Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

All right. Good morning, everybody. Want to welcome you to the Assembly Housing Community Development Committee hearing for Wednesday, April 24. We have 29 items on our agenda today. 11 of those bills are on consent.

They are item number five AB 2373 item 12 AB 2533 item 13 AB 2553 item 14, AB 2570 item 15, AB 2579 item 16, AB 2593 item 20, AB 2903 item 23 AB 2934 item number 25, AB 3012 item 27, AB 3057 item 28, AB 3276 and item 29, AJR 14. We will take up the consent item when we consent calendar when we have established a quorum.

Each Bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each main witness will get two minutes each. I welcome you to submit written testimony through the physicians portal on the Committee website. This will become part of our official record of the Bill. Our hearing room will be open for attendance of this hearing. We are in room 437 this morning.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from the live stream on the Assembly's website and I want to thank you all for your patience and understanding. Today we have a full agenda. With that, we can begin as a Subcommitee. We do not have quorum yet and our bills will be heard in file order. So let me go down for and see who's here. I see you. I don't see you.

So we're going to begin with item number three, AB 2291. Assemblymember Alanis, when you are prepared with your witnesses, you may begin testimony.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good morning. I'm proud to present AB 2291 today, and we will be accepting Committee amendments to narrow the Bill to focus on the Department of Housing and Community Development's oversight of consumer complaints. So in December of 23, the State Auditor published a report identifying deficiencies in the department's oversight of the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program, specifically highlighting, among many issues, the Department not properly correcting inappropriate denials of filed complaints as it pertains to the program.

In fact, the Auditor identified more than two dozen complaints that were inappropriately denied based on assessments made regarding their filers' incomes despite the program having no income eligibility requirements. The Auditor stated that the Department did not take steps to correct these inappropriate rejections in the nearly two years since they were first nominated or notified of the rejection.

AB 2291 corrects this issue by requiring the Department to take a more hands on approach and assessing complaints filed with legal services providers to detect and respond to inappropriate denials of service. With this change, mobile home residents will have additional protections when it comes to ensuring their complaints are properly filed and not inappropriately denied. With me today is to speak in support Chris Wysocki with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association. Chris?

Thank you, Assemblyman. Mister Chair and Members, appreciate it. Chris Wysocki with WMA. And we are rising today in support of Mister Alanis's Bill. We like the original version, but this Bill right now will essentially provide more accountability to LSPs. The initial Bill called for a suspension of the $10 fee that's been taken out. But the way LSPs operate, we believe since it is resident money that's being used to actually pay them, there should be accountability. And that's what this Bill actually seeks to accomplish. So for those and other reasons, I know you have a busy hearing. I'm not going to be drone on and on. So we are in support of the Bill.

Great. Thank you. Are there any members of the public in support of the Bill?

Yeah. Thank you, Mister chair. Jay Snyder, on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance, also in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill today? And you can come up here to the presentation table. You'll have up to two minutes.

Hello? Roger Johnson on behalf of GSMOL, a resident based organization advocating for over 60 years for seniors and Californians on fixed incomes living in mobile homes. We strongly oppose AB 2291. It took over two years for GSMOL, and mobile home residents to establish the Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Program. This was a five year pilot program that residents pay for out of our own modest incomes to protect ourselves from park owners who violate the mobile home residency law.

Governor Brown agreed with us and signed AB 3066 into law. It was the first time in California's history. Park owners opposed the pilot program over those two years and have ever since. Last year, in only the third year of the pilot program, we worked with Assemblymember Addis and the Department of Housing to begin making improvements based upon the comprehensive data that HCD was required to gather and publish. The improvements included expanding the program to cover all MRL alleged violations by park owners.

Governor Newsom agreed with these improvements and signed AB 318 into law, which just took effect this January. Just three and a half months ago, park owners failed to stop Assemblymember Addis's Bill, so they pursued a state audit of a pilot program that had only been in place for three years, despite the fact that HCD data had already helped us to start making improvements, which we have been doing.

This Bill and SB 1052 are the park owners double barreled attempt to roadblock the ability to protect ourselves with a program that we pay for, not the taxpayers, not the General Fund, and not the park owners.

10 seconds.

Mobile home residents want Governor Newsom's and Assemblymember Addis's Bill to be allowed to take effect, including the improvements made to the pilot program.

Thank you for being here today. Are there any other witnesses or members of the public in opposition? Name, organization and position, please.

Michelle Moning. I am the HOA President at one of the mobile home parks locally and in strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you.

Joseph Nye, oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Linda Nye, mobile homeowner, and I oppose this Bill strongly.

Thank you.

In strongest opposition, Bev Purcell, HOA President, homeowner, and GSMOL member.

Thank you.

Robin Marks, mobile homeowner, and I strongly oppose this.

Thank you. Thank you for coming to the Capitol today. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to weigh in on position on this. Are there any Members of the Committee that wish to ask questions? Okay, seeing none. Mister Alanis, we don't have a quorum yet. We'll entertain any motion at the time. But I do want to thank you for working on this.

I think to your earlier point, this is about accountability, and I appreciate your willingness to work with the Committee staff on the amendments. I think we don't want to undermine the program as it's currently still in development. With that, would you like to close.

With what you said, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We will move on to ask for authors to come to Room 437. Ah yes, Miss Quirk-Silva, you have file item number. There's a hole punch there. So, is that number seven? This is AB 2433.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. AB 2433 addresses the lengthy delays in the building permit process by introducing flexibility in inspection timelines and the conditional utilization of private professional services. Over the past decade, many factors have contributed to prolonged processing times of building permits and inspections. These challenges have only been exasperated by events such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the retirement of older, experienced personnel and the ongoing difficulty of hiring qualified replacements.

Affordable housing projects and disadvantaged communities, which require efficient use of capital, are particularly harmed by these added undue costs and delays, further hindering investment precisely when it is needed most. AB 2433 will cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan checking and inspections. It is about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in a timely permit processing.

By making the processes more efficient, we can support both our communities and businesses, creating an opportunity to improve the lives of Californians. The sponsors in my office have been working diligently with those who are concerned with the Bill in order to address any issues. Due to time constraints, recent agreed amendments are being drafted by legislative council and will be processed in the Assembly Appropriations if the Bill passes Committee today.

I want to thank your Committee for working with this, and we'll continue to work on concerns. With me, today in support of AB 2433 is Skyler Wonnacott, Senior Director of Government Relationship. Sorry, government relations with the California Business Properties Association.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Skylar Wonnacott and I'm here on behalf of our members NAIOP California and BOMA California, proudly sponsoring AB 2433 to enhance California's building permit process efficiency. Our building departments are currently facing challenges, including staffing shortages due to economic downturns, the COVID-19 pandemic, and retirements leading to permit processing delays that hinder economic growth, and construction projects crucial for addressing California's housing crisis and decarbonization efforts.

AB 2433 proposes conditional use of licensed engineers or architects for plan checking and inspections if local agencies exceed the 30-day review or five-day inspection deadlines. These professionals must submit affidavits affirming compliance with the state building code, ensuring process integrity and quality. Carefully excluding projects like health facilities and high rises. AB 2433 reinforces the ultimate authority of local agencies to approve or deny permits.

Even when a private professional is employed, this measure aims to foster a more efficient, transparent permitting process while upholding our commitment to public safety, welfare, and local control. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public here in support of the Bill?

Hi, Meg Snyder here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition for this Bill?

Good morning. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties. We definitely want to thank the author and the sponsors for working on us with our concerns. At the moment, we still have opposed unless amended, but we are aware of proposed amendments that are circulating right now. I do want to touch on our concerns with the Bill as drafted right now.

I think the common kind of concern we have here across local government is the sort of essentially paying the regulator that this Bill, as drafted right now, proposes that both the plan checker and the perimeter would essentially be going to a private party and the local government oversight, the uninvolved oversight, the making sure that building codes, health and safety codes, and all the variety of codes that impact public buildings or even private buildings that could have a public impact, are observed in accordingly.

I think the other part, too here is essentially the continuation of creating shot clocks. That has been kind of a major common thread over the past couple years in Legislature, when it comes to construction and building, is continuing. We still have concerns of that kind of arbitrary 30-day shot clock and final report when many of these complex structures, even with the bills proposed excluding some more complex ones, could create kind of that.

Once again, that rush that may not necessarily be the smartest thing for safety to be there. We are definitely. This Bill touches on a concern that we have put before and seeks a way to kind of address that, that many local governments are kind of overwhelmed and that plan checking can take some time. We're still kind of aware of that. That is a concern of ours. We don't want to be an impediment in that kind of plan review space.

But there is a very significant component of this Bill or the process that needs to be observed, that time needs to be taken to make sure that all the codes and construction is going forward in a safe manner.

Great. Thank you. Are there any other Members of the public here in opposition to the Bill?

Good morning, Chair and Members Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in a respectful oppose unless amended position as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, see no other members of the public wishing to weigh in on this. At this moment, we'll pause really briefly to establish quorum.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We have quorum. Turning to Assembly Member Grayson.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I want to applaud the author for this Bill. Much, much needed again. And it's been said time and again that time in construction is more valuable than money itself. And so, a question on your time stipulation. Is it addressing how much time an agency is given for an inspection to come, or is it addressing how fast an inspection has to happen?

Thank you, Assembly Member. It's simply saying if the local agency does not perform the plan-checking duties within 30 days, then the building applicant could seek a private plan-checker.

Okay, so.

That's actually, it's noted in the committee analysis that's our, in statute and health and safety code right now, that an excessive delay is considered 30 days, and that the local agency should already be outsourcing this to a private agency themselves if they're not capable of performing.

So thank you for bringing that up, because I do know that there are planning and permitting agencies out there that are already outsourcing and doing this. I just wanted to make sure that we were addressing a very important issue from the voice of opposition about making sure that we're not compromising or undermining the safety and making sure that we're aligning with the components.

So, I really appreciate that. Something else that was brought out was that having the third party be the same person, that might be the designer, that might be the one that put the plans together. I would definitely review that because we've addressed this before, where possibly a home inspector was also the one turning around and doing the work. It seemed like there was a little bit of collusion there. So, with that, I applaud you for the.

Thank you. We have a motion from Mister Lee. I'll take that as a second. Any other comment on the Bill? Well, Miss Quirk-Silva, I also want to thank you tremendously for working on this idea. Something I kind of researched until last fall, but just didn't have the chance at capacity to be able to put something in motion. So, I'm very excited for the opportunities this could present. I agree that there is technical work that's important, that can be worked out as well.

And I appreciate your early work to try to work on some of those issues, especially facing our local governments, our firefighters, to get the details right. We don't want to see excessive delays, but we understand that there's necessary time that needs to take to be able to review some of these issues. So, I think you could be a very helpful law that will really establish some good guidelines going forward. I'm so excited. If you'd have me on as a joint author, I'd appreciate that.

And with that, I invite you to close.

I will take that as my close and will acknowledge that we will continue to work on making sure this Bill complements safety with urgency.

Thank you, Miss Quirk-Silva. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

That Bill will be out. We'll hold it open for absent Members.

Thank you. We are at 50 and we can go back and take a motion on file item number three by Mister Grayson, second by Miss Sanchez. Please call the roll [Roll Call] That Bill will also be out. We're currently at five to zero. We'll hold open for absent Members. I'll entertain a motion on our consent calendar by Mister Grayson and a second by Mister Lee. Secretary, please call the roll [Roll Call]

It will be out, will hold the rolls open for absent Members. We are back on file, top of the order, with Assembly Member Addis. So this is file item number one, AB 2022. And when you are ready with your support witnesses, you may begin your presentation.

Well, thank you, Chair and staff and our advocates that are here today. Today, I bring you AB 2022, the Mobile Home Emergency Preparedness Act. And I want to be clear that I do accept the Committee amendments, and I thank Committee staff for working with us to improve this bill. In recent years, natural disasters such as storms and wildfires have been increasing in frequency, making comprehensive evacuation plans a must in order to protect those living in California.

The Central Coast, especially my district, was hit particularly hard by last year's winter storms, with many counties in the region being declared major disaster areas by President Biden. And it was a problem that I grappled with in my first months in office. In fact, it was all encompassing from almost the moment I stepped up here was seeing folks that had to face these very intense emergencies. During these storms, as well as other natural disasters such as wildfires that actually caused extensive loss of life, mobile home parks were especially devastated, leading to significant property damage and loss of life, as I mentioned.

So this has become seasonal and a recurring issue, as road closures have left people cut off and unable to access safety. Existing law does require parks to have an emergency preparedness plan in place, but they don't always take into account the specific needs of their residents.

As a result, when emergencies occur, our most vulnerable populations, such as elderly and those with mobility related issues, are more likely to be in harm's way. And I personally witnessed this in the last storms where folks had major issues evacuating during those storms. So we do have a solution. During emergency evacuation, we know that every second counts, and AB 2022 aims to make sure these seconds are not lost by doing three things.

First, requiring a more comprehensive emergency preparedness plan and making sure those plans are easily accessible at all times. Second, ensuring that residents have access to entry and exit points, utility shut off capabilities, and working fire hydrants in case park management is off site, as they may need to be. And finally, the bill's enforcement mechanism does hold mobile home park owners accountable for proper implementation but does not increase liability.

So again, I want to thank Committee staff for working with me to craft amendments to address concerns related specifically to liability and other issues. The amendments restructure the enforcement mechanism to only affect violators who are knowingly breaking the law and have been given multiple chances to recorrect where they need to.

So again, the bill does not penalize hardworking park owners who are trying to do the right thing for residents, and it also gives park owners and designees a clearer understanding of their responsibilities during an emergency evacuation. All in all, we do believe this will strengthen emergency preparedness without adding liability. With me to testify in support are Kendall Jarvis from Legal Aid Sonoma and Beverly Purcell representing the Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League. And maybe we'll start with you, Beverly.

Thank you. Good morning. Beverly Purcell for GSMOL in support of AB 2022. This bill is critical and life saving. Like many Californians, mobile home residents have suffered through numerous fires, other disasters, and continue to experience loss of life and property. In 2022, the American Society of Civil Engineers, with assistance from UCLA and Santa Clara University, published a study in the Natural Hazards Review.

That study found that mobile homes here are more likely to be located in areas with greater historical and projected extreme heat hazards and disaster related risks compared to other Californians living in other forms of housing. That study further found that mobile home parks are the most likely of all housing types to be located in areas that have or will be directly impacted by wildfires and other disaster events.

Despite studies like this expressly highlighting the increased risks to mobile home park residents, we continue to live in dangerous situations without access to meaningful evacuation plans, with points of exit and entry that remain unlocked or inaccessible, without working or tested fire hydrants, and without access to gas shut off valves in the event of an emergency. We are simply asking that you approve AB 2022 to take a reasonable step towards improving the safety of mobile home park residents like myself throughout the state. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all for being here today and for having your team work so hard on all these amendments. We really, truly appreciate that. My name is Kendall Jarvis and I'm the Lead Disaster Relief Attorney for Legal Aid of Sonoma County, and I'm here to express Legal Aid's sincere support for AB 2022. Obviously, a lot has been said about this, so I'll keep it brief, but I am here to answer any questions or concerns that you may have.

Generally, the intent of AB 2022 is to improve the safety of mobile home parks throughout the state. Obviously, in a disaster, mobile home park residents are at a higher risk. They're often elderly and or low income and face mobility challenges or other medical issues. So AB 2022 will really require mobile home parks to just improve their evacuation plan so it's safer for residents, and ultimately it will save lives.

AB 2022 is narrowly tailored to really address the specific needs of mobile home park residents without putting a significant additional burden on HCD or the Department of Housing Community Development. So for these reasons, we urge, Legal Aid urges you to please vote yes for AB 2022. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Are there other members of the public here in support of this item?

Joseph Nye, a mobile home owner in support.

Thank you.

Linda Nye, mobile home owner, also in support.

Thank you.

Roger Johnson, Citrus Heights, 900 mobile home owners in my park, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Moning for the GSMOL, and homeowner, the HOA President, in definite support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Robin Marks, mobile home owner in support.

Thank you. Okay, is there anybody here in opposition to testify on this bill? If you could ma'am. Or maybe trade seats over here? Thank you.

Feeling's mutual.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you, Assemblywoman. My name is Chris Wysocki with WMA, and we are here in opposition to 2022. But we do want to first thank the Committee Consultant for her hard work on this bill, and we definitely appreciate the author accepting the proposed amendments that put responders in charge of evacuations and emergency situations and make sure that park owners won't be liable. Existing MRL already requires that we have an emergency preparedness plan and it be distributed upon request to the residents.

We need to review the amendments and the actual language before we reevaluate our position, but we still believe this bill is unnecessary. HCD is already working on a curriculum for mandatory manager education training as required by SB 869 that passed in 2021. This training will become effective in 2026, and emergency preparedness is one of the key elements for managers trained to be trained on according to the legislation.

Further, WMA has its own manager training program, and it's been in existence for about 20 years, and we've taught managers and HCD inspectors about the MRL with over 200 courses so far. Again, we thank the author for accepting the amendments and the Committee for its hard work on this, and we look forward to working with you as the bill moves forward. But for the reasons listed in our letter, WMA still remains opposed. I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Ikert on behalf of the California Mobilehome Parkowners Alliance, also opposed to the bill. Even after listening to the presentation today, it's unclear to us why existing law is not sufficiently protective of residents. We ultimately believe the bill is unnecessary. We want to echo Mr. Wysocki's appreciation. We have a genuine appreciation of the Committee staff's work on this issue and the Committee's suggested amendments.

The bill in print today includes both an attestation under penalty of perjury with compliance with the provisions proposed in this bill, which include a requirement to facilitate an evacuation even when a first responder hasn't called for one, and that that is a potentially dangerous situation for residents. It's not clear that every situation should involve a park owner or their management being incentivized to evacuate early. So we appreciate the Committee suggested amendments appear to be aimed at resolving this and a few other issues. Like Mr. Wysocki said, we look forward to reviewing them, you know, closely should the bill pass out of the Committee today.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in opposition to the bill? Okay. Seeing none, we'll turn it back to Committee Member comments. Mr. Grayson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the testimony on both sides. To the author, I know you've been working super hard at trying to find a landing spot for your bill. I really want to express my appreciation for the mere sense that, when the fires hit Santa Rosa, one of the places locations that was directly within that path was a mobile home park in which we lost life. And so anything that we can do to try to enhance safety is very, very important to me.

I do have a question when it comes to the responsibility of the utilities and especially making sure they're maintenance and operable. I don't know. I think I might know the answer, but I just need a confirmation, and I don't know if it's widely understood. Who actually owns the fire hydrants or the utilities that are in a mobile home park? Is that the utility itself, or is it the mobile home park?

Sure. Thank you. Generally speaking, fire hydrants are required, kind of like in a subdivision. They're required to be placed within mobile home parks, depending on the number of units that are accessible and whether or not there are fire hydrants that are on adjacent streets that are public. So if there are fire hydrants on public streets, those are part of the city, county, or that governmental jurisdiction.

If they're internal, then they're a responsibility of the mobile home park in terms of upkeep. But the testing, in terms of testing the hydrants to determine whether they're working and all that kind of stuff, that generally falls to the fire department.

If I understood it correctly, was that item number two on the three things that you listed as responsibilities? Because to me, that show, I have a little concern over putting the mobile home park owners in a position of liability if that becomes their responsibility to test the hydrants and make sure that they're operable or working.

Did you want to answer this? Okay. We're not putting a responsibility on them, meaning the park owner is not the one that is literally testing the fire hydrant themselves. We're requiring that they have them tested just like fire hydrants would be tested in any local jurisdiction. Right. They're tested by the fire department. We're just saying here, we want to make sure that that testing is occurring.

We heard a lot of information from a number of residents in various parks that, essentially, they would have fire hydrants that were locked and therefore not usable when an emergency did arise. So we just want to make sure that they're accessible and they're in working order. But we're not asking the park owner to go and become a professional in the arena of fire hydrant management by any means.

That's spelled out in the bill?

Yes.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure because I think the author made a really good statement in the sense that you're not putting the parks in a position of liability.

Right. We're not creating additional liability that doesn't already exist under common law.

Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's common sense in mobile home park communities, particularly when oftentimes the roads and other common areas are privately operated. And I think there's an expectation, an expectation from residents that there's some responsibility on the management. But even more importantly, I think we're seeing more and more mobile home parks between de facto senior affordable housing. And so these are vulnerable populations oftentimes.

And I think this will just help in the operations, and I think the amendments make it better in terms of dealing with some of the concerns regarding liability. And I'm sure there'll be more work done on it. But I think that this is absolutely important and timely given what we've seen in so many of our jurisdictions happening at mobile home parks. I think that there can be improvements to existing law regarding emergency preparedness. So I appreciate for being forward, and I'd like to be added as a co-author.

Thank you. Any other Members? Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I think the amendments are a big improvement over the existing text. I'm looking forward to seeing the bill in print. I'm, you know, if it gets to the floor, obviously, we'll check it before at that point. I think my main concern in the bill before the suggested Committee amendments is conflict between law enforcement and fire personnel and things like that.

And how the park managers, no matter how great they may be, aren't necessarily, they're not the people we should be relying on for proper evacuations of that. But conceptually I understand the idea of hey look, let's make sure that there's some kind of plan to make sure people are able to at least know what to do in the event of an emergency.

So today I'm going to lay off and sort of wait for feedback from, you know, so I can see the amendments and then also the mobile home owners to make sure it can be implemented and all those sorts of things. So with that, like I said, I'll lay off. But I understand what you're trying to do here, and I appreciate you taking the amendments because I do think it's a significant improvement. So thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Seeing no other Members wishing to comment on this bill. Ms. Addis, I want to first thank you for your personal attention to your district and meeting with your constituents that have been suffering some of the challenges they have due to these winter storms. And really speaking on behalf of the entire population statewide. It's always a good time to review our emergency planning processes and procedures.

And yes, we've got planning process and work that was a careful negotiation for more than a decade. But your attention to this issue is intended to be able to help save lives and, importantly, working closely with our Committee to really make this achievable.

And I think that the work that we've done to, I think one of the earlier points, remove liability under penalty of perjury, and other important detail that's in here that make it common sense policy that achieve the intended improvements that I think you're seeking in the name of safety for these residents. So I want to thank you for that work. With that, would you like to close?

I'll just say I think we have a lot of common goals, shared goals. And I'm sure even the opposition shares the goal of keeping residents safe. I think, you know, if we get out of this Committee, of course, we're committed to continuing the conversation if needed and land this in exactly the right place. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. We need a motion. Moved by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Kalra. Please call the roll.

Motion do pass is amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

At the moment, we have five votes, so that bill will be out, but we'll hold a roll open for absent Members. Thank you all. Next, I think, of who's here, I see Mr. Jones-Sawyer.

This is item number four, AB 2338.

Thank you, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'm presenting AB 2338, which strengthens California's response to the homelessness, by establishing a statewide homelessness coordinator as the lead entity for ending homelessness in California. Despite the billions of dollars invested to assist governments and support housing programs, we continue to have the nation's largest homeless population. This is in part due to the state's disjointed approach to addressing homelessness. AB 2338 will ensure intergovernmental coordination to end homelessness by requiring the Governor to appoint a statewide homeless coordinator.

The coordinator will oversee homeless programs, services, data and policies between federal, state and local agency. This Bill provides the coordinator's flexibility to identify a local leader and the appropriate jurisdiction to serve as a liaison to the state. And in collaboration with local leaders, the coordinator will provide annual recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor. AB 2338 is about putting a person in charge that people can look for guidance, not about creating a new bureaucracy.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support?

It would be Doctor Fauci, but that's the only example.

Not today. Thank you. Are there any members of the public here in support of this item? Okay, see none. Any witnesses in opposition to the item or people that wish to state a position? Seeing none, we'll turn it back to Members of the Committee. Any comment or questions? Okay, seeing none, we've had a motion in a second. I want to thank you. Coordination is key for the work that we're doing to be able to deliver better on homelessness programs and services. And do you have anything further to close?

I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

Motion do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

That Bill has six votes. It will be out. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you very much, Committee and Chair.

Thank you. Next, we have Speaker Emeritus Rendon with us, and he has file item number six, AB 2399.

And if there's any support testimony, you may also join Mr. Rendon at the presentation table. Thank you. You may begin.

Thanks.

Yes, sir.

AB 2399 would increase awareness about the mobile home Residency Law Protection program, MRLPP, by requiring that mobile home tenants receive an annual notice outlining the legal services available through MRLPP. Every year, an annual notice is issued to mobile home tenants outlining their rights and responsibilities of mobile home park owners. AB 2399 would add a provision to that annual notice explaining what MRLPP is, how it protects the rights of mobile home tenants, and information on how to utilize the program.

Thank you. Take your time.

Here to speak in support of the bill is Michelle Moning, a leader of the Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League. Sorry, sorry. Yeah. Well, we'll have you first, and then later on we're going to be joined by Legal Aid Kendall Davis, who will be here to answer questions.

Michelle Moning. No. Michelle Moning. I'm representing the Golden State Mobile Home Owners Association and we are in very strong support of this bill. The Department of Housing and Community Development released an annual report back in March of 2023. That report included data on the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program that was required to be published under the law that we worked on with Governor Brown back in 2018.

The MRLPP is a program that we residents pay for to protect ourselves from park owners who violate the mobile home residency law. Sorry, I'm out of breath running. The HCD report highlighted the need for education and outreach, especially outreach, to the mobile home owners regarding the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program, ensuring that mobile home residents are even aware of the program. It's a critical step, at least for this outreach. A lot of mobile homeowners do not know and are not aware of it. The annual notice would be distributed with other annual notices that are already required under existing law. So we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

That was a sprint.

Did great.

Hi, again. Thank you guys so much for also hearing this bill. Obviously. My name is Kendall Jarvis. I'm the lead disaster relief attorney for Legal Aid of Sonoma County. And we are here, Legal Aid is here to express our sincere support for AB 2399 and I'm really here to answer any questions or address any concerns you may have.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in support of this item?

Roger Johnson, Lakeview Village, set your sights in support. Thank you.

Robin Marks, small mobile homeowner, in support.

Once again, in support. Thank you.

And again, Linda Nye, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Joseph Nye, in support.

Thank you. And is there anybody here to testify against the bill?

Hello, again, Mr. Chair. Members, Chris Wysocki with WMA and speaker emeritus. 2399, the MRL already requires a notice be given to residents about the 10 most common issues involving complaints to HCD about rights and responsibilities of residents and parks. Since the MRLPP became law, HCD reports that 5047 complaint allegations have been processed despite an anticipated 4500 every single year.

HCD further noted in its last report that of the more than 5000 complaints, over 30% 1556 involved issues tenants are already notified about under the current law. That's 95% below projections on valid complaints. Adding an 11th notification about the MRLPP that is set to sunset in 2027, it seems unnecessary when HCD's own data clearly shows a large number of people filing complaints haven't read the list already provided.

If this notification is required, WMA has some ideas on other issues we believe tenants should be made aware of, as well as to remind them of their responsibilities under the MRL. At some point, disclosures become meaningless. The top 10 list in the MRL is going to start looking like a real estate disclosure form when you buy a property. WMA is opposed to 2399 and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in opposition? I see none. We can turn to committee member comments? Any comments or questions? Vice Chair.

I'm trying to work my way up CalMatters' list of most talkative members. So I got a lot to say today. I wasn't even the top 10. You know, I do think there's something to information overload. I mean, I'm not going to oppose this measure, but like, when I do the, I complain frequently in privacy about the, every time I go to a website, hey, here's all your cookies we're tracking and everything. I never read them. Right? But I guess I'm being protected. So we do have to be sensitive to expansion of the information and make sure people can focus on.

Just make sure we have a focused approach to this. But of course, I know the speaker emeritus takes this very seriously and looking forward to seeing how this bill progresses. And I don't think information is a bad thing. I just get concerned about information overload, of course. So thank you very much.

I was the least talkative Democrat on that list, so I'll simply say thanks.

It turns out I was the most talkative Democrat on that list in the Assembly. It was a good reason because I had to preside over session for a whole year. So every word added up. Any other member comment or questions on this item? I would entertain a motion. I'm sorry, we do have a motion in a second. Thank you very much. Mr. Rendon, I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. It's always critical that we are boosting homeowners' awareness of the program. And I know that was one of HCD's recommendations. Your bill is helpful to that end, and I invite you to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call to roll.

[Roll Call]

And at the moment, we have four affirmative votes, so we will hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. I see Assemblymember Wallis. Or I saw him. I see him again. All right, we're going to go back in file. This is item number two, AB 2247. And when you're ready, and if you have support and witnesses, they may join you at the table as well.

I don't believe I do.

Okay, great.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Committee. I'm here to present AB 2247, a simple measure that will extend the sunset of the Mobile Home Parks Act from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030. The Bill will also provide information about the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization Program, commonly called the MORE program, to residents and park owners who receive a notice of violation.

I'd like to thank the Committee for the Analysis and accept the Committee amendments, which extends the sunset in all provisions of the Mobile Home Parks Act. In the summer of 2023, we had two serious fires at mobile home parks in my district. In meeting with residents whose homes were lost and damaged in those fires, I learned that often residents don't know where to turn. Even when inspections find things wrong with their units, they don't know that there are places and programs that can help.

The state has invested significant resources in the MORE program, yet residents often don't know of its existence. AB 2247 will require HCD to develop a list of any resident organizations, qualified nonprofits, and local public entities that have received funding from the MORE program. When HCD issues a violation under the Mobile Home Parks Act, my Bill will require them to provide this list, along with general information about the MORE program.

The Mobile Home Parks Act protects the health, safety, and general welfare of mobile home park residents, and that is why the sunset extension is important. We need to make sure that these residents do not face the catastrophic losses that some of my constituents did. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And you have no witnesses testifying in support. Are there any other members of the public in support of this item?

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Chris Wysocki with WMA. And we want to thank the author for introducing this Bill. The Mobile Home Parks Act is something that our residents or our park managers or park owners deal with regularly, and we appreciate the legislation to extend this to 2030. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public here in opposition, either for testimony or to state position? Okay. Seeing none, we can turn this back to Committee Member comments. Seeing no questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion by Vice Chair. Motion by Vice Chair. And a second by Miss Quirk-Silva. Mister Wallis, I want to thank you for bringing forward a creative idea to help create some of the resident awareness that we need of existing resources. With that, would you like to close?

Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion do pass, as amended, to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay. At the moment, we have four votes in affirmative, but we will hold the role for absent members. Thank you. Seeing no other potential authors wishing to present, Mister Lee, would you be prepared to present a file, item 19? This is Assembly Bill 2881.

Good morning, Chair and members. Today I have great pleasure to bring back another version of the Social Housing Act. But since I have been abroad in many places in the world, like the golden example of social housing in Singapore, but you all have not been able to go with me, I thought I would bring a piece of Singapore to you.

So this is a model of the pinnacle of Duxen, which is the premier social housing complex that you see in many of the pictures in the founding prime minister's constituency; this is a little model not to scale because those people would be enormous if there was a scale I can pass around later on the dais. But this is the golden example of the Asian social housing world of how the government provides mixed-income, affordable housing to all its residents.

In Singapore, 90%, sorry, 80% of all its residents live in social housing. 90% of those people are homeowners. They own their social housing flats, which is also reflective in the bill today. I've talked about in the past in this Committee of Vienna, which is a more left-wing example, a really great example as well.

But for the sake of some of our committee members, I want to focus on Singapore, which has consistently ranked number one on the World Economic Front Freedom Index and consistently ranks as quite more conservative of a government. But left governments in Europe, right-wing governments, and Asia have all arrived at the conclusion that to provide a stable economic foundation for their people, they need to be in the business of provision of housing.

Just as we do in America with schools and other infrastructure, they do so with housing. So this bill, AB 2881 will embark upon creating our own statewide social housing developer to help local governments fulfill their goals of having affordable housing in their communities. It is true when you hear from opposition in other cities that they do not actually build any housing. Their exercise is coloring things on a map, but they do not have the tools to directly fulfill those needs themselves.

Just as a school district has the tool to fulfill building new schools and hiring teachers, the cities, counties, even the state, do not have the direct jurisdiction or tools to provide housing for their people. So what we are proposing is to create a statewide developer to create mixed-income affordable housing across the state, and this bill was supported by this committee last year, and it passed with two-thirds majorities in both houses and was sent to the governor.

So we continue to work with the governor, other stakeholders and continue to try to innovate this practice. It's certainly something new in the California context, but something not something new to our Asian European counterparts who have doing it for over 100 years. So respectfully, we ask you for aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Ali Sapirman and I'm speaking in strong support of Assembly Bill 2881. I'm here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, HAC, a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for Californians of all income levels to help alleviate the state's housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis. Across our state, more than 97% of cities and counties have been unable to produce enough housing.

Under AB 2881 the housing authority would be able to both purchase existing homes and build new homes at all income levels. The housing authority, which would work on a mixed-income housing model, would allow the state to scale up affordable housing production without requiring ongoing appropriations from the state or federal government. AB 2881 is informed by affordable housing models, including Montgomery County, Maryland, Vienna, and Singapore.

What has made these models of affordable housing successful is their ability to build affordable housing at scale and build mixed-income projects that enjoy fiscal sustainability. I am also here as someone who has been directly impacted by our state's housing crisis. Since 2017, I have had to move 12 times due to rising costs of rent and lack of housing supply, I will soon be priced out of San Jose and forced to move once again. No one should have to live like this.

Constantly moving with a looming threat of eviction, on the brink of homelessness. Yet my story is not unusual among low-income and middle-income residents across the Bay Area. If we are going to take our state's housing crisis seriously, we need to use every possible tool to build more housing for people of all income levels. And social housing is just another tool that we must take seriously to explore to help alleviate California's housing shortage and affordability crisis.

For all of these reasons and many others, I urge you to please support AB 2881 so that our hardworking residents across the state can afford to live where they work, study, and contribute to their communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in support of this item?

Mister Chair and members: Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation, in very strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Song Wu at the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. I see no other members of the public wishing to support this item. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this item?

Mister Chairman and members: Bob Nale, representing Fieldstead and Company. We're opposed unless amended. We want a ban eminent domain amendment, which has been accepted in other legislation, notably Kamlanger-doves Los Angeles County Housing Authority includes a bar on using funds for eminent domain.

We base this on the report of the Commission on Reparations, which has a long chapter detailing eminent domain abuse over the years in California against minority and low-income communities. And the problem with setting up fine plans for how you're going to develop property is that very often the economy or interest rates or the developer can't fulfill those obligations.

And so you've taken the property from unwilling small businesses and homeowners and set it aside for use for other than roads, highways, schools, ready to give it to other private parties. And you haven't accomplished the purpose. So, I mean, you only have to go a few blocks from here. I'll be repeating this with another b1ill. I'll shorten it next time. But we ask for no vote unless the eminent domain is barred. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Other witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Chair and members. Ben, again, on behalf of the League of California Cities, I believe the committee analysis did a good job covering our concerns. So we do have an opposing unless amended position, but look forward to working with the author's office and have those conversations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And seeing no other members of the public wishing to be addressed. Miss Quirk-Silva.

I have a question for the author. Is this your second time with this bill concept or third?

Technically third, but second when moving throughout.

Well, I appreciate that because I believe I've been on the committee the entire time, and when you first proposed this a few years back, I was mildly supportive, if you want to say it that way, and partly because the concept had a bigger context than I was at that point, wanting to accept, meaning that it was hard to get my arms around us setting up a whole nother structure of government. That being said, I understand your goals much clearer.

And as you noted that we as government don't always do the best job of planning and building housing, whether it's at the local level, county, or even state. But we have to have these big ideas, we have to have these aspirations, particularly now in a time that it seems so dim related to housing. We have now generations of very young individuals who don't believe that there's a place for them to call home in California. And sometimes, it's planting the seed to look towards the future.

And sometimes, it takes three times, and sometimes, even with a very difficult budget, it doesn't always match the aspirations. But if we don't start the process of looking towards the future, we may very well be having these same conversations about the limited housing, housing production, people not being able to have any affordability in 10 and 20 years from now. So, I do support this bill. You got me with the little model, so make sure - no. I'm really happy to see you take this on.

And, like I said, I was less supportive the first time. I know I supported it last year, and now I will move the bill. Thank you. I don't see other members here. Well, yeah.

Thank you. Miss Quirk-Silva. Vice Chair.

Oh, well, this is all right. I just ripped the microphone right out of this thing. You know, I appreciate you. This isn't like a small idea, you know, it's a pretty big idea. And I think your idea gets a little bit, you bring in other components that make it a little bit more, I guess - from a person who doesn't really like government taking over private sector industries, you make it a little bit more tolerable. Homeownership or ownership of these flats.

I did have a question about that. How exactly? There are obviously very big government subsidies that go into these projects. So if you go in and you own one, how does that work in the countries you visited in terms of when they go to sell or whatnot?

Sure. Speaking strictly in the Singaporean style model, so the government creates all their housing through the HDB, the Housing Development Board. So, all kind of in a very corporate tone and everything they do. Like I said, 80% of the population lives in social housing. 20% of them live on private housing. So there's still plenty of realtors, mansions, penthouses and things that exist on the market as well. Singapore is a city nation of 5 million people, roughly half the size of the Bay Area.

So they're also very, very rich people as well. But in the homeownership model, where basically the entire population can afford and is eligible, they have lots of different schemes in which you can afford it, too. Everyone owns their flat, which is apartment, condo. They don't own the entire building, but they own their individual flat. Right.

And as an owner, you have all the characteristics that you typically associate, you pass on to heirs. You can sell it, but just to carefully note is that they have a market which appreciation of the asset is pretty much expected as well. Just like in our market, the market is defined by eligible residents.

So there are no hedge funds in there, there are no corporations, there are other eligible Singaporean citizens, and they buy these assets from one another and they can trade to do so, or they can sell back to the government. Sort of into the weeds on this is that Singapore practices 99 year leases on the land. So, the structure you live in will only exist for 99 years. It doesn't mean that you, as an individual, can only live in the country for 99 years.

But what happens is, as a clock gets closer and closer, your asset kind of has a bit of a small depreciation, but you also know your asset's gonna go away sometime. So they would sell their house and trade up to a newer flat. It's what they constantly do is they rejuvenate the stock, and so a starting family or maybe a single person, it's like, "Well, this one's only got 15 years left," and it's going to be sold at a slight discount."

I go to that one, and then they appreciate and grow their wealth and they keep trading and buying. So it's a system in which you do have all the characteristics of homeownership, and you still have appreciation and wealth generation too. This is a unique model that we've incorporated into this one, where there is some appreciation, there is a market in which you can trade and sell or pass on to heirs as well as an option.

Does Singapore have a very big delta between the rich and the poor there? I've never been there.

There still is income inequality there. Certainly, they still have their share of billionaires everyone, but generally, their poverty levels, I would say, are much lower, too. There still is between the very, very rich people and the middle-class people that still exist, though.

I mean, honestly, I hope to be a billionaire someday. So on a, all right, well, I'll just say there what you did at one, I'm not going to support this bill, but just to put that out there. But you did almost got me. No, I'll tell you the two competing interests that I have.

One is you brought up a pretty, it's not a crazy thing to say: hey, look, we invest as a state in a lot of infrastructure that people rely on. You know, whether that's roads or schools, and, you know, you, as you can see in California, it's hard to do a lot of things without a place to live. And also, by the way, government subsidies and utilities, the list sort of goes on and on. So, it's not an irrational thing to say.

Housing should be a component of that. That said, I don't necessarily think the government, particularly in California, does things particularly well. We just had, I don't even remember what committee, there's so many committees this week, but I subbed on natural resources where the Coastal Commission, for example. I mean, I don't really have a lot of confidence that the government of California is going to cut red tape and getting production out there.

And I do have this philosophical view that if all we did in California, and I think I may have said in this committee before, if all we did was make it easier to build housing in places that are already intended to be housing, where the zoning already matches and things like that, we don't have red tape after red tape, after red tape to just build apartments where apartments are supposed to be, then we probably solve the housing crisis tomorrow.

So I'm more of a fan of, hey, I do believe the private market can deliver housing abundantly if we allowed them to. And so those are my competing interests. I do like you always keeping the - you're always thinking about this and not just from, I think you used the words left wing in your presentation, not just from that sort of perspective, but also considering other thoughts. And I think just, you know, keep going with that and, you know, who knows what will happen one day.

But thanks.

Just a quickly note on the part about, you know, cutting through the red tape and applying pressure for more apartments being built for what they are: the two things is in every country that has a social housing tool because when their government has an interest in developing, they also have an interest in making sure that the zoning and all the housing regulations make sense too. So when they're a player, they have a vested interest in making sure the landscape makes sense.

I would argue today, when cities, governments, and state governments don't have vested interests in development, they also take a more removed perspective and don't have the same perspective. And that's why you see actually more production in both left-wing and right-wing places.

Thank you. Senator Kalra.

Thank you Mister Chair, and I'll second the motion. And to the last point, I think the state has been trying to remove obstacles, and I think the obstacles tend to be more at the local level than they are at the state level when it comes to housing production. And if the Vice Chair intends on being a billionaire, I don't know, sitting in assembly committees all day is the way to wealth generation.

But I commend your aspirations, and I want to thank the author for continuing to bring this issue to the legislature. And I do think that we need to find a way to get there. I know that there are plenty of models, as the author has indicated, that exist that make sense, that can provide housing in a manner that is stable and accessible and has a long-term vision. And so I'll certainly be supporting it.

I've traditionally been a co-author, so I'd like to have myself as a co-author once again. And we'll be supporting this bill as it hopefully moves forward.

Thank you, Mister Kalra. Seeing no other members wishing to comment similarly. I want to thank you for being a champion on this issue. I think it's important expanding our horizon on a lot of new models, and literally, you brought a model today. So thank you for. It's helpful to see that this is something that is in real-world practice and not just something that we know is existing in other very developed countries to be able to support the population's needs.

And you know, with respect to our Vice Chair, you know, just because I think some of us can be frustrated around government services doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to do better. And exactly what I think a lot of our constituents are asking us to do, to do more, to personally get more involved in supplying middle-income affordable housing is exactly what this model type would be able to produce.

Not that I would hope that it would take you this long, but I would believe that if you in 12 years here would spend, you know, introduce 12 bills because this is definitely an incorporation, a needed model that we have as a complement to all of our housing types here in California and the opportunities here to build wealth for future middle-income Californians as well, is certainly right there in front of us. So thank you for leading on this issue and I invite you to close.

I'd also be honored to be a co-author of the bill. Would invite you to close?

Thank you very much. And I just want to thank my colleagues for coming along with me on the journey of social housing. I know before I was elected, we did not even talk about the term social housing, but it was certainly a term that was used internationally, very widely in all concepts. And I know Assembly Kalra has also the chance to visit Parisian and French social housing places as well.

So as we get more accustomed and used to it, we can know that things like this are not scary or oppressive or anything like that. In fact, it is very commonplace in many places in the world. And one thing I just wanted to highlight, I forgot to talk about in my intro is that this is a new model that can also be much more fiscally sustainable too.

The idea of cross-subsidization, where people with higher incomes are subsidized, with lower incomes in their own development neighborhood level, is something that we badly need, especially at a time when we're making so many cuts to housing money. So I really do think this is a great model that we can innovate on and complement the tools like as the chair said. And I always remind people that even in Red Vienna, there are still real estate agents. So with that respect, the ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion do-pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We are at four votes. We will hold the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Next. Thank you for joining us, Mister Ting. This is file item number nine, AB 2488, and I invite any of your witnesses to join you at the table to present.

Perfect. Thank you Mr. Chair. First, let me just thank you and your Committee for your help on AB-2488. 2488 will allow San Francisco to create a downtown revitalization district to help finance the conversion of empty office buildings into new homes. As you know, since COVID so many downtowns remain empty, lacking workers which used to support a very vibrant small business community. Whether it's restaurants, cafes, tailors, dry cleaners, a variety of small businesses that really relied on workers going into downtown every single day.

Since then, with a very empty downtown, we have about 32 million square feet of empty office space. My city leadership has been looking at different ways to bring more people downtown. And one of those ways we've decided, is to create more housing. And so this Bill will allow the city to create a district, to create some incentives to encourage office building owners to convert their offices into housing.

This is, while getting more housing is absolutely critical, this is not primarily housing build, I would say this is really about economic development and economic revitalization. It's really about trying to get more people into downtown. And as we know, when you have an area that's empty and you don't have very many people, it leads to crime, it leads to people feeling very uncomfortable. It also really has led to a number of businesses closing downtown.

So again, really appreciate all yours and the Committee's help on AB-2488. I have Louis Mirante here from the Bay Area Council as my witness.

Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Louis Mirante. I work on housing policy for the Bay Area Council. I just want to emphasize Mr. Ting's point and then I'll sort of be available for technical questions that for much of the Bay Area, Downtown San Francisco is a big liability right now. We want to get, employers want to get folks back downtown, they want people on the street. And that's the goal of this Bill. Housing is just a strategy.

This is a huge priority for the council's members. The situation in Downtown San Francisco is regularly on the news and it's something that we need desperately to develop new tools for. The Mayor of San Francisco has a 30 by 30 plan where she's trying to get 30,000 new people downtown by 2030. We think a Bill like this could help us get 14,000 new homes up, make huge progress on that 30 by 30 goal. I'm available for any questions you have about the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public here in support of this item?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Katherine Charles, on behalf of Housing Action Coalition. In support.

Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Skyler Wonnacott, California Business Properties Association. In support.

Thank you.

Michael Lane with SPUR. In strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of City and County of San Francisco, Mayor London Breed. In support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Or members of the public wishing to state a position of opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Member's comment or entertain a motion. Motion by Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Kalra. Assemblymember Ting, I want to thank you for your work on, I guess, our favorite city and county in our state. I know that this is something that will bring a lot of potential benefit.

We're constantly looking for new tools and ways to be able to spur residential development and the conversion. That's an opportunity here. And the revitalization that we need in your downtown is, you know, clearly apparent. I want to thank you for working closely with the committee and then also with our local government committee before today's hearing to be able to try to make this consistent with the way that we are working on other kinds of new streamlining tools and financing tools.

So I think that this kind of strikes that good balance, and with that, I invite you to close.

Thank you. Just really appreciate all your help, the Committee's help, local government's help, and really making this a good Bill and hopefully another tool for our city to bring more people back downtown. With that, respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB-2488.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion to pass. [Roll Call]

And we are at three votes, so we will hold the roll up and for absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

And that Bill will be on call.

Okay, we are going to be calling for more authors to come to room 437. In the meantime, I think Assemblymember, there's Mr. Lowenthal. Didn't see you there. Well, thank you for joining us. This will be file item number 11, AB-2506. And when you're ready, you may begin presentation.

It rains, it pours. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Go.

Good morning, Chair and Members. As we all know, California is in the midst of a housing crisis where 52% of the state's renters are housing burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent. JPA owned and government owned rental properties are filling a need to help provide much needed housing for California's disenfranchised communities. JPAs have been wildly successful, collectively converting over 14,000 market rate units into housing that is affordable to lower median and moderate income households.

For over 40 years, the Board of Equalization has consistently opined that tenants of publicly owned low and moderate income housing did not have taxable possessory interests. In October of 2022, however, the board issued an ambiguous letter contradicting their earlier advice and claiming that tenants did have a possessory interest, but that assessors should not assess them.

This ensuing uncertainty and controversy threatened the viability of this much needed partial solution to the affordable rental housing crisis, to expose tenants to unplanned and unprecedented property tax bills, and to complicate local tax administration. It also frustrates the government's purpose in providing affordable rental housing in the first place.

To prevent this, AB-2506 authorizes a County Board of Supervisors to exempt from property taxation any possessory interest held by a tenant of publicly owned housing with a value so low that the total taxes and applicable subventions of the property would amount to less than the cost of assessing and collecting them. In addition, I've agreed to the amendments to address the concerns raised by California Housing Partnership Corporation that I'll be taking in the Rev. and Tax Committee.

I have no witnesses with me today, but my staff is here to answer any questions that you might ask.

Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. And are there any members of the public here in support of this item?

Hi, Meg Snyder, Axiom Advisors, on behalf of Waterford Property Company. In support.

Thank you.

Andrew Dawson, with the California Housing Partnership. We're in support if amended, as Assemblymember Lowenthal stated.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors. Thank you.

Thank you. And seeing nobody else wishing to be recognized. Is there any testimony here in opposition to this Bill? Seeing none, or members of the public wishing to state a position of opposition. Seeing none, we'll turn this back to Committee. Any Member questions or comments? I would entertain a motion by Vice Chair and seconded by Mr. Lee. Assemblymember Lowenthal, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

I had a chance to work on this issue area recently in a previous session, and through that discussion and learned about this issue, that our current statute is inadvertently, potentially causing tenants to pick up the Bill and see some of this taxation otherwise passed on to them. And that's something that we wouldn't want to inadvertently entrap them to. So I appreciate you also flagging that and offering this Bill here to be able to correct that. And I invite you to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Action do-pass to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. [Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes. It will be out, but we'll hold a roll up in for absent Members. Thank you. Okay now, seeing no other authors ready to present.

Can you add on to it? Sure. For which item?

Okay. Ma'am Secretary, please open the roll on item number nine.

[Roll Call]

That will now be at five zero. That bill will be out but we'll continue to hold the roll open for absent members. Mr. Kalra is here, so we can go ahead and present file item number 22. This is AB 2926, and if your witnesses are here as well, they're welcome to join you at the presentation table. Thank you.

That works. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. AB 2926 would help California protect our limited affordable housing stock and prevent low-income tenants from being displaced. The affordable housing crisis is a growing issue, and our affordable housing stock is disappearing at rates faster than we can build.

In a report published by California Housing Partnership, California lost 19,249 affordable homes due to expired regulatory restrictions on government-assisted housing developments and owners deciding to opt out, sell, or allow their properties to be converted to market-rate housing. The California Preservation Notice Law requires affordable housing ownership with expiring restrictions to allow buyers interested in preserving the affordability a year's notice to make a bona fide purchase offer and give them the right of first refusal to match any other offers.

However, because owners are not obligated to sell at all, they can instead hold the property, commit to not selling and convert it to market rate, displacing existing low-income tenants in the process. AB 2926 will help preserve existing affordable housing by requiring owners to receive a bona fide purchase offer to either accept the offer or restrict the development as affordable housing.

This bill also makes technical changes to the preservation notice law to include recently enacted streamlining legislation, prevent tenants from being displaced or priced out without notice, and provide notice to tenants that will inform them of rent increases and acceptance of Section Eight vouchers. Here to testify and support is Lila Gitesatani, staff attorney with National Housing Law Project, and Andrew Dawson, policy advisory manager of California Housing Partnership.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important bill. My name is Lila Gitesatani and I'm a staff attorney with the National Housing Law Project, a proud sponsor of this bill. As California is facing a housing crisis, our stock of affordable housing is critical to housing low-income tenants. The loss of any affordable housing is devastating for tenants and the community.

And while you'll hear from others about preservation purchases, I hope to help you understand the other amendments which just seek to clarify the law. California's preservation notice law is a model for the rest of the country because it provides for robust notice to tenants and stakeholders that the housing is losing its affordability.

With proper notice, tenants and the community have time to organize, call a lawyer, and find a preservation buyer. In the event they're unable to preserve the affordability, tenants have time to prepare for massive rent hikes and a possible move. This bill is informed by lessons learned and will ensure that tenant that the intent of the law is honored. These amendments will ensure that tenants receive notice at the three-year, 12-month, and six-month period prior to the contract ending in all cases, require owners to inform tenants if they have the right to remain with a federal housing voucher, and clarify that tenant organizations have the right to enforce this law. This bill will help communities preserve this precious housing stock and prevent displacement, and we respectfully request and aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you hello, I'm Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership. The partnership is a state created private nonprofit whose mission is to increase and preserve the supply of affordable, sustainable homes in California. The preservation notice law was enacted so that properties that are affordable stay affordable, which is crucial as we have a major shortage of affordable homes in California. However, due to the issues that Assemblymember Kalra mentioned, few preservation buyers use this pathway.

This bill requires sellers to receive a bona fide offer to either accept or re-restrict the property. In this way, the seller gets a fair price for the property and the property stays affordable. It's important to produce more affordable homes, but it's also vital to ensure that affordable homes stay affordable. AB 2926 helps make that happen. We thank Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership here, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public here in support of this item?

Catherine Charles, here on behalf of Housing California, in support.

Thank you.

Melvin Willis, a lead campaign organizer with alliance of California's for Community Empowerment, speaking as an individual Council Member from the City of Richmond, in support.

Thank you.

Jovana Fajardo with ACCE Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, in support.

Thank you.

Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, another sponsor of the bill, and the Public Interest Law Project, in support.

Thank you.

Kristin Lopez with organizer with ACCE Action, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Graciela Castillo-Krings, on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody in opposition to testify or otherwise to state a position of opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring this back to committee members. Questions or comments? Vice Chair.

Just for clarification. So this would require that purchase to take place at market rate or market value?

Yes.

Okay. And if that offer is given, it has to be within that one-year window, correct? That the offer has to be given?

270 days.

270 days. Okay. And is there a time period on how long until they have to accept the offer or it's? Well, this is required. Sorry. It's required that they accept the offer.

During the 270-day period, they can only accept a preservation offer, but again, it still will be a market rate. They're not losing out on any potential money to be made off of their property.

Is it possible, and if not in this bill already, as it moves through the process if they get a better offer, that's also preservation? You know what I mean? I don't know if that is allowed here, but there could be two competing offers, right?

Oh, yeah. They're not required to accept the first offer of someone that wants to preserve it, though. They just. Those that are interested in buying it to preserve the affordability aspect of it can be competing. You can have two different individuals, you can have maybe two different organizations, whatever it might be. But at the end of the day, it's still going to be a market rate bargaining process just to preserve the affordability component of it.

Though when I'm a billionaire, I'm going to get in on that. So thank you.

Thank you. Motion by Mr. Lee. Is there a second? Second by Miss Sanchez. Seeing no other members wishing to comment. Assemblymember Kalra, I want to thank you for your ongoing advocacy to be able to support those that might be at risk of losing these affordable housing stock. This is a critically important bill. And your attention to this is going to help ensure that we have new tools to be able to preserve our desperately needed affordable housing that we have. You know, placing vulnerable tents at risk of eviction or homelessness is antithetical to, I think, the work all of us are doing in service here. And so this Bill will go a long way to that. And I would invite you to close.

I appreciate that. And I'll take your comments as a close, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That has six votes. It will be out. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. At this time, I still see we have six members, potential authors to present in committee. I invite any one of them to come down as soon as they are able to. We have one bill left that if Mr. Patterson is interested in presenting we could take up at this time. Okay, either way. Okay. We will proceed with file item 18, AB 2729. And again, a call for authors to come to room 437.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I know several members of this Committee were part of the local government discussion and we took, and I do accept the amendments from the Committee. I really appreciate the work on those. And I still, I do think there are some things that we can continue to work on through the process should it continue to get out of this Committee. I think the most initially, what the bill did was defer essentially all impact fees to certificate of occupancy.

But what was expressed in Local Government Committee, which were some valid points, is Mr. Kalra explains some of these as well as Ms. Wilson, is that there are some circumstances in which potentially the taxpayers could be on the hook if certain connection fees or impact fees weren't paid upfront. And so we made commitments in that Committee, and I think with Committee staff and appreciate the time on a Friday working on those.

I think we came up with a solution that said, hey, you can make findings which was suggested in that Committee that said, hey, we need to collect these fees upfront to cover administrative fees and to also cover impact fees that are actually going to be attributed to that project upfront. And so we're very interested to continue to work on this item if there are additional concerns.

I think the most important thing is this, if the fees are not needed upfront, they should not be collected at that time until we actually know the project's going to happen. Because as we all know, there are a lot of barriers, and if there's no actual impact from the residents living there, then in my view, it's a major financial hurdle in some cases of being able to actually make the project pencil.

And so with that, I have with me Michael Lane, who will hopefully testify in support. That's what he told me anyway. So thank you.

It's a great bill. Mr. Chair, Members, Michael Lane with SPUR, public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. And I think to the extent that you don't have to finance those impact fees as part of your construction loan, particularly in a very difficult interest rate environment, I think it would give us the opportunity to continue to build housing in the state and create good construction jobs and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in support of this item?

Good morning. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY, in support.

Thank you.

Seamus Garrity from Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of SPUR, Sand Hill, Buckeye Properties in Fieldstead, in support.

Meg Snyder, Axiom Advisors, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this item?

You're welcome to come to the presentation table or your choice.

Is this disrespectful opposition or respectful opposition?

Always respectful. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chair and Mr. Vice Chair. Nancy Chaires Espinoza, on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, I find myself in the unenviable position of not being completely clear on whether the intent is to exclude schools from the provisions of this Bill. And if the author or the Chair tell me that the intent is to exclude schools, I can spare you the rest of my testimony. So if the Chair finds that appropriate.

I'll allow response.

If the school's gonna. The way the amendments are written is that if there's gonna be an impact over the two-year period before the certificate of occupancy is granted, then they can collect those fees. The council can make findings to say the fees are collected at that point. But if the schools are gonna be built, you know, 10 years from now, then that would come at certificate of occupancy.

Okay, I appreciate the clarification, and unfortunately, that means I have to subject you to the rest of my testimony. So I just want to say on behalf of CASH, we also are eager for more housing solutions. We participate in this. We support school districts that try to construct housing as well. But local educational obligation agencies do have an obligation established by the California Constitution to provide classroom space for each student residing in our boundaries.

This is the funding mechanism that the state has selected for construction needed directly in response to new housing. State matching funds are at their lowest level in decades and a departure from the historical practice of having bonds every two to four years. We have only had one successful bond in the last 17 years. So I think to support this Bill, you would have to believe that the barriers to housing construction exist for housing and not for the infrastructure funded by these impact fees.

But every factor that makes housing construction a challenge exists for school construction, except that the cost for square footage is higher, the cost escalation is more precipitous, and the supply chain issues are more varied. There is no circumstance in which the right time to begin planning to build schools or expand existing schools to meet demand created by new housing is after the students have arrived. And I do appreciate the attempt at carve out there, but unfortunately, there's no circumstance in which it's workable.

We need to continue collecting school impact fees at issuance of certificate of compliance, not at certificate of occupancy. LEAs. Local Educational Agencies need to know what the funding is that's available in order to plan, design, and seek the additional funding necessary to deliver these projects. Impact fees cover only a portion of the total cost, and the process of bringing these projects to fruition takes years.

It is currently taking three to four years to receive state funding alone, and you can only apply when you have received all of your other approvals and secured your local funding. This Bill, unfortunately, would condemn students to be in overcrowded schools during that entire period, and that would apply both to the children living in the new unit and the children living in nearby existing areas. So I respectfully have to ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Is there a second witness?

Yes. Thank you. Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association as part of the loyal opposition. And I'm happy to phrase it that way because what I would like to share with the Committee and all policymakers today is that the relationship between the housing, the acute need for it, and the services in infrastructure that we need to build a thriving, growing community with equitably distributed services and infrastructure need not be an adversarial one.

And so I appreciate the author's comments that he's still looking forward to working on some of the details of it, as if we, if we kind of imagine what these institutions are, a fire district or community service district or a park, these institutions may not be the obvious places to sort of shift risk. There's no denying there is risk. But to shift it onto these entities, I don't know that they were designed or built to do that. So I just hope that we can all be thoughtful about how we approach this, because we need to have solutions for the acute housing need, and those houses need to come with equitably distributed, high-quality services, infrastructure, and amenities.

And so I don't feel I'm prepared to go through the details of the proposed amendments in the Committee analysis. Just simply didn't have time to do it justice. And I look forward to reading them, getting feedback from my Members, sharing with the author and the staff. And I just, I appreciate your time on listening on this. I think in the end, we're all kind of on the same team, and I hope that the conversation can reflect that.

And we'd love to be included in this because representing special districts, we're not the land use authority, but we do connect to the infrastructure and services. And I just appreciate you all for giving us the time to work on it. And with that, I'm going to have to retain my opposition to the measure until we can take a better look at it. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here in opposition?

Alyssa Silhi, with the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. In respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Mark Newberger, with the California State Association of Counties. We understand there's amendments, we're still looking at them, but we are still opposed to this in the Bill.

Thank you.

Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities. In respectful opposition, but look forward to reviewing those amendments further. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Wilbed Franco, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California. In respectful opposition.

Thank you. I see no other members of the public wishing to be acknowledged. Back to Committee Member comments. Assemblymember Kalra.

Hello again, Senator Patterson. I know we had a robust conversation in local gov on this and so, I just want to get a sense of what the amendments entail. I have some notes on it, but I want to get clarity.

So, ensures that fees associated with certain fees and costs for public improvements or facilities can still be collected at the time of building permit issuance in certain circumstances. So what does that mean? Like, you know, first of all, what kinds of fees and what are those certain circumstances?

Sure, thank you. Well, just so you know, the amendments came out of some of that back and forth and so they may not be perfect at this moment, but always happy to continue those conversations. But we tried to think of things that put the taxpayer on the hook and that seemed to be a pretty big concern of yours, especially as some of the development, you know, may actually be happening. Right? Or some of the planning might be happening.

So one of the things that we, again, the council can make findings on that there are certain expenses as a result, and some of those findings can be the, and this is outlined specifically in the Bill, these ones, Administration expenses. Right? Because, you know, the time of staff and things like that. The other one would be if a project or some kind of impact is going to occur within, I think it was 24 months in this, but we're always open to that.

Then there can be findings that say, hey, this project's gonna happen or has happened and we need to start collecting those fees now. And another exemption would be a lot of the utility districts also in there as well. So those are some of the exemptions, also bonds. Right? Because although the bonds one, I'll just be honest with you, I had some difficulty with that, because when a CFD is created, the property owner is paying into that at that time, whether it's ever developed or not.

Somebody's paying that right now. So when a new development is proposed there, just kind of the new property owner starts paying into that CFD. But we put that in there because again, that is a taxpayer liability and we wanted to make sure that those are covered. And we're always open to additional ideas.

Obviously, I think, I don't know if we'll entirely ever bridge the gap with my friends over here, but I am interested in keeping the conversations because when I sat on a City Council, and I'm sure you had the same experience, when you're coming up with things like public facility charges or you're coming up with parks and those plans, you're talking about 10-year window, maybe even longer, maybe 30 years in some cases of what those are going to look like.

And so when you think of traffic impacts, just as an example, I mean, the project might happen 20 years from now, or it may be the traffic impact fees is a series of impacts that are going to happen. A stoplight here, a turn lane here, or something like that. It is kind of interesting because the jurisdiction at that time can say, hey, look, we're going to put in that traffic light there, even though there are 100 other projects that led to that traffic light.

But this developer is going to have to pay that at that particular time. So I'm always interested to keep those conversations going to make sure that the taxpayer at the end of the day is not on the hook for these impacts.

Yeah, I appreciate it. I'm not sure if you're going to bridge the gap with your friend up here, but I really do appreciate the fact that you clearly are listening. You're trying to find a path. Ultimately, it comes down to who should bear the burden of risk through the development process. And from the time a building permit is issued, the time a certificate of occupancy is issued, a lot can happen. You know, there certainly could be economic downturns or what have you.

But also, and we've seen this happen, I've certainly seen it in San Jose, a developer changes their mind, decides, you know, we don't want to do that anymore after, you know, there's been an extraordinary amount of expenses that have made. Now, I appreciate the fact that there can be a finding by a City Council that there's some costs involved, but guess what will happen? The developer will take them to court and challenge those numbers, and it'll lead to even more and more costs.

I know this because you see this happen all the time. At the end of the day, if the developer decides they're not going to build, they're not going to be on the hook for anything. And ultimately these are projects in many cases that take many, many years, and I've seen them come to fruition where the parks and the roads and such are all made and built for the public benefit. And then it can be 2, 3, 4, 5 years as slowly the residential housing gets to be built.

And that's all agreed upon in advance. There's no mystery to that. So those that are seeking those building permits understand that that's what they're buying into and that's part of their calculation in their financing, whether it pencils out. And so, you know, I still feel that there are so many things that go into the planning process in terms of costs and ultimately in creating the public benefits. We want to see the public benefits come there before the housing does.

Not that, okay, well, the housing is now being constructed or the housing is being built or the occupancy Pacific has now been given. Now let's start building the park or let's start building the road infrastructure that's necessary, that's putting things backwards. And so there's already so much of a burden on cities and counties to ensure that they're able to build this infrastructure and remember the building.

And I don't have to tell you to remember, I'm saying, generally speaking, remember that the building permit, that's something that is bid on that. You may have multiple developers that are bidding for that. That's a public good in itself. If you're giving someone a building permit, a huge decision that's being made by the city local jurisdiction.

And I would also be worried, quite frankly, that cities, there's a lot of cities, big and small, and there could be a lot of pressure put on, particularly smaller city councils like, you know what? How about you do this or do that? And that's just a reality of how things are done sometimes. And to give those local.

Put the pressure on local city councils to make a decision as to whether they're going to find a special finding to whether to charge a developer, that's a lot of pressure being put on these local jurisdictions.

I think that you're moving in the right direction and something that you say to us often, and I appreciate it because I think you really listen when there are others, when we're sitting at the desk there is that I do want to see where it goes and see the amendments so far are an improvement. And I'd be more than happy, you know, to talk more about further concerns.

Not quite there yet, but I really do appreciate the fact that you're clearly listening and trying to take into account some of the concerns that have been raised.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Grayson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to my colleague sitting next to me for his comments. However, I want to offer a converse or a different opinion. Having had experience both in authoring bills and creating that nexus of an impact fee to the actual project, because there are times when impact fees are collected on a project that has absolutely nothing to do with that development, but that development is going to pay for that project all the way across the city somewhere else.

And there is one jurisdiction that I know of in the Bay Area that actually has $108,000 impact fees on a single-family home before the dirt ever moves. And we are facing a housing crisis in this state. Not need to be said ever again for us to know that. So I do have a question, and that is, is your Bill, the intent of your Bill to somehow find a way for developers to get out of paying impact fees?

No, I mean. There's been a lot of talk as of late, actually, by the way, that Supreme Court case is in one of my counties, the SCOTUS ruling. But this kind of predates all of that, just to let you know. Absolutely not. I mean, I think we can debate here whether or not.

I just wanted to wanted to know.

Okay, great. No, it's not okay.

Ok. So, that's very important because I do have concerns. I want to make sure having set, having been on one side of the planning desk, pulling a permit, and then also sitting on the council and understanding what happens on the other side of the desk and how important impact fees are to paying that infrastructure.

And so there are times when admittedly has been stated here that those projects that we're collecting impact fees for don't happen for 10 years down the road, and maybe in a couple of cases that I know of didn't happen at all. Nevertheless, the project went forward.

I think for us today, it's to better understand there are some fees that don't necessarily need to be collected upfront that would provide some type of reprieve or relief to the contractor or the developer that's trying to develop land to actually make that property worth more, higher property tax, bring in more revenue. So that is a good thing.

But there are times when, especially when we're talking about schools, where we need to be very mindful of impact fees that can't be delayed because of certain things that do come along that do require expenses. Now, having said that, as was testified, those fees are small in proportion to what a total cost would be.

Maybe possibly in the school's situation, they could use the fact that those impact fees are not being dismissed or removed, but they're just being deferred and it could still be used as leverage to pull off state grants and all that. Maybe that's a Bill for another day and we could fix that some other way. But I do appreciate the fact that this is definitely a conversation that needs to happen that probably would have never happened without a Bill.

So with that, I'll be supportive of it today to be able to help you have that conversation ongoing. But we'll be very mindful of the direction that you're going and making sure that we find that right balance between what we collect now versus what we can afford to collect later to make a development work.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lee.

Thank you. I really do appreciate all the comments from my colleagues. You know, I did not have the privilege to serve in local government before, so I have not had the opportunity to look at it from that lens before. I do appreciate the author's intent with the Bill, and I do appreciate that you're using the power of the state to go against local control. So that's really awesome, too.

But so, I mean, listening to some of my colleagues from San Jose, we both represent San Jose, too, and we are worried about the constant aspect of some of these timelines are very long in development. There's definitely business and market changes that happen. I just wanted to seek some clarity about.

So, if this Bill were to be enacted and you collect the impact fees upon certificate occupation, but when you issue the permit and you said you had this scale of a project, how would you change the impact fees? Or when would those changes happen if your project is also to change along the way?

You know, that's something I'm very familiar with what project, not to get too specific, we're talking about, by the way, but we have seen in my own community a project that was approved go from x amount of units to x amount of units and that kind of changes. But they do come back for new entitlements. And so to be honest with you, I don't know how the cities themselves sort of, hey, you already paid these fees as a result of pulling permits. And then now you're doing this size project.

So how do we mitigate that? I'll get more clarification from my cities on that. But I think the point of the Bill is if there are actual impacts that are happening during that time period, from project approval to certificate of occupancy, we want those to be paid.

And, but if there's something that's happening way down the road, something like that, you know, so I'm always interested in kind of, see, there are little details like that that we have to be mindful of so we can make sure they're addressed.

I was just going to say also. As a former city council member and school board member, I think just as you could phase projects, you could also phase some of the fees that you're going to pay to help make sure that you are meeting those immediate needs. And also for the capital improvement program that a city adopts, that's many developments that go in to pay for that entire amount of infrastructure, not one particular project. And so oftentimes you need several projects going to be able to actually build out that entire infrastructure program.

Well, I definitely found the discussion today very compelling, and I definitely align with a lot of my comments with Assemblymember Kalra. And I do want to watch the Bill as it goes forward, but I'll be supportive of it today. So we continue the discussion going forward. But I do want to see you continue to refine that. And I think the intent is something I'm agreeable with in making sure that the impact fees aren't so burdensome that we can never have any housing out there.

But it is, I want it to be accurate to what projects and what the community is planning for. Because as my colleagues spoke right, when we develop these big projects, especially on some big pieces of land in my district where they say we're going to do this thing and then the market changes, all things happen, and then suddenly the city and all taxpayers on the hook, because the project changed so radically, is problematic to me.

But I hope you'll continue working this, but I'll be supportive of it today. But I reserve my right on the floor to change my vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, obviously align my comments as well with others. I think just very simply what we're trying to do here, what you're trying to do, and I want to thank you for your leadership on that, is to really revisit the necessity and the timing, because time is money when we're thinking about the impacts and the burdens that we have to new home construction. And so this being a vehicle has been a work in progress.

I appreciate your willingness to work closely with me and our staff for drafting some of the amendments that are here today and appreciate as well opposition for being here to be able to talk about an issue that we hadn't talked about yet are local education agencies that's critical that we get all these things right. And this is really that vehicle for that conversation that I know the author is very committed to, you know, receive a lot of this new information.

I think critically about whether or not it sort of meets that test, that balance between financial feasibility that we're trying to achieve for some of our housing developments and then also preserving the right for local governments to be able to make investments in the infrastructure and the timing of that matters too. So with that, invite you to close.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Well, I just really appreciate my colleagues here on this Committee and you and also the staff for working so hard on this. I mean it really isn't too often that I get an opportunity to continue to work on a Bill that isn't perfect as I present it. And so I recognize that. I appreciate the importance that the Committee sees that, hey look, this is something we really need to have a conversation about.

I am really serious with working with the opposition and, you know, we may not ever get to a point where everybody's, you know, very totally on board with this, but we want to address some of those points to make sure our schools get funded. And you know, obviously the impacts aren't put onto the taxpayer at the end of the day. I mean that's really important to me.

I do want to say one last thing if you wouldn't mind is the intent of the law right now actually is that impact. It's in the very first section of my Bill and this is existing law, is that impact fees are intended to be paid at certificate of occupancy actually. But then it gives a whole list of, you know, this can be paid upfront and so on and so forth.

So this is actually kind of going along with the intent of the law and I look at it as more of a, let's be a little bit more specific on exactly what that means. And to the extent that I can continue to ensure that as the economy changes and you know, taxpayers aren't off the hook, I will, you know, work with you and the opposition and any Member because at the end of the day, I need 41 votes on the floor.

So with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. We have a motion. I need a second. By Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

Action is do-pass as amended. [Roll Call]

At the moment, that's five votes. That Bill will be out, but we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. And we'll be back on file. I see Assemblymember Haney has joined us. This is file item number eight, AB-2479. And when you're ready, if you have any witnesses, they may join you at the table.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to your staff. And I'm accepting the Committee's amendments. This bill, I'm sure, looks familiar to this Committee because you passed out a very similar bill authored by the Chair. And I want to thank the Chair for his partnership. And we plan to work hand in hand on this issue moving forward with these two really companion and very similar bills.

AB 2479 aligns California's housing policy with federal guidelines by recognizing that drug free housing is consistent with housing first policies. This is really about giving people options so that they can be successful. There are approaches to housing that are for people right now that are not quite ready for full sobriety. Those options are available to people and will continue to be available to people.

But people who want to get off of the streets and away from drugs, away from people who are using drugs, and be a part of a community of accountability, of shared commitment. People who are going to back them up even when they fall on their path towards full sobriety and to being a part of a community that is committed to that, is an approach that works for many people. It's working for people now.

And unfortunately, there are not enough options for people who want to take that path. Anyone who wants to get off of deadly illegal drugs and away from them, we should be giving them that opportunity. Right now, there are people who go through transitional treatment program, six months, 12 months, nine months. They finish that program, and there's nowhere for them to transition to that's permanent supportive housing where they can actually have a drug free recovery environment.

This bill will ensure that California continues to provide harm reduction options but also allows some percentage of our state funding to go towards these drug free recovery options. That is already something that the federal government recognizing as part of housing first. It should be something that we recognize. And also it's important that this bill clearly outlines that, if somebody relapses, this is not a reason for eviction, but actually that there's specific steps of support that they will receive.

This is a very important step forward in our fight to ensure everyone has housing options and also against the addiction epidemic that we're facing across our state. Again, I want to thank the Chair for your leadership and partnership. With me to testify in support of the bill, I have Adrian Covert from the Bay Area Council and Daniel McClenon.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. My name, Members of the Committee and Assembly Member Haney, I'm Adrian Covert with the Bay Area Council. Substance abuse is both a cause and a result of homelessness. A recent study found overdose deaths in California and other western states amongst people experiencing homelessness have increased an astonishing 488% between 2011 and 2020. And in 2023, 68% of all overdose deaths in San Francisco occurred not on the streets, but in a fixed address within our permanent supportive housing projects.

More treatment options are needed to help address this urgent public health crisis. And according to HUD, recovery housing, and I quote from HUD's guidance, can and should be a component of any continuum of care. And according to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, I quote, recovery housing can be a critical asset in supporting an individual on their journey to recovery.

Despite clear federal guidance under the Biden Administration that recovery housing, when provided as an option alongside harm reduction facilities, is a core component of a successful housing first model, California's existing housing first law prohibits the state from funding recovery housing projects and is therefore out of conformity with federal best practices.

One tragic consequence of California's existing housing first law is that it can harm people with substance abuse disorders who seek treatment and recovery by forcing them into housing where drug use is often commonplace and where the dealer is waiting for them outside.

AB 2479 would bring California into conformity with federal guidance by allowing up to 25% of state grants within individual counties to support recovery housing projects. And following discussions with the Chair, as the author mentioned, the Chair and the sponsors are accepting amendments that would task the state Department of Health Care Services with developing a certification process for recovery housing. And for these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Chair Ward. My name is Daniel. I'm an addict in recovery and a current resident of a harm reduction facility. What can be said about my time in the SF housing system could fill a dense academic research paper, but two minutes is all I have, and I will do my best to paint a broad picture. I, like so many others, have been placed in a housing unit with many of the most mentally unwell and drug addicted individuals with zero supervision or rehabilitation services.

This is and has been an obvious recipe for disaster. Along with the lack of care, it all but guarantees this tragedy is perpetuated by keeping residents like me continually dependent on this costly system with no hope for treatment goals or goals to aim for. The results speak for themselves. 68% of fatal overdoses occur behind closed doors at these permanent housing facilities, according to the Coroner's website. These facilities are places where the most rampant drug uses take place.

They are often dirty, lack any modicum of structure, and are often havens for all manner of criminal activity. Without services, it feels like the end of the road. If there are other options available, they are difficult to find or access, especially for those who are mentally ill or in the throes of addiction. We do not need a hand out. Many of us need a hand up, but there are almost zero options in terms of rehabilitation and clean and sober living resources. Resources people like me are desperate for, a clean and positive living environment with treatment options. AB 2479 will help expand those options. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Are there other members of the public here in support of this item?

Thank you. Dylan Elliott on behalf of San Francisco Mayor London Breed in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this item or members of the public wishing to state opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring this back to the Committee. Assemblymember Kalra.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I really appreciate the author for bringing this forward as someone that represented thousands of individuals that were charged with drug offenses, that were addicts. And we did our best to try to get help with them.

But oftentimes, even after successfully completing residential treatment and then not having anywhere to go, quite often those that relapsed or got rearrest or what have you, is because they didn't have stable housing. I mean, if you don't have stable housing, any aspect of your health, whether it's mental health, physical health, substance abuse, it's a pretty tall task to ask someone to be able to be successful in recovery if we don't give them all the tools. And housing is probably the most important tool.

We can give someone a stable place to live where they can start to heal and start to work on themselves. And so very grateful that you brought this bill forward. I'd like to move it if it hasn't been moved, and really appreciate being added as a co-author.

Appreciate that, Mister Kalra. Mr. Vice Chair.

I just want to say this is a really great bill.

I think one thing that this might do is it has the opportunity to expand programs that we know are successful but might not qualify under existing state rules and regulations and things like that. And what's great is it's limited in the sense of we're gonna be able to know if it's successful or not. And so I don't know if there's any. Probably not. It would probably die in appropriations if you added too much evaluation, like a study in there or something.

But it is true, we have other sort of study bills out there to kind of see how funding is working. And I hope it includes this because I think we're gonna see that there's some level of success out there, and I'm really hopeful for it. So thanks for kind of opening that up.

Well, I don't know if this is something radical to say, but we should probably be evaluating every program that we fund in terms of its success.

And I think that's part of what is broken now, is we're funding a lot of different types of housing programs and such, and we're not assessing whether the people there are not only successful in staying there but also in taking other steps in their lives, whether that's being able to go back into the workforce or reaching sobriety. We're seeing really shocking levels of overdoses in many of these state-run and funded facilities, and that should be a measure and a metric as well.

Certainly, we shouldn't be funding facilities that are places where many people are dying. That's the worst possible failure. And so we should be assessing and evaluating these types of facilities as well. And again, I do think that they work for many people. They may not work for everybody, but it's about having a choice. And if the choice that someone wants to make is to be away from drugs entirely, we have to support that choice.

Thank you. See no other members wishing to speak on this item. I want to thank you for working with me closely to make sure our bills are consistent in the space. But I think your leadership, especially for your constituency in San Francisco, is appreciated, and I would invite you to close.

Thank you. Respectfully asked for your aye vote. And again, thank you to you and your staff.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Action do-pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill has five votes. It'll be out, and we'll hold the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Next, I'm going to extend courtesy to Assemblymember Pellerin, who I know has a scheduling issue. So we'll go down to file item 26. AB 3035. When you're ready with your presenters, you may begin your presentation.

Good morning, Chair, and thank you so much, and members of the Committee. I'm here to present AB 3035, which expands an existing streamlined approval process for agricultural employee housing in the two counties in my district, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. As discussed in the analysis, in 2019, Speaker Rivas authored Assembly Bill 1783, which created a streamlined ministerial approval process for qualifying agricultural employee housing projects.

AB 3035 makes two changes to broaden the sites where agricultural employee housing can be streamlined and the scale of qualifying projects in Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz counties. And with me to testify in support of AB 3035 is Sylvia Arenas, who's our Fifth District Supervisor from Santa Clara County, the sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Ward and members of the Committee. I'm Sylvia Arenas District One County Board Supervisor, and I'm just really happy to be here to represent the county as we are the sponsor of, just like Assemblymember mentioned. Providing safe and healthy and affordable housing for agricultural workers is top priority for our county. This is an issue that is deeply important to me personally and our community.

I represent my daughter of a brasero who worked in the fields, and my parents worked in the fields and in the canneries, eventually purchasing a home that provided that stability to my brothers and sisters. As you just mentioned in the previous item, how important stability is for our family.

I'm deeply honored for this opportunity to speak with you today, and I feel like there's an enormous weight on my shoulder to ask you for support for this legislation because currently we have a shortfall of 1400 seasonal worker housing units and year-round 700 housing units for agricultural workers. And as you know, these are families that are often forced into substandard living conditions. And I won't mention all of those, but just last week, we found a family that was living in a tuff shed.

And so, you know, but the places just run the gamut. So for far too long, this issue is allowed to languish. But in recent years, the Board of Supervisors has jumped into action, pressing the shortage of housing. And in 2020, the board voted to streamline the permitting process to farm worker housing, including permanent, temporary, and seasonal projects.

And in 2023, as a new board member, I introduced this agriculture worker housing work plan, which includes to overhaul our permitting process because we were only able to actually approve three units in the last four years. We're also going to prepare to develop housing on county-owned land to fund the rehabilitation of existing housing, to institute a pilot program to incentivize private production, establish a help center, and advocate regional and state legislative solutions.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here in support of this item? Okay, seeing none. Any witnesses or testimony in opposition or those wishes to state position of opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn this back to any Committee Member comments? Assemblymember Kalra?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I swear I'm not going to speak on every bill. However, it's great to have my county supervisor here speaking in support of a very important piece of legislation that, as mentioned by Assemblymember Pellerin, was initially led by our speaker. And I'm very grateful to have our colleague, Senator Pellerin, expanding on it to ensure that more of our farmworkers have access to dignified, quality housing, particularly given the important work that they do for all of us.

And so I'd like to move the bill and if it's okay with the author, love to be added as a principal co-author.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Lee.

I just want to second my comments. Second Assemblymember Kalra's comments on this and I do appreciate the author's work on making sure that our agricultural workers in Santa Cruz and our home county of Santa Clara County are taking care of.

Too often people think of Santa Clara County as only just full of techies in there, but yet there are people who live in rural communities who are farm workers, who live and work in our own county or the adjacent counties as well. So I really appreciate it too. And I would love to also be added as a principal co-author as well. And thank you for coming up here.

Thank you. Seeing no other Members wishing to speak on this item. I'll align my comments with those from the Committee and I'll ask invite you to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Ms. Pellerin. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Due pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

That has six votes. It will be out. We'll hold the roll up in for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

And we'll go back to Miss Friedman. This is file item 17, AB 2712. Thank you for your patience. I invite you and any witnesses and support to join you at the presentation table.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. AB 2712 is a district bill to try to deal with some unintended consequences of a bill that I did last year, 2097, that removed the ability of a locality to prescribe any amount of minimum parking requirement to housing projects near transit.

Now, what we didn't anticipate when we did that bill was a situation that occurred in parts of Los Angeles where because of other state bills that opened up commercial corridors to housing for the first time and more intensive housing. The way that the City of Los Angeles had drawn some of their preferential parking districts was seen by the city to include some commercial corridors that didn't previously have the ability to create housing.

And because of that, the City of Los Angeles feels that they have to give parking, preferential parking passes to these new market-rate, new housing developments that are going in literally so that the people in those buildings can go and park in the neighborhood next door to them, taking away what's extremely rare and valuable curb parking for existing neighborhoods that are very parking constrained because they were built in the thirties, twenties, and forties at times when people didn't have as many vehicles.

And so that's why they have a preferential parking zone. For City of Los Angeles to redraw the parking maps, which they really should do, would take them quite a while because if they're public process they'd have to go through. We're looking at one to two years to redraw some of the public parking. And what's happening is developers are coming in, building luxury apartments that are hundreds of units and telling everyone they're going to get parking passes to go and park in the adjoining neighborhood.

That's going to put an unreasonable burden on the residents in those areas. When we did the parking bill, the idea was that people would use public transportation if there was no other parking available to them or shared parking. But to burden the existing residents in these areas was not something that the bill anticipated. And so we have introduced this bill to deal with that.

Amendments taking an assembly local government last week limit the bill to the City of Los Angeles exempt residents in residential developments that are 20 units or less, so that this wouldn't be if someone added two or three or four units exempt to residents in deed restricted developments intended to households that are very low-income households, extremely low-income households, or lower income household developments, and allow the city to issue a permit or permits to residents if the city can make findings that it doesn't add to an overcrowding situation.

Now, we are willing to work on that last amendment with the sponsors in future committees. The reason we did that actually was for certain areas, like where I live here in Sacramento, where the only reason there's preferential parking on my block is because there's a high school, and people would park there just to pick up their kids for like a half an hour a day. But the rest of the time there's absolutely no problem with parking. So it's not a question of it being overcrowded.

They're just trying to deal with a very specific situation. So we wanted to give the locality some flexibility in that. But we understand that that's of concern to the neighborhoods in the area. So we're probably, you know, so we're open to removing that last provision. So with me today to speak in support of AB 2712 is Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. And with that, I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Ward and members of the committee. My name is Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League, and I'm here today to second what Assemblymember Friedman has said and to express California's need for the smart and responsible parking reforms put forth in AB 2712. This bill recognizes the need to support transit oriented development and affordable housing without overcrowding the curb parking that existing residents rely on.

By excluding low and no parking development from preferential parking districts in Los Angeles, AB 2712 will, one, prevent infill development from displacing neighbors from the curb parking they currently rely on. Two, it'll defuse opposition to new housing and businesses on the ground that they'll overcrowd nearby street parking, making it easier to get these projects off the ground. And three, it'll ensure that transit-oriented development is actually transit-oriented.

These projects, as Assemblymember Friedman mentioned, should support car-free tenants and customers, not simply push parking demands to already crowded streets. AB 2712 is a win for affordable housing for existing neighbors and for our climate and public health goals. We know that California cannot meet its long term climate goals without reforming our land use patterns to curb VMT growth.

We know that affordable housing won't truly be affordable as long as low wage households are displaced to the urban periphery and priced out of transit access and proximity to economic opportunities. Where transit is an option, we know that mandatory parking minimums impose artificially inflated prices on residents that they do not need and potentially cannot afford. By addressing concerns about removing parking minimums and reducing opposition to nearby low-income housing development, this bill fosters inclusive and resilient communities.

And by curbing urban sprawl and induced car usage, this bill contributes to reductions in vehicle miles traveled, thereby reducing air pollution, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and advancing California's climate goals, which is a win for everyone. AB 2712 is an incredibly creative and incredibly pragmatic approach to our climate and housing crises that supports both equity and existing community needs. This bill is important and thoughtful, and I urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in support of this item? You see none today. Are there any witnesses in opposition or positions of opposition? Seeing none. I'll return this to the dias for any committee member comments or questions. Vice Chair.

So I had the privilege of going after you and local government a week ago, so I heard the robust discussion on that. So it's kind of an interesting bill because I understand that -

I guess what I'm just struggling with that I don't fully understand is there's a development that gets doesn't have parking minimums and so on and so forth. And now we're taking some parking spots offline, which I understand because then they would go into the get permits in other neighborhoods and things like that. So that all makes sense. Does this bill solve where those people will then park, or does it stop them from being able to park somewhere close to their home?

So what we would like with these kinds of developments is that they do one of three things. They either add the parking that they feel they need for their tenants on site, or they market to people who want to live there, self-select there because of their proximity to transit. And so maybe they're offering a unit for a little bit less money that doesn't have spaces.

Maybe they have a mix in their building, with some with available spaces that you pay for and some without a parking space for people who are taking Uber, using the bus, or riding their bikes. That's what happened in San Diego when they remove parking minimums, or they can contract for shared parking with nearby buildings. There's a lot of commercial space. My guess is a lot of unused commercial parking spaces in this particular district. It's in the Miracle Mile area, which is a real mix of office and residential.

But what we don't want them to do is to take, to get automatically parking passes for the neighborhood behind them so they can displace the people that are right now parking at that curb space.

Yeah, agreed. Very interest. Although I would say it will create somewhat of a deterrent to some infill housing if we say: hey, look, they have to figure out where. Because isn't that the whole point of the parking, no parking minimums is that.

You know, some areas that are going to take advantage of the reduced parking actually have parking in the areas. You know, I can show you some places, for instance, near train stops in Burbank, where there actually is street parking because those are areas that don't have a lot of residential development. There is formerly industrial areas. There's a lot of unused land. There's one site, for instance, that was in Ikea that now is just sitting vacant, that has a giant parking lot along with it.

So why force them to sort of build new parking? So it's going to play out differently in different parts of the state and in different localities. In this particular area, this is one of the most dense parts of Los Angeles. It's near the museums near LACMA, near the tar pit museum. And what I believe happened is that the commercial corridor was never really zoned for housing in that area. We changed that, and City of LA changed that.

But there was a. The parking line for the preferential zone is right down the middle of Wilshire Boulevard. So developers on that side are building. In this case, we saw about a 300-unit luxury building. It's being marketed as luxury. And what they're saying is that they will have valets that will take your car and use and get you a parking permit and then go park in the neighborhood behind and then walk back.

We feel that that's a get-around of what we were hoping for with the, with the parking minimums, which was, you know, let's start building buildings near transit for people who want to use that high-quality transit. Let's not invite 800 new cars into this already very congested area by constantly adding more and more parking spaces. So, you know, there's a negative impact for the parking permits on the residents nearby. LA can go through their process and change where their parking map is drawn.

But it's going to take them too long to do that for some of these developments because they move really slowly with their process.

Well, I appreciate you limiting the bill in the last, because these are statewide implications, obviously, to a relatively brand new policy that was just brought in. So I'm going to support this today and see what happens in LA and sort of go from there. So thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you. See no other members wishing to comment on the bill. Do we have a motion and a second? We do. Miss Friedman, I want to thank you for working closely. I agree, which is why I align my comments with the Vice Chair.

You know, we had been, you had been leading on this effort to be able to support the opportunities to reduce costs of development and also give a model that the market was meant to be able to provide for individuals who wanted a place that would rent for a little bit cheaper but wouldn't have that guaranteed parking as a part of it. That was a choice by future users that they would move into a space that was meant to be transit-oriented development.

And so when we get into these now very localized situations where something is in a preferential parking zone, in San Diego, for example, we have parking permit areas that are more tied to employment centers because not just like a high school, potentially a hospital or a university also comes with sort of, you know, part partial day activity that can impede existing neighborhoods. And so I think these are the kinds of considerations that you're thinking about as well. But with that, I invite you to close.

Just, I would request an aye vote so that we can solve this unanticipated problem that has been happening in Los Angeles. And thanks so much for the hearing.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Action is do-pass. [Roll Call]

That bill has five votes. It will be out, and we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Next, file item 21 with Mr. Santiago. This will be Assembly Bill 2909. And after that we have two bills left on file. Invite authors to come down to Committee Room 437.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank you for helping us on this bill to make it better, and thank you very much. Simply put, 2909 would expand the Mills Act to empower the City of Los Angeles to incentivize the commercial commercial buildings to residential use. Specifically, 2909 would expand the definition of qualified historic properties to include buildings that are at least 30 years old and located within commercial zones, making property eligible for the Mills Act contracts. With us, we have one witness, Michael Shilstone of Central City Association. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Committee Members. I'm Michael Shilstone, Vice President of Policy and Research with Central City Association of Los Angeles. CCA represents 300 businesses, institutions, and nonprofits who are committed to enhancing Downtown LA's vibrancy and increasing opportunity in the Southern California region. We're strong advocates for policies that support adaptive reuse, and we're proud to sponsor AB 2909. This bill would provide an important tool for LA to expand its Mills Act Program to support office to residential conversions.

It requires that property tax savings be reinvested in retrofitting and repurposing existing buildings to create housing, and it would be a targeted expansion of a program that has been proven to be successful and can be instrumental in unlocking the benefits of adaptive reuse in LA. I'll leave it there to keep it brief, but happy to answer any questions, and we would be very grateful for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public in support of this item today?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Wilson with LA BizFed in support.

Thank you. And is there anybody in opposition through testimony or interested in stating a position of opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn this back to Committee Member comments or questions. Seeing none. Mr. Santiago, I want to thank you for thinking about a creative approach to be able to work on some of those adaptive reuse projects that are very present, I think, in your district in the City of Los Angeles, and certainly enjoy support of the Chair. With that, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote, Mr. Chair and Members.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Action do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has six votes, it will be out, and we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. We will go back on file to file item number 10 by Mister Zbur. This is Assembly Bill 2498. And again, I invite one more Member to come down to Committee to present our final Bill. In the meantime, if you have any support witnesses, they can join you at the presentation table.

Oh, ready?

Okay.

Chair, Members, I'm proud today to present AB 2948 alongside my colleague and joint author of the Bill, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. One of the most cost-effective and compassionate ways of reducing the number of Californians experiencing homelessness is prevention, empowering people who are currently housed to stay in their homes.

And my colleague, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, has been one of the leading voices really advocating for more focus on prevention to address homelessness. The state's 2023 to 2024 Master Plan for Aging identifies rent subsidy programs as a key strategy for increasing housing stability for older adults and peoples with disabilities. It was their second, the second recommendation in the Master Plan.

Between 2022 and 2023, approximately 10,000 people became newly unhoused in the State of California, and our response has resulted in fewer individuals moving from the streets and into housing than that number. So, we're losing the battle because we're not doing enough to prevent homelessness.

AB 2498 the California Housing Security Act, which is the product of Assembly Member Quirk-Silva and I merging very similar bills, will increase housing security by providing housing subsidies to low-income former foster youth, older adults, veterans, adults with disabilities, people experiencing unemployment or homelessness, and recently incarcerated individuals without regard to an individual's immigration status. Various housing subsidy programs currently exist at the local and state level, but they're isolated and underfunding and not sufficiently funded to have a meaningful impact.

Despite California being a housing-first state, there are at least 170,000 people experiencing homelessness, a staggering and disproportionate figure that amounts to 30% of the nation's homeless population. Through our collaborative efforts, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva and I have crafted a Bill that is not only strategic, but also empathetic in preventing homelessness.

AB 2498 requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a two-year pilot program in eight counties across the state, spanning northern, southern, and central regions, while taking into account urban, rural, and suburban representation. To prevent an eligible individual from falling into homelessness, the program will allow an amount necessary to cover a portion of a person's housing not to exceed $2,000 as a one-time subsidy or $2,000 a month for the duration of a two-year program.

And Assembly Member Quirk-Silva and I are still working out some of the details on how to structure and shape that program, which is ongoing. The philosophy behind AB 2498 is that it is more compassionate and more cost-effective to prevent homelessness than to intervene after an individual or family becomes unhoused. AB 2498 will reduce homelessness by helping the most housing-insecure Californians remain in their homes when they're facing challenging economic times.

Furthering California's commitment to putting housing first by providing short and medium-term housing subsidies to our most housing-insecure people. I'd like to turn it over to my co, my joint author.

I'm going to make it very quick. This is about prevention. AB 2498 simply addresses what we have not been doing as a legislative body, which is focusing on keeping people in their apartments. We are going to pay either way, whether we pay on the front end or the back end. We know that when people are evicted and become homeless, that we pay whether it's in emergency room visits, whether it's in jail time.

We also know that once somebody has an eviction on their record, it is very hard to get them housed again. So, providing a subsidy that can keep them housed. We have seen studies where this works. We know it's a tough budget time, but we again, a big idea that we believe can make a difference and keep people housed in California.

Thank you, Miss Quirk-Silva. Are there any other members of the public here in support of this item?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica. I have to put my glasses on, sorry. We're co-sponsors of the Bill and we're pleased to support AB 2498. The City of Santa Monica has prioritized creating new housing opportunities in our city, preserving existing affordable housing, and helping our residents keep their housing. The housing subsidies to be provided for in this Bill would assist the city in achieving these priorities and prevent homelessness at the same time.

We thank the authors of this measure for their work and their support for the Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Just name organizations and position.

Vanessa Cajina on behalf of CalPACE, the Statewide Association of Programs of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, here in support.

Thank you.

Harrison Linder with Leading Age California here in support.

Thank you.

Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth in support and appreciate the definition of clarifications for former foster youth and homeless youth.

Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, co-sponsor. Appreciate the addition of Los Angeles County, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Seamus Garrity, Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Power California and the San Diego Housing Commission in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this Bill or Members of the public wishing to state a position of opposition? Seeing none. We'll turn this back to Committee Member comment by Miss Reyes.

I just have one complaint. Why isn't San Bernardino included?

San Bernardino?

Just consider it.

San Bernardino has the option of being included. So, the way the Bill works is there are two counties in the north, two in the central region, and four in Southern California. And it's basically based on population. At least one of the counties is still an open one. So, the Southern California would be Orange, San Diego and LA, and one more county.

I would like to nominate San Bernardino as you're considering.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Lee.

Thank you so much to our authors for bringing this Bill forward. I'd love to be added as a co-author in support of your measure, too. And I know a lot of our colleagues think this measure is important, even during really tough budget time as it is. It is true that we have to make a lot of priority choices. And the fact of the matter is there are bills out there that are trying to correct our priorities.

Like the Chair's priority right now to stop subsidizing vacation homes, and that could be $200 to $400 million a year. There are choices that we can make to prioritize people, especially those are most housing insecure. I really do appreciate your inclusion of older folks and foster youth, too, really concentrating on vulnerable populations.