April 8, 2026 · Housing And Community Development · 15,292 words · 22 speakers · 224 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you I'm going to start. All right. We are going to welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We have eight items on our agenda today. AB 1899 and AB 2390 are on consent. We will have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each main witness will have two minutes each. Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website. This will become an official record of the bill. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. This morning, we are in a new room, different than usual, room 126 at the Capitol. The hearing room will be open for in-person attendance, and all are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. We will begin as a subcommittee, and we are going to call the item of the Assembly member who is right there, ready to go from the very beginning, and that is item number four, AB2005. You can begin.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, members. I would like to start by thanking your very hardworking committee consultants for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendment, so thank you so much for all of the staff work on helping me with this. AB 2005 allows current homeowner owner occupants to participate in the process of building more housing and it protects the current guardrails and existing law that deter corporate participation in this process. Specifically, AB 2005 will allow the trustee of a living trust who is currently the primary resident of a single-family home or the owner or member of a limited liability company, LLC, to apply for the urban lot split. Under existing law, these common estate planning tools cannot be used for lot split applications. This restricts the process to individuals with substantial financial resources and expertise. This bill does not increase the number of units that can be constructed on an SB 9 lot split or reduce the number of owner-occupied units. In fact, lot splits constructed under AB 2005's new pathway will create additional owner-occupied units. AB 2005 creates an alternative option where an existing homeowner may partner with a small home builder to manage the lot split and construction on the second lot. This process is complicated and requires expertise and access to financing. This option will create not just one, but two new owner-occupied units for sale. The current version of SB9 only creates rentals after the lot split. SB9 passed in 2021, and we have learned that in the real world, it's simply not working. Our job as lawmakers is to not only create new laws but to evaluate existing laws and make changes if we know they are not working It is our responsibility to improve them and to make sure that they are producing the intended outcomes This bill is about fixing an existing law to improve outcomes and build more housing. And it maintains the existing and robust protections against corporate ownership and speculation. It is a vital advancement in the state urgently needing more housing units, especially in Silicon Valley. I want to thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with my office regarding this bill before the hearing. We have received late opposition to this bill, and I am committed to continuing the conversation. However, I am not interested in protecting the status quo, which is not working. I am open to any suggestions on how to improve the use of existing housing laws and to suggestions of how to improve the intended outcomes, which is to produce more homeownership opportunities in our communities.
With me today is Louis Morante, the Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council, and Stephanie Yee from Alpha X Recapital. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Louis Morante. I'm Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council. I'm here to support SBAB 2005. The Bay Area Council represents more than 370 of the region's largest employers. We share the goal of keeping California thriving at the center of innovation, and that is not possible without housing that workers can afford. It is no secret that our residents in our state struggle with housing affordability, and with the cost of a home quickly outpacing the median salary of a working-class family, California's ability to attract and retain workers is becoming nearly impossible. You may have read that the median age of a first-time homebuyer in the United States just exceeded the age of 40 for the first time. People who make less than $300,000 in the Bay Area cannot afford the median-priced home. This is an urgent crisis. SB 9 was one of the legislature's recent contributions to fixing that crisis and making homeownership more accessible. It provides a streamlined pathway to create small-scale housing opportunities on existing residential parcels. This important piece of legislation empowers existing homeowners to build on their current properties and creates a scalable solution for Californians across the state. On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2005. Thank you.
Good morning, Ms. Chair and members. My name is Stephanie Yee. I'm a CEO and a founder of RFX, a woman-funded, woman-owned small infill development company. So we actually have vertically integrated system in Bay Area and we have comprehensive capabilities in the Bay Area and all over California. So we've super focused on creating more home ownership opportunities in California. I would like to share with you that in the past couple years SB9 has passed, it's not working. My experience is a lot of homeowners actually came to us and asked us to help them because they are lack of knowledge, lack of resources, they don't understand the whole complicated process. They couldn't do it on their own. I would like to share many of the homeowners that work with them also hold their homes under LLC or living trust. So this purpose of AB 2005 allow them to take advantage of their loss please. As Assembly Member Aaron just stated, AB 2005 creates an alternative option where homeowners may partner with small home builders to manage the lot split and the construction process on the second lot. SB AB 2005 will lead to the production of more housing units for sale in California and I believe that this bill will allow current homeowners to participate in the process of building more housing. Thank you. I strongly support this bill. I respectfully ask
you all to your aye vote on AB 2005. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who is in
support of this bill? Holly Firmini de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs in support today on on behalf of Spur Abundant Housing LA
and Circulate California. Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company in support.
Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California Yimby.
Great, thank you all. I know there was a late opposition letter. I don't know if we have an opposition witness or anyone who wants to come up and provide any opposition. Not seeing anyone. All right. I'll bring it back up to the dais. And this is, again, item number four, AB2005, Assemblymember Wilson. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward and a particular thanks for looking at previously passed legislation and finding ways to improve implementation if we don't see it being implemented the way we intended or if it's not, you know, advancing the way we wanted it to advance and it being taken advantage of in the community like we expected to. And so I like the overall intent of the bill. I did have a couple of concerns that I wanted to flesh out with you, if you don't mind. So a lot split is a final action, so there's no way to undo a lot split. So how do you see it being enforced that it is owner-occupied and that it wouldn't be creating a loophole for corporate investors to be able to take advantage of this new opportunity to do a lot split and create additional ownership opportunities?
We want it to be owner-occupied opportunities, but you could see how it could be used as creating a loophole.
So how do you see enforcement going?
Well, I'd like to turn it over to my technical witness to answer that.
Thank you.
Sure. Current law requires that people who apply for this subdivision under SB 9 sign an affidavit. And the affidavit is a condition of recording the separation, the lot split, with county registrar. This bill would require that same affidavit of anybody who receives the title of one of the subsequent lots. So the committee amendments today specified that it's the people who receive the lots. So you could actually see the affidavit requirement that has been reasonably effective in current law, actually doubling the number of owner-occupants who sort of receive one of those transfers.
But I guess the owner-occupant today under current law is not as an individual, right?
and likely to have to, in order to get another loan, you know,
that would be noted that there was an affidavit in their current property, right?
And so that would probably prevent them from getting another loan.
Most people don't have a ton of cash laying on hand to buy it.
So when you look at, and that could be the same for a living trust,
because typically living trusts are just individuals.
They're not, you know, but when you get to LLCs where you have multiple people
and it would be an affidavit of only the person
who was occupying there you could see that it would be harder to enforce because once it recorded there is no other mechanism to hold it accountable right Am I missing something Yeah, can I add on it? There are two parts of it, right? So number one, when you actually, the AB 2005 actually needed three years digital restriction on the split lot, which is the same as affordable housing 55 years digital restriction. That's number one to make sure there are Actually, homeowners do it.
Even one homeowner, I said, I lost my job.
I'm going to sell my home. The new owners come in, going to take over the rest of two years.
Make sure that homeowners actually live in there at least three years.
Well, they wouldn't be living there.
They can sublet it, right?
They can lease it.
There would be nothing against the law that says they can do that, right?
No, there is an object that needs to be signed, and a deed restriction that needs to save primary owner's residence.
But that prevents me from selling it for three years.
It's not selling.
It's kind of like needed to be owner-occupied.
It's a homeowner-occupied.
I guess what I'm saying, and just so you know, to the author, I support this and we'll be voting for it. I just want to, as we work through the legislative process, I want to see that there's a flaw as I was looking at it. I'm a, I, I, I, I purchased this additional lot and say by affidavit that I'm going to be there for three years.
Yes.
Who is verifying that I'm living there for three years? And that I'm not, that I'm not, I can own it, that I'm not, I'm the one living there and I'm not subletting.
We're allowed to sublet, right?
Do you know what I'm saying?
And so I think when you have an individual doing that, it's harder because it's an individual's home and they have to live somewhere.
But when you move into, and I don't see that problem so much with a living trust, just how living trusts work.
But I see when you get into LLC, there's this little loophole here.
You could do that and then you can lease it and there's no issue.
Absolutely. I'm definitely committed to continuing these conversations, but those are hypothetical examples of very limited use cases. Under current law right now, these SB 9 applications are hardly being used at all. And so going from one extreme to another, I'm happy to look at improving language to have more guardrails. But the reality is, is the this mechanism is hardly being used at all in the state of California. Going from that to finding a potential loophole for a potential abuse, you know, is definitely something I would want to work with you and on firming up.
But it really I think you should consider that I look at it as not a potential, but a likely loophole, likely loophole when it comes to LLCs.
just because the nature of them and there is no enforcement mechanism and the lot split is a final act.
There is no, oh, I did it. Oh, wait, now I'm going to undo it. Right.
Because so I think it's something to consider that in an effort to improve a law that we don't create a loophole.
And that's what I wanted to. And that's why we're keeping the three year owner occupied requirement in there.
But, you know, the devil's in the details.
But I would say now is it's not being abused now.
Because it's not being used. And I really don't anticipate the scenario that you brought up, but I'm happy to see if we can find firmer language to find that enforcement.
But the reality is that... Whenever there's profitability, that's where it happens.
But thank you.
Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. Thank you for the back and forth discussion.
I appreciate your willingness to make sure that we don create any loopholes that can be taken advantage of because where there a profit motive there is an opportunity to take advantage Thank you Thank you I appreciate those comments and I think that was something that we also grappled with as we were looking at this as well
I think putting the entire onus on the owner and figuring out this entire process and having the resources to do so, I think, is clearly a limitation that is holding back some of the opportunities presented by this law. And yet at the same time, we do want to make sure that this is truly meeting its purpose and that it's not sort of used for other ways, even as we want them to be owner-occupied.
How do we verify that? How do we ensure it over time? And so appreciate your your diligence around those those issues as as this moves forward and working with some of the concerns that have come up late as well.
And but again, we set out this year really wanting to look at the laws that we've already passed and making sure they're actually working and how to produce more housing.
That's that's the goal. And so we really appreciate your leadership in helping us do that.
And with that, I'll give you the opportunity to close.
I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Great.
Thank you so much.
We will take it up when we have a quorum and appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
All right. We will continue on as a subcommittee. I see we have another author here. Mr. Gallagher. Item number eight, AB 2676. You still don't have any backup up here, though, but we'll treat you fairly.
No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to present AB 2676, which would clarify certain provisions of the Housing Crisis Acts of 2019, more effectively prevent actions that limit housing development. I think as many of you know, Senator Skinner brought this Housing Crisis Act legislation forward and passed it, declaring that we do have a housing crisis in this state and providing for protections for already planned housing density in our local affected counties and cities and ensuring that those couldn't be thwarted, there couldn't be a moratorium placed on that housing. And we know now that despite some progress, we're still way behind on the housing that we need to build. As of – I'm sorry. Lost my place there. Demand for housing is completely outranking supply. And the Department of Housing and Community Development determined that California needs more than 2.5 million new homes by 2031. We're not even halfway to that goal yet. And that is why I've introduced AB 2676 is to clarify and solidify the protections of the Housing Crisis Act that ensures that referendums or initiatives that would be included in what is called an affected city or effective county. There was a recent court case that actually ruled on this matter, NRF Project Owner LLC versus City of Oceanside, ruled that a referendum preventing housing development is a violation of the Housing Crisis Act. So that's what AB 2676 would codify, is that this includes referendums and initiatives that would act as a moratorium on housing in those affected counties and cities. This will help reinforce our state commitment to housing development and reduce confusion for both cities and developers And I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this important legislation Here with me to testify is Tim Murphy with the North State Building Industry Association
Good morning, Chair Haney and members. My name is Tim Murphy. I'm the president and CEO of the North State Building Industry Association, a local home building association here in the Sacramento region with more than 500 member companies. and I'm here today to respectfully urge your support for AB 2676. The bill provides a necessary clarification to the Housing Crisis Act by closing an ambiguity that has allowed approved housing projects to be delayed or effectively stopped through local referenda. Even projects that fully comply with state law and general plans can be overturned for approval, creating uncertainty that undermines housing production and the intent of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. AB 2676 makes it clear that these actions function as a de facto moratoria and should be treated as such under state law. It also establishes a clear framework for review and enforcement, restoring predictability to the entitlement process. Housing development is a multi-year capital-intensive effort. When approvals are no longer reliable, costs increase, timelines extend, and fewer homes get built. At a time when California faces a significant housing shortfall, we cannot afford that instability. 2676 reinforces a simple but essential principle. If a project meets objective standards and is approved, it should be allowed to proceed. For these reasons, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Great. Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this bill? Not seeing anyone. Is there any opposition to this bill? I didn't think so. All right, bringing it back up here. Ms. Wilson. I just had one question. Understand the intent. Thank you for bringing it forward. There was language that I didn't quite understand the purpose of and what you intended by, and that was in Section 2, it is the intent of the legislature that the amendments made by this act shall operate retroactively to any pending action or proceeding. I was trying to understand the purpose, why that was necessary.
And it was around intent, not saying that it applied.
It's of the doc on here. It's page nine, line 31. I think it might be. We have a version that looks like that. Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, so the intent here is that this is, you know, sort of a restatement of the law and clearing up an ambiguity in the law. But this was always the intent of the Housing Crisis Act, is that when we had planned for growth and we had planned for certain density, certain zoning, and we have projects that are consistent with that zoning, that we can't have something that acts as a moratorium on projects that are consistent with the planning. and zoning codes. So to the extent that, you know, that has happened in the past, this would clarify that that was incorrect. And there has been a court case already on the books that has held exactly that, that, you know, where an initiative or referendum acts as a moratorium in the Oceanside case, that it is a violation of law of the Housing Crisis Act.
So someone, does that mean that someone today, if this was to go into effect, signed into law, that someone could use now the additional wording that you've added or clarification and go back in time to 2020 and litigate over a matter related to a housing project tonight? Is that how it would be used?
I mean, I'm not a specialized lawyer in that field, but I would say that the intent here is that, hey, this is the law, and that it applies certainly between when we passed the Housing Crisis Act and today. From 2019, yeah.
So you're saying that you're trying to make sure that not just now going forward, this is clarity in the law, that someone could use it from that 2019 to 2026. If there was a project or something, they could go back and maybe get an approval where they otherwise didn't, whether it was not determined in their favor based on this law with this new clarification.
If they were rejected.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about in the case of rejections.
And that is found to be not consistent with the Housing Crisis Act, then, yeah. The new clarification. They'd be able to go back and say, yes, this was a violation. But I would say it's also, like, consistent with, you know, the current understanding of law, and we're cleaning up the ambiguity that has been there, right?
At least, I know at least one court has found that that was the case. Okay.
Thank you.
All right. Actually, let's establish quorum here. Look at that, all at once. Wait. Oh, okay. Oh, great. Okay. All right. Haney. Haney here. Harrison. Harrison here. Ward. Here. Colosa. Garcia. Colra. Here. Colra here. Lee. Cork-Silva? Cork-Silva here. Ta? Tankepal? Here. Tankepal here. Wix? Wilson? Here. Wilson here. All right. We have a quorum. And, folks, we are on item number eight, AB 2676. Ms. Cork-Silva.
Yes, I just wanted to comment and thank the author for bringing, I think, a very important piece of legislation. Being on this committee now for several years, we see legislation, and then we see cleanup legislation, and then we see other companion pieces of legislation. And yet under this theme of Housing Christ Act of 2019, this simply means in regular speech that once a project is approved at the local level, that you cannot use moratoriums or voter initiatives to block. Is that the case? Is that what we're looking at here? Right.
Yeah. where you have a project that's consistent with all the general plan and zoning meets all that requirement, been approved, that you can't end run the Housing Crisis Act by using an initiative or referendum. And why this is significant and really important is because we've seen this playbook over and over where a project makes it through planning, makes it to the council council chambers is packed and many times a project then is overturned at the council level when as you said all the objectives have been met
And this is a way to stall and delay housing. And the title, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, is not only relevant, but it continues today. So I appreciate not only you for bringing this forward, but what it really means is let's get forward, move forward with approving these projects that have made their way through planning to the council without using voter initiatives. And I've seen this so often, particularly in my area, where people get signatures and all of a sudden the project disappears. So I appreciate you and I move forward the bill.
Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. You may close.
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify one thing. This is why we have good staff, right? So in answer to your question, Assemblymember, the retroactivity is for the statute of limitations and just for pending actions. So pending actions can use the new clarity of the statute of limitations under this legislation.
So I just wanted to clarify that. All right. We have a motion and a second. And thank you again, Mr. Gallagher, for your leadership. And we will take a roll call vote. The motion is to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government. Caney? Aye. Caney, aye. Patterson? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Colosa? Garcia? Colra? Colra, aye. Lee? Cork-Silva? Aye. Cork-Silva, aye. Aye. Aye. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Let's do it. All right, seven zero, we'll keep that open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, why don't, Ms. Wilson, do you want to? Do you want to do consent in the first bill? Shh. I'll make the motion. Yes, we have a motion and a second on the consent items. So, item 2, AB 1899 is a consent item, and the motion is to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Human Services. And item number 7, AB 2390, to pass to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Colosa Garcia Colra Colra aye Lee Cork Silva Cork Silva aye Ta Aye Ta aye Tanqipa Aye Tanqipa aye Wiggs Wilson Aye Wilson aye Great we have a motion and a second on item number four Item number 4, AB2005, do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Pearson? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Colosa? Garcia? Cholera? Aye. Cholera, aye. Lee? Park Silva? Park Silva, aye. Ta? Ta? I'm not fully. I'm not boarding. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Wiggs Wilson Aye Wilson aye All right 6 We keep that on call as well And we'll go to item number one. Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of this committee. I'm pleased to present AB 1621, which aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California's housing approval process. Currently, delays in post-entitlement permits both slow down housing production and drive up costs, making homes less affordable for Californians. Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California housing crisis. As highlighted by the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform, these delays continue to slow production, increase costs, and make housing less affordable. This is why I've chosen to reintroduce this legislation as AB 1621, building on AB 660, which I'm thankful had strong bipartisan support in this committee last year. AB 1621 builds on existing law by establishing clear timelines and real accountability for local agencies to process post-entitlement permits, ensuring that approved housing projects can actually move forward. It also provides applicants with a clear path when agencies fail to meet their obligations. This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process, targeting areas where housing developers have experienced significant issues. AB 1621 will prohibit local agency inspectors from requiring a project to make changes in a field that would deviate from plans a local agency has already approved. It stops local agencies from delaying the process by sending applications to outside reviewers and limiting how many times they can ask applicants to revise and resubmit their plans. While we have heard some concerns around AB 1621, it is important to note that local agencies can go beyond the two-plan check limit if there is strong evidence that more review is needed to address a serious health or safety issue. AB 1621 simply closes the gap and improves existing law regarding the timelines for local agencies to act on post-entitlement permits. With me to testify on behalf of this legislation are Audrey Ratajak on behalf of California Building Industry Association and Deborah Calton on behalf of the California Apartment Association.
Good morning, Chair members of the committee. Audrey Ritajek on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, and we're here in strong support of AB 1621. This is critical legislation needed to approve the efficiency, fairness, and accountability of the post-entitlement permitting process for housing development projects. We're in the midst of an unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis. And despite the progress made in recent years, particularly with the enactment of AB 2234 from Revis in 2022, which established important procedural timelines for local agencies when processing the post-entitlement permits, there are serious barriers and some gaps that remain that continue to delay much-needed housing across the state. AB 1621 addresses those barriers and strengthens the existing framework with a narrowly tailored approach. The need for these reforms is clearly documented. As the Assemblymember mentioned, as highlighted in the final report from the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform last year, failures in the permitting process have played an outsized role in the overall housing crisis, with delays directly contributing to increased costs and uncertainty for developers. So AB 1621 offers a balanced and common solution that does not override local control or compromise safety Instead it creates a clear consistent and accountable framework that ensures timely permit processing fair treatment of applicants, and ultimately the ability to deliver the housing our state so desperately needs. So for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Good morning, Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I cannot overstate the value of this legislation. It is very important in getting us to the final occupancy level. Apartments in California can take up to eight years or longer before they can at least complete the project. This will certainly help us expedite the process. And for that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.
Great. Thank you. Any other folks here in support of this bill?
Mr. Chairman, members, Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in strong support.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Skyler Wanaka on behalf of the Building Owners and Managers Association of California and NAOP California in support.
Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in support. Thank you.
Holly Firmini-Daisy said Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate California, Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, San Diego Housing Commission, and SPUR all in support.
Allison Barnett with Platinum Advisors for Client, California Self Storage Association, in support.
Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY, in support.
Bob Naylor on behalf of Fieldstead and Company, in support.
Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California, in support.
Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California, here in support.
All right. Is anyone here in opposition to this bill?
Good morning, chair and members. Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of California Cities. In a respectful pose, unless amended. First off, great to see everyone again. I know it's the first time I've been here at least this year, so it's good to see the committee again. But I did want to, first of all, really appreciate the work we've had and the conversations we've had with the Assemblymember's office. We do remain concerned for a variety of reasons with the proposal. Now, we understand and we support streamlining and making sure that permits are done effectively and efficiently. But we also want to make sure they're safe and that they comply with the local requirements or the state requirements that the state has adopted for building codes, including environmental stuff, which may not necessarily account for non-health and safety issues. So your solar energy systems, which is required for new construction per the state, as well as EV charging stations, which is also required for a lot of the new multifamily complexes, would probably not fall into the health and safety standards. Yet our local governments have the task of approving and making sure that all development projects comply with those regulations. Now, the challenge with the two permit reviews process is we would have the ability to deny the project, but also historically denial is very challenging for a lot of local governments because of our housing crisis, which we all acknowledge. And the health and safety protections are important, but there's also a lot of non-health and safety issues that we have to account for locally, which is going to put cities in a tight spot. The other unintended consequences is it could provide loopholes for applicants to avoid some of these other requirements that the state has designated that are not health and safety related. And that could lead to projects not complying with those requirements. The other big challenge that we have. is that the reasonable standard can be very challenging. Building codes are really complex and highly technical. Multiple rounds of review tend to be with either not understanding the codes or not getting clarity. The amendments we had offered were trying to work that balance in terms of, hey, after two plan checks, we can be more specific on what type of regulations you're not complying with and providing those details so applicants understand what it is. But we want to make sure that all the local codes are complied with and that we're doing our part to enforce what the state has drafted as regulations for local governments to enforce regarding building developments. So we look forward to continuing those conversations with the author's office and the sponsors, but we remain opposed unless amended today. Thank you.
Anybody else here in opposition to the bill? Good morning.
Tracy Ryan with Rural County Representatives of California. And on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, we adlined our comments with Cal Cities and then opposed unless amended.
Thank you. Anyone else? Standing there, no? All right, bring it back up to the diocese. Mr. Patterson. Great, thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. You know, when I was building, or not, I wasn't building, I was, I definitely don't have that skill set. When we were doing tenant improvements on what would become our new district office that's funded by the state of California, the city in which I used to be mayor, which is an amazing, beautiful city, the plan check guy decided that because we had a conference room that the phone line needed to be drilled into the concrete and like wiring for a phone line that we never were going to put in because of future tenants potentially, you know, but this was our office that the state of California is paying for. So plan check comes back. It takes like six weeks. You know, this is definitely not a life and safety issue. You know, I texted the city manager. I'm like, hey, like what's going on? Like, I'm not even putting in a phone line. She's like, well, just tell him no. I'll just tell him you're good. I was like, that's not really how it works. You know, it's no matter what, I'm delayed several weeks on opening state office to serve my constituents because a plan check individual decided that I needed to have something that wasn't life and safety. And, you know, a I think this bill passes out of the assembly 80 to zero. And so I just wonder, like, you know.
Like, you know, and I mean this with all due respect, Brady, but when I look at the board of League of Cities, They're all electeds. And as an elected on a city council myself, when I would get these calls because I called my city council members, I find more times than not as a city council member, I'm having to deal with these issues. I actually don't think city council members support would support this bill, to be honest with you, like or sorry, wouldn't support the position of the league. I actually think as a city council member, I got kind of like tired of dealing with getting calls from business owners and developers because somebody on staff made a determination that I think is, you know, outside of the scope of really what they're trying to do. So you know if I had the opportunity to speak to the board of the league I would really ask them you know to think their position on these bills because as a city council member myself and former and I think they would agree that this issue in particular causes more headaches for a city council member than a lot of the other issues and I just feel like you know this bill is going to pass out 80 nothing and we got to find a better position to make sure that this plan check process is not holding back projects because one person with such huge power you know it makes this determination and I think making written findings and then you fix it and then you get more written findings. It's like, how many written findings do we need? You know? So I think we need a standard that says you get two cracks at it and that's it. And that's why I'm very happy to support this bill. Um, and I would love to speak with the board at some point, um, about, about this exact topic. If, if, if the opportunity presents itself, Mr. Tangipa.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I like this bill because it does streamline some of the barriers and hurdles, because I think one of the number one most important issues for everybody today, especially in my generation, is we just want to get out of our parents' home. Just want to get out and be in a place where you can afford somewhere. And this is cutting down bureaucracy. But I do hear RCRC. I hear the League of Cities. And one of the things that I've mentioned for my colleagues, too, is that for some of these rural areas, as we're putting so many local burdens on them that we have to meet, whether it's solar standards, sprinkler standards, all of these additional standards, we must make sure that we're giving you some of the modernization tools as well to make the standards that the state of California is putting on you. And I think that is something that I've talked to a lot of my cities, border supervisors, is we must allow some of the smaller communities to have modernization plans as well and allow them to incorporate AI and processing. But there are a lot of bills that are coming right now that also strip them the ability to do so. And when I have counties and communities that are supposed to meet all of the state requirements that L.A. can afford, San Diego can afford, the Bay Area can afford, but I have one plan checker for one county, an entire county of 50,000 people, the only solution to that is to modernize the process. So while I again support this bill, I hope that we also think into the future that if we're asking our local municipalities to abide by what the state wants, we also give them some of the modernization tools. And we don't prevent that from being implemented at the local level under this guise of protecting jobs where there just aren't jobs there. They can't afford it. Our counties cannot afford this. And so I look forward to supporting this bill, but I really hope that my colleagues also look at what can we do for the League of Cities, for the local municipalities, for our planning, for our departments to give them some of the tools so they can actually meet the goals that the state sets for them. And so thank you.
I hear RCRC. I want to work together with them on a full scale modernization plan because I think that's really where the issue is coming from is they're just saying we don't have the ability to do so. And I know that coming from a rural county. but that's something that we should be able to get there through a school's full-scale modernization plan. So thank you. And thank you to the author for bringing this. Ms. Witts.
Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
And sorry, I missed the conversation. I was in another committee, but I want to thank the author for reintroducing this bill this year. And I'm a proud coauthor. I don know if there been a motion to move it or not I happy to make it If not And just want to just compliment your work You know I led the Select Committee on permitting reform last year I know this was part of the package last year, so thank you for continuing this. You know, as you are, as we all are, a bit of a broken record here on this issue of how important it is, and also so much of our housing has just been death by a thousand cuts. And this is an example of a way that we can fix some of that. And the permitting reform work often feels very niche, but it's actually incredibly important, incredibly powerful. So I just wanted to thank you. I would add on as a co-author if I wasn't already. And excited to support this bill today. Thank you.
We have Mr. Ward. But I want to concur as well for your work in this space. One of the issues that came up last year with AB 253, which guaranteed sort of a parallel pathway for private permitting review if there was an impact to a local government, was whether or not sort of – now, of course, that's signed into law moving forward. There have been some subsequent issues that have been raised that we're studying. We want to sort of implement it as well. But this might be timely for what you're trying to do because one of those issues has been what do you do about subsequent plan checks and whether or not there's an opportunity to sort of like, you know, may try to thread that opportunity for outside support as well to also be able to help to navigate through anything past sort of plan check round one. So just something to take a look at as well. If this is the timeliness, if not then, it's something I tend to look at for next year as well, along with a host of other issues. But we're in that space, and I want to be able to make sure that you're as effective as possible. Thank you. I'm happy to support the bill today. Thank you. Great. You have a opportunity to close.
Thank you. I appreciate the discussion and the comments. Well, it's especially the comments from opposition, because as they know, you know, I care about the locals champion for local control and making sure that they have the resources that they need to do their job. And at the same time, having been a local leader myself, I also recognize the inefficiencies that can happen at local government. And we don't want our locals moving the goalpost. We recognize that there are state requirements. There are local requirements and those standards exist. But I think this will allow our local agencies to be more efficient because they know they have two bites at the apple. So right now they can come as many times as they want to and they can do it in the field. So somebody could say, OK, well, here, here's this back and know that they'll get them later. Right. But now they know they have to do all of that in advance and they have two times to do it. And then it could expose to your point where there needs to be modernization and then request help in modernization so that they can effectively do a two-plan check review and save any other issues they find as it relates to health and safety and address those later. And so I think this is an important step forward. I will continue always to work with opposition, especially our locals from CalCities, our CRC, and CSAC, to see if there is anything that we can do to address this. I appreciate the comment from my colleague. as we have other bills signed into law. And we find, we were talking about this earlier with another bill with implementation issues, making sure that we're incorporating that on a go forward for other bills that deal with the same topic. And so we'll definitely look to incorporate that. And thank you for that feedback. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Great, we had a motion from Ms. Wicks and a second from Mr. Tangipa. And we will take a vote. Motion is to pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Colosa? Garcia? Cholera? Aye Cholera aye Lee Cork Aye Cork aye Ta Aye Ta aye Thank you Pa Aye. Wiggs, aye. Wilson? Happily, aye. Wilson, aye. Thank you. 8-0. All right. That bill is out. We'll keep it open for absent members. And we will go to item number three, Mr. Salashe. AB 2002.
Thank you chair and members for the opportunity to present AB 2002, which will codify the regional early action planning grant, a program known as REAP 1.0. I am grateful to you and the committee staff for the hard work and thoughtful analysis on this bill. We are facing a housing crisis, as you all know, that requires bold policy vision. But California's housing vision only works in every region, county, and the city has the tools to carry out the state's mandates. Housing for all starts with good plans, and good plans require funding. Staffing and technical capacity, especially for communities that have historically been left out like those in my district. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or RENA, is the foundation of our statewide housing strategy, yet it remains unfunded a mandate. The demand on our regions have grown greater and greater, and the seventh RENA cycle will be the most complex and expensive for regions in the state's history. Without support, local governments, especially small and under-resourced jurisdictions, will struggle to meet the state's expectations. Luckily, we have known what works. The 2019 REAP 1.0 program demonstrated one of the highest return and investment housing programs that the state has ever funded. In Southern California, SCAG leveraged its $47 million REAP 1.0 allocation to facilitate the adoption of 140 fair housing programs and provide direct technical assistance over 129 agencies, resulting in nearly 450,000 units being submitted for permitting, 222,000 units being permitted, including 109,000 affordable units between 2020 and 2023 in the SCAG region. Clarifying Rebo.0 protects the state's housing framework from instability and ensures regions can meet the increasingly complex requirements we have placed on them. Alongside this bill, we have submitted almost $125 million budget requests spread over several years, only a small fraction of the state's housing budget. AB 2002 swings the state's housing commitment and ensures that no community gets left behind because they are under-resourced. We did receive some late feedback from stakeholders on this bill, and we are committed to continue engaging with them. With me, I have the honor of having my former colleague, as you all know, I was on SCAC myself, and our former president and now CalCAC president and Councilwoman in Palm Desert, Councilwoman Jan Harnick, as well as SCAC Deputy Planning Director Elizabeth Carvajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, good morning, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and committee members. thank you for allowing me the opportunity to talk about this bill authored by the one and only Assemblymember Salachi. So he's told you my position. My name is Jan Harnick. And as you've heard, AB 2002 could codify the REAP program, which in 2019 was the first time the state provided funding to support housing development as set forth by the RENA program. program. The program provides technical assistance to cities, counties, and regions to develop and adopt good housing elements. And in the Coachella Valley, our low-resource cities have benefited from it. A couple of examples. An investment to develop a plan for the Coachella Valley Affordable Housing Catalyst Fund to address financing barriers to affordable housing production in inland and rural markets. Another investment supported over 2,300 affordable housing units between 2021 and 23 in the Coachella Valley, including the 298-unit Palm Desert family apartments. These examples demonstrate how small investments make a big difference. The RHNA is an answer to our housing challenge, but without a resource it's just a promise we can't keep. AB 2002 changes that with GoodSend solutions. So thank you for your consideration of AB 2002 today. Thank you Chair, Vice Chair and committee
members. Once again my name is Elizabeth Carvajal. I'm the Deputy Director of Land Use with SCAG. AB 2002 is an opportunity to build on the local and regional regional capacity that has arisen from both REAP 1 and 2. The 2019 REAP 1 program created a foundational shift in how the state and MPOs like SCAG support our cities to plan for the regional housing needs assessment, and more importantly, the policies and processes that need to be put in place to make housing a reality in our state and region. In the SCAG region, we use our REAP 1 dollars to provide technical assistance and allocate resources to help local jurisdictions update their housing elements and build their capacity to support housing production. We have 186 of our 197 jurisdictions, or 94% with compliant housing elements. A few examples of REAP1 projects include efforts in the City of Los Angeles to conduct RENA analysis to help them map and analyze the RENA capacity and create a rezoning program. For context, the City has to plan for over 450,000 units, more than 30% of our 1.3 million unit allocation. SCAC's REAP program also helped Orange County partner with Ventura and Gateway City's Council of Governments to develop an ADU suite of programs for model ordinances, a website, and how-to guides. These three subregions represent 71 cities. In San Bernardino County, the REAP1 funding supported cities by providing technical assistance for housing element development and staff augmentation to help our lower-resourced cities execute this important work. The COG also conducted a full site inventory and analysis, identifying sites that are suitable for housing to meet the RHNA. These are just some examples of projects and local planning efforts we were able to build with REAP1 from scratch. Without AB 2002, MPOs and our jurisdictions risk losing the access to the programs and resources that will enable critical planning work essential to meeting the next RHNA cycle, housing element development, and the capacity building and planning work that is foundational to addressing the state's housing crisis. Thank you for your consideration of AB 2002. I'd be happy to take your questions.
Thank you so much. Other folks who are here in support of this measure?
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the City of Pico Rivera, strong support. Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Chris Chrisley here on behalf of three clients Sacramento Area Council of Governments the Urban Counties of California and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors all in support Good morning Chair and members Brady Gurn on behalf of the League of California Cities in support Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Lauren de Valencia representing the American Planning Association in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Vincenzo Caparelli here on behalf of the California Association Council of Governments, co-sponsor and strong support. I was also asked to register support on behalf of both CSAC and RCRC.
Great. Thank you all. Is there any witnesses here in opposition to this bill?
Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I just want to start off by saying that we support the author's intent. We recognize that local governments need additional funding to deal with the increasingly complex RENA process. However, we are opposed unless amended, and we've had some productive conversations with some of the staff already to that effect. The main issue we want to see is that some of our members in the REAP process have conditioned funding eligibility on adoption of policies such as rent control or inclusionary housing that exceed state standards. And we'd like to see some guardrails for COGS such that they can condition refunding on additional policies that layer additional complexity and compliance on those funds. And, yeah, we're looking forward to working with the author to address those concerns.
Great. Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to this bill? Not seeing anyone. Bring it back up here. Vice Chair Patterson.
Well, thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I haven't had enough coffee this morning, so I'm a little grumpy. But, you know, I think, you know, I've said this before in this committee, but I think the arena process is completely ridiculous. Doesn't deliver houses, homes. The number of city staff, county staff, COGCAT staffs that are spending time, you know, filling out paperwork. I mean, the ink isn't even dry on the last housing cycle or the existing one, and people are already gearing up for the next one. And all these staff members working on it, probably hundreds of millions of dollars statewide to basically fill out a bunch of paperwork, which then later on we have HCD making probably underground regulations for every single city in the state of California. Yeah. So I think the process sucks. And that said, the reason why I like this bill is because the cities and counties need the help to comply with the law. And I totally agree with everything that the BIA said, by the way. I mean, you know, but part of the reason why local jurisdictions are putting on these requirements is because they're mandated to zone for certain types of housing, which already have difficulties getting delivered in the first place. And so then the local jurisdiction says well hey you know to create you know affordable housing we going to create a new fee you know to help fund it And then said fee never you know doesn actually deliver housing So I agree with totally agree with what you said but I do think the local jurisdictions have you know they need help complying with all of these underground regulations instituted by HCD So this will be a helpful bill to get to that point, and I look forward to supporting it. Thank you.
Ms. Quirk-Silva.
I'm glad I got to hear your comments before I spoke to my colleague. Yeah, you know, the state does go through many exercises as local governments, but the goal with RENA is to build housing, and it's to get cities who have been lagging to move forward. We have had more and more compliance, compliance, but it's only because the state has had to push on those. And unfortunately, there have been some cities that actually are in legal battles with the state because they absolutely refuse to do any type of housing, which pushes the housing on to other cities. So the more we can invest in planning, I think the better off we are. But there are lots of dollars that have been expended to get to this. And I've always said of each city, according to their size, would build something versus nothing. We'd be much further along. And when people sit out or push it to someone else, it's why we're in this situation. But that being said, I do have some question as the REAP funding does come through our budget committee. And in this budget cycle, there is no funding stated for it. But this bill, If you could, or any of the witness, explain the difference from, and you do acknowledge it on page 7, between what you're trying to do with this next cycle, with this funding, because I see, in addition, this bill adds local housing trust fund activities as eligible, and you've added a few other things. So if you can just in a little snapshot show us what you're trying to do that is different in this cycle. Whoever would like to answer that.
Sure. Elizabeth Carvajal here. So this program would fund everything that was allowed in REAP1, which is essentially helping with the RHNA process, setting up the methodology, helping jurisdictions participate in RHNA and update their housing elements. In addition, it is allowing for establishment and funding of housing trust funds. That's a new addition to the program, as well as looking at utility capacity planning as well. So essentially, a lot of it is focused on getting folks ready through the RHNA process, updating housing elements, and the new additions are largely related to housing trust funds.
So I want to ask the housing trust fund. Not every jurisdiction has one, depending on the county or the city. but this would say that you could use. So if a city or a county got a grant, you're saying then you could take some of that money out and put it into a housing trust?
So for example, if we created a program, a jurisdiction could apply, say they have an existing trust fund, but they want to explore creating a new type of loan program. They could apply and say, we want to get some funding for a feasibility study to focus specifically on pre-development loans. So it could focus on expanding capacity of an existing trust fund, as well as looking at the feasibility of creating a new one in a sub region, excuse me, a sub region or a city. All right Well I like to speak more about that after the committee just I have some thoughts about it but I do support the bill I know that the planning is essential and so I would support this bill
Ms. Wilson.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the author for submitting this bill, introducing this bill. I think it's extremely important, having been a local leader, that as a county, we were able to take advantage of refunds through ABAG. And I sat on ABAG and sat on housing until I understand how vitally important it is to be able to have these resources, which provide technical assistance and others, to be able to meet these goals. I also am familiar, having been in housing and served on these housing boards, how the resources are used for a regional framework. Our state dollars are precious. And as you noted, as it was noted by my colleague, that this bill is not yet funded. And when it will be funded, it will be funded with state dollars that are competitive and small. I mean, you know, not small, but I meant we're prioritizing something over another thing because we just have very limited resources. And so I think it is really important that our resources go to award state goals. And I do recognize that a lot of times locals, having been one myself, we will add additional layers, which could cause housing costs to go up or prevent housing. And so we want to make sure that these resources that we're using to accomplish state goals and not necessarily additional local goals. And so I think that's important. And I think that's something to consider as you work through the legislative process, absolutely supporting today. I wasn't here for the whole time, so I don't know if a motion has not been made, if it hasn't. I'm willing to make that motion now. But I do think you should take into consideration the fact that state resources should be used to achieve state goals. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. All right, we have a motion and give the opportunity to close.
Thank you so much to the committee. You know, it's interesting to see the discussion because not too long ago I was, you know, on the other side of the aisle. and actually was a witness in this committee as a former mayor and council member. So I do appreciate the committee's questions and feedback. I know Ms. Shrenker Silva, obviously from Fullerton, the member from Fullerton, has had a lot of involvement in this space, obviously in her capacity, and we appreciate her vote on yes on this as she's leaving the last year of her legislative year on a very high note, supporting something so important. And, you know, like Mr. Patterson said, also from the member from Oh, my God, R. Rockland, thank you. I was like, no, it was R. R. I couldn't agree. And the other R. I couldn't agree with you more on the frustrations. I sat in Skagg and almost 200 cities represented. And trust me, there was a lot of discussion. We have so many counties and almost 200 jurisdictions being represented. And those frustrations are not unique of this process. But to your words and to Ms. Wilson's, the fact of the matter is that we have to continue funding this. This is a proven program. Someone asked me, why are you not focusing on 2.0? I said, because 2.0 is projects. 1.0 is actually planning and giving the cities the resources and the actual work to do. So, again, being involved in SCAG and just understanding the local issues really, really matter. And I even let the Coachella Valley representative talk about her region in this example. And I do want to address also, Mr. Chair, the opposition's concerns. I think if you know my office, our office would not be supporting something that would not give local cities that work the jurisdiction, some of the areas that were presented. So just know that our office is going to continue working on some of the people that they will receive because there's concerns. I would definitely agree that we have to make sure that cities are also protected. So I appreciate the continuous conversation. And today, Mr. Chair, we appreciate us really putting our mouth and our money where our mouth is at about funding these policies and these issues. And that's what really we have to really focus on. And so the last thing I'll say is not only are we moving this bill forward, we're asking us for $125 million budget as well. And, of course, through the process, we'll see what that happens. Thank you.
Great. Well, thank you so much for your leadership and bringing your experience and all of the background that you have and seeing how some of the laws that we pass here actually play out at the local level and the support that is needed to be able to plan appropriately and have the resources in place so that we can plan for the housing growth that we need and actually make it happen. And so I appreciate your leadership here, and we'll have your back there as you fight for those resources that are associated with this bill and continue to work with folks who have some feedback on how this looks as it moves forward. We have a motion, and do we have a second? No. A motion from Ms. Wilson and a second from our Vice Chair Patterson, and we will have a vote. Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Colosa? Garcia? Colra? Aye. Colra, aye. Lee? Cork-Silva? Aye. Cork-Silva, aye. Ta? Not boring. Not boring. Tanqipa? Aye. Tanqipa, aye. Wix? Wilson? Aye. No. No. All right. 7-0 with one not voting, and we'll keep that open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Hoover, item number 6, AB 2118. And then we just have one more bill after this for anyone who would like to join us. And that's my bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2118. California continues to face a severe housing crisis with rising home prices and rents, making it increasingly difficult for residents to find affordable and safe housing. Despite ongoing efforts to develop affordable and mixed income housing, developers still face regulatory hurdles that slow the construction of new units. AB 2118 refines the streamlined pathway created by AB 2011 in 2022 by clarifying that all permits and approvals, including those by state agencies, are exempt from CEQA. The bill also prohibits objective development standards imposed by local governments from limiting or prohibiting mixed uses under AB 2011 projects. With me today is Katie Kassaris, organizing manager for the Student Homes Coalition, and Michael Lane, policy director for SPUR, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association. Would love to turn it over to them. Good morning, everybody.
My name is Katie Kassaris. I'm the organizing manager for the Student Homes Coalition. We're a collective of statewide and campus-based student organizations fighting for accessible, affordable, and abundant housing. The coalition is sponsoring AB 2118 because we believe it will not only build on our previous work in campus development zones but because it will also deliver much affordable units for all Californians Previously AB 2011 created those streamlined pathways for fully affordable and mixed income developments along commercial corridors near transit stops, and the intent there was to promote development in high-resourced areas, which gives low-income tenants access to both affordable housing and opportunities like high-quality jobs, transit, and schools. and then AB 9.3 expanded those opportunities to students, which was very exciting to us. But despite the obvious benefits of affordable housing near campuses, transit, and commercial corridors, some local governments are still finding loopholes to block those projects from being built. AB 21.18 steps in to make a few technical changes that would prevent bad faith permit denials, and this is important to help ensure all Californians, including students, can access the full potential of campus development zones and commercial areas. Students really just want to live somewhere that they can afford and can easily get to places like their classes and the grocery store, ideally maybe even a bus stop. So this bill would move us all a little bit closer to an affordable California with dense walkable communities near communities. On behalf of the members of the Student Homes Coalition, I urge you to vote aye on AB 2118 today. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Madam Chair and members, Michael Lang with Spur, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. First, I'd like to commend the committee for holding an oversight hearing in February on AB 2011 by Ms. Wicks to review implementation obstacles and outcomes. We must continue to improve and perfect these housing approvals streamlining laws as we receive feedback from practitioners and subject matter experts based on their experience in the field. AB 2118 does just this by addressing two of the remaining obstacles to full implementation of the Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act of 2022. First, it clarifies that state permit approvals along with local ones are to be granted ministerially as long as objective standards are met. And second, by proscribing the application of residential development standards that inhibit or prohibit mixed-use developments proposals on qualifying sites. Such mixed-use developments in commercial zones drive foot traffic to adjacent retail, restaurants and services, and revive struggling shopping centers, all while providing the housing we need precisely where we need it and we respectfully request an aye vote.
Thank you, Bill. Oh, here's our good chair. Folks who are others in support, is that where we're?
Yes. Yes, others who are in support.
Holly Firmini de Jesus for Lighthouse Public Affairs and support on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Circulate Planning and Policy.
Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.
Bob Naylor for Fuel Studs and Company in support.
Great. Thank you all. Is there any opposition to the bill? Not seeing any opposition here. All right. Well done. Back up to the dais. Not seeing any questions or comments. as you left everyone in support and ready to move forward. So you can, if you have any closing comments.
Yeah, I just would respectfully ask for an aye vote and thanks to the committee for working with us.
All right. We have a motion from Mr. Tangipa and a second.
Second.
Second from Ms. Quirk-Silva. And we can take a vote. Thank you Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources Haney Haney aye Patterson Ward Aye Ward, aye. Colosa? Garcia? Colra?
Aye.
Colra, aye. Lee?
Aye.
Lee, aye. Cork Silva?
Aye.
Cork Silva, aye. Ta?
Ta, aye.
Taqipa?
Aye.
Wilson?
Aye.
Wilson, aye. Thank you, everyone. 8 to 0. All right, we'll keep it open for absent members. And the last bill we have is my bill. So we might be back up here.
Which one is this?
It's five.
Yes.
Welcome, Mr. Haney. You are presenting AB 2074. All right.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 2074, which will address two overlapping challenges, California's housing shortage and our struggling downtowns, many of which have not yet recovered fully from the COVID-19 pandemic. AB 2074 will create a streamlined ministerial pathway for high-rise, mixed-income housing in transit-rich city centers. It will help bring residents and activity back downtown, establish a revolving source of project financing, and ensure that the projects we are building support a well-compensated and well-trained construction workforce. The bill focuses on a small number of the state's largest cities, those with populations over 400,000, and multiple major transit stops. Those cities are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, and Long Beach. At the same time, other cities may opt into the bill, allowing them to designate a regional transit hub district and access the bill's financing tool to attract downtown developments if they choose to participate. Within these districts, AB 2074 establishes land use controls to allow high-rise housing, including minimum standards for height density and floor area ratio appropriate for downtowns. Notably, most of the cities affected by this bill already have high-density downtown zones, so this bill will help to support existing strategies and enhance the opportunities for this type of development. It includes the same labor standards as SB 423, requiring prevailing wage for projects under 85 feet, and skilled and trained workforce requirements for larger buildings. It will also include a state-backed revolving loan fund administered by CalHFA, which is being pursued through a broader budget request to provide low-cost financing. I realize I've taken all of the talking points from my two witnesses, so I will stop there. I hear them whispering about it. So here with me to testify are our co-sponsors, Aaron Eckhouse from California Yimby and Jeremy Smith from the State Building Trades. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Eckhouse. I'm proud to be here from California Yimby to speak in support of AB 2074. This bill would help revitalize California's downtowns by supporting high-rise housing development there. We know that changing work patterns after the pandemic have hit downtowns hard We know that more housing is a great way to bring life back to them And we know that the transit downtowns of major cities are a place where we can really go big on addressing California housing shortage AB 2074 combines land-use standards to ensure high-rise housing is possible, streamlined permitting to protect that housing from delays, labor standards to support workforce development as we build that housing, and low-cost financing to make sure those projects actually get off the ground. I want to talk more about the low-cost revolving loan fund in the bill because it's such a powerful tool to catalyze sustained investment in downtown regrowth. It's a secret ingredient of this bill that we really think takes it to the next level as a way to unlock new housing. Because of the way loans from the fund are structured, it will leverage private capital to magnify the impact. And because the loans revolve back into the fund, it allows a modest one-time commitment from the legislature to unlock sustained support for downtown housing. AB 2074 adds a powerful new tool to California's efforts to address our housing crisis, as well as revitalize our downtowns. It will help our biggest cities build the homes our economy and workers need, near transit and jobs in communities where people can walk to work, school, and all the other amenities of urban life. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, it's going to be Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. Proud co-sponsors of this legislation. I'd like to thank Dori and Mr. Chair for the hard work you've all put on this bill. It's nice to be in this space co-sponsoring a bill with California EMB. And working together, this is the type of bill that we've wanted to see for a long time, where there's an acknowledgement of the need for housing, especially in these downtown corridors, economic revitalization that comes with that housing, but also an acknowledgement of the workers who are building it. I know that we are all aware of what we need in this state when it comes to housing, and we've spent a lot of time over the last decade reminding policymakers, let's build our way out of this. Let's not forget about the workers who are going to build the housing, and this bill does that. A lot of our members, especially when they become journeymen and journeywomen, they're making very good salaries in the construction industry, but a lot of them can't live where they work. So when we come here and we complain about there not being labor standards in these different housing bills, we take that very seriously, but we want everybody to realize that our members need housing too. And so we're not, this isn't fun for us to have to oppose a lot of these bills. So we're happy to work together on a bill that acknowledges that there are some bigger cities in this state that can accommodate this type of construction, but that the workers who are going to build it are going to be taken care of as well. And I think the other important thing to note, Aaron mentioned it, is this revolving loan fund idea. I think that this state, we think this state needs a Prop 98 type of space of funding for housing, where there's a certain amount of money every year that's for housing. I know that there's a lot of different pots of money all over the place, and that bureaucracy gets a little hard to get through. but this revolving loan fund I think is something that has merit. I know the budget is very difficult this year. I think we all know that. So we'll see what May Revi says, but we're excited about this idea. We're excited to be partnering with California and beyond this and look forward to working together as the bill moves forward. Thank you today for the time.
Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Any other witnesses in support?
Holly from Ilyde Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate Policy and Planning in support.
Any others in support? Seeing no others, do we have any witnesses in opposition?
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income Californians. And first of all, I have to say I don't want to be here because there's a lot of things in the bill that is seeking to accomplish that we believe in. I want to just point out that the analysis does a fabulous job outlining the challenges that we have in our state when we are producing housing, especially multifamily. And one of the things that we were disappointed in is that this bill focuses specifically on high rises and only provides financing opportunities for those type of projects, which tend to be the most expensive and the ones that have the least affordable units that are available. And I'm not just talking about deed restrictive, but just affordable options in general. And so we understand what the author and the sponsors are trying to do. In fact, we agree. I love the Prop 98 idea. Would love to work with California EMB and the trades to accomplish something like that and believe that there is a lot of good and merit in the bill that the author is seeking to accomplish. So we hope that we can work together to ensure that we provide financing opportunities for early stage development for all kinds of projects in California that are all across the regions and not just specific urban points. So with that, thank you. And I apologize that we're opposing.
Any other questions?
Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California, expressing concerns with the bill. Really appreciate working with the author's office to date, but we feel strongly that limited public funds should be used not to support mostly market rate housing, but housing that serves the lowest income Californians. So look forward to continuing conversations and appreciate the conversation. Thank you.
bringing it back to members. Back to members. Any questions? Assembly member?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, for continuing to work on all the issues that we need to for effectively managing more housing. I'm trying to understand kind of getting, I'm kind of curious, you know, with the implementation of the standards here that are outlined in the bill, what would be the practical effect? I want to talk about the fund in a second, but as far as, you know, the development capacity that you're looking at right now, What might be the additive value there of a development capacity that's not already afforded by existing local ordinances, SB 79, 423, et cetera? I'm trying to think, obviously, I'm very focused on San Diego, but I know your district as well in San Francisco and some of the other major cities that would be eligible under this bill. Where are you seeing the sort of ministerial approval that isn't already existing? Very good question. So SB 79 and other efforts tended to focus more on mid construction so generally not higher than 75 feet and this bill is really focused on high construction up to 150 and even 450 feet So this is a much higher level of construction in terms of what we offering Obviously, as you noted, the opportunity to receive funds through the revolving loan fund is also a big part of it, to be able to address some of the financing gaps that can create challenges here. The cities will have the discretion to choose and define the coverage area. So we really wanted to balance out their local control over the area that would be included in this. And it is including types of development that, again, in terms of how significant the high rise is, goes beyond what is provided for within SB 79. And I think there was a conversation late in some of the amendments that were taken later on SB 79 about this particular need for this highest rise development. And so we're kind of continuing that and getting that part of it done in conversation with the stakeholders. I know that the city of San Diego is very excited about this. We're going to be announcing it in San Diego and hoping you'll be a part of that. And the mayor's very excited about the opportunities that can come about from this. So it's been something that is this sort of particular type of development opportunities that exists that I think has not been fully addressed by the bills that have been forward around the much more high-rise, dense type of opportunities that are really existing in some of our larger cities. I don't know if either of you. But in some of these local areas, for example, in San Diego, you know, we have actually a height cap in the downtown area because of the FAA restrictions, you know, 500 feet limit. So well north of 150 feet. But because of the land values down there, you're never going to build anything less than 150 feet. Yeah. And so I guess I'm wondering, how does this afford any additional benefit, I guess, to what already is an opportunity, I guess, for that area? Obviously, you can go higher than 500 feet in a one square mile area for your home city. and you would want to because your land values are very high as well. Yeah. I would defer to the leadership of the city of San Diego as to why they view this as an opportunity. They certainly have been very supportive of it, and the mayor has been very supportive of it. It's a combination of some of the particular ministerial approvals that we're putting in here on these types of developments as well as what they see, as you said, around some of the financing that's needed. And it may be the financing, the revolving loan fund that is most attractive for a place like San Diego that might not otherwise have, might be able to do many of the things that we're doing in this bill or already have without this state policy change. You know, much more affordable capital is something, yeah, everybody would want. What do you anticipate? I know this is going to be a budget question. What are you anticipating as sort of, you know, a seed, or what are you requesting, I guess, as a seed funding for this revolving loan fund? Should we be successful? $500 million. $500 million? Yeah. Okay. We'll see how far that stretches. But, okay. I'm happy to support the bill here today. Hope it adds value. And, you know, we'll definitely, I think it's going to come down to the money. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. Other questions? Assemblymember Tengifov.
Yes Thank you And you know for me it personally I know how important SB 79 is I know what a lot of people have been looking at but from the position the state is in but not only the position that the state is in every single one of the cities that the author actually had mentioned are in large deficits City of L in a billion deficit City of San Francisco, in an $800-plus million deficit. City of San Diego, over $200 million deficit. City of Oakland, deficit. City of Sacramento, deficit. The state of California is projecting the LAO, and the Department of Finance under the governor's office is telling us that our deficits in the future are in excess of $20 billion. So this is more from just fiscal responsibility, that if we have massive deficits on our largest municipalities and also the state of California is projecting massive deficits, and this is the good time with a positive stock market, I just fear for the future. That there's a reason why these cities won't actually add their own city line of credit and build their own loan program. they are asking us at the state to do so because they don't have any money. Nobody has any money. And yet we're locking things in for the future. So housing is one of my number one priorities. I do believe that we should have, you know, if we don't want to build out, we do need to build up. And that's what places like New York and why they have large scale municipalities and population dense areas. But when we have no money and it's a good time, we need to think about when we have no money and it's the bad time. And so I can't support this bill. I think that it's going to lock us in. And while I understand Prop 98 funding, that type of ballot box budgeting actually removes our ability as the power of the purse here in the state legislature to actually allocate resources properly. So it is just fear of the future when we're looking at the budget, when we are being warned and there are red flags everywhere. We should be very cautious when we're doing things like this in the good time that is already struggling. What will the bad time look like? And then that's where the real conversations start to happen. So thank you.
Assemblymember Wilson. Thank you to the author for your leadership in this area. And I recognize that many of our cities are struggling and our state is struggling, too. We have decisions to make as it relates to our finances. and there'll be decisions to be made on this bill later as it relates to the finances. This is the policy committee. I think it's good policy. And with that, I make the motion. We'll ask the author to close.
Thank you. And thank you for those comments and thank you to our witnesses. I think it's very notable that we have the California Building Trades and California YIMI coming together on this bill and working together and recognizing how important it is that we build housing. We also build housing in areas where we have tremendous opportunity. You know, we have a lot of conversations here about how we need to build more in certain parts of our state and certain cities. And, well, we have a huge amount of capacity and opportunity in some of these dense areas where we do have transit, where we do have a lot of jobs, and we have to build a lot more there as well and build with a high-paid, high-trained workforce. So that's what we want to do here. We hear a lot also how we can change zoning and we can change permitting, which we need to do, but also we need to address the financing. And this is a great investment that we can make. I know our state and our cities are struggling with their budget deficits, but we can't stop growing and we can't stop investing and we can't stop building. That how we going to create the kind of growth I think that is going to address those deficits over time and that includes building investing and housing And so with that respectfully ask for your aye vote All right This bill is a due pass as amended to the assembly committee on local government
Uh, the recommendation is a support. And with that, uh, can you take the role? Of course. Um, Haney. Hi. Haney. Aye. Harrison. Ward. Ward. Aye. Colosa. Garcia. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Cholra?
Aye.
Cholra, aye. Lee?
Aye.
Lee, aye. Corksilva?
Aye.
Corksilva, aye. Ta?
Thank you, Pa. No. Thank you, Pa. No.
Wiggs?
Aye.
Wiggs, aye. Wilson?
Aye.
Wilson, aye. She's going to call for vote. And then our secretary will call the roll for additional add-ons. Thank you. Thank you.
Aye. Aye.
Yeah. Okay. Four. All right. We're going to go through and take some votes here. Item number four. Item number four, AB2005, is a do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government. Assemblymember Patterson, Colosa, Garcia.
Aye.
Garcia, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Wiggs? Aye. Wiggs, aye. So the bill is out, 9 to 0. The bill is out, 9 to 0. One not voting. Yeah. Okay, we also need Patterson. Okay, so do you want us? We'll go through the others for the... Yeah, let's keep going. This is the consent calendar, item number 2, AB 1899, and item number 7, AB 2390. Assemblymember Patterson, Colosa, Garcia.
Aye. Garcia, aye.
Lee. Aye.
Lee, aye.
Wiggs. Aye.
Wiggs, aye.
10 to 0. Item number 1, AB 1621, Colosa, Garcia.
Garcia, aye.
Lee. Aye. Lee, aye.
11. Zero.
Item number three. Senator Colosa.
Garcia. Garcia, aye.
Lee.
Aye.
Lee, aye. Wiggs.
Aye.
Wiggs, aye. Oh, perfect. This is item. Item number three. Item number three. Ms. Coloza, we just called you.
I don't know.
Item number three.
Aye.
So that would be 11 to zero with one member not voting. So member Coloza, item number four, AB2005.
Aye. So member aye.
10 to zero. item number 5 2074 Assemblymember Harrison
Assemblymember Colosa Aye
Assemblymember Ty is not here so that would be
921 One.
Item number six Patterson Colosa Colosa Colosa aye Garcia Aye Garcia aye Wiggs Aye Wiggs aye 11 to zero Number seven was our consent. And number eight, Assemblymember Patterson. Still member Colosa.
Aye.
Colosa, aye.
Garcia. Garcia, aye. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Wiggs. Aye. Wiggs, aye. 11 to zero. Oh, I said, Member Colosa has a few more. Yes. I believe so, yes. And Lee? Yes. I believe I got everything, but we're going to go through it again, so we'll double check. I said, Lee, Member Colosa, the consent items, item number two and item number seven. Yes. Yes. Aye. So that stands, oh, here's Assemblymember Patterson. You love HOAs. I have a meeting with my HOAs. I love your love of them. Assemblymember Patterson, we are at the consent items at item 1 and 7. Excuse me, item 2 and item 7. I love it. Aye Aye Please Next week what is this I sorry I sorry I believe we have a few. Let me double check. Item 1. Aye. Thank you. That's 12 to see you. Thanks for being here. We got like eight or 100%. Yes, exactly. And, Assemblymember, you have voted on those. Item number four, that's 2-0-0-5. Assemblymember aye. That will be 11-0 with one member not voting. Item number 5, 2-0-7-4. Assemblymember Patterson is aye. That is 10-1. Assemblymember is not here. Item number six, Assemblymember Patterson. That is I. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, two, zero, and item number six, AB 2118. And item number eight Assemblymember Patterson Item number 8 is Gallagher 2676 He not voting Not voting. Thank you. All right. All right. He's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.