Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Now it's on. No, no. This microphone will be heard in the room on that. All audio is except for chairperson. Are you sure? All right. We are going to get this hearing started. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We are going to be in today as a Subcommitee.

We have 14 items on our agenda today. Six of those items are on consent. That's A.B. 36, A.B. 457, A.B. 1131 Ta, A.B. 1265 Haney, A.B. 1276 Carrillo and A.B. 1294 Haney. The first two bills, A.B. 36 and A.B. 457 are Soria bills.

Amendments to items 11 and 12 will be taken as authors amendments in their Committee of Reference to facilitate an earlier in print date to facilitate the goals of the hearing. Within the time we have. Each Bill will have two main witnesses in support and opposition and each main witness will get two minutes each.

Please feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website and this will become a part of the official record of the Bill. We will not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings.

We are in room 437 at the Capitol and this hearing room is open for people to attend in person. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. And thank you all for your patience and understanding.

I think we are still operating as a Subcommitee, but we will hear our first Bill and I see our first author who is here. And that's item number three, Assembly Member Ward, AB518. Welcome.

Well, good morning Mr. Chair and Members and staff. Great to be back in this hearing room with you all. I have a bill, hopefully to start off a very important agenda that you have.

It's one with a little more levity, a little more fun, and one that you know largely is outside, I think, an area of jurisdiction, but has an important note that this Committee would want to be able to consider which has to do with the subject of outdoor recreation opportunities.

I do want to thank our Committee staff for all the work on this bill and of course, I'll stay at the outset. Happy to accept your amendments. Outdoor recreation hit a record high post pandemic in 2022 with more than 19 million Californians getting outside. They provided an estimated $74 billion for our state's outdoor recreat.

However, nearly half of all campers reported difficulty finding and booking available campsites statewide. And you pair that with a lot of the risks that we have right now for public lands funding and California Fearing that over 4,000 campsites might be closed this summer because of that risk.

Meanwhile, farmers, ranchers and rural landowners across the state are struggling with the increased cost of land ownership in California. Currently, landowners looking to set up camp campsites on their property to share it with the public are often prohibited from doing so due to the cost and lengthy permitting system at the state level, which can cost nearly $100,000.

This brings us to the subject of this Committee's jurisdiction because the process of getting a permit through the California Department of Community and Housing Development, in addition to a local land use permit from the county, can take years and cost thousands of dollars. And so this is where it's important.

This bill is actually threads a lot of our common theme of this year is looking for areas of duplication and state streamlining that we want to try to be able to affect some kind of an outcome.

AB 518, the low impact Camping Areas act, streamlines that process for low impact camping areas or commercially available campgrounds that are approved by and meet all the requirements set by local government. An important consideration.

This is an opt in program that already would only be enabled if there is a local county ordinance which allows that LICAs, they're typically small rural properties located on at least two acres with no more than nine campsites available.

With me here to speak in support of this Bill are two of our co-sponsors, Hip Camp Head of Government and Community Relations Mitra Rosener and Lexi Gritlefeld, the Director of California Outdoor Recreation Partnership.

Thank you. Good morning everyone. Chair Haney, Vice Chair Patterson and Committee Members. My name is Lexi Gritelfeld. I'm the Director of California Outdoor Recreation Partnership. We're a 501C6 nonprofit organization that represents the outdoor industry in California on policy, advocacy and networking. We're basically an outdoor Chamber of Commerce.

On behalf of our board and directors and membership, California Outdoor Recreation Partnership expresses our full support for AB 518 low impact camping. Thank you, Assembly Member Ward, for carrying such a critical bill at a time when access to the outdoors is under attack at the federal level.

With reports that nearly 4,000 additional campsites could close across California this year due to federal budget cuts, local communities need as many tools in their toolbox. To. Manage demand for camping and support their outdoor recreation economies. In a state where access to camping is already at capacity, AB 518 comes at a time of highest importance.

California is home to the nation's largest outdoor economy.

We contribute 567,000 direct jobs in California and we represent 2.1% of our state's GDP while supporting active lifestyles, community health and wellness and a shared love for California's majestic outdoors by creating a new framework for camping known as LOC impact camping areas at the state level, AB 518 cuts through red tape and returns land use decisions regarding small scale campground permitting to local governments who opt in.

This bill also sets a much needed framework for those regulations and sets standards that protect human and environmental health and safety. Outdoor recreation hit a record high in past years with more than 20 million Californians getting outside annually and we have updated BEA numbers. We actually represent $81.5 billion now in California.

However, there are too few outdoor recreation accommodations for Californians and visitors and it is having detrimental impacts on outdoor access, rural economies and recreation businesses. AB 518 addresses these issues by removing unnecessary and expensive state barriers, giving local governments the chance to optimize into creating options for rural and agricultural landowners to host low impact recreation on their properties.

This is a common sense bill that makes camping safer and more accessible throughout California and we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 518.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to speak in strong support of Assembly Bill 518. Our diverse coalition of conservation groups, outdoor recreation advocates, agriculturalists, local governments and more urge you to vote aye on AB 518. This bill establishes a streamlined, updated regulatory framework for a land use that is growing in popularity.

Low Impact Camping Currently, any property with two or more campsites is regulated under SOPA, which was designed decades ago for large mobile home parks and RV Parks. As a result, small scale landowners are being held to the same development requirements, including things like 18 foot paved roads, built gendered bathroom facilities and commercial grade floodlighting as major operations.

SOPA permits can also cost up to $100,000 and take 18 months to secure on top of required local permitting. The current process is duplicative of local regulations and is far too expensive for landowners who just want to host a few campers on their farm on the weekends.

AB518 fixes this by giving counties the option to adopt a more practical, locally tailored permitting pathway for low impact camping. It preserves critical health and safety standards while giving counties more flexibility about what is required for safety for nine or fewer campsites on a rural property. Importantly, this bill is not a mandate.

Counties can choose to opt in or not and when they do, they can regulate this land use in a way that aligns with their own community needs and environmental priorities and reap the benefits, including increased tax dollars.

That's why supervisors from Mendocino, Nevada, Inyo, San Benito and Santa Barbara counties have already endorsed this bill, including others like the El Dorado County Chamber, Farm Trails and more. This legislation is also urgently needed. Over the past decade, demand for camping in California has doubled. At the same time, camping has gotten more and more expensive and competitive.

As a result, Californians, especially those from underserved communities, are finding it harder than ever to access the outdoors. AB 518 helps closes that gap by enabling new, thoughtfully regulated opportunities for camping on private lands, which is a specific priority called out in Governor Newsom's Outdoors for All strategy. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your yes vote on AB 518.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is anyone else here in the room who's in support of this bill? If you can come up and state your name, affiliation and your position. Thank you. Good morning.

Chair Members. Kai Cooper, on behalf of Save the Reds Woods League and strong support. Thank you.

The Assembly Member Addis was so supportive of this bill. She was going to come up, of course. All right. Seeing no one else here who wanted to register support, is there anyone here who is going to testify in opposition? Please come to the front. And you have two minutes each.

Thank you. Diana Kelly. I'm the President of the California Outdoor Hospitality Association. We represent all the privately owned RV Parks and campgrounds in California. And as a correction, camping was down over 30% for all of our privately owned campgrounds this year. We do not have an issue of lack of campsites.

What we have is an issue with the state reservation system giving a perception that we are lacking campsites. We have plenty of campsites. We think this bill is bad for California campers, it's bad for local government, and it allows the circumvention of current regulatory process for the benefit of one corporation.

Under the bill, camping and environmental outcomes will worsen. Administrative burdens on counties will increase. And if the counties opt out, Hip Camp will still solicit misinformation in an attempt to subvert local community based camping industry, which is largely comprised of small business owners and legacy landowners.

These people who contribute fully to the recreation economy in rural counties through legal regulations and tax dollars, will ultimately be hurt by the bill and deserve better than special treatment of Hip Camp and their codified manipulation of the market.

I truly believe our time would have been better spent and we'd all be better off working together to create a segment within the Special Occupancy Parks act that would allow for low impact Properties where counties would maintain land use and zoning and the state would maintain control over code and standard.

And it would also be as a matter of health and safety that unpermitted properties would not be marketed to the public. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon or Good morning, Mr. Chair Members Karen Lang, on behalf of the Solano county and Siskiyou county boards of supervisors here in opposition. And I'm sure you're wondering if it's opt in, why would they oppose? They just don't have to opt in.

The, the method by which these low impact camping spots would be marketed I think would generally just be on the Internet. And there's no obligation in the bill that it's clear on the advertisement that it's in a specific jurisdiction at this address with this permit number.

The analysis does include a suggested amendment that once you get to the camping site, the permit number must be posted. But because jurisdictions won't know where the sites are online, you can't tell as a code enforcement officer or planning Director of a county if it's in your county or if it's in the jurisdiction next door.

And so that gets to the enforcement of whether or not local governments want it. How do they know if it's happening in their jurisdiction or not? Because the address is not made known. It's not required to be made known on the platform that it's advertised on. And that is something that's happening right now.

I would encourage you to spend some time on the hipcamp website I have. Solano County has a camping band. You can absolutely go on hipcamp and book a campsite right now in Solano County on private property. Those are concerns that were amplified because of the fire risk.

There are pictures of folks in high fire severity zones that are advertising their private property for rent. Now that it would probably fall under this low impact camping ordinance. And that's a pretty severe fire risk and in a state that has had such severe fire problems.

So unless there's a way to make sure that you're not even able to advertise these sites on a website without first verifying that you have a locally issued permit and that the local government knows it's there, and if the local government wants to ban this type of camping and high fire severity zones, that they can do it and it's enforceable, the counties that don't want it are still going to probably be pretty concerned about this proposal because of the way that this is happening is through an Internet based website that does not limit people to advertise on Their site that have these local permits now and it's happening now.

So for that reason Solano and Siskiyou counties are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who is here in opposition?

Chris Lee, on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, in opposition.

Great, thank you. We take a moment and establish forum. If we could please take the role.

Haney.

Here.

Haney. Here. Patterson. Patterson. Here. Avila Farias.

No vote.

Forum. Oh yeah. Avila Farias. Here. Caloza Gallagher. Garcia. Here. Garcia. Here. Kalra, Lee. Here. Lee. Here. Quirk-Silva. Here. Quirk-Silva. Here. Ta. Here. Wicks Wilson. Here.

All right, we have a quorum. Thank you colleagues. Questions, comments? Ms. Quirk-Silva?

Yeah. To the author, if you could speak. To some of the remarks by the opposition.

No, thank you for raising the issues and we're happy to continue to work with opposition on some of these concerns.

Already I did want to note that we are committed to work the our Committee and any opposition that would like to work with us on some of the requirements regarding posting requiring those camping owners or operators to have in a conspicuous location that permanent registration issued by the county granting the operator the authority to operate the low income, low income camping areas.

And I think that I would just sort of observe that yes, while this is already happening today, some of these campsites may not be lawfully operating under existing, existing local requirements.

That is something that could be enforced today if the local government wishes to enforce that and would be eligible to be enforced even with the provisions and the allowances under AB 518 that does not change pre or post the adoption of this law.

So what this would be able to do is just open up more options for individuals, including their respective local counties who wish to be able to have this model of outdoor recreation better afforded in their communities by exempting the small site opportunities from sopa.

Because I just see it as a redundant bureaucratic hurdle to be able to make everything lawful and correct. None of what the opposition is talking about necessarily is going to change in today's framework or in the framework in the existence of the environment after adoption of this law.

Ms. Wilson

Thank you. I happen to represent one of the counties that are opposed to this and so had have had lots of discussion over the last 24 hours about this bill. So I have a few questions, one of which I think I understand the problem to which you're trying to solve.

I am concerned if this is the way to solve the problem because the is an opportunity for revising SOPA to be able to have a, a, a less burdensome permitting process for Low impact type camping.

And I think the state has an interest in that because if there aren't sufficient resources within that site, whether it be related to sewage for RVs in particular. You have in this update, it talks about 14 consecutive days, which most RVs are seven days worth of. Yeah.

Before they get full and then have to figure out where to dump it. And then also. So the sewage issue and then also the fire issue, which if there's a fire in the community. I appreciate when we had the LNU complex fire. I was a mayor at the time and then evacuating to city.

I appreciate the state resources that were involved in helping to, you know, get that fire under control, as well as support the aftermath related to it. So the state does have an interest in ensuring that campsites operate in a way that is effective to keeping everyone safe, including as it relates to public health.

And so I think that saying that the state like that the state is bureaucratic in that process. Yes, I will agree. We have a lot of bureaucratic process that we as a Legislature have to address. But I do think there is an interest of the state. And so you are cutting out the state's role.

Who would be supplementing anything related to sewage, be supplementing anything related to a fire or just any negative impacts as it relates to a campsite. So I'm concerned on why the approach wasn't to do a lighter version versus just giving it entirely to a local agency.

Thank you. Ms. Wilson. I would ask, I would argue, I would say as well that a lot of the issues that you're bringing up around waste management and fire regulations are also governed through county regulations.

Which are looked at really closely in deciding whether or not to have that ordinance and whether or not to issue permits under that ordinance. Right. And those permits, of course, would be further notified there. So these issues are covered.

It's not that it's bureaucratic, but it is redundant to be able to have that sort of additional look. And so I'd like actually if my sponsor could also mention this as well too. Existing facilities that want to be able to get the permit through SOPA are almost universally approved.

It's just the time and the cost that it takes to go through that to essentially become. Become whole.

Yeah, exactly. So this Bill doesn't actually loosen any regulations on environmental waste management, human health and safety, or fire. It just exempts them from the developmental requirements for low impact camping areas, things like paved roads, flood lighting, et cetera.

Under SOPA, campsites, campgrounds with 15 or fewer sites already defer to local governments in terms of how they manage waste and fire and things like that.

So this is just saying if a local government already has regulations on waste management and fire, they don't also need to then meet the HCD requirements for development to be able to operate.

Because what's happening right now is local governments like Mendocino who are writing their own rules are hitting pause because they're like, well, HCD requires 18 foot paved roads and we don't want that on farms.

So can we get an exemption and a definition of low impact camping at the state so that we can write our own regulations around this, including around human waste and fire and whatnot? But they're getting stopped by this regulatory burden. HCD, that doesn't really technically.

Can you pause right there? I just want to make sure I understood you. You said that basically on from HCD that if it is 15 or less, then that doesn't have to apply. But you're saying counties right now are being blocked from HCD as it relates to campsites that are 15 or less.

Because of the development requirements and so. Because the development requirements exist even if it's 15 or less. Is that what you're saying? Yes, exactly. And so you, so you in theory could do it, you know, revised SOPA for 15 or less or low impact to be able to take out some of the development requirements.

But at least it would be registered with the state who would be responsible for any ultimate, you know, lack of enforcement, so to speak.

Sure. And, but I don't think the state necessarily wants to be involved with this type of low impact camping. HCD has only had six complaints about this type of low impact camping in the last 10 years. And when, when landowners have been directed by their local government to get a permit and then go to hcd.

HCD has often said to landowners, we don't really deal with this type of low impact camping. Go back to your county and figure it out. And so I think there's just some gray space and confusion because this rule was written for large scale 200 RV sites on 2 acres kind of thing, not 200 acres with two sites.

And so I think there's just some confusion and the state can help clear that up by maintaining the same environmental health and human standards within the definition of Leica, which this Bill does.

And then saying if a county can meet that floor, you're free to go about your business without an additional HCD permit for this type of land use.

And so in particular to the opt out sections to the Author are those testifying? And so counties who opt out, like mentioned in my particular county, they currently have a camping ban. But currently on the site it's advertised that you can do commercial camping in these types of sites.

And so within this, there is no additional penalty or enforcement mechanism for those counties as it relates to people not following the law. Right.

The penalties or enforcements would be the same as they are today for that county.

But I'm saying in terms of, I'm sorry, not on the person, but on someone advertising the ability to do camping without a permit.

Let the representative speak to that.

Yeah. So Hip Camp is a marketplace. And we are not the only marketplace in this space. Lots of people, you know, offer this type of camping. We do require, and I require as the head of government affairs that every landowner partner, we work with, research and comply with all local regulations.

The problem is A, some hosts don't understand they need a local permit, but B, when they do, they're not applicable for short term rental regulations that often require a single family home, and they're not applicable by definition for commercial campground regulations that often require much higher density development.

And so those partners, those landowners are working with the counties to create local regulations around this issue. But HCD is standing in the way with this development set of requirements that doesn't make any sense for this type of land use.

So There are like 15 counties across the state that are on hold with their own local regulatory updates and taxation options because they're waiting for this HCD SOPA regulation to be more clearly defined around how it wants to see low impact camping developed. So I don't think you want a private corporation acting as code enforcement.

That's a publicly entrusted role. But whenever.

I'm not asking for that, I just want to be clear because what you said didn't, I don't think addressed what my concern was. So you as a. And I get that there's more than one, but you're the one here before me today, so I can, and you can only answer for yourself, not all the other ones.

So you yourself do not require then people who are marketing on your site to comply with local regulations prior to being advertised on your site?

We do require it. And so if a county contacts me and says, hey, this person doesn't have a permit and we want them to shut down, we will absolutely remove them from the website. And we've done that many times.

So are you saying then if this law goes into effect and a county opts out, that no longer. Technically, if a county is not opted out to this, then you technically couldn't have someone be on your site in a particular county.

So you're saying that from Hip Camps point of view, and I recognize you're not represent that, that you see it as marketing, that if someone from Solano and Solano has opted out and doesn't have this regulation and bans it, that they in essence couldn't be listed on your site.

Sure. Of course. If there's a local ban, we're going to comply with that. Absolutely. I looked on the website last night. There are two landowner partners listing on Hip Camp right now in Solano. One of them may actually already have an HCD permit because they're a more commercial, large scale campground. But I'm happy to work with the county.

I found seven.

So just so you know, yesterday when I happened to look and they asked me to look and so I was like, okay, let me look. And I found seven. I know one of them is getting a code enforcement. It's a larger one, doesn't have a permit, not allowed getting code enforcement action.

But I think you're creating, we already know that counties are burdened and not you, just you as elected officials. Counties are boarded. And you're creating an additional code enforcement requirement to say that people are allowed to market these particular things even in a where it's currently banned. Right.

And so I think that if you're going to do this, there needs to be some additional protections where you're not putting now the burden on the county for increased activity with their county.

Because people say, well, I'm permitted, because this law says I'm permitted versus going through a state where they still have to have a special occupancy park, but just a version that relates to low impact. So I think that would probably be a more appropriate. But thank you for, you know, indulging my questions. Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Well, thanks. This is a little bit more controversial than I thought it was going to be. I, you know, some of these issues when they come before me are quite simple for me because they kind of hit on some philosophical issues. I have constituents on both sides of this particular argument.

When I was on a local City Council, we had some issue. We had no regulations and an issue with some vacation home rentals. You know, and the solution for us was pretty simple, which was create some kind of registration system ultimately.

And I do think that, you know, the opposition and Assemblymember Wilson bring up, you know, some good points that made me think, make me think that maybe the bill could have some Some kind of parameters around ensuring the operators or the marketers at least have some. They attest to complying with local government regulations to some extent.

I think that that's pretty important. I know a lot of the operators on the vacation home rental side do exactly what you. What you're saying is that if it's not permitted or something like that, they'll. They'll take it down real quick.

But that said, I think at the end of the day, the bottom line for me is that I just think people should have a level of property right to their property. I understand the concerns around where the state does have an interest in fires, things like that. I think the local government as a.

Representing an area that has been, you know, really impacted by wildfires over decades, I understand the concern over that. And so I'm willing to see some kind of, you know, I'm always. I'm interested in sort of filling that in a little bit more.

But at the end of the day, I think people ought to be able to allow this on their property if the local government allows it. So I plan on supporting the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

I want to thank the author for the bill. I think there is a niche market for this. We have seen it, you know, spoke about it during the pandemic. But people also need to see from.

An economic perspective that there's some people that, you know, we have not built more RV parks and it's an opportunity economically for individuals who. We have a lot of travel from Northern California to the south and Highway 5. There's a lot of pit stop that. People can use hipcamp for.

So I would encourage continued dialogue because I think there is an economic opportunity. Not only for the State of California, but also for constituents who need more. Affordable options as they're traveling through the state. And so I just preface that.

But I want to thank the author for this bill and I hope there's some middle ground that we can all work through. Thank you. We'll continue to work on that.

All right. Not seeing any other comments again. Also want to echo the gratitude for the author for taking the amendments and the continued work on some of the issues that were brought up.

I do think it is important to take advantage of that models to create additional opportunities for people to get outdoors, to do it affordably, to be able to have places to stay around the state, but also to do it in a way that respects local laws and has adequate methods for enforcement. I know you're.

You'll continue to have that dialogue to make sure we balance both of those priorities as this bill moves forward and the recommendation is to support with amendments and we can go ahead. Oh, and the opportunity to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate everybody's dialogue on this and I do commit to continue working on the issues.

You know, when I think about the opportunities that we try to get into to be able to access some of our state parks and they can be incredibly prohibitive if you have surge months ahead of time for some of the places that are a little bit more popular and, you know, just the barriers that are there and certainly the fees that are associated with that make it very difficult for the average family, middle income family, to be able to access.

Of course, I want to be able to support many of our established recreation vehicle parks as well too. They can have many enhanced facilities as well that that really help the family experience and that could be a great model. But this opportunity also creates an emerging model that we are seeing to have a different kind of experience.

If you want to be on that ranch or that farm or off of I5, you can actually look at different ways while also providing income opportunities for many of those landholders.

As we approach our spring recess and we are maybe starting to plan some of our summer travel, I would encourage everybody to go outside and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Appreciate that. And we can now go to roll call vote.

Motion is to.

Oh, sorry, we have a motion in a second. Someone. We need someone to move the bill. And second. Second Moved by T. Seconded by Cara.

Thank you.

Motion is to pass as amended. Haney.

Haney. Aye. Patterson, Avilafarias.

Aye.

Not voting.

Not voting. Caloza. Caloza aye. Gallagher. Garcia. Garcia aye. Kalra. Kalra aye. Lee. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva aye. Ta Ta. Aye. Wicks. Wilson. Wilson. Not voting. Patterson. Patterson aye. And Assembly Member. Wicks is an aye. 12345678. 8 to 0.

All right, 8 to 0. That bill is out. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. All right, next agenda item is AB 635, errands. And I believe he's here. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to first stop by saying that I am happy to take the Committee amendments. In 2018, the state created a Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program, which mandates a $10 annual fee for each permitted mobile home space.

AB 635 requires the Housing and Community Development to refer to the Attorney General to take up to 25 of the most serious, harmful, and economically significant alleged violations of the Mobile Home Residency Law. The Attorney General will have full discretion and authority to arbitrate, mediate, negotiate, or pursue any available judicial remedies regarding violations of the MRL.

We want to ensure protections for residents because the housing market is continually rising, making mobile homes one of the most affordable options. Joining me today is Bruce Stanton, counsel for the Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, and Beverly Purcell, a mobile home resident.

Good morning. Beverly Purcell for GSMOL in strong support. Like me, most mobile home residents are seniors, veterans, immigrants, Californians of modest means. AB 635 is limited and focused. It requires HCD to refer a maximum of 25 of the most severe, egregious, and impactful alleged violations of the Mobile Home Residency Law to the Attorney General in any given year for further evaluation. These serious MRL violations often lead to eviction and confiscation of our homes, which for many of us is our life savings.

When we can't move our home because it's too costly or there is no place to move them, the park owner can start the abandonment process. HCD does not have the authority to enforce the MRL, but does have the authority to refer alleged violations. Currently, HCD has limited capacity to oversee legal service providers.

We need to ensure the most severe violations aren't overlooked or ignored. In 2023, the State Auditor concluded the oversight of the MRL Protection Program must improve. AB 635 ensures the Attorney General retains full discretion and authority to arbitrate, mediate, negotiate, or pursue all available judicial remedies. The Mobile Home Residency Dispute Resolution Fund, which is funded by we the residents, will be made available to the Attorney General. We are doing our part with limited resources to keep our homes. Please help by supporting AB 635. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm Bruce Stanton, here on behalf of GSMOL in support. It's important to remember that the Mobile Home Residency Law protects over 1 million mobile home residents throughout the state and recognizes the captive nature of mobile home tenancies, the unfair bargaining position of homeowners, and to quote one famous Court of Appeal decision, the park owner has the residents over a barrel.

The MRLPP gives homeowners the ability to enforce this important body of law to protect their affordable housing and receives complaints of violations ranging from unauthorized charges, resale interference, attempts to enforce unreasonable rules, interference with rights of communication and Assembly, and eviction being maybe the most paramount.

So the program not only provides a viable enforcement mechanism for seniors and fixed income residents who can't afford large legal fees, but also acts as a deterrent to those bad actor park owners who would seek to violate the law. So enforcement and deterrence are best accomplished by involving the California agency that is best equipped to deal with these issues, and that's the Attorney General.

The bill doesn't change the substance of the program at all, but simply allows a limited number of the most severe and material violations to be referred to the AG Office for resolution or enforcement. And so it will greatly improve the program, we think, by enabling a state agency that's well versed and best equipped to provide and become involved when merited by severity of the violations. We ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other folks who are here in the room who want to register their support? If you will please state just your name, your affiliation, and your position, please.

My name is Timothy Porteous. I live at Youngstown Mobile Home Park in Petaluma, Sonoma County. Please, we need this. Vote yes. Thank you.

I'm Janis Barker. I live at the Youngstown Mobile Homes Mobile Home Park in Petaluma, California, and I am in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Boyle, and I am also a resident owner for Youngstown Mobile Home Park, and I do support AB 635. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone, I'm Angie Cruz. I live at Little Woods Mobile Home Park in Petaluma, and I'm in support of AB 65.

Hello, my name is Hannah Stewart. I own a home in Little Woods Park, and we support AB 635. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Marie Cuneo. I am mobile home park owner in Youngstown Mobile Home Park, and I do support AB 635.

Thank you. Ann Colichidas on behalf of the California Alliance of Retired Americans in support of this bill.

Thank you.

My name is John Kyle. I'm a homeowner in Pueblo Serena Park in the City of Sonoma. And on behalf of the Sonoma County Mobile Homeowners Association, we support this bill.

Good morning. I'm Mary Stearns. I'm a mobile homeowner in Pueblo Serena Mobile Home Park in Sonoma, and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Roger Johnson, mobile homeowner, mobile homeowner advocate, in support. Thank you.

Morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, on behalf of my parents who couldn't be here today. In support of the measure. They live in Youngstown mobile home in Petaluma, California. Thank you so much.

I'm Kevin Goodell on behalf of Sonoma GSM Oil super chapter. I am in support of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you so much for everyone who joined us today. Now if there are folks who are here in opposition, bring up our two witnesses in opposition and you'll each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of this committee, assembly men. My name is Chris Wysocki with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association. And before we get into the testimony, I want to thank the committee consultant as well as the author of this bill for listening to our concerns about AB 635.

We remain opposed to this legislation, but we really do thank the author for reinserting a sunset for the MRLPP

While we believe the MRLPP is a fundamentally flawed program evidenced by HCD's own data, we do thank the author for being open to suggestions to ensure that the program really works before deciding it should be permanent or not.

According to HCD's own data, the program has fallen about 95% below of expectations and we believe this number will continue to decrease because of the mandatory park manager training that is beginning this year. It should be acknowledged we believe it's a good thing that fewer complaints are being filed.

We believe that it shows that our managers and parks are following the law, and doing good work. Further, AB 635 seeks to have the attorney general receive up to 25 of the most serious severe deleterious complaints filed with the MRLPP as determined by HCD. There's a big problem with this.

The sponsors of AB 635 just two years ago successfully removed the authority of HCD to review complaints and determine if they were severe or not. WMA opposes making it permanent when the proponents can't even seem to figure out how the program should work. So how are they going to make that determination?

Is HCD getting back the authority to review complaints and deciding that they're severe and deleterious and then choose 25 to send on? Or LSP is going to have to turn the complaints not referred to the attorney general back to HCD, which will then determine if they are severe and deleterious? AB 635 is silent on this.

When the original program was debated, AB 3066, Governor Brown first vetoed the message, believing that he said, I believe education and enforcement are needed. But he went on to say changes to the Mobile Home Assistance Center to address concerns raised by the sponsors are the answer. Instead, they created a third program to receive residents questions or complaints.

We believe that the mandatory park manager training that will take effect this year will further reduce the number of complaints, and the data will show that the program should be reevaluated, modified, or even dissolved at that time.

Finally, with a surplus of $7.7 million, maybe the $10 per fee lot fee should be suspended for two years or at least reduced to save tenants some money. We appreciate the author moving away from making the MRLPP permanent and being open to increasing reporting so a true evaluation of the program's efficacy can be made.

For these reasons, WMA urges a no vote on AB 635. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. I won't belabor many of the points that my colleague Mr. Wysocki made very well. Do just want to give a little bit of historical context.

Our client CMPA removed its opposition to AB 3066 before it was signed, passed and signed by the governor. And they did so for a few reasons. One was this language you've heard referred to that required that only the most severe and deleterious complaints be referred on to legal services.

The other was a requirement that the parties act in good faith to try and resolve something before you even had to get to that point. That language has subsequently been removed.

And more importantly, and I really won't belabor the statistics you've already heard from my colleague, but this program has underperformed. And we agree with WMA that that that's largely a reflection of the fact that the parks that we represent and the park owners do a good job managing their properties and abiding by the law.

And so we are not really surprised by the fact that there have not been as many complaints. But we do think that this is why sunsets are embedded in statute. It's so that we can take a look at things that residents are paying for.

In this case, there is a $10 fee that can be shared with the resident. And as you've already heard, there's an over $7 million surplus this year for this program.

We respect sincerely the author's intent to do the right thing by residents, but we don't think that continuing this program and continuing the fees associated with it is the right thing at this point.

We have again, we have seen how it played out, and my client was willing to see how that played out, but they were willing to based on the notion that there was a sunset in the bill. And so we respectfully urge a no vote and we respectfully urge that this program be allowed to expire.

All right, thank you. Other folks who are here in opposition to this bill. Not seeing any. Open it up to my colleagues. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank Assembly Member Ahrens for bringing this bill forward. The City of San Jose has more mobile home residents than any other city in the state of California. And I think many know that it's also amongst the highest areas for cost of living in the nation.

Mobile home parks have become everywhere in this state de facto affordable housing, especially for seniors. That and for working families. And there is, you know, when you talk about mobile home parks, there's a wide range and there's some that are very luxurious. There's some that certainly cater more to working families, to seniors.

But the bottom line is we want to make sure that these residents who are not in, in the balance of power do not have the ability to challenge the mobile home parks in the same way as in other kinds of contractual arrangements.

We want to make sure that the attorney general has the ability or gets cases referred to them that they can actually follow through on. For some of those parks that may be conducting egregious behavior, a lot of them don't. And some of them are very nice and well run.

And you know, if the underperforming is because of that, we'll find out in 2030 and then action can be taken then and reduce fees, what have you.

But if we find out in 2030 that because more of these cases have been referred to the AG's office and it's actually exposing a deeper problem, then action can be taken in that regard and maybe this program is made permanent or extended longer.

And that's a conversation that I'm glad that my colleague hopefully will be there for that as well as other colleagues to be able to follow up with the legislation. And so I'm glad that the sunset eases some concerns with opposition.

But ultimately this is about the residents and making sure that that residents have their day in court, so to speak, and their ability to have, to have someone fighting for them. And so I very strongly support this bill. I would like to be added as a coauthor and be happy to move it.

A motion and a second. Ms. Wilson.

Thank you, to the author. I definitely understand your intent and I think not the committee's amendment to keep the sunset and just extended actually eases my concern to be able to support it today. But I do want to ask what you think the amount of money that lets over, what does that tell you about the efficacy of the program? Like, how do you see that there's so much money left over?

Sure would love to have Mr. Stanton help answer that question.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the question. Certainly when our program starts, we don't know what it's going to cost. We don't know what local legal service providers are going to charge or how it's going to be, you know, delegated throughout the state.

I can just tell you as an attorney practicing mobile home law, that's my specialty, I would disagree that this is an underperforming program. And in the sense that that word is used in terms of, well, we don't really need it. Hopefully park management training will.

And just to clarify so that. Because I know we have limited time in questioning, I'm not calling it underperforming. I'm saying what does the amount of money left over tell you based on your experience?

It's more than, you know, significant amount of money is left over in comparison and it's been in law for some time and it's been collected in some time. So I'm just trying to say what does that tell you about the efficacy of the program. Not whether it's underperforming.

What does it tell you based on your experience about the efficacy of the program?

I mean, I don't know that I can draw any conclusion from that because as I'm seeing in the field, I'm still seeing plenty of violations and plenty of complaints being filed. I can't tell you how that correlates to how the money is spent dollar for dollar. But I can tell you this is an extremely valuable program.

It's badly needed. The residents that you've heard from, Youngstown in particular, Little Woods Parks and Petaluma, they're at ground zero right now with very aggressive park ownership. This is badly needed. Park owners are extremely well funded and that money, if there is a reserve, will be will be needed. I can assure you.

It will be used, but not being used now in a meaningful way. So. Okay, so you're saying it doesn't speak to. I think I hear what you're saying is for you from based on your experience, it doesn't speak to the efficacy of the program. It may speak to how much the charge is and whether the charge is sufficient.

If there's that many dollars left over, whether the charges may be too high on the burden of the mobile home park owners. So in this, as I understand it, this legislation is making referrals directly to the AG, which the AG can do this anyway, but this is making referrals directly and allowing the use,

I think that's a significant change, allowing the use of the funds, the AG to supplement their budget with these funds if they're working on these cases.

So my question is, based on the past that this bill has been into place, this law has been in place, how many of those violations would have been referred to the AG had this been part of the process from the very beginning?

I mean, that's probably unknown, but I can tell you that some of the most extreme violations, resale interference, which can result in confiscation of homes or eviction, I can assure you that those would have been referred out.

I'm aware of cases where local legal service providers feel under equipped or understaffed to handle some of the more larger or maybe complex litigation pieces that that could involve. So I can say that there would be, in my view, there would have been referrals. I think the deterrence is also critical here.

Just putting the attorney general's name on this is important because what we're after here is compliance. We're not after litigation. We're not after disputes. We're after compliance. And compliance is going to be improved through enforcement and deterrence.

I think with a state agency that everyone knows is well equipped and now would be well funded to handle those complex issues.

Thank you. And I would encourage the author, as you consider, as you continue in the legislative session is to, legislative process excuse me, is to consider the amount that's left over and whether the fee is sufficient because that is borne by the mobile home park folks.

And so whether, even in carrying forward whether the fee needs to be maintained. But thank you for...

I'll be closely monitoring that. Thank you so much.

Thank you for bringing it forward.

That's. That's up to her.

Did you have something to clarify on what was said?

I mean, just very briefly, assembly member. Just, just to state that, I mean, you know, the state auditor in 2023, it's not, it's not just us, but the state auditor actually recommended a pause on this fee for this reason.

And we heard the same arguments before, that at some point there would be enough caseload to justify the surplus. Caseload has actually dropped and then now remained steady since.

So we fundamentally disagree with the program's continuance, but just wanted to throw out the concept that, you know, this isn't just coming from us, it's the state auditor as well.

Okay. And I've asked the author to consider the amount of the fee and considering as he works through the legislative process. But as I noted at the beginning, I'll be supporting your bill too.

Thank you.

Seeing no other comments or questions. Mr. Ahrens, would you like to close?

Thank you, out of respect for the committee's time, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. The recommendation is support with amendments and we can take a roll call vote.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. Nine to one that bill is out. Thank you. All right, Mr. Fong. Item number seven, AB 893. Thank you for your patience.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Assembly Bill 893 expands administerial approval process for residential mixed income developments on commercially zoned properties near campus universities and creates eligibility for affordable units. Using this process for students, faculty and staff.

I'm accepting the Committee's amendments to narrow the scope of this Bill to a half mile zone to exclude private campuses and to lower height limits in non metropolitan jurisdictions. As the chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee acutely aware of the how our state's housing crisis affected our students and faculty. An unacceptable number of students are homeless.

8% of UC students, 11% of CSU students and 24% of our community college students. Housing and security have significant events. The completion rates jeopardize the power and promise of higher education to transform lives of our students and our communities. We need to do more to address this crisis.

Assembly Bill 893 builds upon Assembly Bill 2011 by Summer Wicks to encourage housing development. Commercially zoned parcels near our University and college campuses, many of which also serve as economic centers of our communities. Furthermore, students face even greater difficulties in accessing affordable units due to outdated rules that haven't kept up with the changing demographic of today's college.

Student rules that exclude full time independent students from low income units. Assembly Bill 893 makes sure that students who have already demonstrated financial need qualify for affordable units. It also extends affordability to faculty and staff. Here to testify and support are Kate Rogers with the Student Homes Coalition and Pradeep Kundu with the University of California Student Association.

Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kate Rogers. I'm the co chair of The Student Homes Coalition Homes is a statewide organization. We're made up of campus based affiliate student groups as well as some statewide advocacy groups working on housing.

We want to build more units both on and off campus to restore the affordability of higher education and end student homelessness. So to this end we're Proud to sponsor AB893 and we respectfully request your aye vote today.

So I'd like to start by taking a moment to thank this Committee for your guys continued dedication to advancing student housing policies over the last few years. Particularly, we appreciate Chair Haney for your continued collaboration on this Bill and of course Assemblymember Wicks for authoring AB 2011 and creating the framework for this legislation.

So the student housing crisis is undeniable. Tens of thousands of students are homeless in California and a majority of higher ed students do experience rent burden. And development of on campus housing has frankly failed to keep up with demand.

UCs and CSUs continue to grow, but land use policy around them hasn't changed and on campus housing is too hard to develop. So across all three systems then a majority of students do rely on private rental housing. And as a of the increased competition from ever growing student populations, housing costs have just continued to go up.

I believe around UCs, between 2013 and 2022, housing costs actually increased by 54%. So really it's just getting to be the point where housing is a limiting factor to higher education for students.

So AB893 will allow communities to grow in a way that will actually sustain their student populations as well as preserve the walkability and affordability that makes college neighborhoods accessible to students in the first place. So I'm happy to answer any questions that any of you guys have on the specifics of this legislation.

And on behalf of the thousands of students across the state that we represent, I respectfully request you vote aye today.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Preeth Kundu, fourth year UC Berkeley student. So go Bears. Mr. Chair and also a Member of the Board of Directors for UC Student Association.

I first want to take this moment to thank Assemblymember Fong for all the amazing work he has done on behalf of UC students and thank him for his advocacy efforts and policy implementation for UC students.

So being a UC Berkeley student, I have firsthand experience dealing with trying to find affordable housing in an expensive housing market which is the Bay Area.

The lack of affordable housing solutions forced me to either look for housing that was further from my campus or the addition of many roommates which comes with its own sets of issues and complexities, but luckily I was one of the few who was able to get affordable housing just in time before the start of the school year.

However, my friend who's a recent first generation graduate from UC Santa Barbara who received financial aid from the University and the state was unable to find affordable housing in Isla Vista in Goleta, this meant that he had to live in his car for two academic quarters before he was able to find somewhere to sublease due to a friend going abroad.

Even then, he had to take out personal and student loans to afford portions of the rent and is now $17,000 in debt. Since many of California's universities are built near large metropolitan areas, it means that a lot of students are entering already constrained housing markets.

Additionally, given a lack of income students have, it makes us dependent on either financial aid, which could sometimes be a little bit wonky, or outside monetary support, which many times is not guaranteed, which sometimes isn't enough to cover the exorbitant rent and associated housing costs. That is why it makes the passage and implementation of AB 893 necessary.

By streamlining the construction of more affordable housing units for low income students and faculty, it would create a meaningful dent in the housing crisis being faced by most vulnerable communities. And therefore I ask that this Committee votes aye on this Bill.

Thank you, thank you so much. And yes, Go Bears, the other folks who are here in support of the Bill, please come up.

Chair. Sorry Chair. Members of the Committee, Jordan Plan Gahan. On behalf of California YIMBY in strong support. Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair. Member Scott Governor on half of the Construction Employers Association in support.

Janice Barker, recent Calgrad Mom. Go Bears. I'm in support.

Robert Cole, Member of ace here in second with strong support.

Angie Cruz, UC Davis alumni in support.

Meeting on behalf of Abundant Housing LA in support.

All right folks who are here in opposition to the Bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposed less amended position. Just wanted to thank the Committee amendments. They are helpful and a step in the right direction. But we are concerned that the bill will continue to ignore the state planning efforts that we've made at the local level for our housing elements. You know, we work diligently to do that, and when we are, by right-ing it, it ignores all the work that they put in for that.

So we are concerned with the approach of that. You know, the other big thing is, you know, the one size fits all height limit is very concerning in the area as well. The local governments have the ability to determine what is best. So we're concerned that it infringes on the ability to do that. So with that, happy to answer any questions and look forward to continuing the conversations with the Assembly Member as well as the sponsors on the bill as it moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other folks who are here in opposition? Not seeing any. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you. I'd like to move the bill. And I think that, I think the most intriguing part of the community colleges, I think a lot of the UCs and CSUs still have a lot of work to do, but there's, there's much more built up some of the community colleges and there's huge opportunity here.

And community college students, obviously, I think, are some of our most vulnerable students when it comes to housing or whether they can even choose to go to school because of housing costs. And so in the long term, I think that I really am hopeful to see that aspect of it and would really like to be at it as a co-author. Thank you.

Ms. Caloza.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to thank the bill author for bringing this forward. Also want to thank the students for coming here. You know, housing affordability is already a tough problem as it is, let alone if you're in school facing tuition increases and everything else that you're going through. So I strongly support this bill, and I would also love to be a co-author. And this is something that I know would help my district. I have CSULA and Occidental College. Thank you.

Ms. Wicks.

Thank you. Thanks for bringing the bill forward, building on AB 2011. Appreciate that. And obviously want to support the bill today. I would love to be added as a co-author as well. Would also love us to push to expand its scope, maybe not in the context of this bill, but in other bills moving forward and the footprint of where it could be used because I think we need to do a ton of streamlining across the board, but I think this is a great first step, and so I appreciate your leadership on this.

Ms. Wilson.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing it forward. I appreciate the amendments recommended by the Committee. I think they're thoughtful, and I think they address concerns that some have in terms of ministerial versus by right and recognizing the need for things matching pretty much the character of our communities. And so would like to be added as a co-author as well. Thanks.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Got a chorus going here. Yeah. As the Member that hosts Cal State Fullerton, which is the largest CSU in the system, and Fullerton College, only a block away from my home, the impact of hosting these type of community colleges or universities, in addition to Cypress and Cerritos.

So my district is definitely an education district, but it's very clear that there is competition for the very limited affordable housing units. And even when colleges build on campuses, as Cal State Fullerton has, there still is a lack of housing, as I believe Cal State Fullerton is about 43,000 students. And that's just one of the higher ed.

When you add Fullerton College and you're talking about another 25,000 students, that's just one city. So I understand that the League of Cities, and we've had lots of these discussions and their concerns about local control and so forth, but again, I've used this term many times in the last handful of years.

We are in a crisis and we cannot do business as usual when it comes to building. And this is a bill that would move forward projects in a speedy way. And that's the theme of this Committee that I unofficially have named it. Instead of the Housing Committee, we're the Speedy Committee. So I support this bill.

All right, I know we had a motion. And do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Caloza. Moved by Mr. Kalra. Mr. Fong, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members, and thank you, colleagues, for your comments as well. And we really, as you heard from the colleagues here and from our students, we need to continue the momentum to build housing and to build upon the work of Assembly Bill 2011 by Assembly Member Wicks.

We know that a lot of our students are housing insecure, especially in our community colleges, as Mr. Kalra has mentioned, and also in our other public higher education systems as well. And we know these are centers of vitality for our communities. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fong. And thank you to to our witnesses and to our student leaders from UC Berkeley and and of course everywhere else as well. And this is a huge issue across our state for students who are facing the crunch of affordability, who of course need to live near campuses.

And the development opportunities for us to meet our housing needs around our campuses, not just UCs, CSUs, and community colleges, is tremendous and we have a great tool, thanks to Ms. Wicks with AB 2011. And I agree that it absolutely needs expansion. So very happy to support this, and thank you for your work with our Committee on the amendments. I would also love to be added as a co-author, along with it seemed like most of the Committee. And with that, we can take a roll call vote.

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

All right, the bill is out 10 to zero. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, Next up, is Ms. Addis here? She is. There she is. Thank you for your patience. It is item number eight, AB 925.

Thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Committee. Today I bring you AB 925, the mobile home Emergency Safety Act. California, as you all know, is no stranger to life threatening disasters. And every year Californians are experiencing the impact of storms, fires and floods with increasing frequency and intensity as a direct result of climate change.

Mobile home parks are especially at risk because nationwide, 80% of these homes are located in areas with a high risk of climate hazards. In comparison, less than 20% of other types of housing is found in the same census tracts.

And additionally, mobile home parks are home to some of our most vulnerable communities, as I know this Committee has heard about today, including older adults and individuals with disabilities. And so, given that the disaster landscape is constantly changing, we must also improve our emergency preparedness procedures.

And while existing law requires these parks to have emergency preparedness plans in place, we are still seeing situations where residents are put at risk because of inaccurate information. And moreover, there have been instances when essential emergency assets were not available for use by residents or emergency personnel.

One example of this is the tubbs fire of 2017, where residents of the Journeys End mobile home park woke up to see the fire heading towards the main entrance of their park, rendering it unusable for an emergency exit. It the other listed entrance was not open and had not been open for years, essentially trapping Residents inside.

And when emergency responders arrived on the scene, they found that fire hydrants were either inoperable or inaccessible, forcing them to rely solely on the water in their truck.

And so we can no longer take a reactive approach to these kinds of disasters and need to be proactive in order to save lives, because emergency events are sudden and move quickly. If a mobile home park is not prepared with necessary resources and information, people in the park face additional threats to their lives.

So AB925 requires more comprehensive emergency preparedness plans to make sure that they are easily accessible at all times. And it will also ensure that residents have access to entry and exit points, utility shutoff capabilities, and working fire hydrants in case park management is off site.

All things that I think all of us would expect in any living situation. There is a modest fee increase developed in consultation with mobile home resident input that will provide HCD the necessary resource to properly inspect these parks and ensure compliance.

And finally, the bill's enforcement mechanism will hold mobile home park owners who consistently break the law accountable for the proper implementation of these plans. So I have two witnesses here today, and then we're gonna switch out for somebody who can answer technical questions, but they won't testify.

So first we have Kendall Jarvis from legal aid services, Sonoma, and then Annie Kolachitas representing the golden state manufactured homeowners league. And then our technical witness will come up. And that is Bruce Stanton, legal counsel with gsmol.

Thank you, Assembly Member Addis. Can you guys hear me? Good afternoon. Thank you for having us here today. So, as assemblymember Addis said, my name is Kendall Jarvis. I'm the lead disaster relief attorney for legal aid of state Sonoma County, and I'm here today to express my sincere support for Assembly Bill 925.

AB 925 improves upon existing law to ensure that mobile home park residents are better prepared during a disaster. Since 2015, California has seen more disasters than we can easily count. Most recently, we watched as entire Los Angeles neighborhoods burned to the ground, including at least two mobile home parks.

Unfortunately, even with the knowledge that such disasters have become a fixture in California, we continue to see residents living in parks that do not have working fire hydrants, that do not have access to points of exit or entry, and that do not have access to gas shutoff valves if needed by emergency personnel during a disaster.

This simply is not acceptable. AB925 will take simple but significant steps, steps towards ensuring the health and safety of our mobile home park residents is better protected.

AB925 improves upon existing law by requiring that park owners ensure the park's exits and entrances remain unlocked and unobstructed, ensure the park's fire hydrant systems are unlocked and in working order, and ensure that emergency personnel can access the park's natural gas shutoff valves when needed.

This common sense approach will better protect mobile home residents and also not put a significant financial burden on the state. As Assemblymember Addis said, there is a fee increase that is proposed specifically for the Mobile Home Health and Safety Enforcement Program that will cover more than cover the costs of this program to oversee.

So for these reasons, Legal Aid of Sonoma county since sincerely asks that you vote yes for 925. Thank you so much. I will turn it over to Ann.

Thank you. Good morning Ann Kolachitas on behalf of GSMOL in Support Fire Hydrants that Don't work kill people AB925 is critical and life saving. Californians, mobile home residents included, continue to suffer through numerous devastating fires, the Sonoma Complex fires, Paradise Fire, Somar Fire and more recently the Los Angeles Altadena fires.

Fire hydrants must work and we must be able to get out the back gates when they are locked during an emergency. This is basic safety. There are mobile home parks in this state today that still don't have these life saving basics in place. Mobile home parks are largely overseen by the state, but too often overlooked.

This Bill ensures the state has the tools and resources it needs to ensure the safety of people living in mobile homes.

The American Society of Civil Engineers found that California households in manufactured housing face consistently higher exposure to heat and fire hazards and they are the most likely to be located in tracts affected by past wildfires and in tracts with high future wildfire risk. Thank you for your continued attention to improving and enforcing safety during times of emergency.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much. Can have folks who are in the room who are in support of the Bill come up and state your name and affiliation and position please.

My name is Tim Porteus. I am an owner and a renter at Youngstown Mobile Home Park. Please, we really do need your help. Please.

Hello, my name is Marie Cuneo and. I'm a resident at Youngstown Mobile Home park in Petaluma, California and I am. In support of AB925.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Boyle again from Youngstown. Mobile Home park in Petaluma, Sonoma County. And we felt it very important to. Come this distance to strongly Support this Bill. AB925 thank you.

Hi, I'm Angie Cruz from Littlewoods Mobile Home park in Petaluma, California, obviously. And I'm here on behalf of the California alliance of Retired Americans to say yes to AB 925.

Hello again. I'm Hannah Stewart and I again live in the Little woods park. And I am also in support. Well, I should say we are in support of AB925. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Janice Barker. I'm a resident and an owner of a, of a mobile home at Youngstown Mobile Home park in Petaluma. I am in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Mary Stearns, in strong support of this Bill. Pueblo Serena, Sonoma County. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is John Kyle. I'm a homeowner in Pueblo Serena park in the City of Sonoma and I'm the President of the Sonoma County Mobile Homeowners Association and we're speaking in support of this Bill.

Hello, I'm Kevin Goodell. I'm a mobile homeowner in Pueblo Serena. And Sonoma and I'm in support of this Bill.

Great. Thank you all for being here. We'll now open it up if there's anyone here in opposition, any testimony in opposition.

Good morning again, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. My name again is Chris Wysocki with Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and I'm here to oppose AB 925, a Bill that we believe will make emergency preparedness plans more confusing and less useful. I do want to just remind everybody it is not an eclipse day. Mr.

Johnson is here joining me on the same side of the issue, so we appreciate his opposition as well. Mobile home parks are already required to have a pLan in pLace to inform residents about evacuation routes and items to take with them in case of life threatening emergencies. It worked in the Palisades fire down in La.

We actually think that that was a glaring success in the middle of a tragedy. We had two mobile home parks burned down. Yes, we did. That was awful. Not one loss of life, except for the one individual who refused to leave the park. So it shows to us that the emergency preparedness plans are working as planned.

So AB925 though, would add several elements to the plan which we believe don't provide any more value to a resident. In case of an emergency, it requires the addition of a copy of parks fire hydrant test and certification report and a written statement that all fire hydrants have been tested and are operable.

This is already required by HCD when we get our permit to operate renewed. If we don't have working fire hydrants. We can't collect rent. It's that simple. Another page is required to include the actual name of the responsible person that is required to know about the utilities.

Another page is required for the responsible person who is available to notify residents of an evacuation. Another requirement is a written statement that the gas system within the park has been inspected by a person with professional knowledge of those systems and confirming that the system is in working order.

The next section of the Bill, though, states it doesn't require the owner, manager or designee to have specific knowledge or skills to handle critical infrastructure or to take any specific action not listed in the section. So what's the purpose of addition? Current law also requires, you know, it's a to cut short on time.

The Governor's veto message last year of AB 2022, a Bill nearly identical to this one. He cited the case for hc the cost for HCD as a reason for his veto. It was pegged at a $13 million fee or responsibility for HCD.

AB925's attempt to raise the permit to operate fee from $4 to $10 per space, but a $6 increase multiplied by 363,000 spaces only adds $2.1 million far below the actual cited cost. Further, the new increase fee isn't linked to the review of the plans. So if it isn't linked, then there's a $13 million unfunded mandate.

And even if it were linked, it would be far below cost. If it's specifically slated to pay for reviewing emergency preparedness plans, it didn't say so. These additions do nothing to simplify and streamline the emergency management plans. If you put too much irrelevant information, people are less likely to read it.

For these and other item reasons listed in our letter, we urge a no vote on AB925. We believe it'll make more Please wrap up. Thank you.

Good morning Chair Members. My name is Roger Johnson. I'm a mobile homeowner and an advocate. I'm here representing seniors, veterans, the disabled, immigrants and working families who are mobile homeowners throughout California living on fixed and low incomes. We are in strong opposition to AB925 because our advocacy motto is do no harm.

This request to tax all mobile homeowners in California more than $13 million of our hard earned money to Fund the Mobile Home Parks act program does not make sense to us. Some of US cannot afford 13 cents.

Yet AB925 is an attempt to tax mobile homeowners over 13 million using multiple HCD produced reports for calendar years 2020 through 2023, the mobile home Parks Act Inspection program shows using their documents, a $486,000 surplus per HCD's reporting. We have contacted the author's office and open to working with them.

But currently we cannot support AB925 requests for $13 million of our money. Therefore, we strongly oppose AB925 $13 million tax and respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you others who are here in opposition to this Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Eichert, on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners alliance and opposition for the reasons already stated.

Good morning. Michelle Moaning. I'm the HOA President at a mobile home park in Roseville and I represent a lot of homeowners and we are against any fee increase. So we strongly ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Do we have questions or comments from colleagues? Second motion and a second not seeing any other questions or comments. Give you an opportunity to close.

I respectfully ask for your high vote.

Great. Thank you, Ms. Addison, and respect your tenacity for bringing this back and trying to work on some of the issues around the funding.

And I'm sure you'll continue to have dialogue with the opposition on some of their concerns and making sure that this is as effective as possible and provides the benefits to those who are paying for it. With that, we can move forward with a roll call vote.

Motion do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Haney.

Aye.

Haney. Aye. Patterson. Avilafarias. Avilafaris. Aye. Colosa. Gallagher. Garcia. Garcia. I'm sorry, ma'am. Cholera. Lee. Lee. I. Quirk-Silva. Cork. Silva. I. Ta Ta. No. Wicks. Weeks. I. Wilson. Wilson. Not voting. Two345. Six to one at the moment.

Six to one. That bill is on call. All right, before we move on to the Buffy Wick show here, if we can. Thank you all.

Thank you for your time.

Yes, thank you. If we can take a roll call vote on the the consent agenda, please.

[ROLL CALL]

All right, 8-0. We'll also keep that open for folks to add on. All right, Ms. Wicks, we have three bills. Items 5, 6 ,and 9, AB 712, AB 736 and AB 1021 and go in whatever order you like.

Thank you. Appreciate it, Mr. Chair. And I'll start with AB712. Good morning, Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 712. I would first like to thank the Committee Committee staff for their work with us on this and drafting clarifying amendments. I will gladly accept the proposed amendments.

The purpose of AB12 is to help ensure public agencies comply with state housing law. It would do so by increasing penalties against public agencies that violate the rights established by the state's housing laws.

As this Committee knows, in recent years the state has passed numerous statutes to make housing permitting easier and more predictable in an effort to address our ongoing housing crisis. That effort continues this year with a fast track housing package which includes this Bill.

But for these laws to be effective, they have to be easy to enforce and have real consequences when they are broken. Unfortunately, most state housing law, with the notable exception of the Housing Accountability act, are difficult to enforce right now.

These laws largely rely on housing developers to sue public agencies that break the law, something that developers are highly hesitant to do because they need to maintain long term relationships with these agencies. And even when developers win their cases, they do not collect attorneys fees, which means that most violations go unpunished.

Some public agencies have even gone so far as requiring developers to indemnify them from the very lawsuits that developers bring against them when those agencies break housing laws and have the chutzpah to require developers to pay for their legal fees incurred by the public agencies to defend these laws they have broken.

Because these factors defer developers from suing to enforce their rights, repeated violations of housing law may occur, which further impedes the ability for developers to build the housing that California so desperately needs. AB712 would address this problem by increasing penalties against public agencies that break housing laws.

By applying the same requirement that exists for the Housing Accountability act to other housing laws, the HAA imposes a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit per unit per housing unit in the housing development project.

AB712 would impose the same fine unless the project consists of four units or fewer in which case the court shall impose a minimum fine of $50,000 per violation. In line with HAA. AB712 would provide the project applicant with attorney fees and costs when they prevail in court.

It would also subject the public agency to fines in a court case where they had been previously warned by the Attorney General or the Department of Housing and Community Development that their action was in violation of the law.

These fines could be increased in instances where the court had previously found that the public agency had broken the same law.

AB 712 would also end the practice of public agencies asking housing development applicants to indemnify the local government against lawsuits when that agency violates the housing sorry, the applicant's rights we are aware that local governments are not going to like this Bill, although we currently don't have any opposition from cities or counties.

As everyone knows, my door is always open and I'm always open to amending the Bill in ways that make sense. I also want to be clear that this Bill does not just apply to local agencies.

If this Bill passes, state agencies would also be on the hook to comply with law because only if everyone is abiding by the law will we be able to build the housing we need to bring rents down and sales prices down and make affordable housing for everyone.

With me here to testify in support of AB712 are Kareem Drissy, Senior VP of Legislative affairs for the California Building Industry Association, and Dylan Casey, Executive Director of California Housing Defense Fund.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Karim Drisi on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud sponsor of AB712. This Committee has done excellent work in recent years to advance proposals that would help alleviate the state's housing crisis.

Unfortunately, enforcement of these housing reform laws continues to be an issue with local non compliance negatively impacting the construction of new housing and in turn harming California families in need of shelter.

As the author noted, AB 712 adds much needed teeth to the state's housing reform laws by, among other provisions, awarding attorneys fees to housing project applicants that successfully vindicate their rights under housing reform laws. By strengthening the enforcement of these laws, AB712 encourages compliance and will ultimately lead to more housing being built for California's families.

We respectfully request an aye vote on AB712. Thank you so much.

Good morning Committee Members. Thank you, Assemblymember Wicks, for having me here. My name is Dylan Casey. I'm the Executive Director of California Housing Defense Fund. We're a statewide legal nonprofit dedicated to advocating for increased housing Production and affordability in California. I'm here to discuss a couple aspects of AB712.

First, I'll talk about CALHDF's experience with an affordable housing development. Next, I'll discuss how the attorney's provisions of this law will help ensure smooth implementation of state housing laws.

A couple of years ago, CALHDF partnered with an affordable housing developer to propose a new four new affordable housing developments using newly enacted State Assembly Member sorry Assembly Bills 2011 and 2097. All told, the developments would add close to 900 units of low income housing, an unprecedented amount of affordable housing growth for the area.

After a contentious hearing, the council conditioned the second project with a height reduction of one story based on discretionary provisions in the city zoning code. The reduced density of the this reduced the density of the project by 20% and dramatically impaired its financial viability.

The addition placed on the project approval violated the Housing Accountability act, which prohibits conditions that reduce density and feasibility. In response to our lawsuit, the city took a novel approach with its legal defense. Based on a condition of approval placed on the development, the city filed a cross complaint seeking to recover its own legal fees and costs.

For my organization, indemnification provisions like the one the city sought to enforce are commonplace, but generally understood to cover the situation where a project is approved and then challenged from a third party seeking to overturn the approval.

In that case, the developer and the city have a joint interest in defending the lawsuit and it makes more sense for a developer to shoulder the costs of joint legal defense. Perversely, the city sought to recover its own costs from CALHDF even though we. Even though the project.

We were the project applicants and we were suing to challenge the a density reduction that violated state housing law. At this stage, we were faced with a choice fight the cross complaint while driving up our potential liability or drop the lawsuit and abandon our claims under state law.

We opted to in this case, drop the lawsuit primarily because the risks of litigation and the risks of the city's costs and fees were too much for a small nonprofit. Please wrap up. Okay.

If CS are allowed to seek indemnification in this manner, it would make it very make it very difficult for project applicants to enforce state housing law. Lastly, I just want to mention that this, this Bill would particularly benefit small projects. It's rarely makes financial sense for small projects to bring lawsuits. And this.

This Bill would greatly increase the weight of state enforcement and allow those project applicants to see their day in court. Thank you Committee Members. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you for the folks who are here in support of this Bill.

Chair Members of the Committee, Jonah Panhana Carvajad on behalf of California Yimby in strong support. Thank you.

Holly Fermini De Jesus from Lighthouse Public. Affairs and support on behalf of Spur Abundant Housing, Los Angeles, Fieldstead and Associates. And Habitat for Humanity California in support. Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Housing Trust. Silicon Valley in support.

Great. All right. Do we have any witnesses in opposition who are here?

Thank you, Chair, Members. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. Special districts are an essential part of the ecosystem of housing development, but they are not land use authorities. They don't approve developments. They don't do zoning or planning.

So while we're in the bill with, under both definitions of public and local agencies, and the bill creates a right to attorney's fees and costs brought by an applicant for a development project against a public agency, including special districts, to enforce a housing reform law where the applicants of the prevailing party. We view this as a one sided right.

It also, as was discussed, prohibits indemnification. And this would place an unfair advantage toward the applicant when the local agency is legitimately defending their decisions in court.

The bill's provisions for fines when the court has previously found that the local agency violated the same statute for which the applicant previously prevailed during the same planning period is a concern. Because, special districts don't have planning periods. So it's unclear how that would be applicable.

And it leaves open the definition of housing reform law is so broad it may leave us exposed to litigation and expenditures just to discover which if in fact the statute in question is a housing reform law. Taken together with the attorney's fees, costs and fine provisions, without consideration of all those statutes that may be considered housing reform law, and that those statutes did not contemplate such provisions, it could dramatically expose a special district to the features of this measure.

But since we're not land use authorities, some of its applicability remains unclear. But we remain essential part of the broader ecosystem to solve housing and affordability because we supply the infrastructure and essential services for these communities if in fact it overlaps our jurisdiction. So for those reasons, respectfully oppose assembly bill 712.

Thank you. Are there other folks in the room who are here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. Colleagues? Questions? Concerns? Have a motion and a second. Mr. Patterson.

Great, thanks. I have a question and then kind of something we talked about already. But the, regarding the indemnification, I walked in late, so I probably missed that part. But I was presenting my own bills. Every, when I was on the city council, like every project, it seems, was litigated.

So that, so the city essentially the developer ended up paying the lawsuit. At the end of the day, that's what ended up happening. But does that kind of create some kind of incentive where maybe the city tries not to approve projects because if they're going to get sued and have to cover the legal costs if they're indemnifying a project. Just help me understand the indemnification a little more.

Yeah. So my, the general practice which you're talking about is that when a project is approved, there's usually an agreement between the developer and the city for the developer to cover the costs of any lawsuit post approval.

This bill would cover a different situation where the either a condition on approval, which was the case for the developments I was working on, or potentially denial, would violate state housing law, and the actual applicant for the development would sue the city and the city would seek to recover their legal fees from the applicant. So it's sort of two separate situations.

Is the language clear that that's the specific indemnification that you're looking for?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay, it sounds like we're on the same page on that. I would say, you know, this bill, I do agree with the concept, and actually, if it had, if it only applied to project applications after the enactment of this bill, I'd probably support it.

The complicating thing for me is I have an active lawsuit in my district right now where I wonder, you know, maybe potentially this tips the scale a little bit. There is a project, oddly, where both sides want to do the same thing. And that's to, that's to actually get a project completed and done.

And the developer, or, sorry, the city wants to permit the project, that is a byright project under various housing laws. They want to allow it to be done, but in their housing element, they have affordable housing, which the developers agreed to do. But of course, the development requires all the market rate stuff to be built first.

And the city is saying, well, we don't want to be left holding the bag if the development project, you know, goes bankrupt and then the affordable units never get built. And so there's just kind of a standoff, them wanting to do the same exact thing, get the project done and get the affordable units built.

But because of that lawsuit in my district right now is the only reason why I'm concerned with, with this particular bill. But I kind of agree with the concept, which is, if it is a developer's, you know, project is trying to comply with existing state laws and move forward utilizing existing state laws, then municipalities ought not get in the way of that.

It's just, I can see with various housing laws, there still seems to be some confusion over whether can the city hold the developer to its agreement to actually build, let's say, the affordable units before the other items.

And so it's been, it's an interesting thing, but it's very unique to my district, which is why I say maybe it, if the bill applied only to prospective projects and future applications, and that was clear. I'd like very likely support this on the floor

And just to respond. And I don't know that I told the answer right now, but I think this bill goes into effect January one, and I don't believe there's retroactivity, but we can also look into that and figure out if the timing of the lawsuit vis a vis this would impact your niche situation for your district.

Yeah, yeah.

To maybe get your vote on the floor.

Yeah, yeah, I see how obviously most laws don't take effect until January 1st. Right. It's sort of. Well, you can file a lawsuit starting January 1st and get the attorney's fees. But what if, you know, the litigation was before. Right. Actually filed before. So. But it sounds like we're kind of.

You're trying to accomplish what I would be in agreement with. So I would love to support this on the floor if that can be clarified, by the way. So right now I'll be laying off, but I.

Yeah.

If that change is made or clarified to me somehow, I will support it on the floor.

Okay, I'll look into that, Mr. Patterson.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Not seeing any other comments or questions. Ms. Wicks, would you like to close?

Just would appreciate an aye vote.

Thank you so much. And I know we started off this year talking about all of these really important housing laws that we've passed as a legislature and looking at the effective, effectiveness of those and how they've led to housing getting built.

And I think a huge part of that is making sure that they're actually being followed and that there are effective enforcement measures. And I appreciate the way that you've looked really closely at what's actually happening out there and some of the ways in which, you know, these processes that are set up have made it so that we, that we can't enforce and that even the people who are seeing those violations in firsthand are not able to take the steps necessary.

I think this is a huge step forward and I appreciate the way that you've thought about it and the amendments that you will be taking. And I will also note that this will be going to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and I'm sure the conversation will continue there.

So the recommendation is support with amendments and we can take a roll call vote.

[ROLL CALL]

All right, 9 to 0. That bill is on to judiciary and we will move to your next bill.

Thank you. I will be presenting Assembly Bill 736. There we go. My team's here. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 736, the Affordable Housing Bond of 2026. I would first like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with us.

I'm happy to accept all the proposed amendments and particularly appreciate the changes to put more money into infrastructure and farmwork housing, which are priorities of the caucus. The purpose of AB 736 is to raise more money for the affordable housing our state desperately needs. We all know the statistics, which we have discussed ad nauseam on this Committee.

We have over 187,000 homeless folks in California. Two thirds of lower income renters are rent burdened, paying so much in rent that they they have to sacrifice other basic needs like food, health care, and transportation. And the state says we need to build 1.2 million units of affordable housing to address this crisis.

To build these units, we need tens of billions of dollars. And yet right now we've expended all the dollars from the 2018 bond and the current budget proposal does not contain any new affordable housing dollars. This is why the bond is so important and timely.

It would help us plug the giant hole by providing $5 billion for Multifamily Housing Program, our state's affordable housing workhorse, which also includes set asides for seniors and rural areas. 1.7 billion for permanent supportive housing for the for the formerly homeless. 1 billion for homeownership programs to help people permanently climb up the economic ladder.

800 million to make sure we don't lose the affordability of existing units whose deed restrictions will expire. 500 million for to acquire and rehabilitate existing natural affordable units whose affordability is at risk. 350 million for farm worker housing and 250 million for tribal housing. As the witnesses will attest, this will result in tens of thousands of affordable units.

It's also a great investment. Every dollar of state money leverages $5 of private and public sources. Finally, it's also a political and moral imperative. In every poll, homelessness and affordable housing remain a top priority of voters. If we're going to make progress on addressing this priority, we have to invest in it. I also want to say, I think coupled with streamlining, critical streamlining work that we have been doing and continue to do, I think is important to bring down the cost of housing.

But we also have to do public investments to make sure our low income communities, our working class communities get the the roof over the head they need. This is why I'm asking for support today. And with me here to testify is Chione Muñoz Flegal, Executive Director of Housing California, and Mr. Danny Curtin from the Carpenters.

Good morning. My name is Chione Flegal. I'm the Executive Director at Housing California. Today I'm also here representing the California Housing Consortium. Both of our organizations work together to grow the supply of affordable homes for Californians and solve homelessness. California has made really important progress in recent years towards addressing our shortage of affordable homes.

Really proving that when we make investments to get and keep people housed, we make great strides. But we're at a turning point. Today, millions of Californians are struggling to find and keep an affordable place to live, and the need is growing faster than our ability to solve the problem.

This means that families, essential workers, seniors, and veterans across the state are still stuck on waiting lists, are priced out, or are living one crisis away from losing their homes. While our affordable housing pipeline has momentum, we are now at a point where we're at serious risk of seeing that stall.

Funds from the last statewide housing bond ran out last year. This year's budget, as Assembly Member Wicks points out, includes no new dollars for the state's most effective housing and homelessness programs. We're facing a funding cliff that will significantly delay and or derail projects that are ready to go forward.

Currently, there are over 45,000 shovel ready projects, projects that have been entitled that are ready to get built in communities across the state, including nearly 10,000 in the regions that have been impacted and hit hard by recent wildfires. For many of these projects, what's standing in the way is not planning. It's not political will.

It's simply a lack of resources to get the job done. We know that the best way to make housing more affordable is by building more homes. AB 736 will help us do that. Putting a 10,000, a $10 billion bond before voters and providing the stable long term funding needed to keep our affordable housing pipeline moving.

The resources will fill an immediate need, supporting construction of more than 35,000 affordable homes while providing essential funding to preserve and rehabilitate tens of thousands of affordable units that we already have but are at risk of losing. Voters showed in the November elections that they're willing to support investments that target significant challenges facing our state. Now it's time to give them a chance to support building more of the affordable housing Californians need and deserve. For these reasons, I commend Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership in authoring this bill and urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Danny Curtin. I represent the California Conference of Carpenters. I've been saying the same thing here for quite some time, and I'm very happy to see the activities that are happening and have been happening.

But homelessness and the lack of affordable housing is the single most disruptive and destabilizing social, economic, and political problem facing California. I'm a child of the 60s, the 1960s, not the 1860s. People sleeping in the streets and children begging for change was a symbol of third world poverty. Today, people living in the streets is common in California.

It's no longer a third world issue. It's a daily visual and uncomfortable reminder to all of us of the deep poverty and extraordinary wealth inequality we have right here in California. More than once I've seen a mother in her car with her children sleeping on piles of clothes in the backseat of her car.

It's deeply disturbing and profoundly shameful for our state. There are millions of Californians who are one major setback, a layoff, an injury, an illness, even a major car repair from foreclosure or eviction. For those of us who are better off, all of us sitting here I hope, people like ourselves, we wonder how our kids can actually make it in California. So it is a profoundly deep problem. I handed out a couple of things I hope to get to in a minute, but I just want to say this.

A union carpenter in Northern California is one of the best paid construction workers in the country. At the top of their game, they can make $100,000, give or take $5,000. That barely, barely qualifies for a mortgage in most parts of the state. An accident on the job is more than a physical disaster.

It could put them and their family on the streets. When a top union hand can barely make it, you know the quality of life falls off dramatically for the rest of California's working class. You don't have to look too much further for reasons behind the political anger we're seeing at the polls.

The wealth gap has been growing for four decades. It's the worst we've seen in a century. This is a crisis four decades in the making. There is no quick solution. And I know all of you know that. I know all of you on this Committee know that. This bond is an important step, but, as Assemblywoman Wicks said, we need 1.2 million units. We have no more time to waste. I want to add one more comment.

We have the technology and capabilities to mitigate, adapt, slow, and possibly reverse global warming, at least from the California perspective. Energy, water, infrastructure, everything that needs to be built, has been built, will need to be rebuilt. We love to hear that. What we don't have is the political unity and social cohesion to tackle this existential threat.

When you're worried about paying the rent, feeding the kids, how and where they're going to live, you have little time or interest in saving the planet. We have to pull together on this issue. We have to start here with housing. I want to thank all of you who are assigned to this Committee, especially if you asked for the assignment. You are in the center of the storm, and this is the key issue that needs to be addressed, at least so the public can see action. I know it's tough. There's no simple solution.

So I want to thank you once again for doing the hard work, the handouts, so to speak, for themselves. But I thought it would be nice to show each one of you what is needed to be able to afford a mortgage in your communities, at least the communities where your offices are. And so on and so forth.

Thank you. We have other folks in the hearing room who are here in support. Your name, your affiliation, and your position.

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

Julie Snyder on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Association of Bay Area Governments, and, today, Public Advocates asking for your support. Thank you.

Ali Sapirman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support.

Justin Llata with the California Housing Partnership and on behalf of Community Corporation of Santa Monica and the California Council for Affordable Housing, support. Thank you.

Frances Dack with SacACT and PICO of California. I'm in strong support.

Eddie Carmona, Director of Organizing, representing nine federations, multi-faith federations across the state that are multi-faith, in strong support with PICO California.

Good morning, Members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Coalition for Community Investment, Public Counsel, Public Interest Law Project, and National Housing Law Project in support.

Good morning again, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Jonathan Cook, Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance, in strong support.

Good morning. Eric O'Donnell with Townsend Public Affairs on behalf of the Orange County Housing Finance Trust and the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust. Still working on a position, but looking forward to working with the author on the inclusion of local housing trust funds. Thank you.

Good morning again. Karen Lange on behalf of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Housing Trust Silicon Valley in strong support.

Good morning. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of All Home, Enterprise Community Partners, Prosperity California, and the City of Oakland in strong support. Thank you.

Hello. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of California Council for Affordable Housing. Thank you.

Hello. Awet Kidane on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Community Development in strong support. Thank you to the author.

Hello. Sam Moss on behalf of Mission Housing Development Corporation in strong support.

Robert Copeland, member of ACCE here in Sacramento, strong support.

Chris Martin on behalf of the Corporation for Supportive Housing and the National Alliance to End Homelessness in support.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wild Cat Consulting representing the California Community Land Trust Network and their 40 affiliated community land trusts in strong support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse of Public Affairs in support on behalf of SPUR and Abundant Housing LA. But also on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, we request to amend the bill, not just in support, but to have a full billion go towards CalHome, the only program in the State of California that builds new homes for homeownership. Thank you.

All right, thank you all for being here and for your work in advocacy. Do we have anyone here in opposition to this? I don't think so. All right, we'll open it up to my colleagues. Mr. Kalra, and then Mr. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move the bill as a proud co-author, and I think we're going to make it happen this time. I think that the stars are aligning. The need is there. Need has been there. But I think in terms of the willingness for Californians to invest in this aspect of resolving the problem, which is critical, I think, I think they're going to stand with us.

Mr. Lee.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for your consistent work on this. I know we unfortunately missed the shot last ballot cycle, I think, when voters and all of us had a strong appetite for housing. But this time I know you're coming out with renewed coalition interests and working with the Senate and the Governor.

So I really applaud you for your incredible efforts because this is something that we badly need. I know, stemming from... Well, first I want to say thank you for bringing these and highlighting that in Mr. Kalra and I district, you need to basically half a millionaire in income to own a home.

And so I'm working very hard to become half a millionaire to own a home one day. But that's why these measures like the housing bond are so important. And I know that you are working with so many different stakeholders and so many different groups about laundry list in programs and figuring out what the kind of bond capacity we have over time. But this is something we can't afford to really back out on.

And I want to just stress some of the conversations we've had is to really stress the idea of incorporating a revolving loan fund, especially to emphasize social housing and public sector development. I think, unlike perhaps our counterparts in the school bonds and stuff like that, the housing space has the capacity to generate revenue to pay back these grants or pay back these loans.

And I would really advocate for having a stronger outlook on this because, you know, in our current fiscal situation, every time we pass bonds, it's unfortunately been a way the Administration has kind of tapped using the bond instead of using a General Fund to supplant those things.

I don't want that to be the case where we just rely on one source and not the General Fund as well. So really hope that we continue discussions of incorporating more public sector development through social housing or revolving loan fund. I know this is going to be a long journey and this is the first step of many, and I appreciate working with you on these issues and just want to commend you again for your efforts. And I look forward to talking more about this. Thank you

Mr. Patterson. Ms. Quirk-Silva and then Mr. Patterson.

Thank you. This is obviously needed, and we have, really proud of the work we've done on this Housing Committee for the last several years. But this is the one area we haven't been able to move forward, so of course I support this. One of the things that I do want more information on is the units. Ultimately, $10 billion is a huge amount of money to invest into anything. And I do see the breakdown here with some money going into the Multi Housing Program, some money going into the portfolio reinvestment, and various others.

But my question is in the end, after this is passed, I'm assuming, or I would actually use the word praying that it passes because without these additional funds we are not going to be able to bring these units. But it's the units and what levels the extremely low or if we want to say permanent supportive housing.

Because we have been stuck in that area. And it's not only the units, but it's the cost per unit. We've had a fluctuating price point, sometimes as much as 5, 6, or $700,000 for an entry level unit. And those costs have to be reduced for us to maximize these dollars.

So on this it does say at least 10% of the units for a multi MHP development must be available for extremely low income. I'm not sure. 10% seems like a very small amount knowing that that's our transition from homelessness into these permanent supportive homes. If that number, if there's area to look at that number, relook at it.

I don't want to amend a bill in Committee, but it's really important to me that we notice that number and we do everything we can to take the money that's coming in and make sure it's not just a number of units, but it's the type of units that are being built.

As we can see with this extra handout that I appreciate from the Carpenter, Danny Curtin. The first time ownership, whether it's is a dream, it's a long shot for most Californians not being able. Even if you don't use the 20% down, you use 5% down, it's still. Most people aren't going to find themselves with $100,000 to put down on a first time home. So these very entry level permanent supportive transitional homes is a... I want to hear more about that.

I don't know if I have all the answers, but let me dive in a little bit on some of this. So I believe the numbers we were looking at was 35,000 new units with 13,000 rehabilitated or extended. I will say the price per door is too expensive in California. it is, and I think there's a lot of reasons for that. This bond's not going to address all of those things. Right. This is the public investment.

I think this speaks to the work, Ms. Quirk-Silva, that you and many others, myself included and all of us have been working at to try to bring down the cost per door. A new RAND study came out last week saying I think California is the most expensive cost per door in the country. I think it's twice the amount of Texas, 1.5 the amount of in Colorado. So that is something that I totally agree that we have to tackle.

And I think a lot of the work that we're doing around streamlining and the permitting reform package, a lot of the bills the Chair's doing, bills that you've done, I think will work to continue to tackle that cost. It's exorbitant, and it's not acceptable and needs to continue to be worked on.

This is sort of focused on obviously the public investment piece of it I can work to answer your question around, and maybe, Chione, you might know the specific type of affordability in terms of raw numbers of units that this would propose. I don't have that off the top of my head.

The 35,000 is for very low and extremely low. I don't know off the top of my head what the exact breakdown is between those. But these are units that are targeting the lower end of the affordability income spectrum. And I can follow up with you with additional detail on that.

Mr. Patterson.

Thanks. Appreciate it. I wanted to, you know, Assembly Member Lee brought this up. But, you know, I was disappointed when Governor proposed... I mean, it's like Prop 4 passes or whatever, and then, you know, like 45 days later proposes using Prop 4 funds to just backfill existing, you know, expenses that the state was probably going to fund anyways.

And so that was extremely disappointing. And I do think, you know, it's hard to escape that with bonds. I think, you know, the language in here does actually give a fair amount of latitude for that. And so I just kind of caution on that. I do think that there are several programs in here that I think, not only the programs, but the way it operates that I do like. First of all, this isn't a bond for homelessness where California has wasted a lot of money, in my view, without a lot of success.

This is a bond for housing, which may be a contributor to homelessness. But, you know, in Rocklin, we used, you know, CalHome funds, for example, to help seniors, you know, rehabilitate their homes and things like that. And I thought that was beneficial. I also like the down payment assistance and the sort of the equity position.

And there's an actual capital asset. I think that's one thing that a lot of bonds don't necessarily have. Some of them do, some of them don't. So I think there's a capital asset. So I'm interested in, I don't agree with everything in the bill. I think there's still some work.

I know negotiations are going to be ongoing through the Legislature, but I've come around to this idea that one of my colleagues on this Committee told me is that housing is infrastructure like other things. And I think Republicans have in the past supported bonds regarding infrastructure for a whole host of reasons.

One is it puts people to work, as our Carpenter friends have said, Mr. Curtin. And you know, schools, Republicans can, you know, different places on that, but have supported that because it's infrastructure. Water quality bonds to do reservoirs and dams and things like that.

And so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to think about Republicans supporting other infrastructure bonds. And, and so this kind of fits into my, after reconsidering from last year, I'm inclined to support this today. Maybe I'll be the only Republican that does. But I'm going to support it today and maybe take some flack for it later on.

But I think when it comes to cost of living, and I don't think this is going to drive down cost of living, you know what I mean? I think it's going to assist some people survive in our state. But I, the ability to afford a house, not only the house itself, but utility bills, all those sorts of things is like number one. It's that and insurance is the only thing I get emails on these days. And so I'm gonna support this today and see where it goes. Thanks.

Ms. Caloza.

Thank you, Chair Haney. Thank you to the author, to Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership on this issue. Thank you to the entire coalition of folks and groups who came from near and far who took time to voice how critically important this is. As I look on the dais, I think I'm the only Member here who represents Los Angeles. And so I did just want to add this extra emphasis on why this is so important. As you all know, we just had the recent Palisades and Eaton Fire where we lost 16,000 structures. Many of those were nearby.

I lived about a block from the fire, and many of you have heard me share the story. But this is even more critical now considering the additional homes that we just lost. And so that might just be also a friendly suggestion for the author to consider whether or not there's any prioritization around some of the recent disaster impacted areas for the housing bond. But just wanted to offer that. But support this and looking forward to being added as a co-author, I think, after we take this vote. So thank you.

All right. Ms. Ávila Farías

Just want to thank the author for all your hard work on this. You've been at this for a long time, and really happy to be supporting this today and working on collaborating with you as a former housing practitioner. So thank you.

Great. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Quirk-Silva. Ms. Wicks, would you like to close.

So appreciate the conversation, appreciate the courage from my Republican colleague to jump out on this and hopefully that influences other Republican Members of the Committee who are such strong housing champions here. And then obviously the conversation from my colleagues and the addition of co-authorship and support.

I do feel, knock on wood, cautiously optimistic we're going to put this on this ballot this next year. We have strong leadership in the Senate as well with Senator Cabaldon who is pushing forth his effort. And I think my hope is it will materialize because it has to. Because the cost of living, because it's, you know, we've got to build more housing because it's our lowest income communities that are experiencing it most. I know there are other programs, as Mr. Lee had suggested.

I know the Chair and I have spoken as well, and I assume you'll talk about that in your closing remarks. In terms of desires to be included in this, we're at the beginning of the process. The door is open. This is going to be through negotiations with the Senate and the Governor's Office, et cetera.

So I would welcome anyone who wants to be part of those conversations to please do so. And there's a lot of, I think creative energy coming out of at least some of the conversations I've had around unique ways we should be looking at these funds and opportunities to multiply the positive impact of what this could be. And appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chair, and all the downtown recovery work that you're doing, and I think going to speak to now. So we'll just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Ms. Wicks. And I really want to appreciate your leadership. I'm proud to join off of this and the very large coalition of folks who are a part of this. I do think, for everyone on this Committee and all of the issues that we are dealing with throughout the course of this year, from the LA fires to what we know is a growing housing scarcity and affordability crisis, all of us are going to need to be champions for this bond.

There will be a time when our caucus, together with our colleagues in the Senate, together with our Republican colleagues who are a part of that conversation, with the Governor, are really looking at the ballot next year. And it will be a question as to whether this moves forward. We strongly believe that it needs to move forward.