Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Rowdy group today. I need a bigger gavel. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We're going to start as a Subcommittee and members. I think it's just me here right now; although I know Mr. - oh, there's Ms. Quirk-Silva. I know Mr. Patterson is going to be back in about two minutes, and hopefully, our members will get here. And I actually have to go present a bill myself, so we're going to get us started.

I know Ms. Reyes is here, so we want to be respectful of your time and the committee staff, and everyone here in the audience. We have 20 items on our agenda today. We have two items on consent. Each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition. Each main witness gets two minutes each. There is no phone testimony options for this hearing. All witness testimony will be in person. Please feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website.

This will become part of the official record of the bill. The hearing rule will be open for attendance of this hearing. Any members of the public attending the hearing are encouraged to wear a mask at all times while in the building. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its stream on the Assembly website. Thank you for your patience and understanding. And with that, as a subcommittee, we will start because we have Ms. Reyes here.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Member. I'd like to present AB 312, which will create the State Partnership for Affordable Housing Registries in California as a grant program. It'll also be known as SPAHRC. The SPAHRC grant program will require the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop an affordable housing listing and application platform in coordination with eligible entities that receive program funds. According to the California Housing Partnership, recent estimates demonstrate that California has over 500,000 deed-restricted, multifamily affordable housing rental units.

While these units may be available, they are not always accessible. Individuals and families searching for affordable rental units are forced to search on various posting sites. These sites often do not tailor their search results accurately for renters and may even display both nonsubsidized housing and affordable housing options by having to search on various websites. Renters often apply for multiple listing options they do not qualify for on a multitude of sites, leading to a duplication of efforts and a delay in the renter's path to housing.

AB 312 would create a housing data platform to streamline systems and connect renters and families to deed-restricted affordable housing units they qualify for. Here to testify in support and answer any technical questions is Amber-Lee Leslie with Housing California.

Thank you, Majority Leader Reyes. And the Assembly Member Ward is here as well. Nice to see you all. I'm Amber-Lee Leslie. I'm a legislative advocate with Housing California. We are proudly co-sponsoring this bill with the Residents United Network, also known as RUN, and they are a group comprised of affordable housing tenants and staff that works to build people's power for housing justice.

Last year, I was here with a run leader, Mr. Willie Stevens, to testify about the need for streamlined access to affordable housing information. Sadly, he passed away in the summer, but today we carry the flame from his torch. He was a very passionate advocate. Mr. Stevens lived in senior subsidized housing in the East Bay, and at the time he recounted the barriers he faced before securing housing.

When he lived week to week in motels, praying each night that he would not end up homeless during his housing search, he would have to update his applications one by one because his address changed so frequently, usually traveling by properties by bus. He stated that he once broke his ankle in four places as he rushed to make an appointment to fill out a housing application and faced yet another setback when he lost his briefcase on the bus containing personal information needed to verify these applications.

Now, please take a moment to compare his experience to the last time you looked for housing or applied to housing. If you are like me, the process is not simple. We still have to take initiative and time to find what works for us. But I can take a bet that the process was a lot easier, primarily because we have the luxury of accessing this information online on clearinghouse platforms like Redfin or Zillow.

We believe that low-income Californians deserve the same access, and the state must take the lead to make it happen. AB 312 takes measured steps towards a big policy goal. The administration has identified the need to build strong data foundations to find and track the development of affordable housing and support localities with data collection and standardization. AB 312 does both.

It sparks coordination among local governments in the state to develop an online open-source code platform aligned to a strong equity-centered framework, and it provides needed technical assistance and financial resources to program participants. Equally important, AB 312 removes barriers and makes it easier for low-income Californians to find affordable housing that is right for them. So, Members, we respectfully urge you to vote today, and I will gladly answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Michael Lane with SPUR in support.

Andrea Noble with RUN: Resident United Network, in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support. Thank you.

Darryl Evey with Family Assistance Program in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing none. Thank you?

Yeah, I do have a few questions. I'm very intrigued by this program, but I want to know what you say. It would be a grant and then a website with kind of comprehensive. So, the two questions. One is the grant to who is it? Local cities and what type of funds would they be having accessible to give out?

And then second, on the platform, is that going to include, like, just using Sacramento for an example? They have apartments that may or may not be listed as affordable, but in comparison to some of the markets, they might be. So how will that all be?

Sure, I'm happy to answer. You know, last year, when we were working on this Bill, we wanted to apply a statewide platform. Statewide. And we heard that that process would be quite technical and cumbersome to apply to the entire state.

And also we recognized and heard from localities that it takes a lot of staff support and funding to do that coordination with the state. So these grants would be released as a notice of funds available under a competitive process, and it would be available to jurisdictions, cities, counties, regional governments, for example, with populations of 60,000 or more as of the last census. And the thought is that we want to get to a regional scale.

We could probably; obviously, it would be competitive, and so the department would have to make some choices about which jurisdictions meet the best criteria. But we hope to get larger jurisdictions participating in the program because it will be open-source code. That means that no one locality owns it. And so if this concept proves positive, which we do think it will, in future years, we can continue to fund the program.

But because it's open source code, other localities will have access to that if they have sophisticated technical staff that want to develop the platform as well under new standards. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. If you wouldn't mind pulling the mic a little bit closer. But Assembly Member Ward.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I want to thank Assemblymember Majority Leader Reyes. Really proud to be a joint author on this. From my own experience in local government, it's absolutely essential that we're closing this gap for far many Californians that obviously are desperate need of access to the homes that might be out there that they just aren't even aware about. And for larger jurisdictions, we are fortunate to have actually a pretty decent system, but they're far and few between across the state.

And if you're in an area and live in a city or an unincorporated community that doesn't have that kind of local resource, having a statewide clearinghouse, a platform there that's available to all, helps to be able to bridge that gap that we know is out there as well. So it's an incredibly resourceful resource, and I'm just really happy that you're muscling this through. I hope we get it all the way to the Governor, and I'm happy to move the bill when the time is right.

Great. Thank you. Any other comments for my colleagues? All right. Seeing none, I'm looking forward to sporting the bill when the time comes, but we don't have quorum yet. But if you'd like to make a closing statement, that'd be great.

Thank you. We do know that there is a region in the Bay Area that has this, and it's something that needs to be provided to so many other renters; they need access to those that are deed-restricted because they know they will be able to afford them. So with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. And make sure we make a motion when we get a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Ting. Beat me to it. All right, there you go. Thank you. Oh, we do have a quorum, so we can go ahead and take the role.

[Roll Call]

We do have a quorum, sir.

Great. Thank you. We do have quorum. Did you have a motion on the last bill? And Assembly Member Ward made a motion and is there a second? Okay, we have a second. And with that, can you take roll?

Absolutely. Motion is to pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bills out, and we'll keep that open.

Port 80.

All right. And Assembly Member Ting, thank you for your patience and ready to go whenever you are.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. AB 1633 is a reintroduction of my bill from last year, AB 2656. The bill strengthens the Housing Accountability Act to ensure that local governments cannot deny housing developments without further justification. What it does is ensures that the HAA is upheld, that we continue to allow housing to be developed.

We had one famous example in my city, which had to do with the property at 469 Stevenson, where our Board of Supervisors, after an EIR was already done and certified by the Planning Commission, ended up pulling the project's clearance and held it. Did not give substantive justification, did not let the developer know what needed to be corrected, or did not define what environmental issues needed to be addressed. AB 1633 would again set guardrails, create timelines.

It also creates a remedy for these critical projects. Under AB 1633, disapproval of a project under the Housing Accountability Act includes projects that have been denied CEQA clearance, even though the project is an urbanized zone, has a minimum density requirement of 15 units per acre, and has met requirements for an exemption, or has gone through legally sufficient environmental review. What the bill does is create greater certainty for developments, especially in urbanized areas.

This is absolutely critical because of this development, because of the delay, and now that the economy has changed, even though the board is now moving ahead and the Governor has stepped in to allow the development to continue, because the finances have changed, it's not very clear whether the property will actually be built. And this current property is a valet parking lot for our neighboring Nordstrom, so it's not exactly a highest and best use. Lastly, we've been in extensive discussions with opposition.

It's been very clear that we all share the same goals of having more building in urbanized areas. We just haven't been able to totally agree on the legal language. So we continue to look forward to working with them. We also want to reiterate that, again, this does not change any legal language around CEQA. It only modifies and tightens up the Housing Accountability Act. With that, we have two witnesses, Louis Mirante and Michael Lane.

Great. Thank you. We have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Lane with SPUR, public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. Just want to emphasize that we're actually honoring the CEQA statute, first and foremost, with this bill. And these provisions would only apply after those statutory timelines in CEQA have been fulfilled. And all it says is if there's an adequate environmental study that has been done and could be adopted, then the jurisdiction and the lead agency need to be able to make that determination.

If not, there's an opportunity for a developer to provide a 90 day notice that there needs to be additional work. Otherwise, it would be considered a denial under the HAA. And that's very important because the Legislature has gone to great lengths over the past few years to strengthen the Housing Accountability Act.

And we don't want to allow some jurisdictions acting in bad faith to use CEQA as a way to call for additional study that's not justified, that's not demonstrated that need in the record as a way to indefinitely postpone the development and never reach the HAA or the Permit Streamlining Act. And so we urge your aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair. Louis Mirante with the Bay Area Council. Bay Area Council represents 330 of the Bay Area's largest employers, including companies, public agencies, and unions. We strongly support bills that help the region solve its most important pressing problem, that of the housing crisis. The Council agrees that environmental protection is an important endeavor, and as insofar as CEQA operates against infill housing, the law has an effect that harms the environment.

Infill housing is the most powerful policy tool that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something that CEQA implicitly fails to recognize by giving this veto power to local governments. AB 1633 establishes that a city that wrongfully denies a project by laundering the denial through the false pretenses of environmental review will be subject to the same penalties that would apply if the city illegally denied the project by other means. This bill still allows for the normal CEQA and environmental review process. And by creating a punishment for non-environmental CEQA denials, the bill implicitly strengthens CEQA as an environmental law. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Other witnesses in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support.

Chair and Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support and a proud co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California and Sandhill Properties in support.

Cornelious Burke on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support of the bill.

Bob Naylor on behalf of Fieldstead Company and Howard Ahmanson Jr., an Orange County philanthropist, in strong support, second time around.

Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there opposition to this measure?

All right. Well, we have two minutes.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Christina Caro. I'm here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. I first want to say that we greatly appreciate the time that Assembly Member Ting and the bill supporters and staff have taken to hear our concerns about this bill. However, today we do remain respectfully in opposition.

Expanding the Housing Accountability Act's definition of a disapproval to make environmental review and public health protections for housing projects effectively illegal is a bad decision for California for several reasons. First, this bill conflicts with existing law by cutting off environmental review in midstream and allowing private developers to sue if an agency decides that a project is not exempt from CEQA or requires additional environmental review, which are basic functions of the law. This is contrary to both CEQA and the Housing Accountability Act, which both require that projects not be approved until impacts are fully analyzed and fully mitigated.

Second, the bill conflicts with the Legislature's guidance to avoid further changes to CEQA and is also contrary to studies which show that CEQA is not a major obstacle to housing development. Third, this bill violates administrative law by giving developers a shortcut to court without exhausting locally mandated administrative remedies and by presuming that agencies are acting in bad faith.

This eliminates the process intended by the law to reduce the scope of litigation or avoid litigation entirely. It also eliminates provisions for more economical and a more informal forum to resolve environmental and land use disputes. Fourth, the bill requires courts to evaluate incomplete evidence. This is a basic contradiction of civil procedural law, which requires courts to evaluate the evidence at the time a project is approved, not at the time the applicant thinks the project should have been approved.

Fifth, the bill weakens the rights of the public to present evidence about impacts that require further environmental review or recirculation. This process is mandated by CEQA with the purpose of both informing the public and decision makers about the impacts of projects before they are approved. Finally, this bill would cost millions and delay housing.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee found that last year's version of the bill, which is substantially the same, would cost about $800 million in trial court funds for every 10 cases filed, and those cases would last for an extended period of time in the court, which will further delay housing projects. So for these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote no on AB 1336, excuse me, on AB 1633. Thank you very much, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. My colleagues, are there any questions or comments on this legislation? All right, well, I have one. I think this is a great bill. Recently, in my city experience, the city wanted... We went through five years of trying to get a CEQA document out, and at that time, various folks, including the city, were saying, hey, we need more studies. We need more studies.

And they did it during that time before the CEQA document came out. So I couldn't imagine after it comes out saying, hey, we need more studies. And I think it unfortunately, is used as a way to delay a project when a city does have an interest, or advocates have an interest, in having a fair environmental impact report. So I think this is great. It still requires a disclosure of environmental laws. I hope you can work with the opposition, obviously, to get some of those concerns. And it sounds like you want to do that. But I'm looking forward to supporting this measure. And if you would like to close or make any additional comments, I think that'd be great.

Just to close. I think, again, we believe the opposition brings up fair points. We want to ensure that there is a set time frame. I think our concern is similar to your concern that at some point the analysis has to be done. We have to make every full faith effort to do that. But once it is completed, if there is something that needs to be addressed, it really is inherent on the parties, on government, to really let the developers know we want you to look into this issue or that issue and provide some specific path to some remedy.

Unfortunately, what you described sometimes is developers are often stuck in purgatory, have no idea how to really get out of it, and really have no path to finish their project. We absolutely have a housing crisis, which is indicative of the over 20 bills that are being brought today. It's a focus not just in my part of San Francisco, but really all over the state. We believe this will help us build more housing. We think it does it in a very responsible way, and we just respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1633.

Thank you. Is there a motion? All right, there's a motion and a second. Do you want to take roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

All right, that has four, so we'll put it on call and appreciate that.

Thank you.

All right, next we have Assembly Member Grayson. All right. Assembly Member Ramos. Great, whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking the Committee for taking the time to work with my office on some of these key issues. AB 42 aims to help assistance programs across the state when it comes to assisting those experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness with shelter.

As Chair of the Select Committee on the Youth Homelessness in San Bernardino, County, I understand that this is an issue that requires unique solutions, and AB 42 aims to provide one. The bill exempts a 250 square foot temporary sleeping cabin from the requirement of fire sprinklers, but also adds various protections to ensure the safety of the occupant. Safety is of utmost importance.

So as we continue to discuss this bill and move forward, we continue to have conversations with California Professional Firefighters to strengthen the bill and to remedy some of these areas. By having to install fire sprinklers, we see the loss of additional homes, as well as money that can go back into programs to assist those in need of shelter.

That is why we have lowered the square footage, changed the definition of the units, as well as added alternative fire and safety requirements to ensure safety and address some of the concerns of those in opposition. AB 42 is a unique solution to allow for the creation of more temporary housing to serve the state's homeless population, especially for youth experiencing homelessness. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Darryl Evey, Executive Director of Family Assistance Program, located in San Bernardino County.

Thank you, sir. You have two minutes.

Thank you, sir. When we first started our project to build this tiny home village, which are sleeping dwelling cabins, the names changed 15 times now. But the idea of what- Is that better? Okay. So the idea of what we were trying to do was build something that's small and easy for our young people to live in, just a place for them to sleep at night. Think of it as like a detached bedroom.

Then we went to the city, and the city said, you need to put fire sprinklers in it. Well, these buildings don't have plumbing. They don't have bathrooms. They don't have kitchens. They don't have any of that thing. There's no reason for this. So then we spoke to the Fire Department, and they laughed, and they're like, surely they're not requiring that. And they were. Then we spoke to our architect, and he laughed and was surprised.

Then we spoke to the fire sprinkler company, who installs these things, and they laughed because they didn't think that that was a requirement either. Everybody that we spoke to, other than the building officials said that this is ridiculous. There's no reason for this.

So we had to work with our local, our legislature to try to correct a mistake, an oversight, because I'm sure when the building laws were written and we talked about building houses, nobody thought of building a 12 or 2,000 square foot detached unit with no plumbing and no bathrooms, because people don't live in places without bathrooms. So what we're looking at doing is kind of unique, and we really hope that you can support these.

These units cost about $10,000 to build, and a fire suppression system costs about $15,000, plus the plumbing and all the other stuff that's come to it. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Any other witnesses in support.

Good morning. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association, in support.

Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Chair and Members Brady Guertin, on behalf of the California Building Officials and respectful opposition to the Bill due to some safety concerns with fire sprinklers, as they've shown time and time again, they've been very safe. There's also concern with the definition, and we appreciate working with Assemblymember Ramos' office about the Bill, and we're looking through those kind of concerns that we still have. And I think the Committee amendments will make the definition a little more clear for our members.

But we do sell some concern that these units could become residential housing, which would require further compliance with safety laws. So our concern is the definition is kind of vague and could lead to some implementation issues on the ground.

We're hoping that we can either get some type of timeline to show how long these will be up so they're not used for residential housing in the long run, and then also keeping in mind that the safest precaution for fire safety is fire sprinklers, but acknowledging that it costs a lot and if it's a temporary dwelling unit, that there could be ways around that and the alternative fire safety regulations could be helpful.

But we still need to talk with our fire partners to make sure that those are okay. We just have some safety concerns and just making sure that the definition is more clear so our members on the ground can fully implement the safety codes as necessary. So we'll continue to work with Assemblymember Ramos' office and the sponsors and look forward to those conversations. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none. Any comments from my colleagues?

I have a claim.

Yes. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

I think that this tiny homes is something that is, of course, new in the space of housing in the last handful of years. I don't think anybody imagined 10 years ago that we would be using tiny homes as a fix to house people. Certainly we didn't imagine the housing crisis that we're in and the scale of it.

And they're not ideal in the sense of what we want to provide for people living in, but they are part of the puzzle related to getting people off the street. Just in my own jurisdiction, we have, I represent North Orange County and parts of LA. We have two shelters, one in Buena Park, one in Placentia. On any given night, and these numbers are tracked through a grid.

Those shelters are only opening up one to two spaces when we know there can be up to 100 people trying to get in. One of the ways to relieve that, that we've all talked about many, many times up here is permanent supportive housing. But at the pace we're building the permanent supportive housing, and at the pace we are able to get people out of shelters into this, we can see very long wait times, sometimes two years, and that's why people are not exiting the shelters.

So this tiny home approach is, in essence, whether it's for youth or even individuals in the shelters, a next step to move people out of the shelters in a temporary way. Of course, we don't want people using shelters as their home for six months, a year, two years. But we have to face the realities in California. And the realities is we simply are not building enough permanent supportive housing units at the pace we need to move people out. And tiny homes are part of this transition.

And so I do support this. I am concerned about the safety. But then we get back into that scenario of how affordable is something if we start doing add ons. If you think about cabin life, and this is, again, not in the context of homeless, but the way camps have operated for years, for summertime, these cabins don't have the sprinklers and the plumbing in them because they're temporary uses, summer.

So I think if we look at the tiny homes, hopefully with big quotes around it, as a temporary solution for transitional housing in the moment we're at, and, of course, looking 10 years ahead, I hope that that's not something that we're still having to rely on to move people, but for this moment, it is where we're at. And so I do support this Bill and make a motion to move it forward.

Thank you.

Great. Mr. Ward.

Happy to second this as well. If it's a matter of working out some of the definitions, I think we understand the concepts. I mean, temporary structures, it's a step for stability on someone's way to permanent housing. Definitely something that complements all the work that we're trying to do in that rehousing pipeline. And so if it's just a matter of working on some of the definitions, I know that that's solvable, but I want to thank the author for working on this. These costs add up to something significant that otherwise is meant to be a very cost affordable, effective solution as a first step off the street. So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any other comments, Mr. Patterson?

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for returning and bringing decorum back to this Committee. In my district, I represent El Dorado County, which recently had a devastating fire burned down significant portion, unfortunately, of the district. And I recently toured some of the destruction there, and it was pretty sad. But a lot of those people have moved to temporary structures in these tiny homes, actually through the food bank. And so it's nice to be able to have.

The safest thing for them to have is a place to live. But in addition, if I just give a brief plug on, something else is when they go back to rebuild their houses that did not have fire sprinklers, they now will be required to put fire sprinklers in. And so a lot of these individuals who couldn't get insurance and things like that, they're at an age where some of them are making determination not to rebuild.

It's nice that they will potentially have this exemption under this when they're in their temporary shelters. But I am concerned obviously, for them when they move back, hopefully someday to their permanent ones. So some, we'll talk about maybe some other day, but really appreciate you bringing this Bill forward and I'm looking forward to supporting it.

Thank you.

Great. Anyone else? And do we have a motion in a second? Okay, great. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the comments from Committee Members. This is a step in moving forward to create some type of structure housing, whether it be the sleeping cabins, but it is a step in getting to permanent housing for those that are on the streets, especially our youth component here in the State of California and in San Bernardino. county. We do understand the concerns that were brought up through the opposition.

We continue to work with them, but also knowing that this is a means that outweighs some of these areas that are there. So we're going to work on the concerns, but we know the means and the need is great for this Bill to move forward. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. And I want to thank you for working so closely with my staff to narrow the scope of the Bill and make it clear that the Bill only applies to limited circumstances where these emergency cabins don't already have plumbing. I know we always want to sort of balance the safety standards with the dire need to get people into shelter, into housing.

I know we have a Committee amendment to further refine the definition of emergency cabins so that we're as clear as possible about what type of emergency housing this Bill applies to. And with that, I'm happy to support the Bill today. And I think the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

[Roll Call].

Bill is out and we'll leave it open.

Thank you.

Mr. Grayson, you are next.

Thank you. With that, good morning, Madam Chair and Members AB 281. First of all, I'd like to start by accepting Committee's proposed amendments that are described in the analysis. AB 281 is a good governance measure that would apply 30 to 60 day timelines, depending on the size of development, to time periods that special districts have to weigh in and provide feedback on a post entitlement phase permit that a local agency has deemed complete. Last year, AB 2234 did great work with counties and cities. This year, we're just bringing in parity, including special districts, and we continue to work with them in the post entitlement phase, making sure that there are certain factors that may change throughout the different stages of development, allowing a special district to review and assess information as new factors may arise. With me, we do have Corey Smith, Executive Director of the Housing Action Coalition through the chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member good morning, everybody. Corey Smith on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition or the HAC for short, we're a Member supported nonprofit that advocates for more homes for residents at all income levels and a proud co-sponsor of AB 281 because it continues the Legislature's work to put reasonable time frames around the review and issuance of building permits. As mentioned, last year the Legislature passed AB 2234, which sets shotclocks for cities and counties to review and issue post-entitlement building permits. This is that logical next step, applying it to special districts. While it was always the goal to improve the process of issuing building permits, the logical parallel effort that the state is putting forward related to the entitlement process, what we're thinking, the same sort of reasoning applies, and it's always our goal to make sure that the worst actors are the only ones that are potentially impacted by this, and those working in good faith would not see any disruption. In 2022, there was a 100% affordable housing project with 136 units and dozens of backyard ADUs, interesting, given the previous conversation, that were delayed due to a sanitary district. In that situation, the building permit was held up as a means of negotiating a new deal on fees, leaving hundreds of homes delayed. These types of delays drive up costs and further exacerbate our affordability and displacement crisis. And by setting reasonable timeframes to review and comment on these building permits, we're taking another step to create good government guardrails around the home building process. Thank you.

Thank you. And others in the room would like to express support.

Michael Lanewhisper in support.

Carly Shelby on behalf of the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support. Thank you.

Hi, Madison Vanderclay with Silicon Valley Leadership Group. In support.

Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. In support.

Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY. In support.

Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Cornelius Burke with the California Building Industry Association in support of this Bill.

Great. Any witnesses? In opposition? Any additional folks want to register opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee Members. Any questions for Mr. Grayson? Do we have a motion? Yes. And a second. Okay, great. Mr. Grayson, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Well, as per usual, I appreciate your good work, Mr. Grayson. And as we know, delaying housing is no longer an option here in California. So everything we can do to keep it going is supported by me. So with that, the motion is the do pass amended to Assembly Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, but we're going to leave it if Members want to add on.

Thank you.

Thank you. And next we have Mr. Alvarez.

Good morning. Good morning. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you my first housing Bill, which I'm excited about. This is AB.

Welcome to the Committee.

Yeah, I'm glad to be here. AB 1287 is the Bill we're having for you here today day. I want to start by acknowledging the work of the Committee consultants and accepting amendments that are in the analysis. The amendments are amendment number one and amendment number three, which create a new very low income incentive table and revises the concessions and incentives provisions in the Bill. Colleagues, as you know, we are in the midst of a housing crisis. I don't think I need to go over the numbers.

Millions of homes short of what we need to build by 2025. 49th in housing units per capita in California compared to the country. The report from McKinsey also argues that our housing shortage causes an annual loss, economic loss of $130,000,000,000 per year. So in the last couple of years, I have been seen from afar down in San Diego, the work that's been happening, especially through this Committee on the Housing Front, and appreciate all that work.

And we've taken some steps to try to increase supply for very low and low income housing. This legislation tackles a new segment of the population, and it's the middle income families. This is a holistic approach to the housing crisis that requires that we tackle housing for everyone, including middle income earners. The UC Berkeley Turner Center for Housing Innovation found that 40% of middle income renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing.

And 10% of these middle income earners are severely cost burdened by housing costs, meaning that more than half of their monthly income is spent just on housing alone. The cost burden has continued to grow as we have failed to build enough housing in the middle income range to reduce prices and release pressure on the housing market. By giving developers an additional incentive under the density bonus law to build more moderate income or middle income housing.

AB 1287 is a critical step towards resolving part of our housing crisis. Specifically, AB 1287 requires that a city or county grant additional density and concessions if the applicant agrees to include additional moderate income housing on top of the low income housing that they would build for low and very low income levels.

I firmly believe that supporting the development of very low and low income housing is important, which is why this Bill says that the existing incentives must be maxed out before this incentive could kick in. I look forward to continuing to work with everyone concerned to ensure that this Bill is the best form and does not lessen existing incentives that address our very low and low income housing shortage.

And as stated, one of the amendments today before here today increases incentives for very low income in addition to creating incentives for new incentives for middle income. So with that being said, I'd like to introduce our witnesses to speak on behalf of this issue. Executive Director, General Counsel at Circulate San Diego, Colin Parent, followed by Rammy Cortez from Rammy Urban Infill.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember, good morning. My name is Colin Parent. I am the CEO and General Counsel with local nonprofit Circulate San Diego. I'm also the Vice Mayor of the City of La Mesa, which happens to be located in the 79th Assembly District. The Circulate San Diego is an organization, we are one of the co sponsors of this Bill. We also co sponsored AB 2345 a few years ago, one of the last large enhancements to the density bonus law.

So it's something that we're familiar with and been big advocates for. About last year we published a report called Home Run for Homes that documented that the policy in AB 2345 was being very well utilized in the City of San Diego, accounting for nearly half of all of the units entitled in City of San Diego that year. So that state policy is really working great.

And so this AB 1287 is designed to build on that to make sure that the policies that are working in density bonus law are extended and continue to work. One of the key parts of this Bill that Assemblymember Alvarez talked about that we want to just highlight for folks is that you can only use these new incentives if you max out the existing incentives to build the deeply affordable units currently in density bonus law.

Some prior efforts to expand density bonus didn't take into those things into account and got them into some trouble. But this one is being very careful to make sure that the existing incentives are maintained before new incentives can be utilized. And what that means is that we're going to create not only opportunities to create new moderate income homes, but also create further incentives to create more deeply affordable homes. And that's really important.

Second, of course, is that this is going to be driving production of new housing at a middle income level, which is definitely not being produced through anything in California. It's a big challenge. And then finally, as a local elected official, I'll just share with you, as many of the former locals here know, getting these kinds of policies done on a local level is near impossible. It's very challenging to get the votes to do those things. The pushback is really hard.

But the folks who are sitting here in this position have a different opportunity, a different perspective, and a different set of political considerations. And so we're never going to be able to do everything that the locals need to do without your help. So we certainly urge your aye vote so that we can do these things in our communities as well. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Rammy Cortez, and I'm an urban infill developer and builder of transit oriented housing in San Diego. Often friends and colleagues ask me what that's like every day, and I tell them it's like pushing a boulder up a mountain, if you can imagine. We find ourselves not only in a housing crisis, but a humanitarian crisis as the number of our unhoused neighbors experiencing homelessness continues to rise due to our inability to build housing supply at all income levels.

I'm here supporting Assembly Bill 1287, the middle income bonus program, because it will help build much needed housing across our state. Without density bonus incentive based programs, none of my projects would be financially feasible. That doesn't mean a smaller project. It means no project. Zero homes. 90% of housing in our state is built by private developers without government subsidy, while only 10% of housing is through government financial subsidy. This is why incentive based programs are so important.

The current affordable housing density bonus program incentivizes very low income housing, but not middle income. Even within the City of San Diego, who has made strides in housing policy and production. In our fifth arena cycle ending in 2020, there were only 37 moderate homes deed restricted out of the 15,462 targeted. This is less than one quarter of 1% of the RHNA goal. I was born and raised in San Diego, just miles from the US border, and my mom's actually a first generation immigrant from Mexico.

But I'm a lucky one to be able to afford a home and live near my parents. Due to the cost of housing, many of my friends have moved out of state and away from their families and loved ones. This isn't just true for my friends. The number one challenge for recruiting and retaining police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other essential middle income workers is they can afford to live where they work in California, this Bill would support middle income housing and projects I build where we need it most, along transit corridors and job centers.

Great, thank you. Additional folks in the room want to register support?

Madam Chair Bob Naylor, representing Fieldstead & Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. Who is an Orange County philanthropist strongly supporting this Bill.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Sandhill Properties and the San Diego Housing Commission, in support.

Michael Lane with Spur, co sponsor, in strong support.

Alex Torres with the Bay Area Council proud co sponsor in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cornelius Burke with the California Building Industry Association in support of this Bill.

Great. And any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room want to register opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Ward.

I want to thank the author for congratulations on the first Bill. And I think as we had our experiences together on San Diego City Council, you know, we've tried to do a lot of aggressive, set a really good, aggressive example about how housing policy can be effective, how it actually will produce both market rate and affordable units at all levels of the spectrums on the affordability scales that we want to be able to see.

And this was a great local test that I'm glad that we're able to expand as well and bring up here for statewide impact. So thank you for running the Bill. Happy to support it. Would love to be added as a co author if the time allows for it. I appreciate your consideration of the technical amendments, too. Thank you for the support here today.

Any other comments? And do we have a motion? Ms. Quirk-Silva is going to move the Bill a second. Mr. Ward, would you like to close? Mr. Alvarez..

Just briefly, I thank you again for the opportunity. One of the things I heard hear the most from constituents is primarily from parents, is where are my children going to live in California? And this is about people of all income levels, especially, as mentioned, working professionals who have middle income, middle class families. This is a Bill to hopefully, which will hopefully and we think will create opportunities for people in that income range. And I appreciate your support and your aye vote.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Alvarez, and appreciate you taking the Committee amendments and working with the Committee staff. And with that, I'm happy to support the Bill. And the motion is do pass is amended to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

Thank you.

We have five votes. It's out, but we'll let Members add on.

Weeks, aye. Weeks, aye. Patterson. Koreo, Gabriel. Cork. Silva I Sanchez. Sanchez I Ward I.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here this morning to present AB 1458. This Bill seek to correct current problem in Homeowners Association board election. I deeply appreciate the Committee staff doctrine input, and I accept the recommended Committee amendment. My remark will reflect this update language. One third of California homes are in common interest development, also known as Homeowners Association or HOA. This HOA act as de facto governments in regulating their communities elected ... policy level assessment and meet our punishment to homeowners.

California law spell out how HOA elections are to be conducted, including quorum requirements. Unfortunately, many HOA are unable to hold election due to an inability to meet their minimum quorum requirement. This often results in board members staying in office for many years because the HOA is unable to have an election. This is undemocratic and is not how public elections are conducted. For instance, there is no requirement, that is, a minimum number of voters must participate before someone can be elected to the Legislator.

AB 1458 seeks to remedy this problem by lowering the quorum requirement to 20% of homeowners in event that a high quorum is not met and a second election must be held to elect a board. This Bill does not make any change to ... requirement for election to change an HOA governing document or to raise fees.

While the long opposition did not communicate with my office and working with the Committee to amend a Bill in the Judiciary Committee to address their concerns regarding timely notification before second election held using the alternative quorum. I have witnesses with me today from the Community Association ... and California Association of Community Managers. I humbly ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to speak with you today on AB 1458, which is a community association member election Bill. My name is Betty Roth and I reside in the Heritage Lake Master Association in Menifee, California, which is in Riverside County.

I have lived in Heritage Lake since 2016 and for the past three years I have run unsuccessfully for my board of directors because the Association failed to reach the quorum requirement needed for the election to even be valid or valid. Yeah, as a homeowner, I am extremely frustrated and concerned that people who want to serve on their boards other than myself, there's like six other people like me are unable to because we failed to get this quorum requirement.

My community, for example, has 2633 homes and the ability to reach quorum, which our quorum is 25%, 684 votes, is still impossible. With no current quorum reduction requirements in our governing documents. The only way for someone to be even appointed to the board is for someone on that board to move away or unfortunately, pass away. This allows members to serve on their boards for many, many years. People like me continue to run for the board positions, not because we're unhappy with the board we have.

However, we would like our ideas to come to fruition as well. And unfortunately, we can't do that with this quorum requirement. Unfortunately, if failing to reach quorum, homeowners will then not want to vote, which is happening there. In my Association, we used to have a couple hundred. Now we only have 100, and some voting because they lose interest because their votes are boxed up and put away.

That's why I believe AB 1458 will help by reducing the quorum requirements for the board of directors elections and give an opportunity for homeowners within a community to participate in the democratic process. Lastly, I want to thank you so much for allowing me to testify, and I'd like an aye vote on AB 1458.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak with you today. My name is Nicole Van Wigg. I am a Community Manager with Omni Community Management in Fair Oaks, California. It's become extremely challenging for us and costly to hold elections, elections that yield no results but drain homeowner funds because of our inability to obtain quorum.

I think it's helpful for you to understand the effort that goes into attempting to get a quorum and to hold board elections. By law, we must end out numerous notices in accordance with statutory timelines. We must contract with an inspector of election service, and we must mail out ballot packages which has very strict requirements that end up costing each homeowner, all of that just to get us to the annual meeting. And after all of this, we rarely receive a quorum.

So we must adjourn and do the same process over and over and over again. Not all of our hoas are in prominent communities such as El Dorado Hills, Monterey, Malibu. I manage lower income associations that are in South Sacramento where homeowners can't afford to pay for unnecessary costs to comply with processes that produce no results. I have one association that in the years I've managed them, we've never once been able to open ballots.

I even had a homeowner in that association, sue, because in those years, we've never been able to attain their quorum amount of 33 and a third percent of 84 homes. That's 28 ballots that need to be returned just to hold a director election. Do you want to know how many we got after extending the balloting period over and over, even offering raffle prizes? We got 21 ballots back. This last year was the most ever. In 2021, we received 11. In 2020, we received five.

In 2019, 4. If this community was able to adjourn the meeting and reconvene with a quorum amount of 20%, we'd be able to fill the vacancies on the board and be able to conduct business in a responsible, legal and transparent manner. AB 1458 will save homeowners money and ensure that board members can be elected and associations can operate in the way that they're supposed to.

And if you could wrap up.

For these reasons, I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other folks in the room like to register support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Louis Brown. Today on behalf of the Community Association's Institute, California Legislative Action Committee, asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. And primary witnesses in opposition. And as a reminder, each side will have two witnesses to give two minute testimony.

Madam Chair Members. Jennifer Wada, on behalf of the California Association of Community Managers, in support.

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Marjorie Murray with the Center for California Homeowner Association Law, and with me is Commissioner Tom Sur of our legislative Committee. I note that a few minutes ago, the Committee took a pause in order to establish quorum. In order to have legal numbers, in order to conduct business validly. That is the topic of this Bill.

That is, homeowner associations need to have a sufficient number of Members participating in the electoral process in order to establish legitimate conduct of business. Why is that? Because for the past 40 years, the California courts have established that homeowner associations are not social clubs, they're not voluntary, but they are actually another level of government which have many of the powers and functions of government.

It's the association board alone that makes up the rules, decides whether or not they have been broken, and punishes people or levies fines and other kinds of penalties on homeowners who break them. So it's extremely important to have as broad participation as possible in voting and in the election process to make this form of government legitimate. Our concern about the Bill is that it allows a very small number of people without any notice to their neighbors to convene at very short notice.

After five days, another meeting after the first election has been held in order to select the board. Keep in mind a really important fact about associations in California. Most of them are 25 homes or less. And under the Bill as currently constructed, if you allow 10% of the owners, that means you would have two plus owners deciding for the other 23 who is going to comprise the board. That is hardly a democratic process, so we ask the Committee for its no vote on this important issue.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, we oppose this Bill because it's not needed to address the problem identified by the author as set forth in the analysis for today's hearing. The author identifies the need for this Bill as, quote, many associations are unable to achieve the quorum set forth in the governing documents, end quote. This statement points to its own solution, which is that the quorum is set forth in the association's governing documents, and these are subject to amendment by the association members.

Both Davis Sterling and the corporations code permit such amendments. In addition, the corporations code provides a second solution, namely applying for court order under corporations code 7515. As noted in the analysis, this very same issue was raised in a Bill that was vetoed by the then Governor Schwarzenegger in 2010 as, quote, unnecessary because existing law allows an HOA to amend its governing documents to establish a lower quorum.

We would also note that a letter was submitted by attorney Eric Schiffer to this Committee opposing the Bill because it would deny a member's right to vote, which is well established by statutory and case law. Such a denial would come about if this Bill were to be enacted in its current form without a requirement of notice to all Members, that an election has been determined to be invalid for lack of a quorum, and that a second vote would be held within a short time. Lack of notice is tantamount to a denial of the right to vote, and for these reasons, we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other folks in the room like to express opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions. Do we have a motion? Mr. Kalra. And a second, Mr. Ward. Great. Would you like to close?

I really appreciate the hard work from the Committee staff, and I think this is ongoing issue, so I humbly ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And thank you for accepting our Committee amendments to increase the minimum quorum threshold from 10 to 20%. Happy to support the Bill today. And with that, the motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

[Roll Call].

That Bill is on call.

Thank you.

With that, we have Mr. Flora next, right? Yeah. Mr. I don't see Ms Boerner Horvath. Mr. Flora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'd just like to thank the Committee, and we certainly accept the amendments. Thank you to the Committee staff for all your hard work. Today, I present AB 1101, which allows licensed structural pest control companies who are not authorized to perform deck and balcony inspections as required by SB 721 in 2007, even though they are trained and licensed in authorizing them to identify woodborne fungus deterioration and decay.

AB 111 would add licensed structural Branch 3 licensed pest control companies to the list of licensed professionals that are authorized to inspect and access and assess the safety of balconies and decks at apartment buildings with more than three units. This bill would allow pest control employees to inspect these balconies. With me in support is Trent Smith.

Thank you.

Good morning. Trent Smith, on behalf of Homeguard Incorporated. I know the underlying issue that drove SB 721 probably is very familiar. The Chairwoman, a balcony collapsed at UC Berkeley, Senator Hill carried a bill that would require balconies and decks to be inspected for all apartment complexes with three or more units. However, that bill failed to authorize Branch 3 pest control operators as licensed individuals who could perform these inspections. We feel this bill enhances the original intent of 721 by adding additional licensed professionals to perform these inspections, making it easier for the inspections to be done. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other folks in the room want to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the room in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions for? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Great and appreciate the reference to the situation in Berkeley, it's very devastating in my community. Happy to support the bill today. And with that, it's do pass to the Assembly. Do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Thank you.

Wicks. Aye. Patterson. Carrillo. Gabriel. Kalra. Aye. Quirk-Silva. Sanchez. Aye. Ward. Aye.

Yeah, that'll be on call.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lowenthal, you are next.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Appreciate the opportunity. And first, I would like to start by saying that I want to accept the Committee amendments and thank the Committee staff for their work on AB 1218. AB 1218 provides needed clarity to ensure that the replacement housing and relocation assistance provisions of SB 330 are implementable and can achieve their intended impact.

This bill addresses confusing and conflicting provisions of the law that require replacement of certain housing units and in some cases, relocation assistance and a right of return for displaced, low-income households as a condition of developing sites where existing housing is demolished. These confusing provisions make it difficult to implement the law at the local level, have led to confusion for developers and has meant that displaced, low-income households are not benefiting from important protections that they have under the law.

In addition, this bill extends the replacement housing obligation under SB 330 to all projects rather than just housing projects. It makes no sense in a housing crisis as severe as California as to allow affordable housing to be lost to commercial and industrial development. Developers should have a plan to replace affordable units regardless of the type of project they are building, consistent with the rules that apply under housing element law. With me today is Anya Lawler, representing the Public Interest Law Project.

Good morning, Members. Anya Lawler again on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, a legal services support center that works with low-income communities statewide. SB 330 passed in 2019 and built on the state's existing framework of laws requiring the replacement of housing in conjunction with new development, and also delivered critical protections for low-income renters by providing them with both relocation assistance and a right to return to a unit in the new development at an affordable rent when their unit has to get demolished.

Unfortunately, as the Assembly Member noted, implementation of some aspects of the law have been challenging. Most critically, legal services attorneys throughout the state report that low-income tenants who are being displaced to make way for new development are not actually receiving relocation assistance. The confusing way in which this language is drafted has proven challenging for local governments to interpret, even though they want to enforce it. Even HCD is unclear on how to read the current language, leaving them unable to provide guidance.

AB 1218 would clarify the language so that displaced renters can receive this assistance. In addition, as Mr. Lowenthal mentioned, the replacement housing provisions in SB 330 have a critical gap. They only apply when housing developments are coming in and demolishing existing housing. This means that commercial or industrial development can demolish existing housing with no obligation to replace low-income units at all.

This is a departure from the replacement housing obligations that apply pursuant to housing element law, but unfortunately, that requirement doesn't apply on some sites where SB 330 does. Particularly throughout the Central Valley and in the Inland Empire, we're seeing new warehouses and fulfillment centers being built in places that require the demolition of sometimes hundreds of units of housing at once, displacing dozens of low-income families at a time. This makes little sense.

AB 1218 closes this gap, aligns the replacement requirements under 330 with housing element law and ensures that these projects either have a plan to provide replacement housing or locate on sites that would not require housing demolition in the first place. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have anyone else here in support? Please approach microphone.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Brian Augusta, pleased to co-sponsor it on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Also want to note the support of our colleagues at Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership in support.

Morning, Madam Chair. Louis Marante with Barry Council. We were originally concerned with this bill, but we're really grateful to work with the author's office and the sponsors to remove any of our concerns today and just wanted to thank you for the amendments.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. Cornelious Burke with the California Building Industry Association. We originally had an oppose position to this bill, but with the acceptance of the amendments, we're now in a neutral position.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the room in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion and a second. And with that, Mr. Lowenthal, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Happy to support the bill today by accepting the amendments. Appreciate your work with my office. With that, it's do pass as amended to the Assembly Local Gov Committee.

Wicks. Aye. Patterson. Carrillo. Gabriel. Kalra. Aye. Quirk-Silva. Aye. Sanchez. No. Ward. Aye.

Yeah, that's on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, let's see. Ms. Papan.

AB 926, I believe.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for having me. First of all, I want to thank the Committee and its staff for its help on this one and working with my office. And we do accept the Committee's amendments. As you all know, we have a labor shortage the likes of which we have never seen, and our labor shortage and housing crisis are intimately linked. The increasing cost of housing has pushed workers outside of city centers and away from job hubs.

Researchers have labeled this phenomenon spatial mismatch. Rectifying this mismatch by housing workers near jobs will require a monumental effort that, as we all know, has no silver bullet. AB 926 is one step towards solving the puzzle. This bill will incentivize employers to take an active role in addressing the housing crisis. Under this measure, an employer could claim an income tax credit for the value of land or property donated to a nonprofit for the construction of affordable housing.

25% of the units of the donated land will be made available to low-income residents with a preference for employees of the land donor. We've seen the rise of a number of companies constructing housing. Meta recently announced the construction of 1700 units in Menlo Park, with hundreds of units available for low-income folks. Employee housing is an investment for a company. The cost of the construction is offset by savings in employee retention. AB 926 will incentivize more companies and employers to make the investment in affordable housing. I have with me testifying today is Ms. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We do believe that the tax credits here will move the needle when it comes to housing development. You've heard before, California is dead last when it comes to a state that builds less housing than it does create jobs. The number of jobs created in California is three for every one home that is built. We believe that this is an important and valuable bill for California. We're already seeing some of this done even in our university towns where land is donated by some of our Members to help with employee housing and student housing there. And we believe that it's been very helpful. So for those reasons, we ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Any other additional folks want to register support?

Cole ..., Pallet Shelters in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room in opposition? Great. We'll bring it back to Committee. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the author from this board. I'm really intrigued by this bill and like to move it, certainly support it, particularly given--I'm thinking about my own jurisdiction in San Jose, not unlike your jurisdiction in that, especially prior to the pandemic, a lot of big plans for a lot of companies to expand. We see it happening in San Francisco as well. A lot of office vacancies.

In my area in particular, Google has plans for millions of square feet of office space. Now with the work-from-home kind of coming out of the pandemic, I think some of those calculations may change, but I think it's really good to have the opportunity, as we think about how we may want to change some of those plans to have incentives to really build housing, in particular, affordable housing. So I think there's a great opportunity with this, and I look forward to learning more about it and see how it can be applied, particularly--certainly in the Bay Area, but I think there's definitely applications throughout the state. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Ward.

Thank you. I also appreciate you bringing forward the idea. We've talked, I think, in a variety of different ways about being more creative with our fiscal policy, particularly for homeowners that would just want to be able to use their land. We've, of course, had a lot of conversation about school districts or other public employers that are trying to do the same. And so thinking about that for employers that want to be able to exercise the opportunity for more employee housing is something I think we all agree on.

I'm really curious to see maybe how the Rev. Tax policy sort of shakes out and sort of what the counterbalance would be, what the maybe utility of this bill might look like based on some of the inputs that would go into that analysis, how effective, how expansive could this actually be and to help move that needle. But I'm also wondering--and again, very much I want to be able to support this today--

Is there a limit to which we would want to be able to apply this? Larger corporations, for example, that need the workforce that are making those investments here today, they're doing it because the success of their large corporation very much depends on that. So do they need a tax break that offsets the revenues that we also need for other? It's just something to kind of think about if there is sort of a graduated phase out that you might want to think about at some point in time as this build moves forward. Really happy to support it here today.

If I may? And we would like to see it at some point perhaps morphed into: "How do we help that smaller employer?" For example, the restaurant owner who wants to keep their dishwasher may not have the resources to pay a whole lot more hourly, but has got some money set aside that may be able to help that one employee that they really rely on and maybe get a tax credit for that work. So stay tuned. But this is where we are today, and I appreciate the support. Thank you.

Any other questions from Committee Members? Mr. Patterson.

Would we consider an amendment to this bill to cut taxes across the board, statewide?

Whatever it takes, Mr. Patterson.

To be clear, I don't think you actually accepted that amendment, right? Okay, just want to clarify.

That was said in jest. Let me clarify for the record because that might not come across-

Any other questions from Committee Members? And we have a motion by Mr. Kalra, a second by Mr. Ward. Great. And with that, would you like to close?

Just respectfully, request for an aye vote. We're going to connect our labor shortage to housing. And I appreciate this first effort from all of you. Thank you.

And appreciate you taking the committee amendments today. Happy to support the bill today and always looking for innovative solutions to get through this housing crisis. So. And I know your expertise in local gov is very helpful to us, so thank you for that. With that, the motion is due. Pass is amended to the assembly committee on revenue-tax. Okay.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out and we will let members add on.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great. And before we get to Ms. Shivo, I'd like to do the consent calendar. Do we have a motion and a second? Okay.

Consent calendar, item 11, AB 932. Item 18, AB 1474. Do pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriation. I'm sorry, do pass to the assembly committee and appropriation. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

And the consent calendar is out. We'll let members add on. And with that, Ms. Schiavo, I believe you are presenting AB 911. Great. The floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members, this is really a pretty simple and straightforward cleanup bill. AB 911 would clean up measure AB 721 that Bloom did in 2021 and provides confidence to affordable housing developers who want to purchase real estate for 100% affordable development. Some properties may have restrictive density requirements that require only owners of the property can remove them.

Unfortunately, for housing developers who are in the process of purchasing real estate, who are unable to remove those covenants until after they have purchased the property and are the legal owners of the real estate in question. AB 911, streamlines the covenant removal process by allowing affordable housing developers to remove the restrictive density requirements prior to purchase of the property, allowing for faster delivery of affordable homes and financing of additional homes throughout California.

This legislation not only helps my district, but everyone's district in California to have an efficient process and have more affordable homes in their districts. I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments and thank them for working with us on that. And also joined today with me is Michael Lane, state policy Director of SPUR, which works on planning and urban research.

We have a motion.

Great. Perfect bill presentation. I'm just here to answer questions. Thank you for your support.

Great. Great testimony. Okay, any additional folks want to express support in the room? She's coming.

Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Great. Anyone else? Okay, any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone else in the room in opposition. We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions by members? I think we had a motion, right? I don't know if we had a second. We have a second. Mr. Patterson has a question. No, Mr. Patterson does not have a question. Okay, great. With that, would you like to close?

Told you. Simple. Thank you. Appreciate an aye vote. Thanks so much for your time.

Thank you for bringing the bill forward. Happy to support it today. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Assembly Committee on judiciary.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll let members add on. Thank you. And with that, we have Mr. Haney with us to present AB 1485.

AB 1485.

I've got two.

You have two. You have 1485 and AB 1114.

Let me do 1485 first.

Whichever you prefer. 1485 it is.

Sure. We will start with 1485. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1485 would strengthen California's ability to enforce existing state housing laws. It does so by giving the Attorney General the ability to represent the state's interests and the people of California in pending legal actions filed by third parties to address violations of state housing laws. Right now, Californians are facing a housing crisis of epic proportion. The state must construct 180,000 units, including 80,000 affordable units each year to keep pace with existing housing demand.

But we are only constructing about 80,000 units a year currently. So we need every tool at our disposal to guarantee we meet our housing goals and to ensure housing is actually being built. Existing law empowers the Attorney General to bring suit for a violation of state housing law. It also allows third parties to file lawsuits to enforce state housing laws.

But under current law, when a third party files a lawsuit related to the enforcement of state housing laws, the Attorney General's Office can only become a party to the lawsuit by petitioning the court to intervene. This procedural hurdle delays housing from being built because the courts can take months to schedule a hearing on the petition. Even once a court hearing is scheduled, the Attorney General's ability to intervene in the case is at the court's discretion.

Important to note that while the Attorney General lacks the statutory authority to intervene in third party suits on housing law, they have the statutory right to intervene on other issues, including environmental laws. Housing law, as I know that this Committee agrees, is just as important. Granting the Attorney General the statutory right to intervene will ensure that the state's interests are represented in court and that we can reach our housing goals, which I know you all are committed to.

Here to testify in support with me today is Jana Staniford from the Office of the Attorney General and Todd David from the Housing Action Coalition. We also have David Pye from the Office of the Attorney General available to answer technical questions.

Thank you. You can begin.

Good morning. Todd David on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. This is the last Committee that I need to inform about the affordability and displacement crisis that has been caused by an underproduction of housing at all levels of affordability. We need all tools to address this issue, and we are fortunate that we have an Attorney General who has been holding recalcitrant municipalities accountable to uphold state housing law. This simply streamlines that process, that it will stop delays of court of judges taking months, if not years, to allow the Attorney General to step in. This is really a streamlining measure. It streamlines that process. So with that, I will turn it over to the DOJ.

Good morning, Chair Wicks and Members. My name is Jana Staniford. I'm a Deputy Attorney General and Legislative Advocate with the Office of the Attorney General. I want to start by thanking Assembly Member Haney for authoring this bill, and Attorney General Rob Bonta is proud to sponsor it. As this Committee knows all too well, California is facing a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis. Thank you.

The Legislature has passed a number of strong housing laws in recent years, and those laws must be enforced and violators must be held accountable. Attorney General Rob Bonta has made enforcement of housing laws a top priority and will continue to exercise his authority to hold violators accountable. But under many of the state's housing laws, third parties like housing advocates and developers are also empowered to file their own lawsuits challenging local land use planning and permitting decisions.

This bill would address a procedural hurdle that the Attorney General faces when a third party files the enforcement action first. Under existing law, the Attorney General's Office has to formally petition the court for permission to intervene in pending third party housing enforcement cases. This requirement causes unnecessary delay. In one ongoing case, we filed our petition with the court to intervene on October 3 of 2022, and now, over six months later, the court still has not ruled on whether it will grant intervention.

AB 1485 would remove this procedural hurdle by granting the Attorney General an unconditional statutory right to intervene in pending third party housing cases. The Attorney General has this right to intervene in other contexts, including in environmental cases, and we routinely use this right to intervene in our environmental justice work. AB 1485 would grant the Attorney General the same right to intervene to enforce state housing laws.

California's Attorney General should have the right to represent the state's interests and enforce state housing laws, regardless of which party files the action first. Thank you for your time and consideration, Members. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Additional folks in the room want to register support?

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership in support.

Michael Lane with SPUR in strong support.

Louis Marante with Berry Council, was originally concerned about the bill. Want to thank your sponsors for giving me a completely free legal education explaining why my concerns were misplaced, and here to support the bill today. Thank you.

Madison Vander Klay with Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead & Company and Howard Ahmanson Jr. In support.

Holly Fraumeni with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Sandhill Properties and Buckeye Properties in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? Okay, we will bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion to move the bill, and a second by anyone? Second by Mr. Ward. Okay, and Mr. Patterson has a question.

Yeah, I do have a question. Well, thank you, Assembly Member Haney, for bringing this bill. And I like to have some consistency in my line of questioning for legislation that gives the Attorney General more authority on housing laws. Recently, there's been a very public case in California where the Attorney General has filed litigation against a particular city. Not in my district, but there are several other cities which I won't name that have been out of compliance with their housing element for longer than that particular city. So how does the Attorney General decide when to use its authority?

I have a comment on that, but I'll let the Attorney General's Office go first.

Sure. Thank you, Assembly Member Patterson. The AG's office considers several different factors in determining whether or not to bring in enforcement action against the local government. Suffice to say, these factors include the nature of the violation itself, the local government's response to HCD's technical assistance. So you may have heard that there are a myriad of local governments that are not up to date on their housing element. Why aren't we going after every single one of them? Well, in working together with HCD staff, we find that oftentimes there are legitimate reasons for that delay or good faith efforts are being made.

And so we only go after, as AG Bonta often says, those who act in bad faith, those who are shirking their responsibilities outwardly, publicly saying, "We are not going to follow state housing laws." And of those, the bad actors, so to speak, this is when we wield our enforcement authorities together with HCD. It's very much a case-by-case consideration, and oftentimes our engagement with local governments do not end in litigation. We're not in the business of suing local governments. We're in the business of enforcing state laws. So we don't wield our enforcement authority lightly and only do so when local governments outwardly refuse to follow state law.

I appreciate that response and the leadership of the Attorney General's Office. I also want to say, as it relates to this bill, it shouldn't be based on whether or not the Attorney General gets there first. That's essentially what we're saying with this bill.

In some cases, there will be a particular action taken by a third party, and that shouldn't preclude the Attorney General representing the State of California from being at the table. That's what this bill would allow. I think it's important that they have the opportunity to weigh those different factors, but that he shouldn't be precluded from representing all of us and the laws that we've passed simply because they didn't get there first.

Well, thanks. Having been a City Council Member, scared to death to be out of compliance with housing element, and we worked really hard and diligently to get there and had a lot of conversations back and forth with HCD. And in fact, many areas in which we completely disagreed with HCD's interpretation of the housing law, we had different methods to reach the goals and they weren't accepted. But basically we had very little option.

And I suspect some of the cities out of compliance who now are going on a couple of years of being out of compliance, just like the other city that's been litigated. They do have legitimate reasons, or there's still kind of some back and forth. But I know on some occasions, what kind of drives me nuts a little bit is I think that they're not saying what another particular city said out loud, but they're doing it. And it's been a lot longer than two years.

And so that's where I get a little frustrated with the process. And don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating to sue any particular city, but I'm just very concerned with granting additional authority when I don't yet see the balance. I'd like to see more of how this is going to work out because now things are serious in how the housing element is working out. So I just appreciate learning more about how the Attorney General is working with cities to get into compliance, particularly the ones that have been out of compliance for years. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And I do think this is a compelling argument on both sides of the issue. I mean, we often hear from local jurisdictions: "We want local control." And for those of us who have served on local government before coming here, that remains kind of a steadfast principle. And I have been the broken record on: I don't think any of us that sit in this room want to be the hammer to local municipalities. And yet we can't pick and choose the laws that we choose to comply with. And when we do that, then we send the message. Number one, we're not going to comply with the law.

And number two, we're going to push off the responsibility to somebody else because those cities that make the extreme--and I would say they're extreme efforts--to comply with the housing plans, and none of them are easy because of all of the things we talk about in this Committee, whether it's NIMBYs, whether it's all of the things that come with approving not only a housing plan, but many times a development against opposition from locals.

And those locals do come to the local city councils, they're not here. And so it is a very difficult decision for locals. But again, there might be cities who are thinking that they don't want to comply, and there's others that are brashly saying we're not going to comply. And then they're kind of surprised when there's an action taken.

But I think that, again, I'll continue to say: if everybody does something within their range as a city and makes an effort in the spirit to build housing so we don't have these encampments, so we don't have this growing homelessness, we're going to get a lot further than people either quietly not moving forward on housing plans or brashly not moving forward.

So I do support this. Again, to my local electeds who are out there, I'm sure, watching and being aggressively angry for us saying yes to these things: I've said it before. I'll say it again. Take the responsibility as a local elected to build the housing that is necessary for the people in your community. And I support this bill.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? We have a motion, right? And a second. Would you like to close?

Yes. This bill will help get housing built it also helps to ensure the law's enforced and most importantly, that we, the people of California, via the Attorney General, are at the table in these important decisions and matters, respectfully ask for your vote.

Well, thank you, Mr. Haney, and the coalition for bringing this forward and the Attorney General's Office as well. We've done a lot of work over the last couple of years to create some really strong housing laws, and making sure that we can actually enforce those is really critical. And I think enhancing the AG and HCD's ability to do that is really important. So I'm happy to support the bill today. And with that, it's do pass to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

Wicks. Aye.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is on call. And with that, we'll go to your next bill, Mr. Haney, which is AB 1114.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I want to start by accepting the committee's technical amendments to the bill and thank you for your partnership on that AB 1114 will help my district mainly and only build much needed housing by prohibiting appeals on approved post entitlement building permits in the final hour. Right now, all housing developments go through a series of steps from the initial proposal to certificate of occupancy. This includes application period, acquiring entitlement, securing building permits, construction, and finally people moving in.

In most cities across the California, pretty much every other city, the process of securing a post entitlement building permit is an automatic action. This means there are no opportunities to appeal the permit once the project has been already approved by the local government. San Francisco is one of the only local governments that does not have automatic approval for post entitlement building permits.

This is because the permits in San Francisco are discretionary, meaning that lawsuits can be filed on the issuance of all building permits for new housing, even if the permit is to build something that has already been approved by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. With the current process in place, it takes almost two years for an applicant to receive a post entitlement building permit in San Francisco. The unique appeals process exacerbates San Francisco's already severe housing shortage.

And while existing law prevents post entitlement building permits from being frivolously appealed and requires them to be approved within a specific time, the discretion on San Francisco's post entitlement building permits makes them exempt from these provisions. To help us meet our housing and affordable housing goals, AB 1114 will address post approval appeals and help build more housing in San Francisco by clarifying building permits projects. Permits for projects that have already received approval from the local agency are not subject to additional appeals.

It does not modify the entitlement process in any way. Here to testify in support with me today is Corey Smith, Executive Director of the Housing Action Coalition.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Corey Smith on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. As previously mentioned, last year, the Housing Action Coalition, they're partners with the Barrier Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, sponsored AB 2234, which set reasonable shot clocks for cities and counties to review post entitlement building permits. At the time, we were aware San Francisco's process was going to be an outlier because San Francisco allows every single permit to be appealed.

So even if the project is fully approved by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, any individual could file a lawsuit. That extra process, which exists uniquely in San Francisco, adds additional time and cost onto building new housing. A recent San Francisco Chronicle report found that the average permit took 627 days to get approved in San Francisco, two years for a single permit, the longest in the State of California.

There's a high profile project in San Francisco, a 100% subsidized affordable family project that is a block from Golden Gate park and a block from light rail, that has been sued, I now believe, 10 times over the issuance of their building permits. And while the project still moves forward, those delays prevent families from moving into new homes.

Assembly Bill 1114 is a straightforward approach to closing a loophole that delays housing in San Francisco and would align the city's permit review and approval process with the rest of the state. Thank you.

Sorry. We also have Luis Morante from Bay Area Council.

Great. Happy to have him. Thank you.

Assembly Member, Luis Morante with the Bay Area Council here in strong support. I think my colleague has said it very well. I do want to emphasize that this is a unique San Francisco only problem. But the problem here is more that we're worried that other local governments could adopt San Francisco's creative approach to denying these permits. And I think it's important for the state to foreclose that.

San Francisco's process takes 400 days longer than the process for the same permits in the City of Oakland, takes 300 days longer for the same process for those permits in the City of Berkeley. And shortening that process is one of the most important things we can do to speed up housing production, reduce rents in San Francisco and the Bay Area generally. Urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, other folks want to register support.

Michael Lane with SPUR, in support.

Holly Fraumeni for Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Sandhill Properties, in support.

Karen Lang on behalf of Mayor London Breed in the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Madison Vanderclay with SVLG in support.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support.

Cornelious Burke with the California Building Industry Association in support.

Great. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room in opposition. We'll bring it back to the committee. Mr. Kalra.

It's kind of fun to watch San Francisco create its own adventure sometimes, but happy to move the bill.

Great. We have a motion and a second, Mr. Patterson.

On this piece of legislation. Commend the author. It's difficult to basically do a bill in which people in your jurisdiction, including elected officials, are not going to be pleased with, and that takes a lot of courage. But I think this is really important. The process there is crazy. So thanks for bringing this Bill and looking forward to supporting it.

You have no idea, Mr. Patterson, profiles encouraged. Mr. Haney, would you like to close?

I appreciate that. For the record, I love my city. There's a lot of things that are very special about it that I'm proud of. This is not one of them. We want to change this. It'll help build housing and help us meet our goals. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We love your city, too. Go warriors. Although they're from Oakland. The motion is do passes amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out and we'll let members add on. Thank you, Mr. Haney. And with that, we have Ms. Boerner Horvath, I believe you are presenting AB 548.

I am. Good morning. I think it's the morning. Madam Chair and members. First, I'd like to accept the committee amendments and would like to thank your staff for working on this bill with me. AB 548 would require local enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures for inspecting a building with multiple units if an inspector or code enforcement officer determines that the defects or violations can reasonably affect other units in the building.

In 2021, the US Census Bureau's American Housing Survey found that over 530,000 rental units in California had severe or moderately inadequate plumbing and heating that disproportionately impacted rental housing than owner occupied housing. Additionally, the survey found that over 350,000 rental units with signs of mold that not only exacerbate existing asthma, but also cause the development of asthma. These disparities are particularly troubling considering that statewide families of color are more likely to rent their homes compared to white families.

There's a clear connection between the disproportionate exposure to unhealthy housing conditions and many health inequities found in low income communities and communities of color. AB 548 would establish a standard of practice by allowing code enforcement officers to inspect additional units when uncovering severely substantial conditions during inspection to catch problems that previously went unreported or before the problems could grow into serious health hazards. The bill would provide flexibility for local agencies to control the specifics of the policies developed, depending on the needs within that jurisdiction.

Improving our system for ensuring healthy, affordable housing conditions for renters is essential to solving our housing crisis and reducing the disproportionate exposure to unhealthy housing conditions in low income communities and communities of color. I do want to note that there is some late opposition. They have not requested a meeting with my office. We received their amendments and we're reviewing them.

So we're always happy to work with the opposition on reasonable amendments and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me to hear today, I have Brandon Kitagawa, is that correct? Did I get it right? The senior policy associate with regional asthma management and prevention, the sponsors of the bill.

Yes. Good morning chair and members. My name is Brandon Kitagawa with regional asthma management and prevention. Our mission is to reduce the burden of asthma with a focus on health equity. Our work to reduce exposure to environmental asthma triggers has led us to work with partner with tenants rights organizations, public health agencies, and local code enforcement to address substandard housing conditions, such as pest infestations and mold, that can exacerbate or in some cases cause asthma and other health issues.

Existing law requires landlords to adequately maintain their rental housing while designating local code enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing those health and safety standards. Most jurisdictions rely on tenant complaints to identify potential substandard conditions. As a result of this reactive system, many problems go unaddressed for a variety of reasons. Tenants may not know that they can make a complaint. They may have trouble navigating the system for filing such complaints, or they may just fear angering their or upsetting their landlord.

When tenants do make complaints, code enforcement generally just inspects the unit targeted in that complaint and missing other potential violations at the property. So recognizing this challenge, AB 548 seeks a modest change to the standard of practice for code enforcement that can improve its ability to catch the most severe building wide problems. By supplementing complaint based inspections with additional inspections when needed, jurisdictions will be able to catch problems that previously went unreported or before problems grow into more significant health hazards. And so we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other folks in the room want to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. While I will express that I think our opposition was soft, we are comfortable that we will find some solutions with the author, I think our main concerns are just making sure that we get notice to the neighboring tenants, that the owner has also access to make those repairs, and that there's cooperation all around. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional opposition, we'll bring you back to the committee. Mr. Kalra.

This is a really good bill. It's such common sense. I think even as an apartment owner, wouldn't you want to know whether it's rodents or electrical issue or mold, if it's in other units? It's way more cost effective to know that up front than to deal with it on a unit by unit basis, where the issue will get worse and worse, costs more and more, displacement costs increase.

This is not just good for the tenant, it's good for the cities that will have the ability then if they have one encoder enforcement person that's out there, rather than having to wait for another complaint, they're out there already. I like the amendments to add a little structure to kind of like how to evaluate buildings to determine when they can do that further inspection. So I think it's good for the cities to make sure that the buildings, especially the older buildings in their jurisdiction, are safe.

It's good for the tenants. I think it's good for the apartment owners, and I really do hope, as was mentioned by the opposition, that there'll be an opportunity to find some common ground. But I would think that most apartment owners would want to know, and this would give the ability to really figure out if there's underlying issues earlier on, rather than when they get out of control and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to an owner as well. So I'm happy to move the bill. I'd love to be added on as a co author.

Thank you. Great. Any other questions from the Committee? Mr. Patterson.

Is there anything that prevents code enforcement officers from inspecting other units already?

No, they have the existing authority to enforce this part of the code. Again, most jurisdictions do just rely on complaints. A few jurisdictions do proactive inspections where they will inspect units, sort of similar in a way that we inspect restaurants. Right. And so in those places, they do those inspections without a complaint. So there's no different authority being granted here. It's more about creating a standard of practice for code enforcement.

Okay, great. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Any other questions? We have a motion by Mr. Kalra. Okay. And a second by Ms. Carrillo. Okay. And with that, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Happy to support the bill today. Thank you for taking the Committee amendments and working with my team. And with that, the motions do pass, as amended, to the Assembly Committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out and we'll let members add on. Do you want to go? Yeah. Mr. Ward, you're up next.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members, witnesses are coming up. First, I want to acknowledge the committee consultants and thank them for all their hard work on this bill. I happily accept our committee amendments. As you all know, community land trusts are nonprofit organizations to offer low and moderate income housing through the use of a ground lease to ensure permanent affordability. So that allows residents to own or rent their unit on the top land owned by the CLT.

It's an effective tool to offer more affordable housing and natural pathways to home ownership. To expand this model, CLTs would like to use the existing state accessory dwelling unit policies and state programs to maximize some other housing opportunities. AB 671 gives the Department of Housing and Community Development the explicit authority to allow CLTs to build ADUs with Cal home bond funds. And this clarifies that it will allow CLTs to be an effective tool in addressing this housing crisis.

I'd like to present my witnesses in support of the bill. This is Leo Goldberg, the co-director of the CLT Network, and respectfully request your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair Wicks and members. My name is Leo Goldberg. I'm co-director for Policy and Capacity Building with the California Community Land Trust Network. We represent 40 community based nonprofits that steward permanently affordable community owned land and housing across the state.

Community land trusts, or CLTs, keep homes in the hands of those who need them most by removing housing, whether it be single family homes or large apartment buildings, from the speculative market. Our members center racial justice and strive to create ownership opportunities for individuals and families otherwise shut out of homeownership in Llw rise neighborhoods. CLTs are seeking to develop accessory dwelling units that can be sold separately from the original home on the property, thus creating two homeownership opportunities where there had previously been one.

In this case, both homes will be sold at below market prices to income qualifying households. Those households will benefit from ongoing support from the CLT and if and when the homeowner chooses to sell, the homes will be marketed to another lower income family, thus recycling the benefit of any public subsidy, ensuring that the home remains out of the hands of corporate rental firms or flippers.

We are honored to sponsor AP 671, which will allow CLTs to create more homeownership opportunities for lower income Californians by explicitly allowing CLTs to use Cal home program funds to develop an ABU and sell it to a qualifying family. At this time, the Department of Housing and Community Development guidelines do not permit this use of program funds. However, by empowering clts to develop, adus AB 671 will only bolster Calhoun's mission of enabling low and very Low income households to become or remain homeowners.

I want to thank Assemblymember Ward for authoring AB 671 and urge the support of the committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other additional witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any tweeners?

Yes, Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we'd like to thank the author, the staff, the committee staff, and, quite frankly, everybody else for finding a way to resolve our concerns and ensure that the program works with our subdivision map act to ensure that property ownership remains an opportunity that fits within the guidelines and principles of how the subdivision map act is designed. Thank you.

Great. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any question, Mr. Kalra.

I believe senator Carrillo made a motion. I don't know if there's not a second.

You'll make the second great.

And we'd love to be added as a co author, if it's okay with the author. Thank you.

Great. Any other comments or questions? Great. We have a motion in a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully request your aye vote.

Well, Mr. Ward, I really appreciate you bringing this bill forward and also working with opposition need as many kind of creative options as we can to create more homes. So with that, happy to support the bill. It's do pass as amended to the assembly committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out and we'll leave it allow members to add on. With that, we have Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett, I believe you are presenting AB 430.

Thank you much. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members, appreciate this opportunity to present this bill. And with that, I will go right to my witnesses. Right. All rightly.

Thank you, honorable chair Wicks and members, my name is Lydia Lopez. I am the co-director of the California Community Land Trust Network. The CLT network has approximately 40 affiliates statewide from the Oregon border down to San Diego. With about 3500 residents living in CLT properties, the first community land trust grew out of the southern civil rights movement as a tool for establishing a new form of land tenure for black farmers and their families.

The model was pioneered by black farmers in the south and spread across the country as communities realize its potential for preserving access to land and housing. Over many generations, our modern community land trust model has inspired CLT movements in Australia, Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean. It is unfortunate that while the original CLTs included farming and housing, our current legal definition in California does not include all the ways that our affiliates toward land for low income communities. AB 430 would fix that.

This bill is not trying to broaden who is considered a CLT or broaden who receives a tax exemption. All we're doing is making the CLT definition match what's already happening on the ground. CLTs operate community gardens, nonprofit spaces, providing critical services, and other community ownership projects that benefit communities all across the state.

It's common, for example, for CLT preservation projects to involve the acquisition of a market rate apartment building and then a multi year transition to CLT homeownership while the building is rehabilitated, and the CLT works with tenants to get them ready for homeownership. During that transition, these buildings are typically simple rentals with no grown lease. We are updating the definition of a CLT to accommodate this common practice.

AB 430 is fixing the definition of a CLT to merely describe the work CLTs are already doing, not broadening the universe of CLTs and not expanding any benefits to organizations that don't already have a tax benefit. CLT homeownership reduces the pressures on first time home buyers by reducing the cost of entry. It is for this reason and many others that we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 430 and we thank Assembly Member Bennett for the leadership on this important issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keep your comments brief. I think we're in good shape. I'm going to keep them brief. I'm just here to help with any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any additional support in the room? Any witnesses in opposition?

And the concern that we have is, as we're removing properties from the property tax rules, we are also putting a greater burden on our low and moderate income families. The amendment that we're seeking is to exempt from the welfare exemption within the bill, single family, one to four parcels obtained through foreclosure, as, again, those units were originally paying property taxes into local governments and now they won't be as drafted by the bill currently. With that, I'll keep my comments brief and I'm happy to answer any questions anyone might have.

Thank you. I will bring it back to committee members. Mr. Kalra.

Just wanted to add on as a co author, if I could. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Mr. Patterson?

Yeah. Is there a response to the opposition? As a former City Council member myself, I obviously would get concerned about properties coming off the tax rolls and things like that. We made projections on as houses would sell and so on and so forth. So, just curious your thoughts.

I think if you went to any City Council in the state and you said you could provide permanent low income affordable housing unit, and the only thing you'd have to do is give up the property tax payment that is coming in, they would say that's the best value affordable housing you could possibly come up with here. You're just taking a unit, turning it over, and permanently making this low income affordable housing. We don't have anywhere near enough of it.

If we went to that city and said, you need to construct it, we'll give you a choice. You can construct it or you can let the land trust take this foreclosed property. That's easily the most affordable way to come up with these units. And I just completely reject the idea that we need to keep more housing market rate because the market has failed in California to deliver for low income affordable housing, and it won't do that.

In my mind, it needs to be all hands on deck for low income housing, of truly affordable housing. Not all hands on deck for martyr rate housing. That's nowhere near the same problem that we have with low income affordable housing.

Any other questions? Do we have a motion? Yeah, we have a motion and a second. Great. With that, would you like to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, Mr. Ben, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward, and I think this bill, in its sort of most simple form, creates affordable homeownership opportunities for families who can't at the moment. So appreciate that. Although I do believe we need a lot more housing, low income, also market rate. But I know we've had many discussions about that. And with that, the motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee on Revenant Tax.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out, but we'll let members add on.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I don't see Ms. Friedman. Mr. Patterson, would you like to go? Great.

I ask for an aye vote. All right, great. Well, I'll keep my comments very brief, then. I have a district bill that would exempt a very limited property in the City of Rocklin for the Surplus Land Act. And it's actually included in the transportation element. So it's going to be developed into something. And this just gives us an opportunity to have a lease longer than five years and actually do something with the property than just kind of like, rot away until we can afford--or the city can afford--the overpass. With me, I have Sherri Conway with the City of Rocklin, who I'm sure--it's going to be a very quick comments here. Sounds like we got some support, so thank you.

Thank you. Sherri Conway, the Assistant City Manager for the City of Rocklin. As Assemblyman mentioned, we have a very small parcel in the city, 1.7 acres. It's sandwiched between Interstate 80 and multiple car dealerships in a heavily commercially developed area. This property sits vacant as the city acquired it for future construction of a project that's part of the circulation element. But that's probably decades out. Therefore, this property, subject to the Surplus Land Act, remains vacant.

Nearby business owners have approached the city multiple times to lease the parcel for complementary uses. However, they would like to have a lease that's greater than five years. Otherwise, that would trigger the SLA. This does not make sense for Rocklin due to the planned circulation project. Therefore, this property sits vacant. We believe that in narrow circumstances, such as those I've identified, there should be the ability to have an exemption to the Surplus Land Act. We've worked with Assemblyman Patterson to craft language.

City of Rocklin wants to be part of the solution that makes California a wonderful place. And we have done and continue to do a number of projects that produce housing not just for market rate, but our low and extremely low folks. So I want to thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions your Committee may have.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 457? You can come up to the microphone.

Carly Shelby with the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. The Association is now neutral on the bill. We appreciate the author's office working with NPHM, and we look forward to continued conversations to address Surplus Land Act issues across the board. So thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone in opposition to AB 457? All right, we'll bring it back. Any other comments?

Sorry, pardon me.

Oh, sorry. I apologize.

Thank you. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Not in opposition, but respectfully with a concerned position and appreciate the conversations we've had with the author. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I figured we already did a favor for San Francisco, so why not for Rocklin? And this is a much more humble request, it seems.

We're back in Committee, I take it. Any other questions or comments? We have a motion. Motion and a second. Great. Would you like to close?

I ask for your aye vote.

Great. I'm happy to give it to you, Mr. Patterson. With that, the motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee.

Wicks. Aye. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Quirk-Silva. Aye. Sanchez. Aye. Ward. Aye.

That bill is out.

Great, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right. Ready when you are.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last year, I carried AB 2334, which created a super density bonus for 100% affordable housing projects in low VMT areas. AB 2334 also changed the definition of maximum density, or base density, in density bonus law to make clear that maximum density is calculated based on the greatest density in any of the underlying zoning documents, the zoning ordinance, the land use element of the general plan, or a specific plan.

When amending the definition, we left in a sentence that says that if there is inconsistency between the land use element of the general plan and a specific plan, the greater density of the two prevails. This has created confusion because it is more specific than the prior sentence. This bill corrects that confusion. Humbly ask for an aye vote.

It's hard to read when I have to do the Chairman stuff, too. Are there any witnesses in support?

Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium. Happy to answer any questions and urge your aye vote.

Great, thank you. Others in support?

Michael Lane with SPUR in support.

Thank you. Any primary opponents to this measure? Any? No opposition at all? Any comments from my colleagues up here? All right, we have a motion and a second. I do want to say--if you haven't heard, I was on a City Council before--I would say that the development community would often face a lot of challenges just trying to iron these out, because I don't think cities are really sure what to do in these circumstances.

And so it extends the length of the projects, just as they're trying to figure out, well, what applies to me, what doesn't. And so I understand the original law may not have been--I don't know how I would have voted on that. I can't read these bills, much less last year and the year before. But on this one, I think it's reasonable just knowing the experience that I was on the City Council. So thank you very much.

Great. The goal, at minimum, should be to eliminate confusion. So would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. All right. Well, let's take roll.

The motion is to pass to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Wicks. Aye. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Quirk-Silva. Aye. Sanchez. Ward. Aye. And the bill is out.

The bill is out.

Okay. Our final bill of the day. Ms. Friedman, the floor is yours, AB 1377.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. First, we accept the Committee amendment on the bottom of page four, adding a definition of transit properties. Members, one of the things that I hear in Los Angeles from people who are transit riders is the perceived lack of safety on our transportation systems, particularly on our rail systems in Metro and BART. We hear this across the state.

And in fact, the LA Times recently did an article outlining an increase in crime and drug use in transit systems and that being a real barrier to people riding. Now, of course, there is a difference between people's perception of a lack of safety and actual lack of safety. But putting that aside, I think we could all hopefully agree that we don't want people living in transit systems. We don't want people living in train stations. We don't want people sleeping on trains.

We don't want our riders to feel unsafe or uncomfortable, given what they're experiencing in stations or on the system itself. We certainly don't want our transit operators feeling unsafe. And unfortunately, because of a lack of coordination between our public agencies, oftentimes those who desperately need services, who need outreach, who need help and need assistance, are being ignored, literally not counted, literally not seen by those who are entrusted to help care for them.

This bill, AB 1377, seeks to address that by adding additional accountability measures to ensure that local agencies are working in close coordination with transit operators across the State of California to address the needs of people who are experiencing homelessness. By requiring applicants for funding through the state's homeless housing assistance and prevention program to include data and narrative summaries of steps that the applicant has taken to improve the delivery of housing and services to people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness on transit properties in their jurisdiction, the state will promote greater collaboration and cohesion of delivery service.

One of the issues that we've had is that when we do the homeless counts across the state, many times people who are living in transit stations and living on trains are literally not being counted. They're not being included in the reports of the number of people that are homeless and because of that, they're not being offered services. This has to stop, not just for the benefit of those who would benefit from that outreach services and housing and relocation outreach, but also for the benefit of those who rely on public transportation to get to work, to bring their kids to school, to have basic mobility in California. With that, here to testify with me is our sponsor, LA Metro, Michael Turner, who's the Executive Officer of Government Relations.

Thank you Assembly Member Friedman, and thank you, Chair, for working with us on this bill. It's an important bill, not just for Metro, but for transit agencies statewide. We have all seen an increase in people experiencing homelessness and using transit as a place for shelter. And while we are not directly responsible for addressing the needs of the unhoused, we have stepped in to assist these individuals. Our response to homelessness is multifaceted.

We've spent to date about $28 million and we're about to spend another $25 million next year, and that includes outreach and interim housing investments. Between July of 2018 and March of this year, we've connected over 4,000 people to interim and permanent housing. While our programs are successful, it only addresses a small portion of the need and we're using vital operations funds--transit operations funds--to do that. We continue to face several challenges in our ability to respond to this issue.

We not only recently were included--just recently--in LAHSA's Point in Time Count, but we have no permanent structure to guarantee that that will continue. And that's the same for transit agencies across the state. People who shelter on Metro system do not have the same access to key resources like mental health, substance abuse counseling, intensive case management and interim housing, and we need to create structures such as with AB 1377 to do that. AB 1377 will ensure that these services are provided on Metro. Homelessness has no boundaries, and this is a non-fiscal way that the state can help address the fiscal cliff that all the transit agencies are experiencing. We'd like to thank you for your consideration and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Additional folks in support?

Madam Chair and Members, Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association. We don't yet have a formalized support position on this bill, but I do want to just show thanks and appreciation to Chair Friedman, to LA Metro for elevating this issue. Just want to note that in corners of the state, from Sacramento to San Diego, we are experiencing homelessness on our public transit systems.

As the representative from LA Metro noted, this is one of the key impediments for us regaining our ridership, bringing back folks to our systems, and ultimately delivering a fiscally solvent transit system for the State of California. And so we're looking forward to bringing this to our members with a formalized support position in the near future. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Great. And bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's really important. When I chaired our regional transit authority in Santa Clara County, VTA, my last act of Chair was to ride what we called the Hotel 22, which was the 24-hour bus. I rode it from about 09:00 p.m. to about four in the morning, brought some social workers with me, and were able to engage with folks that were unhoused, that would sleep on the bus, that otherwise, as was mentioned by both of you, were really outside of the realm of the reach of the typical manner in which we reach out to the unhoused population.

Whether it's California, really, globally, transit centers are commonly a place where the unhoused gravitate towards because it's one of the few places they can be safe, find a warm place, whether it's a bus station, a train station, in a bus or train. And so I think this bill makes complete sense and would love to be added on as a co-author.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I too, support this bill. I think you're absolutely correct that we're not, of course, counting our homeless in our Point of Time, not just our transit areas, but in many areas, we're missing people. But I had the opportunity to just visit, along with some other colleagues, Columbia, and in their transit Metro, they actually have pop-up tents that are called, in essence, listening places where it's a little pop-up and they have a mental health provider there.

They have services, they have a QR code so that if somebody's coming in and they need assistance right there in the Metro station. So I think there's a long way for us to go to reach these people that obviously are sheltering in transit areas because of the need. And yet we want to balance that with the ridership of people who--wanting to increase the ridership as far as our goals for climate and all the other things. So this important step. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a great appreciation to the author and our key witness. We've done a lot of work in the City of Los Angeles and with Metro to ensure that communities feel safe when riding transit. And we're trying to expand on those opportunities and trying to also find holistic ways to get people housed. And I think there's a connection that needs to happen in how we do that.

And so I think this is the appropriate measure to move that forward, especially as we're trying to--my colleague from Fullerton mentioned--as we're trying to figure out how we get to all of our renewable goals and all of our transit goals, all of our housing goals, people have to come first. And we have to ensure that the bodies of government that operate the systems that we put in place and that we fund have those resources and opportunities. So thank you for that. And when the time is appropriate, I'd love to join in as a co-author.

Great. Any other questions? Comments? We need a motion. Motion by Ms. Carrillo, second by Mr. Kalra. And with that, the bill is--well, I'll let you close, Ms. Friedman.

Thank you. I really appreciate the comments and very grateful for the co-author requests. You know, our transit agencies and our transit operators, they're really good at running transit. They have bus drivers who are great at driving buses. They have train conductors who are great at conducting trains. They do all of those things really well, but they don't have the expertise to be homeless outreach people.

And at a time when we recognize that over-policing is not the way to solve homelessness, that's really one of the options that they have because they have security people. But what we need is to bring the people that really have the expertise into the system to bring our homeless providers into the transit systems to make sure that they coordinate better and that they are ultimately responsible for this population.

Because if you're providing homeless services for a county, it shouldn't matter whether someone's on a sidewalk or in a train station, you are part of the county. So we desperately need better coordination, and we need to make sure that people are getting the outreach and the services that they need to truly get them into housing and get them help. And with that, I would request an aye vote on AB 1377. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Friedman. I'm happy to support the bill for all the reasons you just said. It's not only good government, but it's the most humane thing that we should be doing. So appreciate your leadership in this space. And with that, the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Wicks. Aye. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Quirk-Silva.

Quirk-Silva. Aye. Sanchez. Aye. Ward. Aye.

That bill is out 8-0, and we will go back through. Right? We will start with the consent calendar.

Item 11 and item 18, the consent calendar. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

Consent calendar is out. It's already been out. Yes.

Item number 1, AB 42. Assemblymember Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye. Bill is out, 8-0.

Out 8-0.

Item number 2, AB 281. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote, 8-0.

Item number 3, AB 312. Wicks. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote, 8-0.

Item number 4, AB 430. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote, 7-1.

Item number 5, AB 44 is complete.

Final vote, 7-0.

Item number 6, AB 457.

Final vote, 8-0.

Item number 7, AB 548. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote, 6-0.

Item number 8, AB 671. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote 7-0.

Item number 9, AB 911. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote 7-1.

Item number 10. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote 8-0.

Item number 12. That's AB 1101. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye. Quirk-Silva. Aye.

That bill is out 8-0.

Item number 13, AB 1114. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote, 8-0.

Item 14, AB 1218. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

That bill is out 7-1.

Item number 15, AB 1287. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

Final vote, 8-0.

Item 16, AB 1377.

Final vote, 8-0.

Item 17, AB 1458. Patterson. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye. Quirk-Silva. Aye.

That bill is out 8-0.

Item 18 was the consent item. Item 19, AB 1485. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye.

That bill is out 6-1.

And item number 20, AB 1633. Wicks. Aye. Carrillo. Aye. Gabriel. Aye. Kalra. Aye.

That bill is out 8-0. We are adjourned.