Assembly Housing And Community Development Committee

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to say Mr. Chair, but Madam Chair, congratulations for your promotion and members of the committee. I am pleased to present AB2035 today, which would allow greater flexibility in updating CCNRs for large homeowner associations, otherwise known as HOAs. Under existing law, if a homeowners association is unable to achieve the quorum requirement established by their covenants, conditions, and restrictions, otherwise known as CCNRs, the HOA is permitted to petition the superior court of the county in which the HOA is located for an order that reduces the percentage of affirmative votes necessary for an amendment to their declarations to 50% of all homeowners. The current statute exists due to the fact that many HOAs often struggle to meet quorum requirements in order to update their CCNRs. This struggle can happen for multiple reasons, including low voter engagement and high percentages of non-resident 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, This was kind of a fun fact. Mikhail Gorbachev was president of the Soviet Union that existed at the time, and George H.W. Bush was president of the United States. The last time, Laguna Woods' CCNRs were amended. This struggle to amend CCNRs is not for lack of trying, as Laguna Woods Village has done everything in its power to pass these much-needed updates. Since 2019, the HOA has spent over $140,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections. 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 Despite all these efforts, they still have been unable to update their severely out-of-date CCNRs.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, AB2035 creates an additional affirmative vote affirmative vote reduction in California law. This amendment would allow an HOA to petition the court for approval of the amendments to their CCNRs if 37 percent of all homeowners vote affirmatively. HOAs utilizing this process will need to meet stringent requirements, including the following. Number one, it is a senior citizen housing development. Number two, it has more than 6,000 separate interests. Number three, more than 25% of the separate interests are occupied by non-owner tenants. And number four, the common interest developments declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years. These stringent requirements represent a narrow solution that would allow HOAs such as Laguna Woods Village to update their CCNRs while maintaining the pre-existing court approval process. Our office has been in communication with the California Association of Realtors, who submitted a letter of concern earlier this week, and we welcome the opportunity to work together on this bill. I have with me today Kathy Van Osten, who will be speaking on behalf of Laguna Woods Village and can answer any technical questions. Thank you. Good morning. I think this

Just make sure I know where we are here. Are there other folks who are in support? Yes. Okay. Is anyone else in the room who are in support? Want to register their support? Seeing anyone? Do we have anyone here in opposition? Witnesses or anyone in the room who wants to register their opposition, not seeing anyone? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Thank you so much, Chair. Good morning. Thanks to the author for bringing this forward. So just to clarify, is this only impact Third Laguna Woods Mutual in your district, or do you know if it impacts any other senior living facilities?

Right.

Yeah, I think that would be my only recommendation for this is I know it sounds like it specific to your district but in the event that this impacts anything else other than this one development where you having issues because your owners live internationally I know the threshold for 37 is pretty low And can you also just elaborate why it's 37%, like why that percentage threshold specifically for the vote? Why they put that in? How is that decided? Not why not 30% or 36%?

So that 37 percent was certainly approved, wasn't it?

A court still would have to approve this.

Okay, thanks for that answer. Yeah, I'm just wondering how that number came about. The reason why I'm asking is because I have a lot of HOAs in my district as well. And I just want to make sure that this is just specific to your district, given the concerns that you're raising. So I will support it today, but I will be following up to ensure that it's not having broader impact. Also wanting to make sure that since it is a senior living facility and we're lowering the threshold for what it takes to get approval, that maybe there's additional protections if there's other things that are going through the HOA for approval that maybe, you know, they may not be okay with.

I have a question for you on a technical basis. I think Mr. Todd did an assembly bill a year ago related to voter thresholds. Was that signed into law? And it wasn't that? What percentage was that? So 37 percent as well or lower? I think it was lower.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks for your responses. Well, thanks for this discussion. Sorry I walked in a little late to this particular hearing. When I was reading the bill obviously it was very clear to me that it a very very very very narrow bill Obviously I think precedents and things we going to look at But are there things we can do in the legislature? And I'd like to ask you that to maybe improve voter participation in HOAs. Like are there some red tape or regulatory burdens? I mean, I live in a quite large HOA myself and, you know, we never meet our voter thresholds and it's, you know, quite the experience. And I mean, there are things that the HOA needs to do, you know, but also I don't really like the idea of, you know, narrowing it to select few necessarily. Right. So, I mean, I'm OK with this bill. I plan on supporting it, but I'm just curious. Are there things we can do to alleviate that or increase participation?

Yeah. I agree with that. And obviously, we want to bring together stakeholders. Look, I'm going to support this bill and would support, probably supported Assemblymember Taz's bill. You have amazing bills, always, Ms. Dixon, you know, every piece of legislation you do. So, but I do think we got to, you know, the broader discussion needs to happen soon, you know. So, and I'm always interested in those. So, thank you. Look forward to supporting.

Sure. We want to establish quorum here. We have it. Haney. Present. Haney here. Patterson. Here. Patterson here. Avila Farias. Colosa. Colosa here. Garcia. Colra here. Lee Cork Silva here. Ty here. Wilson here. And we have quorum. All right. We have quorum. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Ms. Dixon? All right. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much and appreciate your work on what I know is a very narrowly tailored solution to solve a problem in a particular HOA. And we look forward to seeing some of the questions and comments around the sort of broader impact and broader questions addressed as it moves forward. But I know it will solve a problem that your HOA is facing. And so we have a motion and a second and we will take a roll call though. Motion is passed to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias? Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Colra? Aye. Colra? Silvai, Ta. Ta, aye. Tangipa, Weeks, Wilson. Zero, we'll keep that on call. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. And we're going to stay going in file order. So I think Mr. Ward is here. There he is. And then we'll go to Mr. Carrillo after that.

Good morning, Chair and members. Freddy Cantana with the California Apartment Association. We support this legislation as the approach provides options for homeowners who are serving as landlords to purchase and install cooling systems in the units they renting The denial and delays are restrictive and the only recourse to a denial would be legal actions So for this we support Assemblymember Ward efforts today in this committee Thank you

Vince Wart module with MCE California's first CCA. Vince Wart. Thank you.

Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute, California Legislative Action Committee. We represent 55,000 homeowner associations in the state. AB 1684 goes beyond just ensuring that people have access to cooling systems. It removes reasonable HOA authority to manage impacts in common areas and shared property, while also exposing associations to civil penalties. HOAs are responsible for maintaining common areas of structural integrity and shared systems, like utilities, mechanical, electrical systems, panels, etc. This bill would make existing rules void and unenforceable if they are interpreted as restricting cooling systems. For example, if an HOA may currently require a window AC unit to be properly installed, drained to avoid water damage, and located to minimize impact on shared walls or neighboring units. Under the bill, those requirements could be deemed a restriction and no longer enforceable. If an HOA attempts to enforce these protections, it can face civil penalties under the bill as written. This could increase the risk of damage to common area walls, balconies, exterior surfaces, noise and nuisances, issues between neighbors, safety and structural concerns for improper insulation. Ultimately, it shifts the cost to the entire association and its members. Now, we understand the need for cooling systems, but we feel that there's a balanced approach that can achieve the bill's intent while avoiding some of the unintended consequences. We have shared some amendments with the author, and we hope to continue this conversation. Some of those include clarify that the reasonable restrictions are allowed, that they don't significantly increase costs or reduce efficiency of the association, the placement, aesthetics, noise, structural safety, electrical capacity, and protection of the common areas. Also, preserve the association's ability to require architectural approval processes. And, of course, confirm that the homeowner, including all the installation, maintenance, and repair costs that may result in the installation of a cooling system. So for those reasons, we have an opposed less amended position, and we look forward to working with the author to address some of these concerns. Thank you.

You just call me Mr. Patter, dude. That's what it sounded like. Um, you know, just, uh, I think there probably could be some reasonable amendments around, um, uh, common areas, I think, you know, in terms of like drainage of, um, you know, the, the, the water, I think, I think those are reasonable. The electrical, the electrical side, I think those are reasonable. So it doesn you know we not having damage to other property But I would suggest for the opposition to to I mean I have a feeling this bill is going to pass out and get signed by you know get to the governor desk So I probably limit you know the concerns around those kinds of issues I think the having architectural review committee and things like that, I understand the justification for that, but I don't think, I think my guess is the legislature is going to pass the bill. And so we don't want it to get muddled up, you know, with things that I think you raise some very legitimate concerns as well, you know, that I could support Mr. Ward putting into the bill. And I don't know if you have a response to that. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. So one thing I

Yeah. I think that's fair. You know, when I lived in San Jose for a while, we lived in like South San Jose where they, you know, you still pretend like you don't need air conditioning, but you really do. Um, and, uh, so I stuck in a wall or a window unit and, you know, I mean, and I grew up in Napa, it was kind of the same thing, you know, where nowhere really had air conditioning and you kind of put in these units. And, uh, and I think, uh, you know, the local around these portable units that there, you know, there really aren't any, you know, the rules just basically don't damage your neighbor's property essentially, you know, but the local governments are probably a little lenient on enforcement of that. So, but yeah, I'd be interested to see how the amendments and would definitely encourage you to look into some of those things. And it sounds like you are. So I think that's great. I look forward to supporting the bill today. So thanks.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I appreciate the committee's attention to this bill, and I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. First, I'd like to say that I'm also a Dodgers fan to Assemblymember Garcia and Assemblymember Colosa. and other respect to the chairs or their baseball team. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1710. AB 1710 is a bipartisan effort to address California's unprecedented housing crisis, a crisis that has left too many people without a home, struggling to pay rent, and unable to achieve homeownership. This bill builds on the proven success of SB 330 in 2019 by ensuring that once a housing project begins with the entitlement process, it is not subject to standard regulatory changes except for essential updates related to health and safety concerns or to mitigate significant CEQA environmental impacts, among others. As a former city planner, I've seen firsthand how bureaucratic hurdles and constitutional regulations solve projects for years, driving up costs, and making housing unattainable. A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive state to build multifamily housing, and I believe that we all know that, largely because of long approval timelines. Projects in California take over 22 months longer to finish than in Texas, for example, which greatly increases costs. If we don't fix our permitting system, we will continue to lose housing investments to other states that offer a more predictable and efficient approval process. A strong, reliable housing supply is critical to keeping workers in California, supporting local businesses, and fueling economic growth. Without enough housing, employers face hiring challenges. Commutes become longer and more costly. AB 1710 addresses these challenges head-on by increasing transparency, providing certainty, and ensuring fair, timely project approvals. With me to testify in support is Audrey Ratajczak and Nick Camarota with the California Building Industry Association or CBIA.

We have other folks in the room here in support of this bill.

Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Colin Parent with Circulate Planning and Policy in support.

Thank you.

I thought you were lining up. Cecilia loves this bill. I'm a majority leader. I love this bill. All right, do we have opposition witnesses? If you could please come up to the front.

Good morning. Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. I'll align our comments with Mr. Tannehill. Respectfully, oppose and less amended. Good morning. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agency. also in alignment with CSDA, opposed unless amended, respectfully. Thank you. Thank you. All right, colleagues. Ms. Wicks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author for bringing this bill back again. I know it was part of the fast track housing package bills that we did last year and it ended up dying an unfortunate death in the Senate. So I'm glad that you're doing it again. I would love to be added as a joint author if you're willing to have me and just happy to make a motion to move the bill. All right, we have a motion. Any other? Second by Ms. Quirk-Silva. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Tanupa? Thank you, Mr. Carrillo. I just wanted to make sure that I was asking too, because since I represent such a rural area, I have a lot of special districts. Some of the issues that I've heard from them is here, some of the laws that we pass in Sacramento, we shift the goalpost every so often. And some of our special districts do want to make sure that they have the opportunity that if they have goals that state or where alignments we can be, you know, how do we make sure that they're working together? If, you know, say another state law passes that again, shifts the goalpost on where we want for our local housing ordinances and different changes that happen. So what are your concerns to that to address some of where our special districts have. Thank you, Mr. Tangipa. I think that's the goal on this bill, to not change the post goal after post entitlement process. Once projects get approved, you know, in my experience as a city planner, I know that there are so many different ways that projects get delayed. And some of those delays have to do with moving the goal, the poll at the end of the day. So that's what the bill is trying to do, not to have them have to comply with new regulations, with the exception, again, as I mentioned, they have to do with CEQA or other health and safety concerns, which are valid concerns in my opinion. But again, that's one of the goals of this bill, to not move the goalposts. Yes, especially at the local level. But I mean, sometimes we here in Sacramento, we shift the goalposts at times too. I look forward to supporting this bill today, But I hope that we can work with some of our special districts that if we change some of the state laws, that these special districts also have a chance to potentially weigh in. That if there's maybe potential future amendments that, again, if the state itself is shifting some of the local ordinances, that maybe we can then give some of the special districts a chance to work into that. Thank you. Absolutely. I think that the opposition also mentioned that we addressed one of their concerns with the reasonable person standards the first time we introduced this bill. I'm happy to continue to have those conversations. and try to not make it more difficult for special districts to have to comply with the bill. Thank you, sir. I'm not seeing any other questions or comments. Mr. Criot, you may close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to ask for your aye vote on this issue. Thank you. Thank you And I know that we had this bill in front of us before in committee and we supported it then and happy to see it come back And I know there are as you stated a lot of often different types of approvals and agencies and such that in our state you have to interact with to be able to move a housing project forward And this bill recognizes that and, as you said, will help make it clearer and more straightforward and predictable for folks who are engaging in those approvals. And I appreciate your commitment to work with opposition as it moves forward, particularly some of the special agencies who are here. And with that, we have a special districts. We have a motion from Ms. Wicks and a second from Ms. Quirk-Silva. and we will take a vote. Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee and local government. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias? Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Colora? Aye. Colora, aye. Lee? Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Tanqipa? Aye. Tanqipa, aye. Wiggs? Aye. Wiggs, aye. Wilson? Nine votes there. Nine votes there. zero. Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll take up your next bill, which is AB 1738. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. First, I would like to accept the committee amendments and express my gratitude to committee staff for their work on AB 1738. AB 1738 helps address an issue that, like many of you, have experienced firsthand waiting weeks to get an appointment for a building inspection for a simple renovation. For many homeowners, even routine projects can be delayed for weeks while waiting for a required building inspection due to limited staffing. During this time, projects often remain unfinished, preventing full use of the space and delaying final payment to contractors. These delays can also lead to additional costs, such as extended equipment rentals or rescheduling fees, while creating uncertainty around project timeliness. What should be a straightforward step in a process instead becomes a prolonged and unpredictable wait, illustrating how inspection backlogs can place added financial and logistical strain on Californian families. I am also, as I mentioned before, a recovering urban planner and would conduct final inspections during my past professional life. I saw firsthand how much of a backlog my building department colleagues face. This This backlog further surveys the housing crisis as building departments juggle the multiple inspection required for a few housing projects with having to also travel to perform on-site inspections for routine home inspections. AB 1738 looks to address this issue and help alleviate the housing crisis by requiring remote virtual inspections for simple home renovations. Requiring remote virtual inspections for simple renovations will speed up the process for the homeowner and the building department, allowing homeowners quicker inspections and for building officials to focus on permitting more complex projects faster. AB 1738 takes a measured approach. It does not apply to own inspections, but instead focuses on the most common and appropriate use cases already being implemented successfully across California. Colleagues, remote inspections will reduce delays, cut costs, and make safe time from homeowners and inspectors. I respectfully ask what went appropriate and I believe that you have a little pamphlet in front of you And this is just an example of how the county of Placer conducts virtual inspections If you notice on the back, there's about 40 virtual inspections that they perform. This bill will only be applied to nine inspections, I believe. And with that, here with me, I have Colleen Corrigan from SPIR to testify in support, and Timothy Wegener from Pleasure County to testify as a technical witness due to Pleasure County's robust virtual inspection offerings. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Haney and members of the committee. My name is Colleen Corrigan, and I'm a policy manager at SPUR, which is a proud co-sponsor of AB 1738. As the Assemblymember mentioned, California's housing insurability crisis is being exacerbated by outdated inspection processes that quietly add time and costs to housing production, renovation, home hardening, and electrification. We've talked with many homeowners and contractors who often wait hours or even days for simple inspections that take between 5 and 15 minutes, adding hundreds to thousands of dollars to individual projects and administrative costs and standby costs. Remote inspections are a proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD, the National Fire Protection Association, and several other states. RVIs are already working successfully across at least 20 California jurisdictions, both large and small, like Placer County, LA County, and San Diego, which reports that it can complete as many as 50% more inspections per day using RVIs. Remote inspections free up limited resources and reduce work backlogs, thereby allowing building inspectors to prioritize complex projects like multifamily housing. Jurisdictions we've talked to report no difference whatsoever in compliance or failure rates between remote and in-person inspections. In fact, the tool allows inspectors to zoom in further than the naked eye on some projects like electrical panels and re-inspections can be inspected quicker when they fail. AB 1738 takes a balanced common sense approach by limiting RVIs to simple low-risk permits that are already being inspected remotely by jurisdictions right now, while preserving full discretion for inspectors to require in-person when safety or connectivity issues arise. Importantly, this legislation will encourage more homeowners to obtain permits instead of avoiding the system altogether due to delays and complexities. AB 1738 represents one of the fastest and lowest cost ways to reduce delays and make government work better for Californians, including during disaster recovery. The bill also establishes clear standards and accountability to ensure consistency and safety statewide. I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1738. Thank you. I'll pass it to Tim. Well, thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Timothy Wegner. I'm the chief building official and a deputy director in the building services division of our community development department within Placer County. I've worked for Placer County for 19 years and the capacity of the building official for about 16 of those years. I'm here today just to share a little bit about our remote video inspection program which we began in 2019. I did provide this pamphlet that speaks to Placer County specifically and what our program looks like today and that we do offer video inspections for a multitude of permit types. Service line replacements, electrical panel upgrades, solar panel inspections, heating and air changeouts, re-roofing, kitchen and bath remodels, and many more, as you'll see. We do reserve more complex inspections, such as foundations, framing, and other structural components for field inspections. We just feel there's a better experience when the field inspectors are there on site for those. And as you can see, we have more than 40 inspection types that we conduct, and in the Last year, we've conducted more than 800 video inspections. As you heard, we have had an increase in not only daily, weekly, but an overall period of time just with the video inspection component. I should mention we also use video inspection for our short-term rental property inspections in our Tahoe area for fire and life safety functions. And I've had a great experience with that as well in gaining compliance and being able to move forward short-term rental permits in accordance with our ordinance. Remote video inspections save time and money for homeowners and contractors, as well as the operational costs for the county. It additionally reduces greenhouse gas emissions by limiting trips to sites for inspections. Video inspections allow our building inspectors to focus on complex and multifamily projects and to save time driving to and from project sites where the video inspections usually only take about 5 to 15 minutes to complete. In particular, we found it keeps jobs moving, resolves outstanding compliance issues quickly, and many times the same day those deficiencies are identified, we can video inspect those and allow the project schedule to keep on track. In the execution of our video inspection system, we utilize really four technologies. The first is our website. In there, we outline process, provide instructions and how-to steps, recommend video equipment, which in most cases permit holders utilize their smartphones. The second step is to schedule the video inspection through we use a private system, a third-party system, which is called Day Smart Appointments. Once that is scheduled, then we contact the permit holder and send them a Microsoft calendar appointment, which connects to the Microsoft. We actually use Microsoft Teams now as a component to do that video and have found great success with that. The last piece is traditionally we do use our Acela permitting system, which is, again, a third-party system that we capture not only the permit record, but the results of the inspection. So that method has not changed for us. In our experience, we found a very similar safety result from video inspections. We've not experienced any quality degradation and have found compliance results similar to that of traditional field inspections. During our more than six years in operation, we have not experienced any concerns with job location, work accuracy, misrepresentation, or any other really what I would call funny business. We audit, have the choice to cancel, and complete a field inspection at our own discretion to ensure good faith acting. Having said this, we do reserve the right to disallow a permit holder from using video inspection programs for being a bad actor. And at this point in our six-year experience, we have not rejected anybody from our program. Initially, there was some skepticism from my staff for the ability to what we'd say see the required elements of inspection. But after a short while, those were dispelled as the team gained experience and comfort with our process. And today the system's embraced and has added value to our process. Remote inspections are an important tool to keep the cost down and making inspections readily available and reducing service interruptions and in speeding up the approval process simply due to the convenience and timeliness of video inspections. Sites ready for inspection schedule a video inspection within two hours lead time and will receive approval the same day. With that said, and in closing, I'd like to share that I'm very proud of my team and embrace this inspection evolution for their hard work and dedication in making Placer County a leader in the building safety field. And I'd also like to thank you for this opportunity to share this program with you and your time, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you Appreciate both the witnesses Do we have folks here who are in support of this bill Good morning Mr Chair and members Stephen Sanzer with Brownstein here on behalf of Permit Power, a proud sponsor of this legislation. Also been asked to give Me Too for a few climate organizations that are supporting this. Climate Resolve, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, All Electric California, 350 Humboldt, Casita Coalition, Active San Gabriel Valley, Carbon Free Palo Alto and the Climate Center all in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Jordan Pernando Carvajal on behalf of California and being strong support. Thank you so much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur, a proud sponsor, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, the 200 and Fieldstead. Thank you. Nico Molina on behalf of the NRDC Action Fund in support. Thank you. Colin Parent with Circulate Planning and Policy in support. Great. Thank you all. Do we have our opposition witnesses here? I don't see any opposition witnesses. Do we have anyone here who is opposed to register their opposition? Good morning. Martin Vignola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California State Pipe Trades Council. We have concerns with the bill. We have an opposed and less amended position, but we look forward to working with the author to address those concerns. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Ms. Quirk-Silva and then Mr. Caller. I want to applaud the author. I think this is a great bill. I want to be added as a joint author, But I really, to the county of Placer, I love this. This is actually both sides. I even noticed you have an inspection for a bear bin. And although that's definitely more Placer, even in Pasadena, they've had issues with bears. But the reason I like this bill so much is it really speaks to local homeowners who want to make these improvements. And so often they get very, very frustrated with their planning departments, trying to get appointments, waiting at the counter, all of these things. And to be honest, many of them just choose to not get the permits. So not only is this something that I think is innovative, it also will encourage others to get permits, which will add the safety around homes. But it will add also, if the fees are reasonable for these permits, that local governments are really struggling for at the loss of some of these fees. So I'm a big fan. I think I'm going to start today with a little award that I make up myself. This gets a little award for Pragmatic and my award, the Pragmatic Award. Great job. She's a former star. All right. Mr. Carl. I have a new goal in life, to earn the Sharon Crook Silva pragmatic award. And also, Mr. Chair, just to point out, one of our committee members, Mr. Garcia, I think is violating decorum and general address. Can we have the sergeants come and take care of this? It's really unacceptable. I want to thank you, Senator Merr, for bringing this bill forward. I definitely think to some of the points that Senator Crook-Silva made an agreement I think it also some of the building inspectors I imagine I know just from at least in my local jurisdiction they also are so backlogged and get you know they have some larger project they have to focus on but they have to do all these quick checks It can also add up. And I just have a couple of comments. One, you know, requiring them to create a program. can, I'm assuming that inspectors, you know, they need to go physically to go even after doing a virtual check can do that. And so what would be important to me also, just as the legislation is moving forward, is that we don't end up having a scenario where people start outsourcing that out of state. It needs to be building inspectors in the jurisdiction. So especially because there needs to be follow-up, you want the inspector that looked at it virtually be the one that's now going to physically go there. And I think that will be a really important component. And the other aspect of it, and I appreciate that the amendments to minor electrical work, minor plumbing work, because those are things that you really kind of have to get behind the scenes, especially on the larger work being done. And even on the minor work, if they see something they want to go, you know, I'm going to go double check this, that person can go and do that. But one thing is, and I think that we do need to embrace the ability to have technology to speed up the permit process, to reduce the workload of these building inspectors. But as one of the big topics we have all the time on AI, I want to be very cautious that jurisdictions in order to save money, don't go down that road, especially for something this important. Obviously, technological tools can be helpful, but ultimately when it comes to, especially talking about plumbing, electrical, there can be catastrophic damages and, of course, injury or loss of life. And so, again, I want this program to be not just better for the permit applicant, but for the building inspectors themselves so that they can get things off their desk, but ultimately they should be the ones kind of deciding what the final sign-off should look like. Does that make sense? It does make sense. You bring up a good point, Assemblyman Caldwell. The jurisdictional inspections, we're happy to have those conversations as the bill moves forward. Thank you, sir. Yep. All right. Yeah, I just want to thank Mr. Crio, Assemblyman Crio, for bringing this up. I think this is a big step towards modernization. We already see that there are multiple cities and counties that are doing this, and it seems like they work, and especially in a lot of rural areas, places that I represent. I mean, I know that there are some inspectors that 1 to 20,000 or 30,000 people. And so I think that this is, again, just a great modernization step. I know that obviously there's been shared concerns on what we can do, but I think this helping and speeding up the process. Time is money. I also say time is cost as well. And I just want to make sure that I was thanking you. And if you're looking for any co-authors, I'd love to sign on with you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. I'm going to close. Well, with that, Mr. Chair, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1738. Thank you, Mr. Carrillo, and thank you for your leadership and for working with the committee. I think we appreciate the work to try to streamline some of these inspections and use technology in pragmatic ways You already received an award for that here And also narrow it in some ways around certain scopes of inspections related to ADUs and appreciate your partnership on that. And I know you're going to continue to work on this bill, including with some of the labor groups who had some particular areas that they were concerned around. So appreciate your leadership and continued work to try to make sure we can get housing built and remove some of the unnecessary barriers and time constraints. So with that, we will take a roll call vote. Oh, do we have a motion? We do not have a motion. Motion to move. Second. Ms. Quirk-Silva moves and Mr. Caller seconds. Take a vote. Motion to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government. Haney. Haney, aye. Patterson. Avila Farias. Colosa. Colosa, aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia, aye. Calra, aye. Calra, aye. Lee. Cork Silva, aye. Cork Silva, aye. Ta, aye. Ta, aye. Tanqipa, aye. Tanqipa, aye. Wicks, aye. Wicks, aye. Wilson. All right, 8-0. The bill's out. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our majority leader, Sagular Curry. This is item number six. AB 1890. Good morning, smiling faces. 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 agricultural economy stays strong and thrives, and we all depend upon them. But many of them are struggling just to find a decent, affordable place to live. That's where Napa County's Farm Worker Housing Centers comes in. They've been a lifeline, 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 service, and even help navigating the immigration issues. In 2017, I established the Farm Worker Center account so the state could step up and match local funds up to $250,000 a year to keep these centers up and running. The rising costs and, as you can imagine, inflation have created a growing funding gap. So if we don't act, the county could be forced to raise rents on workers, cut back on how people they can serve, or worse, we could even shut down the centers altogether. AB 1890 helps 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 that the state does its part to sustain these centers and protect the workforce the California agricultural economy depends upon. So I respectfully ask your aye vote today for AB 1980 to make sure our farm workers have a safe, reliable, and affordable place to call home. With me today, I have Sonia De La Luca on behalf of the Farm Worker Foundation and Ann Cottrell on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors. Go ahead. Good morning, Chair Haney and honorable committee members. My name This is Ann Cottrell, and I am the Napa County Supervisor for District 3, which covers the northern part of the county and is home to all three of our county-operated farmworker housing centers. Today, I respectfully request your yes vote on AB 1890, which would reaffirm the state's support for Napa County's public-private farmworker housing model. Put simply, Napa's model works, and it could work across the state as well. Our three farmworker centers are funded by an innovative model using a combination of public funds, private capital, and self-help. Lodger rents cover 40%. Grower self-assessments cover 30%. The state's contribution now makes up about 10%. The county covers the balance with support from direct donations. Local growers vote to reauthorize the assessment every five years. growers supported the last reauthorization by an overwhelming 87 percent margin, demonstrating their recognition of the significant value of these centers. And the centers average an occupancy rate of about 95 percent year round. Our farmworker centers are a high yield investment for the state. These centers, as you've heard, are central navigation hubs for our farmworkers, offering a range of resources from two hot meals and a packed lunch every day to mobile health care provided by an FQHC to permanent housing navigation. The state's annual contribution leverages substantial local capital and demonstrates ongoing support for an essential agricultural workforce. I want to conclude by extending an invitation to the members and staff of this committee to visit a Napa County Farmworker Center, as you have done, thank you, 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 I'd now like to turn it over to Sonia DeLuca, Executive Director of the Napa County Farmworker Foundation. Thanks, Anne. Good morning, Chair Haney and members of the committee. As Anne mentioned, my name is Sonia DeLuca, and I'm the Executive Director for the Napa Valley Farmworker Foundation. I am here today in strong support of AB 1890. The Farmworker Foundation is an independent 501c3 nonprofit created by and for the farmworker community in Napa County. Our mission is simple, to invest in the people who grow and harvest the wine that has made our valley famous. We do that through education, workforce development, and community support. and the Napa County Farmworker Housing Centers are absolutely central to that work because these centers are not just places to sleep. When a farmworker checks in for the night, the week, or the whole season, they are not just getting a bed and a meal, they are stepping into a community hub. The Farmworker Foundation brings programs directly to these centers from English literacy classes, safety certifications, and viticulture training that help workers build careers and not just fill seasonal positions. When we meet farm workers where they are, we know that when they have the opportunity to learn and grow, our entire community thrives. But these centers are under real financial pressure. Operating costs now exceed $2.2 million a year. The state's contribution, $250,000 annually, covers just $0.10 of every dollar needed to operate them. That contribution hasn't changed since 2018, even though operating costs have significantly increased. Local growers, donors, and lodgers themselves are carrying the weight of those cost increases AB 1890 is asking for Sacramento to remain a viable partner AB 1890 is a modest ask for a proven model It protects a workforce that is irreplaceable. It protects the programs that help that workforce thrive, not just survive. It protects a model of public-private partnership, funding farm worker housing that can and should be a model for all agricultural communities in California. On behalf of the Napa Valley Farmworker Foundation and the thousands of farmworkers we serve each year, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1890. Thank you. Thank you so much. Anyone else here in support of the bill? Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Allison Barnett with Platinum Advisors here in strong support for the Napa Valley Ventiners. Good morning, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unido-SUS in support. Thank you. Great. I don't believe this bill has opposition, but anyone here opposed to the bill? No? We'll bring it back to the diocese. And, well, Supervisor, good to see you. I look forward to coming and joining you, hopefully in the future. You know, I know in this bill, too, it's just simply increasing the state's ability to send more money to help out. I know when I met with some of the vendors, we were talking about the 218 and hopefully commissioning a 218 study in the future for the CSA to make sure. The main reason why I just bring up these concerns is, you know, future ongoing deficits, you know, really do make me worry that future allocations aren't able to meet that. So I know that the CSA has taken additional steps to really make sure that they're prioritizing workers increases on their daily pay. But I would really recommend on that part just to make sure that there's stability in the future, especially as the state's going to increase the allocation by 100 percent on our end. But I hope that the locals do so as well. So thank you. And I appreciate it. And the floor is supporting this. Another great bill. What's going on today? Do I get an award? Yes, you did. The second award. No, I really like this model. I did not know about these centers until you came to visit me. But I do agree that this could be a model for other types of industries, whether it's nursing. We know that we have traveling nurses, and one of the reasons they're not able, even I went to visit Yonville not too long ago, and they are having a very difficult time attaining nurses in that area. So in veterans' homes, but having the type of centers where people could come in as a guest for, like you said, a week, a month. One clarification that I know you told me, but I do want to make note of it, is it's not just the farm workers that work in the vineyards. I think you told me that other ag workers could stay as well. Is that correct? That's correct, yes. So thank you. I appreciate it, and I'd be happy to move the bill. Thank you. All right. I have a motion and a second. Ms. Aguilar-Curray, you can close. You know, I love my initial bill that we did and to see the success that has come from that, it just makes me really happy to see when you go to the farm worker housing to see what they have done and what the community has done because this is truly a partnership and everybody put in something to this including the workers So I would like to respectfully ask for your aye vote today Thank you so much And thank you for your leadership and also your county leadership And we actually spent a significant amount of time learning about this model at a hearing that we had last week on farm worker housing and the broader needs of rural areas when it comes to housing and so was incredibly impressed by it as a model, the way in which folks from the private sector and the county came together and with support from the state and certainly allowing for the state to increase our contribution to this, I think, model that serves the needs of not just the region, but that the state benefits from in so many ways as well. So very happy to to support this bill and appreciate your leadership and the, and the leadership of the County and everyone who has come together to build this model. And with that, we have a motion in a second. We will take a vote. Motion to pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. Haney. Hi. Haney. I Patterson. Avila Farias. Colosa. Colosa. I Garcia. Garcia. Colora. Colora. Lee. Cork Silva. Cork Silva. I. Hi. Thank you. I. Thank you. I weeks. Weeks A. Wilson. 8-0, the bill is out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Mr. Alvarez, right in time. Good morning. I was hoping Ms. Quirk Silva will still be here so I can get a star next to my name, too. One of our great teachers in the Assembly. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. Appreciate the opportunity to come before you to present Assembly Bill 2433, Affordable Homes Bonus Law, Density Bonus. I want to extend particular appreciation to the chair and the committee consultants for their work, not just with my staff, but with myself to get us to where we are here today. And that includes acknowledging the amendments that are being proposed in the analysis and accepting those as we go forward. And thank you again for that work. The Affordable Homes Bonus Law is intended to modernize and improve California's most successful housing tool. The density bonus law. As our sponsors here today will share with you density bonus law has contributed to over 140,000 really not contributed but resulted in 140,000 entitled housing units across California in the past five years alone. This is certainly a significant achievement when we talk about actually building housing and a policy that we've implemented and approved in California. this has been among the most successful in achieving that goal. This bill builds on that momentum to help address our state's housing crisis, of which many of you know too well as members of this committee, and I will not go over the numbers, but the most recent data from HCD indicates that we need to increase our production and building of housing from 100,000 units now to 180,000 units as we have fallen behind even further. And that's the centerpiece of AB 2433. I want to get into the specifics of what the bill will require. It will require local governments to proactively notice applicants if they are eligible for this density bonus law Data that has been compiled and analyzed as stated in your report found that approximately 25 of housing projects that were eligible for this bonus did not actually use it. I believe that number is 14,000 units, and while that's not the gap between 100 and 180,000, it is a significant number of units that could have been built if this was used, if the applicants would have known about it. So this requires that the notice to the applicants that are moving forward with projects. Local governments are already required to notify the applicants that they may qualify for a number of units, but they only leave out the fact that they're not eligible. It's just that simple of a change, hoping that we can encourage more to use the program. Second, it allows the builder to deed restrict units at an income level that are lower than what's in the law. So if someone's actually building more affordable housing than what the law requires, want to make sure that they know that that counts towards their contribution of affordable housing so that they can get the bonuses right now. If you're making units available at a more affordable level, you may not be qualifying for the density bonus, which is definitely not the intent of the bill. And so this clarifies that. It also clarifies that granting of bonus law are not discretionary. This is already the intent of current density bonus law, and this bill reaffirms that. Fourth, it allows for the calculation of density bonus by using floor area ratio, which a lot of jurisdictions, our local jurisdictions are now using, and they've adopted that. And that's opposed to the per unit-based density calculation. They're using floor area ratio. I know that's happening in San Diego and in other places as well. Fifth, it allows for ministerial approval of projects that qualify for density bonus to make that clear that this is a ministerial process. It then also, sixth, aligns state law with recent court findings in the Friends of Lagoon Valley. And seven, most importantly, AB 2433 offers two additional incentives for projects that provide deed restricted units that can be purchased by Californians. This is something that is very important to me and really central to the whole intent here. We've made a lot of progress, and we've seen development and building of affordable housing, not to the level we need to, but certainly a lot of progress. But often that's just rental and not for sale. And this will provide some incentives for those who want to build for sale that are deed restricted at affordable levels so that our families can afford. I want to emphasize the importance, again, of that last point, as we've done a lot of good work, but not always focused on for-sale product. So this is because, according to the California Association of Realtors, over 70% of families in California cannot afford to buy, and those statistics are felt more and more by even some of our colleagues who have shared their inability to afford a place to buy in California. An annual income of $163,000 is required to make a monthly payment of $4,000 a month. That's for a medium-priced condo that's going for $650,000 in the market today. So while most Californians become a homeowner by age 49, according to a recent UC Berkeley study, that's obviously regressed from where we were in previous decades. Now I'd like to turn it over to our sponsors who are here to testify first. we'll have Colin Parent, CEO General Counsel for Circulate San Diego, and then Michael Lane from SPUR. Colin. Thank you, Assemblymember. My name is Colin Parent. I'm CEO and General Counsel with Circulate Planning and Policy. Recently had a name change based in the San Diego area and former city council member in the great city of La Mesa. Here, as sponsors of this bill, it does a lot of things that the assembly member outlined. These are all by themselves fairly modest changes to the law, but they're all the sorts of changes that are intended to make sure that more projects who are willing to build affordable homes are able to take advantage of the benefits of the program, the existing program. So the bill doesn't add any additional density, doesn't add any different types of benefits, just makes it easier for projects to receive the benefits that the legislature has already chosen to provide for projects that are willing to include affordable homes. Circulate has some experience with this policy. We sponsored the last two big bills to enhance bonus laws benefits, AB 2345 in 2020 and AB 1287 with Assemblymember Alvarez in 2023. The first gave it the 50% bonus and the second, the stacked second 50% bonus. Circulate is going to be publishing a report next month. We previewed some of that data in our support letter to the committee members. and this report is going to be helping to document some of the impact and success of the bonus law over the years, especially after these changes the legislature has made in the last five years. So some of the previews that we included in that is that if you total up all the streamlining laws that are tracked by HCD's data, AB 2011, SB 35, SB 9, SB 6, you total them all up in 2024, or bonus law produced 10 times as many units as all of them together. And that's been a tremendous success for legislative action on this. And what this bill does is makes it easier for projects to take advantage of that, to help growing that amount of production. And also one of the things that we shared in that data that we're going to detail more in the report is that a lot of projects use this law and they don't use any density whatsoever. They don't use any extra density, right? And so what they're using is they're using the incentives and the waivers and the other benefits in the program that this bill is designed to make it easier to access. And so those are very, very important things, a big part of why projects are using this program, choosing to build affordable homes, and to be able to receive entitlement. So this has just been a big success. We're looking forward to talking more about it with you and hope that we can make this program even easier for more projects to use. Mr. Chair and members, Michael Lane with Spur, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. State Density Bonus Law is a powerful tool to create both mixed income and 100% affordable housing developments, both rental and for sale. The law provides incentives for market rate housing developments to include below market rate units, enhances feasibility for inclusionary housing requirements, and ensures that units can comfortably fit on the project site. AB 2433 is based on on-the-ground experience and feedback and aims to improve local implementation and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this important tool. It's also important to note the bill does not increase the maximum density bonus available under current law, and we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Other folks here in support of this bill. Hello Chair and members, Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Housing Action Coalition in support Hello Katie Kassaris on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition in strong support Good morning Mr Chair and members Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission, Habitat for Humanity, California, Fieldstead, Inner City Law Center, and the 200, all in strong support. Thank you. Chair and members of the committee, Jordan Parana-Carvajar on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. We have anyone here in opposition to this bill. Anyone want to register their opposition or something in between? Not seeing anyone. All right. We'll bring it back to members, colleagues, questions, comments. No, not seeing. Wow. You would think this is just such a simple, easy, small bill. It's actually a hugely important, impactful one. But it shows the support that you have here and the hard work that you put into it. So we had a motion and a second, and we will let you close. Thank you all. I appreciate the work the committee is doing on the issue of housing crisis. You know, I've approached this problem from when I got here from a policy perspective, given the lack of resources that are in affordable housing. And this is one of the policies that I've been proud to work on that has resulted in success. as was stated by the testimony. And we hope that this law continues and builds on that success. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. And thank you for your partnership on it and how deeply you've dived into this particular issue and particularly the density bonus law, making sure that it works as intended, that it works even better. It's one of our most successful housing laws, if not the most successful one of recent years. And there's more that we can do to to accelerate in particular the homeownership opportunities, which we know is a tremendous need as well. So appreciate your leadership and we'll take a roll call vote. Motion is to pass as amended to the assembly committee and local government. Haney. Aye. Haney. Aye. Patterson. Avila Farias. Aye. Avila Farias. Aye. Colosa. Aye. Colosa. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Colora. Aye. Colora. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye. Cork Silva. Aye. Cork Silva. Aye. Ta. Aye. Ta. Aye. Ta. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Aye. Aye. Weeks, aye. Wilson. 10-0. Bill is out. Thank you very much. Thank you for sure. Mr. Ta, my last bill. Yes. I'm consent. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. First, I want to thank the committee staff for their work on AB 1567. AB 1567 would authorize the Housing and Community Development Department, SCD, to include assisted living community in a housing element report and allow city to count these units toward the regional housing need allocation goal. As we all aware, California faced that housing shortage. The state needs 3.5 million additional homes to meet demand. One of our largest rural population is our aging population. In fact according to a report by PPIC California older adult population is projected to increase by 55 by 2040 One category of housing the HCD has not been counting as a city living because HCD does not have a clear definition. In HCD report, California housing future of 2040, HCD recommend that the DOF use a clear rule for categorizing development that may include group quarters and housing units. In fact, in the same report, SGD also suggests that legislation may wish to explore possible change to improve clarity. Cities and counties are unable to cap acid living communities toward arena numbers. However, AB 1567 would encourage city and county to ease the production of more assisted living communities as defined by Section 1569.2 of the Health and Human Services, hopefully to free up more homes to be available for purchase by families. The sponsor of the bill, you see the front valley, was unable to make the trip up to Sacramento today. That's right, the League of California Cities who are supporting the bill. But they do have Daniel Parsons with the California City Living Association whose group is supporting this bill. Thank you, Assemblyman Ta. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Danielle Parsons with the California Assisted Living Association. We represent assisted living, memory care, and continuing care retirement communities. This bill, AB 1567, specifically deals with our assisted living communities, which are known by their license type RCFEs or residential care facilities for the elderly. We're a social, non-medical model, and we help our residents with their needs for their acts of daily living. So this could be something like showering, dressing, or medication management. Our residents call our communities home, often moving between a spectrum from independent living, assisted living, memory care, and maybe even hospice care within our communities. California has a quickly growing aging population with the population over 65 growing by 59% by 2040. 2040 sooner than it sounds. That population has a 70% chance of needing some form of long-term care in their lifetime. Because of this growing population, California needs to invest in assisted living along with other parts of the continuum of long-term care now if we want to be ready to take care of our seniors in the future. We'd like to thank Assemblyman Taw for authoring this bill and recognizing the importance of investing in additional senior care options, including RCFEs. And we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Anyone else here in support of the bill? Do we have anyone in opposition to the bill? Let's see anyone. Questions or comments? Motion from Ms. Coloza. Second from Mr. Calra. Mr. Tai, you may close. I really appreciate the chair support and the committee staff, so I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Great. Thank you. I supported this last year, and we'll do it again today. And I appreciate your work on this important issue, serving this critical need in our communities as it relates to housing access. And we will take a vote. A motion do pass to the Assembly Committee and local government. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork Silva Aye Cork Silva aye Ta Aye Ta aye Thank you Pa Aye I thank you by weeks weeks I Wilson 10 to see us 10 to 0 The bill is out. Thank you. We ask that any absent members please report back to the room here. We have a motion on the consent calendar from Mr. Calra and a second. Second. Mr. Lee. Arkansas calendar today is item number 2, AB 1573, do pass to the Assembly Committee and Local Government. And item number 8, AB 2162, do pass to the Assembly Committee on Human Services. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Colra? Aye. Colra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Cork, Silva. Ta. Aye. Ta, aye. Aye. Cork, Silva, aye. Thank you, ma'am. He said consent. I'm sorry. He said consent calendar. Correct. Yes. Tankepa. Aye. Tankepa, aye. Weeks. Aye. Weeks, aye. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. So that is 11-0, Sarah. All right. So that is out. And. So, we have item number seven. We'll call that one again. Item number seven, AB 2035. Avila Farias. Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Tanqipa? Aye. Tanqipa, aye. Wiggs? Aye. Wiggs, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. All right. I think we have absent members generally that have to call through. Okay. Yeah. We'll call through for folks to add. And that bill is out. All right. just call each one item one no we didn't um an item one assembly member of parison um aye aye assembly member wilson aye assembly willson aye it'll be 12 to 0 12 0 item number three uh that is our part of our consent calendar No, Ward. I'm sorry. Number three, no. AB 1684. Avila Farias? Aye. Aye. Lee? Aye. Assemblymember Lee, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. And that is 11 to 0 with one member, not 40. Item number four. Avila Farias? Aye. Aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Okay. Item number five, AB 1738. Submember Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. All right. Item number six, AB 1890. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. I feel like I is I. Lee? Lee? Aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Item number seven we did. Is there anyone else? Correct. Item number nine. Assemblymember Patterson? Aye. Aye. Assemblymember Wilson? Aye. It's an aye. And the consent? Did anybody miss? The consent, I believe we have Assemblymember Patterson. Aye. Thank you. Aye. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. He's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.