Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I should say good afternoon actually. Welcome to the Senate Housing Committee. Committee announcements for today is that we have a number of items on consent. I will read them out. File item number three, AB413 by Assemblymember Fong. File item number four, AB457 by Assemblymember Soria. File item number five, AB480 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

I would also like to highlight that File item number 6, AB750 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva has been pulled at the author's request and we do not have a quorum yet. So we are going to move with our very first author. File item number two, AB301 by Assemblymember Schiavo.

And I will tell you all how we do things in the Senate, public, I mean Senate housing. We will have the author speaker get this lectern and we will have witnesses both in support and opposition at that microphone. Everyone will be timed both support and opposition witnesses will have two minutes to present their case.

And then we will move on to me toos both in support and opposition. And we would like for people to just state their name, their organization, and whether they support or oppose the Bill. No additional commentary is needed. And then we will return back to the Committee Members to deliberate and for a close.

And so Assembly Member, we are starting as a Subcommitee as we do not have quorum. So whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. I really appreciate the opportunity to present AB 301 with Speaker Rivas as part of the speaker's fire package. With recent devastation and the Eaton Palisades fire, swift reconstruction is critical for restoring economic growth and revitalizing local revenue streams.

By accelerating the permitting process, we can help the hardest hit communities recover faster, rebuild homes, and stimulate local economies. I'm happy to accept the clarification amendments as suggested in the analysis to ensure that all relevant departments are included.

AB 301 establishes a clear and responsive timelines ensuring that state departments adhere to the same permitting deadlines as local jurisdictions.

For example, you know, we've heard examples of projects that will actually avoid, will change altogether to avoid having to go through permitting with Caltrans or remediation projects that have been on hold for a year because DTSC did not approve the permits and they can't move forward with their remediation and cleanup, important cleanup programs and projects because of those delays.

And so you know, this bill really provides parity across all permitting agencies.

It's really about making sure that there is responsiveness that if you have concerns that, you know what they are within 30 or 60 days, depending on the size of the project, and that we make sure that, you know, these projects can move forward as quickly as they can related to the fire.

But this is really broadly about all construction projects that are happening in the state. So here today to testify on the measure is Corey Smith, the Executive Director of the Housing Action Coalition as well.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members. Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition. As the Assembly Member said, this is really about parity and consistency. We ran AB 2234 the first time around, AB 281 with Assembly Member Grayson, and now AB 310 or 301, rather just consistent continues that work. So happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead support witnesses? Lead support.

Madam Chair, Bob Naylor representing Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. In support.

All right. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? All right, do we have any metoos in either support or oppo? Yeah.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the City of Alameda in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Katherine Trials here on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Chamber of Progress in support. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Paul Shafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you.

Chair, senators, Dean Garfield with Capital Advocacy here on behalf on the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors in support of AB 301. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in strong support. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity, and SPUR in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any others in support or oppo?

One more in support. Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other metoos, we are going to move on to committee members if you guys would like to say anything. Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say it may be parity as far as policy and government, but it's really certainty for the industry and for housing and for those that are wanting to especially rebuild after a wildfire.

And I know this is part of the package, so being able to provide that certainty is huge for builders and for the industry. And I think this is an incredible build that I'd like to make the motion when the time is appropriate.

Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thank you. I wanted to do this bill myself, but I thought, I can't do this. That's too big of a bill as a freshman. So I'm very glad that you're leading the way on this. It is an important bill for parity, and you've identified a couple of the agencies that are constantly an issue in this.

I do have a question about the mechanics, and I appreciate that you've taken the staff the consultant's recommendation with respect to the scope, but I was trying to understand which state agencies this actually covers. And the committee amendments expand the scope to all agencies, whether they're technically a department or some other form.

But unless this is changed as part of the committee amendments, it still refers to any department or agency of the state that's involved in governmental reviews or approvals associated with a housing development project, which is. That seems like a very broad definition. And I'm wondering what agencies are we, other than DTSC and Caltrans? The two biggest challenges.

Agencies, what are we talking about here?

Those are the vast majority. I mean, one of the reasons that the definition was changed to expand was to make sure that we had the Water Board included, which is another agency that has a number of permits that, you know, that they need to approve every year.

And so those are really the big three that are mostly impacted. But, you know, I mean, the goal of the bill is to make sure that we are really impacting the construction and making sure it's moving forward as quickly as possible. And so just making sure that we have the standard across the board.

Yeah, I'm just trying. I'm trying to look ahead both to the appropriations file and to the administration and make sure that it's not that we're covering agencies and departments that actually are in this space. And so not all agencies that have.

Not all agencies that are involved in governmental reviews or approvals associated with housing development projects actually do post entitlement permits. And so I wonder whether or not you've considered. The committee staff have considered making the definition specific to those agents because we're asking these agencies to develop protocols, publish them on their website and what have you.

So, for example, does the Tax Credit Allocation Committee count? It very much reviews housing development projects, but it has nothing to do with post entitlement reviews and so on.

Right. So I think, I mean, open to other interpretations, but my understanding and interpretation of it is that it would only apply to those who are involved in the post entitlement process.

Yeah, I don't, I don't think that's the way the language is currently crafted. But if that's where, if that's, I mean, the language is any. It's any agency that's involved in governmental reviews or approvals associated with a housing development project.

Yes, it's in the, in a code section that deals principally with housing post entitlement reviews, but it doesn't specifically reference post entitlement at all. And that's obviously, it's a big.

There's a big difference between all agencies that ever touch housing and those agencies that we're trying to get at here, which are ones that are problems in the post entitlement phase.

Yeah. And as you know, oftentimes. Sorry, through the chair. I apologize. I'm sorry about that chair. And as you know, not all agencies are even issuing permits. Sometimes it's paperwork needed for the issuance of those post entitlement permits.

But the aim that we're certainly trying to go for and the staff and council's opinion on this is to really stick to that post entitlement. Okay.

You're doing the inner workings of the permit approval process of building permit, a grading permit, et cetera, and ensuring that the responsiveness within those requirements is moving fast as opposed to CALHFA or a funding thing unrelated to the issuance of building permits.

So do we think we can make that clear in the language? We're already amending the language in order to deal with the state department definition.

We can consider that. You know, we're still in conversations about other possible amendments too. So as the bill moves forward, we can, we can look at that as well.

Can we do it now? I mean, we're already, we're already changing this definition.

We're not making amendments on the dais. The amendments were already negotiated with the author. State agency is defined as it has been historically. And this is specifically dealing with post entitlements. And so I think that if you are willing to review that a little bit more with more opinions on it. Yes.

And let's call a roll call vote. I mean, a roll call quorum.

[roll call]

All right, we have quorum. I do want to highlight that we have Senator Padilla and Senator Gonzalez absent today, but with that, would you like to close? Oh, sorry. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much. You know, some concerns along the same as our other colleague here. These need to be defined, because otherwise what you'll have is some agencies who don't feel that they were defined and therefore will opt out of the process that you're trying to speed up.

Even Caltrans sometimes has permitting that they just drag their feet on forever. And it affects the housing development because you can't get the housing development done and occupied unless there's streets around it. So, yeah, we need to work on that part of it to make sure it is comprehensive, because it is.

That's one of the major problems with housing, is the entitlement processes we go through. And then we have agencies, usually state agencies, that have input and permits that have to be given out, and yet it takes forever for them to do that.

And in the meanwhile, the price of the project goes up and up and up, and everybody pays for that. So I'll be supporting your bill today because it's a great concept. We do need to hold agencies feet to the fire just like everyone else is in order to.

To get this process sped up to a rate that is safe for us, but at the same time, it covers all the bases. Thank you.

Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, members. Happy to take back the feedback. I'm hearing it's too comprehensive or it's not comprehensive enough. And so that's why I think we want to bring it back to leg council, have more conversations with advocates and experts as well, to make sure that we find the right balance and.

And if any language changes need to be made.

But ultimately, at the end of the day, this bill is about speeding up housing, making sure that we are making it more affordable for people, and making sure that there is parity and responsiveness amongst our state agencies who, you know, unfortunately, have been part of delaying projects in unfortunate situations. And so this has had bipartisan support. No no votes. Really respect an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Grayson. Can we get a roll call vote?

Motion due pass to judiciary.

[roll call]

Thank you. That Bill is on call. Appreciate it. Next we're going to move to Assemblymember McKinnor. File item number one, AB 57.

Good afternoon Senators, Madam Chair. AB 57 seeks to address historic and systemic inequities in home ownership by reserving a portion of funding within California's Home Purchase Assistance Program, specifically for descendants of formerly enslaved people.

The legacy of slavery and the long history of discrimination of discriminatory housing policies such as redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and exclusionary lending practices have created a deep and lasting barrier to home ownership for descendants of formerly enslaved people.

Today, the home ownership rate for descendants of formerly enslaved people remains significantly lower than the national average, with a gap of nearly 30%. It is important to note that AB 57 identifies future beneficiaries based on a legal status, not a race.

Descendants of formerly enslaved people can look like anyone in this room because if you've been on my Facebook, you should see my grandson and he is a former- he's a descendant of formerly enslaved people.

Senator Weber-Pierson and the Legislative Black Caucus is working closely this year on separate legislation that would create a legal process to identify descendants of formerly enslaved people.

And we are confident that AB 57 works in concert with with Senator Weber-Pierson's legislation to repair generations of harm. This resilient population of Californians.

AB57 is not only a response to our historical injustice, it's an investment in California's economic future. Expanding home ownership builds generational wealth, stabilizes community, and strengthens our broader economy.

With me today in support of this Bill is Taneicia Herring from the California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP. And this is also a Black Caucus priority Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. If you could approach the lectern, you will have two minutes timed.

My apologies. Good afternoon, chair and Members. As the Assemblymember said, my name is Taneicia Herring. I am the Government Relations Specialist for the California Hawaii State Conference to the NAACP.

AB 57 has our overwhelming support as it aims to address historical disparities in homeownership by allocating at least 10% of California's Home Purchase Assistance Program funds to applicants who are descendants of formerly enslaved people.

By specifically allocating funds to descendants of formerly enslaved individuals, AB 57 acknowledges and seeks to rectify the systemic barriers that have been historically prevented, that have historically prevented said descendants from accessing homeownership opportunities. California has an opportunity to lead in repairing past wrongs by implementing policies that advance equity.

AB 57 is a direct response to the calls for justice and fairness in economic opportunity. Home ownership, as we all know, is a key driver of wealth accumulation. This Bill facilitates economic empowerment, contributing to closing the wealth gap. And increased homeownership translates into more local investment, higher tax revenues, and economic benefits for our neighborhoods.

This Bill is a step forward towards reparative justice, recognizing the lasting economic impacts of slavery, segregation and discriminatory housing policies that have hindered home ownership for generations. Direct home ownership assistance is a tangible and meaningful way to begin to address these harms.

Opponents may argue that offering targeted assistance is unfair, claiming that all home buyers should be treated equally. However, this argument ignores the fact that past housing policies were intentionally designed to exclude families of descendants of formerly enslaved people from home ownership opportunities.

Policies like redlining, restrictive covenants, and discriminatory lending were not about equality, but they were there to ensure that true equality was never an option to begin with. The deep disparities in homeownership today are a direct result of those policies. The historical denial of equality.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Do you have any other lead witnesses?

Thank you.

No.

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

Good afternoon, Members. My name is Tasia Stevens on behalf of the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth in support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Carly Shelby on behalf of All Home and strong support. Thank you.

Annie Chao with the California Teachers Association in support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

Monea Jennings on behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we're going to move on to Committee Members. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I, I have a couple of comments and concerns with the Bill, beginning with the...I know that you said that this Bill will be used by anybody of any color. You know, it doesn't have to be race oriented, I'm assuming...

As long as they're a descendant of slaves.

So race wise.

No, as long as they're a descendant of U.S. slaves.

Okay, and what does that mean?

That means that their descendants were slaves in this country. And so everyone that that was a descendant of slaves, they don't exactly look like me. They don't have a color.

Yeah. Okay.

Because we have mixed-race children and from generations down from the time that people got off the slave ship, they had, they came here pregnant, some of them. So they already had mixed race children and so they may not look like me.

Okay. Has there been any concerns or any comments on whether or not this would be in violation of any of our discriminatory laws at all?

No.

Not at all.

Not at all.

Okay. I have a letter of opposition here that basically states a point and I just want to put it on the record, just because it was kind of intriguing for me.

But it said, according to this letter by the CEFR Foundation, stated that advocating blatant government preferences with race, sex based consideration distorts the principle of equal opportunity into an illiberal tool of equal outcome.

We should also make sure that every individual has equal access to public resources and that our government provide institutional support that encourages American virtues of hard work, initiatives, self-discipline and individual merit.

Kind of curious. Why was the program not more defined? Or why wouldn't anyone fit more into like an economic demographic saying...

Because U.S. descendants of slaves, as you heard, were redlined. We were kept from housing. We were redlined. When we built housing in some states, the government came and they burned it down and took their homes.

And so they were already in a disadvantage. And so this is just to bring them up to everyone else so that they can have home ownership like everyone else. You're very familiar with slavery in the United States.

Oh, of course I am. Yes. And on that note, I was looking under the redlining concern of housing for the State of California. And according to what I learned, just from a realtor's perspective, I was coming into and looking at this. But redlining was officially outlawed by the federal Fair Housing Act in 1968.

And in California, the state passed a general non-discrimination law in 1959 and an explicit fair housing law in 1963, which were precursors to the federal legislation. So even before that, in California, this was outlawed. So kind of curious for the general public.

In 1969, my parents, who worked for the motion picture industry, for television and motion picture, they tried to buy a house in Hollywood and they were discriminated against.

They tried to rent a house in like, Inglewood, because back then Inglewood was predominantly white and they were discriminated against. And you know how we know?

Because my mother's white girlfriend went and rented that same apartment for us. So even after 1969, there was still lots and lots of discrimination. Law or not, discrimination was still happening. And so this will put descendants of U.S. slaves on an even, even footage.

Now I have an exhibit. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, can I just show my exhibit really quick? It's fast. I could just...yes?

Can you guys see this picture? I just want to tell you about race. Like, this baby is a U.S. descendant of slaves, but he looks white, but he is a descendant of slaves. So that's what this is going to look like. It's going to help descendants of U.S. slaves.

So I would like to highlight, and I know we have other speakers, and I just want to make sure your questions are addressed.

Yeah, I just wanted to make those points and put those on record. Thank you.

Yes. And to the Assemblymember's point, I think color's not necessarily a consideration here. As she referenced, you know, there are people who have different backgrounds, mixed backgrounds. I will also say your reference for the point of, I think you said 1960.

So the federal Fair Housing Act.

Yeah.

Is that the one? It was in 1968. And then in California, the state passed the general non-discrimination law in 1950 and an explicit fair housing law in 1963, which were precursors to the federal legislation.

Okay. And I do want to highlight people. For example, my father was born in the 50s, so there are generations still potentially that were affected even prior to this legislation. So I do just want to highlight that this is a Black Caucus priority.

We also know that it's contingent upon the creation of an agency to determine eligibility, which is largely disputed when we are talking about descendants of slaves. And I will also highlight the fact that this is 10% of the funds, a very nominal percentage.

But I also want to go to Senator Cabaldon, who may have some additional points and comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add two things in response to my colleague. One is, I think the CEFR letter is really about a different Bill, because all this Bill does is refer to the descendants of enslaved persons, but does not define what that means because we've...

...the Senate has already passed a Bill that's now pending in the Assembly that would create the agency. And in the Education Committee, we heard legislation as well that would ask Cal State Dominguez Hills to help work through those issues.

And so the direct, although I don't agree with CEFR, you know, myself, those direct issues are really in that other legislation. The other thing I would just point out is that in 1964, then the voters of California repealed the Fair housing law from 1963.

So even throughout the 60s and 70s and beyond, we have been living in a legacy of legalized redlining, even though the Legislature did, as you very rightly indicated, passed a fair housing Bill in 1963.

I'd also like to add that even in cities in the Bay Area, which I think is a very progressive stronghold, slash, very diverse, there are cities that, in their language, they would not sell to individuals of different races.

And that language is actually, we're still working to kind of get rid of the language in very diverse cities in the Bay Area. I will also highlight that slaves are were also Muslims and plenty of other races that were involved.

So I think this is a step in the right direction. You have the Chair's aye reco. I'd love a motion and an aye vote. And would you like to close?

Yes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Cortese moves the Bill.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, so that Bill is on call. I do just want to remind folks that we have some Members in simultaneous committees and we will continue with absent Members. We're going to move on next to our last file item, but prior to that, I just want to move on consent items.

Can I get a motion on file number three? AB413 by Assembly Member Fong. File item number four. AB457 by Assembly Member Soria. File item number five. AB480 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. And moved by Senator Cortese. Let's get a roll call on that.

Senators Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Seyarto. Aye. Sierto, aye. Arreguin. Arreguin, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Gonzalez. Grayson. Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Ochoa Bogh, Aye.

Padilla. So the consent items are on call. We're going to move on to Assemblymember Bonta. File item number eight, AB 1296. She is going ahead of Assemblymember Quirk Silva, who has allowed her to do so. So, Assemblymember, whenever you're ready.

Thank you to my colleague. Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members. I'm here today to present AB 1296, which would empower our local education agencies to pursue housing development projects on land they already own. We are in the midst of an educator workforce crisis and a housing affordability crisis. And we know that they are interconnected.

One third of teachers and even more non certificated staff are rent burdened. This burden falls disproportionately on Black, Latino, and younger employees, further undermining efforts to build a diverse and stable education workforce. These financial pressures have Contributed to roughly 10,000 current educator vacancies across California's public schools.

Some school districts have successfully built educator housing or are in the process of doing so. But not all school districts have the capacity or expertise to pursue the pre development activities required. AB 1296 is a practical equity driven solution.

It directs the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide advisory technical assistance to school districts to support the early planning of housing projects on district owned land, helping them navigate legal, financial and regulatory steps. The goal is simple.

Help school districts unlock the potential of over 75,000 acres of publicly owned land to provide housing for the workforce who serve our communities without pulling resources away from the classroom. I respectfully request your aye vote.

No, okay witnesses? Okay. Do we have, 'm just gonna have to ask. Witnesses in support. Seeing none. Okay, lead witnesses. Lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Me toos in support and opposition. Please state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

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

Thank you. We're gonna move on to Members of the Committee. Committee. Seeing none. Would you like to oh, Senator Seyarto.

So your Bill envisions that the local school agency owns property, usually around the schools that are existing. And we're going to, instead of auctioning them off to home developers, have them develop them and then have the teachers that are at the school live in those.

Well, so right now, local LEAs tend to be some of the largest landowners in any particular municipality. Some of the land is developed with schools, some of it are just empty lots. We want to be able to provide school districts an opportunity to build housing on that.

And it would be for workforce housing intentionally, not necessarily the same school that an educator is at.

We've heard loud and clear that many educators don't necessarily want to be living right across from the street that they teach at, but it would allow our educators an opportunity to be able to at least live in the communities that they teach in.

Right now, we have many educators who are traveling upwards of an hour or two to be able to in terms of commuting back and forth from there.

And I get that part. It's the housing part. Educators, just like everyone else in the workforce, would like to have housing available to them as a choice in either that community or another community. I have spoke to no educators who are interested in living next door to the school that they teach in.

And most of them are leery of having being in the same community because they keep bumping into parents and oftentimes parents and kids at restrooms, restaurants, and things. So they're always on, they're always like, they feel like they're always being watched. And so, you know, this is more of a we should be solving the housing problem.

And this I don't know is necessary because if they're going to not have the land, then it has to get auctioned off anyway. And the first persons that come to those auctions are people that are in the affordable housing market. That's who it gets offered to.

To clarify, Senator, school districts don't have to auction off land. This is land that is not declared as surplus land. It is land that is owned by the school district that is intended at some point for some other use that is actually outside of the category of surplus land. And.

And so this would allow many school districts who are already doing things higher capacity.

They're going to be the developers, the school district?

Not necessarily. I think that they're going to work with a developer. They're going to necessarily work with a developer to be able to identify a way to be able to make a good deal.

Does it become the developer's land?

No, it depends with the school, it quite frankly depends on the kind of technical assistance that they are provided to be able to determine what the best deal might be for the school district.

All right. If they're building apartments on it, then it should be surplus land. And I don't know why they have to be involved in that part of it.

Prior statute already indicates that use of land for the purposes of housing is a feasible use for school district. So this essentially.

I know, and I voted no against that Bill, too.

This essentially provides the technical assistance.

Oh, okay. All right. Anybody else have any comments? Mr. Cortese?

I just, I actually wanted to speak in support of the Bill. I ran a Bill, I'm sorry, I forget which year, but a few years ago that was signing a law that does some similar things in terms of getting HCD to provide technical assistance.

I think you probably got a little bit further or in a complimentary direction with not requiring, you know, a 711 Committee to have already acted and, you know, the surplus decision to have already made. I think a lot of school districts get in trouble because this isn't their expertise.

They go out and hire consultants that maybe they shouldn't hire. They get pretty deep in the water before they, you know, make a decision. And these are all areas where HCD could, you know, play a tremendous role in helping. They're already dealing with state excess lands.

And so, you know, ACD has, I think, developed what they describe as a small but mighty team that, you know, can provide this kind of assistance. And if it.

At the end of the day, if the school district decides based on that technical assistance to not proceed that could be in everybody's interest in that particular district based on, you know, what other resources they have available or who the partners are that are. That are available at that point in time.

So I just think it can't hurt in, you know, augmenting and complementing what a school district already has. They have the lights on, they have professionals, they have finance people, but they don't have this. They don't really know what direction to go in. So sometimes.

So thank you for bringing the Bill forward and I'm happy to support it.

Okay, anybody else that you may close?

Thank you so much. I served on the Alameda Unified School District School Board and small town with a tiny but mighty team. We did not have the ability to really be able to fully vet any opportunities related to our, our school lands.

I think this certainly is a practical way to be able to allow school, smaller school districts that don't have the capacity to put forward a school bond, a housing bond, or really be able to vet these deals at the level that they should have the resources that they need to, to provide housing within their communities to the workforce that they so treasure.

With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. I have a motion by Cabaldon to move the Bill. Go ahead and call.

Motion do pass to appropriation. Senators Wahab. Seyarto. No. Seyarto. No. Arreguin. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Gonzalez. Grayson. Ochoa Bogh. Ochoa Bogh. No. Padillia.

All right, that will. It's 2-2 right now. It'll remain on call.

Thank you.

All right, next up, we have Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, you have your Bill. This would be AB 1061. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Senators. Today I present AB 1061, which ensures the California Home act applies in historic districts. Under this Bill, the duplicate provisions of SB9 would be permissible in historic districts.

So as long as they don't result in demolition of more than 25% of an existing exterior wall of a historic resource or a contributing structure for a property included on a state or local historic registry.

In doing so, this Bill seeks to balance the goals of maintaining historic integrity and allowing for an additional missing middle house development, individual landmark properties would remain ineligible under this AB 1061.

The California Home act legalized and streamlined the development of duplexes and small scale lot splits across California, including in historically exclusionary single family neighborhoods. Small urban lot splits and additional duplicates add density and lower cost homes in existing neighborhoods, increasing housing supply and affordability.

However, the exclusion of historic districts has created a loophole that opponents of new housing exploit to block development. Local groups frequently misuse historic preservation designations to prevent homeowners from using the California Home act, significantly limiting the law's effectiveness. AB 1061 closes this loophole without compromising the the integrity of truly historic structures.

With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any questions from the Committee is Adam Clafter from the independent preservation advocate for groups throughout the Bay Area and Max Dubler, policy manager with the California YIMBY, who are sponsors of this Bill.

All right, thank you. You may approach the microphone. Each of you will have two minutes as primary witnesses. Primary support witnesses.

Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Adam Clafter and I come before you today as a Member of the Preservation Community to offer my perspective on AB 1061.

This Bill will allow for urban lot splits and the construction of additional housing units for within historic districts. However, it does so while maintaining protections for contributing resources within districts and some measure of local control.

As currently amended, AB 1061 includes a provision maintaining local government's ability to create objective standards governing this process to prevent adverse impacts on contributing resources which can respond to the context of specific historic districts, not just one size fits all.

Combined with continued protection for individually listed properties and prohibitions against outright demolition of contributing resources, this Bill will neither maintain the status quo nor will it result in the top down destruction of neighborhoods.

If we create historic districts to help us tell the story of our past, it is important to acknowledge that the stories of our communities are or ought to be living documents.

I personally believe that AB 1061 represents an opportunity to make some of our most beautiful and desirable neighborhoods, at least to some extent, more accessible and vital today and in the future. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses?

Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Max Dubler. I'm a policy manager at California YIMBY. After SB9 passed in 2021 exclusive enclaves around the state attempted attempted to undermine the law by having their neighborhoods designated as historic districts.

AB 1061 addresses this issue by ending the total prohibition on SB9 duplexes and lot splits in historic districts and replacing it with reasonable standards developed in conversation with the preservation community. California has three levels of historic designation. Individually listed historic landmark properties, contributing structures in an historic district, and non contributing structures in the historic district.

AB 1061 maintains the prohibition on SB9 projects at individually listed historic properties. It requires that projects at contributing structures maintain the street facing appearance of those homes. Further, it preserves local government's power to set design standards for non contributing properties in historic districts. We believe that this Bill strikes a reasonable balance between housing production and historic preservation.

And as such, we request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? All right, we're going to move to me too, state your name, your organization and whether you support or oppose.

Corey Smith Housing Action Coalition and support.

Raymond Contreras on behalf of abundant Housing Los Angeles and field student support.

Thank you. We're going to move on to Committee Members seeing none.

Thank you.

Assembly, Just a question. Technical question. So from the witnesses point about the inventory of the contributing structures, is it correct then that the Bill allows the partial demolition of a contributing structure? In its language, I thought when I was reading it it looked like the contributing structures were not covered. They could not be done in exterior period.

But are you saying that the earlier provision with respect to the 25% exterior facing applies in that case?

It has been, if memory serves, it has been altered to preserve the primary facade and elevation which is the like the street facing like front of the building and the roof line and allows for up to 25% demolition like in the back or on the sides of the building. Okay.

But it still protects the character defining exterior features. Thank you.

Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Could I get a motion, please?

So moved by Senator Durazo. Motion do pass to local government Senators. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Seyarto. Seyarto. No. Arreguin. Arreguin, aye. Cabaldon. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Ochoa Bogh. No. Ochoa Bogh. No. Padilla.

All right, that Bill is on call. We're gonna move on and just since we wrapped up all our Bill presentations, I'm just gonna move on to again lifting the call for File item number one AB547 by Senator Assemblymember Mckinnor. AB57.

File item one, AB57. Motion is do pass to Judiciary. Current vote is 5-2. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Padilla, that Bill is out 7-2. File item number 2, AB301 by Assembly Member Shiavo. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Cabaldon.

Can we get like all these AB301.

Cabaldon aye. Caballero. Oh, no.

Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Padilla.

Got it.

So we're going to ask Senator Cabaldon one more time to clarify his vote on this particular Bill. If you would not. Can you call his name one more time for file item number two, AB301 by Assemblymember Schiavo.

Motion do pass as amended to appropriations. Cabaldon. Cabaldon, not voting.

8-0. That Bill is out. Can we go to consent?

Senators Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Durazo, aye.

Gonzalez Padilla. All right, consent items are out. 9-0. We're going to move on to File item number six. Six, which was pulled. File item number seven. AB 1061. Quirk-Silva.

Motion do pass to local government. Gonzalez. Grayson. Padillia

All right, can we make sure that we call Grayson back in to vote? And then we're going to move on to File item number 8. AB 1296.

Motion do pass to appropriation. Senators Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Arreguin. Arreguin, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Padillia.

All right, for the most part. Can we call item number File item number seven, AB 1061. One more time.

Senators Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Padillia.

All right, 8-2. That bill's out we're going to move on to the last one. File item number 8, AB 1296 by Assembly Member Bonta.

Senators Gonzalez, Grayson. Grayson, aye. Padillia.

7-2. All bills are out, including that one. We want to thank everybody for joining us.

And so you next week, take care.