Senate Standing Committee on Housing

And I think we now have a quorum. So thank you. We have five bills on today's agenda. Two of them are on consent. The two on consent, are items 4 and 5. Item four is AB 1474. Item five is 1528. The other three bills we will hear, and we will start by establishing a quorum.

[Roll call] We have a quorum.

Okay, we have a quorum. We will start briefly with the consent agenda. Items 4 and 5. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? Okay, so a motion to approve by Senator Caballero, and we will call the roll.

On the consent calendar, which consists of file items 4 and 5. [Roll call] Six to zero.

Okay, the consent calendar has six votes. We'll put it on call for absent Members. Okay, we will now start with Item Number One: AB 648 by Assembly Member Valencia. Welcome.

Buenas tardes, Mr. Chair and Senators. I would like to start by thanking the Committee team for their diligent work on this specific bill, and then also a shout out to our Legislative Director for her efforts as well on AB 648. AB 648 builds off efforts led by the Senate by permanently allowing Homeowner Association meetings to take place via teleconference. The bill does not mandate teleconference, but rather creates an additional option for members to participate.

AB 648 contains important safeguards that ensure advanced posting of meeting notices, clear instructions on how to participate, and technical assistance. During the COVID emergency, when associations had flexibility to meet, they reported significant increases in participation due to the teleconferencing option, which saved costs and enhanced participation of diversity. With me to provide testimony, I have Ms. Kelly Zibell who is a homeowner and an HOA Community Manager, and then also Mr. Louis Brown to provide additional information if questions are asked. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Kelly Zibell. I've lived in a Homeowners Association since 2016 and served on its board since 2017. I've also managed communities for 20 years. I'm here today to speak in support of AB 648. For many communities, holding meetings can be costly. Sometimes there's not--like in my community--there is not a physical location on site for homeowners and board members to meet and conduct business.

This requires that we rent an off-site location for our members to hold a meeting, a physical meeting in person. In addition, homeowners from our community have to travel to that meeting to be able to participate in the events from the meeting. Having the option to have meetings via teleconference or video conference provides a low-cost option for Homeowners Associations and board members to participate in their communities.

In my experience, a larger, more diverse group of homeowners attend the board meetings and volunteer to serve on the board. Homeowners with mobility issues or those with family commitments at home like myself find it much easier to attend an electronic meeting than those held in person. We've seen more owners participating in meetings and volunteering for board member or committee meetings positions since increasing the usage of virtual meetings. Documents are also easily shared via a video or teleconference option which cuts down on printing costs for associations.

Associations have faced significant cost increases in many recent years, especially in areas related to insurance and utilities. Expanding this access will help us keep the cost of operating the Association as low as possible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Brown.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute-California Legislative Action Committee. I just want to echo the comments of Kelly. We hear from our chapters and our members around the state how participation has increased in associations everywhere, and they'd like to see the opportunity for this to continue.

As the author said, this is not a mandate, but just one more element that a board would have as a tool to increase participation going forward. We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there any additional public comment in the room? Please just say your name, affiliation, and position.

Jennifer Wada on behalf of the California Association of Community Managers, a cosponsor of the bill in support.

Thank you. Any additional support or public comment in the hearing room? Okay, seeing none. Is there any opposition in the hearing room? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Will the moderator please queue up any public comment, support or opposition?

And if you'd like to make public comment, please press one then zero at this time. One zero. And we do not have anyone queuing up at this time.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Senator Blakespear followed by Senator Caballero.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member, for this great bill. It seems to be a really common sense approach, given the realities after COVID and how comfortable everybody is using technology, and I appreciate the commentary from your public, the members of the public that you brought today talking about increased participation and also the environmental benefits with printing and driving. I think those are both all really important, and I'm really excited to support this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions, and I appreciate what you're trying to do with the bill. I think it's a good idea, but one of the things that or one of the protections that I think would be important for me is HOAs have broad powers, not only in regards to the physical upkeep of the property that they're taking care of, making sure it gets painted, the roofs get repaired, having enough money in reserve to be able to do all of that.

But they also have the ability to issue fines and to affect property within the complex so that if people for a period of time fail to pay their HOA dues, there is the ability to put liens on the property, those kinds of things.

I think anything where there's an action to take away the rights of someone in the complex--and I say this because having served as City Council Member, we had some really good HOAs, and then we had some that deteriorated into chaos for a whole variety of reasons, some of them having--well, most of it having to do with management or the lack of management or the feeling in the complex that people weren't being treated fairly, so that if there's an action that's going to be taken that will either issue a fine or some kind of a penalty against a homeowner, that those meetings be in person.

So that there's some opportunity for the person that's being fined or had a lien on their property, so they have an opportunity to respond and to be present when those kinds of things are happening. So I'm going to support your--well, I'd like to hear what your response is.

I want to be able to support this because I think the more that we can get participation from homeowners, that's the best, but if you're going to be starting to implement some kind of penalty, I think it should be in person.

Sure. Really appreciate the question and comments. On the Assembly side, we actually took amendments to address certain components of that topic which were to not allow teleconference meetings if there was a voting matter taking place. So there will still be the in person component if that is the situation.

Great. That's perfect. Deals with my concern. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Senator.

Any additional questions or comments, Colleagues? Okay. Do we have a motion on SB--excuse me--on AB 648? Motion by Senator Blakespear, and that is to pass the bill to the Judiciary Committee. With that, you may close.

I appreciate your time and respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion by Senator Blakespear, and we will call the roll.

Senator Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. McGuire? Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto, aye. Skinner? Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab? That's eight to zero.

Okay, that Bill has eight votes, and we'll put it on call. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll next go to item number two, AB 812, by Assembly Member Boerner.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I'd like to thank your Committee staff for working with me on this Bill and will be accepting the Committee amendments. AB 812 would allow a city, county, or city and county to set aside up to 10% of very low, low, or moderate income deed restricted housing within or within 1 mile from a state or locally designated cultural district for artists.

I will be accepting the Committee amendments to narrow the scope of the Bill to deed restricted housing within a half mile from a state designated cultural district and exclusively within the boundaries of a locally designated cultural district. Artists are the lifeblood of our cultural communities and help preserve the cultural footprint for those regions. Last fall, with your colleagues, Senator Ben Allen, we toured a number of cultural districts throughout the state, and everybody said the same thing.

They said, please help us keep our artists in our districts. And you look at San Francisco, and you look at SOMA Pilipinas. That entire is now in the financial district. They've lost their home. And you have this diaspora of Filipino immigrants who still come back there. And so we want to keep them. And it doesn't matter if you were in Truckee or you're in Nevada City, or you're down in San Pedro, or you're in Balboa Park or Barrio Logan or Oceanside, every single one saying the same thing. So we came up with this idea of how do we help do it?

Because it's the one place where we create by creating cultural districts, whether it's local or state, we create the negative externality that we price people out of the region. But those people that created the cultural districts to make them fantastic need to be able to stay. And so many cities and counties don't think they have the authority to set aside deed restricted housing units for artists near cultural districts.

AB 812 would provide local governments the flexibility necessary to set aside affordable units for low-income artists to help prevent further displacement of artists that is occurring near cultural districts across the state. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And this is a Tasha B special because I'm no longer T.B.H., so it's Tasha B, like Cardi B. So Tasha B special. So if you have any questions, happy to answer. And I don't think- I do have a witness. Oh, there we go.

We have a witness.

Okay, please come forward for the Tasha B special.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of California Arts Advocates. We're the proud sponsors of AB 812. We just want to thank the Committee and Committee staff-

Can you pull the microphone down a little bit?

Yeah, of course. Sorry.

I'm not commenting on anyone.

Just thanking the Committee staff for all their work and the Assembly Member for carrying this important measure. There's a clear need to increase affordable housing for artists, cultural workers, and arts organizations within cultural communities. Nationwide, artists are rent burdened in 80% of cultural districts, pushing out the very core of cultural districts itself. In 2021, the City of Berkeley did a survey that highlighted the need for affordable housing among artists and cultural workers who are experiencing displacement pressures due to increasing housing prices in cultural communities.

Their survey revealed that while most artists and cultural workers are highly educated, 60% have low, very low, or extremely low income. 77% of respondents indicated that they are rent-burdened, with 68% having different sources of part time work to make ends meet. While low income is prevalent across the group of artists and cultural workers, the rate is disproportionately higher among BIPOC recipients.

In fact, in the same year, Los Angeles surveyed found that 27% of respondents who identified as BIPOC were also likely to experience food insecurity, housing instability, and increased debt compared to white respondents. Cultural districts are tried and true way to increase economic vitality while strengthening in cultural fabrics of communities. They promote cultural equity, boost tourism dollars, and encourage more local visitors to increase property values and generate more money for region and state. So it's critical that we keep the people who create cultural districts in them.

Surveys through cross state indicate huge demand for affordable housing for artists. Keeping neighborhoods affordable for cultural barriers in our local communities and avoiding the displacement of artists protects our culture heritage and increase robust economic zones. A cultural district is no longer a cultural district if these people cannot afford to live and work there themselves. AB 812 will help ensure that artists are able to live in or near these cultural districts. So we respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any additional supportive public comment in the hearing room? Okay, seeing none. Is there any opposition in the hearing room? Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Will the moderator please queue up any remote public testimony?

And there's currently no one actually dialed in, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Senator Blakespear and then Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

Yes, thank you. I just want to commend the Assembly Member on this great idea and also the Bill sponsor. I know of several communities where this will be immediately applicable. And it's also just important to note that this has to be relevant for the local community, because the local government, which is elected officials, has to decide that, first of all, that there would be a designated cultural district and also that they want to set aside for this population.

So I think this is a really great Bill idea, and I commend you for it. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

Hello, my dear colleague and friend. I have a couple of concerns. I respect the idea and the concept that you have for this particular Bill.

But my concern lies on how do you protect the artist as defined by an artist, what it is? Do they belong to some sort of guild or what protections are there to limit anyone coming in and saying, I'm an artist, I've created this, and therefore I should qualify for this? And so I don't see within the language protections to define or identify someone as perhaps they make a living out of selling their art or if they belong to a certain organization.

Yeah, I can answer you that.

Yes, please.

So the way a local agency verifies the artist for eligibility is at the local level, the artist housing developments, it would have an applicant must be able to demonstrate consistent participation in or commitment to creative art via the following materials.

A questionnaire to determine applicants participation in the creative arts, contributions to their field, how they see their artwork contributing to the arts district community, a resume or a CV describing their art experience and or their arts education, their performance and exhibit background, and three portable examples of recent work created. So that's how we already do it. And so what cities are able to do in the Bill language. And I didn't bring my readers, so let's see.

Oh, here.

That's Bipartisan.

I love that. They look good on you.

Oh, yeah, thanks.

Actually, they look really good on you.

Yeah, here we go. So the City or county- Let's see. Artist means the creator of any work of visual, graphic, or performing art of any media, including, but not limited to painting, paint, drawing, sculpture, craft, photograph, film, or performance. And so the way they would have to do a yearly income verification and a yearly verification that they're still participating in the arts. Okay, so the city, through their local ordinance that they would pass per this Bill, would have to do it.

And the reason is and the reason I wanted it yearly is because you want people, as they become successful artists, to be able to graduate out of that deed restricted housing, and you want to have the next generation come in. Right? You want to keep the vibrancy of the cultural districts. That's what all the cultural districts throughout the state said they needed. So thank you for the readers.

Senator Seyarto.

She just can't wait for my questions. I know that.

I used to serve with you in Assembly I believe. I think I might understand. I know.

So I know you know my concerns about local government and state, and I just want to clarify that this just authorizes cities to do it. It doesn't mandate that they do it. It doesn't create a lawsuit environment for people who are in a city that says, hey, the state says you have to do this.

Yeah, exactly. So a city would have to pass in a local ordinance that they, one, have a cultural arts district. We know which the 14 are from the state, or they have a local one. And they would have to actively do this because they have to actively manage that process. So they have to decide, I have the resources to do this and actively manage the process. And in fact, it reduces the threat of lawsuits because many cities can do this for their entire cities.

But we wanted to make it really explicit that they can do this per this process. And so it actually will reduce the chances of lawsuits for local jurisdictions.

All right, because that does make a difference for me.

I know it does. Senator Seyarto.

Okay, any other questions? Comments?

I'll move the Bill.

Did you have a comment?

I just extend my congrats to the author for the Bill, and I'm happy to move at the appropriate time.

So we have a motion by Senator Padilla to pass the Bill, as amended to the Senate Floor. Okay. Thank you for this Bill. Thank you for working with us on the amendments, and I'm happy to support it today. I'm happy to support a period. I do just want to note that when we talk about setting aside a percentage of units for a particular group of people, that only has meaning if those homes are built and exists.

And I will say the same thing when and if the right to housing constitutional amendment by my Assembly Member, which I also support when that comes through, that the right to housing only has meaning if we have enough homes built. Otherwise, it's theoretical. And so 10% of zero is, of course, zero. And so the higher the number of homes built, that 10% will become more and more meaningful.

And so I always stress that when bills come through this Committee, that really will have meaning only if we have the homes for people. And so that's why the work of this Committee and the Legislature in trying to get more homes built and make it faster is so important. But thank you for bringing this Bill, and you are welcome to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote and it's absolutely true what you said. If there are no homes, we're not going to keep our artists, we're not going to keep our firefighters, we're not going to keep our nurses. Absolutely. That's 100% true. And I think Barrio Logan, I think Senator Padilla can speak more to it. It's currently undergoing gentrification. And what's happening is a lot of housing is going to go in and a lot of that there will be deed restricted housing.

And we want to make sure we keep our artists who made Chicano Park, it's so iconic for San Diego, in the area. So respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Padilla, and we'll call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you, everyone.

Nine to zero. We'll put that on call. And now we'll move to our final bill of the day. Item number three AB 1332 by Assembly Member Carrillo. Thank you, Assembly Member, for your patience. And you may present.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My pleasure to be here presenting my first bill to the Senate. Pleasure to be here. And thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1332. As all of you know, California has failed to build anywhere near enough new housing units required to keep up with demand. Over the past several years, the Legislature has agreed that accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, should be a part of the solution.

And the Legislature has passed laws that make permitting and authorizing ADUs easier. I strongly believe that making ADUs more accessible and more affordable should continue to be a cornerstone of our efforts to address the housing crisis. ADUs are infill, they are affordable, and they're often a critical stepping stone for middle class families to build generational wealth. Whether by providing an affordable option to family members and loved ones, or as rental income, building and owning an ADU can be a life changing asset.

One of the first barriers homeowners run into when considering an ADU is planning and designing the unit itself. This requires a homeowner to spend thousands of dollars to hire an architect or an engineer just to find out how much it's going to cost to build the unit. For many low and middle income homeowners, this is simply not an option.

To address this issue, some local governments have started to provide preapproved plans for ADUs, including Los Angeles and San Jose, as well as a shared program across 16 cities in Napa and Sonoma counties. AB 1332 will speed up the process and lower the cost of building ADUs by requiring local governments to keep a catalog of preapproved ADUs plans on their website.

By having access to a catalog of preapproved plans, homeowners will not only save time and money, it will provide much needed clarity to families that otherwise might think building an ADU on their property is too abstract and out of reach. Our goal is to reduce costs for local governments too. Instead of requiring local government to do the hard work of designing an ADU, this bill allows them to put ADUs they have already approved into a shelf for other people to use.

This off the shelf approach makes it easier for them to review these projects than under normal circumstances. Furthermore, existing law allows local governments to recover from any costs from ADU permitting fees on the housing, so it should be revenue neutral in the immediate term. In the long term, this is an effective way to do more with less in a planning department. This is a common sense bill which has received bipartisan support, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Do you have a lead witness?

I do not have any witnesses with me today.

No problem. Is there any supportive public testimony in the room? If so, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the California Building Officials. We have a support if amended position on this. We've wanted to thank the author's office for their continued dialogue since the bill was introduced. We really, really appreciate it. We're just hoping to get the state having HCD kind of come up with a catalog for some of our smaller jurisdictions to be able to comply with the law.

Fears being that the cost might be too much for some of our smaller jurisdictions or ones that don't have as many ADUs have to comply with an unfunded mandate and finding a way to kind of provide that option for them to look at the state and have HCD who's got the background and expertise about these plans to help further improve and implement this law and make it more feasible for our local jurisdictions, but really appreciate the idea and look forward to continued conversations on the bill. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional support, comment, public comment in the room? Seeing none. Is there any opposition in the hearing room? Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Will the Moderator please queue up any public testimony?

There's currently no one dialed in, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments. Senator Blakespear?

Yes. Thank you. This is a great bill idea, and I really appreciate you bringing it forward. When I was the mayor of the City of Encinitas, which I come just directly from having done, this was one of the most successful things we did in the City of Encinitas was to establish a pre-approved ADU program.

And the way we did it at the City was we went out for an RFP and had two architects responded with different plans, and they were at different sizes for obvious reasons, and they could be customizable because you need to have some flexibility in there. And we posted them on our website so that people who are thinking about building an ADU could look through and say, oh, look, this might work for my yard, and then they could choose among those if they wanted to.

And we did find that it really dramatically increased the number of ADUs that were being built, and also it elevated the program as a whole, the ADU program, because it was on our website, we talked about. So in a community that was largely single family homes, this was a way to scatter density in a way that the community would accept and we had quite a lot of interest from our homeowners. So I'm really excited by this bill.

When I first saw it, I thought, oh, I should have thought of that, because it directly goes back to my experience. But I really wanted to thank you for coming up with this, and I'm an enthusiastic supporter.

Thank you.

Okay. Any additional... Yes, Senator Caballero.

I want to add my voice to it as well. I think this makes a lot of sense, and in many communities where the cities are not moving fast enough, and the idea of having to spend money just to come up with a plan that then has to go through an approval process doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If we can routinize it and make it something that fits in within the design of the property, then it makes a lot of sense. So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Okay, any additional questions or comments? Seeing none. Motion by Senator Cortese, and that is to pass the bill to the Committee on Governance and Finance. With that, you may close.

Well, I just want to thank you for your time. Really excited to see this program move forward. I do believe that this will actually accelerate the housing units that we need to build in the state, and I look forward to continue the conversation on how we can build more housing in the state.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senator Cortese, and we will call the roll.

Senator Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear, aye. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Cortese. Cortese, aye. McGuire. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Seyarto. Aye. Seyarto, aye. Skinner. Skinner, aye. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab. Ochoa Bogh, aye.

OK. The vote is nine to zero. We'll put it on call. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to open the rolls for the additional present Members who have arrived. We have a couple of Members. We'll keep it open for Senator Mcguire and Senator Wahab. So let's start at the top with item one. AB 648, please call the absent Members.

Senator Mcguire. Skinner. Aye. Skinner. Aye. Wahab. Nine to zero.

Okay, that vote is nine. Does someone stay over the door?

We're waiting for McGuire and Wahab still.

Okay, I'm sorry. Nine to zero. We'll put it back on call. Item two, AB 812. Please call the absent Members.

Everyone already voted on that.

Okay, I'm sorry. We're going to withdraw that and same with this. Okay, so the consent calendar, items 4 and 5, please call the absent Members.

Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. McGuire. Padilla. Skinner. Aye. Skinner. Aye Wahab. That's eight today.

Okay, we'll put that back on call, and I will okay, we're going to open the roll again. We'll start with item number one. AB 648, please call the absent Members.

McGuire. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 10 to 0.

10 to zero. We'll put that back on call. Item two, AB 812, please call the absent Members.

Mcguire. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 10 to zero.

10 to zero. We'll put it back on call. Item three, AB 1332. Please call the absent Members.

Mcguire. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Ten to zero.

10 to zero. We'll put it back on call. And the consent calendar. Items 4 and 5. Please call the absent Members.

McGuire. Padilla. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Nine to zero.

Nine to zero. We'll put it back on call. Thank you, Senator. Wahab. Mr. Majority Leader, and you won the Mike McGuire Award today. Yeah, I know. Senator will have edged you out. Okay, let's open the roll on item one, AB 648. Please call the absent Members.

Senator McGuire? Aye. McGuire. Aye. It's 11 to zero.

That Bill is out. Item two, AB eight, one, two. Please call the absent Members.

Senator McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye. 11-0

That Bill is out. Item three, AB 1332. Please call the absent Members.

Senator McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye. 11-0.

That Bill is out. And the consent calendar, items 4 and 5. Please call the absent Members.

Senator McGuire? Aye. Mcguire, aye. Padilla. 10 to zero.

10 to zero. I'm going to put the consent calendar back on call.

What are we waiting for?

Welcome back. I thought normally people don't run away from their consent calendar. Okay, we're going to open the roll on the consent calendar. Please call the absent Member.

Senator Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. 11 to zero.

Okay, the consent calendar is approved. Thank you very much. Okay, that concludes our business today. And we are adjourned.