Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

[Background]

My Vice Chair, Mr. Patterson. We have five items on our agenda today to facilitate the goals of this hearing. Within the time that we have, each Bill will have two main oppositions in support and two main witnesses in support and in opposition. And each will get two minutes.

Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website. And this will become an official record of the Bill. We will not permit any conduct that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. This morning we are in room 437 in the Capitol building.

The hearing room is to be open for in person attendance at this hearing. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Today we are hearing urgency bills that the Assembly introduced to respond to the dual issues of the fire in Los Angeles, fires in Los Angeles County, and the overall housing affordability crisis facing our state. As our speaker has said, affordable, decent housing is the civil rights struggle of our time.

Today's bills are proposed to make it easier, faster, and less expensive to rebuild in response to a national natural disaster and to build the millions of units that we need to serve our constituents. I want to thank and welcome the Committee Members. I want to thank and welcome our Vice Chair, Assemblymember, Vice Chair Patterson.

And I want to thank you all for allowing me to serve as chair. This is my first hearing with bills as chair of the Housing and Community Development Committee, first of many.

And I know that the bills that we will take on today will be of critical importance and look forward to working with all the Members of the Committee to tackle the big challenges we have in front of us. We do have a quorum, so if the Committee secretary will please call the roll to establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Fantastic. We have established a quorum. We first need to adopt the Committee's rules. If I can have a motion from M. Mr. Lee, a second from Ms. Quirk Silva. And can we take a vote on the. On the rules?

[Roll Call]

So we will get into it. I see Mr. Schultz is here. Are you you ready and want to present? All right, let's move up because we have a Member who is not on the Committee here. Let's allow him to go first if we will bring up Mr. Schultz for AB 306. Welcome.

All right. Good morning Mr. Chair and Members of the Housing Committee. Pleasure to be with you all this morning. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 306 on behalf of myself and my joint author, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.

As a quick overview, AB306 would, if adopted, impose a six year moratorium on new updates to the state building code that would affect residential construction only and would temporarily prohibit local governments from making new modifications to those standards, except of course, for emergency changes that are necessary to protect health and safety.

This inevitably begs the question, why the need for this Bill? Well, we have to understand the context in which this Bill came forward. We all well know that California has been in the midst of a multimillion unit housing deficit for many, many years. The mismatch of supply and demand has resulted in our long standing housing crisis.

And this has been compounded by what we have seen in Los Angeles with the displacements of tens of thousands of people from their homes as a result of the Eaton and Palisades and other fires. Even before that crisis, we knew that our home prices in the State of California are double the national average.

So let's talk for a moment about the building standards process before I turn it over to our two folks here to testify in support thereof. The building standards process is a triennial code proposal, an adoption process with intervening codes adopted every 18 months.

What that means is that the standards for construction and materials required are constantly changing and evolving. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does impose new costs that need to be met who are hoping to build this, build this new housing that we need.

The proposed pause in Assembly Bill 306 would only affect residential building standards and again not commercial building standards. And while AB306 will provide relief to people rebuilding homes and apartment buildings as a result of these devastating wildfires, it will also provide certainty in the residential housing market statewide by holding costs steady at a time when these homeowners impacted by the fires need that level of certainty.

I will close with just saying that we are in receipt of several letters that have raised very valid questions and concerns. We'll get to some of them today, but to even those that we can't address.

Should this Bill pass out of this Committee, I pledge to working as a joint author on this Bill, to working with the opposition on possible future amendments to deal with those concerns. With me today, I'd like to introduce two individuals who will be speaking in support of AB306.

We have Laura Archuleta and Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association.

Good.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Excellent. Mr. Chair, Members the Committee, Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, first and foremost, thank you to the author, the speaker and the principal co authors of this Bill.

You know, it's, it's really unfortunate that we actually find ourselves convening for this particular issue in light of the LA fires because codes have been an issue that have been, I think really misunderstood for years about how they come to be, what kind of impact they have and ultimately what costs they, they bring to light on future home buyers and renters in the State of California.

The author made mention that we are in this sort of triennial adoption cycle with these 18 month ADOP updates. That means we have a very robust process where all parts of the code, every single part, all of Title 24 gets reconsidered and updated at the 18 month mark.

That is a herculean effort for people to keep track of, to participate in. And we are talking about small, medium and large builders all having to do that. You know, representing CBIA, they've been very proud of the work that they've done since the 80s and to build relationships with the agencies to stay really involved.

But they're sophisticated and we have the ability and we kind of know how that is not the case for everybody. And in that collaborative process we work with these agencies that are developing, proposing and adopting to try to number one, help them achieve their goals that are both agency goals, but also state directed goals of being aggressive on climate, but also doing our part to try to keep the cost as reasonable as possible.

As we see these constantly evolving and changing codes, we certainly don't think we do it perfectly every time. And we certainly know from our experience that the code is costly. And what's interesting about the code because we now find ourselves in 2025 and we have had decades and decades of updates to these codes.

The law of diminishing returns is absolutely coming to roost in the code. We are seeing that every 1% increase in energy efficiency is costing far more than it used to. The low hanging fruit is gone, the easy things are gone.

So now we are having to tackle much more difficult provisions and Updates and how do we get to where we want to go? And again, try to keep it cost effective and try to develop a code that future home buyers and renters can actually absorb and many can't.

When there is a long standing belief that every $1000 increase in the code prices out around 9,000 potential home buyers, that's a big number and a lot of people that can get X'd out of affordability real quick.

And Mr. Chairman, it's not just the construction side, but the regularity of the update means that again, small, medium, large builders are constantly having to follow the cod, update their design plans, put those across the desk for approval, and get them approved. It's hard cost if soft costs. We just really appreciate that this conversation is happening. Thank you.

Great. Good morning chair and Members. My name is Laura Archuleta and I'm the President and CEO of Jamboree Housing Corporation. We are a affordable housing nonprofit that builds and preserves affordable housing communities across the state. State. Just in your districts alone we have developed just under 1400 affordable housing units.

I have the privilege of sitting on the board of directors for the California Housing Consortium as well as CBIA. And this is actually a perfect alignment of the affordable housing folks and the market rate folks. Right? So the full spectrum of housing gets impacted by this Bill.

Speaking as a board member with the California Housing Consortium, we are in Strong support for AB 306 CHC advocates for the production and preservation of Low and moderate-income housing. Currently the affordable housing industry is navigating an increasingly unpredictable policy landscape. You all know this. How many affordable housing bills have come before you in your time, right?

At the federal level, all types of things, including the tariffs. We're impacted by everything just as many market rate developers are. But in affordable housing we have limited resources and obviously our residents have very limited incomes.

At the state level, affordable housing developers face uncertain future as the final dollars of the 2018 housing bond will be allocated and will be depleted. Admits this instability.

AB 306 would ensure that affordable housing developers can rely on the project costs that they put in their performance that we're not having to scramble and go back and try to re underwrite and re underwrite and re underwrite and find more funding. Time is money obviously in all types of housing.

But in affordable housing specifically, our developments have five to seven layers of financing in them. And so if you're, if it's taking up time to redesign and change your development, it costs more money, more applications. Each funding source costs $10,000 per unit. So those five to seven layers are 50,000 to 70,000 for the affordable housing finance.

So you surely don't want to layer on that, having to redesign over and over to meet new codes. So Members, I yes, I do want to highlight that this Bill only applies prospectively. It does not alter or undermine any requirements currently in place, and building code changes to protect health and safety would still be allowed.

Right now, it's vital that we do everything in our power to control the high cost of building housing. Temporarily pausing additional changes to the building code is one way to do that, and I strongly urge you to support AB306. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members of the Committee Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We are in a supportive amended position. Specifically, we are looking to halt Title 24 updates for the six years entirely given that the state is the has the most robust construction standards in the nation.

These construction costs are often based on societal benefits which do not result in a cost savings to the individual homeowner as they move forward.

Our significant concerns are that we have a high cost of housing and what we need right now is the opportunity for developers to be able to construct more housing quickly with the codes they understand and know how to build under. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association in full support.

Thanks Mr. Chair. Member Stephanie Roberson on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and full support.

Good morning Chairs Member of the Committee Jordan Panna Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY. We're in support if amended with have engaged with the author's office and their staff and hope to find a path forward that advances critical cost reduction reforms in the building code and we look forward to future conversations with the Member and apologies for not submitting the support letter if amended.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members Alex Torres on behalf of the Bay Area Council support if amended align our comments California Envy thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair, Members, Greg Hayes on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in support Good morning.

Good morning Justin Yada for California Housing Partnership in full support. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair. Members Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in strong support and we also urge the author to consider adding commercial so that they are not set at a disadvantage. Thank you.

Good morning. Corey Smith on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition support if amended aligning with California YIMBY as well. Thank you Mr.

Chair. Would you allow a brief tweener? Sure. Chris McKaley on behalf of Silicon Valley Clean Energy. We appreciate the engagement of the author and Mr. Reis and others. We are seeking two clarifying amendments.

The first is that it allows local governments to adopt the 2025 Building Code Standards the local reach and then also that we would in light of the discussion and proponents statements that we limit it to new construction. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Alicia Priego on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy. Also align our comments with the prior CCA comments and look forward to working with the author.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy, the CCA for San Mateo County and Los Banos along align my comments with the previous speakers.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members Dan Chaw representing Clean Power Alliance, which is the largest CCA in California representing LA and Ventura Counties. Very much appreciate conversation with the author's office as Bill continued to realign our comments with the previous speakers.

Thank you.

Sean McNeil with the California Community Choice Association Trade Association for the CCAS you just heard from share the same concerns and all in our comments. I look forward to working with the authors. Thanks.

Thank you so much to everyone who shared their comments and support. Now I would like to bring up our two main witnesses in opposition. Please come up, introduce yourself and you will each have two minutes. Thank you. Welcome.

Hello Good morning Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. My name is Merrian Borgeson. I'm the California Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC certainly supports the spirit of what the authors are trying to do with this Bill. We certainly need affordable housing in California. However, this Bill would unintentionally cause harm without offering significant benefits.

Codes do improve safety and save energy energy, but they're also our means of reviewing and approving new technologies, processes and building methods. This Bill would functionally pause all code for almost a decade because it disallows even considering new codes through 2031.

And with the three year code cycles that we're on, this means that the next code wouldn't go into place until 2034. In the meantime, while California pauses, National Building Code, which runs on a three year cycle and which our code is based on, will continue having its own processes move forward, which means that will have approximately a decadal lag compared to the rest of the country.

California must be responsive to changes and opportunities over the next decade and not just for emergency health and safety issues. Imagine if we paused energy code right before the advent of LED light bulbs. We'd be stuck with toxic CFLs for almost a decade.

Or consider if we had been unable to make recent code updates for accessory dwelling units, which reduced construction costs significantly. For electric ADUs, there are a range of improvements made every cycle that lower cost and will provide direct benefits to households that are needed over the next decade.

One specific example is an update of to the National Electrical Code that's currently under development. This would improve the way that electric loads are calculated and allow new and existing homes to avoid expensive panel and service upgrades that are unnecessary in a lot of cases but are currently required based on national and state code.

This change would both speed up projects and would avoid costs that can range from $2,000 to $30,000 per home. AB306 would bar this major improvement from being adopted into state or local codes. And there's numerous examples like this and many we can't even anticipate today.

This Bill ties the state's hands in adapting to tech changes and improvements that actually lower costs. It takes away the ability for local governments and communities to decide what is necessary and appropriate for themselves. And this Bill will not significantly lower cost of new construction, nor it will support the LA region in rebuilding their community.

NRDC stands ready to work with authors and with builders, developers, local communities and other stakeholders on solutions to our housing crisis. But as currently written, we respectfully oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. I'm Andy Schrader, former Policy Director for Los Angeles City Council Member Paul Koretz. I spent six years working on the city's building electrification ordinance after the Berkeley decision, many cities are currently redeveloping their reach codes.

AB306 will remove the right of these local communities, including Los Angeles, to control their own destinies across the state for over 10 years. In that decade within California, famously one of the leaders of innovation in the entire world, AB 306 will hamstring the ability of its municipalities to innovate via their building codes.

This at a time when innovation is essential to address the multiple and complex existential crises facing us all right now today, including the breakdown of our climate, extreme wildfires, atmospheric rivers, sea level rise, homelessness, and the Trump Administration. I spent five years living in Topanga Canyon which barely survived the fires.

I know personally over 50 people in both the Pacific Palisades and Altadena who have lost their homes and many others who are still displaced. Resilient Palisades has signed the coalition letter opposing AB306. We absolutely must have the ability to move quickly and nimbly to fight worsening climate disasters.

We need every tool in our building code toolbox, including standards for home hardening, energy efficiency, workforce electrification, bidirectional EV charging and battery energy storage, water reuse and dual plumbing. We absolutely must get methane gas out of homes and businesses to make them safer.

The top priority of Resilient Palisades is to build back in a way that is insurable. Our insurance industry is looking for any reason not to ensure rebuilt homes do not help them out. The poll published in today's LA Times says most Angelenos back tougher building codes for higher quality and safer buildings, not frozen codes. Please vote no on this Bill.

Thank you so much to both of the witnesses. Now I would like for folks who want to register their opposition to please come up and state their name and position. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. Kim Stone Stone advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Chair and Members Martin Vindola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and the California State Pipe Trades Council in opposition thank you.

Hi. David Bollog echoing the speed the thoughts of the first opposition witness Also an IV to IBEW Member in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Ada Waelder on behalf of Earth Justice and respectful opposition.

Good morning. Chris Rosa on behalf of Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Home Energy Analytics, Habitable Designs, Green Bank Associates, Carbon Free Silicon Valley, Carbon Free Palo Alto all in opposition Good morning.

Erica Flores on behalf of NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council also on behalf of the Association for Energy Affordability, the Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, the San Francisco Bay Keeper, the Transformative Wealth Management Trinity, Respecting Earth and Environment, Tree US Green Building Council, Los Angeles and Solar all in opposition.

Hello. Johnny Kocher with Rocky Mountain Institute with Project Greenholm and with the Marin Sonoma Building Electrification Squad voting in opposition.

Good morning. Gabriela Fasio with the Sierra Club California in opposition

Good morning. Erica Pelka from Climate Action Campaign in San Diego and Orange County in opposition Good morning.

Good Morning, Will Brieger from Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento in respectful opposition. Also been asked to speak for a few other groups.

The 350 Humboldt Climate Reality Project California Coalition, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations 350 Bay Area Action 350 Conejo San Fernando Valley 350 Southland Legislative Alliance 350 Marin Actera Action for a Healthy Planet, Earth justice was spoke active San Gabriel Valley Ban Single Use Plastic Citizens Climate Lobby, Monterey County Clean Earth for Kids Climate Action Campaign, Climate Action Petaluma Climate Reality Bay Area, Contra Costa County Policy Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley Climate Reality Project San Diego Cool Petaluma Design Avenues llc, Glendale Environmental Coalition, the Marin Conservation League, Mothers Out Front, California Mothers Out Front, Silicon Valley, Negawatt Consulting, Norcal Elders Climate Action Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action Resilient Palisades, San Diego Building Electrification Coalition, San Francisco Climate Emergency Coalition, San Diego350 Santa Cruz Climate Action Network SoCal350 Climate Action SoCal elders Climate Action, Sonoma County Climate Activist Network, Sustainable San Mateo County Third Act SoCal and National Charging Access Coalition.

Thank you. And thank you to everyone here in person who registered their position on this Bill and to everyone who sent their comments and all of those organizations, not just the ones represented by you. But that was impressive. And everyone who had contacted us about this Bill, it's definitely heard and appreciated.

I'm going to now open it up to my colleagues and I'll save my comments until the end. And I'll start with Ms. Wicks.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing the Bill forward. You know, California has one of the most aggressive and comprehensive green codes, green building, state codes approach in the country, in large part because of the work that you and a lot of the opposite.

So I really want to acknowledge that and appreciate it. And it's, I think, important because it is our values. Right? We have lofty climate change goals. And so how we operationalize that is very important.

I also think we're in extenuating circumstances right now because of the fires and the devastating impact that those communities have felt, in addition to the increasing homelessness crisis and the affordability issues that we know permeate across all of our communities. Urban, suburban, rural. You hear it and feel it.

I know when my colleagues, when we go home every weekend, we hear it every single day while we're there. So I want to move the Bill. I'm going to support the Bill today. So I want to make the motion if it hasn't been made, because I do want this Bill to continue to move forward.

You know, this Bill is a temporary pause because of the extenuating circumstance that we are in. It's us taking a beat so we can address some of the affordability issues and wrap our heads around. We have a pretty fast paced, moving code structure here.

And so it gives us that second, and it provides what you said to the author, provides certainty. And for so many people right now, there's a lot of uncertainty when it comes to the cost of housing and the issues that they're faced with.

And so I want to underscore that point that you made, that the certainty, I think, is very important. In addition to that, if something changes in the next year or two or three, we can come back to this.

You know, we have a freshman Member who's carrying this Bill who's going to be here, God willing, for 12 years and so has plenty of time that if something happens and we need to make that change, we can.

I also know that he is someone who's incredibly thoughtful, who will work with the opposition and who will truly hear them out to see if there's any remedies or other things that need to be made. But I think it's important we move the Bill forward today. I'm a co author, principal co author or something like that.

My name's on the Bill. So I'm proud to support the Bill and also with large respect to the opposition because I do think of the extenuating circumstances that we're in that we do need to take a pause so that we can all get our feet under us, you know, as we move forward to solve the crisis in Los Angeles. Thank you.

Second on that motion.

A motion and a second, Mr. Lee.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I have a question and then I have some comments. I want to ask the supporters. How does a changing building code affect the price of existing structures? Because I understand there's argument about applying this to new construction. So how does this change the price of existing structures if there's changes in building code?

Sure. Well, I would just say that when we're doing right now in California, there's quite a few affordable housing units that are at risk of losing their affordable covenants. So we're in preservation mode. So we're applying to the state treasurer's office for funding to preserve those affordable housing units.

And there's extensive renovation that we do when we're renovating those units. And oftentimes some of the newer codes, although very well meaning, may make those projects infeasible.

Is it because when you do preservation you have to update it to from 70s or whatever?

Correct. And so we recently, within the last five years, took on a project in Mission Viejo, California for seniors. And actually the new higher standards for Ada were so extensive that we then had no resources to really upgrade the units at all.

And this is in affordable housing you have very few times that you can recapitalize a project and preserve the affordability and renovate it. And so it's not that the new Ada standards weren't well meaning, of course they were. This is just a matter of keeping keeping developments affordable for the longest term possible.

Okay, makes sense. And then some of the comments.

I don't know if I heard this from the Members of the public, but I think an amendment I would like to see later on is also about and the author and I kind of briefly talked about this last weekend, but also about allowing for changes to local or state building code Commission that allows for more variety and cheaper production of housing.

You know, we've talked a little bit about how we want to see smart single stair reform and that is right now not allowed to the building code.

You can't have European, Asian style single stair, multi story buildings and that was a Bill that I carried several years ago to allow for the build or to make the building codes Commission study this aspect. In fact, the Governor of Colorado in his own State of the Estate address has already called for smart stair reform as well.

So I think in line with the efforts that we want to do where we want to produce more variety and more products of affordable housing, especially in fill housing, we have to allow for the building code to also allow new things and allow for cheaper construction. So I would like to see moving forward if that's something.

Man, it was an author about like thinking about allowing for changes in the building code in next cycles, but allowing for more variety and more delivery and cheaper products to be put to the market.

Yes. Assemblymember Lee, thank you for the question. We have had that conversation. I know that the Legislature has looked at a number of things and given prior directives before this session. Obviously I'm not in a position today without my joint author here. But what I can commit to doing is we want those conversations to continue.

I can tell you that the intent of the Bill is twofold. It is to address the very high cost of housing. We all know that it's outrageous. It has become unaffordable to live in the State of California. But the other aspect is in terms of climate change and how we combat climate change.

I very much share the intent and desire of the opposition here. What I would add though, is when you look at our economy, the transportation sector is probably the single largest emitting pollutant pollutant sector of our economy. When people can afford to live in proximity to where they work, that gets them out of the car driving.

That can also lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions. So that is also very much at the heart of the Bill. So if there are things that we can look at to lower the cost of housing that get people to live in proximity to where they work, let's do it.

Well, especially that's why I'm big effort for singles there because that allows us more dense urban infill. So thank you for that.

I will be spurring the Bill today, but definitely want to keep track of the progress so that you can continue to work on the Bill with the speaker and all the stakeholders and hopefully you continue to work with opposition parties. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Patterson, great.

Thank you. Well, I've really enjoyed serving on this Committee for the Last three Years and I've actually volunteered to be Vice Chair of this Committee because I actually enjoy the policy area. And we find it's Pretty. What's good about this Committee is it's, this issue of housing is really nonpartisan.

It really finds itself breaking down into, I don't know, you know, NIMBYs and other groups of people. But, you know, what we found is that Republicans, in order to get some of these important bills off the floors, Republican votes are needed.

And so we did make it 28 minutes into this hearing without mentioning Trump or the Federal Government. So that is a positive. Yeah, so I'm still really confused on how any of that has to do with this legislation, but we just can't resist.

But that said, on the merits of the Bill, I think one thing that's really important is some of us, like, you know, my constituents and myself included, are unable to obtain insurance on their home for, for one reason or another. And I actually did have, for a very short time, an excess line.

Well, some of those excess lines don't have building code upgrade coverage. And I think that's pretty important because, you know, if you lose your house, obviously the building code changes could have a lot, very expensive costs as people rebuild.

And one of those, for example, are community rights outside my district burned down in a county I represent a few years ago. And those individuals who are currently continue to live in trailers to this day, they had, now when they're looking to rebuild, some of them didn't have insurance.

I did a Bill that said if you didn't have insurance, you didn't have code compliance coverage on that insurance. You can, you don't have to put solar on your house if you didn't have it prior. And that was a three year. I had previous people had carried that Bill.

I carried it this last year and we got it to the governor's desk where unfortunately he vetoed it. But it was a bipartisan effort to get that. But I think it's really important component of this Bill is that some people are unable to obtain even, you know, coverage for building code upgrades should they lose their house.

And so, so obviously I don't know all the circumstances in LA and things like that, but I think this is a very reasonable Bill. Believe it or not. I think some great points were raised by the opposition from NRDC on there could actually be building codes that save people costs that I think should be considered.

I don't really know how to weigh that, but I think this is a great Bill and I look forward to supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So speaking of the Federal Government. Yeah, I, this, this, obviously this coming from the tragedy in La is something that certainly along with, we've seen bills in judiciary bills here kind of dealing with a wide range of issues that have been either exacerbated or exposed from. From this disaster.

I certainly have some heartburn on the current State of the Bill on a couple different areas. One, the fact that, and I understand that to Senator Wick's point that, you know, the housing issue is a statewide issue.

So if there's pressure in LA, it affects the whole state, but the fact that it is a statewide ban for the whole six years. And so if, you know, I know there's continued work going on this, since it's an urgency Bill moving rather quickly, I do have concerns whether there's enough time to.

You're not going to ameliorate all concerns. I get that. But in terms of some of the concerns in allowing jurisdictions to be able to be more proactive, I mean, it's true. If the State Commission can't even consider any changes Until June of 2031, we're talking about 3334 until new standards can be put in place.

And California has been a leader in a very effective and powerful manner. The reality is that there might be change, there might not be as aggressive changes at the federal level, certainly on the greening aspect of building codes.

I wrote the Bill to phase out our fluorescent bulbs and the sale of those commercially, things of those nature have dramatic impact, especially because although we're just pausing it for a relatively short, relatively speaking, the whole scheme of things are relatively short window, we're talking about the building construction and homes that are going to be there for decades and decades and decades.

So we're putting in place the inability to kind of move in a positive direction and the greening of our building standards really, you know, for a number of years for homes that will be there for possibly generations. And so I'm. I had conversations with you.

I know, and you know, I'll be voting for this with the understanding that those continued conversations will occur both with the environmental justice community and the environmental community and some of the concerns from the trades as well.

I think there are things that can be done, particularly in terms of more recent kind of movement that's been made to allow some of those changes to be able to move forward. And so, you know, I look forward to seeing what can be done in these days ahead.

But I'm generally of the position to give authors, especially thoughtful authors like yourself, an opportunity to work on things when there are concerns that are, that are brought, especially on something that is happening. Relatively quickly because of what's happened in La.

And I recognize that and so want to certainly give the opportunity for you and other leaders in this space, in the housing space that we have here with us, to have the opportunity to work with you and the Speaker's office to ensure we get it in a better place.

It's not going to be in a perfect place, you know, that's going to check every box that I or others might have that have concerns. But I do think that given the urgency of the situation, that it deserves the opportunity for you and others to work on it. So I appreciate you taking this on.

It's, you know, you've been around for a few weeks here and to take this on is very commendable. And so for that I respect you and we'll be supporting it today. Thank you.

Ms. Avila Farias thank you, Chair.

I also am supportive of this Bill. I want to thank my freshman colleagues. You know, we're quite the cohort of just bringing thoughtful, spirited dialogue to spaces that are pretty complicated. And housing is one of those spaces. And as a former housing practitioner, I'm really impressed with the mechanics of, you know, your thoughtfulness in this.

And I know that, you know, this tough balance that you will be able to work with the individuals that express concern today, you know, balancing speed with rebuilding efforts along with, you know, protecting public safety around fire restoration policies and energy and overall construction of building is a delicate balance.

And I can't think of someone more spearheaded to lead the way in trying to find that balance. So I'm supportive in its framework and happy to, to contribute and support with my technical background in housing development, to support you in that space.

Thank you. Ms. Caloza.

Thank you to our chair. Thanks to all the panelists who are here on both sides and thanks to everyone who came to testify. I represent District 52, which is the adjoining district to Assemblymember Schultz. We split Glendale, also represent Northeast LA and East La.

I am proud to represent a district that has both pro housing and pro environmental stances on so many of these issues. I've heard from both groups very strongly on this issue and so wanted to just commend you for really tackling this as what everyone's mentioned. We both a housing crisis, a wildfire crisis and a climate crisis.

And I know that you're going to work with all these stakeholders and the opposition in trying to navigate some of these tricky issues.

I have one question from some of the supporters and a question for our author here, but one of my questions has to do with whether or not this Bill prevents a homeowner or developer from from voluntarily building to a higher standard. Is there anything that precludes people from building to higher energy efficient standards?

Those were some of the concerns that I heard from the environmental side. So I just wanted to clarify if you can speak to that before I jump in.

Do you have anything? No. Okay, so the short answer is no. What I would say is there are a few things that because I've heard many of the comments and concerns too. So although it's just a tad beyond the scope of your question, I think this is information that needs to get out there.

This Bill does not prevent people from voluntarily going above and beyond. We encourage that. We encourage local governments to look at what they can do to incentivize, not mandate, but incentivize folks to go above and beyond.

There's also been many, many questions about the 2024 Triennial Code Update, which we know there was a vote just last week that will still go into effect as well that's not impacted by this Bill. And the last thing I wanted to mention and again thank you for the question.

Assemblymember Caloza, there are certain provisions that allow allow for changes, emergency changes to be made midstream. We understand that there could be emergency standards that need to be put in place. This Bill does not touch the emergency rulemaking process set forth in Health and safety code Section 18937. That's not impacted by this Bill.

So should the standard set, the regulator decide that there is a need to put in place standards during that six year window that do promote public health and safety, that tool still remains available to them.

Thank you for clarifying that. Is that allowed?

Would you like the opposition accept.

Yeah, let me, let me finish my thought and then you know, my second question to the Bill author is I know you already stated your commitment and obviously there's a lot of groups on here on the opposition that have concerns.

Can you just, I would love for you just to restate some of the work and the commitment that you have to working with some of our environmental groups, some of the labor groups that have shown up here today. Both groups who I know you've worked with very closely.

Absolutely. I appreciate the question. Assemblymember. Part of why I and I thank my joint author and all the co authors on the Bill as well. Part of the reason why I wanted to take it on is that this is an important conversation that we need to have. We are in the midst of a climate crisis. Absolutely.

And we're in the midst of a housing crisis and we have an economy that is failing in several sectors. There are many crises in which we have to tackle. And I think this is a public conversation that we need to have.

So I view this as the continuation of a long conversation, a long road that this Bill is hopefully going to carry. And so our commitment working out of our office and with our joint author is to continue looking at where we can find points of common ground.

If there are ways that we can clarify the Bill to address some of those concerns that I'm hearing from my constituents that I know you're hearing as well, we're happy to do that. If there are adjustments and changes. I know some of the folks that testified here today suggested those. We're happy to work together.

I think our ask of the Committee today is quite simple. We want the conversation to continue. We don't want it to end here. We think it's too important. It needs to move forward.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz, and I don't have any other questions.

Ms. Wilson

Thank you to the author. And I'll start with I will be supporting this Bill today. You and I haven't had a chance to talk, and I won't make everyone go through that conversation that we would have otherwise, which we still will have as it, as it makes its way through the floor.

But I just wanted to follow up on a couple of things. There was a comment in the and the analysis it talks about, I think it was from the opposition maybe about, you know, one size fits all. In California, we are diverse, right. And one size doesn't fit all, it only fits one.

And so I am slightly concerned about local agencies not having the ability beyond health and Safety because it could relate to efficiency within their own community. But I do recognize many people abuse that. Many local agencies do abuse that.

So on one side, I like them to have a bit of control, but the other side, I recognize that the state does have to step in because it is abused when clarification on the Bill.

So if they can't Update till technically 2034 because of the six years or you're saying and the language says they cannot consider, not just approve, but they cannot consider. So is that saying that during that period they cannot consider even for the 2034 update?

I'd like to defer to my technical experts first to see if they have any input on that. And then I'll, I'll try my best to address that question. Assemblymember Wilson yeah.

So again, Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I would actually have to get clarification on exactly how that I mean we know that we are well in advance of a three year cycle. They get about 18 months out ahead of that and start planning for the next cycle.

So when we talk about the Building Standards Commission, hcd, the CEC and all the groups that are involved in that, I think I would have to do a robust determination to figure out who would be at what point in the cycle they would be determining what would come into effect at that time point.

So I don't think we have hard and fast answer for you today because it is right and I would be mindful of that because the way it looks like it's written, it's saying they cannot approve or consider for six years.

So that means even if they say well fine, we can't do it until 2034, we're still going to do the work we do to put through, you know, to think through. It's saying right now they can't even do that consideration work for 2034 versus just you can't approve for six years but you can consider. So that's one.

And then the second one is how things get to the Commission is through either outside people, but also through the Legislature. So is this putting a moratorium on the Legislature being able to give or if they do give, then it can't go into effect until 2034. And those are my last two questions. I mean, those are my only two questions.

Sure. So I'll do my best to address at least the second part of the question. I think that one of the things that we're open to further discussing is any prior legislative direction that took place last year that could be impacted by this. That's a conversation that we want to have.

There are some good things that are being explored at the direction of the Legislature that we don't necessarily want to stand in the way of. But I would also go back to a comment that actually Assemblymember Wicks had mentioned.

It is ultimately the legislative power, if something should change two years from now that we feel as a Legislature six years is too much. I don't think that the passage of this Bill would preclude our ability to unwind that Bill at a later date.

But I'm no, no, no. I'm not talking about unwinding this where you're saying doing, but just are we hampering future legislators to say you can't weigh in if we have a board that has doesn't have the Approval doesn't have the ability to approve or consider. Are we saying to Legislator, legislative class, next legislative cast.

Are we saying that even if they put forth a language, a Bill, that the Commission cannot approve or consider that before 2020-34 without having, of course, you can write in the law that they can. But I'm just saying, just on the General sense. Thank you.

Yeah, I'll take again, Silvio Ferrari on behalf of CBIA. So I'm going to kind of address your two questions sort of simultaneously, which is one, you know, how our code gets developed and the inputs that go into developing that.

So one is, as was mentioned by NRDC, the international code process, which is the basis and underlying sort of standard for where we then build off of. And then people can bring code proposals the way the Bill is drafted. I mean, those things would pause.

What is a, probably a more outstanding policy question, which is, which you ask, which is if the Legislature makes a directive and says, you shall do this. We see two things that generally happen in those kind of directives. One is the Legislature says, go do this. It will be done.

Or two, it says we would direct the building standards Commission at HCD and the appropriate agencies to consider. So those are two different avenues that have been taken and I think we would want to probably parse those out and figure out, you know, which would make sense moving forward or which wouldn't.

Because one's a directive, one is a to do something. The other is Please consider this.

Mr. Gallagher.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be supporting this Bill. I mean, I, I think it's a no brainer. Anybody that's had to deal with building codes, you know, in this state, it's unbelievable all the different things that you have to go through.

And that, that building code booklet is only, it's probably the height of this, of this room right now with all the different things with the green building codes. And you know what else it does? It makes housing really expensive in California when you have to meet all these different standards.

And so I almost feel like just asking for a moratorium for six years. Why is that so hard? And God, I hope another Legislator isn't going to come in here next year and say, let's add to the amount of requirements of what you need to do to build a home in the state.

I really hope that we've gotten the message that actually we should be looking to reduce the cost of housing in the state because it's too high. You know, so to me, I, I mean, the, the debate on here we have the most restrictive building codes in the nation, period, bar none, most expensive building codes in the nation.

And all we're saying is, hey, for six years we should put a moratorium on that so that we can get housing built so we can remove some of those burdens. And, and honestly, we should be talking about, maybe we should be removing some things.

You know, when, when paradise was rebuilding, you know, after the camp fire, we wanted to build a more resilient, more resilient homes to fire and spend money on those things to make sure that, you know, our community was safe.

We didn't really need solar panels on the top of the houses, but that was a requirement, you know, so we were pushing, hey, can we remove that requirement so that we can save some of the cost on building that new house?

It's not going to make it more fire resilient, you know, it's not going to make that community any, any better, stronger, any of those things. Right. People needed to rebuild their homes. Right. And so, and I, so I know that's where you're coming from with this. I appreciate that. I don't think this should be really hard.

I think this should pass out resoundingly. And you're definitely going to see bipartisan support on this issue and would love to continue to work with you maybe on other things that we could look at in those building codes to make sure that we can, you know, build housing that's safe but is also affordable. So thank you, Ms. Quirk-Silva

For some of you, I think it's your first hearing on housing and we don't always spend this much time on each issue, but welcome to housing. Thank you. And I think maybe I am the longest serving Member on this Committee now, and certainly the oldest, but we find ourselves in extraordinary times.

And when we are in extraordinary times, whether it's because of climate patterns which we are seeing playing out, whether it's because of decades of not seeing urgency in building housing, and yes, whether it's because of the Federal Government and that pounding down on us of what is the potential of what is foreseen to happen with tariffs.

Of course, tariffs are going to increase prices for lumber and materials and so forth, even things like Section 8. So we see ourselves in an extraordinary period and that does call for extraordinary action. For years now, I've sat on this Committee and we've talked about the housing crisis, we've talked about housing production.

And yes, we see glimmers, glimmers of progress, but that progress is not moving swiftly. And so for the individuals that oppose. I understand that you want to make sure we're protecting our communities from either overbuilding or hazardous ways that could be built. But we also have to make tough choices.

And so for my freshman Members, not mine, you're not my Members, this is hard. This is hard stuff because we in Sacramento, maybe from the outside, always want to be the champions. People love those report cards of I'm the climate champion, or I'm the housing champion, or I'm the labor champion.

And those report cards, just like students, remember I was a classroom teacher for 30 years, they mean a lot to people. So when you are face to face with groups that you really support, like Climate Friends and Housing Friends, you don't want to upset them. You don't want to be feeling like you're not doing the right thing.

But this is the job. This is the job of being an Assembly Member. And it's really hard. And it's why we don't always make progress, and it's why we've been stuck on housing. It's so hard to make everybody happy. I would encourage you to continue to work with the opposition.

I do think the Bill can get into a place where there is more support or less opposition, whichever way you want to say it. But we know when we are an elected official that we're not going to be able to make everybody happy. And so that's just my advice to the new Members.

You're not going to be able to make everybody happy and there are going to be opposition, and you're going to go to bed at night sometimes feeling really bad about either a vote you didn't support or a vote you did support, because that's how it is.

But we are in a crisis, an extraordinary crisis, where everything that happens climate wise is directly impacting housing, thousands and thousands of homes, and we add all of those other things. So this is big, my friends. I do support it, but I encourage you to continue to work with the opposition.

I'll be very, very brief. Mr. Chair, I just want to thank the entire Committee for all of your comments. I agree. I think that this truly is a bipartisan issue. I think there is ample work that we can do together. And I'll just wrap with saying. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. I really appreciated your comments.

Choosing to run this Bill wasn't an easy choice. Nothing about this issue is easy. But I would respectfully submit that solving our housing crisis and doing it in a way that also accounts for climate change and build wildfire, resilient communities, there are no easy answers to be had.

So I thank the Committee for at least engaging in this conversation. I think it's one that we definitely need to have and you have my full commitment to continue to communicate with the opposition and to find common ground. And if we can get more things baked into this Bill that address some of those concerns, let's do it. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye. Mr. Chair

Thank you so much. Mr. Schultz. I think you heard that a lot of our belief that this is going to move forward in the right way is our trust in you as the author. So I want to say I think this is your first Bill that you're presenting in a Committee other than your own.

Yes, sir.

Very well. Very well done and impressed, of course, by the way that you've taken on this issue and this is a very complex, complicated, but we have to take it on. We have to have this conversation. We have to work this issue out. It is more expensive to build housing in our state than nearly anywhere else.

The result of that is that for all of our constituents, their ability to afford a home, to buy a home, to rent a home is more challenging and a greater burden to them and their families than pretty much anywhere in the country.

This is a part of it making it easier and more simple to build homes, particularly in situations where we have this type of devastation. And the ripple effects of the LA fires are not just in the LA area. It is going to affect our entire state.

So we have to open this up and figure out how to do a better job of this. I do want to, and you heard from all the folks here. I, I, I don't know if this will be the case in every Bill, but I agree with everything that was said up here by my colleagues. I think they really said it best that there are some questions, there are some things that still need to be worked on.

We don't want to press pause on new technologies that may allow us to actually reduce the costs of building housing or provide for the type of energy efficiency that maybe won't increase the cost, but actually reduce them. I've brought this up with you. That adaptive reuse we need to look a lot more at and Mr.

Gabriel and I have spoken about this. We have a process that is in place right now to make sure we make it easier to convert some of these historic buildings or office buildings into housing. 25% of our emissions as a state come from building sector. That's second only to transportation.

And the issues around climate change are also critical here. So we trust you and the Speaker's office and the speaker himself as this moves forward to balance those issues. I think Ms. Kalosa said it best. We have a housing crisis. We also have a climate crisis and affordability crisis.

And this Bill is critical for us to have the conversation that can get us to a better, stronger place for all of those issues. And so with that, we have a motion and a second and we will take a vote.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you all. All right, we are now going to go to Ms. Schiavo, who I believe is here and AB 301. Welcome. Welcome.

Welcome.

Thank you. So. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 301. And I also want to express gratitude toward to the Speaker. This is kind of a 2.0 version of a bill that he did before to speed up permitting at the local level.

And we're trying to do the same thing at the state level. Certainly, it's essential in the building industry and particularly when it comes to providing affordability, predictability, and stability and all of the abilities in the housing market that, that you know, that we have that certainty.

And with the recent devastation of the Eaton and Palisades fire and swift reconstruction being critical for restoring economic growth, revitalization, and local revenue streams, we know that accelerating the permitting process is going to be essential. And we can help these hardest hit communities recover faster, rebuild homes and. And stimulate local economies by speeding that process up.

Additionally, we know, as was just being discussed in the previous bill, that we have a housing crisis in front of us and we have to find ways to build housing more quickly and get it available to house folks as fast as possible. And so AB 301 really establishes a clear and consistent timelines ensuring that state departments adhere to the same permitting deadlines as local jurisdictions. This alignment will prevent unnecessary bottlenecks at the state level, speeding up the approval process.

At the committee's request, we adopted clarification amendments to ensure greater uniformity in the language, strengthening the clarity and consistency of the policy. And appreciate the great analysis of the bill. And here to testify and support is Corey Smith, the executive director of Housing Action Coalition.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good morning, Chair and Members. Corey Smith with the Housing Action Coalition. We're a member supported organization that advocates for building more homes for residents at all income levels across the State of California and a proud supporter of Assembly Bill 301 because it continues the Legislature's work to put reasonable timeframes around the review and issuance of building permits.

As the Assembly Member mentioned, beginning in 2021, the Legislature passed AB 2234, which set shot clocks for cities and counties to review and issue post entitlement building permits. In 2023, then Assembly Member Grayson authored AB 281, which applied those same timelines to special districts. And AB 301 just continues that work and brings parity in the exact same set of rules and timelines to state agencies.

And while state agencies don't typically actually issue the final permit, that's mostly done by local governments. Their review of documents are often necessary in order for a project to proceed. And they're not only timely. We've asked members and get a lot of feedback about examples of their experiences with these types of delays.

One instance was shared where the Department of Toxics and Substance Control, DTSC, shared took over a year to review paperwork to clarify that a site cleanup had happened. I've had other members tell me that they've literally changed projects entirely in order to avoid Caltrain jurisdiction because of fear of associated delays. And the California Coastal Commission, there's a well documented history of them not moving particularly fast when it comes to housing.

And so all of these delays drive up costs. They further exacerbate our affordability and displacement crisis. Setting these reasonable time frames for state agencies to review and comment on building permits, we're simply taking another step forward to create good government guardrails around the home building process and creating consistency across the board. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other folks who are in support? Name and organization. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Chamber of Progress and Bay Area Council in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of California Business Properties Association in support.

Good morning. Brian Leahy on behalf of AARP in support.

Crap.

Perfect. Hey guys. Do you like how I bring the drama? Good morning, everybody. Stephanie Roberson, CalChamber, in strong support of this bill. Good to see you.

Okay. All right. Do we have any opposition? Any witnesses in opposition?

Hi, I actually live in the 40th Assembly District. Just want to say that these restrictions that they're putting on the state to get these documents in, in such a quick time are going to constrain and may get permits gone through that I feel should not get through that they may not have the time to actually address them. And the way that I see that this legislation is written that it will just make an automatic approval from what I read. So thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues, do we have any comments or questions? Ms. Wicks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing the bill forward. As a principal co-author, would love to move the bill if there hasn't been a motion already. And just I am like militantly focused on eliminating delays. I think it's critical for many, many reasons. The wildfires have shined a spotlight on that. But the truth of the matter is it's been a long time issue. So just appreciate your leadership. Love to move the bill, and just keep moving at it. Keep going at it. And thank you for taking this on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Lee.

Yeah, thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this bill forward. I do agree a year of DTSC review is way too long. But I do want to highlight I used to be Chair of ESTM, having DTSC do that mitigation and make making sure that, especially given the post-wildfire settings, that people aren't too quickly moving into a hazardous location with toxic materials is not jeopardized in this aspect. I don't know if you have any feedback from DTSC yet at this point, but I do want to make sure that, you know, I do think a year is way too long. 60 days, 90 days, those are good too.

But I just want to make sure that we aren't sacrificing that aspect of it and make sure we continue to work with our departments. This might be something they have to request in the budgetary space. But I want to make sure, just highlighting the specific DTSC aspect is that we don't lose sight of the safety that they have to ensure. So I will be supporting the bill. Of course, I second the bill, but just wanted to have the comment.

Thank you. If I can respond...

Sure, and you can close as well.

Is that okay? Okay, great. Yeah. So just in response to that, because I share your concern. Obviously they have to have time to do the work. Right. And so it does have a provision in it that allows them, if they do find something for, for example, toxic soil or something like that, which needs more time, analysis, investigation, that it allows for that extra time in those instances.

We just want, you know, when it's as simple as a sign off, a review and a sign off for the most part, that those things can move much more quickly than they have been. And that's really kind of the intent of the bill, in summary. So thank you so much. Appreciate your consideration, and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. And we had a motion and a second. I just quickly want to say, again, thank you to the author and to all those who are in support and to the Speaker. I think it's important that we practice what we preach.

We have put a lot of shot clocks and streamlining and timelines and all of these things on local governments and approval authorities. We also have to make sure our agencies, that the state not get in the way, that we're a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

And of course, looking to those areas where we need to make sure there's adequate time for health and safety. At the same time, if the state is passing laws over and over again telling the localities that they have to move faster and then folks are waiting on approval from the state, that is not going to accomplish our goals.

And it also, I think, is going to engender a lot of feelings of animosity or hypocrisy out there in terms of how this is working. So appreciate your leadership here. It's a great bill. We have a motion and a second. Let's take a vote.

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

All right. Okay. 8-0. Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We are now going to move to AB 253, Ward, item number one, which will be presented by Ms. Quirk-Silva.

In the spirit of being speedy, we should call our committee now the Speed Racers, right? Because we moved through that last bill very quickly, and all of these bills have the theme of moving things quicker and faster. So good morning, Mr. Chair and Members.

I'm presenting today AB 253 on behalf of Assembly Member Ward and as a proud joint author. AB 253 would allow homeowners and developers to hire a licensed third party professional to review certain post entitlement permits if it would take the local building department longer than 30 days to conduct that review.

California is in the middle of a housing crisis, and delays in the residential building permitting process are often cited as a significant constraint restricting the housing production pipeline. Local building departments review building plans to ensure compliance with state building codes and local ordinance, a process that is prone to delays due to fluctuating workloads and resource constraints.

According to self reported annual progress data, the average fully entitled apartment building takes approximately nine months to secure post entitlement permits. Lengthy review periods at this stage hinder housing production by delaying the transition from approved projects to active construction, affecting overall construction costs and housing affordability in California.

These delays also reduce predictability for developers, further exasperating California's housing shortage. For homeowners seeking to add gentle, gentle density to their property, bureaucratic barriers and delays may cause them to abandon the project entirely, further constraining the housing production pipeline.

AB 253 addresses this critical administrative hurdle by ensuring timely post entitlement plan checks for small 1 to 10 unit residential projects and providing an alternative mechanism for applicants to use licensed private professionals at this stage.

This approach aligns with best practices from other countries and recent legislative actions in states across the US. Here with me in support are Nolan Gray, senior director of legislation and research with California YIMBY, and Wesley Sagewalker, partner and CFO with the Gateway Development Company.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the senior director of legislation and research at California YIMBY, here as a proud sponsor to speak in support of AB 253. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family.

Our state is in the midst of a severe housing crisis. One of the biggest obstacles facing new housing production is the excessive delays of California permitting processes. Even before projects receive full approval, post entitlement permits, such as building permits, can take months or even years to secure.

These delays stall construction, drive up costs, and make smaller housing projects financially infeasible. They can particularly imperil projects that have any sort of mixture of affordable housing finance. On average, fully approved apartment buildings in California take nine months to secure post entitlement permits. For smaller scale missing middle multifamily, that's around six months.

And as I remind my students, average means a bunch of the projects are taking a lot longer than that. It can take three months to build even a single family home or an ADU on average, according to state data. This discourages housing production overall, but especially small builders and home builders for whom these delays can be fatal.

AB 253 offers a straightforward solution that supports both local governments and home builders. It allows licensed and ensured third party reviewers including architects and engineers to assist in processing housing permit applications when cities face resource constraints and are unable to complete reviews in 30 days.

This ensures that much needed housing projects continue to move forward while easing administrative burdens on local building departments. Importantly, AB 253 does not eliminate city oversight, it simply provides an additional tool to help cities manage workloads and meet housing goals more efficiently. This is international best practice. It's a reform that's been adopted in a growing number of states. I hope California will be one of them. For these reasons, we respectfully request your support on AB 253. Thank you.

And good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee, and thank you for your time. My name is Wesley Sagewalker, partner and co founder of Gateway Development Company, which focuses on infill development with multifamily retail, mixed use, and missing middle housing projects in our portfolio.

As you're all no doubt aware, housing development in California is challenging in the best of times and we are far from such sanguine moment between the various costs and challenges we face. AB 253 will boost housing production by removing unnecessary delays.

I have personally experienced delays in permit review, which have imposed costs and created uncertainties for our projects. This bill provides an effective alternative for smaller developments who already face issues related to their scale which make them challenging to begin with.

Since this bill is being discussed in the context of the aftermath of the LA fires, although its benefits are general, they have particular salience for rebuilding efforts when the volume of permit applications can cascade. Particularly looking at the land use patterns in most recently affected areas, they are likely to be rebuilt via these small infill projects, which are the subject of this bill.

Third party plan check reviewers are already being used in jurisdictions in which we are building housing, and they do an efficient and effective job of providing thorough and robust review. If passed, I believe this bill will aid in housing production, which is one of the defining challenges of our society. I urge you to consider advancing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other folks here who are in support? Name and organization, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Jennifer Svec on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We're here in a support if amended position. We would like to see the bill expanded to also include special districts to ensure that there is transparency in fees and to ensure that we are all aware as we are trying to create new development in the State of California what those fees are that impact impact our housing development and housing prices as we move forward. It's our understanding from the special districts, 10 to 20% of all construction or all costs go to special districts with respect to your first time for sale home price. Thanks.

Mr. Chair and Member, Stephanie Roberson on behalf of the CalChamber in support.

Mr. Chair Members Catherine Charles on behalf of the Chamber of Progress and Bay Area Council in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, Abundant Housing, Fieldstead, and 200 in strong support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation in strong support. Thank you.

Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Mr. Chair and Member, Skyler Wonnacott, California Business Properties Association, in support. We do request that the author consider taking amendments to include commercial. Thank you.

As a fan of the Assembly Member presenting's staff, in support.

Thank you. All right, do we have any opposition bill?

Good morning. Mark Neuburger, California State Association of Counties, and also providing comments on behalf of Cal Cities. Not opposition, we just have concerns on the bill, but we have had productive conversations with the author's office, and we're looking forward to more.

Thank you. All right. Any comments? Mr. Patterson.

Thanks. You know, I kind of wanted to go through the opponent's letter and go through some of those points, but I think I will not do that. But I thought in some ways it was kind of inflammatory because, you know, in some of the areas it says that this process, you know, we are not working to further private sector profits in the name of less restriction accountability. As far as I understand, there's no changes in restrictions that this bill would give. Right. It just allows different permit inspectors basically and plan checks. Right. But doesn't lower the standards of the state. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, great. All right. I want to say that, you know, I think this is a great bill, and I too concur that we should consider adding special districts. Where I represent, just give an example, there's one sewer district that charges upwards of $15,000 per connection for sewer.

And whether that's a 700 square foot apartment or a 10,000 square foot mansion, it's the same fee. And I think being able to see that, you know, how much is being charged is a great thing. So I'll support this either way, but would just love to see that change. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. All right. Ms. Quirk-Silva, would you like to close?

I just respectfully asked for your aye vote. But I do want to note again for some of the new Members that bills evolve and sometimes take two or three tries. So this is actually the second try on this bill from last year, which I actually was moving forward. So patience is a virtue up here, and today we're speaking the same language, Assembly Member Patterson.

Is that your closing? Great. Thank you to Ms. Quirk-Silva and the author. I know that this has been an issue that in your time here you have worked on and some of the backlogs that are preventable by providing other options I think can help to ensure that these projects move forward quicker. And with the issues around the fire, there's incredible urgency to get moving. So I think we had a motion and a second already, so we can go ahead and take the roll.

Action on this bill do pass to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]

All right. 8-0, and we will keep that on call for folks who come back. Thank you so much. And we will now move to item number five, AB 462. Welcome, Assembly Member Lowenthal. You can go ahead and start whenever you're ready.

Nice to be back in the hot seat. It's been a minute. Ready, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Very pleased to present AB 462, which will exempt the construction of accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, from coastal development permit requirements in Los Angeles County.

LA County faces a severe housing crisis which became immediately worse with the devastating loss of thousands of homes in the Palisades and Eaton fires earlier this year. The Department of Housing and Community Development determined that the Los Angeles County should add 812,000 new homes by 2029 to meet the required housing needs of current and future residents.

As the beginning of this year, only 71,000 homes were built. And due to the devastating, catastrophic loss caused by the wildfires, there are now entire communities in Los Angeles that are unexpectedly looking for housing, putting more strain on the already existing housing shortage. With displaced residents and the reduction in available housing, Los Angeles needs assistance to ensure it can adequately accommodate its population and promptly increase its housing supply.

One way the state has successfully facilitated rapid housing production is by facilitating the construction of ADUs. Under current law, ADUs are generally allowed by right on all residentially zoned parcels in the state. ADUs must be reviewed and approved in a streamlined and ministerial fashion at the local level within 60 days. Recent legislation has helped ADUs become a success in enhancing the housing supply. Now one in five new homes constructed in the state are ADUs. Unfortunately, homeowners in California Coastal Zone do not enjoy the same streamlined process.

The coastal development permitting process to build an ADU is costly, can take years for a homeowner to successfully navigate compared to the 60 day permitting time frame mandated by state law for ADUs outside of the coastal zone. This poses a barrier for homeowners seeking to add much needing housing supply, especially in Los Angeles County, where ADUs could be used to house those displaced by fires, assist in freeing up other housing inventory, and increase the housing stock. This will relieve pressure on the rental market overall.

This bill also makes this exemption available to coastal communities that experience destruction from natural disasters in the future. AB 462 seeks to provide vital relief to the rental market in Los Angeles that was already facing a serious housing crisis prior to the loss of property caused by the fires.

It is essential, Mr. Chairman and Members, to implement policies that facilitate the efficient construction of housing in order to be prepared when a natural disaster strikes again. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and here to testify in support of the bill is Nolan Gray, senior director of legislation and research at California YIMBY.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Thanks, Assembly Member. My name is Nolan Gray. I am still the senior director of legislation and research at California YIMBY, here to speak in support of AB 462. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family.

Los Angeles County, where I live, is facing a severe housing crisis made worse by the destruction of thousands of homes in the Palisades and Eaton fires. Even before the wildfires, the county was required to build over 800,000 new homes by 2029. But we've made little progress, and we left January with 16,000 fewer homes as a result of the fires. One of the bright spots in recent years has been the state legalization of accessory dwelling units.

Thanks to laws passed by folks on this committee, ADUs now make up around 20% of the housing construction in California, providing affordable rental options and stability for homeowners. While state law requires ministerial approval of ADUs within 60 days, coastal homeowners face costly and time consuming coastal development permit requirements, potentially delaying projects months or years.

AB 462 eliminates these unnecessary barriers in Los Angeles County's coastal zone, allowing ADUs to be approved in the same streamlined 60 day process as in the rest of the state. The bill will help homeowners quickly add much needed housing, particularly for those displaced by wildfires.

It also ensures that future coastal communities impacted by wildfires won't face the same delays in rebuilding. By cutting red tape, AB 462 helps expand housing options, increase affordability, and support wildfire recovery efforts. For these reasons, we respectfully request your support for AB 462. Thank you.

Thank you. We have other folks who are here in support.

Good morning again, Mr. Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association. Pleased to be in support. And I would just like to add that we know that in 2017, Sonoma County really leaned in on this after their devastating fires. ADUs were encouraged as a strategy to build back. And so we think this is an excellent bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Stephanie Roberson on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce in support.

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

Brian Leahy, AARP volunteer in support or... And our 3.2 million members in California, we stand in support.

Thank you. All right. Is there opposition to this bill? Welcome.

Two minutes.

Yes.

Thank you, sir. My name is David Bolog. About a year ago, I stumbled into this committee, and I heard bill after bill that we're removing any restrictions for ADUs that were available. It grabbed my attention. I was, I want to give you folks a different perspective from what you're hearing about the shortage of housing.

I want to give you a perspective of people that live on the ground in these neighborhoods where ADUs are being proliferated. They are taking the lifestyle and the actual, the actual, the environment of where these neighborhoods, where these ADUs are being peripherally put it, and it's changing the environment to where people are not enjoying living there anymore.

I know you're hearing the number we need 800,000 in LA County of new houses. But putting us on top of each other is making our lives unenjoyable to live. I know in my own neighborhood, I've seen five ADUs added. The good news is that four of them sit empty. The one that did get occupied is way over occupied. We have an addition of seven cars in the streets now and four more in the driveway that were not there.

So I do want to say on behalf of the people that are actually being affected in LA County by these additions to ADUs, that there is a growing movement of people that are very much against them. And I'm surprised at the last election it was not an actual campaign issue. So I do ask in vain because I see that it's a joint author by the speaker and co-authored by yourself and another senior Member of the party that that are for it. So I know you this will pass and go through and most likely be signed by the governor.

But I do want to let you know as an aspect from other people that you may not hear from all the time that don't even know about this committee, that may not even know about you folks as legislators about what you work do, the work that you do, that people are very unhappy with the ADU additions that are going on in LA County. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in opposition? Seeing no one. Sure.

Hi. I'm not in official opposition, but Natalie Brown of the Planning and Conservation League. We haven't made a formal determination or had time to assemble a letter, but we do have concerns on this bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any comments, questions from colleagues? No pressure. Mr. Patterson.

Thanks. Just to be clear, this bill doesn't really change ADU lows. It gives a potential to remove a regulatory barrier that isn't applicable for the rest of the state, by the way, unless their people are in a coastal zone. Correct.

That is certainly not the intention of legislation. I certainly don't read it as such. And we're committed to work throughout the process with anybody who's in fear of that, Assembly Member.

Great, thank you. I think it's a great bill and look forward to supporting it.

Great. Mr. Lowenthal, you can close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much and thank you again for your leadership and the Speaker's leadership on this. I think this is incredibly important. You know, ADUs, as you've said, have been one of the biggest success stories. And there are many Californians who want ADUs, who welcome ADUs, who welcome more housing in their communities as a way to address the affordability crisis in our state.

And this is a way that we can do it in disaster areas right now in LA County in a quicker way for folks who want to take that step. We should be encouraging it, supporting it. And with that, did we already have a motion and a second? We need a motion and a second. Moved by Mr. Patterson, seconded by Mr. Lee. And we can take a vote.

Motion is do passed to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right. 8-0. We'll keep that open for absent Members. Thank you again, Mr. Lowenthal. And we will now move to our final bill, which is AB 299, Gabriel. Which will be presented again by our senior Member, our superstar Member, MVP of today, Ms. Quirk-Silva. And the bill has been moved and seconded. And everybody's asking if you'll do their bills moving forward. Be careful.

Senior Member Superstar. Okay, I'm gonna go with it. I'm gonna go with it. I'm going with it. Yes.

All right.

No, I am, Members, happy to present on behalf of my esteemed colleague, Assembly Member Gabriel, AB 299, temporary housing security. And this bill will ensure families displaced by the Southern California wildfires, as well as future disasters, can access stable temporary housing at hotels, motels, and short term rentals.

This legislation is joint authored with Speaker Rivas and is part of the Speaker's wildfire response package. Following the the Palisades and Eaton fires, many whose homes were lost, damaged, or rendered uninhabitable turned to hotels, motels, and short term rentals.

While stays under 30 days are straightforward, existing laws around lodging and tenancy can compliment complicate stays longer than a month because many lodging providers are wary of establishing a landlord tenant relationship.

As a result, lodging operators must may resort to shuffling individuals between rooms or removing them from their properties each month to avoid creating a landlord tenant relationship. This shuffling practice can be deeply disruptive and destabilizing for individuals dealing with housing instability, particularly for families with school age children.

California has already addressed this very issue in the homelessness context. In 2022, Mr. Gabriel authored AB 1991, which allowed hotels and motels to provide housing to individuals enrolled in a shelter program for more than 30 days without stabling a formal landlord tenant relationship. In 2024, this Legislature body passed AB 2835 to permanently extend the law.

AB 299 seeks to address the same issue for families displaced by a disaster and allow them to stay at a hotel, motel, or short term rental for longer than 30 days. By extending these critical assurances, this legislation will directly help provide stability and security to individuals and families following a natural disaster.

This legislation is supported by a coalition of housing and community advocates, including LA County Board of Supervisors, United Way of Greater Los Angeles, and California YIMBY, and has no registered opposition. Pleased here with me today to testify in support is Mark Isidro, legislative representative with the County of Los Angeles.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Mark Isidro on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. I'd like to start by thanking Assembly Member Gabriel and Speaker Rivas for authoring this bill and for their dedication to supporting our residents as we continue to recover from the January disasters.

And also thank you, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, for presenting the bill on behalf of Assembly Member Gabriel. The destruction from the recent wildfires have caused unprecedented damage, displacing placing tens of thousands of families, and devastating entire communities. Thousands of Angelenos have lost their livelihoods and are now struggling to make ends meet.

Prior to the January wildfires, Los Angeles County already faced an affordable housing crisis. The dual challenge of recovering from the wildfires and an ongoing affordability crisis makes it even more urgent to address housing instability and prevent more people from falling into homelessness.

AB 299 plays a critical role in mitigating the long term effects of this crisis by ensuring temporary housing stability for the wildfire victims. Further, AB 299 would allow individuals displaced by the wildfires to remain in temporary housing without triggering standard tenancy rules that could lead to eviction. To conclude, AB 299 is a lifeline for those who have lost their homes, offering critical relief and preventing further displacement for our residents. We respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other folks who are here in support of the bill? This is AB 299.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. We're currently in a support if amended position, but we'd like to thank the author and his staff for working with us on some clarifying amendments. Thank you.

Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Chair and Members, Stephanie Roberson on behalf of the Chamber. Align my comments with my colleague Obed Franco, also support if amended. Technical in nature, and I believe we're also working with the author. Thank you so much.

Chair and Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in strong support. Thank you so much.

Bernice Jimenez Creager on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Great, thank you all. Are there, is there any registered opposition or anyone who is here in opposition or something in between opposition? No, there's not. Okay, with that, colleagues, are there any questions or comments? Any MVP chants or anything else we want to do? All right, the bill is moved and seconded.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, see, now we are moving fast because you gave us that direction. Even the folks are here coming back to vote. So thank you so much for your leadership on this and Also of course, Mr. Gabriel, who was here earlier and had to run. This is a common sense thing that we can do to make it possible and easier for folks to be able to stay in these short term arrangements during disasters.

We also know that these tenant protections are important for folks who are intending to live in a place for more longer period of time, and I appreciate of the work that's been done to strike that balance in this bill. And so we can open it up for a vote on AB 299.

Motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

Great. And so if we can go back to bills that we left open for the absent Members to be able to vote.

[Roll Call]

All right. Our first Bill Committee is finished. Thank you so much. Everyone appreciates everyone's work and their thoughts and that of our staff. This meeting is adjourned.