Senate Standing Committee on Housing

The Senate Committee on Housing will come to order as a Subcommitee. And I see one author in the room. Right. So we will start with Item 8, AB 2729. Assemblymember Patterson, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and Senator, for hearing my Bill this afternoon and busy day. As you know, AB 2729 was amended, or proposed to be amended, in the last Committee in local government, and I am accepting the Committee amendments offered today. AB 2729 would do two things.

One is it would defer the payment of impact fees on certain types of development projects. And then secondly, it would extend by 18 months entitlements that are expiring over a two year period, and that will apply to all projects. And so, pretty simple Bill.

We obviously spent a lot of time on it in the last Committee and happy to answer any questions, obviously. And with me, I do have some support to testify on my behalf, Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with SPUR.

Great. You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm here today on behalf of SPUR, who has been a proud sponsor and co-sponsor and supporter of numerous bills that have passed since 2017 that aim at addressing the housing crisis in the State of California, especially by streamlining local project approvals, environmental review, and increasing enforceability and accountability with state housing laws, as well as creating more transparency with impact fees.

All projects are now struggling to secure financing in a timely manner due to the recent changes in economic conditions. And there's a lot of things you all can't control. But what you can't control is time, and time is money. So deferring impact fees, payments, as well as entitlement extensions is going to save projects money. And we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Great. Any others?

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action, in support.

Okay. Oh, you're gonna read some. Go ahead.

One more. I forgot. On behalf of Fieldstead and Associates, also in support.

Excellent. All right. Do we have any major opposition here registered? I don't think we do, but in case there are. Oh, yes, you're right. We have the Special District Association and League of California Cities. Go ahead.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition to the measure. Given the concerns that our local governments need the ability to collect fees earlier, and that is going to be eliminated in some situations for affordable housing projects, as we've seen stated in the Local Gov Committee.

One of our major concerns is if we have multiple projects that are being delayed for construction, that we're not going to be able to have the facilities up and ready to go for new residents moving into the area.

So we're concerned that the ability to delay the collection will have an undue harm to communities that are impacted by the development and lower-income communities. So with that we are in respectful opposition. We do appreciate the amendments. We think that narrowing it is helpful, but are still concerned about the impacts to our local governments. Thank you.

Thank you. Special Districts.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association. I echo the comments of the prior speaker, my colleague from the League. This measure does several things that can be onerous to the delivery of infrastructure and essential services to service the development. It prohibits collection of interest on the deferred fees.

It doesn't contemplate indexing it for inflation if a project takes quite a while to complete, and we want to have those services infrastructure up and running and available for that community, not having it indexed or an avenue to collect that and having it open ended with no no cap on how long the project can run once the fees are locked in.

I think these are interesting things to consider. I do appreciate all the work and I would point out that the mitigation fee act does already contemplate like accounting for these funds and how long they can sit there and has mechanisms for refunds and all this.

It's not the really fine-pointed shot clock that this measure currently has, but I think it's worthwhile considering that it's already been contemplated here. And with that, I'll just again respectfully register my opposition and look forward to working with you all. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see if there's anyone else in opposition in the room.

Alyssa Silhi. On behalf of the City of Carlsbad, the City of Belmont and the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts also opposed for reasons previously stated.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horwitz with Los Angeles Unified School District and on behalf of our colleagues at the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, in opposition.

All right, do we have any others in the room? Okay, colleagues on the dais. Go ahead, Senator Seyarto.

Well, I made similar comments in the other Committee meeting, but, you know, I hear the issues that the League and the Special Districts and some of the cities have, but if you really understand the difference, there's differences between mitigation fees and conditions of approval.

Usually the mitigation fees are for a major arterial or a fire station that requires several projects to put into the mitigation fund before they can even be built. And so it is along those timelines that that gets done. If there is immediate need stuff that's called the conditions of approval, and that's where they do pay upfront.

And this doesn't prevent them, if they have a project they want to do. If I'm not mistaken, if they do have a project that is needing these funds, they can get them immediately so that they can embark on doing that project.

It also serves from another part of this is there's always complaints that it's taking too long to get through the process and the inspectors come out and things like that.

Well, this would remove any incentive the city would have at all, because at the end of the project is their mitigation fees and all of those things that get to be collected.

So what this really is, is an issue of, do you collect it in front and the city gets the interest on all of that money, or do you collect it in the back when the actual mitigation needs to start and allow the developer to ensure that he has a cash flow or that person has a cash flow to make the development work and bring it to fruition?

Because sometimes these development impact fees can be a tremendous amount. And when that's the case, if there's a cash flow issue, that can stall the project in and of itself. So for those reasons, I think this is a really good Bill. I am supporting this.

I usually, you know, kind of give deference to the needs of communities, but they're not missing out on their mitigation fees. And to say that, you know, "hey, we're missing out on the interest," well, that's not really your money to make interest on yet because there's no mitigation needed yet. So with that, I'll move the Bill when we have the amount of people we need to form a quorum.

Okay. We'll wait to get our quorum. Any other comments by Members on the dais? Senator Ochoa Bogh? Go ahead, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I echo the sentiments of my colleague, but in addition to that, do you have any idea on whether or not this might actually incentivize or motivate the cities to actually carry through the process as well? I know that there's various inspection periods and other things that they have to do.

Do you think this might actually be a little more, also be impacting the effectiveness and more efficiency of moving the projects forward?

Well, thank you for that question. In a short way, yes. I mean, I served on a City Council, by the way, I'm very sympathetic to the needs of the city.

And even in my own city when I was moving my district office, once I was elected to the Legislature, you know, things took a lot longer than needed to be. And maybe the payment of fees when the, you know, all the inspections and stuff are done actually might have moved that along a little bit quicker.

But, yeah, I mean, you know, I think it creates the right types of incentives and I think it's really important because we have protections in the Bill to make sure that if there are expenditures made or there's something that's going to happen wherever, you know, the city's out of money basically for some work that they're doing relative to the project that they can get, they can get the money.

All right. Seeing no other comments before I have you close, I think the, well, I appreciate the Special District's concerns and the City's concerns. If, for example, a project did nothing proceed and did not construct, then the different arguments about, well, you know, we have to have the infrastructure in.

I mean, you, the, it's kind of inappropriate to start on it until it's really clear that the project is going to proceed. And so I think, I think this is reasonable. I do appreciate, of course, the local government, special districts want that funding in advance.

I've been doing a project myself on it and because of various reasons, it was delayed, not by my intention. So, for example, when I paid the school impact fee two and a half years ago, thinking that my project would be finished in six months.

So, you know, there's obviously, it is not yet finished and so the schools obviously have not had any more students as a result of my project, but they got that fee two and a half years ago anyway. But I think there's, it's just, there's enough safeguards in this measure and it's narrowed enough.

I think it's reasonable and I have a recommended aye and you may close.

Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Very sensitive to the needs of local governments and, and the fees are important and critical to an extent. I think some cities are better than others at collecting reasonable fees and some aren't so reasonable. But that's not this Bill.

I do want to comment on one thing regarding the interests, if you don't mind. I've heard that from my friends that I respect in the opposition. But if I'm develop, when you, Chair, were doing your project and you paid in six that first day, under existing law, and your project isn't done for a long time.

The Special District in the city collect that fee at that time. They don't come back two and a half years later and say, "oh, hey, you got to actually pay me more fee because interest and inflation," and all those kinds of things.

So the idea that this doesn't contain provisions for the increase in inflation while the project goes on makes perfect sense that that's not in the Bill because that would be totally unfair if we came back to you, Chair and said, "hey, you should pay more fees now because it's taking a long time to do the project."

So anyways, with that, I really appreciate the work of, I know several Committee Members were on both committees and this was a very long discussion and I think it was worth it because we came up with a better product and really appreciate the consideration and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. We don't have quorum yet, so when it's appropriate we will take a motion and vote. So we'll now, your other Bill was on Consent, so I don't think you have anything else you have to present.

Great. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

Yes, we do have another author, so go ahead, Assembly Member Haney. We will have you proceed, and that is Item 16: AB 3068.

Great, and I also have Mr. Santiago.

You may proceed on whichever one you want to start with. You'll also be presenting AB 2910 for Santiago. Whichever one you want.

Sure. I will start with my bill, AB 3068.

It's Item 16 for those following.

Okay. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the Committee staff for their work on the bill and will be accepting the amendments. AB 3068 is the Office-to-Housing Conversion Act, which will accelerate the transformation of underutilized office buildings within prime locations into new housing. Downtowns are struggling. We know that. Our work culture has shifted in many ways and commercial buildings in downtowns across the state are experiencing the effects of high vacancy rates.

The shift has left--our city's urban core is in trouble and in desperate need of catalytic transformations that will create livable neighborhoods in our commercial districts. To help our downtowns and build more housing, AB 3068 creates a pathway for by-right approval for office conversion projects, ensuring more predictability and fewer barriers to an already difficult building process.

It will also provide the flexibility needed to ensure that historic buildings are more economically feasible for conversion so we can preserve our buildings for housing while making sure our downtowns' diverse characteristics are kept intact. We have brought together a great coalition on this bill, and with me in support today is Rafa Sonnenfeld from YIMBY Action and Cindy Heitzman from the California Preservation Foundation.

Great. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action. YIMBY Action and our chapters fight for better housing policies because we want to reduce poverty and homelessness, eliminate racial segregation, create jobs, and stop climate change.

Converting vacant commercial space into residential housing through adaptive reuse through this bill, AB 3068, can reduce the number of underutilized and vacant buildings that have been decreasing in value, thereby helping to stabilize the commercial real estate market and filling those vacant spaces with more valuable tax-generating uses.

Adaptive reuse projects can also increase activity in foot traffic in neighborhoods across the state, which will help support local businesses and enhance the cultural life of cities and towns. Unfortunately, local discretionary approval processes and environmental reviews for housing can cause yearslong delays, increased risk of development--to developments, making housing projects infeasible, and contribute to the challenges in resolving the state's housing crisis.

AB 3068, the Office-to-Housing Conversion Act, provides a streamlined ministerial approval process for adaptive reuse of existing buildings into residential uses in infill areas in all zones. The act facilitates the conversion of underutilized space and office and other commercial and industrial buildings into residential uses if at least 50 percent of the converted space is used for residential purposes, while otherwise allowing those buildings to maintain their currently allowed uses without the need for lengthy, risky, discretionary rezoning.

The act also protects historic properties, ensuring that their adaptive reuse is done in accordance with national best practices for historic preservation. Additionally, AB 3068 authorizes local municipalities to create a property tax rebate incentive program to encourage adaptive reuse projects. Thank you very much. Available for any questions.

Great.

Chair Skinner and Committee Members, my name is Cindy Heitzman. I'm the Executive Director at the California Preservation Foundation. Today, I seek your support for AB 3068, co-sponsored by the California Preservation Foundation and YIMBY Action. AB 3068 aims to streamline the adaptive reuse of commercial buildings into housing.

This legislation is crucial to facilitate the reuse of vacant or underutilized buildings, stimulate economic development, and provide housing through sustainable development. Adaptive reuse isn't just a trend, it's a proven solution to create housing across California. Offices, hospitals, factories, and even grain silos have been successfully repurposed into housing.

AB 3068 will streamline the review process for historic resources, making it easier to develop housing while preserving the unique character of our older buildings. Los Angeles has set a precedent with its adaptive reuse ordinance, revitalizing its historic core and generating over 12,000 new units since 1999.

This initiative has significantly boosted growth and development, increasing the population from 27,849 residents in 2000 to over 83,000 residents in January of 2019. What sets AB 3068 apart from other housing bills is its streamlined review of historic resources. This is based on age, landmark status, and eligibility for federal or state historic tax credits.

It requires compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to ensure that preservation standards are met, and this is significant because some of the best candidates for adaptive reuse are our older historic buildings.

Additionally, the rehabilitation of historic buildings is a labor-intensive activity, meaning a high share of the total expenditures goes to labor. These projects create more localized jobs compared to new construction activities. For every ten direct jobs created by rehabilitation by rehabilitating historic building, another 1.8 to 2.4 additional jobs are created elsewhere in the economy.

AB 3068 is more than a housing bill. It's a tool for economic revitalization and preservation. By supporting this bill, we can create housing, stimulate economic growth, and preserve the character of our historic downtowns for future generations. I thank you for your time and encourage your support of AB 3068.

All right, let's see if there's anyone else in the room in support of the bill. Just come up to the mic. Add your MeToo.

Hi. Ellon Brittingham, here on behalf of the Northern and Southern California Chapters of the International Interior Design Association, in support. Thank you.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Junior, an Orange County philanthropist, in support of this bill.

Rebecca Marcus, representing LeadingAge California, in support.

Skyler Wonnacott, California Business Properties Association and with the California Building Owners and Managers Association, in support.

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

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of CivicWell and SPUR, in support.

All right, let's see if we have registered opposition. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, again, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposed unless amended position. First wanted to commend the author's office. They've been working diligently with us on addressing our concerns regarding the fees specifically, so we appreciate all the hard work that they've done on that.

That said, Cal Cities is still concerned with the by-right approval process. We appreciate that it's been narrowed to some specific sites. We think that's a productive thing, but are still concerned that by-right, over-the-counter approval process for areas not meant for residential housing does not give communities the ability to adjust what is necessary for areas that were not meant for residential uses in the past.

So we're very concerned about that language and believe that through the RHNA process we set the sites available for that, and by skipping our plans, we wonder what the point of the tenure plan is. So that's where our concerns lie, but appreciate and look forward to those continued conversations with the author's office and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of Committee. Jeremy Smith, here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We have not taken an official opposed position to the bill. We have had nice conversations with the Assembly Member and his hard-working staff on protections for workers. Here again, tooting that same horn.

This is by-right approval for adaptive reuse. And we appreciate the Assembly Member's inclusion of labor standards at the start. We need to get those tweaked a little bit, a little right, a little more correct. We've had conversations to that effect. We appreciate that and look forward to the conversations beginning or continuing--excuse me--over the recess. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other opposition comments. Go ahead, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate our efforts to try to expand housing opportunities. I also have some of the concerns that were outlined by the League of Cities in various communities. They're especially master-planned communities. You know, a lot of the infrastructure that's in the ground was--and the street width and where they go are all predicated on different types of uses. And these adaptive uses, I kind of got a question. How adaptive can some of these buildings be?

Because when you're going from a type one construction building to a type five construction building, and you're talking about interior hallways, you're talking about air handling systems and being able to provide all of these things to apartments inside what's now what used to be a commercial building and putting windows into concrete structures that are six to eight inches wide, all of that changes the dynamics of the safety part of it.

And that's why I get a little nervous when we're streamlining. You know, if it can be done, that's great, but by-right and streamline for such, those are intensive changes to buildings and a lot of it has to do with life safety stuff. And so I get a little nervous when we're by-righting all these and bypassing the local agency's ability to weigh in and weigh in heavily on some of this because they're the ones that are going to be holding the bag if something happens.

You know, you've seen fires in some of these areas that they changed the building use and people got trapped inside. They all died. And then the city is the one who's getting sued. So if they're going to be on the hook for this type of change in occupancy and building and construction types and all that, they also need to be on the front end, and we can't just leave them out.

And I feel like that's what these kind of bills are trying to do, is leave them out on the sidelines, and we need them to weigh in more, not less. So I will not be supporting this bill because of that. Thank you.

Any other comments? All right, seeing none, would you like to close?

Thank you again, Madam Chair, and thank you to your staff for supporting with the amendments. You know, all of these projects will still continue to have to meet all health, safety, and building codes. Most buildings will not be eligible for conversions, but those who will, we want to make sure that they're feasible and give a clear, defined, predictable process so we can get this done. We certainly have a lot of challenges with a lot of unused buildings that is creating a lot of problems for our downtowns, and this will be one of the things that we can do to help.

Just on the labor piece, we're going to take the recess and continue to work with folks on that and find the right balance and making sure that we have strong labor standards that can work on this bill. So you have my commitment to continue to work on that, Madam Chair, and with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We don't have quorum yet, so we can't take a motion, but we will when we get quorum, and now I'll let you present Assembly Member Santiago's bill, which is Item 13: AB 2910.

Thank you so much. I'm here to present AB 2910 which deals with a similar issue. It will enable the City of Los Angeles to adopt alternative building regulations to facilitate the conversion of commercial buildings to residential uses.

Before the city may adopt alternative building regulations, it must submit its proposed regulations to the California Building Standards Commission for review. This Commission may offer technical assistance or request revisions to the proposed regulations in order to protect public health, safety and welfare, and the Commission will ultimately approve or deny the proposed regulations.

This Bill also includes a sunset provision ensuring that any alternative building standards adopted by the city shall only remain in effect until the state adopts adaptive use building standards pursuant to AB 529 or January 1, 2029, whichever happens first.

This would give Los Angeles the flexibility and nuance needed to amend its local building code to better enable conversion projects while ensuring the State of California still has the appropriate level of oversight in the process. The author has committed to working with the Administration and stakeholders over the recess to ensure the Bill includes appropriate minimum safety standards.

It received unanimous bipartisan support, and on behalf of assemblymember Santiago, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, let's see if we have any main witnesses in support. Let's establish quorum.

[Roll Call] Quorum.

All right, we've established quorum. Let me just see the main witness in support. Any main witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses? You just want to say they are? Go ahead. Let's move fast.

Madam Chair. Steven Stanzler with Brownstein. On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thanks.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with EMB action. We have a support, if amended, position. Overall, the Bill is moving in the right direction. We'd like to see it expanded to include more cities. Not just the city, not just cities. Over 400,000, and include projects that are not necessarily consistent with local zoning. Thank you.

Skylar Wannacutt, California Business Properties Association, Building Owners Managers Association of California and support.

All right, any others? Not seeing any others? Is there main opposition? Does anyone want to come to the mic, please? Hurry up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew Mendoza, on behalf of the California Building Officials, or CalBO, in respectful opposition. CalBO is a nonprofit organization of code officials working for local building departments and industry partners. Our members ensure the universal application of the state building code in all jurisdictions to provide a minimum safety standard throughout the State of California.

And the Health and safety code provides that localities can amend the state building code after providing justification for more restrictive standards, but these amendments are never to reduce the minimum level of safety offered. AB 2910 is a particular concern because it reorients the focus of institutions from ensuring health and safety to increasing affordability.

CalBO understands the crisis that we are facing and the need to develop, but we do not believe that this is an appropriate solution. Some of the standards offered for these adaptive reuse projects include reducing the size of elevators to where gurneys will not fit, limiting the capacity of sprinkler systems, and eliminating vestibules and stairways.

While these features may be cost prohibitive, there are design choices that can be prudent during a fire by raising the neutral plane of smoke, reducing the heat in a stacked building that amplifies pressure, and expediting an emergency exit.

CalvaBO standard, despite their income or geography, and thus we must respectfully oppose AB 2910. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition?

Are you coming up to testify in opposition? No, all right. Seeing none. You want me to call on you? Well, I'll let you have a question--

It's going to be a difficult question. The person came up to oppose this was talking about the uniform building code and the uniform fire code. Those are all adopted into code by the cities themselves. So if they have a fire department, they all use that. So all of that has to go in.

The difference between this and the one we just heard was this one is for the city to do this. So the city is involved in the whole process, which is exactly what I was talking about before. And so they can determine which buildings are sufficient for this type of use or reuse and which ones aren't.

Does that sound about correct?

Yes. And they still have to submit it to the Building Standards Commission. And there's a role for the state in approving. They have to submit their proposed regulations to the California Building Standards Commission.

The other bill, though, still requires all buildings to comply with the building codes and safety and health standards. It doesn't change those.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other comments or questions by my colleagues? All right, is there a motion?

I'll move it.

Great. Senator Blakespear has moved. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Assemblymember Santiago. Thank you.

We will have a roll call.

Motion is due pass. And re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. 6-0.

Your bill will be on call, and let's see if there's a motion for Assembly Member Haney's own bill that he presented right before this. Senator Menjivar's moved. Okay, let's do a roll call on that one.

Motion is do pass as amended--

Say that bill number because I didn't.

This is Assembly Bill 3068 by Assembly Member Haney. Motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Four to two.

All right, we will also keep that one on call, and we will now go to--let's see who's in the room. Assembly Member Friedman, I think you are next. You have bills Items Number One and Two. As you come up to get ready for present, let me just tell the members.

The consent calendar items are Item Four: AB 1817, Item Seven: AB 2117, Item 11: AB 2550, Item 14: AB 3012, Item 15: AB 3057, and that's it. Can I have a motion on the consent calendar? All right, so we've got the motion from, I believe it was Cortese. Oh, sorry. Seyarto. Senator Seyarto. We'll do a roll call on that and then we'll hear from Ms. Friedman.

On the consent calendar, [Roll Call].

Six to zero. All right, we'll keep the consent calendar on call, and we'll now hear from assemblymember Friedman. Item one, AB 930.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Many local governments would like to boost investment in infrastructure and transit oriented development. However, they lack access to funding. Projects are not economically feasible due to a lack of available land, high infrastructure costs, weak market comps, and expensive and risky entitlement processes.

In 1945, California enacted the Community Redevelopment act to assist local governments in eliminating blight through redevelopment. This program allowed redevelopment agencies to use state and local incremental property tax to support redevelopment.

This program was used by many communities very successfully, including my own in Glendale, to eliminate blight and resulted in thousands of new housing units over the course of its 67 year history. In February and 2012, redevelopment agencies were dissolved and many municipalities, including mine, lost the bulk of their funding to create affordable housing.

AB 930 will permit two or more local governments to jointly form a reinvestment in infrastructure for a sustainable and equitable California, which happens to come to rise, if you spell it out, a district to unlock tax increment financing for infrastructure, affordable housing, and equitable development in location efficient areas.

Rise district plans will align with metropolitan planning organizations sustainable community strategies. These plans will align infrastructure investments that support equitable development in existing community centers while reducing car dependence, lowering carbon emissions, and encouraging economic development and climate resilient housing production near transit and walkable communities.

AB 930 the RISE act will align planning and infrastructure investments to refocus growth towards community. The Bill is sponsored by the Council of Infill Builders, Spur and Civic well and is supported by California Home Building alliance, the City of Oakland, Monterey, county and Skag in Southern California.

Testifying and support today are Mia Kong, senior VP with related California and Director of the Council, Infill Builder, and Roger Dickinson. It's Roger. Hi Roger, policy Director from Civic well, and I would respectfully request an aye vote go ahead.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members. I am Mia Kong. I'm an affordable housing developer. I've been building affordable housing for the last 25 years in California. I'm also a founding board Member of the Council of Infill Builders, one of the bill's very proud co sponsors.

AB 930 incentivizes local governments to work together everyone has a seat at the table to plan and invest in infrastructure and affordable housing in existing communities near transit. Rise unlocks tax increment financing to upgrade infrastructure to make communities more resilient and to pave the way for more infill housing.

In existing communities, where residents are more likely to walk, bike or take public transit to get around 50% of the money is required to be spent on infrastructure improvements and 30% for affordable housing.

AB 930 establishes a framework to reduce vmt consistent with sustainable community strategies and establishes a virtuous cycle with dedicated funding for affordable housing and infrastructure. AB 930 establishes the rise revolving loan Fund with Ibank. Upon appropriations, IBank will provide low-cost loans to all rise districts across the state. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Roger Dickinson, the policy Director for Civic, well, previously the Local Government Commissioner. I want to thank Assemblymember Friedman for her leadership on this Bill.

I've been deeply involved in efforts to integrate land use and transportation for multiple decades as a county supervisor, as a Member of the Assembly, and as a citizen to promote a stronger economy, a healthier environment, and sustainable communities, including as a principal co author of SB 628 by Senator Bell that authorized the creation of enhanced infrastructure financing districts, or EIFDSE.

AB 930 builds on the concept of EIFDs by allowing local governments to dedicate growth in local property tax revenue to finance investments in infrastructure and affordable housing and geographic areas near transit. And so doing, AB 930 provides a form of Value Capture.

Properties that enjoy enhanced value due to their proximity to transit will help underwrite the cost of public investment.

Local governments will be able to focus that public investment where it will yield the greatest return in fostering the elements on which sustainable communities depend, a greater supply of affordable housing, a development pattern that reduces trips and greenhouse gas emissions, a setting that provides walkability and social cohesion.

AB 930 can Jumpstart projects that will bring these results through a concept of a state revolving loan program and dovetail with AB 2011 and SB six from 2022 to accelerate the rebirth of neighborhoods and communities. The Bill provides a significant new tool for local governments to use as they endeavor to grow smarter. We respectfully request your aye vote in support of AB 930. Thank you.

All right, others in support, add on. Me, too.

Holly Fermin DeJesus with the Lighthouse public affairs, on behalf of a proud co sponsor of the Bill, spurtainous.

Charles Watson, on behalf of BART the Barrier Rapid Transit District and support. Thank you.

Bob Naylor, for Fieldstead and company in support.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association of Local Housing finance agencies. Many of our Members are former redevelopment agencies in very strong support.

Kevin Gilhooly from the Southern California Association of Governments in support.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Leading Age California in support.

Rafa Sonnenfeld, on behalf of EMB action and our nearly two dozen chapters in California in support.

All right, let's see if there's registered opposition. Okay, seeing none. Anybody want to come to the mic to add opposition? Seeing none, let's go to the Committee.

Go ahead. Senator Blakespear. Thank you. This is a really ambitious Bill. That's exciting. I was particularly interested in having ibank provide seed money. I think that's an innovative idea. And so I just wanted to commend you on this and appreciate all the supporters who spoke, your supporters today. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we've got a motion. Would you like to close?

We've been working on this now for two years, and there's a lot of need for this in our community. So I would request your aye vote.

Great. Let's have a roll call. I thought you had moved. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Motion is due. Pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Skinner. Aye. Skinner I acho Bogue ocho. Bogue. No. Blakespear. Blakespear. I Caballero Cortese. Cortese I minjivar Padilla. Ciarto Amberg Wahab. Three to one.

Great. It's still on call. We need, obviously, Members, so we'll go to your next item, item two, AB 2553.

Thank you. AB 2553 clarifies when local jurisdictions must impose lower traffic impact fees on transit proximate housing development. It also updates the definition of major transit stop to reflect post-Covid service levels.

First, if a local agency has adopted a trafficked impact fee, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the fee to be set at a lower rate for housing development projects that generate reduced vehicle trips as determined by whether the housing development meets several criteria, including proximity to transit.

Currently, the law requires the housing development be within one half mile of a transit station, which is a narrow definition that excludes many projects well served by transit. Many local agencies have very high traffic impact fees, posing an impediment to the production of housing and overcharging transit proximity housing developments that would have minimal traffic impacts.

However, several other statutes, including the California Environmental Quality Act and the state density bonus law, encourage development projects to occur approximate to transit by providing benefits such as streamline environmental reviews and lower parking standards, among others.

Under these statutes, a development project must be proximate to a major transit stop, which, among other things, include the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less during morning or afternoon peak commute times.

AB 2553 requires local agencies to consider reducing traffic impact fees for housing developments within one half mile of major transit stops, which will increase the number of developments that qualify for the reduction compared to the current requirement to be proximate to a transit station.

Second, the Covid-19 pandemic caused a significant reduction in transit ridership, and many of our agencies are recovering from that. But we want to make sure that that doesn't impact our ability to build housing.

So we-- you know, and even if with lower frequency, we still have people riding transit who are moving into units that are close to the transit that they rely on. To address this concern, AB 2553 amends the definition of major transit statistics stop to increase the headways for bus routes from 15 minutes to 20 minutes.

Testifying in support is Holly Fraumeni De Jesus on behalf of SPUR. The bill has had bipartisan support and no opposition, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus, Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, and they're the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Research Association, a proud sponsor and supporter of many local and state initiatives that are trying to facilitate more production of housing near transit.

And just to reiterate what the member was saying, this is not a mandate, it's just requiring the cities that they must consider a reduction fees. It doesn't guarantee that the fees are going to be reduced, they just must consider them in the same way that they do a housing project near station as near a stop. Urge your aye vote.

All right, do we have any others in support? Come to add your me-too.

McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of the Association of Environmental Professionals, in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, representing LeadingAge California, in support.

Keith Coolidge, on behalf of AARP California, in support.

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY action, in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY, in support.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus again, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, Sand Hill Properties and also CivicWell, in support.

Great. All right, opposition? We have none registered. Is there anybody in the room who wants to come to the mic, express opposition? Okay. Seeing none, let's go to the dais. All right, we have a motion from Senator Blakespear. We'll do a roll call. Oh, apologies. You may close.

I'll accept the motion as my close.

Motion is due pass to the floor. [Roll call]. 4-0.

Excellent. All right, so, Assembly Member, we'll go to your third item, AB 2712, which is Item Number Three.

Thank you. Members, AB 2712 is a district bill. This bill prohibits the City of Los Angeles from allowing residents and visitors of certain developments from getting permits to park in a preferential parking area if the new development is located in a preferential parking area and not subject to minimum parking requirements. You may remember that last year I co-authored a bill along with Senator Portantino to prohibit the use of minimum parking standards in direct proximity to transit.

What we didn't anticipate at that point is that there would be developers who would build market-rate housing and offer to their residents preferential parking passes for the neighborhoods behind these new developments, many of which are on commercial corridors, that when the preferential parking passes were first established for their neighborhoods, didn't even allow apartments on those corridors.

But we have done state laws that now encourage people to build housing, even on commercial corridors, that have opened up ambiguity in many places in Los Angeles as to who is supposed to be getting preferential parking passes for neighborhoods that are already extremely parking-burdened.

In these neighborhoods, curb parking is at a premium because of older development that really didn't have a lot of parking for those residents. What we're trying to encourage right now is development in these communities for people who are wanting to use transit in alternative ways to get around.

What we don't want to have is more and more cars coming into already over-congested urban areas in the middle of cities where we know we have a parking problem. We expect developers to add the parking that they need for their locations, but what we want in areas where we already have a lot of congestion is actually people to be using public transportation, and the whole point of my bill last year about parking was to allow the building of units without parking for people who don't have cars.

And there are many of them in our community who are willing to rent an apartment for less money than a market-rate unit would cost because they are taking Ubers, they are using the bus, they are using other kinds of public transportation or riding their bikes.

By giving those residents in these buildings--sometimes some of them very large buildings--parking passes to park in neighborhoods where we know we don't have curb space, we are setting the stage for those residents to oppose new housing, whereas they otherwise would realize that it's not going to have such a huge impact on them because of the lack of access to parking and the lack of ability to accommodate a lot of new automobiles.

So this is a district bill. It's trying to deal with a problem that we didn't anticipate because we didn't realize that these very large buildings are going to be put up in areas with restricted parking and that the City of Los Angeles wouldn't know how to interpret our law and would err on the side of giving hundreds of new residents preferential parking passes.

The bill has restrictions put on by the former committee that it went through in the Assembly to limit this, to exclude low-income housing and also smaller units, so that if someone's adding a few units to an existing building, for instance, they can still get a parking permit for those residents, but not for larger developments.

So again, this exempts residents in developments that are 20 units or less. It exempts residents in units that are deed-restricted, intended for households that are low-income, extremely low-income, or lower income households, and it also allows the city to issue permits if they feel that if they do a public process and determine that giving those permits is not going to be detrimental to existing residents.

And we were envisioning, in this case, situations like I have here in Sacramento, where the only reason we have preferential parking on my street is because of high school, where every day the parents would park all over the neighborhood for one half hour if there wasn't a permit parking district.

But it's not about--but new residents can be perfectly accommodated in that district. So we wanted to make sure the cities had some flexibility, but through a public process that's transparent and where the residents could weigh in. And with that, I would urge an aye vote for this district bill.

All right, do we have any--?

Oh, yes. We do. Speaking in support of AB 2712 today is Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. And this bill, by the way, has received bipartisan support.

Good afternoon, Chair Skinner and Members of the Committee. My name is Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League, and I'm here today to second what Assembly Member Friedman has said and to express California's need for the smart and responsible parking reforms put forth in AB 2017.

This bill recognizes the need to support transit-oriented development and affordable housing without encroaching on and overcrowding the curb parking that existing residents rely on. By excluding large and low and no parking development from preferential parking districts in Los Angeles, AB 2712 will, one: prevent infill development from displacing neighbors from the curb parking they currently rely on, thereby preserving existing parking supply.

Two: it will defeat opposition to new housing and businesses on the grounds that they will overcrowd nearby street parking, making it easier to get needed housing off the ground, and three: it'll ensure that transit-oriented development is actually transit-oriented. These projects should support car-free tenants and customers, not simply push parking demands to already crowded streets.

AB 2712 is a win for affordable housing, for existing neighbors, and for our climate and public health goals. We know that California cannot meet its long-term climate goals without reforming our land use patterns to curb VMT growth.

We also know that affordable housing won't truly be affordable as long as low-wage households are displaced the urban periphery and priced out of transit access and access to economic opportunities. Where transit is an option, we know that mandatory parking minimums impose artificially inflated prices on residents that they do not need and potentially cannot afford.

By addressing concerns about removing parking minimums and reducing opposition to nearby low-income housing development, this bill fosters inclusive and resilient communities. And by curbing urban sprawl and induced car usage, this bill contributes to reductions in vehicle miles traveled, thereby reducing air pollution, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and advancing California's climate goals, which is a win for everyone.

AB 2712 is an incredibly creative and incredibly pragmatic approach to our climate and housing crises that supports both equity and existing community needs. This bill is important and thoughtful and I urge your support.

Thank you. Any others in support? Okay. Now, any opposition?

Hello, Senate Housing Committee Members. My name is Barbara Gallen. I lead the Friends of historic Miracle Mile in Los Angeles. And I stand here today on behalf of at least 10 other neighborhood associations representing multifamily apartment districts in Los Angeles because we share concerns about remaining loopholes in AB 20712.

The core purpose we not only support, we actually brought that Bill to Assembly Member Friedman, to whom we're so grateful that she took it up. The loopholes have to do with the exception for development of 20 units or less, the exception for deed restricted units.

And we were under the impression that the local government Committee had struck the exception for a city to subjectively determine, with no metrics, overcrowding. So we were not prepared because we didn't know, we were told that was taken out. Is that still in the Bill? The subjective determination, the way it was worded?

If it wasn't taken out, we're sorry.

That was taken out. That was a mistake. oh, thank goodness that is no longer in the Bill. Jim, we have an old. It was just a mistake to leave that.

Thank you so much, because that was a big one. Our associations and all of you, if you've seen the letters from in the portal, I really do speak with neighborhood associations that represent literally tens of thousands of renters in historic twenties, thirties, forties buildings. We do not have nearly enough curb parking.

There's far more permits that already exist. So, when we look at those exceptions in LA Dot policy is you can get up to five permits per residence.

So a 20 unit building, and by the way, all luxury, because AB 2097 has no affordability requirement, a 20 unit development, those residents can obtain 100 permits to park 100 cars in our neighborhood. That's to pollute our air.

We only have 70 curb spaces per block, a deed restricted component of a luxurious 358 story, 42 story luxury high rise with 29 affordable units. Those 29 affordable units can obtain 145 permits to park 145 cars. And they're taking spaces from Low income.

We're already thousands and thousands of residents living in 1920s and thirties buildings that have one outlet per wall, that don't have any amenities. No dishwashers. They're old buildings. They're charming, but they also are not contemporary amenities.

And we live in them because if we don't leave, our rent stays predictable for decades because older housing is cheaper than newer housing. And that's well documented. So we understand the Assembly Committee wanting to look out for people in lower income housing, but that's us. Thousands of us in a given apartment, someone's paying $950.

The apartment next to them, vacated because somebody can't deal with. There's now another thousand people getting permits in a district that doesn't have enough for us. They move out, their apartment will be re rented.

If you want to give any time. To the other speakers, 2900, multiply by. Almost fully out of time. Sorry.

Okay. Please remove these loopholes and then. We love that Bill. We wrote the Bill. Please remove those loopholes.

My name is Ben Harding. I lead miracle mile action in Los Angeles. MMA opposes these two loopholes in AB 20712 but we'd strongly support the Bill if the loopholes are removed. Specifically, we want to remove the exception for developments of 20 or fewer units and the exception for occupants of deed restricted units.

It's self defeating to present buildings as transit oriented, then turn around and issue parking permits for these residents. Granting parking privileges encourages people to bring cars, something AB 2097 was intended to prevent.

We want the Committee to realize that in LA, building a new development without parking doesn't cause people to give up cars if they can utilize street parking. For 19 years, I've lived in a 192932 unit building with no parking. Neighbors and I all have cars. We all fight for street parking.

There are more permits already issued than available spaces. If I can't find a spot in my district, I have to park perhaps six blocks away. Walk home in the dark. We put up with this because rent in older buildings is affordable.

If we stay put under rent stabilization, every permit issued to residents of new developments takes away already scarce parking from someone like me and my neighbors, we will have to move and face market rate rent, which we can't afford. The rent for my unit would be raised then for the next person who takes my vacated apartment.

The result is a loss of affordable housing for the neighborhood we can present prevent that by removing these loopholes, new developments, so that new developments can't flood our neighborhood with cars. Otherwise, AEB 20712 is just like a bucket placed under a roof leak with no plan to repair the roof. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any other opposition? Okay, let's. Senator Cortese, go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, the author and I have had lots of conversations about her valiant efforts, you know, to deal with this issue and to promote the right things, which I agree in terms of the outcomes. And I'm going to be supporting this Bill.

We talked last year about, you know, communities that are integrated both in terms of demographics and just in terms of land use. It's actually not that often that you see those in suburban and urban areas anymore.

In a few places in the Bay Area, you know, clearly San Francisco, parts of East San Jose, where you'll have single family, up against multifamily, up against commercial, all side by side. And then when you get into the promoting transit and transportation issues, it becomes a little more tricky in terms of unintended consequences.

But I'm actually really happy to see you bringing back this Bill, albeit on a district wide basis, to come in and focus on, okay, if there's things that aren't working exactly right, let's come back with a Bill and deal with that.

And I think this whole area is going to be an ongoing, evolving body of work like that. And I know others will take that up in years to come to the opposition. I totally understand all of what people are saying and are frustrated about.

But again, we need to keep hearing from folks like the opposition's to, you know, to better these policies in the future. We're not going to get there in one Bill or two bills.

It's just one of those iterative things in legislation, especially when you're trying to advance legislation like was done last year on a statewide basis, you're going to run into these more nuanced issues that need to be corrected later on.

So I commend you for coming back and saying, okay, you know, a little course correction needs to be done here. Some more will be needed in the future.

I think one of the things that's going to be needed in the future, perhaps, is, you know, as much as, you know, a property rights person, as I tend to be by way of background, the multifamily property owners and managers need to be really, really clear with people as to what the situation is.

You know, I had actually, down in Southern California, my youngest of four children, move into an apartment complex. And being the lawyer I am, I looked over the lease for him and I said, hey, you know, it says parking is available. It doesn't say assigned. He said, well, they told me, you know, they have carports.

And I went there. I look, they have carports. I said, yeah, but the legal language says parking is available. It doesn't say that they've assigned anything to you. He said, you know, I'm not worried about it.

Well, what it did is it there wasn't a carport for him and it pushed him, you know, into the adjacent residential area, which is okay during certain times of the day and other times of the day, it's bad for everybody because whatever, everybody's coming home at the same time, for example, those kinds of disclosures, I think are really important and probably even more important as we adopt these policies to try to advance and encourage alternative transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled and all the different things that we're trying to do.

I think there's some social responsibility to make sure that folks are disclosing to all concern. And then economists will start to take over a little bit and people's decision making will have an influence on all of this. But again, I'm going to be supportive.

I commend the author, and I would just ask the opposition, for whatever it's worth from a guy here in Northern California, to be, to be persistent, but be patient, because it's going to take maybe another year or two to get this exactly right, in my opinion.

Senato. Yes. Thank you. So I'm curious about the opposition. It was pointed out also in the staff report about the decision about 20 units, and I don't know if that was a discussion with the Committee staff beforehand, but was 20 units having an exemption?

Seems like it's larger than a mom and pop who'd be adding something, one or two units. So I just was curious about that number because it seems sort of high to have a carve out that's that big.

So just to be clear, like many things, and first I want to thank, I don't want to call them the opponents, because they've actually been our partners in this legislation for coming up and for carrying a, about this issue and being passionate about it. They're great partners.

And I understand the frustration because I've been here for eight years, and the way the legislative process always works is we introduce the perfect Bill that we want to introduce and then we go in front of a Committee and the Committee Members sometimes have to have, often have other ideas and the Committee chairs have other ideas.

And what happened in the Assembly was we introduced a Bill without what they are calling loopholes. We introduced a Bill and the Committee was a no reco on the Bill. They did not like the Bill.

They thought that it was unfair for the new residents not to have the exact same privilege as the existing residents in terms of preferential parking passes. And they were a no reco. And we did not get the Bill out of Committee. We got reconsideration.

We sat down with the Committee chair in local gov and we worked out these amendments that were put into the Bill that made them feel a little more comfortable with the Bill. I'm not saying that the chair loved the Bill. At the end of the day, but he was willing to allow the Bill to move forward.

These are Committee amendments, and we are not in a position now of taking those out of the Bill even if we want to, because the Bill will be pulled back into the Assembly and into local government, because these are the amendments that came from that Committee, and that's just how the process works.

We were in a Committee this morning where I almost lost one of my bills that I'm very passionate about, sitting next to the great Dolores Huerta, because the Committee chair did not necessarily like the Bill that was in front of her and wanted to amend the Bill.

We don't, as authors, have control over that, because this is a group exercise, it's a group sport. And some, and many times, part of the process is our bills get changed. They get changed by the committees, they get changed by the chairs. That's what happened in that case. So that's where we are. I couldn't tell you.

You know, I'm not going to give you the rationale for a Committee's recommendation and for the amendments that they took. They felt comfortable going up to 20 units. They were very adamant about putting about the exemption for the Low income households as well. And that was our bargain with them, to move the Bill.

Otherwise, the Bill would not have moved, and we'd have nothing and no protection for any of these large buildings that were going in. So the choice was not move the Bill or move it in this form. And we've chosen. I still think that it's a very important Bill.

I still think that it's going to prevent what they are finding, which is very large buildings coming in and offering preferential parking to their users.

And I think that what we really need in miracle mile in parts of Los Angeles is a much more robust public transportation system and an ability for all of them to maybe have less cars, you know, so that they can move around their city without having to drive around for half the night looking for parking. I've lived.

I lived in Hollywood before. I, you know, lived in Glendale. I know what that's like, and I know Miracle Mile very well. I know the area around LAcma very well.

These are some of the most parking constrained parts of Los Angeles, where you do have a mixed of old single family, old apartments that are underparked, newer buildings, commercial buildings, people going to museums, going to all kinds of things, looking for parking and walking all around.

So, you know, these are areas that have a lot of stressors, you know, on them that, you know, that do need to be the focus of mobility in our urban core. Thank you.

Sure.

Yeah, it's a good Committee. Do we have a motion? All right. Senator Cortes moved. Would you like to close?

Just. I'm glad to see this Bill move forward. I think that it is. You know, I think it is really important when we pass legislation that we go back and see how it's impacting different communities, and I'm glad that we're going to be able to help.

It may not be perfect, but it's the best that we could have gotten out of the Assembly, and I do hope that it, you know, gives some clarity to Los Angeles and gives them more tools to kind of get a handle on this. With that, I would request, and I vote for a district Bill. Great.

Let's have a roll call.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call] Three to one.

All right, the bill is on call. We'll now go to Assemblymember Addis, and that will be item-- Oh, I'm sorry. Schiavo's here? I didn't see her. Oh, sorry. Apologies. We will go to item five, AB 1820 by Assemblymember Schiavo. Apologies.

Assemblymember Friedman's bills were very interesting. I was happy to be here and listen. So thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1820.

AB 1820 has gotten bipartisan support, overwhelming support, really, because it's a simple, good government measure that allows housing developers to know that development fees prior to committing shovels to the ground.

Knowledge of these fees are critical because many of these fees add up to 20% of the cost of a home, which can be the tipping point for many from having access to an affordable home. AB 1820 provides guardrails, especially for affordable home developers, to have predictability of costs affiliated with the affordable housing we need.

During the last Committee hearing, we removed most, if not all, of the opposition. CSAC, Cal Fire Chiefs, and the league, along with the parks and special districts, have all taken neutral positions or support positions of this measure, and we appreciate everyone working really closely with us.

The City of Oceanside was the only opposition on record that submitted a late letter. Our office has reached out to the mayor's office several times and not gotten a response. However, most of the issues in their letter, we've actually already addressed with amendments.

So here to testify in support of this measure, I have Brooke Pritchard from California YIMBY.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Brooke Pritchard, and I'm a legislative advocate with California YIMBY, a statewide organization of 80,000 members dedicated to creating a more equitable California through abundant, secure, and affordable housing.

I'm here today as a proud co-sponsor of AB 1820, a good governance bill which addresses the lack of transparency and predictability in local permitting fees. Currently, developers face substantial uncertainty regarding the costs associated with local impact fees.

Although recent changes improve the availability of updated fee schedules, currently, several local municipalities do not have a comprehensive consolidated fee schedule. This piecemeal disclosure process not only increases financial uncertainty, but can also delay or derail housing projects altogether. As the author has stated, these fees can amount up to 20% of the median home price.

By allowing developers to request a fee and exaction estimate in good faith from their local jurisdictions, this bill provides much needed financial predictability, facilitating better planning and budgeting. Amid California's housing crisis, this bill is a pivotal step toward transparency and ensuring we build the affordable housing Californians deserve. Thank you.

Great. Let's see if there's any others in support.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of two additional co-sponsors as the California Building Industry Association and SPUR, and supporters: Habitat for Humanity California, CivicWell, Sand Hill Properties and Eden Housing. All in support.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead, in support.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and Housing California, in support.

Rebecca Marcus, representing LeadingAge, in support.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, support.

Rafa Sonnenfeld on behalf of YIMBY Action, in support.

Great. Let's see anyone else? Seeing none, let's go to the opposition. Any opposition in the room? All right, seeing none. Colleagues on the dais? Go ahead. Senator Ochoa Bogh has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

Respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Excellent. Let's do a roll call.

The motion is due pass and re-refer the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. 4-0.

All right, that Bill will stay on call. And now you can go to assemblymember Addis. And that item is item six, AB 2022.

Well, thank you, chair. I want to say also thank you to the staff and advocates that are here today.

I bring you AB 2022, the Mobile Home Emergency Preparedness Act in recent years, as you know, natural disasters such as storms and wildfires have been increasing in frequency, making comprehensive evacuation plans a must in order to protect those living in California.

The central coast where I live and represent, was hit hard by the 23 and 24 winter storms, with many counties in the region being declared major disaster areas by the Federal Government. During these storms and other natural disasters, mobile home parks were especially devastated, leading to significant property damage and in some cases, loss of life.

While existing law requires these parks to have an emergency preparedness plan in place, such plans are not always accessible, nor do they always have correct information. Moreover, there have been instances when essential emergency assets were not available for use by residents emergency personnel.

Just one example is during the Tubbs fire of 2017, when residents of the journey's end mobile home park woke up to see the fire heading towards the main entrance of their park, rendering it unusable as an emergency exit.

Furthermore, the other listed entrances in that situation were not open and had not been open for years, essentially trapping residents inside. When emergency responders arrived on the scene, they found that the fire hydrants were either inoperable or inaccessible, forcing them to rely on the water in their truck.

We can no longer take a reactive approach to these kinds of disasters and must take proactive action in order to save lives. Fortunately, we do have a solution. AB 2022 aims to make sure these are seconds that we all need during an emergency evacuation are not lost. And this Bill does three things.

First, it requires more comprehensive emergency preparedness plans and makes sure that they are easily accessible at all times. Second, it ensures that residents have access to entry and exit points, utility shut off capabilities and working fire hydrants in case park management is offsite.

And finally, the bill's enforcement mechanisms will hold mobile home park owners accountable for proper implementation of these plans. We also have adopted amendments to further clarify the role of park owners and designees in emergencies and clarify the enforcement agency's role in certifying compliance.

So with me here to testify today are two witnesses, Kendall Jarvis from Legal Aid Sonoma and Beverly Purcell, representing Golden State Manufactured homeowners League.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Kendall Jarvis and I'm the lead disaster relief attorney for legal aid of Sonoma county. I've been working closely with Addus office on AB 2022, and I'm here today to respectfully request that you vote yes on this Bill.

AB 2022 improves existing law to ensure that mobile and manufactured home park residents are better prepared for and able to respond to the next disaster. Since 2015, California has seen more disasters than we can easily count. Consistently, these disasters have caused the loss of life and property for mobile home park residents throughout our state.

AB 2022 will build upon the current emergency plan to ensure that residents and their property remain safe and safely housed. AB 2022 will improve existing law to ensure that mobile and manufactured home park residents can remain safe during the next disaster.

AB 2022 will require mobile and manufactured park owners and or managers to ensure exits and entrances remain unlocked so they can be utilized during an emergency.

AB 2022 will require mobile and manufactured home park owners and our managers to ensure that fire hydrant systems are working and remain unlocked so that they can be utilized during an emergency by emergency personnel.

AB 2022 will require mobile home park owners and or managers to ensure access to gas shutoff valves if needed in the event emergency shutoff is necessary. For these reasons, we ask that you vote yes on AB 2022. Mobile and manufactured home park residents deserve the opportunity to stay safe during an emergency.

Residents deserve working fire hydrants that are not locked. Residents deserve emergency access to exits and entrances in the event that they're needed during an emergency. Residents deserve to know that a utility provider can access and turn off gas when necessary to prevent a secondary disaster.

I'm also available to answer any questions and thank you for your time and we hope that you vote yes on AB 2022.

Thank you. Are there any others in support? Yes.

Good afternoon, Beverly Purcell on behalf of GSML in support of AB 2022. For over 60 years, GSML has been our resident grassroots organization advocating for seniors on fixed incomes and other Californians of modest means who live in mobile homes. AB 222022 is critical and lifesaving.

Like many Californians, mobile home residents have suffered through numerous fires and continue to witness preventable loss of lives and properties. Devastating wildfires like the Sonoma complex fires, paradise fires, Sylmar Fire and others have cost mobile home residents their lives, their homes and their properties.

Last year, Colonial Mobile Home Park, a senior park located in San Jose, was impacted by a fire over the 4 July weekend. The residents of the park were not given access to the back exit and struggled to find a safe way out. Mobile Home Park residents deserve better. We deserve to be able to safely evacuate when necessary.

In 2022, the American Society of Civil Engineers published a study in their Natural Hazards review. That study, published by professors from UCLA and Santa Barbara University, found that mobile harms are the most likely of all housing types to be located in areas that have been or will be impacted by wildfires.

With all of the knowledge we have gleaned. Mobile home park residents continue to live in dangerous situations where they face locked entries and exits, do not have working fire hydrants, and do not have access to gas shutoff valves when management is unavailable.

We are asking for your attention to help improve the safety of mobile home park residents throughout the State of California. Thank you for your consideration. All right, any others in support?

Hi, I'm Linda Nye. On behalf of GSMOL in support, Michelle Moning. I'm the HOA President at one of the mobile home parks in Roseville. In strong support. Joseph Nye, GSMOL in support.

Great. Any others? All right, let's see if there's any opposition in the room. We'll have one key witness in opposition. Is that correct? In terms of registering two? Are you two different organizations? Yes. We'll keep it short, Madam Chair. It's all right. We only have one registered.

Okay. Hi, my name is Chris Pwisaki. Madam Chair Members, thank you for having me. First of all, from.

I'm sorry, you're speaking as an individual?

No, as representing WMA. I'm sorry, Western Manufactured Home Housing Communities Association. First of all, let me first agree that having an emergency preparedness plan is essential to providing tenants a safe community. We agree with that.

That's why the MRL already requires parks to have these plans in place and for them to be posted and provided to tenants in the park. That's also why mandatory manager park training program was being developed right now by HCD and this will begin next year. It includes a whole section on emergency preparedness.

In our conversation with the author's office, it was asserted that the key reason for the Bill is now making sure fire hydrants can be unlocked and are properly maintained in the event of a fire. Fire that's already current law. Let me be clear.

Title 25, Section 1317, is an entire code dealing with private fire hydrant testing and certification, so we're not sure why the Bill is necessary in the first place. Parks already have to test their hydrants every other year as a condition of renewing their PTO.

Also, locked hydrants aren't used in most cases, and even if they are, the fire Department has a master key. We also asked the sponsor for data on actual documentation but weren't provided with any.

Our primary concern with this Bill is that it could be used as a way for tenants to sue a park owner if a disaster occurs. We certainly won't defend parks that break the law. That's inexcusable, but we certainly won't defend parks that deserve to have their PTOs removed.

We certainly sympathize with the victims of fires and floods, but AB 2022 is a solution in search of a problem. The Bill establishes a potential for claims of liability against the park management based on acts of nature. This means that insurance costs could be made even more difficult to obtain and more expensive were still available.

Mobile home park owners are struggling to find insurance coverage right now. An increase in insurance will ultimately be passed on to the tenants. Emergency and natural disasters are best handled by local first responders and county fire marshals, not park residents who happen to have the job of a park manager.

For these reasons and others listed in our letter, WMA, as opposed to AB 2022. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your time.

Next witness.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Jason Nikert, on behalf of the California Mobile Home park Owners alliance, and I will be brief because Mister Wysocki covered a lot of the main points. I just want to echo, you know, the park owners that we represent, you know, they also agree that resident safety is important.

They operate good parks, and they intend to operate them safely. But we don't agree that this Bill is necessary to improve safety or that it in fact, will. As Mister Wysocki noted, we are already actively going to train park managers on emergency preparedness and response.

And, you know, we already have an obligation under existing law to respond in a timely manner to any emergency as necessary. We don't think that this is additive. We think what's additive in the Bill the attestation under penalty of perjury that's already been referred to.

And in short, Madam Chair and Members, we believe that while the Bill is unnecessary, it does impose potential, you know, liability on park owners and a significant cost to the State of $2.6 million. So for those reasons, we must respectfully oppose the Bill and request your no vote.

Okay. Any others in opposition? All right, seeing none. Let me see if my colleagues on the dais have any. All right, we have a motion from Senator Cortese. Yes, go ahead. Senator Ochoa Bogue.

I do have some questions. Sure. So, I was in housing when we passed Senator Lena's Bill 869 on 2022, which would require the park managers in California to receive training on addressing emergencies and emergency preparedness procedures. This training also already complements the requirements related to emergency preparedness and planning.

So it appears that, and there's obviously several requirements by the state already in order for the parks to be given their permits to operate. So they have to fulfill all of these requirements, safety and all of that on that end. So with regards to your particular Bill, it almost seems redundant to what they currently have.

What is it that they're missing currently that we don't already have in your current Bill? What is that you have or offering that is not included in here?

No, I think that's an excellent question. Maybe I'll ask our witness to answer some of the technical part.

But broadly, what I would say is what we have seen is emergency management, particularly when it comes to housing and mobile home housing in general, given the changing climate and the severe weather events that we're having, is an iterative process. And so, we need to continue to revisit how we're doing this.

But on the specific technical changes, I'll defer to our witness.

That is a program that is now currently being formulated to be implemented. So, it's not based on AB 2022. If anything, it would be based on prior examined existing emergency requirements. And it's not entirely clear how impactful that training program will be.

And then from the technical standpoint, it doesn't include things like requiring that fire hydrants be unlocked so they can be utilized or requiring that gas shut off valves can be accessed in the event that they need to be turned off.

And it doesn't do things like require that someone be present to make sure an exit or entrance can be unlocked in the event that there is an emergency. So AB 2022 very clearly lays out where there were obvious holes and gaps that were shared with us through residents throughout the state.

And those were the three biggest pieces of the puzzle that are posing significant problems and threats to life and safety. So really, we think that AB 2022 takes this a step further and does what is necessary to do to save lives.

And I get the purpose of the Bill of safety overall. But if, and sorry, the requirement by the parks to receive this training addressing emergencies and emergency pregnancy procedures and emergency and preparedness and planning, just passed in 2022, it's SB 869.

So the entity that's in charge of creating this training, how is it that you folks are not actually advocating on that end to ensure that those specifics items that you just mentioned aren't there? So that's one area. And then, second, let's see. Currently, the gas facilities are inspected by the guests in safety and real life.

So I come from a real estate perspective and realtor, and I know that there are requirements that have to be done and inspected in a certain period for safety purposes, including the gas and so forth.

So going back to my original question, why is it that you folks are not going towards the entity that's actually devising the training to include these components, rather than going through a policy legislatively through the Legislature instead of addressing it with the people that are actually doing the program right now and the training?

To answer your question simplistically, we have. We've been very involved in providing feedback and having those conversations with HCD. I think that there is a difference between training based on what emergency procedures should be in terms of what safety looks like from a General standpoint versus requiring very specific things.

And that's not what the training is intended to do. It's essentially intended to bolster knowledge of basic emergency preparedness and planning. It doesn't require that management take specific steps to address those emergency needs, if that makes sense.

So, yes, we have been actively involved in that, and we continue to advocate to ensure that, especially parks that have new management or turnover in management or haven't been impacted by disasters, that they're aware of what really happens on the ground.

Because unfortunately, as we all know, a lot of us learned this, you know, from 2017 and beyond, when disasters can continue to get more frequent and larger in scale.

So with the number of disasters we have, I think that we need to do something more than just train on the basis of emergency planning or procedures from that standpoint. However, I do love the idea that the program is there. I just think this Bill goes farther and takes active steps to save lives.

Thank you.

All right. We've got a motion.

Senator Caballero, go ahead. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I apologize for missing part of the hearing. I was listening to it. You know, I think planning is really important.

The thing that struck me, it was why we don't have the same requirement to any HOA or any apartment complex with more than, I don't know, 100 people. It just, mobile home parks are particularly vulnerable in some communities. And we're lucky. I mean, we have earthquakes, not tornadoes and hurricanes. So we're lucky in that regard, I guess.

But I was just, they're the ones that really get trashed and in the mobile homes because they're so delicate. But I'm wondering, when you're talking about flood risks and fire risks, why are we just identifying them, or are you going at it in little pieces?

Well, I mean, obviously, we would love to expand this, if that's what you're asking. I would love to expand this to cover other types of homes. I do think folks that live in mobile homes are often the ones in the most need, right.

It's often the folks that are in the most poverty and often an older age of population or a population, in my experience, when I was touring after the January storms of 2023, a population that can have very, very limited English speaking skills and reading skills. And so we really wanted to hit those most in need first.

But if you're suggesting that others need this, absolutely, I'm in agreement with that.

All right. It just struck me as we were looking at this that what brought it up for me, quite frankly, is that we're looking at temperatures well in excess of 100 degrees for the next 10 days. And that vortex goes above. It's above Sacramento, all the way down below Bakersfield.

It was a record setting year, either last year or the year before, when Fresno county had 10 days in sequence of over 100 degrees. This is well over 100 degrees. And I worry about seniors that live in our community. People don't know each other like they used to, or young couples with babies.

And particularly in my district, many of the homes have crumpled. Those swamp coolers, they're awful. They move the air around a little bit, they cool it a little bit, but they're not air conditioners. And so the idea that you try to keep your house cool when it never cools down below 90 degrees at night, it's difficult.

And so I'm worried about what kind of safety precautions we're taking and whether we have a long term system just to check on people. How are you doing? Do you need water? Is there something we can do to help you and in particular, people over the age of 80? So I appreciate what you're trying to do here.

I just wondered if you had thought beyond that. And sometimes it's easier to bite off things in small pieces. So I understand that.

No, I mean, point well taken. And that's why I mentioned with the extreme heat that we're facing, the other kind of mega storms, atmospheric rivers, that emergency planning has to be an iterative process and completely agree that we need to expand that kind of planning.

And grew up with a swamp cooler in a very hot desert, and know how very, very challenging that is on a truly hot day, to have that as your only way to cool down and really appreciate your advocacy for folks in the Central Valley, because it has been devastating over the past number of weeks, lack of clean water and lack of ability to cool down.

Thank you.

So if we're complete, do we have any other comments or questions before I have her close? I think so. We could take the vote. We have a motion. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your vote. Okay, let's have a roll call.

The motion is due. Pass, and we refer to the Committee in appropriation. [Roll Call]. That's four to zero.

All right, that Bill will stay on call. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I see assemblymember Ting. Let's go to that. That is item 10, AB 2488.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Presenting AB 2488 which is our Downtown Revitalization Bill for San Francisco. It is a district, Bill. As you all know, during Covid-19 we had devastating effects. Many of our downtown San Francisco was not unique. We unfortunately are still trying to recover. People have not come back to work.

We have a vacancy, a record breaking vacancy, about 32 million sqft. This is an effort to ensure that we are doing what we can to bring people back downtown in giving the opportunity to convert office buildings into housing.

Let me just start by saying I accept the amendments from the Committee outlined in the analysis and that I am promising not to take the Bill up on the floor until the labor language is sorted out in consultation with all the committees that have jurisdiction on this Bill. This Bill is absolutely critical.

It's a very important first step to bring our struggling downtown back to vibrancy. I have Luis Morante here from the Bay Area council as my witness.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Luis Morante on behalf of the Bay Area Council, one of the sponsors of this important Bill.

I was really proud to work with a very large group of our Members, who include many of the property owners and developers in downtown San Francisco, to put forward something that we feel very strongly will help San Francisco, will lead to production, will lead to affordable housing in the near future.

This Bill is narrowly targeted at San Francisco's existing 40 million about square feet of vacant office in San Francisco. That accounts for about 40% of all the office space in downtown San Francisco.

And that vacancy is a big reason why Downtown San Francisco has such a problem with keeping storefronts open, with foot traffic, with crime, with all these things that you hear about in the news, those perceptions of San Francisco are a big problem that this Bill will address.

Downtown revitalization here, I like to say, is the goal, while housing is the strategy for accomplishing that goal. I'm happy to answer any technical questions you might have about this Bill, and I strongly urge your support for it. Thank you.

Let's see if there's any others in the room who are in support.

Madam Chair and Members Polyot, on behalf of the city and County of San Francisco and Maryland, also in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of SPUR in support.

All right, seeing any others? Not so. Let's see who's in opposition. Seeing none. Committee Members, motion, please? Of question. Okay, thank you, Senator. Caballero. Assemblymember Ting, you may close.

Thank you again. AB 2488 is a critical tool to helping bring back vibrancy to our downtown respect transfer. I vote.

Okay, let's do a roll call.

The motion is do pass as amended, to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call] It's four - zero.

Thank you.

Great. It'll be on call. We'll have apps and Members come in at some point. Okay, let's see. Let's have assemblymember Ward present your Bill. And that is item 17. AB 3093, you may proceed.

Thank you, chair Skinner and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 3093. I'll start by accepting the Committee amendments and by thanking the Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill.

AB 3093 refines and enhances our primary housing planning process, the RHNA process, to include the most vulnerable Californians, those experiencing and at risk of homelessness. AB 3093 comes directly from ACDs report on recommended Rina reforms. Homelessness is fundamentally a housing problem, and the state cannot fix what it does not track.

RHNA is our main tool for planning for the housing needs of all Californians. The lowest income category in the RHNA right now ranges from zero to 50% of the area median income, or AMI, and that is very broad.

Most housing in this category ends up being affordable to those earning closer to 50% of the AMI, leaving Californians with the lowest incomes underserved. In response, AB 3093 introduces two new income categories to the RHNA process for the next housing element cycle, the acutely Low income and extremely Low income categories.

These categories capture the housing needs of Californians earning up to 15 and 30% of AMI, respectively. AB 3093 would require local governments to develop specific programs to address the special housing needs of these lowest earners in their housing elements. The local governments do not have to go about this alone.

HCD would develop guidance to help them craft these programs to get the deeply affordable permanent housing that we so desperately need. We've been working closely with the opposition on this Bill and will continue to do so should this pass out of Committee today. And I want to be very clear.

The intent of this Bill is not to alter how the current housing element sites inventory process works. This Bill is not a silver bullet. We must do much more to address homelessness, but AB 3093 will help us plan for our housing future with unhoused Californians in mind and hold local governments accountable for implementing those plans.

Here with me today is Megan Kirkby from HCD on behalf of the governor's Administration, the sponsor of the Bill, and when the time comes, I would respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Go ahead. Thank you. Megan Kirkby, Deputy Director of HCV, proud to sponsor this piece of legislation. This Bill will allow for greater transparency and accountability in our housing goals as was just described. And yes, this is different than, this is not requiring different zoning procedures specific to this population.

The zoning expectations are the same for all of the lower income housing, but impacts the special needs analysis where locals are asked to analyze at risk populations and develop those policies within their control that help address those needs.

And we believe that we've addressed the zoning concerns to make sure that we are hitting that intent that were expressed previously, but always open to more discussion. We also received some feedback on this Bill asking for more HCD guidance on the special needs analysis, constraints and development feasibility, parts of the housing element.

We think that's a great idea. You'll see those represented in the Bill as well. And important to note, all housing, not just affordable housing, is protected by the Housing Accountability act, and the affordability level cannot be used as a reason to deny housing.

We do make that really clear in our Housing Accountability act guidance that's out right now.

And so just for anyone that's concerned that this might be used in that particular way, our housing accountability unit has already addressed situations where that has come up and made it very clear that the Housing Accountability act does not permit of, does not permit that behavior.

So we're confident that transparency and accountability and a focus on policy actions for the different experiences of these populations is a positive move in the right direction. And we also respectfully ask for your I vote today.

All right, let's see if there's anyone else in support.

Stephen Santor on behalf of Housing California in support.

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

Anyone else? All right, let's see if we have any in opposition.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Caroline Grinder, on behalf of the League of California Cities Calcites is respectfully maintaining an opposed, unless amended position on AB 3093. Despite the most recent amendments. We've been working collaboratively to address our concerns since the bill's been introduced and appreciate that those conversations are ongoing. With the author's office and HCD.

Unfortunately, we continue to be concerned that this measure is creating new requirements for local governments without additional funding to develop the plans or implement the programs or spur the construction of the affordable housing that we're planning for.

As currently drafted, AB 3093 requires cities to identify sites and develop programs to assist in the development of housing for ALI and ELI households, but it lacks critical information about how these sites and programs should differ from what cities are already planning for through the existing very Low income category.

Additionally, while AB 3093 seeks to address the needs of homeless residents, existing housing element law already requires cities to analyze the special housing needs of homeless residents and assist in developing adequate housing to meet the needs of the extremely Low income population.

Through these existing planning efforts, we believe that cities are doing more than ever to address the needs of unhoused residents in their communities rather than duplicate those planning efforts. We do feel the Legislature should focus on investing, funding and channeling directly to cities so that they can invest those funds and spur the needed development.

Adding additional income categories to arena at a time where the state budget includes 1.1 billion in cuts to affordable housing programs doesn't move us forward in meeting our affordable housing goals.

Cities across the state are planning and approving millions of new homes at all income levels, despite new bills introduced every year that have changed the rules midstream, significantly altering cities housing element certification process. With cities still navigating the state certification process for the 6th cycle, we don't believe now is the time to add these new requirements.

That could only add further delays to the certification process. We absolutely agree with addressing the intent of this measure, which is, you know, boosting the supply of affordable housing and addressing homelessness in our communities.

We just want to ensure that we have this added clarity about the differences between these programs and sites so that we don't set our cities up to fail. So we look forward to working together to bolster local government's efforts to support vulnerable populations. And with that, we respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 3093. Thank you.

Any others in opposition.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, respectfully opposed unless amended. And then also on behalf of the cities of Corona and Carlsbad, opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kira Ross. On behalf of the City of Solana Beach, opposing list amended, echoing the concerns of the League of Cities.

All right, any others? All right, seeing no other opposition, let's go to the dais. Senator Blakespear?

Yes. Thank you. So I support this Bill, and I think it's conceptually very important that when we are asking cities to do planning for housing, we are asking them to do planning for homeless serving housing.

So, it doesn't really make any sense to have a RHNA process that stops at low-income housing and doesn't go all the way down to people who are actually unhoused. So, I very much appreciate this Bill and that HCD has worked so closely with the Legislature, the Executive branch, and legislative Lance, to come up with this Bill.

I think I was listening very closely to Miss Kirkby. It was nice to see you here at this hearing, and at the end, you said that this is a policy focused approach or something like that.

And I think that it's really important, as we continue to iterate on these many laws that we have that focus on homelessness, particularly that we recognize that there should be an obligation for every city and every municipality to manage homelessness that they see within their jurisdictions.

And I think that we have a reality with more than 400 cities and counties that there are some who are trying and doing a lot, and there are a lot that don't really want to actually have to be involved in the solutions to homelessness, whether that's shelter short term or midterm or long term.

And so right now, the RHNA process is an obligation for cities, and some cities find it very hard to manage, like the one that I come from. And I recognize how difficult it was to get an approved housing element.

But I also know that we have housing in the City of Encinitas that we would not have if not for the obligation, because we had to zone and provide the opportunity for development that would not housing development that was needed, that would not be there otherwise.

And I think that same concept can be applied to homeless serving housing that we would end up with projects that would not be there otherwise if we create the obligations and the requirements around homeless serving housing.

So this, I see this Bill as a first step, but I do wonder if there will be any homeless serving housing created because of these new requirements. It does seem very theoretic and policy oriented at the moment, and not maybe as on the ground as would create actual, the actual homeless serving housing in any category.

But I also just want to say for the record that I think it's really important and instructive to remember that siting continues to be a major problem. And in the City of San Diego, which both of us represent, the author and I represent, there is an ongoing major debate about a shelter that would serve 1000 people.

And part of the reason for centering that many people altogether is that it's very hard to find enough sites that would provide for those people all throughout the large City of San Diego.

And so dealing with the siting and having cities wrestle with that, and that being a local government and land use decision that's made at the local level, that is the process we have.

And so if we're leaning into that, I think we need to continue to have obligations for all cities to do their part and not expect the big cities to shoulder all of the responsibility for homeless serving housing. So I support this and I'll move the Bill when it comes forward.

But I do encourage us to continue to be ambitious and for HCD to play an active role in saying what you see, because you certify all cities housing elements that could make the difference when it comes to providing homeless serving housing, which we know is a top crisis in this state and is literally getting worse every month.

And we are not changing things at a systems level that would change the outcome. It will continue to get worse, and I hope that at some point we will have a systems level change that will lead to a different outcome on the streets. Thank you very much.

I will take your as a motion since now is the time to make motions. So. Okay. But yes, I will also call on Senator Cortese.

Thank you very much. I'm not as sympathetic to, despite the fact that it doesn't surprise me to have objection around the RHNA process here. But I think as far as changes that are going to be impacting RHNA, the hits are just going to keep coming in.

It's unfortunate, having presided over that process in the Bay Area in my past. It's a very, very difficult process already, but we've got to continue making modifications to it.

Some Member Ward that in Santa Clara County, I felt like my home county, we've done an excellent job of taking the Eli category and using it for, you know, basically $1.0 billion in local funding for permanent supportive housing, you know, standing up an office of aging Services and so forth.

Where do you see the Ali adding to that. I'm not unsupportive of your Bill. I'm just trying to understand the necessity of that from a financing or fiscal standpoint or otherwise.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the question. And thank you as well, Senator, for your early support and co authorship of this as well.

I think one thing I wanted to make sure is kind of crystal clear is that this is intended to be able to go into effect for the 7th housing cycle, right, which will begin in 2028.

So by passing this legislation this year, this gives us a four year Runway to begin to think through how are we actually going to meet the obligations. RHNA's an existing process, an evolving process.

We continue to learn about it every successive cycle, about how to make it work, actually, how to connect the dots, both through state policies, certainly state funding, which I argue we need to do more of as well.

But it really challenges each local jurisdiction to be able to look within itself about local solutions that can be able to contribute to that through siting, through zoning, but also local programs and maybe local funding resources as well that can meet that.

So, to an area like Santa Clara County or jurisdictions within your county, county that are having that success, that have been funding, that have been citing, that should actually be able to be counted towards the work that you're doing in the ELI category.

Now, ElI currently is enumerated to a degree, but is not part of the broader, very Low income category that we are trying to see from a goal setting standpoint. And so it's tough to tease out.

There's a huge distinction in very large populations when you really scale that out to something the size of Santa Clara County, the number of people that are between 30 and 50%, 15 and 30%, and zero and 15%, essentially near zero income, or those that are at risk of falling into homelessness, and to make sure that all Californians at all of these different strata have policies that are going to be able to help housing solutions that support them as well, I think is the ultimate goal that we want to see from the 2020 through 2036 timeframe work, of course, with our local cities, to make sure that we are doing everything, whether through its template or guidance or other services that HCD can be able to provide.

But the idea there is that we need to start to tease those out as a goal, a goal that is reflected in the actual data that we're getting from counties about the populations that we need to serve, and then better fine tune the policies towards those deeply affordable populations, the populations that need deeply. Affordability.

Yeah, through the chair. I'm. Yes, I'm not 100% sold, but I'm sold enough to support the Bill. So let's see how it rolls out.

It strikes me as something that may or may not be so necessary, but it could be just my perspective, again, in my own county, where if you're zero to 30% AMI, you're the effectively, you're functionally homeless, or your family is so far below the federally just a poverty level that, you know, it isn't a matter of us needing to tease that out anymore.

It's a matter of not being able to scale the dollars that are needed for that population, which is yet a different issue. That's not your Bill. Anyway, I'll support the Bill today. And thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you.

So, Senator Caballero, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Well, I won't, I won't belabor the point.

I like teasing it out, but I like teasing it out because my perception is a little bit different, which is not that it's a big cities that are doing the homeless work, but that it's wealthy communities that say, we don't have anybody here that's homeless, or we don't have very many homeless in our community.

And so what this does is it creates the obligation for everybody to try to figure out how they're going to meet their homeless population and then to show some success to HCDena.

We've done a lot of things, too, and I do appreciate the league of cities position, which is, look, you keep changing the rules, and every time we turn around, there's a new, we've got to adapt to a new rule. And that's. It's really true.

We probably should put a hiatus on changing things too much more so that we can see if it's actually working. And that the same thing is. Frustrates me about the homeless money we've put out there.

We didn't put any categories that say, if you're going to buy a hotel, it should be held in public hands and it should remain in public hands.

And so there are private developers that got a whole heck of a lot of money to do some of this work and to contract with the nonprofits that are bringing in the homeless.

But we don't know how long that unless the money keeps going out from the state, there's no way for some of those facilities to continue to, or those housing opportunities to continue going.

So it just, sometimes we've got to be a little bit wiser about how we structure our programs, what our expectations are and what are the models that are going to work so that we can actually get people off the streets and not temporarily, and then say, sorry, but we lost funding and you're going to have to leave.

So I think this starts to tell us information. And I really appreciate your work on this.

Thank you, Senator.

All right, so we do have a motion, and you can close.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just really summarize by recognizing that we already have a process and imperfect that it is, and we're all committed to be able to support some reforms that are going to be able to help to improve not just the enumeration of what we need to do under that process, but also our strategies to be able to meet these goals harder and harder than they are with each passing year.

What this does is really helps us look forward for the planning, the next planning cycle and through that existing process, recognizing, as I said before, that there are very specific and very special needs for a struggling and very vulnerable subpopulation of that very Low income category, and to be able to goal set that using educational data, using the point and time count data, using our hdis data, which you're also improving to be able to figure out what are the goals and what are the targets.

And I agree with Senator as well, Senator Caballero, that we need to make sure that we're more effective with a lot of, and accountable with a lot of our investments that informs our budget decisions for the next year.

So we know if a program is working and is a better bang for buck on producing more units that we should be able to support as a state towards those jurisdictions willing to be able to receive those dollars, the maximal number of units that we're able to produce.

But it really starts with an eight year look ahead to make sure that we are aligning what the need is there through goal setting for the most vulnerable categories and then working in collaboration with the cities, which we will continue to do.

So should this get out of Committee today, to be able to make this workable so that we can have a best faith effort to be able to try to meet those goals in the near future, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, let's do a roll call.

The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right, we will hold that and until we get more Members. And meanwhile, let me see, do I have anybody in the room? Ah, yes, Senator Caballero, you can present. For. Assemblymember Carrillo, item nine, AB 2485. We already did, Santiago. Right. That's okay. Any time you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 2485 on behalf of Assemblymember Juan Carrillo. First, on behalf of Assemblymember Carrillo, I would like to thank the Committee staff and the chair for working on this very important Bill.

He will also respectfully be accepting the Committee proposed amendments this Bill seeks to enhance transparency in the Department of Housing and Community Development regional housing needs calculation process by requiring HCD to engage in a single stakeholder process at the start of each arena cycle and requires the publication of methodologies used on HCD's website.

The regional housing needs assessment is a state mandated program that requires cities and counties to build new housing for expected population growth over an eight year planning period. Communities use RHNA in their land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation to address identified housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth.

In March 2022, the State Auditor conducted an emergency audit to examine the RHNA process and identified several errors in HCD's housing projections that resulted in a decrease in the allocated housing numbers. And I know that if you talk to your local communities, that's a big deal.

Specifically, Sacramento Cog fell short by 2484 unit housing units and Santa Barbara Cog by 1338 units. Additionally, the State Auditor found that HCD could not demonstrate that it had adequately considered all factors as required by state law.

In response, a State Auditor reported these shortcomings risked eroding public confidence in HCD's ability to provide accurate information to cogs concerning housing needs. The State Auditor recommended a formal review process and thorough documentation to ensure that all RHNA calculations provided to cogs are accurate.

Additionally, Assemblymember Carrillo is committed to work closely with HCD and the Committee to ensure improved transparency and accountability for the current 7th arena cycle.

With me today to testify in support is Kevin Gilhooley, legislative affairs manager for Southern California Association of Governments SCAG, and Sabrina Bradbury, Director of government affairs for the California Association of Counsel, Council of Government CalCOG.

Welcome. You may proceed when you're ready.

The purpose of the Bill is not to lower or to increase the arena determination, but to ensure its accuracy.

As an agency, SKAG takes our role very seriously to help solve for the state's housing crisis, which is why SCAG advocated very heavily for critical housing programs this budget cycle, including the REAP 2.0 program, which will support the development of 66,000 housing units throughout the Southern California region.

Given how crucial the arena determination is for our cities and counties to plan for their share of the region's housing need, it is imperative that these numbers be accurate and the jurisdictions that are assigned these numbers be confident in that accuracy.

In 2022, the State Auditor conducted the report that this Senator mentioned and found that some of the arena determinations in the state were inaccurate. In fact, they were under counted.

Additionally, in the SCAG region with our 1.34 million rna determination, many of our Member cities and counties expressed frustration with a perceived lack of transparency surrounding the development of our region's final determination. AB 2485 seeks to address these concerns.

Demographic experts will be included in the process, including a representative from the US Census Bureau and other experts in the data, such as an academician who will be able to provide this peer review that's needed to this process. During the 6th cycle, RHNA SKAG, RHNA Appeals Board reviewed 52 appeals from our cities to their individual arena numbers.

Many of these cities raise the lack of transparency within the regional determination process during their individual appeal. Each appeal took skag an hour to adjudicate, which was time that was not spent on updating our housing elements or engaging community stakeholders on this very important process.

Our hope is that by increasing the trust in the process on the front end through added transparency, there will be fewer appeals and fewer delays so that jurisdictions can begin the important work of updating their housing elements on the back end to adequately plan for the desperately needed housing that our region needs.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to support the Bill today.

Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome. Good afternoon Committee Members Sabrina Bradbury with the California Association of Councils of Governments and I will be brief and just echo my colleague Kevin's comments.

But from a statewide perspective, we do believe that this Bill would further strengthen the integrity of the RHNA process by assuring that data sources and analyses and methodologies used to develop the regional determination is available to all interested parties to comment on.

This is much like a process that a COG must hold when they do their RHNA for their within their region, and this transparency will increase trust in that RHNA process statewide. The second reason that we're supportive of this Bill is that it would provide greater public understanding.

One of the challenges with the RHNA process is that those that must implement it do not always understand the basis for the numbers. As a result, it is often panned as a mere state mandate, even by those who understand the need to increase housing supply.

So a process that connects the housing determination to the state goal in an evidence based way will lead to a better and quicker policy implementation. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I will continue with any witnesses. Also in support of AB 2485 here in room 1200. Nicole Wardleman. On behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and support.

Good afternoon. Chair Members. Brady Garden. On behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kiera Ross. On behalf of the City of Coronado and the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members, in support.

Good afternoon. Martha Guerrero. Representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Christina Gallagher. On behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Jeff Neil. Representing the County of imperial, also in support.

Thank you. See no other witnesses in support. We will now continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 2485. Seeing none, we will now bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments by our Members? We have. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Senator Cavallar, would you like to close.

On behalf of Assembly Member Carrillo, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, ma'am. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator [Roll Call] That's four to zero.

All right, we'll keep that open for our absent Members. Don't have any other Members.

We could take a motion.

File item number eight, AB 2729 by Assemblymember Joe Patterson. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Cortese. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due pass as amended to the floor. [Roll call]. Four to two-- four to zero, sorry.

We will be taking a brief recess until we have some authors arrive.

We'll entertain a motion for-- We're going to open the roll for our consent items.

On the consent calendar. The current vote is six to zero, with a Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]. 8-0.

Okay, we'll keep that open for absent members.

Okay, we'll be reopening the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar, current vote is eight to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]. 9-0.

9-0, we'll also keep it open. One more time, or maybe two.

We will open the roll for AB 930 by Assembly Member Friedman. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is three to one, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll call]. That is six to one.

And we'll leave that open for absent members, we'll continue with file item number two, AB 2553 by Assembly Member Friedman. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Floor. The current vote is four to zero with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call] Seven to zero.

Seven to zero. We'll keep that open for absent members. We'll continue with file item number three, AB 2712 by Member Friedman. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Do you want to call it really quick?

The motion is do pass the Senate Floor. The current vote is three to one with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll call] That is six to two. File item three, AB 2712 from Friedman.

We'll keep that open for our absent members. We'll now welcome Member McCarty to 1200. Right here. McCarty will be presenting file item number 12, AB 2593. Welcome.

Thank you. One of those afternoons. Thank you for allowing us to present this measure. This is a district bill and a bipartisan measure with Assembly Members Hoover and Nguyen joining me, focusing on addressing our homelessness crisis in Sacramento County, which is a crisis in all of our counties.

We're going to hear from in a second my witness here. Last year, our Sacramento County Grand Jury did a report on this issue, and they recognized the lack of cooperation among regional and local governments.

So, many of you came from local governments, I'm sure, and you served on JPAs, on library and wastewater and telecommunications, even cable TV commission we have here, but not working together on the issue of the day. And, you know, in our state budget process, we put more money on the table for local governments to tackle homelessness.

And one thing we want more is more accountability and more cooperation among local governments. So, our point-in-time count shows that our homelessness in Sacramento is still a major problem. We had a slight dip the last two years, but still way too many people sleeping outdoors as many of you see, staying up here in Sacramento County.

This would be a permissible option, optional opt-in JPA with the County of Sacramento and cities within the County of Sacramento to work together, to come up with a regional plan to work in partnership to address homelessness.

Because the bottom line is, we are all in this together and one jurisdiction cannot solve it on their own. With me today is Mister Bill Miner, a former member of the Sacramento County Grand Jury and a co-author of the report on this topic. Thank you.

Hello, sir, and welcome.

Thank you. I'm actually not a, I shouldn't say, I'm a co author. Everything the grand jury does together.

So I wanted to take a couple of minutes and talk a little bit about the process that we went through, because we conducted a number of interviews, almost two dozen members of the community, whether they were the city government, county government, the cities we interviewed, and then some of the providers for services, what we found was they really worked, no matter what they would want to communicate, in silos.

They did not work together. So we end up with a. We started to look at it more structurally than into individual programs or things you could do to try to improve mental health or other parts of their services.

So what we did, we started, we took a look at what is going on and is working. So we did a lot of work around other counties, and what counties were having success in addressing the homeless problem. And we found quite a few. And the common thread was they had a JPA.

So if you go to the report, I don't want to cite the data, but then we looked at a half a dozen and they all had flat or significant improvements in their performance with the use of a JPA. In Sacramento County, they spend $300 million plus on the homeless problem, and it's not getting better, as pointed out, even in the most recent point-in-time count.

The issue is, is that there is no one accountable. I'm a citizen of Sacramento County. I'd like to find out who I could go either vote for or support that could start to address this problem, because it's only getting worse, it's not getting better.

And so it's the accountability that's missing. So I come from the corporate environment, so I used to, I'm not used to the government. This is a very long process today, but we look structurally at people, responsible people, assigned deliverables, and getting it done.

This problem is so bad in Sacramento County, it needs a major structural reshift, which is why our grand jury recommended the JPA. Two services before that, they recommended JPA so this is a very common problem, and it's working in other jurisdictions. So ask for your support for the bill.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Do you have any other witnesses? Nope. Okay, we'll open it up to any witnesses here in support in Room 1200 for file item number 12, AB 2593. Seeing no other witnesses in support will continue with any witnesses in opposition seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions? Senator Blakespear?

Yes, thank you. I just want to agree with the testimony that homelessness is really a big, massive problem in this state and particularly here in Sacramento.

It really strikes me that we all come into Sacramento from all over the state, and we see so many people living unhoused on our streets, and yet we still seem to be unable to really get on top of this crisis that we have in this city and in this state.

So I appreciate the leadership in thinking about the City of Sacramento, your hometown, and a place where you may be the leader of as well, and thinking about structural change. And maybe a JPA is something that would really be able to make a difference.

I don't profess to really know the ins and outs of it, but since the bill is really just authorizing the county to create a JPA, it seems like there's certainly no harm in trying that. And I agree that JPAs have been very effective at solving other problems that we've had and getting people dedicated specifically to that.

So, when the time comes, I'm happy to make a motion for the bill.

Thank you. Senator Blakespear, do you have any other comments or questions? I guess I will just have one question or just a comment. Actually, it's a question. How would you respond to the notion that cities can already create JPAs and the county could also as well, do it? Why the measure through the state Legislature?

Yeah. Further incentivize it to put it, to put it in statute. Many of our local JPAs are created in statute as well, some of the Sacramento County JPAs, and this is 100% optional. And some of the cities and counties at the beginning said, don't take away our land use authority. So we're not touching that.

Don't take away our ability to spend our own money. We're not addressing that. They want to make sure there's one vote per city, so they don't have the City of Sacramento, like, stacking their votes against the smaller city. And so we have one vote per jurisdiction. So, we've worked on all of these issues and they didn't.

Some of the jurisdictions said, of course, that they could opt into it if they choose to, and so we have it 100% permissible. So we think this would create more weight. I think this could be a model for other counties across California.

And we notice every year in the budget process, and we're all part of this, is we look at how much money we're spending, and we scratch our heads. We're like, are we getting the biggest bang for our buck? And probably no. So, more cooperation is a better thing. And I think this helps foster just that.

With that, I'll use it as my close and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other comments? Okay, so we have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass the Senate Floor. [Roll call]

Congratulations, Member McCarty. We will keep that open for our absent members. Congratulations. Okay, we have Member Carrillo. She will be presenting file item number 18, AB 3177. Welcome.

When you're ready, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 3177, which establishes guidelines on spot widening, a practice in which developers cede a portion of their land adjacent to the roadway to widen it without any compensation.

This practice is done in a handful of jurisdictions throughout California, often resulting in roads that are essentially zigzagging parcel by parcel, failing to meet the intended purpose of traffic mitigation, and frequently induce faster and actually more dangerous driving.

Spot widening requirements significantly increase housing costs, adding between $10,000 to $50,000 per housing unit, amounting to hundreds of thousands per project. This additional cost translates directly into higher rents, undercutting housing affordability. Moreover, these requirements reduce the amount of land available for housing, decreasing the number of feasible units on a property.

Likewise, the demands imposed by spot winding can make many potential housing developments infeasible, as was the case with a permanent supportive housing project in Los Angeles that fought for almost two years to receive a waiver.

This bill limits the practice of spot widening by prohibiting a local government from imposing a land dedicated requirement for road rate widening on a housing development in a transit priority area or for developments with street frontage of less than 500ft.

This bill provides that local governments may still impose a land dedication requirement on housing developments for traffic safety features if the local government makes a finding specific to the housing development supported by substantial evidence that the land dedication requirement is necessary to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the public. Substantial evidence is the lowest standard available. As such, this provision will provide local governments with flexibility where needed.

Additionally, AB 3177 replaces the reference to transit station with transit priority area within the Mitigation Fee Act, providing reduced mitigation fees for housing near bus stops and planned transit stops within one year of completion, which the limited definition of transit station that is not used elsewhere in state law does not cover.

The provisions of this bill are well aligned with the state's goals to incentivize new housing developments and climate-smart places. This bill is sponsored by Streets For All and supported by a coalition of housing organizations that advocate for both market rate and affordable housing, as well as environmental and street safety organizations. Moreover, the bill has no opposition.

To testify in support of AB 3177 is Kirsten Bladh, Associate Director of State Policy, and Marc Vukcevich, Director of State Policy for Streets For All, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Member Carrillo. Please proceed when you're ready, and welcome.

Thank you. My name is Kirsten Bladh and I'm the Associate Director of State Policy for Streets For All, the proud sponsor of this bill. Our bill ends the practice of requiring a housing developer to give up potential housing land and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the sole purpose of widening a portion of the road as a condition of approval for entitlements, a practice known as spot widening.

Spot widening is based on the antiquated and disproven idea that we can widen our way out of traffic congestion on a parcel by parcel basis. Through this futile attempt to reduce congestion, we are making our streets more dangerous and our cities less livable, even sacrificing the width of the sidewalk in some of these cases.

Spot widening typically achieves nothing more than an increased width of existing travel lanes for a very short distance, which does nothing to mitigate congestion but does have the effect of facilitating collisions. I want to also share what this is like on the housing side.

One project in LA lost over 6000 square feet of land to these road widenings, which means they lost the ability to build over 30 dwelling units. Another project, consisting of 100% supportive homeless housing by a nonprofit developer, was delayed for almost two years after they had to appeal this requirement, as their project would not pencil otherwise.

In the time it took for that developer to obtain a waiver, an additional 12,000 people fell into homelessness in California. So in some good governance, folks support our bill because our growing pavement maintenance backlog is bankrupting rural in suburban cities.

Environmentalists support this bill because spot widening rips up mature trees, induces more car trips, and worses the urban heat island effect. Market rate and affordable developers are supportive because this policy makes their projects cheaper to finance and pencil.

And lastly, safe streets groups, like us, are the sponsors because this sort of widening just induces dangerous speeding through wider lanes next to brand new housing. I respectfully ask for your yes vote.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Marc Vukcevich, but I'm actually reading a written statement prepared by Professor Michael Manville, Chair of the UCLA Urban Planning Department, and his testimony is based on some of the materials that we handed to the sergeants. "I'm a Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA, Chair of our UCLA Urban Planning Department.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I've studied the origins and outcomes of this law that this bill targets, and I'm the author of the research paper that's being distributed to the legislature about this law, and they're some of the most unusual and least efficient regulations I have ever encountered. I will make first three points.

First, these rules have very few benefits. Their nominal goal is to reduce congestion. They don't. In many instances, in fact, they exacerbate congestion by creating bottlenecks, irregular street alignments.

Second, these rules have real costs that exacerbate the housing crisis, because these widenings remove land that could be used for housing development, and they impose both monetary costs, time delays and uncertainty on developers. Third, these laws, once put in place, take on a life of their own and become very difficult to reform or remove.

And I'll elaborate on each point. The nominal goals of these laws is to reduce congestion by widening the streets. And decades of research overwhelmingly says that this won't work because wider streets don't make vehicles move any faster at peak hours. But that's not even the problem with this rule.

The problem is that you actually never get a wider street because you never widen the whole street. You do widen it piecemeal, one incremental parcel at a time. As a result, the law actually creates bottlenecks by introducing irregular street patterns where the street gets wider and narrower from one block to the next.

This snarls traffic, and it creates safety problems, and it makes drainage problems and maintenance more difficult. Second point, even though adding road space incrementally doesn't reduce congestion, taking it incrementally does inhibit affordability. And that is the case because the incremental is oftentimes important to the feasibility of market rate or affordable housing development.

At best, the cost of required widening make it so that the developer cannot build as many units as they would prefer, and at worst, it makes the re-development of a parcel completely impossible. And when it is impossible, not only do you lose, not only do you lose housing, but you also intend-- excuse me, you also make sure that the law is never going to actually do what it's intended to do, which is widen the roadway, because the widening can only happen if a parcel is redeveloped.

Third point, if it's fair to ask why this law doesn't work very well, and why we need state intervention, and why local governments can't just stop engaging this in counterproductive behavior on our own, I actually have no definitive answer for that, but I can say that my experience suggests that they can't.

Los Angeles had a law of this sort for 60 years, and very few people think it's functional or worthwhile. My conversations with people who work with this law suggest that over time, it has become like a plane quietly flying over on autopilot. It's buried in the housing approval process, authorities dispersed over multiple agencies.

If you talk to people in those agencies, they acknowledge that it's a problem, but none of them feel like they're empowered to solve that problem. And so what we now have is a situation where this problem was made quite a long time ago, creating a dilemma for local officials today, and they don't feel like they can solve it.

So they're pushing that dilemma forward to officials in the future, which is the core of the problem for this bill. I thank the legislature for their attention." Signed Professor Michael Manville, Professor and Chair of the Urban Planning Department at UCLA.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support here in room 1200.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

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

Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY Action, in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY, in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support here in room 1200, we'll now proceed with any lead opposition for AB 3177. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate this bill and I appreciate the comments that were read by, from the Professor, but I just-- I know this is not the Transportation Committee, this is the Housing Committee, and I'm also on Transportation, so maybe I should just hold my question, but I'm burning to ask it, which is that what you said in the letter, what you read from the letter is that it's actually not working.

Like, the street will never end up actually being wider, it creates bottlenecks instead of creating more width. But from the city that I came from, we did this as part of like the bicycle lane and sidewalk network.

So whenever a house was redeveloped along a residential street, then they would have to dedicate so that there would eventually be a sidewalk. Since in the amount of time I was involved, which admittedly was not decades, we never really created continuous sidewalks.

But it's definitely part of the city process to try to create active transportation networks through this incremental development. So just conceptually I'm wondering if this applies to bike lanes and pedestrian paths in the same way it does to travel lanes where it's basically considered potentially bad policy.

And I don't know who in the three of you would be best, but I'm interested in the answer.

Yeah, I can answer that. So the bill does provide cities with the ability to make a finding for safety projects, which bike lanes would fall under, or pedestrian safety projects, or even just general traffic safety projects.

But yeah, we do find that, especially as this is practiced in LA at least, which I have most experience with, it very rarely leads to the entire block being widened.

But we also have a provision in this bill that if someone is developing the entire block, that they could still require it to be widened, because that just makes more sense.

I'll also note that sidewalks are specifically exempted from our bill, so this still can be put in a requirement for development for the sake of a sidewalk. And-- Sorry, was there another thing?

Yeah, I'll just add one more thing. Yeah, so it's only applying to the roadway, which is the curb-to-curb. So the right of way you could still have a dedication for.

So if you want to require a dedication for landscaping or wider sidewalks or even class IV bike lanes that are not in the roadway, that are actually like an extension of the sidewalk, you could still do that as well.

The last thing I'll add, which is that the fact that this is happening piecemeal. So you think about a street frontage, you think about all of the different parcels that are on it, all of the different houses that are on it, and this is just one single redevelopment, that doesn't necessarily build a bike lane.

And when it does, and when this requirement, at least in the cities that we've looked at, are put for the sake of a bike lane, oftentimes that bike lane is actually never put in. The requirement is put, but the bike lane is never actually striped. And so that's the other challenge that we faced, at least within the City of Los Angeles and a few other developments.

But ultimately, we think that the bill, as a street safety group, we think that the bill balances the active transportation needs and the bike and walk needs fairly well because of the finding requirement and the sidewalk exemption that we specifically put.

Okay. Yeah, I did notice the exemption for sidewalks and sewer improvements. I mean, I do-- I still have that question about other active transportation things, but I'll leave it at that. But it does concern me a little bit. But, yeah, I get it on the cars. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto?

Thank you. Okay, so I hate those little in and out things, too. Unfortunately. I've grown to understand why they exist and the changes in tax laws and things like that and where we can get money and how you can collect money and all of this related to development.

My concern is, let's say we do it your guys way and we tell the developer, yeah, you can build housing on that if the street is someday supposed to be four lanes wide, and you've built housing all the way up to the sidewalk and now you need space for additional lanes because this happens in newer cities.

And that's why sometimes LA solutions don't fit for other cities. Then they actually have to take out housing to be able to widen the road to handle the traffic. Otherwise the housing that's there is going to be sitting there looking at a traffic jam all day long.

So it's the reason they do that is the developer is responsible for either dedicating the land that will eventually-- because that land in front of their property is going to be nothing but a road, street, bike lane, or whatever it is they have planned someday.

If you do away with that, then it won't ever be that and you'll be stuck with roads that you can't widen, Palo Alto, anyway, where you have nowhere else to widen a road. And so you have all this traffic in neighborhoods and not arterials. Well, arterials also.

But the other street infrastructure, feeder lane, or feeder infrastructure for streets that go into neighborhoods that are not adequately sized. And that's what the planning part of cities is all about, is planning their streets to be wide enough someday to handle the traffic that's coming in with the housing that's coming in. It all kind of fits together.

And the reason that developers choose to go ahead and do the improvement is because they can do it cheaper than what the mitigation fee is going to be if they're putting into the pot. Because when the city has to do it, they have to do it to those, those labor standards and everything else.