that a lot of cities wind up having and having to deal with on an individual basis almost which is which is kind of sad if you know the lay of the land which you guys obviously do a Folsom you understand why this is this is absolutely necessary for the preservation of what they're doing it's one of the more well-planned cities in California and and this is part of it preserving what was there before and you could liken what their issue is to if we decided that old Sacramento old town Sacramento had to do this we wouldn't want that we wouldn't you know you want to preserve that and they've been able to do that for old town Sacramento so applaud the the effort to have this addressed for your community there are other communities out there that that really need the same thing and I hope we can have the flexibility for everybody to do that so with that I will make a motion to approve thank you thank you senator Balton yeah thank you and it's good to see our fulsome neighbors here and this bill for to be this reads like a bill of statewide significance because every city I represent is under this it's under a pounder and fifty thousand people and and some of them have these these issues I just one one I think I understand the technical the answer to the first technical question I had, which was about that it's rock solid, that you still have to move that obligation to some other zone. Correct. But the second is, so it says a majority of the TOD zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000. And I'm sure that's intended to assure that people don't game the system by creating a brand new historic district. But it's the majority of the zone is part of it. So if a local historic district, say Folsom's because it's fantastic and the mix of development and historic districts done very well there. But if that local historic district, yes, it was created before this century. But can a jurisdiction sort of expand the historic district tomorrow into a majority of the zone, therefore qualifying? that sounds crazy potentially but we've seen jurisdictions game or abuse the district designation so for that particular provision the majority of the zone is part of a district that was designated before January 2000 how is the bill assured that we're not going to see that kind of gaming? So I definitely hear what you're getting at and this was actually very intentionally written in sort of partnership with Senator Weiner because we do understand that you know, this is something that had to already have been pre-existing. So it would need to be a historic district that was under the definition of what a local historic district is in the code. That had to be determined by ordinance or by resolution by the city prior to January 1st of 2000 Any future historic districts or attempts to expand I would think would not fall under this bill But but I do want to make it very clear to my the vice chair as well that this this is a bill that applies statewide and I think that is an important point to recognize that it not just for a single city but I do it is also narrowly tailored that it will it will limit its applicability. Okay and I don't know if the committee staff has this this this narrow question of can you, if, if, can, we'll pick Folsom again, even though Folsom wouldn't do this, but if you have a historic district that goes, goes to here and the transit zone is over here and the district is expanded since 2000 into this new zone and becomes a majority of that zone, would the bill's provisions allow for the, for the, for essentially for the reduction in the unit count? committee chief consultant says no would not okay she says I should not worry then I will not worry thank you very much mr. chair it is not our intent of the build for that to be possible any other questions or comments we have a motion by vice-chair to on the bill I'll chain it back over to Assemblymember Hoover to close. I just appreciate the conversation and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion if the committee assistant can please call the roll. Motion do pass to local government. Senators Ergin. Ergin aye. Cierreto. Cierreto aye. Cabaldon. Cabaldon aye. Caballero. Cortese. Durazo. Gonzales. Grayson. Grayson aye. Ochoa Bogue. Ochoa Bogue aye. Padilla. Thank you. Call for absent centers. Thank you very much. I don't see another author at this time. So we have just a few more bills, Assemblymember Gabriel, and Pappins presenting in another Senate committee, Alvarez, Harabedian, and Lee. While we're doing that, why don't we lift the call on bills, starting first with the consent calendar which consists of AB 1899 Colosa, AB 1924 Gabriel, AB 2020 Gabriel. Actually we will pause on lifting the calls and we will now go to file item 17 AB 2296 by Assemblymember Papin. Good afternoon. How's that for timing chair? I saw you on the TV and the other committee so. Did you really? Yeah. Very We're good, we're good. Well, I'm delighted to be with you this afternoon to present AB 2296. Welcome. Good to see you. So this does a little bit of streamlining of the housing element process with HCD. And what it says is, and it will allow cities to focus on planning for housing instead of this sort of endless bureaucracy, if you will. So cities don't build housing. I want to make that clear. but they are required to plan for it, as we all know, those of us who come out of local gov. And many good faith cities are getting stuck in repeated revisions, delays, and shifting guidance from HCD. This bill addresses those challenges in two ways. First, it moves the RHNA process up by six months, giving cities more time to plan. Second, my office is working closely with HCD and the councils of governments on amendments to split the Bay Area housing element deadlines into two cohorts six months apart, allowing HCD staff a bit of reprieve so they don't get housing elements all at once, they can manage their workload a little better and provide more timely, individualized feedback to local governments. AB 2296 is a practical fix that brings certainty and efficiency helping cities meet their housing goals and move projects forward faster As you might know cities spend a lot of money on consultants to comply with these demands of HCD and I firmly believe that some of that money could be used for things like rental assistance. You know, if we keep people from becoming homeless in the first place, we're going to achieve some great things, but now we're spending on consultants for housing elements. So this is trying to bring some clarity and certainty to that process. So with me to testify today is Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of Cities and Dane Hutchings, who I don't see, but that's okay. Brady, we'll take you. Assembly member, I believe there was an amendment that was reflected on page 5. I'll be accepting them. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry about that. And good afternoon. Yes, good afternoon, chair and members. Brady Gerton on behalf of the League of California Cities, proud sponsors of AB 2296. As we all know, the housing element review process has been very challenging for a lot of our cities. As some of you know from your experience in local government, this measure would allow cities six additional months to begin the housing element review process and get those housing elements certified on time. Right now, under current law, cities have less than 10 months, give or take. If you go through all the appeals to get your housing element certified, By providing that additional time, it's going to give cities the ability to work and get that technical assistance and guidance they need from HCD to get those housing elements certified and ensure that they have their plans set forward for the future arena cycles. Now, we do think a lot more clarity needs to be made in the future for the housing element review process and really appreciate the work of some member Pappen on that for the last couple of years. But the additional time is a good starting point, but a lot needs to get done in terms of clarity. You know, we have cities taking multiple drafts, you know, two, three, four, five rounds of drafts. The time would help ensure that those are completed in a way that's possible before all the fines and previous struggles that cities might have in getting certified will allow that to happen. And then more importantly, we think more clarity in the process needs to be addressed in the future. And I know we've tried that multiple times, but the additional time is a great starting point. Look forward to that. So with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair members. My apologies. I was sprinting over here, so apologies. Dane Hutchings with the City of San Mateo in strong support of this bill. As the largest city in San Mateo County, the city is committed to being a partner with HCD, the state and our regional agencies to help me our housing needs. San Mateo knows firsthand how difficult the housing element process has become for local agencies even those acting in good faith investing in significant resources are and working diligently to comply. As Brady mentioned, City of San Mateo faced several setbacks in its initial housing element in 2020. City went through three former revisions and two informal revisions ultimately before receiving certification in 24. That was 17 months out of compliance. That experience showed us the basic reality that housing element process is not just about whether cities are willing to plan for housing, it also is about whether the system gives cities, regional agencies, and HCD enough time to do the work well. AB 2296 remains an important and practical step in the right direction. The bill extends several key aspects of the Reno process by six months. It would allow subregional entities to form earlier COGS to determine subregional shares earlier and move up the development arena process and timelines. For cities like San Mateo more time at the front end of the process means more time to understand the allocation evaluate realistic sites and engage the community to coordinate with regional partners AB 2296 will not solve every challenge cities experienced in the sixth cycle, but it does try to address one of the cleanest lessons from the last cycle. Compressed timelines contributed to confusion, delay, and unnecessary costs. So on behalf of the city of San Mateo, I want to thank Assemblymember Papin for her support. and leadership and urge your aye vote today. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2296? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments. We represent all 20 cities in the county as well as the county in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Isha Ayer on behalf of City of Beaumont, the City of Carlsbad, City of Corona, City of El Cerrito, City of Foster City, the City of Glendale, City of Merced, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Redwood City, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Mountain View, Town of Hillsborough, and the Marion County Council of Mayors and Council Members in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, in support. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any opposition witnesses to AB 2296? Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to the MeToo testimony on AB 2296? Okay. Seeing no one come forward, I really want to thank the author for once again championing this issue. I was the president of the Association of Bayer Governments during the last arena cycle, cycle six. and I can't tell you how important it is to provide this additional time for local governments, particularly those smaller and medium-sized cities. San Francisco, they have a large planning staff, but smaller cities including El Cerrito, which is in my district, Emeryville, which is in my district, that additional time will make a huge difference. So thank you very much for bringing this forward, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it today. I support it. Senator Cabaldon, another former COG chair as well. Yep. And I don't think any of the cities in my district were on the record in support, but that's just because they're busy filling out their arena paperwork at the moment. So they just don't have the time. This is an important interim measure, in my view. I think, as the author indicated, as did the sponsor, it shouldn't take all of this. And so part of the answer I know we're trying to work towards is just, number one, more clarity, so that you're not guessing and sending it back and forth. But also better data sharing, better information systems, which we are working in the budget subcommittee. We're also working on those as well. Because we don't always want HCD to have one answer to where everybody gets the same answer no matter what the question is. But where HCD says, look, here's a flaw in your submission. If cities could access other submissions that cities did that turned out okay, then they wouldn't have to hire and spend money on all these consultants because the consultants don't know more. They've just done more of them. And to the extent to which we can make all of those public documents searchable, findable, and more standardized so that when a city does stumble upon the answer, other cities can find it without having to spend the money and the time on that. So we have work to do as the chair and you are all doing, but this in the interim is that more time is going to allow for cities to be able to get it right and that's what most of them are trying to do so I also intend to support the bill today and thank you I will move the bill and thank you for the bill and thank you for continuing to work on this we worked on a little bit last year and got a little more time before to get the RENA number so cities could start working on this your bill takes it from there and starts working on it even more super important as a former chair of a cog I know exactly how this arena process can be a real pain for our cities this helps and I appreciate your efforts thank you the other questions or comments from members of the committee see no further discussion I'll turn it back over to a similar path into close well I just I I thank the committee for its past public service and its insight on understanding what this bill can really do for each of our communities and hopefully it does result in saving money money that we could use elsewhere as it relates to housing so I'm making that pitch to the housing committee here in the Senate respectfully request an aye vote we have a motion by Senator Cabaldon if we can please call the roll do pass as amended to appropriation senators are gain air gain I see R2 CR2 I cobalt in cobalt in I caballero Cortese, Durazo, Durazo aye, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grayson aye, Ocho Bogue aye, Padilla. We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you very much. Okay, I see Assemblymember Gabriel here, so we'll move back in file order to filed in 10 AB 1915 and whenever you're ready mr. budget chair you may begin your presentation thank you very much mr. chair and colleagues I am pleased today to present a be 1915 a measure that will support california's neighborhood restaurants by cutting red tape and modernizing outdated regulations neighborhood restaurants are the backbone of communities across california and employ one of the most diverse workforces in the state but too many are continuing to struggle after enduring unprecedented challenges during the pandemic these beloved small businesses are now grappling with major challenges from inflation and other cost pressures ab1915 will support california's neighborhood restaurants by modernizing California's food facility code to reflect the realities of how small businesses actually operate, amending outdated facility requirements around restrooms, ventilation, and equipment, and creating a streamlined permitting pathway to allow qualified contractors to self-certify routine equipment installations, making it less expensive to open and operate a small business. AB 1915 was written in partnership with small business leaders to address these issues head on. And so doing this bill will help keep our beloved neighborhood restaurants afloat and assist them on the wrong road back to recovery. This bill is supported by a coalition that includes the Los Angeles County Business Federation, the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, the California Restaurant Association, local restaurants, and business councils from across the state. I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill Eddie Navarrete, here on behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, and Brittany Valles, an entrepreneur from Los Angeles. Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. You each have two minutes to present on the bill. Thank you. Again, my name is Eddie Navarrete. I am the president of the Independent Hospitality Coalition. I represent a diverse network of independent small business owners across the LA County landscape. Our industry is not stabilizing In fact it is contracting In Los Angeles more than 84 of restaurants reported declining businesses last year with many operators experiencing revenue losses between 30 to 80 due to economic shocks declining tourism, reduced consumer spending. And then at the same time, the cost of doing business continues to rise across the board, including food, labor, insurance, rent, all increasing faster than revenue, creating sustained pressure that small businesses just struggle to absorb. AB 1915 directly addresses a piece of pressure that we actually have the ability to fix. It removes the hidden costs embedded in outdated building and health codes, requirements that no longer reflect how businesses operate today but still drive thousands, and in many cases tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs. This bill allows simple like-for-like equipment replacements such as an ice machine or stove to be replaced without months of delay. It eliminates construction triggers like additional restrooms or ventilation systems where there is no measurable impact to public health or safety. It updates outdated parts of our food code to reflect modern operations, including temperature monitoring, practical hand-washing standards, and flexibility for smaller and older spaces. Although some of these seem like minor technical changes, they are real cost drivers that determine whether a small business can open, reinvest, or stay in business. AB 1915 is also the result of meaningful collaboration with health regulators to identify where the code can evolve in a way that maintains safety while reducing unnecessary costs and delay, creating clearer standards, improving consistency, and allowing enforcement to focus on real risks. At a time when vacancies are rising, small businesses are closing, and our local economies are under significant strain. This bill provides a practical and immediate way to reduce the cost of doing business and support businesses our communities depend on. On behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition and the communities that we represent, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, my name is Brittany Valles. I am the Executive Director of the Independent Hospitality Coalition and a seasoned restaurant owner, and I'm so excited to be here on behalf of AB1915. My coffee shop, Tiago, has been open for almost 20 years, and during that time, equipment breaks. You know, like a plancha won't keep heat, your fryer won't get to temp and god forbid your espresso machine goes down and i cannot stress enough the anxiety of getting that text that the espresso machine isn't working and knowing in your mind that all of the patchwork fixes are no longer going to work and you have to buy a new one because what comes next is you pay for the new machine you hire somebody to install it and because while we're in california and specifically los angeles you have to have a licensed contractor or pull the permit, and then you have to wait for a Los Angeles City inspector to come and inspect. And you don't know how long that's going to take. You don't know how much time you'll be down. And your business, your customers, and your employees all suffer. And it's all for a simple like-for-like espresso machine change. And this is what is called death by a thousand cuts. It's not one catastrophic thing. It's again and again and again until you can't sustain anymore. and it's why restaurants in the state are closing at record numbers. AB 1915 is not a radical change, but it's a common sense fix. It reduces the amount of cuts that we have to sustain as restaurant owners, and it keeps doors open. We all feel the grief of another shuttered neighborhood restaurant, and this bill is a real tangible step toward making fewer closures happen. California has the power right now to send a message that we want this industry to thrive. So I ask for your aye vote for AB 1915 Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1915 Good afternoon Mr Chair Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in proud support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Nicole Quinones on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. The Cosa Manoa, policy intern with Ms. Iberta, the group, here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City in support. East South Florida's with the California Restaurant Association in support. Chad Hewitt with the California Community Foundation in support. Amelia Zamani with the California Travel Association in support. Great, thank you very much. Will I take up the two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1915? Okay, thank you. You're welcome to join us here, whatever you prefer. Not opposition in support, Danny Kando Kaiser on behalf of the Cameo Network. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll now take opposition witnesses, and you're welcome to sit here, whatever you're comfortable with. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Arrigin and fellow senators. Rebecca May, on behalf of the Contractor State License Board, CSLB voted to oppose 1915 unless amended at its June 5th board meeting. The bill would allow contractors to bypass the final inspection performed by a local building department if they certify that they are replacing like-for-like commercial restaurant equipment and that the installation meets all state and local code requirements. The permit inspection process provides essential oversight to protect consumers and business owners from harm, including requiring a contractor to resolve any noncompliant work before the final permit is approved. The installation of like-for-like commercial restaurant equipment may seem straightforward. However, replacing older equipment may require upgrades to electrical or gas or to ventilation or drainage, all of which present a fire risk or danger to employees, customers, and the general public. Examples include the tipping risk of a deep fryer that is not leveled correctly, the potential fire hazard from a new range hood connected to existing duct work that doesn't line up quite right, an ice machine that doesn't drain properly, causing water damage or mold growth. When local building officials aren't able to catch faulty installations or code violations during an inspection, the responsibility for code compliance is diverted to CSLB. Once a restaurant owner files a complaint, the consumer harm that could have been mitigated through an inspection has occurred. While CSLB can impose discipline on a license, there's no guarantee of making the restaurant owner financially whole. Allowing a contractor to certify their own work complies with code standards is risky. CSLB does not proactively ensure contractors keep up with building standards and codes. We do really appreciate efforts to streamline the permitting process. Our board is concerned that the risks to restaurant owners, employees, and the general public outweigh any benefit. While CSLB would strongly prefer a final inspection be conducted by a building official, clarifying that the inspecting and certifying contractor is not the same contractor or affiliated with the same contractor who performed the work would effectively remove our opposition. We appreciate very much the efforts of the author and sponsor to work with CSLB to address our concerns, and I'm hopeful we can come to a resolution. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1915? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. And apologies, Assemblymember Gabriel, we got triple referred. really why this is before us is because building standard related bills are within this committee jurisdiction There are matters policy matters that are including some of the things that you referenced that are really outside the jurisdiction of this committee that will hopefully be addressed in business and professions where this bill would go next But, colleagues, questions or comments? Senator DeRozza. We've seen each other several times over the last couple of weeks. This bill came before Senate Health Committee. and I supported it, but I expressed concerns about the provision that allows contractors to self-certify in lieu of inspections by local building officials. I'm glad to hear that there's a different way of addressing that concern. we, LA County, has expressed the need to maintain the balance between being efficient and, of course, cutting down the time, but yet watching out for public safety because that's the role of government. We have to watch out for public safety. So in the bills before our local government recently, we removed deemed approved so that disinterested public officials were still signing off. This bill keeps along the same lines. We also included job protection language for public employees. So I guess with this, I don't know if this officially was proposed. as a way to address that concern and what your response is to that. Because, again, this is something we have to keep in mind, and it's very much on our minds in Los Angeles with the fire that's been going on for a week. I'm not saying that's the level that you all were talking about, but who knows, and we know it started out small. we need to have that third-party type of looking out for the safety issue, not just for the public but for the employees, for the owners. So how is that conversation going to address it, whether it's exactly the way we've done it in other bills or something similar to that? Yeah, thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate the question, and I'm sorry that I wasn't in the other committee to answer it. think I guess what I'll say says the chair noted this bill is triple referred and so I think a lot of those are within the jurisdiction of the B&P committee so I don't want to get ahead of conversations that we're having there but I think we've had some really good conversations we've had some really good conversations with LA County and there's a lot of progress on that and so I think that we are of course very mindful that we would never want to do anything that would undermine public health undermine public safety undermine important protections but I think that we have heard from small business owners across the state that there are some regulations on the book that aren't protective of public health and aren't protective of public safety they just become burdens on on folks who are you know trying to run a small business and so we're trying to find that appropriate balance and you know very much committed to continuing those conversations in the BNP committee where I think we're gonna have to address those those issues okay can I just have one more got one more comment so I really hope and I'm looking forward to resolving this because it's too big of an issue for everybody and so I don't want to just leave it as if it's not important please address it thank you thank you we got a center grace in the center grayson and then vice chair Certa and then Senator Cabal thank you mr. chair and to the Arthur, thank you so much for the bill. There's much of it that makes total sense. I'm very supportive of it. There are some risks that come with that being in the industry as far as a contractor is concerned. I like the it's clear that you put in some really strong guardrails on certain areas, but the like for like with technology, the way it's changing and things of that sort. It's one thing to be able to change out a flex tube on a gas appliance, you know, and so you're changing out the flex tube. But with certain technologies, it can be a like oven, gas oven, but then require a different attachment. So, which means that there would be some more extensive upgrades that possibly go beyond something I would be comfortable with as far as self-certification. I don't know how you could address that. I'm just saying that the CSLB does have some legitimate points here as far as some work that might fit into what you have as a construct here, but doesn't quite fit into what I think you mean for the bill to do. So I'm very supportive. I'll be supporting it today only because I think I get to see it in another committee coming up. But I would definitely further and go deeper in the conversations with especially CSLB. I like the fact that they have to have a specialty license in that particular area. They have to be in business for a certain amount of time. They have to have a liability. All the things that you put in there as far as guardrails, it's just that one last six inches before you score the touchdown. And so if you can get there, because I want to see you score on the board. All right, so if you would just continue to have conversations with them and get creative and maybe go talk to a few contractors, see what you can do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Ciartho. So the premise of the bill is that once you've gotten your repairs done and you make the call to get the final inspection, which is a final inspection, that that process can take a long time. And meanwhile, you are shut down. And that's not good. And, you know, in your bill, you outline who has to do these repairs. I can't imagine that somebody that is doing those repairs would cheat or do something, skimp, because they're liable in a big way for whatever happens. and perhaps because of this delay if there is a final inspection from the city you know what have a little interim space where you get service so you can open you can get your your stuff going and and then and then when they finally get around to getting somebody down there they can go through it and make sure it's all working in fact it may be better because once you've let smoke go through the smokestack a little bit you can find trails if there's an empty you know if there's a leak somewhere you know you can see after it's worked a couple of days sometimes there are there might be something that needs to be addressed where as if everything is brand new you can't tell you can't tell any better than the guy who even if he's the guy who's installed it you know it could be but you know having having to tell the department you come have a guy come down when you want to have them come down but in the meanwhile our guys certifying it until you get here and they can do it that way I don know It just an idea that helps close that gap because being shut down for a week while you wait for some guy to come back from vacation so that you can open your store is not an acceptable solution but you know I'm supportive of your bill because I'm not as concerned that the the person that's doing the inspection in lieu of would do it haphazardly especially if they are an expert in what they're doing I don't know sometimes the inspector themselves aren't more of an expert than the guy who did it so I'd be pretty comfortable with that actually so yeah I appreciate that very much Center and I'll tell you the last thing that I would ever want to do is author a bill that would lead to somebody being hurt that would lead to be somebody being harmed and you know I've given a lot of thought to this you know you think about the things that we ask people to do without inspection right you know your your your brakes fail and you take your brakes into an auto body shop and the person who replaces your brake we don't then require the city to come in and expect inspect your car before you can drive it again and that obviously has a huge impact on on safety or someone who's going to do spinal surgery on you we don't require the city to come in and sign off on the spinal surgery before it's complete we trust we trust the professionals to do them and we hold them accountable and so you know we are very mindful of the comments we're hearing we're grateful for the conversations we've had with LA County we're grateful for the conversation obviously LSB we want to strike that balance but but for us the right idea here is we think there are really strong ways we can continue to protect the public but relieve some of the burdens on industry you senator Cabaldon for for me this one's already a touchdown but I would encourage you to go for the extra point and and I think the extra point is also you know recognizing the analogy that you just made which I I think there's an important lesson there but also my spinal surgery doesn't affect other people right so I think that that's kind of the key the key difference but I think that this I am really appreciate the you taking this on because you know as a mayor over over 20 years we had so many restaurants close for which this was a substantial contributing factor this and related related issues and there and and and far more than we had actually harm from you know exploding espresso machines or whatever they said I mean like the difference like we the difference that doing over regulating risk is also highly problematic all right because there are different forms of harm that we experience in our communities and some of them our you know lack of access to food not having a job you know those matter too and so you know when you're when you're when you're in city hall or in the county hall of administration you're you're trying to reconcile the different trade-offs that we don't ever regulate anything to zero risk or we can't we if I install a espresso machine in my house I'm perfectly allowed to do that I don't have to get a thing and something could go wrong something can go wrong in virtually every dimension of it but the what we've learned from the housing the housing crisis is that when the when those issues are all in the same entity when when when the city is figuring out okay the fire department says we need a road that is 5,000 feet wide because who knows there might be a truck that gets built there and we need to turn that around and we say okay well we do want to make sure people are protected in every possible kind of fire but then then the housing to folks come by and say we can't like then there won't there's no more land left to build a house on and so we make choices at the local level we see the fire risk the the the development opportunities the park the can we have a sidewalk or not or where people die because we made the street so wide that there no longer a sidewalk You make those judgments collectively around what are the relative risks and what are the trade The challenge in the restaurant sector is that between the county health departments, which are not part of that ecosystem, and then these contractor rules, which are also not part of those, there's nobody to say, hey, yes, there's this, one-tenth of one percent risk here. But if we don't do it, then here's a different risk that isn't a health issue necessarily. It may mean that seven people lose their jobs for sure tomorrow. And no one's able to say, what is the right public policy outcome here for the community relative to the risks? And so no one ever wants to allow any harm. But harm is omnipresent in our lives. And so the question is, how do we manage that? And how do we not ignore the harms from taking no action at all, or in this case, from requiring restaurants to go under? So, I mean, I am just like, even as we're having this conversation, I'm missing the various dishes that all my local favorite restaurants used to serve. And the community that felt alive and distinct and unique because of those restaurants. And they're just not there anymore. And I don't want that to see that to happen to Tiago. And so this is a very important effort. And because there's something unique about this space in which this siloed, siloed single purpose agencies aren't able to, it's not that they're evil, they're doing their job, but they're not able to see and recognize and reconcile that the very real tradeoffs that exist and the other risks to health and to the economy and to people's livelihoods that emerge when we ignore them. So go for the extra point for sure, but I'm really glad that you're tackling this. This is one of many issues in that particular area, but this is an important first step. Are there questions or comments on the bill? Okay, if not, I'll turn it back over to make a closing statement. Yeah, let me just thank all of my colleagues for the very thoughtful comments. Message received, we are always eager to produce the strongest bill possible, And so I look forward to working with the folks in BNP to do these final touches. But just want to say, you know, we feel that we're really getting very close to striking the right balance here. And we think there are ways we can, you know, definitely protect the public, but make sure that our entrepreneurs here are able to do the things that we want them to do and able to run businesses that contribute to the community, that hire workers, that give people jobs, that are an engine of social mobility, and that employ one of the most diverse workforces in the state. And so we want to keep supporting them in the best way that we can. And with that, I would respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you very much. Is there a motion on the bill? Moved by Senator Cobaldon. Thank you. If we can please call the roll. Motion due passed to business professions and economic development. Senators Erdogan. Aye. Erdogan, aye. Ciarato. Aye. Ciarato, aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Cobaldon, aye. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochobog. Ochobog, aye. Padilla. We'll keep that bill on calls. Fraps and Senators, thank you very much. But I think that's enough votes to move out today. Okay, I see Assemblymember Lee here, so we'll now move to file item 21, AB 2601. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm presenting a B 2601 which allows housing developers to apply for concurrent review of projects that involve specific streamlined projects and lot splitting we have passed a lot of bills that shorten timelines exempt housing projects from different kinds of review and required ministerial approval this bill seeks to complement those efforts but without adding shot clots or sidestepping review processes allowing concurrent review of parcel map splits and these housing projects can can create efficiency and development of new housing units that efficiency can make project financing more certain and project deliver faster all to the benefit of providing more homes for people here to speak in support with me is Louis Morante with the Bay Area Council and Jonathan Chang with Alpha X Capital great good afternoon you have two minutes to present on the bill thank you mr. chair and members Louis Morante with Barry Council in strong support of AB 2601. The council represents about 375 of the region's largest employers and for them housing is not a side issue. It decides whether or not they can hire and whether their workers can afford to live near their jobs. The state's statewide housing plan calls for 2.5 million new homes by 2030, a million of them affordable. We are not on pace and one of the main reasons for that is California's slow process of approving homes. AB 2601 is a process bill. It doesn't change zoning, objective design standards, and does not change health or safety protections. It changes sequence and duplication. Right now a homeowner doing an urban loss split must run the subdivision map and the housing approval one after the other, each adding months. AB 2601 lets them move at the same time. It lets these small homes be sold as condominiums so ordinary families can actually own them and it removes duplicative a duplicative Department of Real Estate public report for projects that have already met every state and local health and health and safety standard we know local governments value orderly review and this bill honors that local agencies still review every map and every permit we are simply asking that the paperwork run in parallel rather than in series these are modest technical fixes but multiplied across many projects modest fixes are how California builds the many homes that we need we respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank Assemblymember Lee for carrying this measure thanks thank you very much hi good afternoon good afternoon chair and members of the committee my name is Jonathan Chang speaking on behalf of Alpha X are you capital in support of AB 2601 Alpha X is a Bay Area real estate developer focused on urban infill and missing middle housing our mission is directly tied to the type of housing production this bill is intended to support including small lot subdivisions townhome and condo community communities adus and so on as an organization we work to put California's new housing laws into practice we were one of the first SB 684 projects approved in the city of Campbell we are actively working on SB 1123 projects throughout Santa Clara County and we were also one of the first to complete a detached adu condo conversion under AB 1033 in San Jose that two bedroom adu unit was ultimately purchased by a mother and son for five $530,000 granting them a home ownership for the first time with a monthly mortgage payment almost equal to the rent that they were previously paying This is the kind of housing opportunity that Californians deserve more of Allowing the condo map and related housing review to move concurrently would make 80 ownership more viable creating another path for attainable home ownership to a wider demographic We strongly support a b2 601 because it strengthens practical implementation of important housing legislation legislation, including SB 9, for example. SB 9 created a pathway to add housing on single family lots through two unit developments and urban lot splits. But in practice, these projects still face challenges when the building applications The vision map and eventual ownership structure are reviewed on separate tracks. This bill helps address that problem by making the process clearer and more streamlined while preserving local authority. Jurisdictions will still apply their local standards and safety requirements to retain appropriate safeguards. For example, final occupancy of the housing units can be conditioned on the recordation of the final map. With all of these improvements outlined in this bill, we believe California can create a more streamlined path for smaller housing projects, allowing developers like us to deliver the housing our communities desperately need during our ongoing housing crisis. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2601. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2601? Thank you, Nolan Gray, California MB in strong support. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in strong support. Mahdi Banji with Inner City Law Center and strong support. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing in Los Angeles and strong support. Good evening Chair and Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Southern California Obtainable Housing and Support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any opposition witnesses on AB 2601? Seeing no one, anyone wishing to express opposition AB 2601? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments for a motion? Moved by Senator Cortese. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll turn it back over to the Assemblymember to close. This is a process bill that's about process streamlining and time is money, and if we can make things work more efficiently, we can deliver more affordable product of housing to people. Respectfully, ask your aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. If we can please call the roll. Motion due passed to local government. Senators Errigin. Aye. Errigin, aye. Ciarto. No. Ciarto, no. Cobaldin. Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Gaballero. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Ocho Boak. Badia. We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you. We have two more bills. by Harabedian and Lee. Oh, no, I'm sorry, and Alvarez. We just did Lee. So if Assembly Members Harabedian or Alvarez can please come to Capitol Room 112, that would be much appreciated. And we could lift calls. So why don't we lift... Okay, we'll pause on lifting the call on bills. We'll recess the committee. We will reconvene the Senate Housing Committee, and we will proceed now to file item 20, AB 2576. And whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, you may present on the bill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the chair members. I would just like to thank you and your staff for all the hard work on this bill. This bill simply is about safeguarding historic resources in lieu of SB 79. Cities in my district express some concerns about the historic resources. So this bill basically maintains that sites with historic resources located on a local register will be protected from SB 79 development. and also contributing sites within a historic district and individual parcels included in the state historic resources inventory will also be protected Here with me is Kira Ross on behalf of the city of Pasadena. Respectfully, I ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. You have two minutes to present on the bill. Good afternoon. Kira Ross on behalf of the city of Pasadena. and the city is synonymous with our rich cultural resources and decades-long commitment to historic preservation. This commitment is rooted in the community's genuine desire to protect its most cherished resources, like Old Pasadena, Pasadena Civic Center, and the Pasadena Playhouse, historic resources that are currently listed on a state or national register of historic places, but not on the local register. Under SB 79, as the Assemblymember noted, cities have the ability to delay the impact of the law until the seventh cycle for RHNA for historic resources that were placed on a local register before January 1, 2025. However, this language does not apply to historic resources on a state or national register. AB 2576 addresses this issue by including resources listed on a local, state, or national historic register. In Pasadena, multiple historic resources fall within a half mile of the A-line metro stations, And these changes ensure that qualifying resources are protected without arbitrary limitation. We are acutely aware of the statewide housing crisis and the important steps that must be taken to address housing production. In recent years, we have undertaken a number of efforts to increase housing supply near transit as a part of a holistic community planning strategy while still protecting our historic resources. We explicitly promote the use of adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and restoration as part of our preservation program. An example of this is the old Stewart pharmaceutical building which is located directly across the street from a transit-oriented development stop and has been successfully adaptively reused with multifamily development around it. This bill continues those efforts and allows us to continue pushing forward on housing while still honoring our commitment to historic preservation. Because of this we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2 5 7 6 Chairman members Tony Gonzalez on behalf of the California Preservation Foundation I want to thank Assemblymember here beating for introducing the bill we strongly support the bill. Thank you Isha Iyer on behalf of the city of Glendale the city of San Mateo and the city of Redwood City in strong support. Thank you. Thank you Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support, we'll now take up to two opposition witnesses. Are there any opposition witnesses for AB 2576? Going once, going twice. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2576? Nolan Gray for California MB, respectfully in opposition. Jordan Grimes for Greenbelt Alliance, respectful opposition. Mahdi Manji with Interstate Lawson, respectful opposition. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2576? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the dais. For any questions or comments, Vice Chair Sierta. Very quickly, appreciate your bill. This is the continued cleanup of the rush through SB 79, and it one of the problems that we knew was going to come to light was there a bunch of these type of issues and I appreciate you bringing this up and trying to help them with trying to preserve their historic areas Pasadena is a beautiful town, one of our oldest towns, and so this makes a lot of sense, and I support you, Bill, and with that I'll make a motion to approve it. Thank you. Any other comments from committee members? If not, well, I want to thank you for reinstating the previous language and working with Senator Wiener on this. That's extremely important to me. And for anyone, any other members who want to amend SB 79, I encourage them to consult Senator Wiener to make sure that it honors the intent of the law. And I understand our friends from the housing community may not support this bill, but I think it is very carefully crafted because it sunsets. at a certain point, it's not in perpetuity. And so I appreciate sort of nearing the scope of it. I do have an aye recommendation, and I'll turn it back over to you to close, unless there are any other comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the comments. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Motion by Vice Chair Ciaro. If we can please call the roll. Motion do pass to local government, Senator Zaragoza. Arrigin, Arrigin, aye. Sayarto, aye. Sayarto, aye. Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese. Cortese, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzales, aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson, aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue, Ochoa Bogue, aye. Badia. We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. And we have one more bill to be presented, file item 19, AB 2433. And I would like to ask the sergeants if you can please call absent members, because after that we're going to lift the call on bills okay okay so I will now turn over to assembly where Alvarez to present the bill thank you mr. chair and members thank you for the opportunity to present assembly bill 2433 and thank you to the staff of this committee for the analysis and the amendments which we're accepting thank you very much for that work I'll keep it brief this bill is built on a successful law and many of you have already seen the work and the author of that work will testify here on the success of density bonus law the most successful policy in the state to create affordable housing opportunities So this bill builds on that, on that work that we've done over the course of several years. And this one focuses on affordable housing for sale. The bonus incentives that could be gained as a result of this bill would be attained or would be gained as a result of building deed-restricted affordable housing for sale. As we know that this is one of the products that we're not producing in California. It's great to do affordable housing for rental, and we should continue to do that. This does not get in the way of that, but this does provide those who wish to develop housing for sale opportunities to use a program that's been very successful in utilizing these incentives to build that for sale housing, again, at affordable deed-restricted levels. It also ensures that this very successful program is, cities are actually utilizing it as one-third, according to ACD housing element reporting one of the projects that are eligible for bonus law benefits are currently not using the program so we want to make sure that they aware that this bill focuses on that and so that is the goal I stop there I'll turn it over to our witnesses to provide testimony. Thank you very much. UHF two minutes to present on the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon my name is Colin Parent I'm the CEO and General Counsel of Circulate Planning and Policy. We're one of the sponsors of this bill. As the member mentioned we published a report earlier this year about the impact of some of the recent reforms to California's bonus law policies that we sponsored that the assembly member also authored and just some big numbers so in 2024 there's 48,000 homes that were approved using bonus law that was nearly half of all multi-family approvals in California and when you total up the all of the other streamlining laws that are they were used in 2024 that's SB 35 AB 2011 SB 9 SB 6 bonus law was used 10 times more than all of them combined so in the last few years bonus law really truly has become the flagship housing streamlining policy for California and the most impactful thing that the legislature can do to help for housing approvals is to make further enhancements to bonus law like the ones that the assembly members proposing today in addition to a lot of the the the homeownership elements that the that are in the bill it also just has a variety of things to clarify and ensure that the policies that the legislature's already adopted can be faithfully implemented by the by local governments and as you may have seen that there was a ministerial provision that was removed from the bill yesterday but I do want to share with you all our appreciation for a very productive conversations that we've had with the building trades about this where some those conversations are ongoing we do think that there's a possibility of something that could be worked out whether in this bill or in the future and we're looking forward to continuing those those conversations in good faith thank you good afternoon chair members Matthew Menjean policy director with inner city law center inner city last night the only nonprofit legal services fighter based in Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles and we serve folks who are homeless and at risk of homelessness throughout LA County. Density bonus law, as others mentioned, has been one among the most successful programs to promote affordable housing throughout California. Nearly every 100% affordable project in the state has been able to benefit from bonus law, and overall nearly half of the homes built using state density bonus law have been affordable. With its local additions, nearly every multi-family project in Los Angeles is supported by state density bonus law. AB 2433 adds more tools to counties and cities toolboxes by incentivizing for sale affordable homes and allowing developers to provide deeper affordability without increasing density, making bonus law work better for builders and for cities. I really appreciate all the work of this committee and looking forward to continuing this conversation. So I want to thank somebody for authoring this bill and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2433? Chair and members, Max Perry on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, proud co-sponsor of the bill in support. Thank you. Thank you. Nolan Gray for California MB in very strong support. Thanks. Chair and members, Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, proud co-sponsor of the bill in strong support today. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you. Allie Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, strong support. Raymond Contreras, Layhouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Appetite for Humanity California San Diego Housing Commission and Fields to strong support thank you okay thank you very much when I'll take two principal opposition witnesses to a B two four three three there any opposition witnesses thank you mr. chair Keith Dunn on behalf of the state building construction trades council i'm not going to take a lot of time it was mentioned that we are having productive conversations with the sponsors we're currently in an opposed but again i do want to mention that we have had very good discussions we're hopeful that those discussions will continue to move our position we're not there yet today but we appreciate the interaction we're in an opposed position today but working on it and appreciate the conversation Good afternoon the city of Belmont maintains an opposition position and the city of Carlsbad town of Chucky and the median County Council of Mayors and council members maintain an opposed unless amended position thank you thank you good afternoon chair and members pretty good on behalf of the League of California cities we have an opposed unless amended position but we understand the ministerial provisions are going to be removed and once they're in print will be neutral on the bill so thank you anyone else wishing to express opposition to a b two four three three seeing no one else or bring back the dais for discussion just note there are amendments that the author agreed to in the housing committee which are referenced in comments five and six of the analysis and given timing we are except we have to cross the local gov committee amendments as well which strike the ministerial approval provisions. Any questions or comments? Senator Cabaldon. But can I just add it's been great working with the author on this because with all of you just knowing that there's ways to move forward without everything all at once but just your view of moving something forward for housing for sale is a big deal so Congratulations and I hope the Labor Standards conversations do better. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Cobaltin. I just have one question. Section 3 of the bill provides no reimbursement to cities and counties for their duties under the bill using the fee disclaimer. I'm wondering if the author or maybe the sponsor can explain what is there, what fee could, for the new duties that the city of La Mesa, for example, would have to take on, what fee is available to them to be able to, or fine, or other revenue mechanism as is noted in the bill? Yeah, thank you, Senator. I think the city of La Mesa will be able to handle it. I have a former council member there. The already jurisdictions are allowed to charge fees when projects apply for entitlement. The obligations being placed on jurisdictions now is simply to tell, that's being proposed is to tell applicants whether or not they're qualified for bonus law. I guarantee you staff is already making those determinations already. They're just having to, they're going to have to write it down. If that does have an additional cost, then they can include that in their cost recoveries. So the fee, the jurisdiction has discretion as to what the fee is? Yes. They do Okay thank you Any other questions or comments Yes Senator Chau Just clarification on the concerns that were expressed and I not sure I know you shared the amendments that were just recently approved, but do they address the concerns with regards to when they're looking at these approvals, access to fire protection, public safety, and infrastructure capacity that would be impacted by the local governments when these projects are approved. Can you identify what section you're referring to? So right now, from the analysis that I have before me, it says that So while previous housing streamlining laws generally preserve the authority of local government to enforce objective development standards, opponents argue that AB 2432 departs from the framework by requiring ministerial approval without expressly preserving compliance with locally adopted objective standards. Okay, Senator, thank you for clarifying. That's the amendment that in local government we are removing out of the bill. We're taking that out. Okay, so you are going to be addressing something that addresses the access to fire protection, public safety, infrastructure capacity. All of the by-right ministerial items that you just listed in that section is what we agreed to with local government amendments to take that out. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Questions or comments on the bill? Okay, if not, I'll turn it back over to Assemblymember Alvarez to close. Thank you chair and again the committee for the work on this and for Identifying with us that density bonus law is something that has been successful And and when we have good things that work in California, let's put them to better use in this case we're trying to address the issue of more affordability and more opportunities for affordability at all All kinds of products and obviously the addition in this case for the first time on for sale opportunities And for that reason respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you Okay, thank you very much. We have a motion, correct? Moved by Senator Rosso. Motion do pass as amended to environmental quality. Senators Ergine. Aye. Ergine, aye. Ciaro. Aye. Ciaro, aye. Cobalgen.
Cobalgen, aye.
Caballero.
Caballero, aye.
Cortese.
Aye.
Cortese, aye. Durazo.
Aye.
Durazo, aye. Gonzales.
Gonzales, aye.
Grayson.
Aye.
Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Badia. Okay, we'll keep that bill and call for absent senators. Thank you very much. If you vote on everything, you are free to go. I think we are waiting for Senator Padilla, but why don't we lift the call on bills so our colleagues don't have to wait. So I want to start with the top. And so the first file item is AB 1751. I just want to clarify for the Senators who were not here during the
presentation Assemblymember Wicks on behalf of Assemblymember Cork Silva and
herself accepted the committee amendments which limit the unit size is 1,750 square feet limit the project size overall project size 150 units and remove the weight which provisions in the bill and so the motion is to is a do pass as amended chair voting aye vice chair voting aye senators Caballero Caballero aye Cortese Aye Cortese aye Grayson Aye Grayson aye Ochoa Bogue Aye Ochoa Bogue aye We keep that on call And then let me do the consent calendar Okay Senators Cabaldon Aye Cabaldon aye Caballero Aye Caballero aye Cortese Aye Cortese aye Durazo Aye Durazo aye Grayson Aye Grayson aye Ochoa Bogue Aye Ochoa Bogue, aye. We'll keep that on call. And then we'll just proceed with the next file item. AB 750, Quirk Silva. Chair voting, aye. Senators Cabaldon.
Aye.
Cabaldon, aye. Caballero.
Aye.
Caballero, aye. Cortese.
Aye.
Cortese, aye. Durazo.
Aye.
Durazo, aye. Grayson.
Aye.
Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Two. okay we'll keep that on call a B 306 Schultz motion do pass to local government chair voting I vice chair voting I senators Cabaldon Cabaldon I Caballero Caballero I Cortese Cortese I Grayson Grayson I Ocho Boge Ocho Boge I keep that on call file item 5 AB 2612 Schultz sent chair voting I'm I sure voting I senators Cabalden Cabalden I Caballero Caballero I Cortese Cortese I Grayson Grayson I Ocho Boak Ocho Boak I keep that on call file item 6 a B 1070 Ward chair voting I vice chair voting I senators Cabalden Cabalden I Caballero Caballero I Cortese Cortese I Grayson Grayson I Ocho Bogue Ocho Boke I keep that also call file item 7 a B 1237 McKinner chair voting aye vice chair voting aye senators Cabaldon Cabaldon I Caballero Caballero I Gonzales Gonzales I Grayson Grayson I Ocho Boke Ocho Boke I Padilla keep that on call file item 8 a B 15 56 Haney's chair voting I vice chair voting I Senator Scabellero Caballero I keep the animal file item 10 a B 1915 Gabriel chair voting aye by share voting aye senators Caballero Caballero I Gonzalez Gonzalez I for the file item 16 a B 21 181 chair voting aye vice chair voting aye senator Scott Cabaldon Cabaldon I caballero caballero I Cortese Cortese I Gonzales Gonzales I Grayson Grayson I Ochovo Ochovo I File item 17 a B 2296 chair voting aye vice chair voting aye senators caballero Gabby, I cortese cortese I guns all this and so is I put the File item 18 a B 24 15 Hoover chair voting. I vice chair voting. I senators caballero Gabby, I cortese cortese I durazzo durazzo I gonzalez gonzalez I put the I'll keep that on call. File item 19, AB 24. Oh, we just did that. Yeah. File item 20, AB 2576. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Cabaldon? Aye Cabaldon aye Caballero Aye Caballero aye Padilla Christopher that was the Harabedian bill you gonna vote for it okay okay is that is that everything did we do Lee we have one more file item 21 AB 2601 Lee senators Caballero 26-01. Caballero, aye. Gerazo, aye. Gerazo, aye. Gonzales, aye. Padilla. We'll keep that on call. Thank you. We'll wait for Senator Padilla and we'll recess the committee. Okay, we're going to reconvene the Senate Housing Committee hearing and we will now lift the call on all motions. We'll start first with the consent calendar, which consists of AB 1899 Colosa, AB 1924 Gabriel, AB 2020 Gabriel, AB 2026 Gabriel, AB 2044 Petrie Norris, AB 2174 Johnson, AB 2185 Corksilla. Senator Spadilla? Aye. Spadilla, aye. Consent is approved on a vote of 10 to 0. All right, let's go back to the top. File item 1, AB 1751, Quirk Silva, Senator Spadilla. As amended. As amended. Aye. Spadilla, aye. 10-0. Okay, AB 1751 is out on a vote of 10-0. File item 2, AB 750, Quirk Silva, Senator Spadilla. Aye. Spadilla, aye. Okay, AB 750 is out on a vote of 9-0. Mm-hmm. 9-0. well item for a B 306 Schultz senators by the a by the I 10 0 okay a B 306 out in a vote of 10 to 0 well item 5 baby 26 12 Schultz senators by the a by the I a B 2612 is that in a vote of 10 to 0 well item 6 a B 1070 Ward senator Padilla. Padilla, aye. Okay, AB 1070 is out in a vote of 10 to 0. File item AB 1237, Mckenner, Senator Padilla. Padilla, aye. Okay, AB 1237 is out in a vote of 10 to 0. AB 1556, Haney, Senator Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. AB 1556 is out in a vote of 10 to 0. File item 10, AB 1915, Gabriel, Senator Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. AB 1915 is out on a vote of 10 to 0. File item 16, AB 2181, Senator Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. AB 2181 is out on a vote of 10 to 0. File item 17, AB 2296, Papon, Senator Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. AB 2296 is out on a vote of 10 to 0. File item 18, AB 2415, Hoover, Senator Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. AB 2415 is out on a vote of 10 to 0. File item 19, AB 2433, Alvarez, Senator Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. AB 2433 is out on a vote of 10 to 0. File item 20, AB 2576, Herbidian, Senator Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. AB 2576 is out on a vote of 10 to 0. File item 21, AB 2601. Senator Padilla? Padilla, aye. Aye. The 2601 is out on a vote of 8 to 1. Okay. That completes our agenda. The Senate Standing Committee on Housing is now adjourned.