Senate Standing Committee on Housing

And if Senators who are on the housing Committee want to come down and help us establish a quorum, that would, of course, be helpful. We are in room in the state Capitol, room 112. Let me indicate what items are on consent. They are item number five, AB 2430 item number 13, AB 2144 item number 17, AB 2533 item 18, AB 2903, and item 20, AB 3116. We also have a vote only Bill item one, AB 2338. Jones Sawyer will, of course, not start with that one, since we cannot yet vote.

So we will start with item two, which is AB 1789. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, please come forward and you may present.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members.

Assembly Bill 1789 expands access in the Department of Housing and Community Developments Portfolio Reinvestment Program to challenge developments in need of rehabilitation in order to avoid the loss of precious affordable housing in California a lack of affordable housing is the source of California is the source of California's housing crisis and disproportionately affects low income families and households.

In response to this crisis, California has developed over 500,000 rental homes affordable to low income families over the last decades. After 15 years of more of more occupancy. Many of these developments require significant rehabilitation.

Developments with the lowest rents designed to provide affordable units are not in a position to leverage debt or tax credit credits and therefore lack financing options. Without rehabilitation, these developments can fall into disrepair and foreclosure, meaning affordable housing options are lost. In 2021, California created the Portfolio Reinvestment Program at the Department of Housing and Community Development.

This program was established to provide loans and grants to HCD funded developments that have expired affordability contracts or have been have a remaining term of 10 years. However, thousands of units of affordable housing without old HCD loans also need rehabilitation and remain unassisted.

AB 1789 expands the types of developments that can qualify for loans or grants to include developments that do not have HCA loans but are defined in the bill as challenge developments.

In essence, my friends, this is simply let's make sure we keep our affordable housing up to par and that we continue to keep that on the market as affordable housing. With me today is Mr. Mark Stivers, director of the Advocacy with the California Housing Partnership, to make comments.

Mark Stivers, with the California Housing Partnership and the assembly members said it all. I will just reiterate that, you know, the number one priority when it comes to affordable housing is maintaining what we have, and this is Bill that does that.

And also this bill came out of a working group of members from the California Housing Consortium in partnership with us and this is one of the recommendations of the owners of these older developments of what we need to do to keep them in shape. So thank you very much.

Appreciate that, both brevity and specificity. All right, let's see if there are any other people in support of this bill. Just come to the mic and indicate your support.

Ralph Hassenfeld with YIMBY Action, in support.

Divya Shiv with Housing California, in support.

Great. Anybody else? All right, seeing none. Any opposition? Good. There's none registered. So glad there's nobody here. We can't take a motion yet, but we will allow you to close. Okay. Thank you, members. Nice to see you. Ah, you're just gonna ask for the aye vote. Okay, great.

Okay, we will entertain a motion, Assembly Member, as soon as we have a quorum. Okay, then let us go to item three, which is assemblymember Arambula. He's here, so go ahead. It's AB 1840. Yeah, not bad.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present the social and economic benefits of. Of home ownership should be accessible to all, regardless of immigration status. Assembly Bill 1840 ensures the eligibility in the dream for all program includes undocumented persons.

Undocumented individuals have historically been excluded from housing initiatives because of federal restrictions at the state level. Legal status can complicate access to home loans and home ownership assistance programs, posing a significant hardship in an already challenging sector of California's economy.

Ensuring universal access by all qualified borrowers to the California Dream for all program will contribute to the overall success and vitality of California. Testifying in support of Assembly Bill 1840 is Maria Monterat Caro Flores, a CHIRLA Member from Sun Valley, and Cynthia Gomez, Deputy Director of state policy and advocacy at CHIRLA.

Good afternoon, Members. My name is Cynthia Gomez. Maria will be doing her testimony in Spanish, and I will be quickly translating. I'll start with my testimony. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Cynthia Gomez, Deputy Director of state policy and advocacy with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

CHIRLA is proud to sponsor AB 1840 and are thankful for the leadership of Assemblymember Arambula on this Bill in 2021, California established a dream for all program to help first time home buyers purchase a home.

This program is tailored to help low and moderate income families by providing a shared appreciation loan to help cover the cost of a down payment. This was a significant step towards helping first time home buyers, as many find covering the cost of a down payment to be a significant hurdle in their aspirations to purchase a home.

Programs such as the Dream for All program can be life changing for families, and it is crucial we ensure all Californians, regardless of documentation status, are able to access programs that are meant to help Californians thrive. California is home to approximately 10 million immigrants, of whom nearly 2 million are undocumented.

Immigrants come to live, work, and raise families in Californias and should have the same opportunity to lay roots in their communities by purchasing a home as any other individual. Moreover, immigrants are part of the reason why California is an economic powerhouse.

Contributing roughly $51 billion in state and local taxes, undocumented Californians help Fund the programs that many other Californians benefit from and should be able to have equal access to these programs. AB 1840 will ensure that an individual is not turned away for the dream for all program solely based on their documentation status.

Home ownership is also a critical component to building generational wealth. By ensuring that all Californians have the opportunity to purchase a home, we have the opportunity to further close the racial wealth gap in California.

AB 1840 aligns with our goals as a state by continuing our commitment to ensuring a California for all, one where everyone, regardless of their immigration status, can access these critical programs. We thank you for your consideration on this bill and ask for your support on AB 1840.

Thank you.

Buenos tardes, soy Maria Caro soy origine de Mexico. Soy madre de tres ellos tiene la treinta, veinte seis, veinti dos anos. Como miles de migrantes viene se pais con anelos y ganas de superarme. Hace treinta y quatro anos llega a Estados Unidos con la meto de comprar casa y comple mi sueno americano. Actualmente vivo in San Bale, California. Donda la renta de apartamento fre cameras. Soy trabajador de casa, limpio casa, sicudo personas discapacitadas. Cada mes intento rar per unit jaque los precios de los ogares an incrementado muy rapido. Mi vision, paracondo realidad espoder vivir tranquilamente en donde podemos estar comodos todos rentando apartamento el pago sellamo mutual arendador, Kendall Reglos and La Vibinda noquirase encambiomos Casa el pago Seria Parano Itambian seria unarencia no solo Paramisicos sambaramis nietos enel those milse solicit informacion para plicar para la compra de mi pre muy alto y los pagos mensolas etin y pedian cosigne el paluten oyes todo esta aqui Sacramento and representacion de mi familia y de las miles de trabajadores immigrantes en California.

Pido un boto ofabor de la propuesta abe diocho quarenta esta projecto delay estate para podria abride LA poyo de compra de dasa para compradores immigrantes. If Amelias Comolamia aportamos todo los dias con westo travaju para estes.

Good afternoon. My name is Maria. I'm originally from Mexico. I am a mother of three us citizen children. They are aged 30, 26 and 22 years old. Like millions of immigrants, I came to this country with the goal of bettering my life.

I came to the United States 34 years ago with the goal of buying a house and completing my American dream. Currently, I live in Sun Valley, California, where I rent a two bedroom apartment. I am a domestic worker. I clean houses, and I take care of folks with disabilities.

Every month I try to save money, but it's not enough. Now that the prices of homes have gone up very rapidly, I envision being able to live peacefully where my family and I can live comfortably renting an apartment. Your monthly rent goes to a landlord who, when we ask them to make.

When we ask them to fix issues in the house, they don't want to do that. If we were to buy a house, the monthly payment would be towards our dream home, and it would also be an inheritance not only for my kids, but for my grandchildren.

In 2006, I solicited information to apply for the purchase of my first home. They asked for a down payment that was way too high for me and monthly payments that were very expensive. When they found out that I had an itin, they also asked for a cosigner, which I did not have at the time.

Today, I'm here in Sacramento representing my family and the millions of hardworking immigrants in California to ask for your support on AB 1840. This bill is necessary and urgent to be able to open access to support programs that would help immigrants buy a home.

Families like mine contribute to the economy every day with our work and with the contributions that we make to make this state a better place for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. Let me see if there's other supporters here who want to add on. Just come to the mic and add on.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Such an awkward room.

Divya Shiv with Housing California in support.

Hi. Hi. My name is Ursula, and I support the 1880. Hi. I support AB 1840.

Buenos Tardes, Maria in support of AB, disculpe, 1840.

I support AB 1840.

Hello. My name is Yesenia Altamirano and I'm here supporting AB 1840.

Stephen Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of housing California in support.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis. On behalf of the Mexican American Opportunity foundation and support. Thank you.

All right, let's see if there's any opposition. Okay. Seeing none. Any comments or questions from our colleagues? Yes, Senator. Seyarto. Thank you.

This program, the dream for all program, was funded, what, two years ago or last year.

I believe this is the second round of funding that's gone out. My understanding is last budget year they did $250 million, and they're currently in the process of another round of $250 million.

Right. So it was oversold.

The program is oversold already, correct. All of the funds will have been subscribed to people who have gotten the loans. We are really only talking about after people have paid back the loans, the money, which.

In other words, the money's been allocated to people. It was a very popular program. Correct. Already popular, and we're not adding to it yet. I've heard a lot of stories from a lot of kids that live here in the United States. They're the same ages as this lady's kids. They can't get housing.

And the reason they can't get housing is because even though their parents may be renting now, at one time, they may have owned a home, and that's a disqualifier from being able to apply to this program.

If your parents actually owned a home, even if they lost it and now they don't have a home, you are not eligible to apply for this program. So this dream for everyone turns into a dream for just a few already in the current constraints of the bill, the way it's written.

And that was something I was afraid of, was that the very people that need this the worst aren't going to have access to it.

And so now we're expanding it even farther without adjusting and taking care of the issues within the bill itself, because I can see this as being very helpful for people, but it has to be helpful for people that can get access, start paying, and also when they pay this back, it helps fuel the program for the future.

And I don't see that happening. All I see is we keep expanding without answers to what, why it got sold out in the first place and whether we have access available already to people that are kids that are out there, that are students, and they just get out of school. They can't afford a house.

My kids are gainfully employed. They can't afford a house. So I'd like to see some efforts to address this bill that are more encompassing so that we can include everyone, that those restrictions don't take place because it is cutting a lot of people out of this program.

And if it's something that we find is very, very helpful to everybody, well, then it's something that we should be investing more money into. But in order for us to do that, we need to see that it's working the right way and it's reaching everybody, including people that already live here and are already citizens.

So that's my concern, is we're going to oversell the program. Nobody's going to have access to it because we have only a limited amount of dollars for it. Right. Thank you.

Senator Menjivar, go ahead.

I agree with the Senator. I think we can do so much more to expand this program. I was not aware of that exception, exemption. I mean, you described a story that happened to me. My mom had a house and we got evicted.

So now my sister would no longer qualify for a program that I actually been telling her to apply for. But I also, you know, you, senora uste Bino compartes De Mirisan Fernando Los Casas. Right.

She shared that she lives in my district and I know how the median price there is $1.0 million and how difficult it is. And so, Assembly Member, clarify, if I read correctly, you're looking to create a sub account.

That's correct.

This is a separate, not touching anything of what's already been allocated for those who are eligible for the standing program. When funding is appropriate, the Legislature has the ability to put funds into a sub account that more people would be eligible for. So it doesn't decrease any funding from the current program. Is that correct?

That's correct. The two rounds of funding, the $500 million, will be appropriated under the current regulations. This law wouldn't take effect prior to those funds being out. So it's only resources that are coming back.

I mean, I think we're, we definitely, to work on the program itself, expanding it for more people. We definitely need to invest more money in it as we hopefully bounce back from a deficit.

And if we have the opportunity, invest in a separate sub account, which you're looking to do should this legislation make it all the way the Governor signs it. I think it's a phenomenal idea. So when appropriate, be happy to move this bill. Partizo Historia con nosotros. Thank you for coming and sharing your story with us.

Assemblymember, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll point out the evidence we have from the first round of funding is that the predominance of, of the money went to the Bay Area and towards caucasian families.

And I believe we have to make sure that we have a program that's more inclusive, that removes ambiguity, and that clears up that all people who qualify for a home loan should be able to apply to this program, regardless of their immigration status and when the time's appropriate, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Once we get a quorum, we'll entertain motions. Thank you for the presentation. We'll now move to Assembly Member Gabriel's Bill. We agreed to take that one out of order, so, Assemblymember Gabriel, you may present. And that is item.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and colleagues, I am pleased today to present AB 3160, which will provide 500 million in enhanced state housing tax credits for an additional five years, helping to build thousands of new affordable homes.

In 2019, California began issuing enhanced state housing credits to address financing gaps associated with affordable housing development and better leverage matching funding. California's enhanced credits have helped build tens of thousands of units of affordable homes for very low, low, and extremely low income households.

These credits have enabled California to draw down billions in federal housing credits, leveraging existing federal, local, and private funding at a ratio greater than five to one. Demand for these credits has also been dramatically oversubscribed since their creation.

AB 3160 will ensure that the 500 million in enhanced credits continue to be available, providing affordable housing developers with essential certainty as they plan to build new homes. This bill, supported by a coalition of affordable housing organizations, has received bipartisan support and has no known opposition.

With me today to testify in support of the bill is Mark Stivers, the director of advocacy of the California Housing Partnership. Thank you, and respectfully request your aye vote great.

Thank you. You may proceed with your testimony.

Once again, Mark Stivers, with the California Housing Partnership. Just to put a couple specifics to the statements of the assembly member, in the last four years that the state has allowed these 500 million in enhanced state credits, they resulted in 25,000 homes affordable to very low, low and extremely low income households.

They've helped leverage $5.3 billion in federal housing tax credits that otherwise California would have left on the table. And the overall leverage has been a ratio of more than five to one, as the Aciliemann describes. So. And then I would also just like to observe that we have 46,000 affordable homes in the pipeline. They are permitted.

They are ready, shovel ready. We just need to finance them. This credits will actually help us get those to construction. And it also, as you said, it has been a very bipartisan program. It helps us build affordable housing and reduces taxes at the same time. That's a win win. Thank you.

Great. Let's see if there are other folks here in support of this bill if you want to come to the mic.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters, in support. Thank you very much.

Divya Shiv, with Housing California, in support.

Good afternoon. Corey Smith with the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Rafa Sonnenfeld, with YIMBY Action, in support.

Tiffany Miller, SF YIMBY, in support.

Alyssa May, SF YIMBY, in support.

Shayna Englin with the California Community Foundation, in support.

Angie Manetti with the California Apartment Association, in support.

Nevada Merriman, MidPen Housing, in support.

All right. Do we have any opposition? I don't think we have any registered. Okay. Any opposition in the room? Seeing none. Let me see if any of my colleagues have comments or questions. Seeing none. I appreciate the bill. Assemblymember Gabriel and I will. So we can't take a motion, but you may close.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Appreciate your leadership on all these issues. As I just to mention, you know, this allows us to leverage so many existing resources out there and will help to build tens of thousands of homes that we desperately need. So at the appropriate time, would respectfully request your aye vote.

Excellent. Great. Thank you. We'll take that motion as soon as we have a quorum. All right. So now we will go to back in order, look at my order, and we will go to Assemblymember Alvarez's bill. And I think you have two to present.

So the first one, but if you want to do it in a different order, is fine with me. But the. We have AB 1886, item four. And AB 2560 item six.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin with AB 2560.

Okay.

Thank you. I'll make the - I'll allow the witnesses to come forward as they begin the introduction of the Bill. And again, thank you very much for the opportunity to present AB 2560. Which requires a state Density Bonus Law be implemented in the coastal zone of California with exemptions still to ensure that.

Critical natural resources are not threatened. As you are all well aware of, we are in the midst of a housing crisis that renders countless Californians vulnerable to housing instability and crippling housing costs. In addition to just the cost of living in California, which is still number one priority for Californians.

In response, the Legislature has rightfully taken a number of essential steps to increase supply of all forms of housing across the state. However, significant amount of housing legislation has passed this legislative body and the Legislature. And signed into law by the Governor. And implemented over the years has included carve outs to effectively exempt coastal California.

And the coastal zone from these housing initiatives. These carve outs have had a huge impact on the lack of housing being built in the coastal areas. The Legislative Analyst Office found that between 1980 and 2010, the average US metro area grew by 22% more than the. Average California coastal area. Less easy to quantify are the countless.

Units that go undeveloped because the majority of developers have completely absorbed abandoned trying to build in the coastal area due to lack of objective building standards that lead to lengthy and cost prohibitive timelines. At its core, AB 2560 is meant to modernize our approach to housing on the coast. It is a rejection of the status.

Quo, which says that the current process for building and developing affordable housing in our wealthy coastal areas is sufficient according to some. It is also a recognition of the fact that the lack of objective standards for housing projects in the coastal zone that developers rely on to make their decisions to build housing and that they.

Rely on the rest of the state. To take on the risky investment of building housing is no longer acceptable. I fully appreciate the importance of the coast as a valuable resources that I think all of us do for our state and the need to have it protected to stymie development in areas that are not fit for development, such as wetlands, near cliffs or areas that are subject to sea level rise, among others. This appreciation is why we not only added exempted areas negotiated and agreed upon.

Last year between the author and the opposition of Senate Bill 423, one of your colleagues, but we also accepted additional exemptions. These exemptions include land that is within 100ft of a wetland, estuary or stream. Land that is between the first public road and the sea, land that is vulnerable to 5ft of sea level rise. Land that is designated as prime agricultural land, and areas that have been designated as sensitive coastal resource areas. Additionally, state density bonus is arguably the most appropriate housing law to implement on the coast.

A developer can only utilize the incentives of this law in areas previously determined by the local cities and local counties that it is fit for housing not just for single family, but it must be for multifamily housing, and this was a designation that the Coastal Commission had to certify themselves through their local coastal plans. In other words, outside of the exemptions. This Bill only applies to areas that. Have already been decided were fit for housing by local government. AB 2560 is only asking that we increase the density in these residential areas. I'd also like to point out that it is often lost in conversations and.

You might hear some comments from some that the lack of housing is more than a housing issue. It is also an equity and environmental matter. For the coastal economy to function. It requires that a significant amount of service workers to serve as a backbone of that economy. However, being unable to afford to live.

Near their jobs necessitates that these workers expend resources and emit further CO2 into the air to commute to work, compounding the climate crisis that we are trying to address and that the Coastal Commission is entrusted to protect. To this point, the aforementioned LAO report also found that 'workers in California's coastal communities commute 10%.

Further each day than commuters elsewhere, largely because of limited housing options.' Finally, I want to emphasize that we are talking about affordable housing in this Bill, that's the focus. To take advantage of the density bonus and concessions in this law, it requires that developers must deed restrict a percentage of units for very low.

Low or moderate income individuals. In other words, the developments that would be eligible under this Bill are multifamily mixed income projects, the types of projects we want to see in all of our neighborhoods. I also want to address something mentioned in the analysis that some of the opposition is saying. This Bill does not exempt density bonus.

Projects from the permitting process. Every project would still need to go get a coastal development permit and go through every other review process that they would today. AB 2560 simply says that a project that is on a parcel that is zoned for multifamily housing that is not located in the areas exempted in this Bill are eligible for the bonuses and concessions afforded in state Density Bonus Law, just like they are everywhere else in the state.

I'm open to clarifying this or other items as we move this forward, but by ensuring that we increase affordable housing on the coast by increasing density in areas determined fit for housing by local governments themselves and certified by the Coastal Commission, we can make real impact in housing crisis there. Thank you for your time. And now I'd like to introduce witnesses. Will Moore from Circulate San Diego will go first.

Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Will Moore. I'm Policy Counsel with Circulate San Diego, a nonprofit whose mission is to create excellent mobility choices in vibrant, healthy neighborhoods. AB 2560, the Bill before you, would make Density Bonus Law, which has proven successful in the rest of California to create deed restricted, restricted affordable housing.

Effective in the coastal zone. Density bonus grants, concessions, incentives and additional units to projects that create deed restricted affordable housing. It only applies in places that are already zoned multifamily for five or more units. Because of this, Density Bonus Law is the perfect tool to create more affordable housing in our coastal areas without negatively.

Impacting our sensitive environmental habitats. AB 2560, applying density bonus to the coastal zone, is a modest and narrowly tailored reform to address our coastal housing crisis. Further, as amended, it explicitly preserves appeal rights and buffers our sensitive coastal areas. The Coastal Commission has an important mandate to protect our coastal habitat and coastal access for all Californians.

It is also responsible for reviewing many types of housing proposals near the coast. Unfortunately, over the years, the Coastal Commission has delayed or denied numerous proposals to build affordable homes. Last week, Circulate released our latest report, of which I am the primary author. A better Coastal Commission how reforms can help the California Coastal Commission address affordability.

Residential segregation, and climate change. I delivered a hard copy of that report to all of your offices this morning. In that report, we review the important mission of the Coastal Commission and demonstrate that housing is less available, less affordable, and more exclusive in areas where the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction.

For example, roughly two thirds of coastal zone residents are white compared to just over one third of the rest of the state, and the coastal zone neighborhoods are substantially more expensive than similar neighborhoods just outside the coastal zone. The report identifies a number of examples where the Coastal Commission has delayed or.

Denied affordable housing or in the use of density bonus. Importantly, in each of these instances, the affordable housing was proposed on land already zoned for multifamily housing and that zoning itself had already been approved by the Coastal Commission. Most notably, none of the grounds for delay and objection in these examples are based on any reasons that an ordinary person would call environmental. This means that AB 2560 is necessary to make density bonus work in the fill state.

If you could start to wrap up, there is a two minute limit.

And it's limited and targeted, and it will truly make the coast accessible to all incomes. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Nevada Merriman. I'm Vice President of Policy and Advocacy for MidPen Housing. We are a nonprofit, owner, operator, service provider, and in the last 50 years we've developed over 125 communities in 10 state Senate districts. The Density Bonus Law is a critical tool for building affordable housing. Virtually all of the 4500 units in our pipeline and 10,000 units in our portfolio have used it. Without this tool, we would have roughly 3500 fewer homes. In two recent examples of developing in the coastal zone, one of them is Jessie Street project. It is a 50 unit, four story project in the City of Santa Cruz.

The city asked us to use new state streamlining tools, AB 1763 and AB 2162. And this project, although it qualified for ministerial permit processing of three months, was unable to access this because we also needed a coastal development permit. And it's a story of collaboration, both the city staff and the Coastal Commission staff showed great professionalism.

They did their best to try to make the findings and move it forward, but they simply each believed they lacked authority to make certain decisions and did not have a clear path through. So there's a lack of alignment top to bottom between these different agencies. Another project, Cypress Point, is in Moss Beach along the San Mateo County coastline. We've been tied up in legal cases there going on our 8th year of pre development. This is something a site that was identified in the housing element in the fourth cycle as far back as 1980, it was affirmed and reaffirmed through the.

Local coastal program as one of the very affordable housing sites in the mid coast. The existing plan unit development for this particular project was 148 homes, and the project as proposed today is 71. So maybe it's common sense, but 71 units is a lot less of an impact than 148. So by going through this process to go in and revise the local coastal program, it gave opportunities, additional opportunities to have legal challenges. Market rate developers also provide a range of affordability by utilizing the state Density Bonus Law. And this is important because the lack of housing at all levels exacerbates the need for affordable housing. And the scope of the problem is so big, it's not something that we alone can take on. Thank you.

Thank you. Other folks in support please come up to the mic and add your support.

Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nina Weiler-Harwell, AARP California in strong support.

Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition in support.

Divya Shiv, Housing California. Support.

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

Michael ..., co sponsor of the Bill and strong support.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action in support and on behalf of YIMBY Actions chapters and partners including East Bay YIMBY, Mountain View YIMBY, Northern Neighbors Peninsula for Everyone, San Francisco YIMBY, Santa Cruz YIMBY, Santa Rosa YIMBY, SLOCo YIMBY, Urban Environmentalists, Grow the Richmond, Ventura County YIMBY, Streets for People, Southside Forward, How to ADU, People for Housing Orange County, Progress Noe Valley, South Bay YIMBY, and Napa Solano for Everyone. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Moira Topp on behalf of just the City of San Diego in support.

Angie Minetti in support for California Apartment Association.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the Inner City Law Center, CivicWell and the California Building Industry Association. In support.

Good afternoon. Jared Moss, on behalf of the City of Long Beach and the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, support.

Neha Saju on behalf of Western Center on Law & Poverty in support.

Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Louis Mirante, on behalf of the Bay Area Council in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Cabajal, Legislative Advocate for California YIMBY in strong support. Thank you so much.

Hello. Tiffany Miller. San Francisco YIMBY in strong support.

Hello. Alyssa May, San Francisco YIMBY. Support.

All right, any others in support? Seeing none. Do we have lead opposition? All right, so let's see if we can just have them sit at the front table. You can sit at this front table. And you have five minutes between you, so not each.

We'll try not to use all of it. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, good afternoon. I'm Sean Drake, Legislative Manager for the California Coastal Commission. While the Commission certainly supports the goal of providing more dense housing in the coastal zone, it respectfully opposes AB 2560 because Coastal Act exemptions are not necessary to achieve that goal.

I want to clarify from the outset that Density Bonus Law already applies in the coastal zone. For decades, multifamily projects in the coastal zone have successfully incorporated the many incentives. Afforded by Density Bonus Law while also avoiding unnecessary impacts to sensitive habitats, public coastal access, or climate adaptation efforts. This has occurred under current law, which.

Requires that Density Bonus Law in the Coastal Act be Harmonized so that the. Objectives of both laws are met. This Bill would instead establish that Density Bonus Law supersedes the Coastal Act and invalidates local governments local coastal programs. Contrary to what you've heard, this is a Coastal Act exemption because it allows.

Developers to ignore any local coastal policy of their choosing, including erosion setbacks, sensitive habitat buffers, or public coastal access ways. This exemption also punishes local governments that have proactively updated their local coastal programs to include density bonus harmonization provisions. Cities like Santa Cruz, which met its housing production requirements across all levels of.

Affordability last cycle. Partly as a result of all the density bonus projects permitted in the city. These cities are proof that dense infill housing and coastal resource protection are not mutually exclusive. Members, there is a demonstrated better way to do this. We continue to suggest that the author amend the Bill to require coastal local.

Governments who haven't done so already to update their local coastal programs to include. Density bonus harmonization provisions. This would provide greater clarity for developers. Without a needless and damaging Coastal Act exemption. We urge you to invest in this approach and before I close, I just want to note since the circulate San.

Diego report was mentioned, the Commission has reviewed that document since it came out several days ago. I would observe that the document relies entirely on five projects and omits critical facts in its description of those projects. In an attempt to make a point fitting the legislative agenda presented to you. Noteworthy, too, is that four of those projects were approved, with the most recent one still pending. None were denied. The Commission has already provided a written rebuttal with additional detail, and we'd be happy to provide that to this Committee as follow up. We respectfully request a no vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honorable Committee Members. My name is Tomas Valadez. I am the California Policy Associate with Azul. Azul is a Latinx led and serving grassroots environmental justice organization with a focus specifically in working with Latinx communities to protect the ocean and coast. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the groups that submitted an opposed unless amended letter on June 4. We respectfully oppose the Bill unless amended to remove the exemption of the vast majority of density bonus projects, the coastal zone, from Coastal Commission oversight.

While we recognize the need for new solutions to the state's urgent housing crisis and wholeheartedly agree with the goal of building affordable housing in the coastal zone, we fundamentally disagree that the barrier to this goal is the Coastal Act. In fact, the Coastal Act is the only statute protecting the public's right to access the coast, and this Bill does. Nothing to prevent density bonus projects from impacting or blocking public coastal access. And while it is true that housing is an aspect of providing equitable public access. In practice, Density Bonus Law provides only.

A token amount of affordable housing to justify projects that contribute to gentrification of coastal communities. We recommend a more refined approach that seeks to build on experiences of local jurisdictions that have already updated and amended their LCPs to include policies that harmonize Density Bonus Law and the Coastal Act.

Such an approach could mirror amendments made earlier this legislative session to SB 951. That required that LCPs be updated to be consistent with housing element updates. Our groups hope that the Committee will consider an alternative approach before approving an unprecedented exemption to the Coastal Act. Thank you.

All right, others in opposition, you can just come to the mic with your 'Me Toos'.

With environment California and Surf Rider, with all due respect, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Austin Gent with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. We oppose AB 2560 unless amended.

That's all you say. It's - you're just a 'Me Too'. You conveyed.

Okay, I have a group.

You can't. Oh, if you can list your other group, go ahead.

Planning and Conservation League, The Climate Center, California Coast Keeper Alliance, Our City SF, Orange County Coast Keeper, River Otter Ecology Project, Watershed Alliance of Marin, Puvunga Wetlands Protectors, Forest Unlimited, Resource Renewal Institute, Environmental California, North Coast Rivers Alliance, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Canyon Back Alliance, Coastal Lands Action Network, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Defend Biona Wetlands, California River Watch, Environmental Center of San Diego, Cleanearth4kids.org, California.

Native Plant Society, California Coastal Protection Network, Humboldt Waterkeeper, Green Foothills, Gaviota Coast Conservancy, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Center, Chiatri de Laguna Farm, Los Cerritos Wetlands Trust, California Cultural Resources Protection Alliance Incorporated, Smith River Alliance, Save Sonoma Coast, Idle

No More SoCal Venice, California Environmental Voters, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, Protect Biona Wetlands, West Sonoma County Alliance, Surf Rider, Public Trust Alliance, Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, Biona Wetlands Institute.

I think you've repeated some, so.

No.

Well, actually, I heard Biona.

There's a lot of different Biona. Yeah. CoastWalk and Natural Resources Defense Center. Thank you.

Okay.

I just got one for you. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters respectfully opposed unless amended for the reasons stated. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the Cities of Elk Grove, Fairfield, Norwalk, Palm Desert, Santa Clarita and Thousand Oaks, in respectful opposition.

Hello. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California, in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the Cities of Carlsbad and Rancho Palos Verdes, respectful opposition.

Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of Solana Beach, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Natalie Brown, on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League, California Native Plants Society and Defenders of Wildlife, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

And Kristie Foy, on behalf of the City of Redondo Beach, in opposition. Thank you.

All right. Anyone else in opposition? All right, let's see if the dais has any comments. Yes, go ahead. Senator Blakespear, go ahead. No, that's all right.

Yes, thank you. I just wanted to comment on the importance of this Bill coming from the perspective of being the mayor of a coastal city. Where the City of Encinitas - where nearly every affordable unit is because of a density bonus project. And the reason for that is that it's a high land value community where if a developer is allowed to add more market rate units, then they have to deed restrict and provide affordability for the other units. And so recognizing the really important role of density bonus in creating affordability in high land cost communities and recognizing the.

Importance of that, and then explicitly not carving out where large percentages of people actually live, which is the coastal zone, I think is a really important policy goal. So the Coastal Act, still, all of us in this room and on this Committee, I'm sure, value the coast, want our public to be able to access the coast, do not want this to become a Miami like situation where we have high rises and private beaches and things that we would never tolerate in California and haven't for decades because of the important protections of the Coastal Act. But it's unquestionably true that projects that.

Provide affordable housing and also just access to high opportunity communities are limited when we don't, when we don't apply the housing laws that we have in the rest of the state to the coastal zone. So I'll be supporting this Bill today. I think it's really important that we continue to balance these issues. But the way I read this Bill, it doesn't actually get out of balance. So this is a way for us to provide more opportunities for housing in. The coastal zone while also continuing to protect our sensitive coastal resources. Thank you, Chair.

You're welcome, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much. So, coming from an inland community, one of our frustrations is that if the coastal areas don't do their share of building of the density and the things that they're needed, and this Bill wouldn't be here if it was, if this issue were being handled correctly, then the effort goes to making more in those areas where there are no jobs, and then everybody's commuting just like they had said.

So I think what this Bill is, is a lesson in if we're not going to have solution minded approaches to dealing with this particular issue, then legislation appears to make it happen, and that's what's happening. I have heard no one tell me how easy it was in any process that had to deal with the Coastal Commission. It was another layer of government that they had to get through, and a lot of times they couldn't even get through it. And therefore, the build the housing that was supposed to go in that they were trying to get in, winds up not happening at all. And it wasn't housing that would limit.

Beach access or anything like that. It was housing that made sense. It was housing that was sitting on vacant land, apparently in an area where it could very well have fit in fine, but they can't get through that process. So I would say that that's something that I think the agency has to look at and understand that they have a role in why some of this legislation is coming through now. It's because we have to have more housing, and we have to have housing where people work and live or want to live. And right now, there's an extreme imbalance of that. So I'll be supporting this Bill today when the time comes, but right now I have to go present a Bill. Bye.

Senator Menjivar, did you want to comment? No. Okay. Assemblymember, we can't take motions yet because we haven't established quorum. Oh, but we just lost our other person. Yes. Oh, he didn't leave yet. Okay, so let's see if we can establish quorum now. Do we? 1, 2, 3, 4. We good. All right, so let's do a roll call to establish quorum.

[Roll Call].

All right, so we have quorum. That's a good thing. Means we can take some motions. All right, so I appreciate this Bill. And I appreciate the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission. Being a native Californian and my first ... of time of my life there was no Coastal Act. I watched with horror as developers would in effect, strip all of us from public access to the coast due to their developments. And especially - and all of them were very high end, exclusive developments. And so here's a resource that all Californians should benefit from.

And if we compare to Hawaii, many of the islands in Hawaii that did not have adequate coastal protections for years and where, you know, it's been very tragic. However, our coastal protections, as the analysis points out, as your Bill points out need to protect the sensitive land, need to protect a variety of the coastal resources, but they weren't designed to eliminate housing. Now, I know the Coastal Commission feels that the consequences of the act and the different changes have not eliminated housing. And yes, there has been housing development. So certainly we know that since the act's been. So I'm not going to, I don't.

Want to get into that debate, but we do know from, and I want to take, for example, our testimony from MidPen Housing that is not just anecdotal. We have multiple circumstances where affordable housing developers have indicated that they have, they don't even attempt to do a project within the coastal zone because of the length of time that it's going to take before they can work out all the, you know, proceed. And as we know, time is money in housing. We also know that we have a greater shortage of housing in coastal areas. We have a shortage everywhere in California, but a greater shortage there.

And it was pointed out by some of the folks in testifying, if we go to some of our more popular coastal areas like Mendocino area or Monterey and such. Where the economy is largely service or tourist based. They can't find workers because workers have nowhere to live. So we do have to reach a balance. Now, I know, I do appreciate that the Coastal Act feels that they have. That with the local coastal plans and other provisions that that is the case.

But when I look at this Bill and I look at the, I guess I, I know it doesn't go far enough from the point of view of the Coastal Commission, but I look at the Bill and it respects the Coastal Act in terms of the protection of the sensitive areas, the nothing on the - I don't want to use the wrong words, but Assemblymember Alvarez help me here. On the public road from the coast side. Go ahead.

Radius of wetland, within 100 foot radius of wetlands between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300ft of the inland in a sensitive coastal resource area and it also.

And it also it has to reflect already the localities, LCP.

Correct. Which was approved by the Coastal Commission.

Already been approved by the Coastal Commission. Right. So I know this bill has to go to another committee and that committee. So back to this is the Housing Committee. So our role is to address housing and the housing shortages. And the next committee's role, of course, is to, is the watchdog on all of our environmental protections. So I'm confident that if there's something about the environmental protections that I'm missing, that that next committee will catch those.

But I think when I think about our responsibility and our jurisdiction as the Housing Committee and when we know the type of shortage of housing that we have and it's a supply problem and that we know additionally of that supply problem, the biggest shortage is affordable housing and that the density bonus law is we don't have that many tools to provide affordable housing because it needs subsidy.

And the density bonus tool is the ability for the housing developer, in effect, to subsidize the affordable housing. So when I look at it in all of those constructs, it is why I have a aye recommendation on the bill. And again, there may be some aspects of the environmental protection that I have missed. I am not going to sit here and say that because our analysis is focused primarily on the housing side, though we do address, we raise, you know, some of the questions of opposition and such, and the next committee will deal with those other concerns.

But I wanted to make it clear why have an aye support on the bill and why I think there needs to be. I suppose when I look at the number of units of housing that are affordable in any area that is considered coastal zone under the Coastal Act, it is, we know, very few. So what we need to do things that would enable more housing that is affordable within that zone.

And if the Coastal Commission, clearly it's an opposition of this one, but if it's an opposition of this, then beyond just an amendment like tell all the local governments that don't have LCPs yet to do LCP, I would like to see more proactive action by the Coastal Commission because if what we are doing now is adequate, we would have more affordable housing within the coastal zone. So let me just state that. And Assemblymember Alvarez, you can close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you've summarized the situation correctly. Opposition says that this is an unprecedented law. It is because the problem is unprecedented. The crisis is reached all of California. And I appreciate your committee's analysis and your reflection, that from a housing perspective, all of California should participate in solving the housing problem, the housing crisis problem. And that's why we have this bill before you today. We will discuss the aspects of the environmental issues.

But one takeaway, I hope, from this hearing people take, there was mention that we're going to block the access to the coast as a result of this bill. If the Coast Commission was so concerned about that, they should have not approved the local coastal plans that city submitted to them, saying, we think that housing should be built here. Why did they approve them? Because, in fact, those plans do not block from coastal access.

You would think, walking away from some of the opposition, that we're going to allow construction of housing on roads or pathways that lead to the coast, that is absolutely untrue. Housing can only be built where local governments, cities, and counties have determined that housing should be built. And by the way, it has to be multi-family housing.

We're not even touching single-family housing, which we know that is inaccessible to the majority of Californians in the coast and that they thought it was okay to build housing. And the Coastal Commission said we think it's okay to build housing there as well. This bill allows that housing to actually get built, to not get stymied, to not get delayed, and sometimes, unfortunately, to not stop projects from going forward, which all, once again require affordable housing on-site. So with that, I appreciate your recommendation and request your aye vote.

Great. All right. Do we have a motion on the bill? Who said they would? Okay, Senator Menjivar has made the motion. We'll do a roll call.

[Roll Call]

Now, Assemblymember Alvarez, you have another bill, and that is item. Back to my agenda. Item number four, AB 1886.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 1886 is a bill that would clarify that HCD determines whether the local jurisdiction's housing element is in compliance with the housing elements law, and that if a project is submitted during this period of noncompliance, it is eligible for the builder's remedy regardless of whether the city reaches compliance before it is approved.

Until recently, the builder's remedy was largely unused, and many of us were probably unaware of it. However, it's been a law for decades. In the last couple of years, we have seen substantial increase in builder's remedy project applications. Despite the uptick in proposed projects due to the lack of clarity, many cities have used the argument that self-certifying their housing element is sufficient for compliance purposes.

This has led to a multitude of applications not being processed or outright denied and various court cases that have slowed down housing development in areas that need the housing, which is all of California. At its core, AB 1886 is a good governance bill that doesn't establish a new tool, but it clarifies the existing law that the Legislature established decades ago by codifying the shared understanding that the attorney general, HCD, and recent court decisions.

As the analysis is laid out for you today, the HCD in fact determines compliance of housing elements, and AB 1886 provides certainty to clear up this ambiguity. Appreciate the opportunity to share this bill with you, and I'll turn it over to Michael Lane from the Bay Area think tank, SPUR to be our witness.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Michael Lane with SPUR, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Legislature takes local housing elements very seriously. In fact, it's the only element of the general plan that must be certified by the state. This is because the housing element ensures that there are adequate sites to accommodate the housing needs of our population.

As noted in the committee analysis and in alignment with both HCD guidance memos and court cases, AB 1886 affirms that only HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction certifies the housing element to be in substantial compliance with state law. This is a good government measure to provide clarity for both developers and jurisdictions, and we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Have others in support just come to the mic. Add your me-too.

[Unintelligable]. In the interest of brevity, I won't list the nearly two dozen members or chapters who are also in support of this bill. Thank you.

Bob Naylor. One client, Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Ahmansons Junior at Orange County, philanthropist, in support.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal from California YIMBY, in strong support. Thank you so much.

Those of you leaving the mic could walk that away. You'd stop the blockage, but that's okay.

Good idea. Alyssa May, San Francisco YIMBY, in support.

Tiffany Miller, SF YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Moira Topp on behalf of Orange County Business Council, in support.

Divya Shiv with Housing California, in support.

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

Holly De Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of CivicWell and the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Graciela Castillo-Krings on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Angie Manetti on behalf of the California Apartment Association, in support.

Jared Moss on behalf of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, support.

Scott Wetch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, in support.

All right, any others in support? Okay, let's see if we have any opposition position for this bill. You can come up to the front if you like.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition to the bill. As we've talked about throughout the process, one of the main concerns with this measure is that it gives HCG the power to be the determinant of if a housing element is in compliance or not in compliance.

Now, the concerns that we've heard from several of our cities taking years to get their housing element approved despite their best efforts, has been that they have received unclear guidance on the findings in these efforts to achieve a compliant housing element.

Now, the question that what this bill would do is, despite cities' best efforts throughout the process and pass their statutory deadline to meet that requirement for housing element, this bill would allow the builder's remedy to kick in, even if they are acting in good faith to achieve the housing element process, their certification.

Now, the main concern that I think needs to be addressed is instead of looking at ways to further clarify and look at the builder's remedy, what we need to look at in the state is to figure out how we can improve the process so we can get more cities into compliance to make sure that cities can avoid builder's remedy in the front hold.

And we think that there's an approach forward moving that way. And we have offered amendments addressing that to the author's office, and they have informed us they're not looking at that this year. But we are hoping that that is a conversation in the future, especially with all the bills that we are seeing related to housing element this year. So look forward to those continued conversations, appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's office and the committee, and look forward to that. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Those who are in opposition, come to the mic and give your me-too.

Mark Neuburger on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in opposition.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in opposition. Thank you.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the City of Encinitas, in opposition.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Corona, Eastvale and Rancho Palos Verdes, in respectful opposition. And on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in respectful opposed unless amended.

All right. Members, any comments? Go ahead, Senator Blakespear.

As the committee staff report points out, the builder's remedy has shifted the power balance. But to my knowledge, there are no builder's remedy projects that have actually been built yet. And I'm just wondering if you have any different experience with that, because it seems like so far as a threat that is widely feared, but it is actually not creating any housing yet.

It has not. What we have some evidence of is submission of some of these projects, which are much larger in scale and oftentimes don't fit with locally approved planning documents. And then there, subsequent to that, perhaps negotiations to actually build different types of projects, but none, no projects that we know of that were the original builder's remedy application project that have been built. I don't know if we have any other.

Yeah, through the chair, I would just say that they're also still subject to CEQA, and so there's still additional environmental review that can also bog down those types of projects. So we have seen some applications come forward. I would say that the purpose of this plan bill, beyond the builder's remedy, just to clarify that HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction is the one who certifies the housing element.

And that's really what particularly I'm focused on in the La Canada Flintridge case that the AG actually intervened on to try to actually just to codify that. And so we're all clear and try to avoid future litigation on this particular point.

Yes, no, I do understand that's the point of the bill, and I do support it. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what the landscape was in case there were projects that actually had gone forward. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. Any other comments from my colleagues? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the biggest obstacle that I have seen are actually the points that were made by the opposition from my current district. Many of the cities have stated that much of the problem, especially one that I have, that is housing approved, they're building wonderful. But one of the biggest obstacles that they're having is just getting things through the Department of Housing and getting their projects, or not their projects, but their elements approved.

And so I think that's the angle where I would like to see moving forward, where I would like to see legislation actually clarifying or asking the governor to have the department have more clear standards as to how they navigate. And just the standard process of review, I think, is what we actually need, if I'm not mistaken, rather than going from this angle.

So today, I won't be supporting your bill today, but I would like to see something on that front to ensure that we do have a standard procedure for review because the goalposts have been changing quite a bit for depending on who's doing the review. And so the cities. I have a city who is literally, has gone through so many different reviewers, I guess you could say, and they're not able to get further along because each one is so subjective as to what they need to do or not do.

So I think in the future, I would like to see more of a standard process to be implemented rather than going from this route. So today, I'm not going to be supporting your bill, but look forward to seeing what you can do next year with regards to developing a standard process of review.

Yeah. And if I may, Madam Chair, in reply, when we have opposition that is working on trying to accomplish goals that are realistic and achievable, that's certainly my approach always in this case, this was a question that came up in our house as well.

A lot of us come from local government, so we've had experiences with housing element. So what I asked was HCD to provide us with what the process is. Unfortunately, they're not here to talk about how that process works, so it's been hard to really get their perspective. But what I do have is the timeline and how the process works back and forth. You are pointing out a new song, a unique aspect, which has not been raised, which I think is important and we should probably address. And that's what we've said to the opposition.

This bill is not about addressing that, so let's work on that. This bill is about codifying existing law, but you bring up a unique position, a unique point, which is the ambiguity, perhaps, from reviewer to reviewer. So appreciate that feedback. I think it's something we're interested in helping address.

And again, in a different legislative vehicle, we should have a conversation about how we're ensuring that the state is supporting our local governments to make sure that they are going through this process in a way that they can reach finality, which is to have an adopted housing element, as opposed to this ambiguity that exists. That's something we should hope to just avoid entirely. In the state. So thank you.

Okay. Certainly I entertain a motion on this. Okay. Senator Blakespear has moved, and I just want, in my reading of the bill and also the analysis, I do not see this per se as eliminating the ability of a city to self-certify because they never really had that right legally. The city never had the right to self certify. The city had the ability to say, we have written our housing element and we've submitted it.

And I can certainly see why many cities may have feel they had the right because there were years, I mean, the Housing Accountability Act has been in statute for many, many years, but there were years where the state itself did not enforce the HAA and did not take the steps to really review housing elements and make sure that they were in compliance and then give their stamp of approval.

So I can certainly see why the localities may think that this is somehow changing the rules, when in fact, I see this bill as just affirming that which is really in statute. So I wanted to be clear about that. And of course, I have an aye vote on the bill and we can do a roll call. Or did you close? Did I give you the opportunity?

No, that's okay. That's exactly the intent. Appreciate you restating that. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll keep it on call. Thank you. And now we'll go to Assemblymember Wicks. She has. Oh, you have a few for us. We'll start, which I'm okay with you starting out of order, but if you're going in the order, just let me know.

Can I do 1893 first?

Yes, you can. That is the order.

So we also start with. Look at me starting with file item seven, which is AB 1893. We'll follow that with item eight, AB 2243. And follow that with item nine, AB 2580. Go ahead with 1993. Perfect.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And my Senator, whom I adore, all of you as well, but particularly my Senator. I'm here to present 1893, able to modernize the builder's remedy, which we just spoke about. And you asked some excellent questions, so I'm eager to dive into those as well.

First, I'd like to thank the staff for their work on this Bill, and I'm accepting all of the Committee amendments today. Let me start off by describing what the builder's remedy is, and then I can share why it needs modernizing.

And then I'll finish with a description of how we are planning on modernizing, that the builder's remedy is part of a housing element law that says if a city or county does not have a compliant housing element, the city or county cannot deny a housing project just because it does not comply with the local general plan or zoning.

That's a lot of nots. So let me say this more succinctly, in a jurisdiction without a complying housing element, the builder's remedy allows a developer to propose a project that can be of any size, anywhere in the jurisdiction. The goal is to compel cities and counties to complete their housing element. That is the goal of builder's remedy.

Why is this goal? Well, because we have a massive housing crisis, and the only way we're climbing out of it is if every city, every community does their part and builds the housing that we need by adopting and implementing the housing element is how exactly we do that.

Unfortunately, one in three jurisdictions are out of compliance with housing element law. Those jurisdictions are essentially saying that solving the housing crisis is not their problem, it's their neighbors or someone else.

Theoretically, this wouldn't be a problem because in a non-compliant city or county, we'd be seeing lots of builders remedy projects that result in lots of housing, so that ignoring state law does not mean an end to housing production. Unfortunately, as noted in the last Bill that was presented, the builder's remedy has not functioned that way.

Yes, there are now at least 100 builders remedies projects proposed in the state, and we have appreciated the efforts of those developers to get housing built in those recalcitrant districts jurisdictions.

But we've observed that those projects have a hard time getting to the finish line because the law includes enough ambiguity that make the projects difficult to process and easy to delay. So to date, as far as I know, no builders remedy projects have been actually built.

The riskiness is also to turn off a lot of developers that would otherwise like to build in these cities. The law also includes an affordability requirement of 20%, which sounds lofty but actually makes most housing projects economically infeasible.

The result is that the current builder's remedy isn't enough of a credible threat to get nearly 100 in jurisdictions into compliance with the state law, which is why we need to modernize the law.

Working with our sponsors, Attorney General Rob Bonta we have crafted a Bill that removes any ambiguity about where the builder's remedies, where builder's remedy would apply, how much density would be allowed, and what objective standards would apply. It also enhances feasibility by reducing the affordability requirement to something that does not render projects infeasible.

The aim is to create a self enforcing mechanism that facilitates a sustainable amount of housing in those cities that have not complied with housing element law. Now, this Bill is not without controversy, I recognize, and I want to proactively speak to some of those concerns that we have heard.

One concern raised by some of our YIMBY allies and YIMBY family, of which I consider myself, is that this Bill would not function as well as the existing builder's remedy. And I would respectfully flag that. We have not seen builders remedy projects developed.

We've seen a lot of lawsuits, but that has not resulted in a lot of actually units being built, which means roofs over people's heads, roofs over families heads.

Another concern is that some of our friends in the equity community who have raised concerns about reducing the affordability levels in the Bill, our response to them is that while we know that having a high affordability requirement feels good, the goal is to actually get housing built.

And if you have too high of an inclusionary zone, it makes it difficult for the projects to pencil. While some projects are able to make the 20% affordable, most aren't even in very strong economies. And San Francisco recently reduced their inclusionary from 20% down to 12.

And that is a market that will pay a lot of money for housing. A more realistic affordability requirement means more builders remedy projects are feasible, which means more cities will complete complete their housing element.

And speaking of the cities, we appreciate the league of Cities is not trying to defend cities that do not comply with the state law. In fact, their main concern to date has been that housing element process can make it too hard for good actors for cities to get approved.

I agree with that position, and I think this is what you are raising, and I'm happy to work with them on that issue. But that's not the purpose of this specific Bill, and it in fact may warrant another Bill in the future, which I'd be happy to work on.

Another issue they have raised is that recently amended versions of the Bill include language that prohibit a city from effectively denying a project, which is basically what happens when they sit on a project for too long or put it through so many processes that they're getting to know without actually having a no vote.

We have a whole Select Committee. We had a four hour hearing on this this morning discussing the various permitting reform needs that we need to tackle.

That being said, we agree that we didn't land the language in the current version of this Bill, and it could be seen as creating more uncertainty at a time when we are focused on decreasing facing uncertainty. As such, I'm committed to working with a league and other stakeholders to make sure that we get this right.

In conclusion, I reiterate what I said before. We need to address the housing crisis. I think that's why all of you on this Committee to do so. That requires 100% of our cities and counties do their part by having a compliant housing element.

But if you refuse to comply with state law, there should be a consequence, and I can think of no better consequence than housing in that community. Our goal here is that housing is that builder's remedy never gets used. It'll never get used because cities will actually comply with housing element.

But if it does, we want to have a clean legal rationale for how builder's remedy is used. Speaking on behalf of the Bill are Janet Sanford, representing the Department of Justice, and Francis Marti, Senior Director of Strategy and Government Affairs at California YIMBY.

We're also joined by Alex Fish, special assistant Attorney General, who can help answer any technical questions.

We have five minutes total for the witnesses in support. You can share it, so proceed however you choose.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jana Staniford. I'm a legislative advocate with the office of the Attorney General on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, I want to start by thanking Assembly Member Wicks for authoring this very important Bill and for her leadership. The Attorney General is proud to sponsor.

The builder's remedy has been on the book since 1990. It was intended to serve as a compliance tool to encourage local governments to adopt their housing elements and to provide a path for housing development, even when local governments fail to do so.

Unfortunately, the lack of clarity in the existing builder's remedy statute has led to local disputes and litigation, which is delaying housing projects. AB 1893 would clarify the builder's remedy and bring it into the 21st century. A lot has happened since 1990.

This Bill would align the builder's remedy with a plethora of other state laws that have been passed since the builders remedy went on the books 30 plus years ago.

Like AB 2011, SB 35 and 423, and recent revisions to the Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law, the Bill also aligns the builders remedy with other state priorities that have emerged since the builders remedy was adopted.

Like sustainable community strategies promoting housing development in urban infill and near transit centers, and environmental justice considerations like keeping residential housing away from heavy industrial use, we want cities to plan for the future, but if they won't, the builder's remedy should promote housing development in places where it makes sense by modern day standards.

AB 1893 would also recognize that housing affordability has spiraled out of control. Hardworking Californians at all income levels are struggling to find and afford housing. We need more affordable and mixed income housing to be built, and we also need many more smaller projects to be built.

Like townhomes, which tend to have lower price points than single family homes. AB 1893 would make the billage remedy work better, provide clarity for developers, city planners, and courts, and unlock additional opportunities to build housing to meet the needs of hardworking Californians. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair Skinner and distinguished Members of the Senate Housing Committee. My name is Francesca Martin and I represent California YIMBY, an organization dedicated to ensuring abundant, secure, and affordable housing for all Californians. I am here to express our strong support for AB 1893, authored by Assembly Member Wicks, which aims to modernize and strengthen the builder's remedy.

The builder's remedy is a critical tool for addressing California's severe housing shortage and affordability crisis when cities fail to adopt compliant housing elements. However, as was described earlier, ambiguities in the current law have hindered its effectiveness, resulting in confusion, delays, and litigation instead of that much needed housing production.

AP 1893 addresses these issues by providing clear, objective standards for the builder's remedy. The Bill defines the criteria for qualifying projects, establishes allowable densities and locations, and ensures that local standards do not preclude economically feasible development. By modernizing the builder's remedy, AB 1893 will provide certainty for developers, local governments, and courts.

It will encourage more housing projects, especially by smaller builders, while giving cities clear legal obligations in the approval process, AB 1893 makes the critical reforms that are necessary to enable the builder's remedy to fulfill its original purpose, which was to incentivize localities to comply with state housing laws while also creating a clear, actionable pathways for developments when cities fail to meet their obligations.

We believe that AB 1893 will unlock the potential of the builder's remedy, leading to a significant increase in housing production. That's why, on behalf of California YIMBY, I urge you to vote aye on AB 1893. Let's work together to create a California that welcomes everybody where every person has the chance to live in a thriving community.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others who want to be the me toos, come to the mic.

Good afternoon. Nina Weiler-Harwell, AARP, California, in support.

Great. And if you want to exit, thank you.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead in support.

Corey Smith, with the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with the Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Build Casa, Spur, and Habitat for Humanity California, in support.

Hello. Graciela Castillo-Krings, on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Hi, Angie Manetti, on behalf of the California Apartment Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Sosan Madanat here on behalf of California Community Builders, in support.

Nothing for opposition. So lead opposition, you can come to the table. And you have five minutes between you also.

Okay, I'll go first. Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Michelle Pariset with Public Advocates and here on behalf of the 26 policy, housing, legal, and community groups we joined in comments on our letter dated June 12. I want to thank the author and her staff for engaging with us, and I hope we can continue that engagement.

While we share the author's interests in ensuring that local jurisdictions adopt compliant housing elements, we must respectfully oppose AB 1893 unless submitted to address a number of concerns. First, the longstanding 20% affordability contribution for builders remedy projects should be restored.

These projects are entitled to significant benefits that add value that far outstrips that available under state and local tools designed to encourage the inclusion of affordable units in all housing projects. That value should be used to deliver desperately needed units for lower income families.

While the builder's remedy has served as an effective tool to ensure approval of numerous 100% affordable housing projects and emergency shelters over the years, as it was intended to do, it has recently started to be used by market rate developers proposing projects in noncompliant jurisdictions.

In the last several years, at a time when housing development is naturally slowing due to unfavorable economic conditions, the state has seen well over 20,000 units of housing, 24% of them affordable, proposed and mixed income projects using the builder's remedy. This significant rise in use should signal that the affordability contribution is not a barrier to its use.

During the fifth housing element cycle, HCD projected that the state needed to produce 486,000 units of above moderate income or market rate housing. In the end, cities and counties issued building permits for over 727,000 units of market rate housing. In other words, the state met 150% of its RHNA goal for market rate housing.

In contrast, it met just 34% of the goal for low income housing and 22% of the goal for very low income housing. The goal of state housing element law is to ensure that cities and counties are producing housing for people at all income levels and meeting community needs.

These numbers clearly illustrate which needs are being met and which are not. This is not the time to weaken a tool that is helping to address the significant imbalance in housing production for the state's most vulnerable residents.

Similarly, AB 1893 includes language that weakens local inclusionary housing requirements, allows developers to build at lower densities than a jurisdiction has zoned for at a time when we should be doing everything we can to encourage dense development as one strategy to address climate change, and it allows already proposed projects to reduce their affordability contribution.

These changes reduce the potential for the builder's remedy to deliver housing overall and particularly affordable housing. This is the wrong direction. Our organization, along with the dozens that signed our letter, are hard at work throughout California to make sure all cities and counties take seriously their obligation to adopt a housing element that complies with state law and fulfills their legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing while supporting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Weakening the affordability standard, undermining local inclusionary requirements and allowing reduced density run counter to these objectives. Thank you, and we hope you'll consider our amendments.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Rafa Sonnenfeld, policy director for YIMBY Law and YIMBY Action. YIMBY Law and YIMBY Action organize over 24,000 grassroots volunteers to support housing projects across California. Together, both organizations have weighed in on 266 housing projects in 2023 and 2024 alone. YIMBY law also sues cities when they fail to approve housing.

We filed 19 lawsuits in California since 2019. YIMBY Law has a database of billers remedy projects, which, as far as we know, is the most comprehensive in the state and contains over 160 projects in some stage of the entitlement process.

Together, YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law are opposed to AB 1893 unless amended because it will result in significantly fewer homes compared to the current builder's remedy and will not reduce uncertainty about the program. Bill advocates argue the tradeoff will result in more housing across because the projects will be harder for cities to disapprove.

However, we have found that major barriers to development using the builder's remedy are questions such as whether a city has a compliant housing element, which are addressed by reforms such as AB 1886, which we heard earlier today, or whether or not an application is complete.

In a stated attempt at reducing uncertainty, AB 1893 allows developers to apply zoning from the closest neighborhood that permits the density proposed in the development. Unfortunately, this drag and drop zoning will increase uncertainty that projects will be approved because it will cause more conflict and disagreement over whether or not developers have complete applications.

The proposed program also limits the overall size of builders remedy projects and requires a lower percentage of price controlled homes. This means fewer homes overall and fewer subsidized affordable homes. We've proposed a number of amendments to AB 1893 that would avoid increased uncertainty and not place limits on the potential size of builder's remedy projects.

We urge this Committee to vote no on AB 1893 unless admitted to ensure the 160 builders remedy projects already in the pipeline can go through, even if they haven't yet submitted a formal application, and that future builder's remedy projects can move forward without unnecessary uncertainty and delay. In California's severe housing shortage, we can't afford to add more barriers to building homes. Thank you very much.

Great. Those of you who want to add on, you can come up to the mic.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Brady Garrett on behalf of the League of California Cities, respectful opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Brian Augusta, on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, the Public Interest Law Project, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the California Coalition for Rural Housing. Opposed unless I'd associate ourselves with the comments of the two justifiers.

Neha Saju, on behalf of Western Center Law and Poverty, in respectful opposition.

Chris Lee, on behalf of the County of Santa Clara. Don't have a formal position, but have requested amendments to address the county's concerns. Thanks.

Jennifer Godado, of Communities for a Better Environment, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Senator. Hope to be in the other line. Barrier Council doesn't have a position on the bill, but we want to thank the author for working with us on our amendments, and we, we hope to be there in just a few moments. So thank you.

All right. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. So I was listening closely to the opposition comments, and to me, this seems like one of those situations where there are many possible changes that may or may not be better on balance. But the reality of 160 projects, and none of them having made it across the finish line, to me, indicates a real problem.

So I think that the data that I've seen shows that 20% affordability and inclusionary ordinances almost never supportable, the market rate units can't support that, that level, despite the fact that we would love to have 50% or 80% affordability so that we could really end up with more affordable units.

I think, you know, from my perspective, we need to have more deed restricted affordable housing. We need actually true public housing so that people who are low income are able to live inside instead of living outside on the streets. So it's the, my personal focus on that leads me to want to have as much affordability as possible.

But my understanding of this bill is that it's 13%, which seems like about an amount that could be supported by the market rate units, and then some other sliding areas for different categories of lower or very low, extremely low income. So. And the author could clarify that if he wanted to.

But to me, it seems like we do need to make some tweaks here, and the author's bill seems like it's likely to improve things. And so I'm happy that you're working in this space, especially with folks who are usually friends, and I'm sure will be after this, because, you know, focusing on the overall goal of providing more housing and making sure that, that we're all working toward that. Of course, there will be differences of opinion, but ultimately, I am supporting this bill because I think it will make a difference.

If you want to clarify, you can.

Appreciate the comments. Yes, Madam Chair. So, yeah, it's 13% low income, 10% very low income, 7% extremely low income. As I mentioned, San Francisco just recently reduced their inclusionary because you're trying to find the balance of how much can you require? Because we need that housing.

But it also has to pencil out the tricky issue. Right. And we did a lot of analysis with UC Berkeley's Turner Center to try to figure out the right number to land on. So that's why we landed on those numbers. And we really trying to make this data driven in terms of what can actually pencil out. So that builders remedy is actually truly a useful tool as opposed to something that just gets litigated.

Okay, let me see if any other comments. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I get that. I'm coming from real estate and I'm thinking I get what you're trying to get to address, and I actually appreciate the fact that you're working with Berkeley. Were there any conversations on there with addressing the actual reason why housing is so expensive to build in California?

Has there been any conversations on how to address that particular issue? Because when it comes down to it, these are all band-aids. Right. Because we're still not addressing why, why it's so expensive to build. I mean, I know why. I have an idea. But we're database and in Sacramento when it comes to legislatively.

So the conversations that I don't see happening here is why don't we address the issues that are actually the underlying factors, why we can't build and why builders can't find that ability to pencil out the projects in the state of California.

That's a big question, and I think has a lot of components to it. I could spend all day talking about it, but I think there's a number of things. And you could talk about interest rates, you could talk about supply chain issues. You could talk about the fact that we've made it very difficult to get to.

Yes, to housing. There's all these different impediments that are essentially designed so that we don't build housing. We made it very difficult to build multifamily housing in California. There's so many different components to that question.

This isn't going to solve every problem, but what our goal here is to try to create a real mechanism to ensure that cities are actually complying, that they are adhering to their housing element law.

And you raised an important question, I think, in the, in the previous bill around ensuring that HCD is doing their part in this, and I am happy to work with you on that towards that end because I think that's something that needs to be addressed as well.

But I think, you know, and I'm obviously, I'm not, we have folks here from the Attorney General office who could talk more about, you know, why this does need to be, I think, more legally consistent and modernized in a way so that it is actually a useful tool, so that it's not just resulting in lawsuits, but it's resulting in housing, which is what our ultimate goal really is.

All right, so this one, on the face of it, let's take our debate on the bill we had a few minutes ago around using the density bonus in a little more flexibility on density bonus within the coastal zone. And the Coastal Commission, of course, opposed that bill.

Our Committee ended up with an aye recommendation because we recognize that obviously, not only do we have, I shouldn't say not only we have a supply crisis, but the largest supply shortage is in affordable housing. And the density bonus is a tool to get affordable housing.

So on the face of that, this Committee, given that's what we recognize, shouldn't be, you could say, wouldn't be supportive of a provision that reduces the affordability requirement.

However, as the author has pointed out, and I think all of us know, the affordability requirement that has been in our builder's remedy to date has not resulted in any affordable units. It's not resulted in any units. So it's the old question of is, should we let, and I appreciate that our opposition is not that.

This may not be analogy you like, but are we going to let perfect be the enemy of the good, meaning that the perfect is leaving it on paper as constructed, even though it hasn't resulted in any units being built, or are we willing to make an adjustment that might result in, and again, there's no guarantees in any of the statutes we do, but that might result in actually some units being built under builder's remedy and some number of those being affordable.

So that's the approach that we took. There were, of course, there's more things in this bill than just that provision. But given that the opposition is primarily around that provision, I wanted to address it.

Now this bill is going to go to, if it passes this Committee, it will go to local government, and local government has, that Committee has looked at issues like affordability. But what I wanted to be clear about is that the housing aspect of this bill and the affordability is this Committee's jurisdiction.

And if there is, had we, this Committee, had a solution to your concerns that this is going to really hurt affordable housing development, we would have recommended some amendments, but we didn't. And primarily we didn't because, and they, hate again to state the obvious, because no affordable housing has yet been built under the builder's remedy.

Now, it's conceivable that there might be some ways to help ensure that we do get affordable housing out of this, that we're not still in a circumstance where, and if for some reason it's wildly successful, that perhaps it should be ramped up.

But the point I'm trying to make is that we're what the conclusion that our analysis came to and why, which seems perhaps contrary to our other positions, why we are, we did not ask for amendments in that section. Not sure what else to say about it.

Probably if I weren't dealing with 20 bills on the agenda, I might be more. But anyway. So I don't know if any other Members want to comment to this one. Senator Caballero, go ahead.

My apologies, Madam Chair.

Sure. No worries.

We're on 1893, AB 1893. And we haven't taken up 2243 yet?

No.

I just want to make sure. Yeah, for sure. And I appreciate the Chair's comments. I support what the author is trying to do on this. And so I just wanted to make sure I had the right bill.

Oh, okay. Not a worry. All right. I think we will let you close, Assemblymember.

Well, I appreciate the robust conversation. Would love to work on the issues that have been raised here. We're trying to land the plane here to make this a useful tool.

Again, it's not going to be all things to all people, but we hope it's going to be moving the ball forward to modernize this so that it's a tool so we can ultimately build more housing, which is is what we're trying to do and appreciate your leadership and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, do we have a motion on this bill? Okay, we have a motion. Let's do a roll call.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]

All right, we will hold that and keep it on call, and we will go to your next bill, which is AB 2243.

I don't know if that helped or not.

Okay. Hi. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Numbers two of three and then I will be out of your hair. I'm here to present AB 2243, a bill to clarify and expand AB 2011. First of all, thanks to you and your staff for working with this on this, Madam Chair.

We are happy to accept the proposed technical amendments that were suggested. AB 2011, also known as the Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act of 2022, was a bill I authored in 2022. It allows the development of multifamily infill housing in areas zoned for retail, office, and parking lots. In return for making those housing developments by right, developers need to provide affordable housing on site and ensure the construction workforce are paid the prevailing wage.

Since the enactment of AB 2011, there have been substantial changes to the economy, including the collapse of demand for office space, the reduced demand for brick and mortar retail, and an increase in interest rates. Those changes have created both demand and opportunity to open up sites where housing could become more economically feasible.

Additionally, since AB 2011's enactment, housing developers and local governments have identified aspects of the law's language that are subjective and open to interpretation. This subjectivity has led to project delays and dissuaded utilization of the law. It has also led to inconsistent application across jurisdictions and created the potential for unnecessary lawsuits. AB 2243 would address both of these issues by expanding AB 2011's geographic applicability and clarifying aspects of the law that are subject to interpretation.

In terms of geographic expansion, AB 2243 would apply AB 2011 to the following types of projects, regional malls that exceed 20 acres in size, the conversion of office to housing, even if the site is not along a major commercial corridor, sites within 500ft of freeways and 3200ft of oil extractions, as long as those projects use required air filtration systems, and to existing high rise districts, even if the site is not along a commercial corridor.

In terms of removing subjectivity, AB 2243 includes a series of clarifications, including clarifying that all aspects of AB 2011 projects are ministerial and not subject to CEQA and clarifying how AB 2011 intersects with density bonus law, and specifically that any site remediation needs to occur after project approval but before the site can be occupied.

Importantly, AB 2243 doesn't touch AB 203's labor standards or affordable housing standards, which is why it is still supported by AB 2011's diverse coalition of construction labor, SEIU, CSEA, affordable and market rate developers, and other pro-housing organizations.

I do want to acknowledge that since the bill passed out of Assembly on consent, we have received opposition from some environmental justice organizations who are concerned that the bill applies AB 2011 to sites near freeways. I deeply respect the heck out of these organizations and work with them in many ways. I appreciate what they're fighting for, and I think that we're fully aligned that we want people to live in housing that is both affordable and safe.

That's what I've tried to do with AB 2011 and in this bill, allow the housing to be permitted quickly while making sure that land underneath the area, sorry, the air inside are clean. And particularly on the setbacks for freeways, which I've spoken to some of you about.

And this is a real issue, especially in LA, where there are a lot of freeways. We also wanted to bring conformity to the standards that were set forth in SB 4, which I think most of you probably voted for and or co-authored. So this bill mirrors those standards on those freeway setbacks.

Since the opposition has come in, we've been working with committee staff and air quality experts and even mechanical engineers to ensure that our built in mitigation measures are sufficient and implementable. We will continue those conversations, hopefully with support from committee staff, and I'm committed to getting it right in this bill.

AB 2011 has only been law for less than a year. During this period, high interest rates have dampened the whole housing construction market, frankly, across the country, but specifically in California. And while we have seen some successes with AB 2011, I have a big project. The Senator, the Chair and I do the North Berkeley BART project, which has been years in the making, which is now being AB 2011 is being used. We've got projects in San Francisco, in San Diego, in Los Angeles, all across the state.

We've also started to get a lot of feedback on how we can make the law actually better. And my goal with this bill is to ensure that we are doing that. You know, I'm, I've said this before in committee. I'm six years into a 12 year term, so I'm like legislatively middle aged.

I'm also actually middle aged, but I'm legislatively middle aged. And what I've sort of recognized in my tenure here is understanding that you do these big bills and then they go down into the wild and you see how it actually works, what's working, what's not working, how can we make it more applicable.

So everything that we've done in this bill is designed to ensure that we can build more housing and we can do it safely. That is what this bill is about. We want to make sure that it's a tool that can be useful as folks are trying to build the housing that they need, that provides both the environmental standards that we believe in, the labor standards that we believe in, and the streamlining that we know is necessary. So with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is right. And here testifying in support of the bill is Corey Smith, Executive Director of the Housing Action Coalition, and our friend Danny Curtin from the Carpenters.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Senate. Corey Smith, I'm the Executive Director of the Housing Action Coalition, or the HAC for short. I didn't pick the name. We're a home building industry funded nonprofit that advocates for creating more homes for residents at all income levels and a proud sponsor of AB 2243 because we understand the importance of creating more homes for Californians. And this bill does exactly that.

The passage of the landmark bill a couple of years ago has been critical in expediting housing across the state, and we have members who have looked at it and who are using AB 2011 to create new homes. But as mentioned, there are opportunities to strengthen the bill and deliver more housing, and that's what this bill does.

The clarifications will improve the law as currently written to allow for additional sites to be developed for housing. And since those sites were previously ineligible for this sort of streamlining, this bill would make it happen and therefore expand production throughout the state, especially for infill housing locations. And at the time since it was originally passed, we have had a number of members reach out to us saying that they want to use the law, but it didn't quite fit exactly.

And so this bill expands those eligibility opportunities, and with this, additional sites are going to be eligible for streamlining, clearing the way for housing in key locations, along with their amenities, additional service, transit, and jobs. And because it's been mentioned earlier, this bill also reduces the process and increases certainty, which will ultimately decrease the cost of building new housing, which is really critical as well. Thank you for your support.

Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. In reference to your last comment, I've been, I'm a little past my middle age around here, and I do want to say that the arc of history bends towards progress. So that's a long way of saying what you just said.

Thank you all for addressing probably the most destabilizing social, economic, and growingly political problem that we're facing, the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis. I want to particularly thank this Legislature, the Governor and Assemblywoman Wicks for recognizing that this is only one side of the coin.

The other side is the wage crisis in this industry and several others, but in this one in particular. The wage gap and the growing wealth gap. California has the largest wage gap in the country. I just read that in all places, the Orange County Register and a couple of articles they've been having on housing.

Almost half of California's housing workers are classified as low, very low, or extremely low income. That's the California housing construction workers, poverty wages. 85% are people of color. Because of the low wages in the housing industry, which is almost half of the state's construction workforce, California ranks 46th in the country for construction wages.

At the same time, this low wage workforce, 160,000 families receives an annual public subsidy of over 3 billion, closer to 4 billion now I believe, in safety net payments due to the, quote, low wage, often exploitative residential construction sector. That's a UC Berkeley report from 2021.

Approximately one in four housing construction workers are in the underground economy, either misclassified or off the books. That's a 2014 report, so I'm sure it's similar, if not worse. Roughly $1 billion in tax payments is being lost to this underground economy in the construction industry.

The total annual government subsidy to the workers of worst actors in the construction industry is literally $5 billion a year. That's government funds that's going into this industry to really help the worst actors perform in this industry. It's not good. Wage theft in housing construction is described as rampant by the California Bureau of Field Enforcement 2018.

Chances of an inspection by the Labor Commissioner is once every 300 years, LA Times audit or reporting about an audit recently. I do want to thank this Legislature again on some of the bills that have been passing to recognize that the way to go is a private sector labor management industry self enforcement program, which I think will pay dividends in the years to come.

And sort of lastly, Californians spend the second highest percent of their income on rent, second to Hawaii. The median home in California has reached $900,000. A household with two jobs paying more than what three quarters of Californians make, which is $94,000 a year at a 75% level. Two jobs with that still don't qualify for a median home in California. Only 16% of California households could afford the median home. 16%.

Again, Orange County Register articles. I just want to end with one last thought. A home in my block, which sold for $380,000 in late 2018, sold in March of this year for $777,000. More than doubled in five years. The percentage of wages contributing to that increase in value is zero. It's doubled in five years. There were no wages involved. We need to fix the housing crisis. Thank you very much, all of you. The conversations have been fabulous. Thank you. We also need to deal with the wage crisis. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. All right, those who want to add on in support, you can get to the mic.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action in support.

Francesc Martí, California YIMBY, in strong support.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company in support.

Ron Rowlett, NorCal Carpenters Union, in support.

Eugene Morse, Carpenters Local 152 out of Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Merced, Mariposa, and Tuolumne County in support.

Chester Haley, North Cal Carpenters, in support.

Mitchell Vinciguerra, Carpenters Local 2236 in Oakland, in support.

Nina Weiler-Harwell, AARP California, in support.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR and the Inner City Law Center in support.

Nevada Merriman, MidPen Housing, in support. Thank you.

Moniqua Brown, North Cal Carpenters Union Local 22, In support.

Angela Adams from NorCal Carpenters, I support.

Seth Howard with Carpenters Local 1789, South Lake Tahoe. We support.

Armando Murillo, Carpenters Local 405, San Jose, overwhelmingly in support. Thank you.

Falme Lampkins, NorCal Carpenters Union, in support.

Herlindo Alfaro, NorCal Carpenters Union, in support.

Palemon Frausto, NorCal Carpenters Union, in support. Thank you.

Cesar Placencia, NorCal Carpenters Union Local 405, Santa Clara County, in support.

Graciela Castillo-Krings on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in support.

Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and the Building Owners and Managers Association.

Good afternoon. My name is Kyle Swarens, a field representative at 751 in Santa Rosa in support.

Good afternoon. Onassis McFarlane, NorCal Carpenters Union, Solano County, in support.

Matt Lege with SEIU California in support.

Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Angie Manetti on behalf of the California Apartment Association in support.

Good afternoon. Jose Martinez, Local 152, San Joaquin County, in support.

Mr. Chairman, Scott Wetch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union. I am a tweener.

We've not submitted a letter of opposition, but I do want to mention we're continuing to work with the author. But our issue specifically is that in 2022 there was an accord that was reached by the leadership in both houses, whereby there was one set of workforce protections placed in AB 2011 and a separate set of workforce protections placed in Senator Caballero's AB 6. AB 6 dealt with commercial and retail conversions.

AB 2243 now expands the 2011 process to apply to that same category of project. And so we believe that in furtherance of the deal that was reached between both houses, there needs to be workforce protections that are more reflective of what was in AB 6 than what was in AB 2011. We look forward to continuing to work with the author, as we've committed to, on this outstanding issue. Thank you.

Very much for the testimonies. Now we will continue with our lead witnesses in opposition. The witnesses will have five minutes total between both of you. You can divide it as needed.

Wonderful. Thank you. Good afternoon, distinguished Committee Members. My name is Kyle Ferrar. I'm the Western Program Director at FracTracker Alliance, where I've worked conducting academic research on the negative health impacts of oil and gas extraction operations since 2009.

I'm speaking today in opposition of AB 2243 unless amended to keep CEQA reviews for areas proximal to highways and also proximal to oil and gas wells, as outlined in State Bill 1137, which was not addressed. I would like to provide my expertise on the fate and transport of oil and gas pollutants from the sources of pollution.

I've seen and documented firsthand the hazardous chemicals that leak from oil and gas wells. I've inspected hundreds of wells and documented many dozens of well sites leaking near homes and in communities. The complaints I filed have resulted in notices of violations or enforcement actions for those operators. I must stress these leaks occur regularly as a result of the environment on the aging infrastructure that has corroded and deteriorated them. The leaking hydrocarbons include a cocktail of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.

The literature shows that these emissions contribute to increased health impacts for Californians, including low birth weight and other negative birth outcomes, asthma exacerbation, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders. Amending AB 2011 to exempt development near oil and gas sites from CEQA review is a mistake for multiple reasons.

First, VOCs, volatile organic compounds, are a major risk driver of health impacts for communities living closer to oil and gas extraction operations and highways. These toxic and carcinogenic chemicals exist as vapors in a gas in a gaseous state. These pollutants cannot be captured by the proposed MERV 13 filters or even more protective HEPA filters.

These proposed filters are insufficient to mitigate risk from these sources of pollution. MERV 13 filters are designed to remove particulate matter one to three microns in diameter, meaning they are also insufficient to filter out the ultrafine diesel particulate matter emitted from highway traffic.

Additionally, outdoor environmental exposures expose harmful chemicals and play a major role in health, particularly for children who spend a disproportionate amount of their time outdoors compared to adults. This bill therefore puts children at an elevated risk of exposure. I respectfully urge this committee to vote no on AB 2243 unless amended to keep these CEQA protections.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jonathan Pruitt. I am with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, or CEJA. CEJA respectfully opposes AB 2243 unless amended to include the original environmental health safeguards that the Legislator committed to in AB 2011. We appreciate our conversations with the author's office to address our concerns.

Our alliance agrees that deeply affordable housing is a key need for millions of Californians and appreciates the seriousness with the author and the Committee Members take this challenge. At the same time, it is imperative that the affordable housing developments are healthy and safe. The current version of the bill would undermine the significant progress made by SB 1137 in 2022, which was critical to safeguarding public health and addressing environmental injustices in communities.

By not fully accounting for the harms of living near freeways and oil and gas wells, AB 2243 risk continuing California's legacy of environmental racism and injustice in which specific communities are designated as sacrifice zones. We are concerned that AB 2243 eliminates AB 2011's setbacks and allows developers to install MERV 13 air filters instead.

This will put future residents of the housing and surrounding community at a greater risk of experiencing adverse health impacts due to the exposure to toxin pollution. The MERV 13 filters are already required for new housing developments per the California Building Code standards. Therefore, what AB 2243 is proposing is not better than the status quo.

The air filters do not address problems related to water or soil contamination or exposure to outside pollution. A report from the California State Policy Evidence Consortium highlights health problems associated with freeway proximity, including increased asthma in children, diabetes, all cause mortality, lung cancer mortality, and heart disease mortality.

In addition, we would like to respectfully clarify some common misconceptions about what agencies are required to analyze under CEQA, particularly the language the CEQA is not a tool for assessing and, by extension, mitigating the impact of the existing environment on the proposed project.

One, past environmental hazards and pollution, combined with the project's impact, can impact the environment and surrounding community and must be analyzed. For example, excavation, demolition, displacement from a proposed project impact the surrounding environment and the community. These, combined with existing and past projects, exacerbate overall environmental impacts.

An EIR requires an analysis of these cumulative impacts to create mitigation measures if they're significant. This is crucial for environmental justice communities so that impacted community residents can weigh in and suggest project specific mitigation measures to protect their environment. The EIR process is an opportunity for community ground truthing.

There's not one size fits all for a solution for mitigation. In sum, we can improve AB 2243 by reinstating the freeway and oil and gas setbacks that the Legislature first agreed to an AB 2011. These setbacks would prohibit AB 2011 streamlined housing development from being sited within 3200ft of facilities that refine or extract oil and gas and prohibit AB 2011 streamlined housing development within 500ft of freeways. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. All right, we'll now lead, we'll proceed with any witnesses in opposition here in Room 112.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Casey Elliott on behalf of the cities of La Habra, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana, with opposed unless amended positions. Thank you.

My name is Cherry Robinson. I'm here with Climate Reality Project San Diego. Oppose unless amended.

Reina Tello with People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights in San Francisco in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Hello. Frances Yasmeen Motiwalla of Activist San Diego, here to oppose unless amended.

Good afternoon. Vallerie Reyes on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment and CEJA. I'm here to oppose unless amended to include health and safety setbacks. Thank you.

Hello, everybody. My name is Morgan Gonzalez. I'm a resident of Wilmington and with Communities for a Better Environment and CEJA. I'm opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sharifa Taylor. I'm with Communities for a Better Environment and CEJA, and I'm opposed unless amended for health and safety setbacks.

Jennifer Ganata registering the opposed unless amended positions of Esperanza Community Housing, Housing Equity and Advocacy Resource Team Los Angeles, and East Bay Community Law Center. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Hannah Shew with CEJA and Communities for a Better Environment, and I oppose unless amended to include the health and safety setbacks. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Maya Hoyle Hernandez with CEJA and Communities for a Better Environment, here to oppose unless amended.

Marie Calhoun with CBE and CEJA, here to oppose unless amended.

Hello. Tyler Earl on behalf of CEJA, CBE, as well as the Standing Together Against Neighborhood Drilling Los Angeles Coalition, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, and the Voices in Solidarity Against Oil in Neighborhoods Coalition, opposing unless amended with the health and safety setbacks. Thank you.

I'm Abby Costello. I'm a high schooler from Chula Vista. I'm here with San Diego 350 and CEJA, and I'm opposed on this amended.

Hi, I'm Kiela Minacho. I'm also a student with San Diego 350 and CEJA, and I'm opposed unless amended.

Good afternoon. My name is Dave Shukla. I'm the Operations Director of the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy. On behalf of LBA's and 350 Legislative Alliance, opposed unless amended for health and safety setbacks. Thank you.

Grecia Orozco with the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment here also on behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Environmental Health Coalition, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, respectfully registering our opposed unless amended positions for the inclusion of health and safety setbacks. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we'll now bring it back to the dais. And for time constraints, we're going to go and move forward with Senator Caballero first. If you don't...

Thank you very much. Apologize. I need to go over and establish a quorum in another committee, but appreciate what you're trying to do. I think we're all on the same page. We desperately need housing in the State of California, and our fastest growing homeless population are seniors over the age of 65. And it is people of color, in particular African Americans.

It's people that have worked their entire life here in the state or somewhere in the country, and they reach the retirement age and they can't afford to live here anymore because they are one a step away from a high medical bill that drives them out of the housing that they currently have. So we need to produce.

That's just the bottom line. But we did reach a deal, and I think we worked really, really hard to have your bill do something different than my bill did. And I've been trying to really kind of figure out how we resolve it, but I feel very confident we're going to be able to do that.

I'm going to support your bill today when the vote comes up. But I just wanted you to know that I do appreciate everything that you've done in the housing area, including helping me get my bill out of the Assembly, which is not always an easy thing to do if you're in the Senate.

So I appreciate that. But so just, I put a point on that I have to run over and establish a quorum in other, but I will support the bill here today and we'll move it on. Thank you. I know, I know. I've seen you around here a little bit, Mr. Curtin. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. We'll now move forward with Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. So this bill is similar to the last bill about the builder's remedy, where you're taking something that's existing and then modifying it to make it work better. And I appreciate that, and I'm grateful that you're spending a lot of time trying to figure out what to change.

I think ministerial approval is so powerful because projects that are approved ministerially are, the developer goes through a checklist of things that are required, and when they can meet all those things, then they get the stamp of approval and the building permit and they can build.

So having a process that is certain and is more time bound is really important. And my reading of this bill is that certain things are ministerially approved. It's more broad ministerial approval, and then other things have been narrowed. And so I just wanted to ask the author or her lead witnesses about the opposition's concern about the 500ft from a freeway or 3200ft from an active oil or gas extraction facility.

It seems that the bill would require the MERV 13 air filtration system, and so I think it's quite possible that that is adequate to protect public health and so there doesn't need to be an additional CEQA process associated with it. But I just wanted to hear directly about what your response is to the concerns about living within 500ft of a freeway.

Yeah, so first of all, I appreciate the opposition coming in and raising those concerns because I think those are the right concerns that we should be raising when we're talking about housing or anything really, anytime we have proximity to those types of facilities or highways. I'm happy to continue to work with them.

We've had a number of conversations. We can continue those. We've also consulted outside council in terms of air quality experts and others to make sure that we're putting in the right provisions. We're bringing, this bill will bring conformity to the SB 4 standards around freeways that were put into effect with that bill, which I think most of you voted for, maybe some of you were co-authors. So I think that conformity I think is important. This is also similar conformity to SB 423 standards in terms of around oil facilities.

So we're also looking at previous bigger housing bills in terms of what they have done so that we're not reinventing the wheel all the time and trying to bring conformity in a way with an eye towards the strongest environmental standards we could put forth that allows us to build the housing that we need.

But it is a particular challenge in Los Angeles because there's so many highways. We could make Los Angeles just exempt from building housing because there are so many highways, if we don't want to build near highways, because there's so many of them. So we have to figure out what are the right remedies to mitigate against some of those potential negative impacts that you can get from the housing, if that makes sense.

Thank you. Chair, if you don't mind. Yeah, I mean, driving on the freeways in LA, it's clear that there is a lot of housing actually next to the freeway, and there's also a lot of homeless encampment next to the freeway with absolutely no particulate prevention from being breathed in, and the public health consequences of that, which really are disastrous.

So building more housing and allowing people to live inside with the appropriate mitigation is, I think, exactly where we should be going. So identifying what are the best practices when we are living within that proximity of the freeway and then applying it as part of the ministerial process. To me, that very much makes sense. So I was just trying to make sure that there had been the adequate analysis of the MERV 13 air filtration system as being the right thing, or if that was still being worked out. But whatever the right thing is that we're doing it.

I want the strongest standards we can get that still allow for the housing. And that's the plane that we're trying to land here and where we'll continue to have more conversations with opposition. Because it's, you've raised it. Others have raised it as well. So I think it's an important thing that we need to keep working on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much. You know, we talked about some very similar issues. You're right. LA, a lot of freeways. I have six in my district. Five overlap each other. The concentration is pretty, pretty heavy. Madam Vice Chair, I'd like to give the opportunity to the opposition just to speak a little bit more related to SB 4.

SB 4, those predominantly already created. Right. The places of worship, educational facilities are already there, hopefully not super close to our freeways, but they're there. They exist. Would you agree that this would simply just match what we already passed and is already in law?

No, that's incorrect. The SB 4, there are many other provisions that were not included in this one, which was the oil and gas setback. In 4, there is an oil gas setback, and that is 3200ft. There is a freeway for 500ft. There is also a setback provision for specific industrial uses, being 1200 feet to 1600 feet or 1200 feet to 600 feet to below.

And that is based off of the scale on, I believe it's based off of the air districts sort of permitting that they give. If a specific facility is able to meet a specific threshold of a pollutant, it has to acquire a specific permit, and that's what it's held onto. But there are many provisions in SB 4 that were not covered in AB 2243.

The author, you stated that there are...

If I can I clarify if you're... On the highway setback, specifically, those mirror SB 4.

So there is a 500 foot setback in SB, in your bill.

So my bill includes the air filtration requirements that SB 4 included in and around the highways.

But no setbacks?

Correct.

On your bill. Okay. Okay.

Same as SB 4.

Madam Vice Chair, I just need some clarification because I think I'm still a little confused.

Absolutely.

I'm confused as well.

I'm gonna go to the author here.

Let me ask...

Yeah. Yeah. SB 4 has within 500ft air filtration requirements that my bill mirrors and matches.

Okay. And so, yes, air filtration.

Specifically on the highway setbacks.

Okay. So there is a highway setback in your bill?

No, sorry. There are not. There's an air filtration requirement within 500ft, which matches what SB 4 is. It's the same as SB 4.

Got it. But construction can happen within 500ft?

Correct. Yes. Similar to SB 4.

Got it. Okay.

With those requirements.

Okay. I know you've committed to continue working. I know you've made me that commitment. And you've said it again here. That is one of my bigger concerns. I think where I see the difference is what I mentioned is, as before, those buildings are there.

These are new construction that could potentially create even more harm. I agree that we need to build way more housing. We're nowhere near 100%. I shared with you, Assembly Member, I loved 2011 even before I got here. I wish my city would take more advantage of that.

But I would also say the standards that we're looking at, with all due respect to my city and LA, I criticize it. AQMD. I don't think we're doing enough. So I don't think the standards that currently exist, at least in the City of LA, are good enough to protect my community.

So as you're continuing to look at what standard to utilize, I wouldn't look at them as a North Star because they have failed a lot of my communities. So I would look and implore for your team to look at something that is really actually going to protect our communities.

Yeah. And I appreciate that, which is why we've sought outside council, outside experts in this space to really understand, like, what is the most aggressive thing that we can do in terms of requiring the necessary safety guards to ensure that our communities are safe while still allowing for the housing.

We are going to have to build the housing. The other option is we make it difficult to build the housing. It costs even more money, specifically in areas that have near freeways and other places as well, which just increase the cost burden on all of our communities.

That's the plane that we're trying to land, is how can you ensure that we make it easier doing so with the right safeguards. I'm very committed to it. I'd love to work with you on it, if you're interested in that. I share the concern and continue to work with opposition on that to make sure that we do have the strongest standards that we can put forth while still allowing for the necessary housing that we need.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member. I think you're right. We're addressing one injustice. Let's not create another injustice. But I think the Senator said it correctly. I think it baffles me that we allow people to sleep on the streets next to freeways, but then we won't build next to freeways. So I get that conundrum as well. I will be supporting your bill, and I do, I'll take you up on that offer, working together and finding out how we can land this plane. Thank you.

Do we have any other comments by our Members? Okay, seeing none. All right. Member Wicks, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, please call... Oh, I guess we don't have a motion. Would anyone like to make a motion on the bill? Thank you, Senator Padilla. We have a motion by Senator Padilla. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call] That's five to zero.

Thank you very much. And we're gonna leave it open? Yeah, we're gonna leave it on call for our absent Members.

Okay. Will now proceed with AB 2580 by Member Wicks.

Hear me? There we go. This one, hopefully, will go much more quickly, so I appreciate you all's patience. Thank you, Madam Chair for allowing me to present.

Member Wicks, would you mind waiting just. We have witnesses exiting the room quite excited.

I guess the last bill was more popular than this one, I guess.

All right, we're about to close the door. Just as long. Let's just wait till the door closes and we'll continue. All right? Member Wicks. Please proceed when you're.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, for bearing with me here through the marathon of the Wicks bills. Thank you for letting me present AB 2580. The purpose of AB 2580 is to increase accountability at the intersection of housing policy and historic preservation.

Historic districts and buildings designed as historically significant receive special protections that subject new developments, building renovation, and design changes to a more rigorous and thorough review process. These protections are essential to preserving our state's rich physical and cultural heritage, as are the tax breaks that the state provides to qualifying historic buildings.

However, the historic preservation process can encourage abuse by those who weaponize it against housing production, particularly in wealthy single-family neighborhoods that are not willing to accept gentle increase in density from duplexes and ADUs. This abuse of the historic designation process impedes or blocks urgently needed housing without protecting our important resources.

There are currently no measures in place to ensure local governments examine the intersection of their historic preservation policies with their housing policies. AB 2580 seeks to address this deficiency in two ways. It will require local governments to discuss in their housing element how historic preservation policies and practices could constrain new housing development.

It also requires local governments to list all new historic designations in their annual progress report to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Together, these changes would increase transparency and accountability at the intersection of housing policy and historic preservation policy.

Now, I know we have opposition to this bill from preservation advocates that we are stigmatizing historic preservation or not emphasizing its value. Let me be clear. That is not my intent, nor is it the language I use when discussing the bill. As I've already said, historic preservation is essential to preserving our state's rich physical and cultural heritage.

That doesn't mean we should ignore its effects when developing housing policy, just as we don't ignore other important effects like zoning, building standards, or even the impact fees we use to fund important public infrastructure.

Because only if we examine the issue, we can find opportunities to address both the goals of preserving of preservation and housing production in a way that is complimentary to both. With me to testify and support is Francesc Marti, Senior Director of Strategy and Government Affairs at California YIMBY.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Francesc Marti, representing California YIMBY, here as a proud sponsor to speak in support of AB 2580. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family for all Californians.

We recognize that historic preservation plays a vital role in protecting California's architectural heritage and conserving places of historical significance. However, no measures are currently in place to ensure that local governments balance legitimate historic preservation with potential impacts on a community's ability to meet its housing needs.

AB 2580 would enhance the transparency of newly adopted historical designations by requiring local jurisdictions to report them to HCD in their annual progress reports and monitor how new designations could impact their ability to meet housing needs. This bill does not hinder the preservation of historic resources.

It simply requires reporting and monitoring of all new historic designations and examines how preservation practices may conflict with other with our housing needs. It's for these reasons that California YIMBY respectfully requests your support for AB 2580. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll proceed with any witnesses in support of AB 2580.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action in support.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur and the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Sosan Madanat here on behalf of the California Community Builders in support. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 2580.

Thank you. Before I begin, I have a question. I have an associate who is to join me today, but she could not appear because of a medical issue. She has instead submitted a letter. May I read that on her behalf? After I give my comments? I do not see a problem with that.

Madam Chair is back.

Sorry. I can read it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Good afternoon. My name is Cindy Heitzman. I'm the Executive Director at the California Preservation Foundation, and I'm here today representing 13 historic preservation organizations from across the state to oppose AB 2580. Our opposition is rooted in the bills fundamental flaws.

The Bill is based on the unsupported assumption that historic preservation nominations are being exploited by predominantly affluent neighborhoods to block housing development. However, there is no evidence, no data, no case studies, nothing to substantiate this claim.

When asked which cities are abusing the nomination process, those often cited are Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palo Alto, Pasadena, San Diego. All of these cities participate in the Certified Local government program, which is a federal program designed to ensure a balanced and regulated approach to historic nominations.

Over 60 cities in California participate in this program, and they are required to have a system to nominate historic resources and report on an annual basis to the Office of Historic Preservation. We met with representatives from California Yimme to talk about ways that we could possibly amend this to make this more favorable.

But our opposition, quite frankly, lies in the basis of this Bill, and that is, historic preservation is being abused. You have to monitor it and you have to report it. The problem that AB 2580 claims to address is overstated. Less than 5% of the developed areas in California are designated as historical.

In Los Angeles, only 7% of the building stock is historic are eligible for designation. 40% of federal historic tax credit projects support new housing through adaptive reuse or maintenance of existing housing through these very important tax credits. Now we have the state historic tax credit coming on board, and we expect that number will increase.

Historic preservation has not been an impediment to creating housing. The bill's sponsor, California YIMBY, has clearly indicated that this Bill is based on abuse of preservation nominations across the state. And they cite the AB 2580 is a crucial first step in the abuse and preventing the abuse of historic preservation rules. It's their words, not mine.

The intent is alarming. It is unsubstantiated by factual evidence of abuse. We cannot support a Bill when the Bill sponsor intends to throttle historic designations and will further isolate those communities that they purport to protect. It does nothing to create new housing. It's about nothing. It's about monitoring historic preservation where there are already monitoring provisions in place.

It's a Trojan horse designed to weaken historic preservation in California. And I urge you to oppose a maybe 2850. Pardon me 2580. Thank you.

Are there other witnesses in opposition that want to come to the mic? Oh. Oh, okay. You've got two minutes remaining.

You've got two minutes remaining. Thank you. This is submitted on behalf of Paige and Turnbull architectural firm in San Francisco from one of their principals, Christina Dicas. Based on my professional experience and observations, I write to express my opposition to AB 25 Ad as I don't see how this bill will accelerate housing development.

It's based on misinformation and will create more housing and bureaucracy rather than removing barriers to housing development. I am writing as a principal of the cultural resource planning studio page and Turnbull historic preservation architecture and planning firm that has been recognizing and adaptively reusing historic buildings across California for over 50 years.

I support the preservation of historic neighborhoods and I also recognize that we are facing a housing crisis. These do not have to be competing goals. Required housing reporting is a burden to understaffed cities, and this house will make staff resources, take staff resources away.

The cost of this work will inevitably flow through to the applicants housing developers by increasing the cost of housing. Since 2020, our practice has seen the biggest impediment to building housing is cost and financing, not necessarily zoning policy. What is more, in late May 2024, California YIMBY sent out Knee blast, which reads in part.

A few months ago, a group of NIMBYs in San Mateo announced that they found a loophole and are trying to block the construction of desperately needed new homes in their communities. Get the neighborhood designated as a historic district. We're seeing more and more of this across the state in 2024.

The YIMBY movement is California YIMBY is the sponsor of Assemblywoman Buffy Wick's AB 2580. It's a crucial first step toward reigning in the abuse of historic preservation rules. I would like to specifically discuss the case in San Mateo referenced above.

Peyton Turnbull has been preparing the nomination to designate a historic residential district to the National Register of Historic Places on behalf of a local group of citizens. Proponents of AB 2580 have spread false information about this nomination effort, which has contributed to informing the development of this Bill.

It is a red herring to point to the area being nominated as a historic district as a poster child of historic preservation obstruction, where it consists of 1% 450 of 39,732 of total current residential properties in the City of San Mateo, and far less than that in total parcels.

Furthermore, the proponents of the bill would like the public to believe that the Baywood Historic District nomination, San Mateo, was prepared in an effort to thwart housing density. In fact, it was spurred in reaction to the demolition of older single family homes with new, much larger single family homes.

The local group strived to recognize the area as a historic district with the hope that it would spur the City of San Mateo to consider planning tools that would encourage compatible alterations and new construction, including ADUs and Junior ADUs, which are allowed in historic districts to increase density.

While I recognize a critical need for affordable housing, AB 2580 introduces busy work that will not effectively remove barriers to housing development.

Your time has elapsed. Okay, thank you. All right. Are there any other witnesses who want to indicate opposition to this Bill? All right, seeing none. Let me see if there's any. Go ahead. Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. I appreciate the four bills from you today. So my read on this bill is that it is relatively modest. So I think historic preservation is a very important value. And in many ways, in California, we don't preserve our history as much as we should.

We see more because it's cheaper to start afresh, tear down and build new. We see that happening. And I mourn the loss of some of our older structures and see pictures of the way things used to look, even old schoolhouses and things. And you recognize other parts of the world where they have a different approach to building.

So I think recognizing the importance of historic preservation is a value in the same way that providing more housing is a value. And we also see that there are communities that latch onto whatever a possible option to avoid building housing could be. So there might be a community that says, we want to be a mountain lion sanctuary.

We want to be a historic preservation of the entire neighborhood or the entire city or community. And so I think when this is used as a ruse to essentially avoid obligations in some other part of the code, which involves building housing, it's important to look at what is it that is actually stopping the creation of housing.

So there are, I have seen examples of proposed historic preservation on basically vast open parking lots with one derelict building sitting on it, that the neighborhood around it does not want that to become a metropolis that might have a lot of traffic, traffic, and the externalities that can be perceived as negative to building more housing.

So to me, this bill is not an overreach, because what it is doing is you used some really colorful language, which I appreciated. I don't see it as throttling historic preservation, but I do see it as monitoring historic preservation.

So asking local governments who already are extensively inventorying what's happening in their city as part of their housing element process, to put their arms around all the different units or sections of their city that might have the historic preservation designation or are in the process of getting it, and then to report that as a whole, to me, that makes a lot of sense and would allow for some objective analysis and data to be provided.

So I support this bill. I think that it's modest, and I hope that we continue to value adaptive reuse and historic preservation and protecting the parts of our community that connect us to our past, because those are very important values that I think most community members do share. Thank you, chair.

And I will, with that, move the bill.

Any other comments? Any other comments or questions by my colleagues? All right. oh, sorry. Go ahead. Police. I just didn't.

Yeah, I was debating with that. Sure. I wanted to mention something. As someone who comes from the Inland Empire, we adore history. We really try to, especially in my city, we have a very engaged historical community, society. I just want to, for the record, I'm supporting the Bill today based on my understanding of what the Bill does.

So I'm not sure whether or not we are understanding it the same way as the opposition may be supporting it. But just out of curiosity, a question for the author, because the opposition said that we haven't had much opposition to construction based on historical designations.

So the question that I want to pose is, why this Bill, since we're not, we don't, we haven't had an issue.

I wouldn't respectfully disagree. I think we have had some concerns, which is why I just think we need more transparency to understand how historic preservation is used.

This bill is very modest, and it's really just about transparency and understanding when stuff is being designated as historic or being nominated as such and requiring some basic reporting to that, and also thoughtfulness around when you're doing your housing element. It's not banning anything. It's not getting rid of anything.

It's not, you know, but we, I mean, we've seen it in my district in Berkeley, we've seen it. I'm sure the Senator can attest to that in other parts of the state.

And so I think having a better understanding of its use and its application to ensure that it is being used for what I think we all agree it should be used for, to protect our truly historic areas without potentially being weaponized.

And so from my perspective, you can't go wrong with more sunlight and transparency on any policymaking issues, this one included.

I don't know if the chair would like the sponsors to also talk to that or if you feel like I've answered your question, what the opposition stated was the fact that we already have the reporting done. Is that correct or you do for certified local governments. So is that not quite extensive enough or sufficient?

Sure. So I can address that. So, in our view, nothing in the certified local government program which was mentioned by the opposition accounts for the impact of historic preservation on housing. So that's actually not covered. So.

And if cities are already collecting and reporting this information because they want to, it should be much easier to provide to HCD. So we see this, as the author said, as a balanced approach that doesn't hinder the preservation of historic resources.

It simply requires a thorough examination of how preservation practices may conflict with housing needs, as we do already with other unnecessary public functions. We already do this with the building code.

So we think this approach, what it allows to do is the cities to identify and implement ways to mitigate those conflicts so it sheds some more sunlight on the issue. Thank you.

Okay, I'm just looking at the opposition, whether or not she has.

Well, we. Yeah. Okay.

We have a motion, and I did not ask you to close yet, so please

Respectfully ask for an aye vote and I will be done with. You guys can get rid of me, you can kick me out. All right, let's take a roll call on the Bill.

All right, let's take a roll call on the Bill.