Senate Housing Committee

And good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members, and appreciate the accommodation today. Thank you also to Mr. Schultz. So I'm here today to present AB 2390, which is a straightforward cleanup measure to provide targeted clarifications to ensure that streamlined processes are applied predictably, allowing housing projects to move forward without unnecessary disruption while maintaining key safeguards. This bill ensures that when a project is modified, it is reviewed using the standards that existed while the original application was filed, providing a clear and predictable process for applicants. This measure has unanimous bipartisan support by both policy committees. There is no opposition to this measure. I also wanted to thank the committee for flagging paragraph 5, the cross-reference, and I'm happy to work with committee to make sure we have clarifying amendments. This measure is sponsored by Spur, and I have Michael Lane here today to testify, and Holly from Manny de Jesus to add any technical assistance.

Mr. Chair and members, Michael Amos for a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. SB 35 has been a boon to affordable housing over the past eight years, producing more than 20,000 housing units with nearly two-thirds below market rents. AB 2390 is cleanup legislation to clarify existing law and improve implementation of housing approval streamlining. The Bill 1 specifies that minor modifications must be evaluated using the local objective design standards that were used at the time the original application was submitted. Two subsequent modifications must be reviewed using the same methodology as any prior modifications And three clarifies that extensions of project approvals due to litigation apply to any modification request not just the first And we respectfully request an aye vote.

We'll now invite anyone who'd like to express support for AB 2390 to please approach the microphone. If you could state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2390? Seeing no one else, we'll invite up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 2390? Okay, seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comment.

Any other questions or comments from the committee? We don't have a quorum yet, but I'll entertain that motion. Will we establish a quorum? And seeing no further questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to Close.

Thank you so very much. Okay. I see we have the majority leader here, so we'll proceed to file item 8, AB 1890. Hi. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Our farm workers do some of the toughest work there is in Napa County. They're out there every day making sure our agriculture economy stays strong and thrives. We all depend on them. But many of them are struggling to find a decent, affordable place to live. That's where Yolo County's farm worker housing centers come in. They've been a lifeline for us, not just here locally, but for workers across the region. They provide safe, affordable housing, along with basic services people need to get by, meals, laundry, internet access, and even help navigating immigration issues. In 2017, I established the Farm Workers Center account so the state could step up and match local funds up to $250,000 a year to help keep these centers running. But rising costs and inflation have created a growing funding gap. If we don't act, the county could be forced to raise rents on workers, cut back on how many people they can serve, or worse, just shut down these centers altogether. AB 1890 can help fix this. It increases the state's matching support to $500,000 a year, which allows Napa County to keep this program going through 2036. This makes sure the state does its part to sustain these centers, protect the workforce that California agriculture economy depends on. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for AB 1890 and to make sure our farm workers have a safe, reliable, and affordable place to call home. With me today, I have Peter Rumble on behalf of the Napa County Farm Bureau and Ann Cottrell on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors. Good afternoon. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Looking ahead, your support of AB 1890 helps keep the state at the table as a meaningful partner. I want to conclude by extending an invitation to committee members and staff to visit a Napa County Farmworker Center to see what we're doing, why it works for us, and how this model could work for communities across the state. Thank you for your time and for your support. I'd like to turn it over to Peter Rumble of the Napa County Farm Bureau. Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Peter Rumble. I have the pleasure of serving Napa's agricultural community as chief executive of the Napa County Farm Bureau. And I'm grateful to be here in partnership with the county of Napa and in support of our majority leader to respectfully request your yes vote on AB 1890. The Napa County Farm Bureau was formed in 1913 with well over 1,000 members today. It's the largest and oldest trade organization in Napa County. We represent the majority of agriculture in our valley, which is responsible for roughly 70% of the employment in Napa. And our industry generates over $11 billion of economic output that supports and helps fund state and local government services. The agricultural industry is a proud partner in this public private partnership, the Napa Farm Workers Center. Supervisor Cottrell noted starting in 2002, every farmer in Napa County has voted and reaffirmed four times to assess themselves to provide a significant portion of the revenue needed to operate the farm worker centers. My members continue to vote for this assessment because it's an example of a successful partnership. It's an example of government using its resources well and wisely, and because the farm worker centers provide a crucial benefit to the labor force that makes Napa the greatest wine-producing region in the world. That workforce our farm workers are welcome at any center with an open bed Employers do not control access or place any other conditions on this safe secure and comfortable housing And admission and management of the centers are provided through a nonprofit under the oversight of the county. As an example of the industry's commitment to our farm workers in this partnership, The roughly 12 acres of land for the centers valued well over $5 million was donated by private ag producers to the county. I'm a proud member of an industry coalition that raises over $100,000 a year. All of those proceeds go directly into the centers to provide clean beds, new sheets, new laundry facilities, new roofs, HVAC systems for the comfort and quality of this housing. The state's investment is sound, leveraging roughly 10 local dollars for every $1 in state funding. It is an impactful and directly supports farm workers in Napa. I encourage you to see what we have done together, the agricultural industry, state and local government, and non-profits as an example of what we can do statewide to better support our California farm workers. But we need more than that recognition to continue. We need the state's increased support. We welcome you to Napa to see the success for yourself and we ask you to support AB 1890. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1890? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eduardo Martinez here on behalf of Providence, including the valley of the, including many hospitals, including hospitals in Napa County, we're in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Tim Lynch on behalf of the Napa Valley Vintners, and we're in support of the bill. Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1890? Seeing no one else come forward, is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to add me to testimony in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais for any comments. Senator Malden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. as the principal co-author of the bill. I want to thank the Assembly Majority Leader for her work, not just on this bill, but the prior bill as well. There's been a long history of legislators representing Napa working collaborative with folks on the ground in the county in order to try something that's not really done anywhere else in California. And at each stage that the legislature has taken one more step, the local community, farmers, farm worker organizations, the nonprofit community, the county, and others, have at each point stepped up and then doubled or tripled what we thought was possible. And this is completely in line with that work. It's a very successful model. This is about the housing, but as has been noted, Napa and all the people and farmers of Napa know and understand the importance of investing in supporting the farm workers as we're in the month-long celebration of the judgment of Paris, victory of the historic world-changing victory of California and the Napa Valley in changing the world of wine. That would not have been possible without farm workers and the success of today's industry, but also of the communities in St. Helena and Calistoga and everywhere else throughout the Napa Valley. The housing and the education and training and other support services that are in these communities are what makes the valley come to life. And so thanks for bringing this forward. This is an important, modest but important step forward to support the housing project. Now, at the appropriate time, I'd love to move the bill. Thank you very much. Are there any other members who wish to offer any questions or comments on the bill? Okay, seeing no one else, I'll turn it back over to the author to close. Sure. I want to thank the county for stepping up and the farmers that have stepped up. These are unique opportunities that we have. And to see what we have done in Napa County, it's a model for, I think, the state of California that other farm workers should have the same housing opportunities. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. We don't yet have a quorum, but at the appropriate time, we'll entertain the motion by Senator Cobaldon. Thank you very much. Thank you. And so since we hear bills and fire older, we're going to go now to file item 3, AB 956 by Assemblymember Cork-Silva, and then we'll go to file item 4, AB 1165 by Assemblymember Gibson. Good afternoon. And so we are on file item 3, AB 956. and Assemblymember Cork-Silva. Whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. First, I would like to thank the committee and consultant, Hank Brady, for your work, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Today I'm presenting AB 956, which clarifies existing accessory dwelling unit law by allowing a homeowner to build up to two detached ADUs on a property, provided those units comply with all existing requirements related to size, height, setbacks, and other local development standards. This bill also clarifies how ADU law applies to HOAs and common interest developments. In 2019, the legislature enacted AB 670 to prevent CC&Rs from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the construction of ADUs. However, ambiguity in current statute has created uncertainty regarding which properties within common interest developments are covered by those protections. The Senate amendments will specify that ADU law applies to every single family home in a CID. Many families use ADUs to support aging parents who want to live close by but still want to live independently. Others rely on ADUs for adult children who are struggling to afford housing or to earn extra income to help cover their mortgage. Over the last several years, the legislature has worked diligently to reduce barriers to ADU construction. Yet, many homeowners continue to receive conflicting information about what is permitted on their property. AB 956 provides clarity. It ensures that homeowners who have the space and meet the rules can move forward with building two detached ADUs. This bill does not eliminate local standards but rather removes confusion and allows homeowners to better utilize the tools that the legislature has already provided I want you to know that I commit to the committee that should AB 956 advance today I will amend the bill in its next committee to maintain current density limits and avoid potentially triggering state density bonus law. Specifically, the bill will be amended to remove the allowance for a third ADU in addition to the two allowed under current state law, and instead create flexibility in how those two ADUs are physically built. For example, instead of converting their garage and building an attached ADU, a homeowner would be allowed to build two detached ADUs. I'm also working with opposition to address their concern relating to high-rise condos. With me today in support of AB 956 and to answer any questions is Stephanie Gutierrez, an ADU strategist with ADU West Coast, and Max Dubler, policy manager with California YIMBY. Thank you very much. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Stephanie Gutierrez. I'm an ADU strategist with ADU West Coast, a Southern California design and build firm, and I'm also a licensed California real estate professional here to speak in support of AB956. Let me tell you about a family I sit with every week. A couple in their 50s, modest home, one lot. Her mother is aging and can't live alone, but she wants to be near her grandkids, not in a nursing home. This adult son has a job that doesn't come close to a down payment in the state, and their own cost climbs every year. One lot, three generations. Today the law lets them build one detached ADU and convert existing space into a second ADU and one junior ADU. This isn't enough space. AB956 solves it. Grandma moves inside the home where someone can look in on her. The son takes the attached ADU, and two detached units in the back become homes for two more households, a teacher, a nurse, and a young couple priced out of the market. The rent from those units is what lets this family stay in their home instead of selling and scattering. That's not development. That's a family staying together and three more households housed on a lot that already exists. No new land, no sprawl. This is the most natural affordable housing California procedures. I respectfully ask for an A vote on AB 956. Thank you. Hi, my name is Max Dubler. I'm a certified city planner and a policy manager at California Yimby. California's ADU reforms lead the nation, having spurred the construction of tens of thousands of new homes without disrupting the look and feel of existing neighborhoods. existing state law lets homeowners build three ADUs, one new building in the backyard, one interior conversion ADU, and one junior ADU, both from existing interior space. AB 956 maintains the existing density limits while giving homeowners more flexibility in how they physically arrange their ADUs. ADUs. For example, instead of converting their garage to an interior ADU and building a detached ADU, a homeowner would be able to do two detached ADUs, preserving their off-street parking. This flexibility will particularly benefit people who own small houses on large lots, and will help multi families live together while maintaining everyone privacy and independence This bill also clarifies the existing ADU exemption from CC ensuring that single-family homeowners whose properties are formerly defined as condos are allowed to build ADUs. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 956? Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Jordan Pernanar Carvajal on behalf of South California Obtainable Housing in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras, Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing, Los Angeles in support. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 956? Seeing no one approach the microphone, well, I'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Gerton on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition to AB 956. First wanted to commend the amendments that the committee made on it. I think that will be helpful in terms of shoring up, you know, providing some limits in terms of the density, which is helpful. So I acknowledge that that's the problem. But I think there is still a foundational issues that local governments are going to continue to struggle with. Now, the proponents argue that this is a clarification of law. This is an expansion of ADU law by expanding it from one ADU that's detached to two ADUs that are detached. So it's actually a big expansion. It's not a minor technical change. I think the other issue that local governments are dealing with is there's a parallel bill that this committee voted on, SB 1117, which would limit ADU impact fees for ADUs that are more than 750 square feet. They can only be proportional to the amount above 750 square feet. So the challenge for local governments is going to be we're continuing to densify single-family areas that were not planned for more development, and yet we're going to have limited resources to provide the infrastructure and necessary public services that we need. So it's putting us in a really tight spot. We've gotten our communities on board with ADUs. We've seen a drastic expansion in the developments. That's because of local governments working with their community and promising we can provide the infrastructure. We can provide the services to support those developments. Now we have two parallel bills that are going to say, all right, you have to downsify, and also you're limited in your resources to provide that infrastructure. That's going to put cities in a tight spot in terms of bringing the community along with the necessary growth that we need to have in the jurisdiction. So I think there's just a foundational challenge that's going on here. And like I said, we appreciate some of the changes. But the problem is ADUs have been very successful. Why does more need to happen? And at the same time, we're increasing more. We're decreasing the ability of locals to provide the necessarily infrastructure and public services that they need to provide equitable, livable, and thriving communities. And without being able to do that full analysis, it's going to be very challenging for our locals to do that. So with that, we respectfully ask for a no vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 956? If so, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one come forward, but before we open up for questions and comments, we do have a quorum, so if the community assistant can please call the roll. Senators Erdogan. Present. Erdogan present. Ciarto. Here. Ciarto here. I'm so sorry. Cabalgen. Here. Cabalgen here. Caballero. Cortese. Here. Cortese here. Durazo. Durazo here. Grayson Ochoa Bog Ochoa Bog here Padilla Perez Okay thank you very much Colleagues any questions or comments on AB 956 Senator Rosso. Maybe that there could be a response to the last issues that were raised. As far as opposition and if this is an expansion or clarification, It can be seen as both, but it clarifies right now with existing law, you can build an attached junior ADU with a second ADU. This would allow two ADUs, but not three. You walked in, I think, before we talked about potential amendments in your committee, but what we would do was be amending or I would be committing to the committee that if this moves out of committee today, we will amend the bill in its next committee, which would be local government, to maintain current density limits and avoid potentially triggering state density bonus law. So this bill would be specifically amended to remove the allowance for a third ADU. in addition to the two allowed that are currently already allowed under state law right now. So we want to give more flexibility for a property. We want to allow families to do more with the property they have, but we definitely don't want to trigger that density bonus and have three ADUs. But right now, you can have a junior ADU on a lot that is attached with a second ADU. So this would say that you could have two ADUs instead of the junior ADU, or maybe you'll just have one. It just gives more flexibility to those who are applying for ADUs. I do know, and the reason this came up for me particularly is I live in the city of Fullerton, and we have had this clarity issue, which is this exact issue of if you have a junior ADU, it has to be attached. But some garages in old properties, the garages aren't actually attached. So in order to build an ADU in that junior ADU, you would actually then have to build a garage. So there's just a lot of these nuances that make it very difficult when somebody goes to the counter to apply to build an ADU. So the point of this bill is to give clarification. I do think there's a really important point being made by the local governments in terms of what we're asking them to do and what they're left with to be able to carry that out. So I just want to support that, and I think as we move forward, we have to be much more mindful of these issues that local governments are facing. It's one thing to pressure those local governments that refuse to do something. There's a way to deal with that, but that doesn't mean you take away or make it more difficult and more resources. I just want to make that comment, Mr. Chair. Okay. That was not a question. Thank you. Are you finished, Senator Rossoe? I'll just say, that's a separate bill that's not. For this committee currently this committee did move that bill out. It's in the assembly. So that becomes law. That's something that will have to local governments will have to implement. But that's not before today was before today is AB 956. And just clarify that under current law, a local agency could allow up to four units, a duplex and two ADUs. This bill could potentially allow up to five units with a primary dwelling, an attached ADU, an attached JDU, and two attached ADUs. And that's why the committee amendment, which the author did accept at the beginning of consideration of this bill, would not allow for the J-DU, thereby not triggering the application of the density bonus, because I think that was not the author's intent to trigger the ability for a developer to do a density bonus in single-family neighborhoods. That's a significant change in state housing policy. and could have significant consequences to the character of neighborhoods in California. This was really to just better implement existing law, which allows up to four units on a lot, without having to do a lot split under SB 9. So the author has accepted the committee amendment. And with that, colleagues, any other questions or comments? Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the clarification. I will say I also sympathize and share the concerns of the opposition about the whole package of things that we're doing in this space, and it is correct. So we've got to – but I also voted for the other bill as well, and it is in the Assembly. But we do need to get this right. And to the extent to which we're adding additional over the 750, then obviously it's also having – they do interact. So I appreciate the comments and the concern about the whole package of stuff that we're sending over to the administration. The only thing, other thing I wanted to flag, I started raising these issues last year, but this year we're sharing them more directly inside the Appropriations Committee. But a very, something has nothing to do with the core of what you're talking about. But the bill, it's keyed as a state mandate, and that's because cities and counties will have things that they must do as part of the bill. Right now I will process a full, at City Hall we will now process a full ADU instead of a junior one as an example, or maybe a full ADU instead of nothing because there was no opportunity for a junior before. So there are costs anticipated from that. The bill, though, also then has the provision that alleged counsel loves to put in these bills that says the city is not eligible for reimbursement, even though we are mandating it, and the Constitution requires that whenever we have a mandate, we reimburse. But the bill has this, my least favorite disclaimer, that says there's no reimbursement because, well, you know, cities could charge a fee. But the question I ask about each of these bills, which is a very live question in the Appropriations Committee, then is, okay, a fee on what? Like, who would be charged a fee or pay a fee that would cover that cost? Now, that's not a big cost. So this is sort of a general issue now with local government mandates overall. This is a, of all the bills we're doing, this is probably one of the least significant mandates that there are. So it's not a magnitude issue, but it is sort of a policy question about that. So I just want to flag it. I'm supportive of the bill, the policy is the right policy. But in the Appropriations Committee, I just want to encourage you to take a look at this issue. It's an unnecessary piece. You're also chair of the Budget Subcommittee that handles state mandates. You know this issue quite well So this is an appropriate state mandate but we should pay for the very modest modest modest cost that would be involved in it and not waive it away with a claim that the city can Because in part of our other ADU legislation, cities and counties can't charge a fee. These are largely ministerial in many cases. There's not any discretionary approvals required, so there's no point in which a city could say, you know what? We want to impose an AB 956 fee on you and it's going to cost you $8, right? That's not possible. So that disclaimer seems to me problematic in this bill. I would encourage you to take a look at this as it's on the way to the Appropriations Committee and potentially correct that problem. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I apologize for showing up late. I rushed over from another committee and I just want to be sure I understand what the amendment, prospective amendment, is going to be so that I, because otherwise I was an abstain. I'm concerned about over, I mean, I'm concerned about changing the character of a neighborhood with too many units that become like an apartment complex, and we never anticipated that it looked like a apartment. So I understand there was... I'm happy to clarify. So the amendment ensures that a property cannot add a JADU if they're adding two detached ADUs, which would limit the total possible number of units to less than five, which would then avoid triggering the state density bonus log. It's any five or more triggers the state density bonus. So right now, with this bill, without the amendment, you could have up to five units on a lot, single-family lot. But what this would say is you can do the two detached ADUs, but you can't also do a JADU, which means it limits it up to four units. Is that four units or three? Four. You have the primary dwelling, and then you... And then a garage conversion? Yeah. Attached and two detached. Attached. You can have it attached and two detached. Okay. That's the one that I'm concerned about. Four units, and I get there may be other legislation out there that's moving, but I'm just concerned with the number of units. So I'm trying to understand. I think I'm going to abstain at this point, and we'll see it again. I will turn over to the author and the witnesses, if that was a correct summation of current law and the application of this bill. So current state law allows for one degree ADU and one interior conversion ADU to be built from the existing floor space of the single band of hell. In addition to that, it allows one detached ADU. This would just create flexibility. So the same number of units would apply. So if you built two detached ADUs, you could still do one interior ADU if you wanted, but you would not be able to do your junior ADU. So it preserves more, like it makes it so that if you wanted to convert your, if you wanted to do two ADUs, you wouldn't have to convert your garage. Yeah and I think what I concerned about is my experience with well my experience of serving in local government is what ends up happening is the extra units end up in neighborhoods that are already overcrowded that already have And I represent a rural agricultural district and so people are using every space that they have including sheds out in the backyard to house people. And part of the challenge is it really creates traffic issues with vehicles on the street. And the more units you put, I mean, I have some people in my neighborhood that have six and seven vehicles, and they're parking everywhere and it starts to look like a mess, just your average, you know, normal neighborhood. So I'm just concerned and I understand where this is coming from, but I think at this point I'm going to abstain and think through some of the changes. I have supported every single ADU bill that's come through this legislature because we need the space. But I'm really concerned that we've gotten to the point, and I may have supported something that's already gone through the Senate, and I'm just worried about the number of units, the bottom line. So I appreciate that. If you're out at, if it's, if we're talking, and what I'm concerned about, and this was what was happening in our communities, is that single-family homes were coming out and apartments were going in sideways down the lots, and they're concrete pads. There's an area, a tree or a bush anywhere, and I'm concerned with single-family homes ending up in the same situation where it's one cement pad and you end up with all these different units, and there's no yard, and there's no green. And we used to require a certain amount of open space to be in open space. And I see that disappearing. So I thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are there any other questions or comments? Senator Cortese? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate your work on the bill and appreciate the author's work on the bill. I'll be supporting the bill. I do think that I completely relate with Senator Caballero's comments about what she's seen in her district. And I have a tale of two cities almost within the city of San Jose. We have the kind of de facto density bonus that really isn't a density bonus because it's just three families, four families living in units. And that's not five or six or ten. That's 10,000, 15,000 units across East San Jose, for example. And so, you know, why not make it, you know, have a little more aggressive policy in terms of ADUs to house some of those folks where they already are, you know, if the property owners are willing to do that. and or I understand it may not be the same folks who are living in the 80s ultimately, but there will be some displacement. But then we have areas where the architectural character of the community, I don't want to just say the character of the community, the architectural character of the community is at stake for a lot of people. They're concerned. They moved into a neighborhood where it's tough to match the current architecture on the streets. the public architecture when you start adding units And I a property person when it comes to that I understand they trying to protect their own stake and their property that they invested in at that point as homeowners particularly And I don't know how to create these kind of bills so that they deal with the equity issue aggressively, and they also deal with the issues of, you know, I wouldn't call it an envious amount, I would call it people trying to sort of protect the architectural integrity that they bought into in the first place. So it would be great if we could always do both. We're going to have to keep trying to figure it out. But I don't think this bill goes too far. I think it goes right up to the limit of what, as the chair alluded to, California is always considered to be short of a subdivision, you know, four units or less total. So I appreciate the bill and I'll be supporting it. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments?

Okay, thank you. unless there's any other questions or comments. I appreciate the robust discussion on this bill and the author accepting the amendment, I think, to address an unintended consequence, which is not trigger five units on a lot, thereby triggering the density bonus, which would have a pretty significant impact on the built environment of neighborhoods throughout California. I think it goes against kind of the whole principle behind the concept of incremental density that our state ADU law has been built on. I know that there have been conversations as well with HOA management groups and that you'll continue to have those conversations as well if this bill moves forward. And I'll turn it back over to Close.

Thank you very much. Okay, entertain a motion on AB 956. Moved by Senator Cortese. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee and local government. Senators Errigin. Aye. Errigin, aye. Ciaro. No. Ciaro, no. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Cabaldon. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Grayson. Ochoa Bogue. Padilla. Perez. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Okay, before we go to the next author, auditing a motion on the consent calendar, which consists of AB 739, AB 2162, AB 2320, and AB 2692. Is there a motion on consent? Moved by Senator Cortese. Please call the roll. Senator Zaragoza. Senator Zaragoza. Aye. Zaragoza. Zaragoza. Aye. Zaragoza. Aye. Zaragoza. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero. Durazo. Grayson. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Padilla. Okay, we'll keep that on call. And then we had a motion from Vice Chair Sayarto on file item 12, AB 2390. If we can please call the roll. This is by Shiavo. Senators Errigin. Aye. Errigin, aye. Sayarto. Aye. Sayarto, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Cabaldon. Caballero. Durazo. Grayson. Ochoa-Bogue. Aye. Ochoa-Bogue, aye. Padilla. Perez. Okay, we'll keep that on call. Colleagues from the assembly, we do hear bills in file order. I'm sorry, Mr. Gibson. We're going to go to Mr. Schultz, who's before you, and then we'll go to you, I promise. So we're going to proceed now to file item 2 AB 939 by Assemblyman Schultz. And whenever you're ready, Assemblyman will represent. Chair and colleagues, I'm pleased to present AB 939 today, and I want to thank committee staff and you, Mr. Chair, for your hard work on the bill. Right now, some lower-income designated home ownership units are remaining empty and going unsold for extended periods of time of 180 days or more. Nonprofit home developers like Habitat for Humanity, Self-Help Enterprises, and others are prohibited during the entitlement phase of a project from partnering with market-rate home builders to ensure compliance with density bonus law. They also currently prohibited from acquiring and selling to qualified buyers for six months after certificate of occupancy Existing law simply put can cause these units to sit vacant for months generating unnecessary carrying and marketing costs to the developers before they can transfer the title to a qualified nonprofit to manage the initial sale to a low-income buyer. AB 939 gives developers another voluntary option for complying with existing density bonus affordability requirements. Nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity specialize in finding, qualifying, educating, and supporting low-income homebuyers. developers of properties intended for individual sales but don't typically provide. The bill removes a 180-day resale restriction in state law if the developer is under contract with a non-profit affordable housing organization for the transfer of units to be sold to low-income individuals directly. Under this bill, income-restricted ownership units could be sold immediately to qualified non-profit affordable housing organizations rather than the status quo, which is they sit vacant after construction for 180 days or more. I want to be clear that AB 939 preserves developer choice. This is not a mandate. It helps affordable homes reach qualified buyers faster and expands homeownership opportunities for families who have historically been excluded from the housing market. I'll note that our office has met with the opposition, and while we haven't been able to reach resolution yet, that open-door policy remains. And with me today to speak in support of AB 939 is Kofi Reed, President and CEO with San Diego Habitat for Humanity, and Jordan Carbajal on behalf of California YMBA. We each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

And if you could please wrap up your comments.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, is there anyone wishing to express support for AB 939? If you can please approach the microphone. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members.

Good afternoon, Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of California Council for Affordable Housing, the Bay Area Council, and Housing Action Coalition in support.

Hello, Jennifer Aguilar on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Back on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, sorry about that. We've had great conversations with the author and his staff. However, CAR remains opposed to AB 939 unless amended to resolve our concerns. As outlined in our letter, our opposition is rooted in a 2021 density bonus lawsuit. Two single-family homes in San Diego designated for sale to very low-income families were instead sold to an investor, despite 81 qualified families seeking to purchase those units directly from the developer with assistance through the local housing authority. The outcome deprived low-income families, many of them single mothers, of the opportunity for stable homeownership and long-term wealth-building opportunities. AB 323 was specifically enacted in 2023 to prevent this type of displacement, ensuring that deed-restricted owner-occupied density bonus units constructed by for-profit developers first are offered to qualified buyers that will owner-occupy these homes. As currently drafted, AB 939 would recreate the same harm by allowing nonprofits to step ahead of the qualified owner-occupant buyers to impose mandatory contractual restrictions prior to selling the homes, which include, among others, mandatory use of the nonprofit's mortgage products, as well as, including a first right of refusal, mandating the homeowners sell their unit back to that nonprofit, denying families of intergenerational wealth building or family inheritance opportunities. As currently in print, AB 939 would centralize control of all future below market rate ownership units under a single nonprofit, creating a monopoly that disadvantages families and undermines the state's efforts to ensure fair access to home ownership. CIR has very much appreciated the conversations we have had with the author and proposed amendments to resolve our concerns that would, among other things, preserve the ability of nonprofits to sell the units they develop without delay, while ensuring that qualified buyers receive public notice and a fair opportunity to purchase these homes while maintaining the intent of AB 323, which was negotiated with both the California Building Industry Association as well as with the Habitat for Humanity. Without these amendments, CIR cannot remove its opposition. The bill as written eliminates meaningful home ownership opportunities for working families and replaces them with a system that consolidates control and limits equity building for families of low and moderate income who deserve an opportunity to build generational wealth. We look forward to continued discussions with the author and hope that we'll be able to resolve our concerns before the bill advances to the governor. Thank you.

Senator Cortese. Just a question for the opposition, and I tend to support the bill, but I'm wondering a little bit more about your concerns on the real estate side. If these are deed restricted units, I'm trying to understand what the risk is with a non-profit buyer coming in, presumably. Are you concerned about conversion or some different use? Yes, please.

I'm still trying to weigh the consequences of eliminating a 180-day delay on a transaction when you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, and the willing buyer is a non-profit, which kind of to me is the gold standard of real estate as I grew up with it. You've got a willing buyer, you have a willing seller. Let things proceed unless there's going to be some significant harm to the public interest, right? We're doing a transaction right in front of where a freeway is going to be built or something. I mean, something should be said about that. I don't understand the qualitative issues you're talking about from the perspective of your association. I understand, and I commend you for advocating for the rights of those people who live there. and I've argued successfully in the past in what is now an adjacent district to mine that I used to represent on behalf of Section 8 occupants of a property that they should not be displaced. They should have an opportunity to, in effect, do a de facto right of first refusal. So I'm not sure, it's hard for me to imagine a nonprofit coming in and, you know, pushing for that kind of an outcome, you know, either displacement or some outcome that's going to not be covered by the deed restrictions. That's all I'm saying. And I understood, I think, a couple of the examples that you brought up, but they seem to be more in terms of the future equity opportunities of the individuals. And I'm not sure that's what we're most concerned with here today. To me, my sense is that what I want to be most concerned about is if you've got a non-profit buyer and a seller ready to go, and they're going to preserve the status quo, we want that to happen right away. Maybe there's a way to balance those two things. I think that there is.

And I appreciate that you offering amendments as all of us are authors as well and that helps a lot We often get opposition that has valid points or making valid points but they not offering valid solutions or any solutions So hopefully things can still be worked on after this committee because I don't want to slow the bill down. I think it fundamentally is at its roots doing a good thing, and these details are probably important. but I don't think we're going to resolve them here.

That's great to hear. Thank you.

Hey, I'm filling in for Senator Gonzalez, which is why I'm suddenly here, and I apparently came at the right time. Assembly Member Schultz, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I know that Habitat for Humanity is a supporter of this bill, and obviously being so close to my district, you know about the tremendous amount of work that they've done, particularly in the Altadena area, as we have been going through the rebuild process, and Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity has played a huge and very significant role in assisting low-income homeowners with the rebuild process. I've gone to several of the openings of those homes and have continued to have to scale up their operations just because of the sheer number of individuals that they're assisting. I know this 180-day period can sometimes negatively impact the work that they're doing, and I would love to just have you speak to that a little bit and some of what we've seen on the ground if we were not to pass this bill.

Yeah, I would like to offer a couple of just kind of quick clarifications. The first one is that these homes are built almost exclusively using private dollars under the density bonus program, so they do not incorporate CalHome as a funding source. The other thing to remember is that these nonprofits not only have to be qualified by the state,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do appreciate and understand the issues that are made by the opposition and the tradeoffs that the author is trying to grapple with. So I'm supportive of the bill with only one challenge, and that is that it's totally unconstitutional. And that is the members of the committee are getting tired of me raising this, but I'm going to keep doing it. So this bill does have a state mandate for the reasons that you just described in terms of the obligations that are imposed on cities and counties in order to manage the partnerships and the purchase arrangements. But the disclaimer that's in the bill, but the bill says we're not going to reimburse anybody for the mandates, despite the constitutional requirement that we do so. And we're not going to reimburse because any of the only costs that may be incurred are the direct result of a program for which legislative authority was requested by the local agency. Now, that provision is there in case Burbank says we need you to mandate something on us, but we're asking for it. And the constitution says, well, in that case, the state doesn't have to reimburse. But that is obviously not the case here, because we haven't heard from 58 counties in 470 whatever cities in that case. So I'm imagining this is a remnant of a prior version of the bill, but the bill has to either reimburse like any other bill would have to or have a different disclaimer than this one. So I'd like to support it, but I also would like to vote only for a constitutional bill. So have you taken a look at this already?

So I'm only going down this rat hole with you because you are an attorney and I'm not. So that's my third least favorite disclaimer, the fees one. But that language would solve that problem. But that's actually not what the bill has in it right now. The bill doesn't have a fees and fines disclaimer in it. The language in the current bill is the local agency asked for this. And that's a completely different constitutional standard. So if the language were instead the fee disclaimer with the provision that you described, it would pass muster. But that's the problem with the language is it's currently in the bill.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senators. I am very proud to present Assembly Bill 1165. We call it the California Housing Justice Act. As you know, California faced an affordable housing crisis. California with disabilities, older adults on fixed incomes, People without security, stable income, or with low income cannot afford housing. And we just had a robust conversation with the previous authors. And this is true across our state and every community in the state of California. This is because housing costs have increased over 20 percent, while incomes have increased only 8 percent over the last 10 years. Because rent increase are consistent in California, more people are falling into homelessness than ever before. California is making progress with investments, even witnessing decrease in homelessness. While these decreases show we've moved in the right direction, the state lacks a coordinated plan to effectively end the housing crisis. Assembly Bill 1165 takes a bold first step by requiring our state housing agencies to create a fiscal analysis and a financial plan to solve this crisis. Planning that allows the state to shift resources without impeding response that works to allow people to exit homelessness for good. We want people to exit homelessness for good. Rather than continuing to rely on defense and piecemeal responses to growing crisis, This approach creates a roadmap for long-term investment and coordinating a focus to end homelessness and ensuring every California has access to a stable house, a place they can call home. Assembly Bill 1165 not only makes good policy sense but it also makes good fiscal sense at the same time By identifying a true cost and I want to underscore a true cost to end homelessness and establish a long funding strategy a long-term funding strategy. The state can make more effective investments and reduce the costly cycle for crisis response. Here with me to provide supporting testimony and to answer any kind of technical questions, they will self-introduce. We have the director of the California Policy for Coordinated Supportive Housing, including the legislative advocate for the ACLU, both will self-introduce.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Marshall Arnwine. I'm the legislative advocate for the ACU California Action. We are one of the proud co-sponsors to this bill in strong support. AB 1165 is about being prepared to solve the homeless and housing affordability crisis. Housing goals without a financing strategy are just aspirations, but AB 1165 transformed those aspirations into a plan. This bill will have California prepared to implement a strategic and sustainable strategy that invests resources effectively to move people into the stable housing they can afford, to keep our neighbors housed, and prevent future homelessness. This is also a forward bill It gives California the tools to move from reacting to proactively solving the housing crisis Housing is the foundation of economic stability, public health, and community well-being. What makes AB 1165 so important is that it requires a strategic roadmap informed by research and rigorous data, like the Roadmap Home 2030 and the Homeless Housing Needs Assessment, which will help service providers to be able to know about how much affordable housing is needed so they can move from surviving year to year to planning year to year. When providers know what the plans are to fulfill specific needs, they can hire the staff. They can expand housing placements. They can coordinate the services and focus on the outcomes instead of the constant scrambling to secure the next funding source. Further, this bill requires reporting on concrete metrics to ensure accountability for proven impact and outcomes. We must be just as intentional about planning for the funding needed to achieve these goals as we are about setting them. This bill gives policymakers, providers, and communities the roadmap needed to make lasting progress, and for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Michael Henning, California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support. Mr. Chair and members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation to the substantial developer of low-income housing in Los Angeles in very strong support of this bill. Thank you. Good afternoon, Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network in support. Mr. Chair and Senators, Adam Keglin on behalf of California LULAC in support. David Nye with the California Community Action Partnership Association in support. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Profit in support. I'm going to charge you with Housing California in support, also on behalf of the California Housing Partnership. Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Housing and Economic Rights Advocates in support. Cynthia Castillo on behalf of the National Alliance on Homelessness, a crowd co-sponsor in support. Rebecca Jackson with the San Francisco Women's Housing Coalition in full support.

Moved by Senator Perez, thank you.

I just want to thank you very much. I think it seems so simple. How are you going to build if you don't have a plan for the money to build? Which leads us in lots of different directions. So it's so simple, it's kind of silly we hadn't thought of doing it before. So, thank you.

And unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to Close.

Thank you very much. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Perez. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Errogein? Aye. Erickson, aye. Ciarto, Cortese, Cobaldon, Caballero, Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue, Padilla, Perez, aye. Perez, aye. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. We do take up measures in file order, so Assemblyman Patterson is before you in the file order. So I apologize to wait a few more minutes, but thank you for being here. Summer Patterson will now take up AB 1184. Well, thank you. Now I feel a little slightly bad now, you know, but I appreciate. Got to stick with committee rules, you know. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Here to present today AB 1184, which brings necessary transparency and accountability to homeowners associations. I'm very pleased to live in a homeowners association, a beautiful one, and I think they do a lot of great things for not only my community but communities throughout the state. We have one of the largest populations of HOA residents in the nation. I have massive senior HOAs in my district. But, you know, decisions made by HOAs, we all know, can prevent people from making simple changes to their property, like painting their home, and can even have drastic impacts on their property value. Despite the impacts HOAs have, current law does not provide enough transparency. Homeowners are often left unaware of decisions that could have significant impacts on them and their homes. For instance, current law does not require HOA residents to be notified of litigation, which can affect property values or their ability to sell their home in the future. Nor does it require HOAs to give residents recordings of board meetings or provide notice that the meeting is being recorded. These issues prevent residents from being involved or even knowing about HOA governance that affects their day-to-day life. And we all know that HOAs have government-like powers in many cases. So this bill is a pretty simple fix. We've worked very closely with the California chapter, the Community Associations Institute, the California Department. Understandably had a lot of concerns at the very beginning of this process. We're happy to work with everybody. I have a lot of respect for homeowners associations, but also given their government-like powers, wanted to have some additional transparency safeguards. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Do you have any principal witnesses? No, no. I wanted to save your time. Okay. So, you know, just brought myself. I think that we have even better. The opposite. Okay, I'll ask, are there any members of the public wishing to express support for AB 1184? If so, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one come forward, will not take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Seeing no one come forward, is anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 1184? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee. This was hopefully going to be on the consent calendar, but I believe the California Association of Realtors filed a late opposition letter. I read the letter. I don't frankly understand the reason for their opposition. And reading the bill, this just basically puts the same transparency and open meeting requirements as we do for a government agency for an HOA, just to ensure that there's more transparency on the management and meeting protocols for HOAs. So I strongly recommend the bill. I have an aye recommendation. And I'll ask if there are any other questions or comments from members of the committee.

Any other questions or comments? Yes.

Yeah, you know, understandably, you know, they don't have to comply with California Public Records Act, you know, like like local governments have to. You know, they have different set of laws. And so some of those laws, for example, in a local government's in litigation, you know, those are and they go into closed session. It's it's it's disclosed at the bottom of the agendas. And obviously the discussions are private and this bill doesn't make any change to that. but the notice to residents and knowing that litigation is going on, especially if you live in like a condominium unit or something like that, where litigation can have a drastic impact on what your homeowners association dues are going to be. But the other thing is if they're recording meetings already or if they choose to record meetings, residents aren't entitled to those recordings. And I think that that's that's kind of interesting because, you know, a lot of us are busy and, you know, can't attend the homeowners association meetings or can't attend local governments, you know, and maybe sometimes we like to go back and watch what's going on in our local government and things that impact our lives. I know in my community, the homeowners association has a very large impact on the quality of life. I mean, it's very involved in the day-to-day activities almost of what we do. And so I thought it was important that hey if you recording the meetings you recording what you discussing you recording decisions then make sure that the residents know But the other thing is many of my friends are on boards of HOAs and have raised this bill to me actually one of them the other day And they were concerned that there were times that maybe that they couldn't make a decision over a text message or something like that. And I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa. I said, hey, you're telling me you want to make a decision that impacts the HOA via text message. And I was just like, I just got to philosophically disagree with that. And so that's kind of my philosophy on these views because they do have the powers of government. They can put liens on your home. They can assess you fines and take away your privileges to the homeowners association activities. and things like that. And so I thought it was just important to provide the additional transparency that they don't have to under current law.

Correct. Like this bill doesn't, you know, basically restate, you know, current law, basically. It adds on that if you're taking video recordings, you have to give it to the residents if they'd like to look at the recording. That's just one example.

No, no, no, no, no, no. The access. Make it available. Make it available on their website. Yes.

But, yeah, we just want to have the access available. Okay.

Yes. I have a real estate broker's license. I used to be a realtor myself. I obviously have a lot of respect for the association. But what I would say is, and what I would submit, is it's not the homeowners associations themselves expressing those concerns. It's another organization. And I would say, you know, the homeowners association, the organization representing them that might have that this actually impacts. We've worked very closely with them, and they are not the ones expressing that concern.

Oh, good, yeah.

So just an interesting observation, but thank you.

Totally. And see if you had any thoughts on what that meant. Yeah, I want to be super clear, happy to work with them at any time. You know, I think this is actually maybe the third year that this bill has been in print, and this letter of opposition came in, you know, a couple weeks ago. So, you know, obviously we'd be happy to work with them through this process. I think the proposed amendments that they made were basically gutting the bill. So we weren't willing to go quite that far, but I have a lot of respect for them. and happy to continue to engage with them as long as we kind of keep the intent of what we trying to do with my legislation Is there any other questions or comments We do have a motion by Vice Chair Ciarto I turn it back over to close I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Have a motion by Vice Chair Ciarto, which is due pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Erdogan. Aye. Erdogan, aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto, aye. Cortese. Cabaldon. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Grayson. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bog. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Badia. Perez. Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. Assemblymember Bryan, you are next in file order, but Assemblymember Dixon's been waiting for at least like 45 minutes to present. So is it okay if we go to her? Thank you. All right. We'll now proceed to file item 9, AB 2035 by Assemblymember Dixon.

This struggle can happen for a multitude of reasons, including low voter engagement and high percentage of non-resident property owners. One such HOA is Laguna Woods Village in my district, who have been unable to update their CCNRs since 1988. To put this in perspective, Mikhail Gorbachev was president of the Soviet Union, and George H.W. Bush was president the last time their CCNRs were amended in a while. Since 2019, the HOA has spent over $140,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections. They've made a real effort in addition due to the large size of the HOA, which is over 6,000 interests. These elections have been conducted in partnership with industry professionals to ensure a fair and efficiently administered process. Despite all these efforts, they still have been unable to update their severely out-of-date CCNRs. To remedy this issue, AB 2035 creates an additional affirmative vote reduction in California law. This reduction would allow an HOA to petition the court for approval of the amendments to their CCNRs if 37% of all homeowners vote affirmatively. This legislation has been drafted extremely narrowly and would apply only to one HOA in the state, which is Laguna Woods Village. This bill represents a balanced change that would allow Laguna Woods Village to update their CCNRs while maintaining the already existing court approval process to ensure accuracy and fairness. This bill has also received unanimous bipartisan support throughout the process. As I also would mention, homeowner improvements such as solar roof systems, wireless, these types of technology investments that have occurred since 1988 are not included or provided or addressed in the CCNR So they really need to address new technologies the solar process and other home building materials and such that have just been changed with building codes and such over this period of time. So with that, I have with me Kathy Van Austin, who will be speaking on behalf of the Laguna Woods Village and can answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2035? Seeing no one approach the microphone, are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 2035? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais for any motion by Vice Chair Ciarto. Any other discussion? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close. I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Vice Chair Ciarto, which is due to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Erdogan.

Erdogan, aye. Ciarto.

Ciarto, aye. Aye. Cortese? Cabaldon? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Ochoa, Bogue? Aye. Ochoa, Bogue, aye. Maria Perez. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. We'll now proceed to file item 6, AB 1573 by Simba O'Brien. And this, I believe, was on the consent calendar, but was pulled for discussion. Pulled for a fabulous presentation, thank you. That as well. Is that what's going to occur here?

Thank you for joining us today, and we have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you so very much. So anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1573, if you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We're about to charge you with Housing California in support. Anya Lawler on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project in support Thank you very much There was no registered opposition Are there any opposition witnesses Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Senator Caballero.

Yeah, I think I definitely understand and hear where you're coming from. What's tricky about this, and part of the reason we named it the Unseen and Unheard Act, is I think every county has domestic survivors and sexual violence survivors. and that they are often overrepresented in those who are housing insecure. This bill is nonfiscal, and the reason it's nonfiscal is because the housing element already requires jurisdictions to analyze the constraints in the process of zoning for regional housing needs as well. So not just trying to meet the needs, but to analyze any challenges that they might have that are unique to that particular region. We also have areas in the housing element where we have called out specific populations of high need. For example, elderly persons, families with children, emancipated minors, former foster youth, veterans. All we're doing in this bill is adding domestic violence survivors, trafficking survivors, sexual violence survivors to that specific group. And it was largely inspired by an experience I had at the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles, where you recognize that meeting the specific housing needs of this population is not something that's occurring in all places in the way that it needs to. And even in cities where you have institutions like the Downtown Women's Center, the need is so much greater than that, and that the state really should outline and highlight that need as equally as important as some of these other needs that we've called out in statute.

The good news.

I think the effort here is not to add new work, but to better focus the work that's already required.

And we're going to, Senator Chau-Bo, just want to call attention to pages four and five of the analysis. We talk about the existing target populations in the housing element statute. And just note that the last few lines of that section, that there might be some overlap of existing target populations for people that may be victims of domestic violence. So it may not be a whole lot of additional work beyond what jurisdictions are already doing.

Okay, thank you very much. We are on AB 1573. Unless there's any other questions or comments from the committee, I'll turn it back over to the author to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. It a great bill and I think it just going to call attention to the unique needs of survivors as we are not only doing our housing element planning but hopefully investing the resources to increase housing opportunities for them So with that we have a motion by Senator Ochoa If you can please call the roll Motion do pass to the Senate floor Senators Errigin.

Errigin, aye. Ciarto.

Ciarto, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Cobaldon. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Grayson. Grayson, aye. Ochoa-Bow. Ochoa-Bow, aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members, but it has enough votes to move out today. Thank you. We will now go to file item 10, AB 2128, and I want to welcome the chair of the Assembly Housing Committee to the Senate Housing Committee, Mr. Haney. And whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill.

Mr. Chair and members. Anya Lawler again here on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, the proud sponsor of AB2128. Over a million Californians utilize federal rental assistance to afford housing, the majority of whom are seniors, children, and people with disabilities. These are people with extremely low incomes who would most certainly be homeless, but for this assistance. Cutting off housing assistance to these families based on arbitrary thresholds is cruel. Render a family homeless to make room for another family does nothing to respond to the affordable housing shortage. We need more affordable housing, not policies that put the blame on some of the most low income and vulnerable among us for inequities in our society. Again, while this federal rule is going to be optional, we expect that HUD will exert significant pressure on housing authorities in California to opt in. They're already starting to do that. This bill insulates housing authorities from that pressure. They already have scarce funds that should be used to keep people housed, not diverted for additional and unhelpful administrative burdens. This is urgent. The proposed rule has already gone out for public comment. HUD is reviewing those comments now, and we expect them to adopt it in the next few months. So we need to pass this legislation now to protect California families and avoid increasing homelessness. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Beg for the answer for Ivo.

Aye.

Sayarto, no.