Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Welcome. I just wanted to highlight a couple of things regarding this Senate Housing Committee today. We have one item on consent. That's File item number nine, SB410 by Senator Grayson.

We are going to start off as a Subcommitee as we do not have quorum, and I would like for our very first presenter to come to the table whenever she is ready. All right, this is File item number one, SB16 by Senator Blakespear. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, colleagues. I'm Senator Catherine Blakespear and I'm honored to be here today to present SB 16, which we understand will be amended to include the word unsheltered. How many times have you said or heard somebody say that homelessness is a humanitarian crisis?

This is such a hackneyed phrase that I cringe when I hear it and I particularly cringe when I say it. What's most galling is that despite our collective rhetoric about the humanitarian crisis, we are collectively failing to address the most basic need of at least 200,000 people in this state, and that is the need to have shelter.

We all know the data, which is that we need to invest in long term housing. Housing solves homelessness. We need 2.5 million more units in California, at least a million affordable. But these lofty goals are nowhere near being met by either the private sector or the public sector.

Despite billions of dollars and many, many reforms, this happens year after year. So meanwhile, what are we doing about it? We are complicit in the suffering that we see on our streets.

We collectively are de facto saying to people that until your forever home is built, we will not provide an indoor space for you because we are not willing to set up the systems that we need for you to be housed.

Now, tonight, we are allowing the perfect to be not just the enemy of the good, but the enemy of the modest, of the acceptable, of the better than the streets. There are varieties of temporary and interim housing that are easily scalable.

Non congregate, quick build, dignified, safe, humane, that have much higher success rates of transitioning to permanent housing. The media, and then also as referenced in the committee report is, is fixated on the failures of congregate shelters. When talking about homelessness, news reports focus on reports of mold, shelter, assaults, death. These are all terrible things.

The committee report subtitled a section, shelters have a poor record of solving homelessness. But what is the street's record of solving homelessness? We know the statistics, which are street homelessness exits to housing at 3%. Congregate shelters exit at 30%, but interim exits at 67%.

We always need to be asking ourselves when we are criticizing the next step for people away from street homelessness, what is it compared to? We should not compare shelters to someone's forever home. We should compare it to the realistic option that people currently have, which is that tent or that thin blanket or that piece of cardboard.

The the streets in the canyons and the riverbeds have a poor record of solving homelessness, there's no question. And the threats of violence, sexual assault, theft, mold, leaky roofs are worse on the streets.

At least temporary housing puts a roof over someone's head, a floor under their feet with a sink to brush their teeth and wash their hands, and a bathroom to use half a dozen times a day. There are also a semblance of rules and enforcement and order. We have to recognize also that voters are fed up.

I'm fed up. Many of you are fed up. We need to do something differently if we want a different result. More than half of voters express some level of support for arresting homeless people who decline shelter. People have had it with people living in public spaces.

We need to prioritize having people live inside and not in public spaces. The original version of this bill recognized that counties receive money for the clients that need behavioral health interventions, and these people are frequently in city shelters or in interim housing.

Counties need to provide those services where the people are and if they are in shelters or in interim housing, they need to be partners.

The version of this bill that I accept the amendments directs the state to conduct an assessment and develop a long range plan with funding tools for ending the state's unsheltered homelessness crisis in 10 years. We need to focus all efforts on getting to functional zero in street homelessness.

For the last two years, I've been advocating for the state to really own this problem and to wrap our arms around the solution. This bill, with the inclusion of the word unsheltered, may help us get there.

And with that, I would like to invite up my two witnesses, if the chair would allow them to come up with me today. I have Micah Weinberg, Policy Director for the New California Coalition, and Elizabeth Funk, the CEO of Dignity Moves.

So each of you guys are going to have about two minutes, so let's be concise. Please state your name, your organization, and then whatever testimony you want to provide.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Micah Weinberg and I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the New California Coalition to speak in support of the passage of SB 16 by Senator Blakespear as we anticipate it being amended, the New California Coalition is a group of 900 civic and business organizations focused on delivering solutions to the most pressing problems for the people of California in the areas of building housing for all, creating middle class jobs, ensuring the affordability and reliability of water and energy, and ending homelessness.

This effort moves forward the state's response to homelessness in two critical ways. First, it directs the state and localities to prioritize moving towards functional zero unsheltered homelessness. Our unhoused population increased by again by 3% last year.

And in contrast to the rest of the nation, fully two thirds of these neighbors and community members of ours are unsheltered, such that we are home to one half of the total unsheltered people in the entire nation. We desperately need to save lives by bringing these people inside. That is rightly our top priority.

But it is also corrosive to our communities to have massive encampments blocking safe routes to schools, eliminating access to green space for children and people to recreate, and creating conditions, including unsafe street behavior that make neighborhoods unlivable and are destroying downtown business districts. We need to end the era of encampments.

This sad situation primarily stems from the incredibly complex set of funding sources in this area and the lack of clear lines of responsibility and accountability. There's far too much finger pointing among different levels of government when the truth is that we have all create contributed to creating this problem.

So the second critical thing the bill does is develop a plan that has clear lines of responsibility and accountability and begins to untangle the complex web of unnecessarily complicated and overlapping programs and efforts that add up to vastly less than the sum of their parts.

We cannot measure our success in numbers of dollars spent or number of people served. We need to be measuring our progress exclusively through getting people off the streets and into housing and and shelter for their sake and for the sake of their communities. We appreciate your consideration on this bill and ask for an I vote.

Thank you. That was up two minutes. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Funk. I'm the co founder and CEO of Dignity Moves, a nonprofit focused specifically on ending unsheltered homelessness. I'm here today as a proud sponsor of SB 16, as amended. SB 16 is the courageous new direction we've all been waiting for. For too long, we have built programs that improve or make progress on homelessness.

Those vague and scattered efforts have cost us billions. Yet the problem keeps getting worse. It's time to be bold. And ask, what would it take to end the problem completely with real analytical data? Let's start with a finish line, then work backwards to determine what it would take to get there.

When you name a problem and scope its magnitude, you're more than half the way to solving it. There is a finish line, a quantifiable goal that all stakeholders can now work towards together.

I can tell you from experience that when governments finally dare to utter the audacious words like ending unsheltered homelessness, the public and philanthropic sectors emerge as partners like never before imagined. We are all dying for that kind of courageous leadership. SB 16 marks courageous leadership in another way.

It dares to start with unsheltered and chronic homelessness that's been taboo in the past because our idealism wants to end the housing crisis completely, which we need to do because only permanent housing is a valid use of taxpayer dollars. In that view, there's only one problem with that.

Well, nationally, it costs less than $300,000 to build a unit of permanent housing. In California, it's double that, well over 600,000 at best. The result is on our streets. Half of the nation's unsheltered are here. Today, for every one person successfully exits the system to permanent housing, another three fall into homelessness.

It doesn't take a mathematician to see that doesn't work. And allowing people to languish on the streets while waiting for that elusive permanent housing inflicts trauma that is irreversible and devastating. We hear bad things about shelters, but we're not talking about shelter.

Dignity Moves builds interim housing, which is safe, dignified private quarters where people can rebuild their lives. I respectfully request that you support this SB 16, as amended.

Thank you. I'd like to call up any opposition witnesses.

Good morning, Chair Wahab, members of the committee, and Senator Blakespear. My name is Lewis Brown Jr. I am with the Corporation for Supportive Housing. We're a national nonprofit organization working to end homelessness. We just want to say that we agree with the committee's analysis.

While shelters should and do have play an important role in our homelessness response systems, research shows that they do not end homelessness. Shelters should be a part of an overall mix of homelessness interventions along with permanent housing, which research shows ends homelessness.

We are very excited about the direction of the amendments that the committee has proposed and that Senator Blakespear is accepting.

As we understand it, the amendments would require a statewide needs assessment to determine exactly how many shelters we need, how much interim housing we need, how much permanent housing we need, which, as my colleague said before, is a critical starting point to solving our homelessness crisis in California.

So we'd like to commend the committee for the amendments as well as Senator Blake Speier for accepting them. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Members. Caroline Grinder, on behalf of the League of California Cities, we have an opposed unless amended position on SB 16. We really appreciate the Committee amendments and our ongoing productive conversations with the author's office. And we do feel the committee amendments are a really meaningful step in the right direction towards addressing our.

Our concerns, but do have some recommendations on how we can make the bill more equitable and aligned with existing state processes. Currently, SB 16 places additional reporting requirements through the housing element on all but 14 cities, specifically targeting those that do not receive direct state homelessness funding.

However, we, we do believe that we're, you know, the committee amendments definitely help alleviate. Alleviate small cities of the administrative burden that we believe they would have faced with the original draft of SB 16. However, we.

Rather than imposing a separate and unequal process on smaller cities that don't receive state funding, we think we can align the proposal with a process that's already in place for larger cities. Currently, cities that do not receive HAPP funding are encouraged but not required to take part in HAPP regional planning.

Cal Cities is requesting amendments that would require smaller cities to have a seat at that table during the regional planning process. And we think this would achieve our shared goals of increasing transparency outlined in the bill through a process that's already in place for California's largest cities.

So we respectfully urge the adoption of amendments that would create consistency with that existing process and ensure that we are not, you know, placing additional burdens on our smaller communities. But we really appreciate the continued dialogue. Look forward to continuing to work with the Senator on those concerns.

Thank you. I'm going to now ask up any support or opposition. Me toos. Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support this or oppose this. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Moira Topp here on behalf of the City of San Diego in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Natalie Spivak with Housing California and on behalf of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. We are currently in an opposed position. But appreciate the author working on amendments. And look forward to reviewing them and hope we can move to a support position. Thank you.

Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. Also, on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association, the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, and the Rural County Representatives of California. We are opposed to the language in print. However, we thank the chair and the author for the different direction with this.

Legislation and look forward to removing our opposition once in print. Thank you.

Josh Gauger on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, we will also be removing our opposition with the amendments discussed in the analysis. Thank thank you very much.

Hi, Rachael Blucher with Nielsen Merksamer here on behalf of the County of San Diego, currently in an opposed position, but appreciate the committee analysis, the author's willingness to address our concerns and anticipate being in a similar position removing opposition once we receive the amendments. Thank you so much.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County in respectful opposition to the bill in print and hopefully about removing opposition. Thank you.

Luis Morante with the Bay Area Council in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other me toos in support or opposition? Seeing none. We're going to move to committee. Comments?

Thanks. Thanks so much, Madam Chair.

First, I want to thank the author for bringing the bill, including in its original form, to the, to the legislature and for saying some of the quiet part out loud about how communities are grappling with these issues and how challenging they are and how much we need direct real action and, and that simply planning for the most optimal, as you say, the forever homes outcome is not, is not sufficient.

I do appreciate the amendments that have been worked with the committee, but I say that with some skepticism. This will be, I think, the fourth, no, the third, I'm not old enough the third consecutive 10 year effort to get to zero homelessness in this case on sheltered that I've been a part of, all with the same outcomes.

So I know, you know, you didn't oversell what the amendments do and I appreciate that. But we're not, we're not one more data element away from solving homelessness. We're not one more collaboration from solving homelessness.

And it can become very facile for us when we get to really difficult, challenging moral and implementation questions on the street to simply step back and say, well, could we at least all agree to collaborate and meet again next month? And so that's my biggest worry.

And chairing the budget subcommitee that oversees the Interagency Council and the other efforts that the state is undertaking.

We are much better at collaborating and planning and thinking and imagining and congratulating ourselves for our support exclusively of evidence of what we say are evidence based and research practice, research based practices that are not born out in the empirical evidence on the street. And so I'm supportive of this.

I think we do need to continue to focus on what your original intent was.

I didn't agree with the mandate with respect to counties specifically on the shelter funding and that sort of thing, but just because that wasn't necessarily the right instrument, it is clear to me, reviewing the HAPP applications and awards that have been made by the state, that in many cases our local collaborations are they are defaulting to strategies that are neither shelter, housing services or enforcement.

They're none of the strategies that I know as a mayor where we cut unsheltered homeless by half and maintain that level for 10 years, that those are the things that we and Californians know need to be done.

And we've invested too much in planning and collaboration and lens studies and other sorts of things that, while valuable, are not what are going to solve the problem tonight, next month or the year after that. So I hope you will continue to work on that dimension of increasing our hard actions.

And we do need, as the Governor has called for, much more specific accountability for action on these regional plans. So I support that. I I'm going to break with the League of Cities on this.

I don't think that I think it was described as making sure that small cities have a seat at the table for these regional for the regional action plan. That's not how I read the letter. The letter was require small cities to take a seat at the table whether they want it or not.

And coming from a I don't I think under this definition, which is everybody but the big city, the really big cities, coming from being mayor of a small city, we had to make a choice.

Are we going to invest our resources, our attention, our political capital, our hard cash in the specific solutions or are we going to spend are we all going to go to another, yet another meeting of the interagency, you know, county wide? We did both.

But that's not the answer here is not to make every tiny city show up at a regional meeting that they may not be able to contribute to and that they have very limited bandwith. So I don't think that that approach is the right one in this particular case.

So I would while I appreciate the leagues standing up for small cities, I don't think that's in their interest and it's not going to help advance the work.

What we need are folks at the table who have the resources, the commitment, the imperative and the urgency to actually take action and not composing a table of people that we think need to be present in order to wax philosophic about it. And so appreciate your work on this.

Appreciate the committee and the chair's efforts to try to align this with state policy. And I'm going to support the bill today and help here and in the budget process to try and make sure that we're able to deliver on the promise that the bill is making. Thanks.

So, Senator, I just want to confirm you said in your statement, but you do accept amendments, correct?

With the addition of the word unsheltered.

Which we are working on. Yes.

As we already have plans for ending homelessness. This is specific to unsheltered homelessness. Okay.

And you accept the amendments? Okay, thank you. We do not have quorum yet, so we are not going to be able to vote on it. So I just wanted to appreciate your work and obviously all the work of the stakeholders involved and thank you for your time.

May I close?

Yes.

Thank you. So I appreciate the comments of Senator Cabaldon and the through line to what he's saying is something that I 100% agree with, which is that we need more action and less talking and less studying and less convening and more actual action that provides actual beds for people to sleep in at night instead of sleeping outside.

And so my plea is for the committee consultants, for the chair, for the advocates in the room, for people watching on TV, for all of our colleagues to be willing to make those hard commitments, to do the hard thing.

And, and I think that this bill in its first committee has become a goal setting bill and that is important, but it is important that we do so much more than that.

And so I just, I really want to amplify the comments of the good senator from West Sacramento coming from being a mayor, as I do as well, to recognize that we do have a lot of talking and we need the more action.

And I hope that together we can all focus on that as the next generation of the hard bills and the choices about how we spend state resources, which of course is taxpayer money ultimately on solutions. So with that I respectfully ask for your I vote. And thank you again, Chair, for the consideration.

Waiting for the door to close. Ready? Housing Committee. We are going to hear from an author just so happens to be the Chair. Item number 13, SB681 6. I'm sorry about that. 625 Chair Wahab.

Thank you. SB625, which is part of the Golden State commitment package, will ensure Californians who lose their homes in disasters are able to return and rebuild their home as well as their community overall. In the first month of 2025, major wildfires burned more than 50,000 acres.

The Eden and Palisades fire alone destroyed or damaged more than 18,000 structures including homes, small businesses, schools and places of worship in the Los Angeles County area. Prior to the wildfires, the Los Angeles region already suffered from an acute housing shortage.

SB 625 helps residents impacted by wildfires and other future disasters stay in their communities by streamlining the local approval process for homeowners seeking to rebuild a home that is substantially similar to the home they lost. Californians who lose their home in natural disaster face immense financial hardships in addition to the emotional trauma associated with their loss.

The ability of homeowners to quickly rebuild their property will allow them to remain in their community and alleviate states housing shortage. That is all.

Thank you very much. Are there lead witnesses? No lead witnesses. Any in support? Any in support? Seeing none in support. Witnesses in opposition? You have. You have two minutes. Take your time for two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee. I want to first express our appreciation to the author and her staff for meeting with us. We do have an opposed unless amended position on the bill.

We've shared language with the authors staff and on Section one of the Bill we really think it's more just technical in nature and really trying to make sure that the language that's used in Section one is consistent with the Davis Sterling Act.

And so we're asking for some of that language and I think we're close to agreement on that and ensuring that when we do talk about something that's similarly reconstructed, that in fact that is what the statute says. The second section of the bill is, talks about streamlined reconstruction.

And our biggest concern with that is while this is trying to be similar to existing statute for local governments, we are talking about homeowners associations. These are not local governments. They do not have the same level of staff, they do not have the same level expertise to deal with reconstruction in such a short period of time.

Now I think we've agreed to lengthen the period of time in Section two beyond 15 days. But our preference would be that that section of the bill actually be restricted and limited to rebuilding and reconstruction situations in emergency situations, which is what the first part of the bill is actually talking about.

And so if both sections of the bill were related to reconstruction and emergency situations and then the technical issues are fixed, I think that would address most of our current concerns. Again, having very productive conversations with the Senator and her staff. Look forward to continued conversations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other comments or those in opposition, please step forward. Seeing no others in opposition. Bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Seeing no comments or questions.

Would you like to close SB 25625 will promote housing stability and community resilience in the aftermath of a devastating disaster. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll do that at the appropriate time. We establish a quorum. Thank you.

The Senate Housing Committee is going to go into recession. Thank you. Senate Housing is going to reconvene.

All right, so as we are waiting on Members both to present and to do their job on the Committee, we're going to move on to file item 11 by Senator Durazo. SB838. Senator, whenever you want to begin.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present SB838, which protects the integrity of the Housing Accountability Act. The purpose of the HAA is to accelerate housing production, not to streamline the development of hotels and resorts.

Recently we've seen a trend of developers using housing streamlining laws to build hotels and resorts, sometimes in areas where it wouldn't otherwise have been allowed. In some cases, hotel components have been added late in the process and has reduced the original number of housing units proposed, as seen in recent projects in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica.

Hotel proposals have also been advanced in sensitive areas where local zoning prohibits them, including fire prone locations like the Sonoma Developmental center and the Mountain Winery in Saratoga. These uses divert limited land that could otherwise be used for permanent homes and push Californians, especially low wage workers, farther from where they work.

It shifts the focus of the HAA away from housing and risks weakening public trust in the housing laws this Legislature has passed. Hotels also carry ongoing operational impacts like parking, demand and traffic that make them more appropriate for standard local review. SP838 removes transient lodging from eligibility under state housing streamlining laws.

The bill applies to new projects or projects in review after January 1, 2025. It does not prohibit hotels from being included in mixed use projects. It simply ensures that those components go through a local review process. And here with me, my witnesses are Matt Broad. I'm sorry.

Wascar Castro. Wasgar Castro.

Wascar Castro, as my witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Each of you guys will have two minutes. Okay?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of Unite Here, proud sponsors of SB838. This bill is all about closing the loophole that has inadvertently encouraged the development of hotels under affordable housing streamlining laws.

We really started to see this in 2024 with the emergence of projects across the state with the mixed use hotel component. The HAA has been around for 50 plus years. Mixed use projects with commercial element are intended for a community serving purpose like retail grocery stores, et cetera.

And so this bill just clarifies that a mixed use project with a hotel component doesn't get streamlining in part to encourage other forms of mixed use commercial projects that are more community oriented. I'd also point out that hotels have uniquely intense land use qualities.

For example, if you have a hotel with 150 rooms, you have 150 showers, 150 toilets, corresponding traffic. So a city may very well decide it needs hotels in a designated zone.

And finally, to be clear, this bill in no way precludes or prohibits hotel development, but rather make sure hotels are not being streamlined and are subject to regular zoning rules with local input. So with that, I urge your Aye vote.

Thank you. Let me pull this a little closer. Madam Chair Members, my name is Wascar Castro. I'm the Director of Housing and Transportation justice with Working Partnerships USA and we work primarily in San Jose Santa Clara County and we have a project that really highlighted our need to voice our support for this bill.

Working Partnerships is Silicon Valley based community group that tackles the root causes of inequality and poverty by leading collaborative campaigns for quality jobs, healthy communities, equitable growth and housing and land justice. We're proud to support this bill.

SB838 by Senator Durazo this bill is crucial in ensuring that California's housing streamlining laws remain focused on their original intent facilitating the development of affordable housing for our rest residents not expediting hotel construction California is grappling with severe housing crisis in 2023. Approximately 181,000 Californians experience homelessness, with nearly 90,000 living without shelter.

The state's recent legislative efforts were designed to address this crisis by streamlining the approval process for affordable housing projects. These laws aim to reduce the regul regulatory barriers, promote housing near transit, and provide incentives for various housing types that include senior and student housing. These are worthy goals that we have supported in many facets.

However, there's growing concern that the benefits of streamlining laws are being extended to hotel developments. This shift diverts resources and attention away from building homes for Californians in need for hotels, which are beneficial for tourism, but do not address the pressing need for permanent affordable housing that exists immediately.

SB838 seeks to rectify this by clarifying the streamlined approval processes are intended solely for housing projects. By doing so, we ensure that our policies remain aligned with the goal of providing safe, affordable homes for our communities. When thinking about the quality of the project, it's always important to weigh the ancillary community benefits.

In other words, what else are you bringing to surrounding communities? By clarifying the HAA with respect to hotel projects, we're incentivizing developers who want benefits of streamlining to focus desperately needed housing and in the case of mixed use projects to include grocery stores and retail. For these reasons, support an Aye vote thank you sir.

Thank you. Really appreciate it. We're going to ask for lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we are going to move on to #Metoos both in support or opposition. Please state your name, your organization and whether you oppose or support the bill.

Good morning Chair Elmer Lizardi on behalf of The California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Maria Flores here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City and support.

So we're going to move on to Committee Members. Seeing no comments there. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you Madam Chair. And I appreciate an Aye vote.

I appreciate that. So we still do not have quorum.

So this bill is still going to be, you know, talked about a little bit later. We'll take it on. I am going to move on to our next senator to present file item 4, SB 543 by Senator McNerney. Senator, whenever you want to begin.

Thank you and good morning Chair, members of the committee, I'm here today to present SB 543 for which is a cleanup bill that will clarify existing laws with regard to accessory dwelling units or ADUs and junior ADUs. Because of previous ADUs laws approved by this committee, ADUs now compromise the fastest growing sector of California's housing market.

ADUs now have one in four of every new home. As an ADU, upwards of 25,000 ADUs and junior ADUs are built every year. However, some of the laws governing ADUs and Jr. ADUs contain confusing provisions.

The Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, has circulated interpretations of these provisions in an effort to ensure the statutes are applied consistently across the different jurisdictions. However, some local agencies still reject HCD's interpretations in favor of their own, and this results in conflicts over fees, permitting timelines and other aspects of home building processes.

According to HCD, over 50 local governments have incorrectly applied state laws for ADUs and Jr. ADUs. SB 543 cleans up existing state laws governing ADUs and Jr.

ADUs to eliminate confusion and conflicts at the local level, including clarifying that local governments have 15 business days to conduct an initial review of the ADU permit application so that home builders have time to fix errors in their applications. Also, the size, safety and density standards for ADUs and junior ADUs.

With this standard, simple fixes, local governments across the state can follow a cleaner process for permitting ADUs and junior ADUs without falling into unnecessary conflicts and confusion. My witness this morning is Jonathan Pacheco Bell, Vice President of Policy and Programs at Casita Coalition. Thank you, sir.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jonathan Pacheco Bell. I'm the Vice President of Policy and Programs at Casita Coalition. We're a statewide nonprofit that removes barriers to building smaller, more affordable homes. My background is in local agency planning and code enforcement.

From over a decade of inspection experience, I know the challenges of navigating code compliance on the ground. I've seen both homeowners and municipal planning staff struggle to work with complex codes that lack clear intent. Casita Coalition is sponsoring SB 543 to add much needed clarity and consistency in the law.

Statewide, local agencies are encouraging more ADUs and JADUs to meet urgent housing needs. But California is a big state. Some jurisdictions increase inconsistently interpret ADU permitting requirements, resulting in uneven approvals and confusion that falls the hardest on small builders, homeowners of modest means, and renters in need of affordable housing.

SB 543 will clarify frequently confused points so the intent of state law is clear. SB 543 will standardize application review timelines, potential fee in positions and size, and safety standards for ADUs and JADUs so they're uniform for all local jurisdictions.

This is a simple cleanup bill that provides clarity and consistency to help our community members, our local agency planning staff and small builders use state laws as intended. For these reasons, Casita Coalition urges you to vote yes on SB 543. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we're going to move on to me toos both in support or opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Ryan O'Connell with How to ADU in support.

Brooke Pritchard with California YIMBY in support.

Thank you. So we do not have a quorum still, so committee members, would you guys like to comment? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Sure thing. Basically, we have a housing crisis in California. Anything we can do to facilitate construction of new units I think is going to be beneficial. ADUs is growing very quickly the ADU use. And if we can help local jurisdictions understand what the requirements are, this process will move forward more quickly.

With that, I ask for an I vote and I thank the senate for their indulgence.

Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Senate housing is going to be in recess. Senator Wiener.

Are you ready? All right. The Senate Housing Committee will reconvene. Here's fine. All right, we're going to start off again with file item number two, SB 79 by Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues here today to present Senate Bill 79, which will authorize more housing near our highest quality, highest capacity public transportation stops. It's been a long time since I presented in this in this very noisy room.

I'm here today to present SB 79, which will authorize more housing near our highest quality public transportation stops, high frequency rail, light rail, bus, rapid transit and ferries. Colleagues, we talk a lot about where we don't want to build new housing and we need to talk more about where we do want to build more housing.

And if we're not going to build a lot of housing near our very best public transportation, where on earth should we be building it? With all of the negativity about this bill in the analysis and by opposition, I hope we can take a breath and look at the big picture.

We should absolutely be focusing a lot more housing around our very best public transportation. That's how we build more homes and walkable communities and reduce transportation related emissions. It's how we build in some of the most high resourced areas of the state, including in my own city. And that's how we give people more access to transit.

That's how we build housing of all kinds, including both market rate and below market rate. It's how we reduce congestion. Although we have made progress around transit oriented development, the reality is that many high quality transit stops in California continue to restrict or entirely ban multifamily housing in surrounding areas.

It's true in San Francisco, it's true in other parts of the state. It's completely unsustainable. It limits who can access transit and it harms our transit systems by effectively capping ridership. California should catch up to some of the states that have required more more transit oriented development near high quality transit, including Utah, Colorado and Massachusetts.

To accomplish this, SB 79 sets standards in areas close to our best transit based and it depends on how high quality the transit is and how close to the transit station it is.

Cities also have the ability to submit an alternative plan that produces the same amount of housing, but does so in a way that works for that community. This is absolutely a form of local control.

Contrary to the arguments in both the analysis and opposition, which I'll discuss In a bit, SB 79 does not in any way undermine the creation of below market rate affordable housing that is simply made up. It's quite to the contrary, because land that is currently zoned low density is inherently off limits to affordable housing. That's the status quo.

By upzoning these areas, SB 79 makes it actually possible to build affordable housing on this land. This is a pro affordable housing bill. Nor will SB 79 fuel displacement. It contains specific anti displacement protections borrowed from SB 330. In addition, because these parcels will be eligible for SB 423, the anti displacement provisions in that law will apply.

SB 79 also helps to deal with a very real issue in California, which is that we do not adequately adequately fund our public transit systems or give them the tools to sustain themselves and succeed. And as a result many are struggling.

We know that transit systems around the world that are cheap to ride and reliable and clean and efficient, they in addition to getting tax dollars, they are frequently allowed to control land use around them. And so we give them a limited version of that in this bill to be able to sustain themselves.

I also, and this is awkward to say, but I do need to talk about the analysis, which I normally don't do, but I feel the need to do it here because the analysis was extremely negative about the bill. A bill that's supported by a massive coalition of respected organizations.

I say this with all respect to the chair and also to the committee and its exceptionally talented staff. I have very rarely, in my now nine years in the senate, very rarely come into a committee hearing in disagreement with the chair. When I was chair for seven years of different committees, no fights in committees.

We always worked it out and I have overwhelmingly been able to work it out. Unfortunately here there are no proposed amendments other than to delete the bill. And reading the committee analysis is just an avalanche laundry list of 10,000 things that are supposedly wrong with the bill.

Reading the analysis, there's apparently not a single thing in the bill to be liked. It liberally quotes from opposition without quoting anything from the supporters. It reminds me of for those who watch the Simpsons, the episode where Marge Simpson's aunt comes to Thanksgiving dinner and walks in and says, I have laryngitis. It hurts to talk.

I'm only going to say one thing. Everything you do is wrong. That's what I took away from this analysis. I don't take it personally, but that's what I took away. I don't pretend to be perfect and I will never say that any bill I introduce is perfect and especially a big complicated bill.

And I'm not the only Member of the legislature who does that. Many members do. The chair certainly does that. And you come to your first committee and there's work to be done and so different issues that need to be handled and negotiated and worked over and amended. And that's what the committee process is for in this committee.

The chair, which she has every right in the world to do so I'm not criticizing, has decided to simply oppose the bill instead of asking for amendments. That's the chair's prerogative. But that means that all of these issues that normally we would work on in committee are not getting worked on in this committee.

And I ask that I be allowed to continue to work on this bill. This is a bill that has very broad support, which you can see from the support list, and very diverse support.

You know, specifically, the analysis amplifies what I think is a debunked argument that building market rate homes somehow leads to out migration market rate homes where probably 98 or 99% of Californians currently live in market rate homes. That's contradicted by an avalanche of research which shows that it's the failure to build housing that pushes people out.

The analysis criticizes the bill for allowing developers to build small units. It then pivots to criticize the bill for allowing developers to build large units. So which is it? I think we should do less hand wringing and micromanaging about what kind of housing people build and just let people build housing. That's how we solve our housing shortage.

The analysis criticizes the bill on affordability, but ignores the fact that low density zoning, which is the current status quo around so many major transit stops. Low density zoning means zero affordable housing because it's either single family or too low density to even trigger an inclusionary affordability ordinance.

And you certainly can't build 100% affordable housing in low density by upzoning. SB 79 allows sites to actually pencil for 100% affordable housing, triggers inclusionary local inclusionary requirements and because it makes the parcels eligible for SB 423 streamlining, it triggers the affordability requirements in that bill.

So to criticize this bill around affordability, I think with all respect is not a valid criticism. The analysis also amplifies made up concerns about create about creating a new CEQA exemption, which is just not the case. In order, these projects will all go through either SB 423 streamlining or through the normal CEQA discretionary process.

So all of the labor and environmental standards in SB 423 will apply otherwise It'll be the normal, traditional process. So I, and again, I know I'm, you know, being critical of the analysis and that's a democracy. We all get to have our views. But I think it's important to mention these things given the dynamic in this hearing.

I do want to note something the committee said in the analysis with which I fully 100% agree that we have a severe housing shortage, a big one, and it's driving low income and working class people out of California. Housing bills do not drive people out. The shortage that we're trying to solve, that's what drives people out.

We're trying to help end that. The legislature has worked for the last decade to try to end that shortage and I'm proud of that work. The analysis correctly notes that California's housing production has gone up in recent years. That's a good thing, but it's not nearly enough.

It still falls far short of what we need to make California affordable for all sorts of families of different income levels to stop the out migration of working class people and to put an end to the situation where Texas and Florida are eating our lunch.

When it comes to building housing that people can afford, it shouldn't be the case that you have to go to Texas or Florida to afford housing. You should be able to afford housing here. And we need to build enough housing to make that possible so that we don't keep losing seats in Congress, which we're going to do.

We're going to decimate it in the next census because we have failed so badly on housing that we have an out migration and we're going to pay the price for that. SB 79 represents a good faith step forward to address our housing and climate challenges.

First committee, I am asking for the opportunity to continue to work on this bill. There is no big bill that's perfect. In its first committee, various issues have been raised that I'm happy to continue to work on and I respectfully ask for an I vote.

With me today to testify are Sergio Lopez, the mayor of Campbell and Kristen. Excuse me. Kirsten Bladh, the Associate Director of State Policy at Streets for All, is also a certified land use planner. So thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm gonna state that each of the speakers will have two minutes and you will be timed. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Centers. Thank you very much. My name is Sergio Lopez. I'm a mayor, transit agency chair, and son of immigrants. I come from a proud working class union family. After facing housing insecurity growing up, facing foreclosure and the loss of our family home.

I entered public service to fight to ensure that no other family would have to endure what mine did. First and foremost, that has meant fighting our housing affordability crisis, which has only grown more severe. I have the honor of serving as mayor of my hometown of Campbell, and we're a proud pro housing city.

For this housing element cycle, we set a housing target nearly double that allocated to us. And we have aggressive but common sense affordability requirements ensure a balance between production and affordability. This is a balance that SB 79 strikes by prioritizing production while deferring to our local affordability standards.

And we've been a good faith actor and exponentially increased our housing and homelessness programs over the past few years. But in spite of all that, we know that we can't tackle this problem alone. And it will take partnership with the state and bills like SB 79. I also have the honor of chairing VTA, Silicon Valley's transit agency.

And along with moving Santa Clara county, we have been a leader in innovative transit oriented development. SB7 9 will help us meet our goal of scaling up to thousands of new homes, including thousands of affordable ones. Every single VTA housing project includes a project labor agreement. And SB 79 will help us do more of these.

Faster transit agencies like ours can show what's possible in housing, jobs and mobility. Our plan together. And as someone who's working at the ground level to deliver results for our residents, I also see the limits of what local leadership can achieve on its own.

The problem is bigger than any one city, and the cities that are stepping up like mine, shoulder too much of the burden while some of our neighbors avoid responsibility. But the housing shortage crosses city, county and regional lines.

And that's why we need courageous leaders at every level of government to step up to the task of solving our housing crisis. And we know what the solution is. More housing. SB 79 gives us important tools to meet demand without waiting on cities that refuse to act. And importantly, it avoids the trap of overly prescriptive standards. Thank you.

I respectfully urge an I vote.

Thank you. You have two minutes

My name is Kirsten Bladh, and I'm the Associate Director of State Policy for Streets for All. Streets for all is co sponsoring SB 79 because we believe it is not just a housing bill, but actually one of the most important transportation and climate bills of the year.

Because the failure of our cities to build enough housing is devastating our transit systems. Thousands of Californians are being priced out of urban centers and forced to move to places that are more affordable but where transit is scarce or non existent.

Nowhere is this clearer than in LA where I live and where Victorville, a town in the Mojave Desert, now has more residents than Pasadena.

Pasadena, a city with six Los Angeles Metro rail stations, is actually losing population, while Victorville, where the only rail service is a single Amtrak train per day, is one of the fastest growing cities in the state.

When we push people from transit rich cities to the suburbs and rural towns, we increase congestion and emissions in those areas and pave over prime farmland. In fact, we're on track to lose 13,000 agricultural jobs by 2040. And it's not because of Trump's tariffs, it's because rural areas are bearing the brunt of housing demand.

Every time someone who wants to live in our cities near transit is priced out, we are failing that person, we are failing the climate and we are failing our transit systems who struggle to grow ridership while our transit stations are still surrounded by parking lots, strip malls and expensive one story homes.

When LA's Purple Line extension opens later this year, the cost to ride it will not just be the $1.75 fare, it'll be $3 million because that's the average sale price of a home within walking distance of the new Wilshire La Brea station.

And if you're a renter of any income level, then you're shut out of the area almost entirely.

By mandating low density sprawl around transit stations, cities have capped how many people are even able to live near a station, let alone afford to. Streets for All believes that anyone who wants to live in our cities near transit should be able to do so, and SB 79 will make that possible. Thank you I urge your I vote.

Thank you right at time too, so appreciate that. Could we get lead opposition witnesses to come forward.

Each of you will also have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the Public Interest Law Project, and our coalition of partners that work with low income communities throughout California, we agree with pretty much all of the arguments in support of this bill. We need more housing.

We need more housing and more density around transit and we need to do so much more to support and grow transit throughout the state. But I feel like we're just reading an entirely different bill. It's important to remember that the state does pretty well at producing market rate housing. But seriously under produces affordable housing.

Given those significant disparities, we should be using every tool available to increase affordable housing development.

We read this bill as not requiring affordability and sort, sort of taking away any incentive that a developer would have to actually use things like density bonus law or SB35, which would trigger an affordability requirement, which means we're probably just going to get 100% market rate projects.

And clearly there's a disagreement about how the bill reads, but that's how we read it. We see it as potentially overriding local inclusionary ordinances. We know that low income people are core transit riders. We know that market rate development in low income neighborhoods causes neighborhood level displacement.

We know that there are better ways to go about increasing density. We see all kinds of cities doing creative things to densify while also taking care of housing needs and building equitably and inclusively. We think we should embrace those things.

And we see SB79 as simply too blunt of an instrument to produce the kinds of outcomes that we want to see in our communities to address the housing crisis for all. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council also opposed the bill. I'll truncate my statement my statement a bit. Anya did a good job of touching the housing space of this, but I'll say a couple things.

First, by exempting projects from Celine risks, public health and safety, by not considering infrastructure capacity, no analysis of mitigation for significant construction and operational air quality, noise, public health, utility, public services and other adverse impacts on the community would be required.

These things are often addressed by addressed by other laws and may exacerbate environmental and public health impacts. Secondly, a housing project will also be eligible for SB79 streamlining if located on light industrial land or surrounded by industrial uses.

In contrast to existing streamlining measures such as SB6 and AB 2011, which prohibit housing projects on a site or joined any site where more than one third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use. And finally, a word on labor standards.

This does not include labor standards, including standards previously approved by the Legislature and streamlining bills such as SB 423, SB 6 and AB 2011. It's important to remember that the potential increase in housing projects in SB79 will result in increased workforce demand. Local government Local governments need to be able to hear this and adapt to it.

Without a public process to advocate within, our members need those protections in bills such as this. However, SB79 includes no labor standards for workers building these projects, no skilled and training standards, no prevailing wage requirements, no apprenticeship utilization requirements or enforcement provisions.

And without those standards in this Bill, we will be forced to rely on an overburdened and understaffed calosha, DLSE and other state agencies charged with enforcing labor laws, an issue that the author has tried to remedy as chair of the Budget Committee, for which we thank him.

But because of that, the author knows there isn't enough enforcement capacity due to the vastness and prevalence of the underground economy, especially in the housing sector.

Finally, those agencies, despite being staffed and dedicated public servants who are doing their best, need the help of the Legislature and bills such as this to include real meaningful direction to developers that how and with whom these projects are built are as important as just getting them done.

This bill contains no standards for protecting workers, unfortunately, and we are left to ask why.

For those reasons we urgent a vote. Thank you. So we're going to move on to #MeToos again, both in support of the bill or opposition. Please state your name, your organization and where you sit on support or opposition. No other comments. Thank you.

Hi. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY, in addition to 1,000 Californians who signed a letter in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of West Hollywood in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with the California Transit Association. We are supportive of the Surplus Lands Act changes in the bill and appreciate the author's work with us on that. Thank you.

Robin Davis, West Sacramento Tiny Homes on Wheels advocacy group in support. Thank you.

Ryan O'Connell, with Napa Solano for Everyone and strong support. Thank you.

Harrison Linder, with Leading Age California here in support.

Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in opposition.

Jane Natoli on behalf of Yimby Action in support.

Kyle Kelly on behalf of Santa Cruz Yimby and strong support.

Philip Raffle on behalf of SF Yimby support.

Courtney Coon on behalf of Inclusive Lafayette in support.

Sarah Bell on behalf of East Bay Yimby support.

Brian Jaffe on behalf of Santa Rosa Yimby support.

Ali Saperman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in stronger support.

Louis Morante on behalf of the Bay Area Council, a proud co sponsor of the bill and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Happy Earth Day. Jordan Grimes on behalf of environmental nonprofit Greenbelt Alliance in strong support. Also a co sponsor of this bill. Thank you.

Brian Hamlin, California BE in support and I believe Circulate San Diego didn't make it in the room. Also speaking on behalf of him as well in support. Thank you.

Joseph Cohen May on behalf of the Los Angeles Housing Production Institute as well as Downtown Los Angeles for All in support.

Ember Madison, from the California Apartment Association in support.

Saleem Damarge, on behalf of South Bay Yimby in support.

Alex Shadley, with Northern Neighbors in support.

Julia Daniel with Hay Dash for your neighbors for Density and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kira Rosoff, on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members in the City of Solana Beach in opposition.

Good Morning Chair and Members. Brady Gar, on behalf of the League of California Cities as well as the California State Association of Counties in opposition. Thank you.

Brandon Powell, of San Francisco's District 9 Neighbors for Housing and support.

David Aito, AARP California in strong support.

Evan Kragan, on behalf of Sacramento Council Member, Katie Maple, in strong support.

Zen Elliot Crow, on behalf of YIMBY Los Angeles in strong support.

Alex Melandres, representing Ventura County Yimby in strong support.

Matthew Marting, on behalf of Mountain View Yimby in strong support.

Brendan Regulinski, constituent of Senator Durazzo, Union Entertainment worker and volunteer with Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Eastside Housing for All in support.

Natalie Spivak, with Housing California. We have a concerns position due to the lack of affordability requirements and exemption for transit agencies from the Surplus Lands Act. Thank you.

Jonathan Cook, Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance with concerns regarding the lack of affordability requirements and exemptions to the Surplus Land Act.

Phoebe Seaton, with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in opposition.

Mark Fucsovich, from Streets for All representing the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets in support of the bill.

Chris Allison, on behalf of East Bay for Everyone in support.

Gracia La Castillo Krings, here on behalf of Prosperity California in support.

Holly Fermini De Jesus, with Lighthouse Public Affair here in support today on behalf of Spur Abundant Housing Los Angeles, the San Diego Housing Commission, as well as Habitat for Humanity, California nonprofit housing builders for homeowners. All in support.

Noor Delano, on behalf of San Luis Obispo County, Yimby in support.

Sri Vijay Raghavan, for Grow the Richmond in support.

Ben Raidersdorf, on behalf of House Sacramento in strong support.

Varun Arora, representing Peninsula for Everyone in strong support.

Rick Latora, on behalf of Inclusive Moraga in support.

Aviv Shifrin, with Streets for All in support.

Bob Naylor, on behalf of Fieldstead. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. An Orange County pro housing philanthropist.

Don Wilcox, with the California Conference of Carpenters in support

JT Herchmack, from the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California in support of this bill today to continue the conversation on the Surplus Land Act.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Gonzalez, on behalf of the cities of Artesia, Chino, Fairfield, Folsom, La Mirada, La Quinta, Lakewood, Lamita, Norwalk, Palm Desert, Palmdale, Paramount, Rancho Cordova, Simi Valley, Torrance, Whittier and Yucaipa, all in respectful opposition.

Madam Chair and Members. Kobe Pizzai, on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Thousand Oaks, Merced and Rancho Cucamonga. In respectful opposition.

Casey Elliott, on behalf of the cities of Laguna Beach, Hesperia, Newport Beach, Fullerton, Mission Viejo, Whittier, Oakley, Oceanside and Modesto, Murrieta, Tustin, Concord, Walnut Creek and Lafayette. All in respectful opposition.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in respectful opposition.

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

Max Perry, on behalf of the City of Camarillo, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing as we have no #MeToos, I'd like to establish a quorum before we begin any deliberation. Can we call roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay, quorum has been established. I'm going to bring the conversation back to Committee Members. Committee Members, would you guys like to comment on this effort? Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I want to express my incredible just regard, high regard to the author, who is a housing champion for the State of California and has been one for quite some time and is absolutely not afraid to pick up large boxes and big task and challenging policy and bring it before us, such as is with this particular bill.

I see, when I read through the bill and I see the structure of it, I see where this absolutely fits in perfect as a piece of a puzzle to many communities, especially within the heart of the Bay Area, especially in San Francisco and some of the larger cities.

When you get out further from that dense, dense urban setting, then I see where the challenges start to surface.

And for me, that's what I've been grappling with is how do we fit that tier system into an environment that is not conducive to that kind of a setting, where there's four stories or seven stories within a certain distance from public transit.

In some of these communities, they've literally built a life or a product or a way of living that is a different type of setting than one who would wish to live on the 23rd floor of a high rise right in the heart of San Francisco.

And so it's a lifestyle choice of having a lawn and having a single family home and wanting to live in that kind of environment. And they've chose to go out and live there. In some cases not there not has been a choice. They've been pushed out there to live in a rental situation.

So with that, for me, I see some great benefits if this was limited to an environment that was conducive to the tier system that is in this bill.

However, I do see the huge challenges for me in my district where it gets out into a place where that type of setting is not or the policy is not conducive to the setting that is out there.

Having said that, again, I want to compliment the author on any endeavor that he has embarked on as well as this Legislature to be able to tackle this almost magnanimous, impossible task of addressing our housing crisis.

Thank you. We have Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to also thank the author. I know this isn't ever easy. I know where the chair stands here. So I want to be as respectful of this process as possible. But I do support this bill because I do see the opportunity.

In my district alone, I've got the southeast Los Angeles gateway that is about 15 to 16 miles that will go from the City of Artesia to Los Angeles Union Station.

This is the first time that these folks in Southeast La, which is most oftentimes a neglected part of our county, get not only a light rail line, but have the opportunity to see a vision for new commercial, new residential, mixed use properties that could really just create so much vibrancy along the line.

This is because, you know, a lot of the work that the state has done, the southeast line just received tirsip funding of about $250 million, which was great. We still need another billion or so of dollars. We're still looking for that. But nonetheless, this provides an opportunity for us to envision this area.

I know that the cities of Paramount and the City of Lakewood have opposed this Bill, which are in my district, but I will say the City of Paramount has created a clear water specific plan that actually does exactly what SB79 is entailing. It creates, it's a whole plan that creates more density along the transit line.

And this is exactly what it creates. It's just that, you know, this is not City of Paramount's bill, it's a state bill.

And I understand that the local control aspect, but I think that this is an opportunity for us to continue discussing, you know, what more we could do for these underserved communities, especially in one like mine, like Los Angeles, that will, that also has some of the largest impacts in terms of air quality too.

So I know I'm Talking to you, Mr. Author, but I think this is something that I know that you understand completely. But I know that this is going to be really, really vital for my, for my community and for Los Angeles. On top of that, La County has, I think, about 50,000 acres available along their metro lines.

When we think about the Olympics, when we think about the World Cup and the opportunities there for folks, for regular Angelenos to be able to have housing that could be affordable, but that will also be lower the cost, lower the air quality impacts and get them to and from not just the Olympics, but to work, I think is really important.

So with that, I want to say thank you for bringing this forward. I know there'll be continuing conversations on how we can incorporate maybe some of the existing transit oriented community programs that might have some local government influence in there already.

So there is some sort of influence from cities to be able to, you know, look at that. And so I don't know if you have any answer to that. I know we've talked about that a little bit briefly, but Metro has TOC currently and does beg for city support.

Thank you very much, Senator Gonzalez.

So, as I mentioned at the beginning, the bill currently allows cities to propose an alternative plan that produces the same level of housing that SB79 would require, but to do it in their own way if they want to move around where, where it is to focus more on like one side of the station, less on the other side.

And. And so that they have that flexibility in terms of other kinds of flexibility for cities that may already have programs. We're open to that conversation. Absolutely.

And that's why I'm asking the Committee, and I appreciate your support to allow us to continue that conversation, because if the Bill is voted down in its First Committee, that conversation ends. And so I appreciate you raising that. We're happy, you know, we're happy to have that conversation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other commentators, Senator Durazo?

Yes. I just want to thank the author also for all the work that you've done on housing. Housing has also been very important to me because I represent a district which is primarily renters, overwhelmingly renters. And so affordability is a big issue. There are renters who are at the point of getting kicked out and becoming homeless.

So affordable housing solutions are really top priority for me and the rights of tenants. My concern is that there would be more market rate. It would open the door for more market rate, but at the expense of affordable housing. And that's a very big concern.

I'm aligned, I think, with a lot of the nonprofit affordable housing groups in their concern that this could lead to more market rate housing, but again, at the expense of affordable housing. My concern about the impact and the potential.

It bypasses ceqa, it permits transit agencies to build commercial only developments, and it does not have the affordability standards baked in. It leaves a door open to luxury development without guarantees for low and moderate income residents, and it exempts transit from the Surplus Lands act, cutting off opportunities to prioritize affordable housing on public land.

For these and many other reasons, I will not be voting today on this bill.

Thank you. So we'll go with Senator Cabaldon first.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm approaching this also from the perspective of somebody whose most recent experience was as a Mayor and as a Transit Agency Chair, although not in the core of either Los Angeles or the Bay Area. And I think—first, I would say this Bill is tackling a very real problem.

That we are building region-scale land use and climate and housing and equity plans, organized around transit, and then not building the housing around transit stations, in order for that to occur.

And to some extent, it's part of our larger challenge of we want to make sure if we do a project, that it has to be affordable and it should have a solar roof and it should have a childcare center and it should have an urban farm on the top of it. You know, all of our goals.

And while we're waiting for that moment, that land is being consumed for other projects, and we don't get another bite at the apple. So, as we're waiting to build the perfect project, other things are consuming that land around the transit stations, as we build them. So, it is a very live challenge and an urgent one.

I absolutely get the purpose and the approach of the Bill here, and this larger view, because it is a regional and state priority that the local government share, to advance transit-oriented development and the significant benefits from mobility, for access to jobs, for social equity, that these provide, that there is a key role for the state to engage in.

I did want to, and I know you mentioned, Senator, that, you know, the analysis went through a thousand things. To be fair, I think it's because the Bill also goes through a thousand things, as well.

So, I wanted to go through a couple of these because, I will say, I'm approaching this from someone—a different part of California, not radically different. I do represent four of the Bay Area's counties.

But as I read the Bill, it applies, in my own district, to just a few areas, those that are served by the Capitol Corridor Rail Service, by the Smart Light Rail Line in Sonoma and Marin and potentially by the Vallejo Ferry, and that's—and that's it. So, it isn't a broad scale coverage of my district.

But at the same time, there's a, there's a reason for that and that is that we have not found a way and there is no plan, real or possible, for future frequent rail service in suburban, exurban, mostly urban places like Vallejo, Fairfield, Vacaville, Davis, my own city, maybe the closest, Woodland, others.

We don't have a strategy for getting there. Our neighbors in the big urban areas will sort of talk about us like we're, like we are Sally Strothers Charity Campaign. Someday, transit will arrive at these poor places that don't have it. We don't know how.

But until then, you have to comply with all the same exact standards that we have today, in anticipation that it will arrive when we don't have any strategy for—and it's not feasible to extend BART to most of my district, as an example. The Capitol Corridor is the line that it is. It's not going to change.

SMART is maybe the only example of a transit system fixed that would meet these requirements, that has been developed in my entire district in generations. So, this is—so, it is—it makes it easier for me in some sense. But I think.

But a lot of the laws that apply to these stations don't recognize that transit will look different. It has to in these communities, and I'll give an example. Many of them—mine was the first in the state to operate a publicly supported micro transit public rideshare system. That doesn't count because there's no fixed stop.

That doesn't count as transit. And so, we've got to look at these communities. And with all due respect, we're not pushing people to the suburbs. We have a housing crisis in all of California, including in suburban and rural California as well, where we're closing schools, or potentially universities, because we don't have enough people.

So, we have to, you know, we need to be looking at these areas in ways that will, that will accomplish that. The other key difference between the core barrier and the rest of, at least Northern California, is that in areas like mine, transit agencies are cities. They are cities and counties. There's not an independent agency.

That's the transit agency. And so, in some respects, for the opponents of the Bill, it's your fears are not that—they're not real. Like, there's just no chance that the mayors of Woodland, West Sacramento, Davis, and Winters are going to conspire and force any one of those four cities through their role as the Yolo Bus Transit Agency.

The other three are not going to force land use decisions onto any one of those cities. Cotati is not at any risk that Rohnert Park next door is going to conspire with the other cities in Sonoma County through SMART, to impose these draconian land use issues that are being worried about.

So, in some sense, that structure is a cause for not being that worried about the impacts of the Bill, in that way. But also, at the same time, it's a recognition that just as transit agencies are cities and counties, in these places, cities and counties are also the transit agencies.

And so, perhaps one of my biggest worries is that we are creating a perverse incentive for these places not to ever upgrade their transit systems. That if taking our Yolo Bus Line 42 that runs to the airport and taking it from 40 minutes to 30 minutes, that's great, everybody agrees.

Taking it 30 minutes to 20 minutes, that's great, everybody agrees. Taking it to 16 minutes, everybody agrees. Taking it to 15 minutes, suddenly all of these laws get triggered. At 15 minutes, suddenly every one of these laws gets triggered.

And who in their right mind, as a City Council Member, maybe, maybe there's a couple of us, but really, who in their right mind that is going to get reelected is going to say, you know, it's worth going from 16 minutes to 15 minutes and give up all of our local land use authority, in this way?

So, this, this sort of, this, this inflection point, when the transit agency is also controlled, unlike BART or AC Transit or the, you know, those that have elected agencies, it's controlled by the cities and the counties. And transit will only evolve and intensify over time, if the whole community is rowing in that direction.

No transit agency has ever emerged like Aphrodite out of the Seafoam. It takes everyone contributing to that, and a mandate from the state can only take it so far.

So, that's sort of one, sort of, overarching challenge for me, is wanting to make sure that we are not, we're not creating incentives, strong disincentives for local agencies, in areas that don't have independent transit agencies, to use their control of the transit agencies to keep them down, in order to not trigger provisions like this.

The second area that I want to understand, it picks up on what Senator Grayson said is, these—the—tiering options that are in the Bill, which I think is a thoughtful, well considered approach for how to deal with this, but it misses something, and that is that transit is very, very much a network phenomenon.

The density and the interconnectivity of the transit network is what makes it successful or not. So, a Tier 3 transit service, something less than light rail, is a radically different animal, in a place where it exists all by itself.

For example, the Smart Train in Sonoma, compared to a Tier 3 service that connects to a Tier 2 line, and potentially through the Tier 2 line to a Tier 1 line, that, those—what your mobility envelope looks like, what your possibility frontier looks like, is radically different.

So, if you can take every 40-minute bus or every 15-minute one, but that's Tier 3 and you can connect to AC Transit or Dimuni, and then get on BART, that is a radically different transit power than getting on, getting on in Davis, onto UniTrans, onto the bus service. That's the only trip that you can take.

And so, just going the way that the tiers are operated, it treats Tier 3 as though it's just a slightly, slightly less version of Tier 2, which is a slightly less version of Tier 1. So, there's no recognition of the, of the network effect.

And so, to me, that presents a real challenge, because when you have a Tier 3 major transit stop that is embedded in Tier 1 and Tier 2 networks, you should be driving to exactly these standards.

But it isn't as clear to me that an isolated Tier 3 system in a suburban or a rural area all by itself should trigger—it should trigger something—but should it trigger the same exact thing as a Tier 3 line that connects to BART, Muni, or to LA—or to LA Metro?

So, those are some of the larger questions I have about the Bill, and you're welcome to respond either directly or in the close.

Some specific things I wanted to raise, and I warned you, I had a bunch of questions on this, but some specific factors I want to raise, and I know we will also, if the Bill moves forward, also here in local government is, and we're doing this a lot, we have a lot of shot clocks for local governments, where there's a shot clock for the local government to do something, send it to HCD, and then, there's a shot clock after HCD sends it back.

There's no shot clock for HCD itself. And what's good for Peter, what's good for Paul here? And when you're trying at the local level to process these issues, or if you're a development project or transit agency, HCD can be a substantial time barrier.

And so, as we mandate local governments to do this in 15 minutes, or this in 60 days, we should have some accountability for the state to do its part, if time is really money and time is of the essence. And so, I encourage you to think about asymmetry of the shot clocks.

Second, curious about the language in the Bill about the permanent operating easement for transit agencies, being one of the, one of the triggers for objective standards. My worry here is that the way the language is constructed right now does not connect the permanent operating easements directly to the line or to the plan.

It's simply any permanent operating easement, which creates the potential for developers to offer permanent operating easements, for lines that do not exist, or are not planned, in order to qualify for the, for the, for the benefits of this Bill.

So, the concept I agree with, but I, but I, but I want to be sure that we're—that that is tight and it's not because it's essentially free to the developer to give, especially when there's not a line, that it's not connecting to an existing, an existing or relatively soon plan line.

And then the—I do have also concern about the remote properties issue, that has been raised by several of the groups and others, around other properties the transit agencies own that may or may not be directly associated with the lines as they are, or as planned. I hope you will be able to address that.

Then, I guess the last thing I'll say, and it will apply not just to this Bill, but to a lot of this work, and we've talked about this extensively, is we're very focused here on punishing the wicked and making sure the wicked don't do bad things. And that is an essential role for state government to do.

And by the wicked, I think we almost always are referring to local governments, who are either evil or too stupid to do the right thing. That's not my view of the world—that they are just as evil or stupid as state government or anyone else in society. There is a mix.

And so, I believe very much that we ought to have policies to punish the wicked, but that we also need to have policies that unleash the super talented, the ones that are getting the job done than the ones that are better than average, the ones that are better than an analyst and HCD might come up with, that are really on that edge.

And looking at the city we're in right now, do they get every single thing right? No. Do they take really hard risks to make progressive policies around housing production? Yes. Berkeley is another. My city's another. There's a lot of cities that are doing as well, or better, than we would in their shoes.

And this is an example of one of those areas where we treat them all the same. And so, where, when Huntington Beach or Atherton or a city that's not developing the proper amount of Transit Oriented Development, when they commit a crime, the ankle bracelet goes on everyone.

And, and so, I think this is an area where we need to be thinking about developing a framework that, that is—that applies either to the wicked or to the average, but where we are not preventing communities that are with us on all of our policy objectives and are doing the best that they can and are often succeeding from being able to accomplish that.

Sorry for the.

No, I appreciate that. Thank you so much. I do want to give—he had a number of different.

Respond briefly.

Okay. If you could respond briefly. We have other speakers as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate those comments. Just a couple of things on the easements issue. That's something that has been raised, I think, I believe the realtors raised that, and we're actively working on that issue. We've actually proposed language to them, and we're, you know, we'll hopefully resolve that. So, that issue has been raised.

We're, we're committed to working on that. In terms of the remote properties for—in terms of the Surplus Lands Act in general, we've—and I've always been a supporter of the SLA. We have some flexibility on the SLA. For example—this might change—school districts have more flexibility.

There's been an ongoing conversation for years around transit agencies and SLA's because transit agencies, and for my Bay Area colleagues, you know this, and for others, you've heard me talking about it, in the Bay Area, our transit systems are on the verge of collapse. Collapse.

And so, is there a reasonable conversation to have about giving them a little more flexibility on their own land, to be able to sustain themselves, so that we continue to have public transportation?

I have told MPH and the other Housers we're, if the Bill moves forward, we will sit down with them, about the SLA, to try to work something, work something out. And so, that message has been delivered, and we're committed to that.

And then, finally, I want to—in terms of punishing the wicked, I actually don't view housing, more housing, as a punishment. And I have been very careful over the years, a—with very few exceptions. And we know who that tiny number of cities are. I don't demonize cities. I'm a former local elected official.

We ask local elected officials to walk the plank every week, with people yelling at them.

And so, the number of City Council Members over the last decade who have come up to me privately and said, I can't say this publicly but thank you for the work that you're doing, because it makes our lives so much easier, in terms of delivering the housing we need.

So, I don't view it as punishment, but I understand what you're saying in terms of the high performers, they should get some consideration. And the final thing I want to say, in terms of transit, I want to see transit expand everywhere.

And I also want to make sure that as we are doing that, we're not repeating the past mistakes, like we heard in terms of Senator Grayson's community, where we made massive public investments in BART and surrounded—allowed—cities to surround it with single family homes, so that the only—the only people who are allowed to walk to those BART stations, for the most part, are people who can afford a $2 million home.

That is terrible policy. It's unfair, and that's what we're trying to change. Not this Bill won't change everything, but that's the direction we're trying to go.

Thank you. Senator Arreguin.

I want to thank Senator Cabaldon for your comments. I think you touched on an important issue, which is that not every city is an urbanized community. And so, as we're developing laws for 40 million people in the state, we have to really think about the application of it, to a variety of different parts of our state.

And so, I know the author will work to take that input in consideration as the Bill moves forward, but housing is a matter of statewide concern. That's why the Legislature, over the past decade, has passed a number of laws to streamline production, to build ADUs, to build multifamily housing, to build affordable housing.

And it's because we're facing a significant deficit of housing in California. It's estimated we are behind by at least two and a half million homes, just to address the existing housing needs of Californians. If we were making progress as a state, we wouldn't need Senate Bill 79.

And I think, as the Senator touched upon, we're facing two challenges in California. We're facing a housing shortage and we're facing a transit funding crisis. And transit and housing are interrelated issues, there's no doubt about it. And so, this Bill tries to address both those issues.

And I firmly believe that we need to build housing for people at all income levels, affordable housing, including permanently affordable housing, subsidized housing for people experiencing homelessness, market rate housing ownership, housing, the shortages at all aspects of the income spectrum in our state. But more acutely, on the affordable side.

I believe this Bill will significantly accelerate the state's progress to build Transit Oriented Development, locating it where it should be appropriately located, which is along major transit corridors and around transit stations.

I think there are some issues that should be taken into consideration, with regard to sort of rural cities and more suburban communities and the different tiers, that I think Senator Cabaldon touched upon specifically, but I think this Bill is accomplishing a very important goal.

I have talked to the author about my concerns, around the issues around the changes of Surplus Lands Act, which I think could disincentivize the use of public land for affordable housing, which I think is going backwards from the law the state has passed in recent years.

I know that you'll be engaging with affordable housing developers and other stakeholders, discuss those issues. I want to make sure that we're not going backwards and incentivizing affordable housing. So, recognizing this Bill will, will continue to be a work in progress, but is addressing a critical need in our state, I will be voting for the Bill today.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we have Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I do have a couple of questions I would like to give an opportunity to be addressed. The first one is, based on the information that you shared, that your staff shared, actually, with us, the Bill seems quite narrow.

And as you have a comprehensive list of the transit stations that fall within the tiered structure, this Bill does not affect the vast majority of land within a given city. I was looking at the map and, in my community, in my district, we potentially have three—three areas up here.

I have three areas that actually would be considered under Tier 3, which falls within, you know, closest to it, four to five, three to four, on the, on the outskirts, on that, on that end.

Would it be appropriate to say that a certain level of local control is still guaranteed to cities and counties, going forward, since they retain the oversight of transit development and therefore, could consider the sustainability of high-density housing when evaluating the future site of the, of the—of the transit stop?

Yes. Excuse me, sorry. That is correct, and it's twofold. First, even for existing stops, the Bill is very clear that a city—there's a default zoning around that transit stop, per the tiers in the Bill.

A city could decide, we want to focus it more, say, like I said before, on one side of the station but not the other, or we want to go even taller closer in, but shorter, further out, and they can craft that alternative plan and that would substitute the default settings in the Bill.

So, that's a pretty significant amount of local control. In addition, as Senator Cabaldon mentioned, when we talk about the creation of new transit stops and new transit systems, these are—these are local decisions.

In most parts of the state, it is, it is, as you mentioned, mayors, council members, county supervisors, who are part of these transit boards, we have in the Bay Area, we have two systems, BART and AC, that are directly elected, but that is close to being unique in the country. And they are directly elected, so, they're local elected officials.

And so, that local decision making is still there. The state doesn't mandate where you build rail. I mean, if you're seeking state funding, you have to show that the system is going to be sustainable. But yeah, there is—that's a significant amount of local control.

And I, and I want to, I wanted to make sure I asked that question because I wanted to ensure that the opposition, especially when it comes to the League of Cities and our local cities, because I, I'll be honest, I received a lot of opposition from our local cities.

And when I'm viewing, when I'm viewing the lens that I use to, to, to, to analyze the bills, I really do look and take in consideration what the local control perspective is, on that end, but also what—where their role comes in.

And so, I want our cities to understand that they still, especially in my district, which you know, we are still developing, we still have a lot of land, we're still growing. So, there still leaves literally a lot of local control, as to where they go—they're going to be able to place these transits stations, moving forward.

So, I wanted to make sure that we had that on record for my cities. Number two, there's been some concerns raised about the lack of affordability requirements within this Bill. Can you provide some context as to why that was not included and perhaps how increasing market rate supply could still be a net positive for housing markets?

Please.

Yeah, so I agree with—I know, I know Senator Arreguin said this—I can't remember if others did—that when it comes to housing, it has to be in my view and all of the above approach.

I have been a strong supporter of, and we say affordable housing, I think most people are referring to below market rate, deed-restricted, affordable housing. That's typically what people are talking about when we say affordable housing. I've authored bills that have been specific to 100% affordable housing.

At the local level, I supported San Francisco's inclusionary housing ordinance. I have supported, both before and since being Budget Chair, billions and billions of dollars of investment in affordable housing.

And so, this whole narrative that if you do a Bill that allows for all sorts of different kinds of housing, it's somehow anti-affordable housing, that it's a zero-sum game, I don't accept that. I think that that is a false premise.

And so, this Bill, in terms of affordable housing, as I mentioned at the beginning, need to be clear that the low-density zoning—if you have a station that's surrounded by single family zoning, that is—inherently means that neighborhood is off limits to affordable housing.

So, when we change that low density zoning to multi-unit, that means that you can now have affordable housing there. So, to suggest that changing the zoning from single family to multi-unit is anti-affordable housing, that is simply, in my view, incorrect. So, by changing the zoning, it allows there to be affordable housing—both 100% if an affordable housing developer can purchase the land.

But also, it triggers the inclusionary housing ordinance of the city because typically, most cities it triggers at like 10 units, or 15 units, or thereabouts. In addition, like I said all of the above.

So, we want that affordable housing, but market rate housing, you know, the vast majority of Californians live in market rate housing. 90% of low-income Californians live in market rate housing. Market rate housing, it gets tarred as luxury housing. Market housing is privately built housing.

The 1965 condo that I live in, which is, is a very modest condo—I don't live in the nicest place in the world. When it was built in 1965, I bet you it was really like, wow, this is like luxurious. It's all sparkly and new. It's not now, and it's still market rate housing.

And all housing is expensive because we don't build enough of it. And we know from study after study that places that build a lot of new housing—that helps stabilize the price, so we don't have explosive costs that are pushing people out. So, we need both the market rate housing.

We're not going to solve this without market rate housing and we're also not going to solve it without having subsidies, particularly for our lowest income residents, because the market is not serving them. So, I believe we need both, and I think this Bill delivers both.

When addressing market rate housing, I also want to talk from a perspective of a realtor. If we're talking about market rate housing, if we're purchasing that particular, it also leaves, if those folks were, say, leasing a property, it leaves that vacancy now available for other people to be able to rent that particular unit. I'm with you.

I believe in just construction—let's just build.

And one of the concerns that I've had so much so in—this is my fifth year here in the Senate—is the fact that based on regulation, we've inhibited growth development in the State of California, adding additional costs, waiting for that perfect moment, adding, you know, the solar panels, or adding just every single component.

It just, it has made the building so unaffordable in the State of California that we're not building it. Hence, we don't have enough housing, hence the cost of living—the cost of housing in California.

So, I believe in just building and streamlining the process as much as possible and leading, literally leading, leading the free market, so I'm grateful that, you know, this allows for housing to be built, period. Period.

Because when somebody purchases a house and if they're leasing a property before that, that is now—leaves it for our newly young folks, like my children, my young adult children, who are now going to be, you know, leasing their, that—those properties.

My third question, when it comes to the Surplus Land Act component and allowing transit agencies to use their own land for commercial or residential development, can you provide any examples of privately-owned commercial or residential developments surrounding a transit stop that have shown success with increasing ridership?

Sure, and I don't know if, perhaps, I mean, there are examples in various parts of the state, and I don't know. Do you wanna?

You can do your research and then.

No, I think we can answer it, but she can answer probably more articulately than I can.

Yeah, so typically, it's not 100% commercial, but for instance, Los Angeles Metro has built several mixed-use properties that—they have commercial on the bottom. Yeah. So, one I can think of is in Boyle Heights, pretty recently, and previously, there was just, I think like a vacant lot there. So, yeah.

But is, is there, has there been an increase in ridership? Do we have any data that shows that increased ridership has occurred?

So, unfortunately this was built when the, the line next to it was temporarily closed, so, the line just started running again. So, we don't have data for that yet. But I think, yeah.

I think we'd have to follow up on specific research, but I know that there's considerable research in the land use literature, indicating that commercial concentration near transit is a major driver of transit ridership. So, I'd be happy to follow up with some of the studies.

I was just going to say, there's so many examples in other countries where the transit agencies own the commercial development and it's a huge driver of ridership.

I will also just say, in, there are parts of—in San Francisco, like for example, if anyone's familiar with the Stonestown Mall area in San Francisco, we have a Muni line that goes right by there, a light rail line, and that—it's, it's one of the highest, most intensely road—or used—stations around, because people are able to actually get off and go to the mall.

They can also get off and go to San Francisco State to their dorms. And so, it's just heavily, heavily used, as a result.

Thank you. My fourth question is, regarding the land that is leased or not owned by the transit agency, can you address the concern that this Bill could potentially permit a transit agency to dispose of the land it does not own for redevelopment?

Is there any language in the Bill that clarifies if those lands could be treated as surplus land, essentially creating a taking of private property, without due process for the property owner?

So, that is the, I think the issue that I was having the colloquy with Senator Cabaldon about, that the realtors have raised, and we're committed to resolving that. We've, we've given them language that we think resolves the issue. It's not our intention to do what you just indicated. So, they've raised that issue recently.

We've submitted language to them and we're committed to working that out. I don't think we have a disagreement with them on it.

Okay. Okay. So, other than—I think those address my, my, my, my questions and concerns. As I said, you know, I, with the utmost respect to my, to my Chair for housing, you know, I served as your Vice Chair in housing when you were Chair.

We have a lot of conversations where—with regards to the concerns of the ability to build in California and build, you know, making housing more affordable in the State of California, which means building in California.

We focus a lot on legislation that makes affordable housing, rather than focusing on how do we make it so that it's actually affordable to build.

And the biggest problems that we're facing right now is a development in it's not penciling out financially, because of everything that the state, literally state, both state and local, control imposes on that particular development.

And it just, when you're working the numbers out, and then we wonder why, you know, the average cost in, or the medium cost in California, is 8—800,000—over $800,000 in their state. That's because of regulation. That's because we're imposing all of these requirements on the development, and then it doesn't pencil out, and then we wonder why.

And then, we try to subsidize that construction with taxpayer money and saying this is what we're going to do. I'm going to support this Bill. I have a lot of opposition on this Bill. I want folks to know that I—a lot of my cities are opposing this particular Bill.

But I am very, very diligent in analyzing the reasons for their concerns in opposing this Bill, and I believe that we could actually, especially my district, I think we can work towards addressing some of those discussions, which is why I asked the specific questions in here, as far as local control.

But I'm going to support this Bill today because I have worked with you. I know that you will continuously work to address the concerns.

And if there's one Senator in the past four years that I've worked with that actually listens, at least to me, the small Republican, you know, one of 10 Republicans in the state, in the Legislature, in the Senate, that listens and actually takes my considerations that my community members, my district, brings to me and puts it forward to you, as far as.

You've always, pretty much, I think every time I brought it forward, I wouldn't say always because that's probably, people are going to question that, but, but usually, you have always been considerate as an author to Bill—to take those considerations.

So, with that commitment, you know, I'm going to continue to address the concerns that my community members have, my stakeholders, and in good faith and in goodwill, I'm going to support the Bill today, so that, you know, hopefully it will look better for my community members who are actually opposing the Bill.

And this is what governance looks like. And I really want to make an effort on making sure that people understand this is what governance works. I don't politicize issues. I really want to work on governance. I ran that on the first time I came to the Senate. I just got reelected. I have four years.

And I want to continue that commitment of working on good governance for our state and for California. So, it's philosophical. It's really when I would focus on governance on this issue. And I know your heart when it comes to housing and wanting to actually increase housing.

And that's why I try to facilitate the conversations, as to what the concerns are, what the true concerns are, and what the actual Bill is going to do that. So, with the utmost respect to my Chair, I'm going to support the Bill today and continue to work and retain the right to change my vote at the very end, depending on what the final language looks like.

Thank you. We do have Members—I do just want to tell the public we have Members in other committees, Members that are chairing other committees. Many of us have to present in other committees. I believe both of us have to eventually leave. I just wanted to highlight this. I deeply respect the partnership that I've had with Senator Wiener, as the author on a wide variety of issues, that we've worked on in the past years.

I will say that, you know, I do believe in building more. I think that was a very common theme. We know that we have a housing supply issue.

We also know that we also have deep concerns regarding affordability and some of the other concerns that largely, you know, the public, you know, needs to kind of see some of the details of this particular Bill. So, we must build housing for all income levels.

And I have been consistent in that position, regarding affordable housing and housing development, you know, in my opinion, must include on-site affordable units. And the reason for that is that, largely, a lot of developers and a lot of cities will not necessarily require that, on their own.

And that is one of the concerns I have with this Bill. And obviously bypassing, you know, affordable units perpetuates socioeconomic segregation, which is a de facto racial segregation, given who is impacted by poverty in this state, let alone in this country.

I do believe that, you know, I want to commit to working with the author on these issues. I specifically am very concerned about giving these massive benefits to developers, with no incentive to prioritize affordability or have cities, in particular, be able to weigh in on some of the issues that affect their communities.

It is actually not clear what local control City Council has with this. I also want to say that zoning, you know, many people talk about zoning. This Bill is a little bit more complicated and the analysis, I think, speaks to that because this applies not only to single family zoning, but commercial and light industrial.

And therefore, it does limit some of the input that a local city can have. I am deeply, deeply concerned, overall, with the fact that, you know, affordability is the priority for me. And I've said that a number of times, I've been very clear regarding that.

I also want to protect vulnerable communities, protect housing that is already there, that is already affordable by right, and much more.

And I know that this is the first Committee, but as far as the affordability concept, you know, some aspects of local control, labor, and some of the other issues that were brought, which are many, many, many issues, I believe that this is a nonstarter for me at the very beginning, right.

And the goal of policymaking is that we have our inputs, we have our concerns. And again, I want to work with the author, I want to work with stakeholders. There are plenty of other stakeholders that have deep concerns as well, in opposition position of the Bill.

But I just wanted to at least highlight that. I will ask the Senator to close, and we can move on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The feeling is mutual, and I appreciate all the many areas where you and I are in very strong agreement. And no one's going to agree on everything, and obviously we have a disagreement here, which I respect. I do just want to say, first of all, I really appreciate the detailed, thoughtful conversation today.

I always—there's so much cynicism about elected officials in the United States, in 2025, and people have a lot of perceptions, and I always try to convey to my constituents, no, like you should come and listen to one of our hearings. There's—people give a lot of thought to these issues and try to do the right thing.

And I really appreciate that.

Agree or disagree. I do just want to say, I think what fuels segregation is when we have the land use patterns around some of our transit stations that we have now, like as I mentioned before, if the only way you're allowed to live within walking distance of a BART station is to be able to buy a $2 million home, that is segregation.

This Bill will reduce segregation by allowing more people, and more kinds of people, to be able to live near transit. This is absolutely a pro-affordable housing Bill. I just fundamentally dispute that. I strongly disagree with the claim, by one of the lead witnesses, that this overrides local inclusionary. That's false. This honors local inclusionary.

I also want to note, in terms of labor standards, that this does not, in any way, pull back on labor standards. And all of these parcels are eligible for SB 423, which triggers labor standards. So, this is a good Bill. This is a pro-housing Bill, a pro-affordable housing Bill, and a pro-transit Bill.

And I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Arreguin moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

So, that Bill is on call and I'm going to call a recess. Thank you.

She said recess until 1:30.

Housing Committee sounds so much more fun when you say it. All right, I'm going to reconvene the Senate Housing Committee and proceed to item 13, which is SB 681 by Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So SB 681 will address issues of housing affordability through a variety of mechanisms that focus on homeowners, renters, housing development, and the preservation of housing.

This is a large bill, hopefully aimed at targeting very specifically our affordability issues, as well as some of the other concerns that many individuals and residents have brought forward in the past couple of years. The 2008 financial crisis set off a chain reaction that we are still recovering from today.

Homeownership rates peaked in 2006 at 60.2% and then dramatically dropped starting in 2007. As of 2024, the homeownership rate in California was 55.3%. Private equity firms purchased en masse foreclosed homes and new development, creating a renter state and making the American Dream harder to attain.

I want to highlight that 94% of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, believe that home ownership is the American Dream. Over 25% of single family renters who had owned their home previously are now renting due to foreclosure. In fact, I am one of them.

For at least a year now, NPR has been reporting on the rise of zombie mortgages, second mortgages forgiven during the loan modification process, but then sold to debt collectors who are now threatening foreclosure on these unpaid loans. We're also tackling something else.

Considered rare up to the 1960s, HOAs are now everywhere and through a combination of assessments and fines, driving up costs on homeowners. As for renters, one in six middle class renters in California are now spending over half their income on housing. SB 681 addresses all of these issues, plus more.

SB 681 closes loopholes in the Permanent Streamlining Act, makes permanent the Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act, and prioritizes affordable housing units for California's multifamily seismic retrofit program. This bill robustly addresses the three Ps of housing production, preservation, and protection, which are all needed to address the housing and affordability crisis.

Finally, SB 681 quadruples the renter's tax credit and increases parity with the the deductions of homeowners that homeowners receive. I'm also committed to continuing engagement with stakeholders on this Bill.

All right, thank you, senator. Are there witnesses, lead witnesses in support? SB 681. Lead witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Embert Madison, on behalf of the California Apartment Association, We represent over 60,000 property managers and rental housing providers throughout the State of California. We have opposed, we have an opposed unless amended position, and here are our reasons for that position.

While SB 681 includes a number of provisions that CAA has supported in the past and continues to support, such as an increase to the renter's tax credit and pro ADU policies, it also includes provisions that will make it harder for rental property owners to operate their housings.

First, of which, SB 681 would prohibit landlords from charging any fee not specified in the rental agreement, which would include processing fees charged by banks or optional fees. Optional fees for services that tenants themselves may elect to use, such as laundry service, the gym at the property, and other convenient services that a tenant themselves chooses to consume.

These fees are not punitive, nor are they hidden, but instead they give tenants the ability to manage and reduce their own expenses. Such a bright line prohibition would not reduce the overall cost of housing. Instead, it would reduce transparency and cause an overall increase of rent for everyone.