Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

We're going to start. All right. Welcome everyone to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. Where's my, my, my script here? Is not there some formalities I need to share that are official? There we go. All right. We have 20 items on our agenda today. Six items on the consent agenda.

Items 9,11,14,15,18 and 19. That's AB 790, AB 818, AB 920, AB 1007, AB 1308, AB 1529. 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 witness will get two minutes each.

Please feel free to submit written testimony through the portal position portal on the Committee's website which will become an official record of the Bill will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. We are in room 437 in the Capitol.

The hearing room is open and people are encouraged to attend in person and all are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

We are going to start first as a subject Committee and I am going to call the first item, which is item number 186 award. Welcome.

Good morning Mr. Chair and colleagues. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for all their hard work in this Bill.

And I'm pleased to present AB6 which would have HCD established a working group to explore allowing missing middle housing developments between three and 10 units in size to be built under the requirements of the residential code as opposed to the current commercial code building.

This approach is similar to a review that we requested HCD perform on adaptive reuse standards and a few years ago. And the shift from commercial to residential code for small housing projects is a change that's already seeing positive results in cities like Memphis, Anchorage and the State of North Carolina.

It's led to streamline plan check requirements, code modifications that cut costs while preserving health and safety and an expanded pool of smaller scale residential contractors who are available to build these types of homes with development construction costs, of course, as you know, at all time highs we need to look for efficiencies and cost savings and recognize better affordability might require more flexibility and innovation right within our building codes.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today to testify in support is Meea Kang with the Council of Infill Builders and Jonathan Pacheco Bell, the Vice President of Policy and programs for the Casita Coalition.

Thank you. My name is Meea Kangand I've been an affordable housing developer for more than 25 years in the State of California. And I'm here today representing the Council of Infill Builders. One of the bill's Proud Co sponsors.

AB6 is a collaborative, data driven approach to unlocking California's ability to build more housing, particularly this missing middle housing that is essential to affordability and equity in our state. In recent years, communities across California have done the hard work of rezoning land for higher density housing, encouraging infill development near jobs, transit and schools.

Yet time and time again we see these sites remain under built, empty, vacant and oftentimes developed as large single family homes with as many as 10 bedrooms. Not because that's what the market or the community really needs, but it's because the cost of building more than one unit is often so high that it's simply just not viable.

It is today easier to build and get permits for a massive luxury home than it is to build a fourplex, a modest fourplex on that same site. AB6 seeks to challenge that assumption. Instead of making single family homes the primary and easiest way to build housing, we want to level the playing field.

We want to direct the Department of Housing and Community Development to convene a working group of building officials and professionals and code experts to evaluate whether small scale multifamily housing 3 to 10 units can be safely built using the California Residential Building Code, which is far more compatible with the type of housing we're building than doing apartments using the expensive California building code.

This Bill also initiates an overdue review of how building standards are contributing to the rising cost of construction, pricing out both builders and future residents. We cannot say we're serious about addressing the housing crisis while continuing to enforce standards that make cost effective community scale housing all but impossible.

This is not about reducing safety, it's about right sizing our regulations to the type of housing. We want to see more of walkable, infill, small scale homes that meet the of real Californians. For this reason, we want to urge your support and we want to thank Assembly Member Ward.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Assembly Members. My name is Jonathan Pacheco Bell. I serve as Vice President of Policy and Programs at Casita Coalition. We're a statewide nonprofit that removes barriers to building smaller, more affordable homes. My background includes over a decade of local agency planning and code enforcement experience in Los Angeles County.

That experience put me in close contact with property owners and applicants who desired to build middle housing but confronted obstacles in permit processes and financing small Scale builders who had the skills and experience to build middle housing but saw few opportunities compared to single family, residential or large apartment construction and tenants, tenants who needed access to more affordable choices.

Casita Coalition is sponsoring AB6 to unlock the potential to build more middle housing. AB6 will assess streamlining to enable construction of housing developments with three to 10 units built under the requirements of the California Residential Code, or CRC rather than the more onerous California Building code.

Cities such as Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington are using the Residential Building Code to accelerate construction of middle housing like townhouses and fourplexes and cottage courts as smaller viable housing options.

AB6 is a study Bill that starts the process in California by convening a state working group to research this proposal and make recommendations directing HCD to analyze and report on cost pressures from current building codes and in future cycles to reduce new housing construction by 30% and all the while maintaining the imperative of utilizing reliable health and safety standards to construct middle housing.

AB6 lays the groundwork for lowering the cost of construction for small developments, an essential step towards encouraging a robust variety of types of home types in our neighborhoods that better meet the needs of Californians. For these reasons, Casita Coalition urges you to Vote yes on AB6. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in the room? In support? Name, affiliation, position, please.

Good morning. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support.

Chair. Members of the Committee. Jordan Pana Carvajad on behalf of California Yimby in strong support. Thank you so much.

Divya Shiv with Housing California in support.

Seamus Garrity with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Spur. In strong support.

Dr. Joshua Bruxen, South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth and strong support.

Adam Briones, California Community Builders. And strong support.

Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium and support.

Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Housing Housing Zero, so sorry. Housing Action California in support. Thank you.

Louis Morante on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you all. And do we have main opposition? Opposition witnesses? Not seeing anyone. Do we have anyone who is here? In opposition. Not seeing anyone either. All right, so I will bring it back to the Committee Members. We do not have quorum. No. All right. Okay. Not seeing any questions or comments.

I did want to ask Mr. Ward if you'll be taking the Committee amendment.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I have reservations about taking the amendments and I appreciate an opportunity to really lay these on the record because I think it's important for how this Bill were to move forward and the intersection with other legislation now in the Senate.

Let me just state from the outset as well, when I was working on this concept last fall, I recognize that is our common practice that we utilize study groups and we utilize a sort of existing process in how we provide instruction to the Building Standards Commission to be able to update its code.

This is an example where evidence is already on the record very strongly in practice that we can have, I think, as the Turner Center for Housing Innovation has shown, a potential reduction in construction costs for 15% and maybe as high as 30%.

And evidence that no evidence suggesting that this is going to raise costs or complicate, you know, or produce additional mandates as well.

And so if I could wave a wand, this is one that I feel like rises to a level where I would actually like to even skip a study altogether and be able to really try to direct the implementation of this Bill faster, because we need it. We need fast solutions.

Nevertheless, I want to stay consistent with how we operate here, and I do respect our Building Standards Commission and I actually do want to make sure that they're working through some of the technical issues that might come from that kind of conversation to make sure that this works well in all of our communities.

And so moving forward on that, this already puts us at a position, potentially an effective timeline of about three years now, recognizing the intersection of AB. Am I going to get it correct? 306. 306, yeah. Mr.

Schultz's Bill that this Committee has already evaluated, you know, the amendments here are where they adopted now going to push that effective date in that timeline out six years.

And for me, that is uncomfortable, given the situation that we're in, to try to find housing solutions that are going to reduce construction costs and the need to be able to act quickly and urgently. Now, the author, Mr. Schultz, has already stated in his Bill that he wants no conflict in that Bill.

Righteous that his Bill is on its face that is going to compromise other ideas that are going to reduce costs, compromise health and safety standards. And all this is to say we have moved that vehicle forward proudly to be able to have these conversations in the Senate.

So accepting these amendments today, which I am happy to reluctantly do so, I do not want to send a signal to the Senate that I am okay with a six year implementation timeline.

My hope is that we can work that out through some kind of related double jointing language that suggests that these are not in conflict, because in actuality, these are actually trying to move language effect out of the building code and into the Residential code.

This is not meant to complicate or contribute additional mandates to the building code, which I think is the intent of his Bill.

So I'd like to be able to continue to work on that without any sort of signal to the Senate that we are moving a goalpost one way and then should we be successful in working all those out wishing to work all this back.

And they also don't want to send a signal to the Assembly Housing Community Development Committee that I intend to walk back some of these amendments going forward.

And I hope with that understanding that I would be happy to accept these amendments, but I just want to make sure everyone's clear on the record about what the intent is here.

Absolutely. And I appreciate you putting that on the record. And you know, we obviously wanted to remain consistent with what we did with AB 306. But I would fully support if you are able to align these moving forward, making it clear in that Bill that this would be one of the exceptions or moving on a different timeline.

Certainly the goal of both of these efforts is to make it easier to get housing built, to reduce some of these onerous standards and also to have predictability and consistency. And I think that is what you are, you are doing here as well.

So, you know, as it moves forward, we want to make remain consistent here because they'd be in conflict if we move both these bills as is if we can get them aligned moving forward. I think that'd be a great thing and certainly have my support in doing that and continued support in whatever we can do.

I know that that Bill is not done yet either in terms of some of the clarifying language. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You stated it well, for sure.

Great. Well, we don't yet have a quorum, but when we will, I think we will move this Bill out and appreciate your leadership on this. It's incredibly time to get your eye vote. Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we will move on to item number two, which 2 and 3, both by Mr. Alvarez, AB48 and AB76. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Appreciate the opportunity to be before you this morning and present Assembly Bill 48, the College Health and Safety Bond Act, to this Committee. Want to thank the Committee staff for their work on the analysis. Assembly Bill 48 aims to improve facilities at community colleges and universities by providing bond funding for safety upgrades, disaster recovery, and modernization of their facilities. Additionally, this state bond would add student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure to address the student housing crisis. That's the reason we are before your Committee today.

California's public university buildings are aging rapidly with over half of the UC and CSU facilities now more than 30 years old. We are seeing widespread infrastructure failures like broken HVAC systems, outdated wiring, leaking roofs. The list goes on and on. These are not just maintenance issues.

They are disrupting learning, teaching, and research that happens at our institutions. Our systems facing are now facing a combined $17.4 billion deferred maintenance backlog, and it's growing every single year due to rising labor costs and material costs. And the postponement of repairs now going on several decades.

Part of the reason this backlog has ballooned is because state funding has been inconsistent or non-existent. In fact, there's no money allocated for repairs in the current budget, last year's budget, or in the proposed 25-26 budget. The longer we delay, the more it's going to cost.

Minor fixes become major emergencies, forcing campuses to spend even more just to keep buildings functional, let alone modernize them or make them safe. Unlike revenue generating campus facilities like dorms and parking structures, our academic buildings have no dedicated funding for long term renewal.

And on the housing front, we also don't have any kind of funding that allows housing to be built, student housing specifically. That is a major structural gap that we cannot afford to ignore. That is why AB 48 is crucial. It's a necessary investment in our higher education system as a whole, both on the academic side and housing side, that will protect students, support faculty, and preserve the mission of our public universities for the long term. To provide testimony on this today, I'd like to ask Jason Murphy with the UC Office of the President and Anabel Urbina with the CSU.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Murphy on behalf of the University of California here today in strong support of AB 48. We at the University like to thank Assembly Member Alvarez for his efforts to push forward this very important conversation.

As was noted, at the University of California, we have billions of dollars in unfunded capital needs, deferred maintenance, student housing needs, and other projects. As noted in your excellent Committee analysis, the UC has not received a state GEO Bond Fund allocation since 2006. That was when Prop 1D passed that year.

And again, as was noted, the needs have simply continued to extend. At the present time, 60% of our assignable space was built in the last century, over 25 years ago. So the needs are great. The truth is that this bond will not take care of all the University's needs.

However, any amounts that may be forthcoming from this bond will go a long way towards beginning to address the University's needs and hopefully get ourselves as a state back on track with putting forward these types of bonds on a somewhat more frequent basis. So, for all the reasons I state, we again respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Haney and Members. Anabel Urbina with the CSU Chancellor's Office. And it is a pleasure to be here to join our UC colleagues as well as Assembly Member Alvarez in support of this measure. The CSU is proud to support AB 48, which will help finance critical capital renewal projects at both the CSU and UC, as well as the community college educational facilities. These resources would enable the CSU to begin to address the construction, renovation, and renewal facilities throughout our 23 campus system as outlined in our five year capital outlay plan.

California is facing the challenging, the challenge of an aging infrastructure and dire need of renovation and replacement in our community colleges, CSUs, and UCs. At the CSU, more than half of our facility space is 40 years or older and the third being over 50 years.

Our five year capital outlay plan reflects more than 23.9 billion in academic and self support infrastructure projects and 7 billion in critical facilities renewal needs. As noted by the LAO in 2023, our backlog for academic facilities and infrastructure grew by 2.4 billion or 60% between 2017-2022.

AB 48 provides critical funding for our campuses to expand student capacity in classrooms and labs, address fire safety and seismic deficiencies, and to modernize and construct facilities to keep pace with the current technology and workforce needs. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in the room in support of this bill?

Good morning. I'm Janice Barker. I am the mother of a Cal alumni and Foothill Residence Hall student, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Angie Cruz, UC Davis alumna, in support of this bill.

Thank you. All right, is there anyone here in opposition to this bill? Not seeing anyone. Bringing it back to the Committee. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Assembly Member for bringing this forward. We know that our students are going through a housing crisis right now in every corner of our state. Unique law students, UC, CSU, and I know that campuses are taking a more keen approach towards housing, certainly.

I know my local university, San Jose State University, has done some very creative things to create more housing, but partly because there was a period in time in the recent past where it had the highest rate of students that were homeless. And so this is a crisis not only in our general population, certainly, but I think especially for our students who we want them to go to school, we want them to get their education. But even if we make community college free, the largest expense is going to be their housing.

Even if we give assistance and aid at the CSU or UC level, it's that housing for our students and not to mention housing for our faculty housing and ensuring that the workforce on our UC, CSU, community college campuses can live near where they work. That being said, I know that there's still a lot of conversation going on the bill regarding the amount. I know that it's not just for housing for other kinds of facilities.

And I would be curious as the, as the, you know, if the bill moves forward and continues to move on how that conversation evolves because certainly I think that there are almost a limitless amount of infrastructure needs at our campuses, certainly at the CSUs as well.

And so ensuring that the resources are being put forward focusing on housing, how much of it will go to actual housing versus other kinds of infrastructure needs. And so I just wanted to see if you have thoughts on that or is that a part of the evolving conversation?

Thank you very much, and thank you for acknowledging the situation of homeless students. One quarter of our community college students in the State of California are homeless. One out of every 10 CSU student and one out of every 20 UC student. And so those numbers are certainly, I think, speak for themselves. So appreciate you acknowledging that.

That is why in this bond, different than previous higher education bonds, we have included housing. We typically don't include housing as part of facilities bonds for our universities. But as you have said, we're starting to recognize that is part of the entire solution to make sure students get, are successful in their, in their learning.

They've got to be able to have stable housing, and so that is why it's part of it. As far as specific amounts, we have bonding capacity, as you well know. We cannot have an infinite amount of dollars assigned to this. And so what we have asked and what we're working with our systems is to identify sort of top priorities and try to calculate what those numbers would be and then try to figure out total from a bond perspective, what that would be.

And one, do we as a state, given our fiscal situation, can we afford bond payments, repayments, and two, to what extent we can do that. And two, how we could ensure that we help the facilities but also support the housing that we actually have done a few years ago when the state put forward money for housing, but hasn't done now in several years. So that is still something we're trying to figure out what is the right number.

And in some cases, I think that campuses are looking at kind of the mixed use model as well, where they may have kind of ground floor or lower levels for retail, classroom space, laboratory space, other kinds of needs, arts space with housing above it. And I think they have to, especially in the more urban campuses, they have to get more creative in that sense. So I think this kind of bond could touch on a number of different areas there. Thank you.

Thank you. And you also just triggered, you know, the fact that the construction of housing, while it's not a money making operation, is a more sustainable operation for campuses. It's the one thing where there's some revenue to actually maintain them. And whereas academic buildings, that's much more limited. There's no revenue that's being generated. So your line of thinking in terms of how do we creatively deploy these dollars and then sort of have ongoing resources through some revenue with mixed use is absolutely appropriate. Thank you.

Mr. Patterson.

Great, thank you. Portions of the bill I think are laudable and support in terms of finding, potentially, you know, looking at bonding for, how, you know, to help housing around some of the colleges that we have in California. I do have concerns, which probably comes as no surprise to you, around the increased debt limit for property tax assessments for community college districts and school districts.

And maybe I'm miss... You know, don't really understand it, but on the community colleges, it allows the tax burden to potentially go from 2 to 4%. And by the way, we just passed one in my local district. And then unified school districts from one and a quarter to 2%. And so on an assessed value of $500,000, that would increase the potential tax burden on that from the cap of 16,000 to 30,000. And so I think that's a significant potential tax increase.

I don't want to interrupt you, Assembly Member, but we're actually eliminating that from this.

Okay, you should've interrupted me then. That was fun though.

I heard, I heard the concern and I'm glad you're bringing it up to acknowledge it and, we will be...

Just wanted to give you that chance. Is it out, is it coming out in these amendments?

We do not have amendments before us today, but it's definitely coming out.

Okay. All right, great. Well, I'll, just because they're not in there yet, I'll lay off today, but thanks for clarifying that because that's going to be a hard no. All right, thanks.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I support this bill. My area has one of the largest CSUs, Cal State Fullerton. And then of course, I have Fullerton College, Cypress College, and Cerritos College in my district. So we have many, many students going to campus. My support would emphasize prioritizing, because you have a long list of ideas, or upgrade public school facilities for earthquakes, repairing and replace aging public school buildings, provide space for school nurses, counselors. But I really think streamlining the list, affordable housing for students.

Because colleges have built housing. What they haven't done is built affordable housing. So making sure out of this bond that some of these dollars are for affordable housing. I can say that Cal State Fullerton built almost a thousand units, and I don't believe any of those are affordable housing. So then we get into this can we count this housing. I know some cities want to count it for RHNA.

If they're not affordable, they're not affordable for students. Second is, as this moves forward, is really looking at this return to campus. Because we know that there's some facilities that are used regularly, either by students or faculty, and there's others that are not used because students haven't returned or faculty in the way they had pre-pandemic. So really streamlining. Because if you have 20 things on a list, it's better to maybe have five that can really get done with the dollars and really have a focused list. But I do support the bill, and I'm not sure if we can make a motion yet.

Why don't we take a minute to... Oh, Ash just left. All right, we're not quite there yet. Other folks who have... Sorry, were you done? Any other questions? Comments? No. Ms. Caloza.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank the author for his work on this. I know you've done a tremendous amount of work looking out for students, for faculty, for so many people in the education space through the Committee that you chair, and I've seen you in action many times and know that you are taking some of the issues that were raised here into consideration as you continue to work on this bill. And also I want to echo the comments of Assembly Member Quirk-Silva around the affordable housing piece. My district has CSU Los Angeles.

And at the same time that you're putting this forth, we know that there are serious cuts being proposed to these same systems. And so we do really need to look long term about what these investments look like because housing is a huge piece that's closely tied to the education space. And so really proud to support this today and know that you'll continue to work on this and look forward to seeing it go through the process. So thank you for your work and thank you to the sponsors.

Thank you. If I can, Mr. Chair, just respond to the two because you both raised good points, which are currently not specified in the bill. Three years ago and in the role that I have on the Committee that I serve as Chair, Education Finance, we were reviewing the grants that were provided to universities for building of, construction of student housing from, again, three years ago.

And one of the things we did there, which you've reminded me, and I appreciate your input right now, was that affordability, specifically set aside of affordability, was important in the ranking of those applications for those funds to build housing for students. And so I appreciate you bringing it up. It reminds me of that and certainly want to work on that to ensure that there's affordability. Thank you for bringing that up.

Thank you so much, Mr. Alvarez, for your leadership on this. Certainly it's a critical need and especially seeing that we haven't had a bond since 2006, there's a huge need for these funds to provide the support broadly to our campuses and particularly adding the housing piece.

I know that there was a recent study that showed that students are spending more on housing than on tuition, and investing in housing is so critically important. Also, you and I have spoken about this as well. And adding into the to the pieces of this that I hope that we can include in this moving forward is the opportunities that exist to bring some of these facilities and some of this housing into our downtown areas, into our commercial areas.

It doesn't make sense for every campus, but I think there's a huge opportunity to move away to some degree for some campuses, from the sort of fortress on a hill version of a campus to one that's more integrated with communities that provides educational opportunities and housing opportunities that are win wins for our cities across our state. We're seeing more and more efforts to do that by our campuses and so want to make sure that we're supporting that as well, especially as some of our downtowns are maybe struggling to recover in various ways post pandemic.

There's a wide understanding that there's huge opportunities there for educational purposes, for higher education, and wanting to make sure that's a part of the vision here, including possibly adaptive reuse, where we have some of these vacant commercial buildings or historic buildings that could be converted to educational use, in some cases even ones that the state has ownership over. So we could do it for cheaper, we could do it in a win win way, and I think offers huge educational opportunities for students as well. So hopefully we can have your commitment to add some aspect of that as an aspect of what is in this bond.

Absolutely. And thank you for bringing that up. It's truly, what I like to talk about in the higher education work that I do, it's about access. And being in places that are not just main campuses is about access. And to Ms. Quirk-Silva's point also, especially, you know, Fullerton, multiple campuses, but Fullerton is one of them.

As there is demand and growth, we need to identify how that's going to happen in a sustainable way and identifying partnerships and other types of ideas to look to places like perhaps downtowns to do that is appropriate. And we will be working to identify the right language to make sure that that's acknowledged.

Thank you so much. And I'll give you the opportunity to close there.

With that, thank you. As the Chair just stated, more money is now being spent by students on housing than on tuition to attend our universities. It is the biggest cost driver for affordability of college. I think the state has a critical role to play in ensuring that that is addressed.

There's a big investment, not just the housing, but certainly the other amenities that need to be and the infrastructure that needs to be upgraded for our community colleges, our UCs, our CSUs, our public institutions, which is what drives our economy still here in California. For that reason, I respectfully asked for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And I would also love to be added as a, as a co-author of this as well. And we don't yet quite have quorum. We're missing one more person. But at the right time, we'll take a motion in a second on that and I'll allow you to move to your next bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Assembly Bill 76 is our next item before you today. And I want to share briefly some of the history. This is again in the higher education space now a little bit closer to home to the community that I represent,

City of Chula Vista, where over 30 years ago the city began a process to bring a University to the region with its General Development Plan. And it has taken 30 years to acquire 383 acres of land and codify these efforts through its Sectional Planning Area Plan, which outlines the creation of the University Innovation District.

Developing a University campus in Chula Vista will go a long way in addressing the lack of access to education in our region where well over 600,000 people reside. And it's the largest city in California and the only city with a population over 200,000 where there is no university or offerings of Bachelor's degrees in the entire state.

So I like to refer to communities like that as a College Desert and this is about addressing the College Desert and the needs that exist in our community.

AB- In 2022, I introduced AB 837 which ensured that the City of Chula Vista had an exemption from the Surplus Lands Act for the land that had been acquired, as I shared with you over the course of 30 years that created the now known as University Innovation.

The bill mandated that the piece of land would only be used for the specific purpose identified, along with requiring that significant housing development, including affordable housing, was part of the project.

This bill, AB 76, clarifies that the affordable housing requirement does not extend to units designated for students, faculty or university employees due to restrictions that are unfortunately placed on them by federal regulations.

More importantly, we must acknowledge though that AB 76 does not reduce the total housing that is expected to be built in the University Innovation District, but it enables the city to better align housing development with all of the university plans, the academic buildings side of the development.

This legislative adjustment is essential to support Chula Vista's efforts in establishing the four year presence of a University in South County while simultaneously addressing housing needs that the university community will have and that the community at large wants.

I accepted community- committee amendments in the Assembly Local Government Committee which address the minimum number of affordable housing units to be constructed and established the requirements for student housing that will be counted towards the minimum density of housing that is going to be within the exem- exemption.

With that, I want to thank you for your time and I'd like to introduce our witness Michelle Rubalcava representing the City of Chula Vista.

Good morning Mr. Chair Members. As Assemblymember Alvarez said, my name is Michelle Rubalcava and I represent the City of Chula Vista and I'm here today to ask you to support AB 76 which will allow the City of Chula Vista to continue implementing its 30 year vision of developing a binational multi institution University Innovation District.

The City of Chula Vista is located at the center at one of the richest cultural, economics and environmental- environmentally diverse zones in the country. The city has had many hard earned accolades, among them being a leader in addressing climate change and a top producer of diverse quality housing.

In fact, the city has so much housing that it has created a job to housing imbalance that leads over 80% of its population to leave the city every morning and to commute to job centers in more northern parts of San Diego. County.

From 2001 to 2014, the city worked hard to assemble the 383 acres of land through a combination of land offer agreements, land exchanges and agreements with developers for the University Innovation District. In 2018, the University Innovation District Sectional Planning Area Plan and Environmental Impact Report were adopted which completed entitlements for the city owned site.

In addition to entitling the University Innovation District land prior to Jan 1, 2019 when the Surplus Land Act was amended through AB 1486, the land was acquired subject to privately imposed covenants that require it to be used for this purpose.

In 2022, the city secured a statutory exemption for the projects to ensure they could continue working with development and university partners. The bill before you today seeks to clarify requirements of the exemption.

AB 76 will ensure the city can bring a much needed university to south county and still require thousands of housing units are built, including thousands of units for students and hundreds of affordable housing units.

The language before you reaffirms the city's intent to develop the University Innovation District in a manner consistent with the existing land use entitlements for the project and ensure production of affordable housing. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Is anyone else who is here in support of this bill? Seeing anyone. Is there anyone in opposition? Not seeing anyone, bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Patterson.

I just have a question. Does this- this bill doesn't- This just allows another option basically for surplus land disposition. It doesn't require that it go first to students, teachers and things like that?

No. So this is a change to an amendment that we already got to create an exemption to the Surplus Lands Act. As was mentioned, the almost 400 acres were acquired by the city over the course of a lot of years in agreements with developers who were developing around there.

And so when the Surplus Lands Act came to be a requirement, meaning that if you're a public agency and you own land, you have to make it affordable, make it available exclusively and only for housing. It kind of, through what had been a 30 year process, totally derailed it.

And so we had to bring forward an amendment to make sure that we exempted those 400 acres so that it wouldn't be used only for housing, but instead be used for the academic buildings and the housing as well.

So this just creates technical changes to make sure that we don't conflict with some federal rules on what kind of housing we can count as affordable.

Okay, great. Sounds good. Thank you.

Give me the opportunity to close.

Thank you. Appreciate you all this is definitely something we've been working on. You- You'll- You won't, you'll get tired of hearing of bills that I have related to our Chula Vista University work that we're doing and I'm proud to do that work. It's really important work and I appreciate you hearing this today and aye vote on this.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I- I- I- I am not tired of it. I'm- I'm very impressed by how relentless you have been in- in leading and I very much look forward to the day that- that this vision is- is realized and you will be a huge part of it.

And so I really commend you and your leadership and- and very happy to support this bill at the appropriate time. And thanks again.

Thank you, everybody.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Alright. We will now move to item number four. Mr. Carrillo, thank you for your patience. AB 595.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 595. First, I'd like to accept the Committee's amendments. Thank you to the Committee staff for working with my office on this Bill.

The Building Homeownership for All Act establishes a state level homeownership tax credit pilot program to increase the supply of affordable for sale homes across California. We do know that homeownership is one of the most powerful tools for building generational wealth, creating economic stability, and strengthening communities.

Yet California is facing the lowest homeownership rate since the 1940s and the path to owning a home has become nearly impossible for low and moderate income families, especially those in black and Latino communities. And to put it in perspective, in 1969 the average home costs about 2.6 times the average annual salary.

By 2020, the ratio had jumped to 8.5 times. At the same time, homeownership rates for black and Latino Californians lacked 26% and 19% behind white households. That gap isn't accidental. It is the result of decades of this investment and redlining. And the state has a responsibility to address it head on.

Current state housing finance programs like LIHTC are almost entirely focused on rental housing. And while down payment assistance programs like Dream4All are important, they don't produce new for sale housing. That's where AB595 comes in. This Bill fills a major gap at creating a tool to support the construction of new affordable homes that people can actually buy.

We've already seen the demand. The Dream for All program's 250 million allocation was fully claimed in just 11 days. Californians are ready to buy. They just need the inventory and affordability to meet them. AB 595 is more on proven federal tools like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.

It would support affordable homeownership developers in financing projects that would otherwise not pencil out. Especially when communities hard hit by displacement, disinvestment or climate disasters. The economic case is strong too. For every 100 homes built, over 60 million in local income, taxes and revenue are generated along over 200 jobs, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

AB595 is a smart equity driven investment that strengthens families, neighborhoods and California's long term housing landscape. With me today I have Adam Briones with California Community Builders and Esmeralda Lopez with Unidos US.

Good morning Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. My name is Adam Brionis and I'm CEO of California Community Builders, a nonprofit working to close the racial wealth gap, focusing on housing and home ownership. I'm here today as a proud co-sponsor of AB595.

While I run a policy and research organization today, I spent the first half of my career as an affordable housing developer. I can say confidently that no state consistently builds homes that working class families can afford to buy. The reason no one builds these homes is simple. Money to finance construction of affordable homeownership has not historically existed at scale anywhere.

AB595 is an important first step towards addressing this problem. A pilot financing program to maximize homeownership opportunities while minimizing taxpayer resources.

AB595 will be modeled on housing finance tools that already exist and can be adapted to the problem at hand, including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program or the LIHTC program and the New Markets Tax Credit Program which is used to finance community development projects.

These programs leverage the creativity and discipline of the private market and importantly generate a significant amount of private capital without continually tapping the General Fund. If passed, AB 595 will decrease the gap between resources available to build affordable rental projects compared to affordable homeownership.

Since 2020, CalHome, one of the only sources of funding for affordable homeownership production, has received about 15 cents for every dollar allocated to the state LIHTC program.

To be clear though, affordable rentals and affordable home ownership are both essential, which is why AB595 includes language that this pilot program shall not result in a decrease in funding for programs that support rental housing. AB 595 represents one important step in making our shared value of homeownership a reality for working families.

Thank you for your consideration on this important measure and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Esmeralda Lopez and I'm the California State Director for Unidos US, the nation's largest Latino civil rights organization.

And in addition to our office in Los Angeles and staff here in Sacramento, we also have an affiliate network of 76 community based organizations throughout the State of California that invest more than 1.9 billion and employ 17,000 in the state and also have been serving about 2.6 million Californians annually.

I have been advocating for issues impacting Latinos for about 14 years and I'm here today as a proud co sponsor of AB595 because it will expand affordable homeownership opportunities for middle and low income Californians and it creates a tax by creating a tax credit program for Home builders constructing income restricted for sale homes. Unidos has had a long commitment to expanding homeownership opportunities because we know that it's a pathway to building generational wealth and the most important pathway for Latinos and in the state. Our research has shown that there's 1.9 million mortgage ready Latinos that are aged 18 to 45 in California.

But for years the home prices have been growing at a much faster rate than salaries. California's current home prices, as we all know here, are very out of reach for a lot of Californians, and this week Unidos released a poll of Hispanic voters.

And we found that in California, pocketbook issues continue to be the top issues of concern in the first 100 days of the new administration at the national level, including housing, of course, decades of discriminatory housing practices mean that communities of color have even lower rates of homeownership.

With African American rates at 26.0 percent lower and Latino homeownership rates at 19% lower than white Californians. AB 595 is an important step to making the dream of homeownership a reality for those who too often are left behind. And we appreciate the Assembly Member Carrillo's leadership on this issue and commitment to consistently expanding homeownership opportunities.

And thank you for your consideration. And we ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the room who wants to express their support for this Bill? Just name, position, and affiliation, please.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members, Elise Forth here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners and support.

Chair and Members of the Committee, Sosin Madden at W Strategies here on behalf of California YIMBY proud co-sponsor and support, thank you.

Linda Wanner with the California Catholic Conference is strong support.

Shamus Scaredy with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity of California, and spur in strong support.

Joshua Bruxen, South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth, strong support.

Steve Sianas, proud Californian. Proud support as well, thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here who is in opposition to this Bill? Not seeing anyone. We will first establish quorum.

Haney. Here. Haney, here. Patterson. Here. Patterson, here. Avila Farias. Caloza. Here. Caloza, here. Garcia. Here. Garcia, here. Kalra. Here. Kalra, here. Lee. Here. Lee, here. Quirk-Silva. Here. Quirk-Silva, here. TA. Wicks. Here. Wicks, here. Wilson.

All right, we have a quorum. Then bring it back to the Committee. I have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. And I wanted to confirm that you're taking the Committee amendments.

Yes, I do take the Committee amendments. Thank you.

All Right. Give you an opportunity to close.

I simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your leadership. This is incredibly important. I think it's shocking to see the. How low the levels of homeownership are in our state and how they've continued to decline. I think this is a critically important effort and intervention to support reversing that.

And obviously our state is not doing enough to support homeownership and really want to appreciate you and your leadership. And so we can take a roll call vote on a Bill.

Motion do pass is amended to the Assembly Committee on appropriations. Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson. Aye. Patterson, aye. Avila Farias. Caloza. Aye. Caloza, aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia, aye. Kalra. Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Quirk-Silva. Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ta. Wicks. Aye. Wicks, aye. Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. All right, we have a motion on the consent calendar, second seconded by Caloza. Take a vote on the consent calendar and then Mr. Gibson will go to you. Early bird gets the worm here, the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

8 to 0. Right. Consent calendar is approved. All right, we'll go to item number 16, AB 1165. Gibson, welcome.

Thank you very much. My witness. Okay, here they come. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members, proud to present this. This bill before you, Assembly Bill 1165 to the Chairman and to the Committee. What I'm presenting to you today, 1165. It's the California Housing Justice Act of 2025. And let me say this.

On any given night, over 187,000, underscore 187,000 Californians don't have a home. They're sleeping in tents, mobile homes in my district and cars. And I was even go as far as to say these same individuals are sleeping under bridge, off ramps, on ramps. I saw homeless individuals just in Los Angeles. Six.

I count six people on the freeway and living on our freeways. This is totally unacceptable. Let me say this. My godson is part of the 187,000 people who are unhoused, who is homeless, who's living on the streets of Los Angeles.

And when I would go home on Thursdays, going back to my district leaving Southwest, leaving Los Angeles Airport. The first place I would go is Manchester. Excuse me, Which Western and Gage. Why Man- Why Gage and Western? Because there's a crack house there.

And I would- as a state Assemblymember go to that crack house and pull his ass out. That's what I would do. Risking my own self being exposed by law enforcement because it's a known crack house. You see, he lost his mother and father both at 6 years old.

And no one provided the mental help and the support. Losing both parents at 6 years old. Can you imagine what a 6 year old child had to go through? Losing both mother and father. And then his life started to spiral out. And during the pandemic he wound up on my doorstep needing a place to stay.

I took him to a motel where we got a voucher. And guess what? My godson couldn't even write his name. And today he still lives on the streets of Los Angeles.

I know he's not dead for the simple fact, because I have already contacted the coroner's office and told them who I am and asked him if anyone's matching his description, please contact me. That's what I live with. But there are so many people in California that lives the same way. Oh, I forgot to tell you.

Since 2000- I was elected in 2014, but in 2015-2019, I spent the night every first Thursday in the month of March, because in Los Angeles, that's the coldest month of record. I spent the night with homeless individuals, the only Member out of 120 Members in this house that spend the night with homeless people, along with my team.

And I could not begin to tell you or express to you what we had to go through. Guns being pulled on us because homeless people are vulnerable, because they have money, because they beg for it, or they have items that other people need in order to sell, in order to get drugs.

And I've seen the proliferation from my eyes. So when I speak today, I'm not talking about something that someone told me, not something I read in newspaper, saw on the news. I lived it. Even if for 24 hours. I can sit here with authority to talk about the homeless crisis in the State of California firsthand.

While I appreciate the significant investment that the state has made since 2018 in housing affordability and homeless programs, the- the California Budget Policy Center has noted states investment less than watch this 0.5% of the budget goes as it relates to an investment in solving this homeless crisis in the Golden State, California.

The place we sit in right now, the fourth largest economy in the State of- in the- in the world, California. Short term investment in housing via bonds and one time surplus fundings have provided needs- needed emergency response and the money in fact matters.

However, at a time when the Trump Administration is promising devastating cuts will replace thousands of California displaced thousands of California wildfires that have destroyed thousands of homes in Los Angeles have placed added pressure on affordability and more people are falling into homelessness than ever before. Now is the time that California can really truly lead the way.

And I believe this bill, this measure, 1165, is that policy that will lead the way. We've created- This is a paradigm shift in California.

We're going to think out of the box and do something that we never tried before because my brothers and my sisters although may not be connected to me by DNA or biologically, but they're still my brothers and my sisters and we take this seriously.

The Housing Justice Act gives us a strategic roadmap to end homelessness in California and housing affordability crisis that we are faced with. This act also directs an ongoing funding and calls for accountability, which a lot of programs we Fund don't have the accountability or the guardrails or the off ramps like this bill does.

And it's called for California to invest in what it- it takes to solve our homeless crisis. Simply put, it calls on the state to lead on housing and the way that we have- we- we've led in climate and environmental issues with technology and also medicine research.

It requires the state to assess what it will take to solve housing unaffordability and homelessness and then invest in resources that's much needed for Californians to address this crisis. We must commit an ongoing funding. Let me underscore this. We must commit to ongoing funding, not just one time funding.

We cannot solve this crisis that we call homelessness with a one time only funding. So with me are very authoritative people who I'm happy to have sit with me.

A representative, a professor from the Medicine of UC San Francisco who was self introduced and also a justice active- activist from the Homeless and Housing Initiative who also self introduced. Professor?

Thank you. Good morning committee members. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide some background on this bill today. I'm Margot Kushel. I'm a Professor of medicine at UCSF where I direct the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.

This bill would require California to begin to make annual ongoing investments to address California's homelessness crisis and to develop a financing plan to solve housing and homelessness crises. To understand why the numbers of people experiencing homelessness haven't decreased, despite California's recent historic investments, I think it's important to understand three things. First is that homelessness is by definition dynamic.

It is not one set of people who we can just house and be done, but rather, as you house one person, new people fall into homelessness. Homelessness is really driven by the disconnect between housing costs and incomes

for the 1.3 million extremely low income households- rental households in California, we currently have still only 24 units of housing affordable and available for every 100 ELI households. So we remain having a gap of a million units.

Second, California's recent investments come after years of virtually limited or no state funding, and importantly, alongside steep decreases in federal funding for housing insecurity and homelessness. So despite our recent investments, we are still funding this problem at historic lows. And finally, as has been mentioned, almost all of our funding has been one time funding.

Less than 0.5% of this state's budget is for ongoing funding.

So there is a lot of good that you can do with one time funding, but it really doesn't provide the ability to ramp up and maintain the systems that build and sustain affordable housing units, allow social services to scale up their staffing, and provide the sustained financial assistance that people need to remain stably housed.

The funding that has been allocated has done a lot of good. 57,000 people moved into housing over the last two years. And our homelessness count, as bad as it is, is actually better than the other states in the country. So don't mistake the lack of improvement here for a lack of it having worked.

But really we still need to do more and we need to make it ongoing. We actually do know how to end this crisis. It is hard, but it is doable. But it will take sustained investments at all levels of government.

We know that we need to increase the supply of housing that's affordable and available to the lowest income households. We know that we need both aggressive homelessness prevention and diversion efforts, which often need flexible funding streams that can be deployed quickly.

We know that we need permanent rental subsidies for many and for those with behavioral health crises, we need both this permanent rental subsidies and ongoing services and supports. So we have made good progress, but we started from a very deep deficit and our investments thus far have staved off an even worse problem.

But we need to continue these efforts and make them ongoing. Thank you.

Oh, my name is Pinky Toney. I'm board chair of an Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. I have my script here, but clearly when other people write your script, it doesn't tell the truth. When I lost my home, I lost my hope. I've been homeless three times. I'm 40 years old.

First time was eight years is after I got kicked out of college. Wasn't my fault. Second time was with my kids. Again, wasn't my fault. The housing that we are requiring and that is well needed here in the State of California is beyond a crisis. I work with the unhoused every day.

I lost my sister in law two years ago. Froze to death right there on 65th Street. Her husband three months later, same thing, froze to death in the City of Sacramento.

AB 1165 not only will keep the funding going but it will be long term and it will help not only folks coming off of being unhoused, but having those resources to support them throughout their housing and throughout those whatever programs are needed is well needed. I know from experience in a person who's.

When I, I'm going to say it like this. When I lost my house, it wasn't because of drugs, it wasn't because of mental health. It's because I fought in- for fair housing.

It wasn't until later down the road staying awake at night to keep make sure my kids were safe at night is when the drugs started, is when the mental health started. Okay, I'm 14 years clean. I got myself back on the right path.

This bill right here, AB 1165 is the right path and I'm asking for all of your guys as a vote on this today because it is well needed and I'm hoping that it gets passed because I, as a peer support specialist as well, am gonna be one of those providers that are gonna be out there helping these unhoused folks getting back on their feet and into housing.

But we can't do that without the funding. Thank you.

Good morning chair and members. Sharon Report with Corporation for Supportive Housing, one of the sponsors of the bill. I'm just here to answer any technical questions about the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who is here in support of this bill? Name, affiliation, position please.

My name is Divya Shiv with Housing California. Also speaking on behalf of PATH and the national alliance to End Homelessness, in support.

Justin Yada, California Housing Partnership, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Carmen Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU California Action, proud co sponsor. Thank you sir. Thank you Ms. Toney for your vulnerability. We appreciate you.

Hi everyone. Serafina Johnson with Housing Now California. Also speaking in- on behalf of Tina Rosales from Western Center on Law and Poverty and Shaunti Tsai from Tennis Together and urge your aye vote.

Kate Phibe, legal aid of Sonoma County, in strong support.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Our letter didn't arrive on time, but we're in support. Thank you for this work. Thank you.

Alright, do we have anyone who is here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. I'll bring it back to the committee. Ms. Wilson.

Thank you Assemblymember, just one follow up question. Reading the letter that was submitted in opposition and I didn't understand one particular point and maybe you can provide clarity. It talks about the conversion of entry level or market rate housing into affordable housing. I didn't necessarily see that within your language.

So I understand the intent of financing plan and how do we address homelessness and the lack of affordable housing? Was your intent to use these resources in any way to convert current market rate to affordable or transitional housing or anything like that?

Thank you for the question, assemblymember. I could answer that.

It might be helpful to. It's okay, don't look at me, but I want to make sure people can hear you.

It's not in the bill. I'm- I'm not quite clear on why they submitted that opposition letter, but there's nothing in the bill that talks about converting either homeownership units or existing market rate units into rental housing.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification. And then noting too, asking the author. This- I know it's about a plan to create, but it also doesn't include any identification of funding. Was there a budget request put into this or your intent is just really focused on the planning aspect and then later for this to be funded?

That is correct.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your question.

I'll make the motion if it hasn't been made already.

We have a motion.

And a second, you may close. Again, thank you very much to the chair, committee and committee staff for working with us and also to my witness. And again, thank you very much for the just being more vulnerable. And certainly I'm being vulnerable as a state assemblymember because I think it's important.

We're- This is- If you don't know anyone that's homeless, you will. You will know someone that is homeless, whether it's your neighbor's kid down the street or someone who just lost their job. We're living in unpredictable times. Which needs- Which- Which calls for actions that we've possibly never thought of.

But we need to put those actions in place in order to create a safety net. I want to thank our Governor and the Legislature and the leadership for one, the investment, the bold investments they've made thus far. I think we can go further.

Even- Even though every survey, survey after survey have shown that voters care about housing affordability and solving the homeless crisis in the State of California, the state hasn't fulfilled its obligation and it takes bold action in order for us to one really create an opportunity for us to start seeing numbers decrease as relates to homelessness, the unhoused in the State of California.

I wanted to leave and close with this quote. The true measure of our- of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. Homeless- Homelessness is a cry for justice, a call for compassion, and a challenge to all of our collective consciousness. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Mr. Gipson, for- for your leadership, for working with us and for your- your bold vision here. I think considering the scale of- of the challenge we are facing, we need these big ideas and we need leadership and we need the moral urgency. And so I'm proud to support this and move it forward.

I think we have a motion and a second so we can go ahead and take a vote on this one.

We can do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [ROLL CALL] 10 to 0.

All right, 10 to 0. Thank you very much. All right, so I'm going to call item number five, AB609 Wicks. While we're doing that though, I want to get some votes out of the way here bills that we already heard, so. Oh, sorry. 9 to 0 on AB 1165.

Is there a motion and a second on item 186 Ward. Moved by Lee, seconded by Kalra. Vote on that, please.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that open for absent Members. Item number two. Alvarez, AB48. Do we have a motion? A second motion by Kalra. Seconded by Lee. Item 2.

[Roll Call]

We're not voting. AB 76. Item number three. Alvarez. Motion. A second move by Karlra. Seconded by Quirk-Silva.

[Roll Call]

All right. 10. Zero. Last one here. Item number four. AB595. Carrillo. Motion and a second. All right, it's over to you. Item number five. AB609. Wicks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to start off by thanking the Chair and the Committee for working with us on the proposed amendments. I am happy to accept them today.

These amendments would ensure that projects near freeways would require enhanced air filtration, make it clear that density bonus law applies to these projects, and ensure that this bill would not apply to designated historical resources. As you know, I spent all of last year chairing the Select Committee on Permitting Reform.

That committee looked at how our permitting processes affect our ability to address both the housing and climate crisis. We held four hearings with 16 hours of testimony and interviewed over 100 experts, including those who are on the receiving end of permits, those who issue permits, and academic experts who study this issue.

Earlier this year, we released the final report and you won't be shocked at the conclusion. We're really bad at issuing permits in California. Almost without exception, our permitting processes are time-consuming, opaque, confusing and favor process over outcomes.

The result is that despite our noble goals and best intentions, we're never going to be able to address our housing and climate crisis unless we fundamentally reform our permitting process.

Based on the work of that report, I helped facilitate the creation of the Fast Track Housing Package, which consists of 22 bills, several authored by members of this Committee, including our Chair, that systematically look to fix the flaws in the permitting process for housing from the developer's application for a project approval, through the entitlement process, post-entitlement process, and even the legal process.

AB 609 is one of those bills in the Fast Track Housing Package that seeks to address a core challenge with permitting housing in environmentally friendly locations: CEQA. CEQA, otherwise known as the California Environmental Quality Act.

It is America's premier environmental protection law, which for over 50 years has helped slow or stall countless bad projects that would have harmed the environment and the communities that live around them. But it's a very blunt tool and in that time it has helped slow or stall countless good projects as well.

I'm talking about housing projects in particular. Even more specifically, I'm talking about housing projects in existing communities near people's jobs and schools that are not located in environmentally hazardous or sensitive locations. How does CEQA hurt these projects? Because CEQA doesn't distinguish between projects that are good for the environment or bad.

It's the same process for an apartment building next to a train station for our teachers and nurses as it would be if you were going to use the same piece of land for fracking for oil.

Because CEQA can be redundant. CEQA is already undertaken at the plan level and to review all the legislation that shapes these rules that apply to housing projects. And yet, when a housing development that complies with all of those rules and regulations is proposed, it has to undergo CEQA all over again.

Finally, because CEQA is so easy to weaponize. For a nominal fee, absolutely anyone can challenge the validity of CEQA analysis for years and years and years.

Sometimes this challenge is on real environmental grounds, but more often than not, the challenge is based on other goals, whether it's NIMBY neighbors seeking to kill an affordable housing project or our friends in labor seeking to leverage a project labor agreement or competing businesses hoping to undermine their competition.

I can't blame folks for using CEQA in this way. It's a tool and they'd be foolish not to use it. But I can point out the effect or the impact, which is to say that it's way too uncertain and time consuming to build housing in California.

On average, it takes four years to build housing in this state and much longer for larger projects or projects in particularly difficult cities to build, like San Francisco.

According to a recent RAND study, this uncertainty and delay are often the number one driving cost for housing in California and the key reason it costs 80% more to build in California than it does in Colorado and almost three times more than Texas. We know the housing market goes through booms and bust cycles, but when the booms come, it still takes years.

Well, that's why we have the housing crisis we do where particularly no one can afford their home. And why lower income people are squeezed out by rent prices and leaving the state in droves. And in large part why we have the national politics we do today. It's not just me who is seeing this.

Every Governor since Ronald Reagan who signed CEQA into law has called for its reforms. And in 2023, the esteemed Little Hoover Commission put out a report on CEQA, highlighting the same challenges I just laid out and concluded in its recommendations that the state, "create a broad simplified exemption for infill housing."

AB 609 is a broad simplified exemption for infill housing. The Commission continued this exemption would apply both in cities and in urbanized areas, non-incorporated areas. The Commission suggested that for purposes of this exemption, infill housing should be understood as that which is developed on sites that are at least 3/4 surrounded by urban use areas.

This requirement should ensure that the exemption does not promote additional urban sprawl and should prevent greenfield developments from being able to take advantage of this exemption. AB 609 does exactly that.

The Commission's recommendations concluded with the following quote, "the Commission appreciates the importance of the policy questions about labor conditions, displacement and gentrification, and public input on the shape of community development. These are important issues, but they should not be a part of environmental analysis with respect to infill housing.

Instead, these are all issues that can and should be addressed through the planning process or through specific laws and regulations, whether at the local level or state level." I could not agree more. AB 609 is an essential part of the fast tracking housing package.

It is the key to our state's ability to build housing and existing communities in an environmentally friendly way so that we can simultaneously solve our state's housing crisis without exacerbating our climate crisis. Which is why I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With me here to testify is Michael Tubbs, Executive Director of the End Poverty in California organization and Jordan Grimes with the environmentally nonprofit leaned organization Greenbelt Alliance. Also with me here to answer questions is Andrew Sabey, one of the state's leading CEQA experts.

Good morning Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. I'm Michael Tubbs, former Mayor of Stockton, founder of End Poverty in California, and here with enthusiastic support for AB 609.

I think in hearing what the Assemblymember said, I would just add that given what our state is and what we represent, we know there's nothing progressive about process for process sake. We know there's nothing progressive about scarcity.

We know that we have to build over 300,000 homes a year and we know the status quo just isn't working.

And as the Assemblymember mentioned, CEQA is not terrible, but it can be used in terrible ways, particularly to delay, as we're trying to rectify in this bill, housing that's environmental friendly, housing that's deeply needed, housing that you hear from your constituents all the time.

We've been up and down the state, whether it's in LA or Stockton or coastal cities, et cetera. And the cry is always the same that the rent's too high, I can't afford housing, I want to buy a house, but I can't get it. And part of that is because of a supply issue.

With this bill, we have the opportunity to do something big, something that's been talked about for decades, but to actually do it. And as we've seen what's happening at the national level, we know that folks are expecting us to deliver, are expecting us to do more than platitudes, are expecting more than tweets.

They expect outcomes, they expect production. And AB 609 allows us to do this. I would urge a strong, strong and unanimous vote for this and really show the hard working people of California that we see the issues, that we hear the issues, that we're actually willing to do things differently, to disrupt the status quo, to actually solve some of these problems. So thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Jordan Grimes, and I'm the State and Regional Resilience Manager for Greenbelt Alliance. We're an environmental nonprofit that has, for the last 67 years, worked to conserve and protect the natural and working lands of the Bay Area.

One thing that we've learned over time, being effective conservationists requires us to be as zealous in our advocacy for infill housing as we are for our climate and natural resources. The primary driver of sprawl and the destruction of landscapes in our state is the demand for new homes.

And to combat that, we simply must be ardent champions of making it easier to build housing in our existing communities. CEQA was born in an era of immense environmental harm. When Californians were quite literally choking on our own air, we saw real injury and a real need to defend ourselves.

CEQA was and remains a landmark protection, and we are rightly proud of it. But apartments are not pollution. Today, our environmental crisis looks different. Greenhouse gases warm our planet and microplastics fill our oceans. We face ballooning housing costs, yet we continue to lose more than 50,000 acres of farmland every year to sprawl.

Meanwhile, CEQA, as currently applied, has, in ways, become part of the problem. It was designed to assume the worst, to assume harm from all projects without delineating between typologies, a warehouse or new oil well in a low income community is fundamentally not the same as an affordable housing project near transit.

One worsens environmental harm, the other helps alleviate it. Under CEQA, however, both face the same burdens, and that is neither sustainable nor equitable. AB 609 is a simple and straightforward fix, a scalpel, not a shotgun, one that doesn't dismantle CEQA but helps to modernize it.

It creates a list of criteria and exempts beneficial projects that meet them from risk and uncertainty. Put simply, it updates our environmental protections to reflect the challenges that we face today and the solutions we know work to prevent harm and to deliver good. Curbing the misuse of CEQA is essential to making this shift possible.

I urge this committee and fellow environmentalists to view this bill not as a threat to CEQA, but as an evolution of it, as a way to strengthen the law we cherish so we can all meet the moment we're in. Thank you so much for your time today.

Thank you both. Are there other folks who are here in support of this bill? List your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good morning Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in support. Thank you.

Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal and on behalf of California YIMBY, a proud co-sponsor of the bill, in strong support. Thank you so much.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

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

Shamus Scaredy with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Sandhills Habitat for Humanity of California, the Council of Infill Builders, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, SPUR and Fieldstead, in strong support.

Keith Coolidge on behalf of AARP California in strong support.

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

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in strong support.

Adam Briones, California Community Builders, in strong support.

Chair, Members, and staff. Don Wilcox on behalf of the California Conference of Carpenters. We appreciate working, continue to work with the author on an important bill. Thanks.

Thank you. Mark Neuburger, California State Association of Counties, in support.

Linda Wanner with the California Catholic Conference in support.

Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Bay Area Council, a proud co-sponsor in support.

Good morning. Chris Lee on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in support.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Dr. Josh Albrektson on behalf of South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth in support.

Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in support.

Angie Cruz, just supporting.

Janice Barker, supporting.

Thank you all. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition to this bill? If we can make some room here, we may need one more chair there too.

Can we hear? Is this good? Okay. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Chair of the Committee, my name is Jonathan Pruitt representing the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Our alliance advocates for deeply affordable housing when it's paired with anti-displacement measures and environmental remediation and mitigation.

Unfortunately, AB 609 continues to go down that path that fails to prioritize those important social equity and public health outcomes. And so CEQA, as we understand, is one of those few tools available for disadvantaged communities to participate in the public decision making process, but AB 609 furthers limits their right to democratic participation in local land use decision making.

CEQA's environmental review process protects disadvantaged communities by requiring that project proponents they do present alternatives and mitigation measures for projects with adverse health and environmental impacts. Unfortunately, under AB 609, community members would have no right to comment on the environmental and public health effects of those proposed large scale projects, no matter how egregious the impacts may be.

And as a result, EJ organizations would lose the ability to inquire if developers are doing their due diligence to implement appropriate mitigation measures that can address those specific adverse effects or to seek direct remedies or benefits to affected low income neighborhoods. In short, the communities most impacted by housing shortage and environmental health impacts are not protected by this bill. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, everybody. My name is Jennifer Ganata. I'm the legal department co-director of Communities for a Better Environment. CBE is an environmental justice organization based out of Southeast LA in LA County and Wilmington in the City of Los Angeles, East Oakland, and Richmond.

I also want to say, I thank the author for accepting the amendments. I know that those were amendments that we had also worked on in AB 2243, so we do appreciate that. I think though, as my colleague Jonathan had mentioned, what we are still concerned about are issues of affordability.

I've been sitting here this morning and I've heard everyone talk about affordability, and I see what's in this bill that's missing is any mention of affordability. I think that part, along with not having any anti-displacement measures, it really is a huge concern for environmental justice communities.

In addition to us having the ability to comment on projects that happen within EJ communities, we also deeply think about how do we actually envision our communities further. What does the future look like for environmental justice communities where we fought for remediation and we fought for clean water and clean air?

How do we also make sure that the residents we fought alongside get to stay in those communities? And so we look forward to talking to the author and the sponsors for further amendments. I think right now where we're at is still we have those concerns and we would like those concerns to be addressed.

Thank you. Are there other folks who are here in opposition to this bill or who are in a tweener kind of position?

Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Polder, Beverly-Vermont Community Land Trust, and Homies in opposition. Thank you.

Raquel Mason asked to register opposition for Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles and Esperanza Community Housing. Thank you.

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

Good morning. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers. We are in respectful opposition but look forward to continuing the ongoing discussions with the author. Thank you.

Hi. I think I'm a, I'm a tweener. David Quintana on behalf of, I represent the Kumeyaay, Viejas, Upper Lake, and Chukchansi Tribes. But I'm here today on behalf of a larger and growing coalition of tribes across the state which have just become aware of the consultation language. So I apologize for the late notice. And we did.

I did contact the author this morning and the Chairman. We believe that the consultation language in 211, which is the language that is used in this bill, or 2011, is just not built to enforce an exemption, mitigation, or avoidance. And AB 168 statutes 2020 we believe contains the correct language. We are with the goals of this bill, but not at the sake of our ancestors and of our sacred and culturally significant resources. So we hope to work with the author, and I believe based upon our phone call this morning, that would be the case.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alfredo Arredondo, and I'm here on behalf of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians whose ancestral territory is in LA County. Share the similar concerns that that were just expressed and articulated by David Quintana. Apologies for not getting a letter in, but look forward to working with the author on this.

Thank you. Couple other folks coming in.

Keith Dunn, Building Trades.

Guessing that's opposition. All right, we will bring it back now to the Committee Members. Not all at once. All right. Ms. Ávila Farías.

I just want to thank the author for her diligent work on this. It's not an easy lift and a much needed lift. So I really appreciate your leadership and really honored to be a co-author on this and looking forward to, as we tweak this. Because again, we can't let the perfect get in the way of the imperfect. So thank you for your leadership on this.

Mr. Lee.

I want to thank the author, of course, for bringing this too. I think, in looking at it, you know, you have spent a long time on the Select Committee, on rolling out a narrative, and I think there was a lot of narrative out there misinformation about how sweeping it is.

But in looking at the bill you've crafted today, it really makes sense. It's about urban infill development. We're not suburban sprawl. It's not about building on hazardous waste sites. I think a lot often about my district in southern Alameda County and northern Santa Clara County, we have many dying office parks from the 1990s, 1980s, and those are several acre lots. They're tiny little office buildings surrounded by parking lots.

And we had this conversation about previous efforts you've worked on too, where that's the kind of revitalization we could have in creating almost new cities in my own district. And we have a lot of potential because of transit. We have jobs, we have housing. But you know, this is a lot of common sense.

To me it makes sense. You're talking about making sure that this is consistent with general plans, zoning ordinances. And you're also not trying to demand to rezone areas that aren't for multifamily. So it makes a lot of sense to me. I'm proud to support it today and to move the bill. And I would love to be out as a co-author as well. Thank you.

Motion and a second. Mr. Patterson.

Great, thanks. Question and then a comment. Regarding, you know, I represent two tribes in my district, and as a member of the Rocklin City Council, had an opportunity to work with one of the tribes on many occasions on these consultations. And they were actually, you know, they were pretty helpful for the city, actually. So what is your, what has come from those conversations?

The I first heard from them this morning. So I'm happy to meet with the tribes and have conversations and dialogue and see if there's a place we can land. We just have to, assuming the bill moves through Committee today, really embark on this conversation. So. Yeah, and I And I let Mr. Quintana know that we'll set up a meeting right away. And if you want to be part of those conversations, we'd welcome you. Mr. Patterson.

Yeah, I would just love to be updated. Thank you for that. You know, I always love every opportunity I get to talk about Republicans moving forward environmental laws in this state. You know, CEQA was, you know, signed by Ronald Reagan the same year that Nixon signed NEPA. And you know, one of the things that Reagan said in his quote is, in one of his quotes when he became President was part of the secret I mentioned is that I happen to have been Governor of California back when much of this was being done.

Now, obviously neither the problems in California know those nationally have been solved, but I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that states and federal government have a duty to protect our natural resources from damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.

And then he goes on later, obviously, as we all, I think what he's known better for is this following quote, the cost of California's government is too high. And I oddly, I think that that's what CEQA has become. CEQA has become this document intended for protecting mass industrial development and it has become abused to making the cost of California government too high.

And I think your bill is very well reasoned with with where you do offer maybe an exemption like in coastal zones or things like that, where you say, hey, but here's where it doesn't apply in the coastal zones. But by the way, you have to comply with this law, should it become law, as well. You know, so you've carefully crafted it in ways in which it takes into account the environment. It also is in generally in places that are already developed. And it boggles my mind how California slows down.

I mean, every jurisdiction, it almost seems, slows down projects, just red tape after red tape after red tape, in places that are already developed, in places that are intended for housing. That's, it drives me nuts. So, you know, notwithstanding, you know, the concern, I talked at the beginning of my comments, I think this is a great bill to move forward, and it's really a great job on really threading the needle there. So I'm looking forward to supporting it.

Ms. Wilson.

Thank you to the author for her leadership on this issue as it relates to streamlining and housing in general. Proud to be a joint author on this bill. And I think that, to the point of my colleague, the Vice Chair, has made it, and that the cost is really high and that we do quite a bit of exploiting our existing laws to prevent good things like housing in places where housing already exists, instead of focused on where we really need to in doing the type of development that endangers our air and water.

And that's where we need to focus our efforts, not on building more housing, which is critically important. We were just hearing testimony just before you got to speak about someone suffering from homelessness and freezing to death. Right. And that's unacceptable then in a state with so many resources. That is within the top five.

I know we just moved to four, but that's because somebody else dropped. But within the top 5 of economies that we would have things like that be so prevalent. And so thank you for your leadership, and I'm glad that there's been good discussion from the colleagues that it looked like it'll have the opportunity to go through.

And I know that you'll work with our Native American tribes to get the language right, to ensure that they have opportunity for meaningful consultation to ensure that those culturally sensitive sites, as it relates to these, are taken care of to their satisfaction. And so thank you.

Ms. Caloza.

Thank you, Chair Haney. I just want to echo the remarks of so many of my colleagues, want to give my thanks to the author. You have done so much work in the space. I learn something new from you every time you come and present on your bills and just how complicated this work is.

And you're constantly having to balance so many interests. You represent Oakland, I represent Los Angeles. And I know we care a lot about our underrepresented communities and don't want to displace any communities in this process and know that those are things that we all want to work on. And a big part of that has to be meeting the moment with our homelessness and our housing crisis.

And so I trust and our author to continue those conversations and some of the issues raised here, both by our tribal community, so thank you for coming, as well as our partners in labor. But I trust in you and know that you have an incredible ability to bring those coalitions together to really get through these really tough issues. So proud to support this today and just thank you for your work.

All right. Give you the opportunity to close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee and those that joined on as a co-author. Appreciate it, Mr. Lee. I also want to just say for the record, this does not preclude cities from requiring affordability requirements. This does not change any zoning. The areas have to be zoned for housing. This does not touch height limits.

All the other things that cities have tools in their toolbox are still there. This just expedites where housing should be. This is where we've determined where it should be. Again, CEQA is done at the general plan level. Why are we doing this all over again? That's resulting in years and years and years of delaying projects, killing projects. They'll start the process and years later they finally get clearance, but the interest rates have spiked and so those projects are no longer feasible.

So we need, in my opinion, this is common sense, a change to a really important landmark law that I do fundamentally believe in, CEQA, but changing it for the modern era that we're in. I'll continue to work with opposition, as I always do. I appreciate the support of this Committee, should the bill move forward, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Ms. Wicks. And I want to echo the gratitude of the Committee for your work and for taking the Committee amendments and continuing to work on some of the outstanding issues, both with the tribes and with labor and other folks in the community who are have specific concerns.

I really do appreciate that. You know, you're familiar with my experience with this as someone who represented, before I came here, downtown San Francisco on the Board of Supervisors. And we had an expectation essentially that any project that was going to be proposed was going to face a CEQA challenge, regardless of the fact that it met our local zoning requirements, our affordability requirements, our labor requirements, that the environmental review had already been done as part of the general plan.

It was going to face a CEQA lawsuit. And that led to a level of unpredictability, of costs. You just knew that you were going to get stopped up again and again throughout the process. This killed projects, and even projects that it didn't kill, it just made it so folks didn't start to begin with.

And it has really, I think, led to the housing crisis and the housing shortage that we have. And this is in one of the most dense places in America. We were saying that they should have to meet these standards that we would also apply to toxic sites and things that really environmentally sensitive sites that CEQA is really meant for.

And there was one site that I know some folks are familiar with, 469 Stevenson Street, which became infamous, which was in the district that I represented, a project, nearly 500 units, one block from Market Street, blocks from BART station and a Nordstrom's valet parking lot. Absolutely no CEQA issue there at all. Labor project, 25% affordable.

And it was killed on CEQA grounds by the Board of Supervisors. And that kind of thing is hurting our communities. It's hurting housing affordability, it's hurting good, well paying jobs. It should not be happening. And it is a huge problem, particularly when it comes to infill development, which is critical for our ability to meet our housing needs and also our climate goals.

And with all of that, I know this bill will continue to have conversations with folks, but I think if we are going to meet our housing goals, provide for the housing that our communities so desperately need, we have to address this issue and we have to make CEQA really true to what its intention was and not utilize to block these critical infill housing projects. So with that, we will move this bill. I'm proud to support this bill, and we'll, as a do pass recommendation, we'll take a vote.

Motion do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, eight to zero. We're gonna take your second bill later. We're gonna go to Ms. Wilson and then Mr. Gonzalez after that. I know they both have been waiting. This is item number six, AB 660, Wilson.

Okay, I don't see my. Oh, okay. I want to make sure they were coming. I was like, we could do it without it. Good. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB660 which aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California housing approval process. I'll make my comments brief today.

AB660 strengthens existing law laws by setting clear timelines and accountability for local agencies to process post entitlement permits and service applications and ensures it ensures housing projects aren't delayed by giving applicants a way to move forward when local agencies don't follow the rules. While past housing streamlining bills have made progress, challenges still remain.

The California Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reforms final report makes clear that despite state reforms, permitting delays and failures continue to be a major factor in the housing crisis. Targeting inefficiencies in the housing approval process is a crucial step in addressing California's housing crisis.

AB660 ensures that housing project applicants are not being bogged down by cumbersome permit approval process. This Bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the previous Committee and we look forward to our work. With me to testify today on the importance of this legislation are Steve Cruz on behalf of CBIA and Deborah Carlton on behalf of the Apartment Association.

Great. Thank you Mr. Chair Member Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and the proud sponsors of AB660.

I'll try not to be repetitive but to put emphasis on the fact that the legislation is important in terms of providing needed improvement to the efficiency, fairness and accountability of the post entitlement process for housing development.

The 71 referenced the work of Speaker Revisit who had prior efforts in this space, who advanced some of some of the fixes.

But there is still areas that need to be addressed and specifically it's mentioned by the Assembly prohibiting last minute field changes that contradict previously approved plans, limiting excessive plan check resubmittals, establishing legal remedies when local agencies fail to comply with established permit review timeframes and closing loopholes that currently allow indefinite extensions of the shot clock.

So for these reasons we respect the request an aye vote on AB660.

Thank you. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I can't overstate the importance of this legislation. Some of our Members do build in other states and California takes the longest. It shouldn't take almost a decade to get housing built other states. It can take, you know, less than two years.

So bills like this are extremely important and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Other folks who are here in support of the Bill please come on up. Name Affiliation Position

Seamus Garrity with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles SPUR and Circulate San Diego and strong support.

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

Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Bay Area Council in support.

Hi. Natalie Spivak with Housing California and support.

Dr. Josh Bruxen, South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth and Support.

Great. We have any witnesses in opposition? See anyone? Anyone at all in opposition? Nope. Bring them back to the Committee. We have a motion. We have a second great Bill. Opportunity to close.

Thank you for the witnesses and support. Thank you for the Committee. I'm respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Great Bill. Great. Would love to be added as a co author. Thank you. Take a roll call vote.

[Roll Call]

All right. Mr. Gonzalez, how are you? All right, you're up.

It's your favorite.

This is true. This is item 12, 906.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members. I'm proud to present AB 906 legislation designed to strengthen and clarify California's affirmatively furthering Fair Housing Law and local government elements. Did I say that wrong? I am proud to present AB 906 legislation to strengthen and clarify California's affirmatively furthering Fair Housing Law through improvements to local housing elements.

Thank you to the Committee for your thoughtful and thoughtful work on analysis on this Bill. Building on six years of implementation, AB 906 addresses persistent challenges in how jurisdictions identify and plan for housing opportunities, especially for protected classes, under the current housing element framework.

The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 establishes the right to fair housing, but its enforcement has fluctuated significantly over time. The Obama Administration's 2015 AFFH Rule brought renewed clarity, only to be rolled back under this current Administration, prompting California's proactive legislation response.

In my response and work with my predecessor who introduced and authored AB 686, Santiago, 2018, and AB 1304, Santiago, 2021, and my work as a District Director, we worked together on establishing and clarifying a state level AFFH mandate. AB 906 builds on these foundational laws by directly responding to implementation issues seen during the 6-housing element cycle.

Despite that progress, more work needs to be delivered. Many jurisdictions fail to adequately analyze or act on issues like displacement, disinvestment and exclusion. Affordable housing opportunities remain limited in higher income neighborhoods and over reliance on ADUs, which often lack affordable guarantees, has undermined planning for lower-income housing.

AB 906 strengthens AFFH planning in several key ways. Requires jurisdiction to distribute a meaningful share of multifamily and lower-income housing in higher-income areas. Mandates rezoning when the site distribution fails to meet AFFH requirements, even if all overall arena targets are met.

Clarifies that the fair housing analysis must be completed early in the process, with meaningful engagement of protected classes and community-based organizations. Expands the scope of fair housing analysis to include disparities in access to education, employment, transportation, health and financial service, as well as at-risk-like evictions, homelessness, and climate-related hazards.

Limits the use of ADUs toward lower-income arena, unless deed restricted for long-term affordability. AB 906 ensures fair housing policies are community informed, transparent, and equity-focused, requiring early outreach, language, accessibility and reporting on how feedback is used.

With federal AFFH protections again under threat, California must lead by ensuring that our own laws are strong, clear, and enforceable. AB 906 is a timely and necessary step. This Bill will—helps to combat segregation and unequal access, by ensuring fair housing planning, includes real strategies to expand opportunity, and support historically marginalized communities.

As a seventh housing element cycle approaches, AB 906 will, will give local governments clear direction and provides HCD with stronger tools to evaluate housing plans. With me this morning to—primary witnesses in support, Anya Lawler, on behalf of California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Skylar Spear, on behalf of Public Advocates.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Anya Lawler, with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, one of the sponsors of AB 906. California's AFFH law is a national model that responded to the first Trump Administration's rollback of federal AFFH regs by enshrining an even stronger version of those requirements and state laws, solidifying our commitment to addressing the harms of redlining and other policies and actions that fueled segregation exclusion, and left low-income communities disinvested and often simply ignored.

The AFFH duty falls to all public entities in the state, but for local governments, the housing element is where much of that work is laid out.

While we saw a lot of good work in local housing elements in the last cycle, we also saw places where the outcomes were not what we envisioned with the AFFH law and not sufficient to break down entrenched patterns of segregation and exclusion.

Particular—in particular, we saw far too many cities that did not make any sites available for their lower income RHNA Allocation, which requires sites that can accommodate dense multifamily housing development in higher-income single family areas, the very places that were born from redlining.

AB 906 addresses this by requiring HCD to create a tool that local governments can use as they build their housing sites inventory, to ensure that they're distributing sites across the jurisdiction, in a way that furthers fair housing.

The tool will allow the jurisdiction to see in real time whether or not their sites are compliant and adjust as necessary by before they even submit a draft to HCD, which we think will save a lot of time.

There's simply no way that California can address the ugly history of racial discrimination in housing without providing opportunities to develop affordable housing for families and exclusionary communities. We've structured AB 906 to achieve that goal, while also making it easier for local governments to comply.

I also want to lift up that AFFH is not just about creating more affordable housing opportunities in areas of historic exclusion. It also requires actions to address disinvestment in lower-income neighborhoods, in ways that are responsive to community needs and that to prevent displacing impacts of gentrification, allowing existing community members to remain in their neighborhood of choice.

AB 906 also make changes to approve outcomes for lower-income areas, which my colleague will discuss, I think, a little bit further. Thank you and I urge your "Aye" vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Skylar Spear. I'm an Attorney with Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization. We are co-sponsoring AB 906.

As part of their housing elements, current state law requires towns and cities and counties across the state to complete a fair housing analysis that clarifies fair housing issues, specific to the jurisdiction, and a set of programs designed to address those specific issues.

This Bill will strengthen the connection between the analysis and programs, by requiring the analysis be completed first, allowing a clear and logical flow to program creation, clarify what factors jurisdictions must consider in their analysis, and clarify the existing requirement to engage with impacted community members throughout the analysis and program development process.

I recently worked with a team to complete and publish two reports on how AB 686 has impacted housing elements in the Bay Area. We looked at the types of programs adopted by jurisdictions and the strategies they used to claim they will meet their regional housing needs allocation.

Our analysis demonstrates that jurisdictions are having a hard time understanding why and how to use the fair housing analysis process, to create a strong and meaningful set of policies and programs, that will meet the needs of their specific communities.

The data is clear that the strongest sets of programs come out of jurisdictions with the strongest collaboration with impacted vulnerable community members.

These community members know what their needs are and how best to address them, while city staff and HCD can help turn those needs into programs and policies that are realistically implementable.

Both the data and our experience show us that the Fair Housing Analysis has not been completed before the programs, or in collaboration with community members consistently, but often simultaneously, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to derive programs that will support the needs of community directly and logically from the analysis, and creating them simultaneously creates unnecessary extra work for already overburdened city staff.

Finally, both the data and experience shows that city staffers find the Fair Housing Analysis requirements to be vague, confusing, and often over broad, which negatively impacts program creation.

In this Bill, we're trying to clarify, for the sake of city staffers and community members alike, what the format and purpose of the Fair Housing Analysis is and always has been. We know that doing so will create more meaningful and impactful programs that will address the actual needs of actual Californians. We respectfully request your "Aye" vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this Bill? Name, position, affiliation?

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

Oh, good.

Natalie Spivak, with Housing California, in strong support and a proud sponsor. Thanks.

Kate Bybee, on behalf of Legal Aid Sonoma County, in support.

Roxy Ortiz, from the Association of Regional Center Agencies, in support.

Great, thank you. Opposition witnesses.

Good morning, chairmembers. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. We do not have an opposition position, but we have shared some concerns with the sponsors and the author's office that we'd like to briefly discuss. First, on the timing. We've added a lot of new process to the housing element since the sixth cycle.

This new requirement for affirmatively furthering fair housing was. In addition, there's new 30 day comment periods each time you have a draft. So we're very concerned with the idea of adding this new one year interim piece.

Agree with the intent of trying to have all of the programs flow in this orderly fashion from the analysis that happens up front. But just when we're thinking about the process, we've got 18 months. If you do everything right the first try, you've got a 30 day comment period each time you do a draft.

You've got 90 days of HCD review and then 60 days of HCD review for each additional draft. And that's seven months of time already in an 18 month process. So it's got to be an iterative process. Really want to work on the timing issue on the second piece of the Bill.

We do appreciate the intent of kind of creating a more objective way for local agencies to engage with the sites identification process.

I think that's something we could actually support if we're able to really refine some of the things there, particularly when we're talking about unincorporated areas that are a mix of rural as well as urban, where the housing opportunities are typically more in those urbanized areas.

The rural areas with HCDs existing tools are kind of graded on a curve. They're artificially inflated and shown as higher opportunity. So a lot of technical things to work on there.

But really do appreciate the intent of creating a more objective process with HCD and agree with the witnesses that a lot of the current mandate is there is a lot of vagueness and sort of a difficulty in understanding what is actually being requested of cities and counties.

So look forward to working with the author and sponsor to resolve those concerns and appreciate your time today.

Great, thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Ms. Wilson,

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I have to admit, when I first read it, I was like, is this a whole bunch of bureaucratic? And as I got more deep into it, I understood what you were trying to do and appreciate what you're trying to do.

But I also at the same time think that the those that want amendments, that was just articulated are very valid and should be considered and will be supporting your Bill today. So I move the Bill and ask that you continue to have those conversations. Thank you.

We have a motion. We have a second. May close.

Thank you. Thank you all. We are working with the opposition and we are definitely looking forward to a pathway for fair housing with them. So we're going to continue that conversation. And thank you for moving the Bill.

AB 906 is about making good on decades old promise that where you live should never determine your worth, your opportunities or your future. In my district of Boyle Heights, families have watched for decades as affordable housing has been concentrated in their neighborhood, while wealthier areas across the city resist any change.

Despite being rich in culture and community, Boyle Heights has long been burdened with disinvestment, pollution and displacement. While others benefit from exclusionary planning. That's not equity. That's not fair housing. And it's not sustainable. Today, paper plans are not enough. We need real commitments, real accountability and real equity where homes are built and for whom.

AB906 gives us the tools to dismantle structural barriers and build communities where everyone, regardless of background, has a fair shot. You can't build justice on zoning lines and divide only to foundations that include. Let's meet this moment with urgency, passion and purpose. Fair housing is not charity. It's justice. Thank you. And I respectfully ask your aye vote on AB 906.

Thank you. Very well said as always, my friend. And this is an incredibly important Bill. It's an ambitious Bill. But when I think that, especially right now, in light of some of the changes and approaches from the Federal Government on fair housing laws that California needs to step up and needs to make sure our laws meet the goals and the needs and have the tools adequate to be able to confront our fair housing requirements.

So with that we have a motion and a second and we will take a roll call vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Bill is 5-0. We will leave it open for absent Members. All right. Mr. Connolly, this is AB 806, item number 10. Thank you for your patience and apologize for some of the back and forth. We had some bills that needed to get out this morning and other things. Mr. Connolly.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Good morning. Like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their work and input on this bill.

We will be accepting the Committee amendments. I'm proud to present AB 807 which will provide mobile home park residents the right to install cooling systems within their homes and require park owners to maintain reasonable temperature conditions in an indoor common area. California is no stranger to climate change and extreme heat events are on the rise.

In 2023, North America experienced the hottest year on record and a majority of counties within California faced consistent temperatures over 100 degrees. Extreme heat results in more deaths in the United States than all other disasters combined.

Mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to extreme heat due in large part to the fact that many park leases contain limitations on installing cooling systems. Mobile home parks are California's last or one of the main last naturally occurring affordable housing sources.

And park residents are often elderly or low income, making them particularly vulnerable to experiencing health complications due to extreme heat. Additionally, residents with health-related issues or mobility restrictions are often unable to reach temperature controlled spaces outside their park. We can no longer take a reactive approach to California's climate crisis.

We must be proactive to protect the health and safety of our mobile home park residents and allow them to access cooling systems within their homes and parks when feasible. While existing law requires that mobile home park residents have access to heating systems, the same is not currently true for cooling systems. AB 806 aims to change that.

AB 806 will protect residents, providing them the right to install cooling systems within their homes without facing the threat of eviction and provide a temperate common area within the park when feasible during extreme heat events.

Additionally, Committee amendments allow mobile home park management to limit the ability of a resident to install a cooling system if they can demonstrate that the installation would violate building standards or require amperage that cannot be accommodated by the power service to the park.

Here to testify with me in support is Kendall Jarvis and Patrick McDonnell from Legal Aid of Sonoma County and Roger Johnson representing the interests of mobile home park residents.

Thank you. Good afternoon Committee Members, Chair. Thank you guys for staying. I see it's gotten a little smaller in the afternoon. No one's around at lunchtime. So much appreciated. As Assemblymember Connolly said, my name is Kendall Jarvis and I'm the Lead Disaster Relief Attorney with Legal Aid of Sonoma County.

As the co-sponsor of this bill, I'm here today to express Legal Aid's strong support for Assembly Bill 806. AB 806 approves upon existing law to ensure that mobile home park residents are better protected during our next extreme heat event. Over the past decade, California has experienced significant climate changes.

This has resulted in extreme weather throughout the state. Unfortunately, even with the knowledge that our weather continues to change, we seem to have bypassed the real and significant threat that extreme heat poses to the health and safety of some of our most vulnerable residents.

As we know, mobile home park residents are often vulnerable by nature, with a majority of residents being elderly and low or on fixed incomes. As a result, mobile home park residents are at a greater risk of experiencing serious health complications due to extreme heat events. This simply needs to change.

AB 806 will take a simple but significant step towards better protecting the health and safety of park residents by allowing residents to install cooling systems in their own homes and providing a temperate, safe space when temperatures exceed heat thresholds in a particular area.

AB 806 approves upon existing law by requiring park owners refrain from evicting or threatening to evict a resident who lawfully installs a cooling system in their own home and provide cooling within existing enclosed common areas when feasible and when the National Weather Service issues an extreme heat warning in that particular area.

This common sense approach will better protect the health and safety of park residents without putting a financial burden on the state. For these reasons, Legal Aid of Sonoma County strongly supports AB 806 and respectfully requests your yes vote today. I'm here to answer any questions as is my cohort, Pat McDonnell. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. My name is Roger Johnson. I'm here representing thousands of seniors, veterans, immigrants and folks with disabilities who own mobile homes throughout California. We strongly support AB 806 because our mobile home owners should not be forced to suffer from increasingly dangerous heat waves without being able to protect ourselves.

My wife and I are in our 70s and need a cold environment for our health, but our park does not allow any exterior modification without their approval, even just a window unit or swamp cooler with an external air intake.

A close friend lives in a park where management has explicitly told her they will not approve any cooling system that requires an exterior modification to the mobile home that she owns. She needs cooling for her health. My air conditioner stopped working last July and the temperature in our mobile home reached 96 degrees.

Our neighbors whose air conditioners failed waited almost six weeks for repairs and experienced temperatures as high as 110 degrees. We needed a cooled common space in the park for respite during the hottest parts of the day and that does not include the thousands of mobile home owners who cannot afford their own cooling systems.

We strongly support AB 806, a human decency solution to our increasing heat waves, and respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there other folks who are here in support of the bill? Thank you all for patience.

Good morning. I'm Janice Barker on behalf of GSMOL, in strong support of this bill.

Angie Cruz on behalf of Little Woods and Capri Mobile Home Parks who couldn't be here today, in support of this bill.

My name is Marty Wisense. I live in Petaluma Estates in a senior park. And I definitely would like to put my 806.

My name is Michael Davis, representing Pueblo Serena Manufactured Home Park in Sonoma. And we greatly appreciate your consideration for this bill.

Good afternoon, Committee Chair, Members. Thank you to the author for bringing forward this important bill. Kai Cooper, on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, in strong support.

Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, in support.

Gabrielle Parks, Youngstown. And I'm in strong support. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Boyle. I'm a resident in a senior mobile home park, Youngstown in Petaluma. I strongly support this bill because what you had to say, I'm living that with my air conditioner broken down and yeah, it's not a happy time in the summer hot months.

And I also represent, so I have this right, I'm representing the California Alliance for Retired Americans. Thank you.

Marie Cuneo. I'm an owner and resident in mobile home park in Petaluma and I strongly support this bill.