Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Yeah. All right, we are going to get started. Thank you everyone for your patience. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We have 13 items on our agenda today. Item number seven, SB 507, Limon is on consent.

And item number one, SB 16 Blakespear has been pulled at the request of the author to facilitate the goals of the hearing. Within the time we have, each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition. Each witness will have two minutes each. Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website.

This will become a part of the official record of the bill. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. This morning we are in room 437 at the Capitol. The hearing room is open for in person attendance.

All are encouraged to watch this hearing from its live stream on the assembly's website. And thank you again for your patience and understanding. We are going to begin today as a subcommittee. And I believe that we have one author who is here and was right on time. And so I will call our first item.

Item number three, SB 79 Wiener. Welcome.

Okay, all settled. May I proceed?

Yeah, please.

Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I'm here to present Senate Bill 79, which authorizes more housing near our highest quality, highest capacity public transportation stops bill that will help address California's severe housing shortage while also supporting our public transportation systems.

I've, you know, as you know, I've, I have fought very hard to increase investment in public transportation, to expand public transportation. Southern California is doing great work now and the Bay Area, I hope we can keep pace to expand rail in particular. And that's fantastic.

First, I want to thank the chair and committee staff for working very diligently with us on this bill. And I'm happy to accept the committee amendments outlined in the analysis which do the following.

And I want to say at the beginning that when the Chair and I first spoke about this bill, he expressed support for what we were trying to do in the bill and indicated that he wanted to work with us to increase anti displacement and demolition protections to make clear that local demolition controls were not being overridden by the bill.

That was never our intent, but I'm happy to make that very explicit in the bill. And in addition to increase demolition controls in other ways as well as outlined in the analysis. So I appreciate the Chair's focus on that issue and we're happy to do that.

To strengthen the demolition anti displacement controls, the chair also indicated a desire to shift the affordable the baseline affordability requirements. The bill of course, does not override local affordability requirements, but the shift from density bonus to the AB 1893 standards, which are a bit higher, we're happy to do that as well.

And there are other amendments in there. And again, we very much appreciate the chair and staff's engagement with us. Colleagues in California, all too often our debate about housing centers on where we don't want to build housing. There are people who say we should not be building or not be building too much.

For example, in the highest wildfire severity zones, there are people who say we shouldn't vote build in the coastal zone, there are people who, there are all sorts of conversations about where we don't want to build.

And it's fine to talk about where we don't want to build, but if that's all you talk about, then the housing crisis just gets worse. And so it's important to talk about where we should be focusing on building housing.

And there are various places, but one area where it makes an enormous amount of sense to focus new housing is near our highest quality public transportation stops. Rail, subway, ferry, rapid bus service. We invest significant taxpayer resources to build these transit systems. And I support that.

We also want to make sure that those systems are set up for success. And that means allowing more people to live nearby within walking distance, make it easy for people to rely on public transportation.

When we don't allow a lot of housing near these highest quality transit stops, it means very few people can actually get to transit without driving a car. And we want to empower people to be able to make that choice to rely on transit and to live near it.

And the only way to do that is to have more housing. We also have a severe housing shortage and we need more housing. And so this bill will, in the areas around these highest quality transit stops, will authorize multi unit, will authorize more density as outlined in the bill, depending on the exact nature of the stop.

It will also provide transit systems with more land use authority on their own land. BART has that ability now.

By doing that, not only do you get more housing and other uses right at the station, which is, you know, we see in other countries you have stations that have housing and commercial and shopping all there right around the station. And that is so healthy and helpful.

And it again supports these systems with both ridership and financially. So this bill can really be a win win. And I'm so grateful to our broad coalition supporting the bill. The bill also I wanted to stress this, it contains a local flexibility alternative.

Cities will have the ability, if they choose, to craft their own alternative plan that meets the goals of the bill in a way that works for that city.

We strengthened and fleshed out beyond fleshing out that piece of the bill and Senate Appropriations, we are currently working with the Local Government Committee and the Assembly and we will be making additional amendments to make that option stronger and more robust for cities.

If we pass today, then we'll be in that committee in a couple of weeks again. Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you to the Committee and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

With me today to testify is Jed Leano, a Claremont City Council member and board member of the LA County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency and a senior policy advisor for the Inner City Law Center and Kirsten Bladh, who is the associate director of state policy for Streets for All. Thank you.

Thank you Chair Haney and esteemed members. Jed Leano, Claremont City Council member and senior policy advisor at Inner City Law Center. I proudly serve on the Claremont City Council where we approved our city's first two affordable housing developments in over 15 years and we approved a pragmatic inclusionary zoning program that encourages affordable units while also ensuring that market rate developments can pencil still, our city remains unaffordable to most.

I'm chair of the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust where we've funded over 700 units of PSH. We have over 30 cities in our region, still only a few cities are bringing projects and most remain averse to housing. I'm on the board of La Casa, the LA County Affordable housing solutions Agency where we finance affordable housing.

Despite adopting a bold vision to leverage capital, our best efforts will not be enough to relieve the demand for subsidized affordable housing so long as market rate housing remains unaffordable. And I'm senior policy advisor at Intercity Law Center Skid Rows law firm representing the poorest of the poor.

Despite our lawyers best efforts to keep clients housed and prevent homelessness, California consistently fails to produce enough housing and this undersupply hurts our clients most by increasing rents and increasing homelessness. In every capacity I serve, no matter how hard I fight, housing will remain unaffordable.

Because of this fact, 96% of all land is in California that is zoned for housing is exclusively zoned for single family homes. SB 79 will confront this policy problem head on by allowing housing to be built where it's needed most, near our public transportation.

It will address our housing crisis by increasing supply and will address our climate crisis by reducing vehicle miles traveled by adding the affordability requirements from 1893, we ensure affordable units for lower income Californians will lift people out of housing instability directly benefiting the clients we serve at ICLC.

Please vote yes on this transformative legislation and thank you Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Kirsten Bladh and I'm the associate director of state policy for Streets for All. Streets for All is co sponsoring SB 79 because we believe it is not just a housing bill, but actually one of the most important transportation and climate bills of the year.

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

Nowhere is this clearer than in the LA region, where Victorville, a town in the Mojave Desert with just a single train per day, now has more residents than Pasadena. Pasadena, a city with six LA Metro rail stations, is in fact losing population. And it's not unique.

Glendale, where I live and where a $600 million transit investment is soon to open, has lost 5% of its population since 2020. And in that same time period, the city has permitted less than 350 housing units and built far less. Compare that to the 1980s when Glendale built 15,000 infill apartments.

UCLA research shows it was that apartment building boom that enabled Glendale to become a safe haven for thousands of refugees fleeing war. Because when we build more housing in our cities, we make our cities more affordable for people who want or need to live there.

Every time someone who wants to live in our urban centers near transit is priced out, we are failing that person, we are failing the climate, and we are failing our struggling transit agencies who are in financial peril and are struggling to grow ridership.

Because our transit stations are still surrounded by parking lots, strip malls and expensive one story homes.

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

And if you're a renter of any income level, then you're shut out of the area almost entirely. By mandating low density sprawl around our transit stations, cities have capped how many people are even able to live near our station, let alone afford to.

Streets for All believes that anyone who wants to live in our cities near transit should be able to do so and SB 79 will help make that possible.

Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm going to ask if there are other folks who are here in support of SB 79. If you will please come up and state your name and your affiliation, if any, and your position.

There we go. Thanks. Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Ed Manning with KP Public affairs on behalf of the new California Coalition in strong support and thanks Senator for bringing this bill forward.

Good morning. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association in strong support. Thank you.

Benton Buecker, political affairs director with Davis College Democrats in strong support.

Catalina Silva-Oliveira, executive director of Davis College Dems and strongly in support.

Benny Mock, General Member of Davis College Democrats. I strongly support this bill.

Holly Fraumeni with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission, Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles and SPUR all in support.

Good morning. Paul Shafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support.

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

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead & Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. An Orange County entrepreneur in strong support.

Katherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council as a proud co sponsor and on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Moira Topp on behalf of the City of San Diego in support.

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

Good morning. Allie Saberman, I serve on the San Jose Housing Commission and I'm here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support.

Good morning. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, the UC San Diego Housing Commission and the Youth Bridge Housing Commission at UC San Diego.

Good morning. Jasmine [unintelligible] on behalf of 21st Century Alliance in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Valeria Pacias on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in strong support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Cities of Santa Monica and the City of West Hollywood both in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and members Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt alliance, the environmental co sponsor of the bill in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. David Azevedo with AARP California on behalf of our 3.2 million members in the state we strongly support.

Good morning. Gracia la Castillo Kranz here on behalf of Prosperity California and the Abundance Network in support.

Good morning. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY the housing co sponsor in support.

Good morning. Matt Braud on behalf of Unite Here International Union. We don't have a position, but we thank the author and the sponsors on working towards language clarifying the applicability of the bill to hotels.

Thank you. Seeing no one else here in support. Thank you all for being here and registering your position. We'll now ask the main opposition witnesses to please come up to the front.

And you will each have two minutes. Welcome. You can begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members, Andrés Ramos with Public Advocates speaking on behalf of a coalition of over 30 organizations that work with low income communities throughout California. We support transit oriented development policies to meet our housing, transportation and climate goals.

However, we are respectfully opposed to SB 79 unless amended to ensure affordability at least as strong as what's required in existing law and to ensure that strong local policies are protected. First, let me express our appreciation for the hard work of the Chair and the Committee Consultant on this bill.

The amendments listed in the analysis represent meaningful progress towards addressing our concerns and by reducing pressure to redevelop sites with critical rent stabilized housing, clarifying and improving affordability requirements and ensuring projects meet minimum density standards. However, additional refinements are needed. Across the state, underproduction of housing is most acute for lower income households.

Given the significant disparities in housing production, we should be using every tool available to increase affordable housing development. Under density bonus law, a developer must provide 15% very low income units in the base project in exchange for a 50% density bonus.

And the greater the density and the greater the density a project gets, the more affordable units it must include. Under SB 79, with the Committee's amendments, projects will be subject to a single affordability requirement.

Whether the density bonus the bill provides over the local zoning is 10% or 300%, the developer is only asked to provide 10% very low income units. In addition, the bill seems to allow those same 10% affordable units to be used to get additional density under benefits under density bonus law. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Jurisdictions like Los Angeles have successfully built on the density bonus model, tailoring local benefit programs to local conditions to incentivize dense development around transit with deeply affordable units. Without additional amendments, SB 79 threatens to undermine local affordable housing incentive programs with proven track records in Los Angeles and other cities. We respectfully ask for further amendments to address these concerns. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair and Members Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition to the measure, first wanted to thank the author's office and the sponsors. They've had a very open door policy talking with us and we appreciate those conversations. But we do remain concerned about several factors with the measure.

One is that they would ignore state mandated housing elements that have been certified by the state. These programs are adopted at the local level to plan for and site for more housing. And this says that that's not good enough and is not far enough. A lot of our cities were supportive of Transit Oriented Development.

We think it's really important, but the one size fits all zoning regulations is not the best approach to do that.

The other major concern is that transit agencies would get land use authority on land they own or have an operating easement regardless, despite them not having planning experience in historically, they could come up with development standards and other aspects that are better suited for the local government. So we're concerned about that. Finally, I wanted to address the local the alternative TOD the local flexibility plan.

We appreciate that the author's office has been working that way, but we do remain concerned that going through the housing element process is going to make it more challenging for local governments to want to look at this alternative route because it costs a bunch of money, it can be expensive, and then where at the risk of potentially losing housing element certification as a result of efforts to try and address that.

So we do remain concerned about that. A better approach would be looking at adopting an ordinance or along those lines. And we've had those conversations as well. So we do still have concerns with the bill.

Look forward to the continued conversations and appreciate all the work that has been done on the bill so far and look forward to continuing to talk with the author's office in the next committees on this one. Thank you.

Thank you for that testimony. Other folks who are here in opposition, you can share your affiliation, your name and your your position. Thank you.

Judy Yee, the State Buildings and Construction Trades Council. We appreciate the conversations we're having with the sponsors, but respectfully remain opposed today.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and committee members Jonathan Clay on behalf of the City of Encinitas, in opposition.

Good morning. Melanie Burkholder, City Council Member in the City of Carlsbad, we oppose.

Good morning. Chair and members Spencer Street, on behalf of a number of organizations, apologize for reading. The cities of Coalinga, Fullerton, Hesperia, Laguna Beach, Lafayette, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Moreno Valley, Morro Bay, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Oakley, Oceanside, Orange, Orinda, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Santa Ana, Tulare, Walnut Creek and Whittier opposed. And the City of Tustin opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. Respectfully opposed unless amended to address remaining concerns about affordability, but really appreciate the work on the amendments thus far and think the bill's moving in a good direction. Thank you.

Brian Augusta, on behalf of public counsel, Public Interest Law Project in the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. We are opposed unless amended. Align our comments with those of Public Advocates. Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross, on Behalf of the cities of Burbank, Pasadena, San Marcos, Solana Beach and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members, all opposed.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the city of Ontario and San Bernardino, county, in opposition.

Good morning. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments SANDAG and the city of Inglewood, in opposition.

Mr. Chair and members Luis Sanchez on behalf of the city of San Bernardino, aligning our comments with my colleague from the Liga cities. Really appreciate the author's office for reaching out. Hoping to have a conversation next week and also some of Assemblymember Garcia's office as well. Thank you.

Chair Members Max Perry, on behalf of the city of Camarillo, still in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Chair and members, Cassandra Mar, on behalf of the town of Apple Valley and the city of Downey, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the following cities, Bellflower, Carson, Chino, Commerce, Cupertino, Fairfield, Folsom, Glendora, Indian Wells, La Mirada, La Quinta, Lakewood, Lomita, Norwalk, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Paramount, Rancho Cordova, Redding, Roseville, Simi Valley, Southgate, Torrance and Yucaipa, all in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the city of Beverly Hills, in respectful opposition.

Jeff Neal, representing the city of Visalia, also opposed.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Bakersfield, Corona, Merced, Rancho, Cucamonga and Thousand Oaks, in respectful opposition.

Asha Sharma, on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We are opposed unless amended, but appreciate the amendments that are moving the bill in the right direction. Thank you.

Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California were opposed unless amended and align our comments with public interest advocates. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone who's here to share or represent their position and to our witnesses and sponsors. Thank you as well. I will now bring it back to the Committee and I will start with Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Senator, you always bring out the crowd.

I'm the life of the party.

The entire crowd. Well, I have a lot of comments, but I do have questions. So I want to start with the questions. I don't always see our Public Advocates coming opposed to bills that we are hoping that will add housing. So if you could speak to their comments about the density bonus and the 10% in that, that would be 1.

You can also speak to the height on these projects because I know there is a certain quarter of mile, half mile and so forth and we have at least listed here.

Can I do them?

Maybe I didn't count them, but just say 50 to 100 local jurisdictions that are opposed and give us an estimate of actually what this bill will pertain to. So I know in my area that I represent, I have Fullerton that has a metro transportation center, Buena Park and a future one someday in Artesia.

So what does this look like for the many cities who are opposed that this may not apply to at all?

Yeah. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. I took notes. So if I missed any of your questions, just remind me, please.

So in terms of the opposition, not by the cities, but by the folks who work on housing issues, I want to say this is not the first time we've had when I authored SB 35 back in 2017, which has probably been one of the biggest boons for affordable housing in the State of California in recent history, SB 35 has produced a huge amount of below market rate affordable housing.

The same groups were expressing concerns about that bill. Not a criticism, it's just an observation. Every bill that I have ever authored that seeks to increase the production of housing, we've had those concerns expressed and frankly they've, in my experience, they've never ended up playing out that way.

And some of the groups that oppose the bill, bills end up using these housing laws that they've opposed to facilitate affordable housing, which I think speaks volumes. I appreciate the acknowledgment that we, you know, we've had demolition controls affordability in this bill for, for a long time. We're enhancing them today. I appreciate the acknowledgment.

I do want to say that the argument, with one exception, the arguments in the, in the opposing list amended by the housing advocates are at least good topics for conversation and finding common ground.

The argument that the affordability should be based on the percentage increase in density is in my, I'm just going to be very frank, I think is a completely, it's an absurd argument. And I don't say that lightly because, and the reason why I say that is because we're talking about low density zoning here.

We're talking about a lot of single family zoning. Right around we spend $1.0 billion to build out a rail line and then we surround the stations with single family homes so that almost no one can actually walk to it.

And so when you talk about increasing density from a single family zoning to let's say 50 units or 30 units, that's like a 3,000% increase in density. And it sounds like a lot, but it's because you're going from single family to multi unit.

So it's one thing, I agree with the opposition that if you're talking about regular density bonus where it's zoned for 30 units and now we're going to bring it up to 40 units, that's one thing.

But here, that argument that it should be based on the percentage increase in density is an argument that you're always going to have the absolute maximum inclusionary. And that's the intention, frankly, I think, which will largely make these projects financially infeasible by imposing a very high inclusionary on projects that are just not going to pencil.

So all of their other arguments are ones that I either partially agree with or mostly agree with and they're very thoughtful arguments and we've made some progress today and we'll continue to talk. So I'm not looking to like insult anyone that argument. I just, I don't, I don't think it is, it's not well taken.

I just want to express that. But we do appreciate the engagement and not just a knee jerk opposition, but wanting to work with us and we'll continue to work together. In terms of heights, it depends on the type of station. It's either six to seven stories or five to six or four to five.

In most counties in California it'll be local height limit for the second quarter mile. That's in a large majority of counties will be local height limit for the second quarter mile.

We also have a provision in there that if you are building a project under the heights outlined in SB 79, you can invoke density bonus for some things but not for additional height. So when we say that the height is five stories or six stories or seven stories, that's the height.

You don't get the additional density bonus on height on top of that in terms of cities. And you know we work very well with the League of Cities. League of Cities does oppose pretty much every housing bill in the Legislature.

And I, and I understand there it's a certain perspective about local versus state and that there's League of Cities is playing a role. And I, we appreciate, I appreciate and respect that and we always have a good open door dialogue.

I will also say that what I, what we see is that the League of City puts out the action alert and then a large number of cities oppose. We did an analysis of all the cities opposing this bill.

One half of those cities, 50% are literally not impacted by the bill and they're opposing because the league has asked them to in solidarity around local control, but they're not even impacted. Someone also did an analysis a number of cities are opposing, even though the motion did not go to their City Council.

It was just like an automatic pro forma sign off. So it's something that we deal with and the cities are absolutely entitled to take whatever position they, they want, but that's sort of the dynamic as I see it in terms of like impacts.

You know, one of the things that I've seen over time with housing bills, and this plays out on both support and oppose side, the opposition sometimes, or people who have concerns sometimes have sort of, sort of almost a subconscious image that the bill gets signed into law and like the next day apartment buildings start sprouting up out of the ground.

It's going to be overnight thing. And that's not true. It's, it's slow. Development does not happen quickly. And that actually frustrates the supporters because a bill passes and it's like, wait, it's been six months and nothing's been, you know, built. Development is really, really slow, even under the best of circumstances.

That's a whole other issue of how do we make things get built more quickly. And so my, my take is that this, this is not a, like an overnight change kind of bill. There'll be some change that happens quickly, but this is actually just creating a structure over long period of times.

The unsustainable land use patterns in California where people are forced to drive whether they want to or not, we can gradually start changing that. And so I don't think this is a situation where people's communities are going to transform overnight. It's going to be very, very gradual over time.

Thank you. Appreciate your remarks. And I did say I would make remarks for many of the people in the room who have been watching the Housing Committee now for quite a long time. We all kind of get to know each other as either supporters or advocates around the same place.

Like now I feel I could say, oh, it's Brady from the League of Cities. And sometimes I'm surprised if he supports something and other times I'm not surprised. But it's also when I look at this list of particularly the cities, I'm not surprised who's on this list.

I mean, the same cities that have opposed almost every housing bill since I've been here, including some of the cities that I represent and live in, which is Fullerton, which does have a transportation center. Matter of fact, when I was on the City Council In Fullerton almost 15 years ago, we were talking about TODs.

We were talking about using that energy down there in the transportation center to build housing. I think there's been one housing project down in that jurisdiction with about a half a mile period in 15 years. So the sky is falling is always what we hear. We've seen that in SB 9. We've seen it in other bills. And yet we hear from Californians in every poll, every poll that affordability for housing is a number one issue.

So I don't know about the representatives that come from the cities repeatedly and tell us how they're opposed, where they plan to house people, but it's the same cities, whether it's Carlsbad or Encinitas or coastal cities, Huntington Beach, they all want to push it onto somebody else.

And it's like some of you might remember that I'm an elementary school teacher, so this is my phrase. Not here, not there, not anywhere. Because that's what we have heard over and over and over. And with all due respect, it's really old when we haven't solved our homelessness problem, when people are leaving our state because of affordability.

And other states, we're not even getting close to building the units that we know we need to solve this high housing crisis. But most importantly, I represent what we call a college town. So we have Cal State Fullerton with about 40,000 students who come in to be educated. We have Fullerton College with about 30,000 students.

I have Cypress College in my district with about another 20,000. Where are these students going to work and live when we educate them in the State of California? Because it is not affordable. So, yes, I get slammed by my cities all the time.

Quirk-Silva doesn't know what she's doing, all of this stuff, but I'm not going to be going to bed at night feeling bad to say yes to housing votes. I'm simply not. Because we need these units. And actually in my lifetime, because I'm getting closer to retirement, I don't even believe we're going to see them.

So I think I will probably be 80 years old because I'm 62 now, before any of these units are really built. And I don't know, maybe I'll have a great grandchild that actually lives in them. But for now, I don't see a run on housing.

And I've been sitting here at this dais for I don't know how many years I've been on the Housing Committee, but it seems like a really long time. So with that, I move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Wicks.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Quirk-Silva. Always love your sage.

Real quick, before we do that can we establish quorum?

[Roll call].

Great. Sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to align my comments with Ms. Quirk-Silva, who always brings some sage wisdom in her years of being on the committee so thank you, and I want to thank the author for your doggedness, determination. This has been a long time in the making.

I remember when I was first running in 2018, I think you had the first iteration of this SB827. I was one of the few people, I think, or the only person in that race that supported it.

And you won.

And I won. Yeah, exactly. So thank you for this. To me, this bill is a lot, and we need to do a lot, right. We need to tackle this problem in structural ways, which obviously you've been such a leader on, Mr. Wiener. And I think about how this will actually, like play out in my, literally in my own neighborhood. So I live in Oakland.

I live in Rockridge. We have a BART stop right there that we have put millions of dollars in investment over decades, billions, presumably, actually. And that is a public resource for the public. And yet it is predominantly surrounded by single family homes. There's been a lot of work over years to upzone Rockridge and to upzone these areas.

This is an area that has good schools and grocery stores and all kinds of amenities for people. And everyone should be able to enjoy the bounty of that type of a neighborhood.

And the way we can ensure everyone can enjoy the bounty of that kind of neighborhood is to ensure we have more housing and housing at all different types. Low income, subsidized, missing middle market rate, all of the above.

And I think that's what this bill would do in terms of allowing for more of that type of housing, because that is truly the equitable thing so that people of all walks of life can enjoy a place like Rockridge. When you stand at the Rockridge bar, you look across the street and there's the Zachary's.

For those of you, it's delicious pizza. Come visit anytime. There's the Trader Joe's. Those are single story buildings, essentially. And that is at exactly the type of place where we should be building taller, more densely right there on the BART stop. So those are the types of things I think that we should absolutely be doing.

I also view this as, and I've said this since day one, our environmental policy is predicated on our housing and transportation policy. Those things are linked. And this literally pulls together housing and transportation policy to be the most environmentally friendly housing that we can be producing.

Because if we're putting high density on the BART stop at Rockridge, that means folks are just getting on the BART to go into San Francisco. They're not having to drive out from the hinterlands to be able to get into their place of employment. So I think this is certainly the most environmentally friendly thing we can do.

We have a lot of folks in my part of the Bay Area who they want to live there, but they can't afford to live there. So they live out two hours away so they can get in their car and commute into the Bay Area to work. And it's not sustainable. It's not good for them.

It's not good for our communities. And this will, I think, help address some of those issues. So I'm very supportive of the bill. I would love to be added as a principal co author, if you would have me. I was bummed I didn't get to make the motion or the second, but I'll make the third.

And I eagerly look forward to seeing this bill succeed. And please let me know, Mr. Wiener, if I can help you in any way.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you to the author for your leadership on in housing. And I know it's not always appreciated by everyone, but I appreciate it. And we've had this conversation. And so I just wanted to note it for the record, I do support the intention of the bill and what you're trying to do.

It makes perfect sense, especially as it relates to Transit Oriented Development, that you should be able to upzone.

I have, I call it three and a half of these in my district, three being in Solano County, two related to the Capitol corridor which I use today on my way here, and then one being the ferry in the city of Vallejo, and then the half is in the city of Oakley, which which will have a stop eventually and is planned to have a stop on the San Joaquin. I don't know if it's called Corridor, but the San Joaquin Amtrak version. And so one of the concerns that I talked about is all four of those are in various stages of development.

One of them is perfectly poised to be able to take advantage of this launch and have any impact, which is the city of Vallejo, where the ferry is. And the two other ones are underdeveloped, very wet, so to speak, in terms of their planning. And could easily, you know zone according to this law.

However, one of them in the city of Fairfield has been planned for a really long time. Actually, you and I talked about this. Since 1999, they've been working on this. They got a stop in 2017 and now they're in the execution of that plan.

And this would actually have them if a developer was to come in and try to use this. And they said, no, we have this plan. This would actually put them in violation of a plan that they've worked on. And they did the right thing.

And so I want to be sure that this is not penalizing those that have been planning right. So they're not trying not to. They're not trying out the housing. They thought about it. It is called the train station specific plan. There's lots of opportunities of high density within there, but there is also single family.

And so it is, you know. So I wanted your thoughts on how you feel like this bill applies given that there is a penalty associated.

No, I appreciate that. And so when we first move forward with this bill, because as Assemblymember Wicks mentioned, I first started down this path in 2018 with SBA 27, which frankly was a, a broader version of this because it included all bus stops.

This does not include that when we reintroduced it this time because I know that there are cities, there are cities that have been doing work to do transit oriented upzonings. Not all cities. There are some cities that avoided and put their housing way far away from their transit.

But there are cities that have been working in good faith on that. And so to me it was very important to have an option for cities to craft their own alternative plan. So that was in there from the beginning, but it was not really fleshed out.

We fleshed it out more in Senate appropriations and then we are now going to do a big flushing out of it if it passes today in local government next week. And part of that we want to give them an option to do, you know, if they want to do it in a different way that meets the goals.

We also are, you know, very interested in making sure that for cities that have already done good TOD upzonings that they, you know, that they we want to account for that. And so we're working on that. We're going to be doing amendments in local government next week if the bill passes today.

But I also think that the local alternative will probably be a work in progress throughout the legislative process because we really want to get it right. We want it to be as easily usable by cities as possible. We don't want to make it an onerous process for cities to have that local flexibility. So that is something that's important to me, and we're going to keep working on it.

Okay, thank you for that commitment. I mean, you know, part of, not part of, one of the primary reasons outside of just overall improving people's quality of life is housing. Right.

And that's where my background is and wanted to be sure that when I came to the legislature, that we would produce more housing during the time that I'd hired, not 20-30 years down the road, as my colleague from across the way said, that we would actually get housing production. So, you know, I'll be an aye on this.

But keeping in mind that I think that when we're doing these types of housing laws, right, we're putting in legislation as it relates to housing, that we have to be mindful of people who are doing the right thing and recognize that there are cities who are, I would call them, bad actors who don't want housing, don't want more people.

They treat their communities like it's a museum. And I say cities and counties and our communities are living, breathing, dynamic things, just like we are living, breathing, dynamic people. And so I want to make sure that we are targeting those communities that treat their communities like a museum. It should just be preserved exactly the way it is and no more.

But also recognizing there are cities out there, and a lot of them are in my county who are trying to do the right thing and having it make sense and focus on not just housing, but making sure the economic development is there to match the housing so they're not just bedrooms communities.

So with that, I'll be supporting your bill today. But thank you for that consideration.

Thank you, Assemblymember.

Assemblymember Lee.

Thank you, Senator, for always bringing transit oriented development to the forefront of our California politics. I think it's really important that we focus on this. It always baffles me that so many people oppose transit oriented development and so many people fight against it, even though it is common sense.

And everywhere in the world, especially when Americans go on vacation, they say, I can't believe it's so convenient to walk around and get on the train. It's so great. And they come back to America, they say we should never have this for ourselves. It's ridiculous.

I have to say, as someone growing up, I literally, where I grew up and my house still is just 0.4 miles away from our nearest light rail station. I'm sandwiched between the VTA light rail and the San Jose BART station.

And I want to emphasize for folks that 0.4 miles and just for emphasis to people watching is like I walk out my door, I can see the light rail. I can. I literally, when I was a kid, I hear it coming enough that I could run to the station that I could race it.

That is just 0.4 mile. It's so close. It's literally, you have to literally be looking at the station almost with your own naked eyes. It is so close. And the fear mongering I think that happens about these kind of like upzoning and things that happen is you're literally right on the street.

And the BART station is just over a mile away from my house as well. Even though I can of course walk to it as well. I know all of this is sorted because our suburban blocks are super huge and all this stuff, but it's like all that is walkable and all of it makes so much sense.

So someone who has lived, breathed and done transit oriented living for so much of my life, it is just so common sense.

So every time I see the bills and you introduce this, even as Senator Wicks said, even when I was running the first time and it had so much uphill, I'm glad to finally see it in our house. To be able to vote for just makes so much sense to me.

And in a district like mine where we have lots of rail stops and we have light rail BART stations, in fact, we're the terminus now of BART. We're the newest end of the BART station. It makes so much sense to have transit oriented development around it.

But unfortunately because of developers themselves or local governments, we've been throttled on our height limits. Many times they settle for low density townhomes or just slightly different, more compact single family homes. And it's a lost opportunity.

Many of my colleagues from San Jose have even been very, very frustrated when developers take advantage of previously unamended builder's remedy to de densify to go downwards next to train station.

In fact, we have a big fight with developer next to the BART train station who keeps trying to go from multifamily commercial like amazing mall situation down to like single family again. So we were constantly in the tug of war with them.

But like we want to be able to make sure we're developing cities for the future where we want our children, our grandchildren, hopefully you and me to have a home and these areas that are rich with transit and opportunity. In fact this is jeopardizing even my community, the community that has all these train stations.

We have declining enrollment and declining birth rates because no one can able to afford a home and start a family. So it's really frustrating in that sense.

And I really do hope that our colleagues think about it really, really tangibly in that sense that especially if they do not live within half a mile of a TOD, it won't affect themselves personally, it won't affect the constituents.

Like for me, I want it to start changing things and for many of my friends and family that have grown up, like we want things to change and we literally live right there on the station stop.

And that's what I again want to reiterate to people is that there's a lot of fear monger about how we'll change the entire city. But literally you're talking about the street in front of the station basically.

And so I think it's really important and I think I know you're working also on this and express that I really want to make sure that our transit agencies have the ability to also produce their own housing and do more around the stations.

In fact, in a district like mine where 6 out of 10 people are from Asia, mostly complain that how come our transit isn't like Japan or Taiwan or China? Because all my immigrant families come here and they're like what the heck is going on here?

Like we are supposed to be the most developed nation in the world and I have to drive like 15 minutes or more than that, 30 minutes everywhere I have to go. And it's an expectation of my constituency that we get to a place where we catch up with the rest of the world.

And with that I really, really support your bill and I would love to be added as a co author if possible and especially when I help you get this all the way through the finish line too. So thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much. And if I could say what you mentioned, minimum density, that is one of the committee amendments and I appreciate the opposition opposing let's amended. We're pushing for that and that was a very good idea and we're glad to be able to put that in the bill.

First Ward. Senator Ward.

Great, thank you. Senator Wiener, It's a pleasure, Mr. Chair, to be serving on the committee today as a sub but for obviously a subject area that is incredibly important to me and I'm so glad that the author is bringing this bill forward.

We've talked for years about how to really set that standard for what we vision for transit oriented development. And I want to really focus in on that because of course I've received a lot of opposition and a lot of support from district and district adjacent in my city for this bill.

Definitely it's going to continue to be probably one of the more talked about bills as we head towards end of session. And I want to also note for the record, I want to thank the City of San Diego for.

...For being in support of the Bill. They represent about—a overlay about 95% of my, my Assembly District falls within that.

But we also have local example there where we are trying to do the right thing within local government to be able to meet the circumstances that we have and produce housing units that create policy that is going to increase production, but importantly, put that production where it is meant to be.

And locally, we have something called complete communities, which was a very forward-thinking opportunity that I had a chance to vote on when I was on City Council and has actually took a couple of years for everyone to look at it and see if this was going to be workable.

And turns out, it was very attractive, and it is putting housing along those transit line corridors where we exactly do want to be able to concentrate the growth.

And this is an important thing for those that might not be with you on this Bill as well, because if we can focus on areas like this, if we make this much more workable, that is going to reduce certain pressures for housing starts in other areas that they also would object to but might be seen as not meeting simultaneous goals as well for environment, climate, and importantly, for making transit work.

It's very difficult to have, in public office, lived a lot of conversation about how no one uses the bus or no one uses the trolley or you know, we do have very high utilization on our San Diego trolley line and I know other systems as well, but it is increasingly more difficult upon itself if we are not co-locating more housing opportunities right exactly where those transit investments, those public investments, are or aren't going. And so, that's where we do need to be very strong on policy to be able to connect those dots.

And I'm glad that's where you are centralizing the conversation within SB 79, is to really raise that bar, because you do have cities that, as you noted, others have noted, are trying on one-off situations to be able to do that and meet those principles locally, and hats off to them, but you have some that are not.

And for transit lines of course that span and go over city boundaries as well, we want all this to connect really well. I was remembering kind of a vision from a couple of years past.

I happened to be in D.C. for some work, and I took...and they had just—been the first time that I had been there since they opened up the Silver Line to Dulles and I hadn't—I've been to Northern Virginia before. It's quite low scale.

But having taken that line out to the airport to hitch my ride back to the West Coast was right along that train and then all of a sudden, got into something.

I'm not going to remember the station's name, but oh my gosh, that was transit-oriented development—out of nowhere, just something that looked like the Emerald City was trying to do something right, because it was exactly connecting that very new public investment with the housing opportunities that were helping to put housing where it needed to be and were connecting people to their jobs, presumably many of which were right back in the city as well.

And so, this is where I see SB 79 going. Not that we can't look at fine tuning things, and you have been doing it all along, to make sure that this is workable in today and the near term future as well. So, that seemingly new policy put into place will thread well with the existing environment.

But it is about that vision about what things look like 30 years from now and what that development pattern looks like.

And we want to be able to make sure that we are focusing to every extent possible that transit-oriented development, because it's not just about those housing opportunities, but it is about making sure that people are able to live, work, and play in a community that don't necessarily rely themselves on personal transportation needs only.

I know there's climate benefit here as well too, if we are thinking forward in that direction as well. And so, I think that this is the kind of Bill that will help to be able to set that trend in the right direction. Want to thank you for your leadership.

This is, I know, been several years in the making, but I appreciate right now that this is before us, and I'd like to be able to support the Bill here today.

Thank you, Mr. Ward. Mr. Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Haney, for bringing this Bill forward. I do support transit-oriented development. I think it's a good thing. I think it's good policy. You know, you should build housing where, where the transit centers are. However, we had this conversation a few weeks back.

My concerns is in my district, my hometown, it is the terminus for the Bright Line West, which is coming in 2028. And so, I did see in your Bill that your Bill excludes the California High Speed Rail, as well as Amtrak. But unfortunately, the Bright Line West was an oversight.

And so, unfortunately, I think that's kind of just emblematic of kind of like these policies for housing, which I think are best suited for the Bay Area and LA, the big metro centers. But the area that I represent is the Inland Empire.

And I think it's just—it goes to the big picture of us being overlooked when these policies are crafted. And so, we are the region, per the last sentence, that had growth. The only one in, per the last census, it was San Bernardino and Riverside County that had growth.

So, we do want housing, and we are building the housing, and we are doing a good job, but it doesn't seem like we're getting credit for it. And so, I know you've been having conversations with my hometown, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as well as San Bernardino as well.

But, but there are five of my major cities that are in opposition as well as the counties today. And so, I, I know you still said you'd be making changes, but as in print today, I don't feel I can support the Bill.

Mr. Patterson.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity. Sorry I missed some of the presentation. You know, I've had one of the cities in my district that represents over a quarter of the population in my district has a letter of opposition on this Bill.

And I've had the opportunity to spend some time talking with them about the Bill and hearing what their concerns were regarding. And I think what I've come to the conclusion of is, you know, when there's—obviously, if somebody in my District's opposed, I want to take the time and find out the reason for their opposition.

I'm sure all my colleagues do the same. And it's always interesting to find out whether, whether the opposition is because it'll actually impact their community or not, or it's more of just sort of, hey, we're taking away some local control somewhere and we shouldn't do that as cities.

And so, I spent some time kind of discussing that and figuring that out. But I think that the two goals of this Bill, and it sounds like there's still some concerns around that and seems like you're still working on it, but I think the overall goal is, which is where the state has spent—state and local governments and taxpayers have spent bazillions of dollars building these transit lines for people, there ought to be, you know, housing for them.

And that also aligns with all the other state goals that we have, which is reduce VMT, which is, I think I said this on the Assembly floor the other day, I think is kind of a flawed metric anyways, because you build housing in my community, it's hard to have no—or reduce VMTs—because there are no, there is no transit.

So, this is one of the few bills that actually aligns all the housing policies together. Reducing VMT where—which is going to be required—and then also investing in areas in which the state or the taxpayer has already invested a lot of money as well.

So, I think that that's—those are all pretty aligned. But the one other piece is that, kind of going to the VMT, is that why would we not want housing where people are? I mean, that's the one thing. Why would we not reduce the burden to build housing where there are actual people?

So, because of our fragmented RHNA process, I feel like sometimes that pushes, and it actually promotes sprawl. I think it promotes housing being pushed into our foothills and things like that. And it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think our policies, such as this one, should be aligned in a way in which we are intensifying density in urban core areas where people actually live and reduces VMTs and all those other things. So, to me, this Bill seems to align the state's policies and, and investments that it's already made, and that's why I'll be supporting the Bill today.

Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Senator. Sorry I had to present in some Senate committees, but I'm happy to, to be here, at least for the conclusion of hearing of this Bill and appreciate for bringing it forward.

Back when I was chairing BTA about a decade ago, we did the first ever audit of properties that we didn't even have one kind of place where we knew exactly how many properties that VTA even owned.

And part of the reasoning was to recognize that we had all these empty lots around some of our transit stops that were just sitting there, that were ideally located for mixed-use types of uses that were finally kind of getting there.

And I think this type of legislation can help not just in one locale, but throughout the state. And I'm sure others have raised the issue and I know these are issues that matter to you and appreciate the Committee's work on it.

In terms of affordability, obviously if we're going to create higher density around transit lines, we want the people living there to actually use those transit lines. And I think the higher, you know, the market rate, the more market rate there is, the less likelihood that someone that lives there is going to use transit. Not always.

There's plenty of high-income folks that use Caltrain and other types of services because it's convenient. That's part of the reasoning behind it. But I think that proportionally, obviously lower income households are more likely to use transit or less likely to have multiple vehicles.

And so, continued work on affordability requirements are critical to me, especially in jurisdictions, frankly, outside of places like San Jose that do have inclusion areas, those jurisdictions that don't, that I think need more urging to build more affordable because otherwise, the only incentive developers and those towns are going to have are to build market rate so that they don't have to build the affordable housing.

And then, just in general, the general idea of displacement as well, especially along transit lines or near transit lines or public transit, to ensure that we don't have inordinate amount of displacement in those areas as well.

So, I know these are issues that matter to you and they're going to continue to matter to me as this legislation, others like it, move forward. But I think we do need to do much more in terms of encouraging incentivizing transit-oriented development.

We have far too many, whether it's BART or other types of transit, that just have miles of empty parking lots around them. And that just makes zero sense. And so, if we can, this will help encourage us to move in a better direction, which I think it will, I'll certainly fully support it. Thank you.

All right. Well, everybody had something to say today. Feels like a Senate Committee up here.

I, I have some thought—I have some opinions about that.

Well, I, I think that's because of how important this Bill is and how big of an impact that it will have.

And I echo the comments from my colleagues and appreciate the engagement that everyone has had on this Bill, the serious approach that we've all taken to make sure that we are partners in this effort. This will have a huge impact on our state.

I think a very important and positive one on what we certainly recognize and share as the Housing Committee, the concern, which is housing affordability, how we really unleash the wave of home building that we need, where it is going to have the biggest impact, where we're built for it, where it's safe, where there's transit, where we know we can increase density, where there's a desperate need for density.

And I really appreciate, of course, as has been said, your leadership and your partnership on this. I do have one question and then wanted to also just clarify a couple things with the other amendments and then we can move it forward. The question I had, and this sort of speaks to some of what Ms. Wilson said, but I do want to give you an opportunity to respond to this.

You know, part of, I'm sure what some of the concern or sort of hesitation around this, broadly around the state comes from the fact that we have, I think rightfully so, asked a lot of our cities and counties on planning for much more aggressive and ambitious goals.

All of that includes for them some degree of rezoning and up zoning and a process to determine how to do that locally to be able to meet the goals that they've set and that we've set with them.

I know this looks different in every part of the state and in our city, the Mayor and Board of Supervisors recently put forward a rezoning plan and they're out in communities talking about that. And now, to have that potentially affected by this change, if this were to go into law.

I know you're continuing the conversation about what options cities will have. And so, you know, one is sort of is this still necessary? Because cities have not gone far enough with their rezoning in certain areas in transit-oriented development.

And how do we account for the fact that many cities, including our own, feel like they've done a good job here? And what are the plans that you have to sort of align what needs to happen with this Bill with what is already happening out there in our cities?

Absolutely. And thank you for that question. As my, as my representative in the Assembly, I get to vote for Mr. Haney every two. So, we are—and this will happen in local government if things go well today—we are making the local alternative option more robust and easy to use.

And as our sponsors will attest, because I have very early on identified the exact issue that you just mentioned, that for cities that are doing that work locally pursuant to a housing element or it could be just voluntarily that have been upzoning around high quality transit, I want to account for that and not just pretend like it didn't happen.

And our great City of San Francisco, for many years, did a horrible job around in terms of zoning around transit. That's true on the west side of the city, which has some very robust rail lines and zoned only single family.

It was true in my own neighborhood of the Castro where we have very robust transit and it was until recently it was zoned very low density.

San Francisco in recent years has been doing more and now, the Mayor has proposed a rezoning that in parts of the city, not all, but in parts of the city has very robust transit-oriented development upzoning. Whether it's in Solano County, or in San Francisco, or in San Bernardino County, or anywhere where cities are doing that work, we want to account for that, and I'm very committed to doing that. We want to reward that good behavior. So, thank you for that.

Thank you. Thank you for that and thank you for the continued work on that. I think that sort of speaks fundamentally both to how we move forward with this Bill, but we know whether it's on rezoning or as we've seen over the past few weeks in the conversation about how we make it easier and more less complex and simpler and faster and cheaper and all those things to get housing built in our state. We still have a ways to go.

And there's a role for localities that are looking to do the right thing and are doing the right thing and respecting their local knowledge and processes and also our role and also, obviously pushing with both carrots and sticks to support them in that process.

I did want to just underscore a few things around the amendments which are really important and want to appreciate you and the sponsors for working with us on it.

I do think that they make some, some really critical changes that'll strengthen the Bill, that actually help to make it even more effective in bringing about housing for folks in communities who need it.

The amendments will create—and again, in partnership with you and your office, we are able to develop a set of amendments that will create some minimum density. So, establishing a minimum density for these projects which will include at least five units, or a minimum density allowed under local zoning.

Also, for to get the higher level of concessions, you actually will have to build more of the maximum density. So, we're really trying to get more housing built here. That's the goal.

Also, an average unit size so that we're getting more units and not sort of large units in the upzoning but really providing many units that will be affordable by design and also, increasing the affordability and the demolition displacements—and displacement protections. I think these are critical. We heard that from many of the folks increasing the affordability levels.

But also, as you said, if there is a higher level of affordability required locally, that will apply. Similar on the demolition protection, because I've heard some ways that this has been characterized, which I think are not what is actually happening here now with these amendments.

One is that all of the local anti-displacement or demolition protections will apply. So, for example, in San Francisco, you're not allowed to demolish any rent-controlled unit without discretionary approval. You need special approval in order to do that in our city. That will still apply to all of these units.

So, that would be true anywhere else in the state where they have those protections locally.

Also, on top of that, we put I think some of the strongest anti-displacement protections into this Bill that exist anywhere for any rent stabilized unit, whether that's rent control or units that are protected under the Tenant Protection Act—that are over two units and have been tenant occupied now or for the last five years, they could not be demolished for development under—and applicable for SB 79.

Most single family homes and duplexes, as we know, most of those do not have rent control or rent stabilized. But again, if the localities wanted to put additional protections there, they could. So, this is to make sure that we're really taking advantage of opportunities to build a lot more housing where it's needed, near transit, where we can have a huge impact on allowing folks—more people—to live near transit.

More opportunities for people to live in a place where they can also catch the bus or the train is going to make our state better, it's going to make it more affordable, it's going to allow folks to get to jobs and school, and it is actually going to help reduce displacement.

Because right now, if you're building something like a train station or we have a train station and you only have single family homes around it, there's a much more limited set of folks who have access to that and you're gonna have a much greater, high demand for those opportunities to live there, which is gonna create a lot of cost pressures and give less opportunity for a broader set of folks who should be able to live near transit.

So, this is a hugely important Bill. It's one that I am proud to support today and happy as well to, if you'll take me to add as a coauthor, and appreciate your leadership.

And I know there's continued work that's going to be done, particularly on how we look at and how we view those cities who really are taking on this challenge themselves and providing that opportunity for them. So, with that, I'll give you the opportunity to close.

And again, thank you for your leadership and work with our Committee on all of these really important measures to increase the goals I think that you set out with this Bill.

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your collaboration on SB 79. I want to thank colleagues for all of the—this has been a very thoughtful conversation. I really appreciate it, and I look forward to the continuing work.

So, yesterday, for anyone who happens to read the Atlantic, there was an article that came out and it was actually, I think it's a really important read because—I forget the exact title—but it's basically like the rest of the country is becoming California and it's about housing because what the crisis—not just the crisis, we overuse the word crisis—disaster of housing affordability which damages communities so deeply. Homelessness is the most visible.

But the less visible is when your kid has three teachers in one year because teachers keep moving away, or when your neighbors keep moving away, out of state entirely, because they committed the sin of having two kids.

And so, for California or many parts of the state, if you have two kids, you're out because you're never going to be able to find housing that's going to work for you. In an increasing geography of California, we make it hard for people to grow families because of our horrible approach to housing over the last 50 years.

And so, it started, it was in certain cities like San Francisco, Santa Monica, other places, it has spread like wildfire across California, and it's now spreading across the country, including in places like Georgia and Arizona and Texas and places that have traditionally been viewed as more affordable places to get housing.

And the reason is that, as in California, the way more and more places approach housing is just keep building out and out and out and out. So, that's why some of these states have built a lot of homes like California used to, out where you don't have neighbors who are going to complain.

And then, at some point, you can't build out any further. It's just too far from the job centers. And at that point, all the existing communities have gone on lockdown and through zoning and permitting have made it hard or impossible to build anything in those existing communities. And that's happening, just like it's happened here, it's happening all across the country.

And then all of a sudden, as we see in places like Texas and Georgia and Arizona, we see explosive housing cost increases, which has been happening over the last few years, and these previously affordable places, just like in the previously affordable parts of California.

And so, we have to make it easier to build in these existing communities and in particular, around the highest quality transit. That's what this Bill is about. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And it turns out we did not have quorum when the motion and the second was made. So, I'll open that up. I think Ms. Quirk-Silva wanted to make the motion. And do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Lee. All right, roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, eight to one with two Members not voting. That Bill is—we'll keep it, oh, sorry, one, one Member—one Member not voting. And we'll keep that open as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you.

Do we have Ms. Durazo here? I know she was waiting. Let's give—let's check real quick, because she was waiting for a very long time. I see Ms. Blakespear here as well. Oh, she's here. Okay. All right. Ms. Durazo, thank you for your incredible patience with us. And I know you also have your, your Committee going on, so appreciate it. And this is item number two, SB 21, Durazo. Welcome.

Good morning and thank you. It was worth the wait. Thank you. To Committee Members. I accept Committee amendments outlined on pages 6 and 7, and thank you for all the work and your analysis.

SB 21 amends the Housing Crisis act of 2019 to allow up to 25% reduction in units when converting deed restricted affordable housing, what we call SRO building, single room occupancy, into larger units with affordable rents, private amenities and supportive service spaces.

SB 21 updates eligibility at the Department of Housing and Community Development to deem SRO tenants, quote, unquote homeless for relocation purposes, waiving referral and homeless documentation requirements. This will help tenants relocate to other supportive housing with ease as their units are upgraded.

We have tenant protections in the Bill, including right of first refusal to return rent, guardrails, and a replacement housing plan. SRO buildings are a critical housing resource in my district and throughout California. Many of these buildings are aging and increasingly unsustainable to operate.

Lacking private bathrooms, kitchenettes and supportive service space, these properties struggle with very high occupancy rates, low rents, and insufficient revenue to fund maintenance or upgrades. SB 21 preserves the role of SROs in providing the stability of a home while enabling their long term viability in our communities. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this before you.

My witnesses today are Tiffany Spring from the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing, and Sarah Tsai, Senior VP of Development for Abode Communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Great, thank you. You have two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Durazo. And good morning, Members. I'm Tiffany Spring. I'm with SCAMPF, the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing. In early 2023, a long standing nonprofit developer in Los Angeles, the Skid Row Housing Trust, announced that it could no longer sustain operations at its 29 building portfolio.

Scamp stepped in to find a path forward for the most distressed of those properties. Those buildings were mostly SROs, single room occupancy housing. So these are permanent homes that have just that one room. The kitchens and bathrooms are provided in a shared configuration like a dorm or a hostel. These buildings were upside down.

They're expensive to operate, they don't bring in much rent, and they have really high turnover and vacancies. This isn't unique to the Trust. Nonprofits across the state are struggling to keep SROs afloat. Of 40 SRO buildings owned by a group of nonprofits statewide, only two are breaking even.

The rest are losing money, which is forcing organizations to divert other resources just to keep the lights on. We need to act now to prevent more failures like the Trust. So a clear solution emerged. Allow owners to redevelop these buildings to make them more livable and appealing. Adding kitchens and bathrooms while keeping them permanently affordable.

But current laws currently makes that nearly impossible to do if that means reducing the number of units even a little bit. So that's what SB 21 fixes. I am a housing advocate. I never thought that I would be here asking you to support a Bill that reduces the number of units.

But I saw firsthand what happened when the buildings of the Trust failed. The city had to spend nearly $40 million just to temporarily operate them. And that's money that could have been spent building new housing. So we wrote this bill with that in mind and tenant advocates at the table. It only applies to affordable SROs.

It requires new affordability covenants. It ensures thoughtful planning for residents during and after construction. And it puts safeguards in place so that the policy isn't abused. So we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning Committee Members. And thank you. Senator Durazo. I'm Sarah Tsai. I'm the Senior Vice President of Development and Portfolio strategy for Abode Communities. We're a nonprofit affordable housing provider that operates over 3,000 units throughout the state. We also own two of these SRO buildings and they are by far the most challenging in our portfolio.

SB 21 is, is really a path to preservation. It will enable us to move forward with an innovative modernization plan that will preserve and improve 106 deeply affordable homes at our historic Mary Andrews Clark residence. Ensuring these homes are available for the next generation of Angelenos in need.

With this legislation, we have the chance to convert outdated SRO units into dignified studio apartments, private kitchens and private bathrooms, creating long term housing sustainability and better living conditions for extremely low income residents, many of whom are formerly homeless.

Abode Communities has operated the Clark for over 30 years, despite having to Fund deep operating deficits in the past five to 10 years. Our goal is to reinvest and preserve this irreplaceable housing asset rather than just walking away. With SB 21, we can do just that.

Without it, we would unfortunately be forced to sell the building, putting these homes and residents at risk. The plan is not just about physical upgrades, it's about improving lives. Residents will no longer have to share bathrooms and kitchens and half of the units will benefit benefit from new housing vouchers.

And for the first time, we'll be able to offer on site supportive services to help our residents thrive. The project is shovel ready. We've already secured $25 million in state reinvestment funding and 53 rental vouchers we've submitted for tax credits. And hopefully we'll get those in the next couple weeks and begin construction in early 2026.

But only with your support of SB 21. Rather than continuing to patch up an outdated model, SB 21 lets us build for the future. We can reduce long term operating costs, improve resident outcomes, and protect a critical piece of California's affordable housing landscape.

In closing, SB 21 gives us the tools to preserve 106 high quality, deeply affordable homes at the Mary Andrews Clark residence for decades to come. We urge your support to ensure these homes and the people who rely on them aren't left behind. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Name and affiliation, please.

Anya Lawler, on behalf of The Public Interest Law Project and Public Counsel in support.

Paul Schaefer, with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support.

David Bullock, City of Los Angeles resident. Happy to support this much needed bill. Thank you.

Natalie Spivak, with Housing California in support.

Mark Stivers, with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Is there any opposition to this measure? Okay, seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee. Assemblymember Krala. Sorry. oh, sorry.

Tommy Milling, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, in opposition. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the Senator for bringing this forward. I think, you know, I don't blame the jurisdictions at the time, that went in the direction of SROs at the time, especially when they were in the short term.

That was easy maybe to convert a normal hotel or something just to quickly get some kind of shelter for folks similar to Congregate shelters. Though it's not a long term Solution.

And so I really appreciate this legislation in allowing local jurisdictions, working with our housing partners and affordable housing partners to move towards what our ultimate goal is, which is more long term, dignified housing for everyone. And SROs all too often are just not that. And so very happy.

I would love to be added as a co author and really appreciate your work in this.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. I see no other. And did I hear you say you're going to accept the Committee amendments?

Yes. Committee amendments outlined on pages 6 and 7.

All right, perfect. Okay. Well. Is there a motion?

Well, okay.

All right, it's moved and seconded. And would you like to make a closing statement?

Well, I just want to thank not only all the work that the Committee has done and all of you colleagues, but the folks on the ground who are the ones who came up with this and say, this is what we need. It's different, it's unique. We never thought we'd be saying it, but here we are.

And it's going to make a huge difference for a lot of people who need the housing. So I want to thank them, especially in all the stakeholders and who have been doing this work and respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Would you please take the roll? Of course.

Motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government. [Roll Call]

Okay, the vote's 8 to 0. Talpa. We'll leave it open. Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

Okay, I think we have. Senator Blakespear was next, I believe. All right. Okay, great. And that is, we are SB92. Thank you. And you can proceed when you'd like.

Okay, thank you. Vice Chair and hello, colleagues. I'd like to start by saying that I accept the amendments, the Committee amendments. Thank you to the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. SB92 will close a loophole in state density bonus law to ensure that density bonus projects are contributing meaningfully to the state's affordable housing supply.

Specifically, SB 92 would change density bonus law so that developers would only be able to request an increase in commercial floor area up to 21/2 times what the base zone allows. Last fall, a project was proposed in the community of Pacific Beach, which is located in my district, that exposed a flaw in density bonus law.

In exchange for only 10 affordable housing units, the law presumably entitles the developer to generous zoning concessions on floor area and height limit restrictions which would allow it to build a 240 foot tower with 139 luxury hotel rooms. This community has a 30 foot height limit.

So for only 10 affordable housing units, the project is able to exceed the local Height limit by 210ft. This is an abuse of our pro housing laws, as the Department of Housing and Community Development put it.

HCD in a letter said an interpretation that a project with a minimum of five residential units is entitled to an infinite amount of non residential floor area is an absurd outcome and does not further the purpose of the law. We do not have a luxury hotel room shortage in the State of California.

We have a housing shortage, particularly a shortage of lower cost affordable housing. SB 92 will ensure that density bonus law encourages developers to add meaningful affordable housing to their mixed use projects. And importantly, it will ensure density bonus law is not co opted for non housing related uses.

So with me today I have Moira Topp, who is a representative for the City of San Diego.

Great, thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Moira Topp here on behalf of the City of San Diego. San Diego has long embraced its role as a pro housing city. It's passed numerous ordinances to promote housing development at all levels from lowest income to market rate.

In fact, a number of the initiatives and bills that you've seen in this Committee through the years have been based on local San Diego initiatives that we pioneered. But the proposal that the Senator outlined and that is included in your analysis we do think was a misuse of the density bonus law.

The bill before you, we think closes that loophole, but also does it with a good deal of flexibility to ensure we're not going too far in the opposite direction. So we're very appreciative of your staff who worked hard to try and find that flexible, that perfect point of flexible, yet closing the loophole at the same time.

So with that, we respectfully ask for your Aye vote today.

Great. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Name and affiliation please.

Matt Braud, for Unite Here International Union in support. Thank you.

Judy Yee with the State Buildings and Construction Trades Council. In support.

Amy Hindsheik for Unite Here Local 11 and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition?

All right. Seeing none. Are there other witnesses in opposition?

Holly, Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Spur, we're actually removing our opposition with the... we thank the sponsors for great work over the last few months to get us to the place where we are now. Okay.

With the amendments that have accepted by the author and also removing the opposition with the amendment coming from the Committee about the enactment date being in January. So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Ali Saberman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, echoing the comments of the previous speaker. And I just want to thank the author for your communication, your staff's work on this Bill and working with amendments and especially want to thank Committee staff for your work. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from my colleagues? Mr. Ward, we got him. We have a motion.

And I'll second that as well. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Well, I know, well the issue that was raised last fall and surprised us all because we are trying to be a little bit more thoughtful about advancing our housing policies.

And even for those of us that are supportive of many or all of the work that we're doing, you know, we find some offense when there is a creative interpretation and abuse of these new opportunities as well to be able to get around some combination of state and local law.

You're tackling the state part of this here through this bill. And so I think it's incumbent on us to be able to kind of right that wrong. And I appreciate your work on this as well. Happy to be at it as a co author, if you'll have me.

And with that, I'm happy to second and support the bill.

Thank you. Any other comments? All right, we have motion and a second. The Committee amendments have been accepted and feel free to make a closing statement.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the comments from Assemblymember Ward, who was on the City Council for eight years in San Diego and also, of course, knows the housing issues very well throughout the state.

So our state is desperate for more affordable housing, and we need to strike that right balance between being able to incentivize the housing through commercial developments, which is why we're now at this two and a half times. And originally the Bill did prohibit density bonus to be applied to anything that wasn't the residential portion.

But now we've expanded that so that projects can still get off the ground and be feasible. So we feel that this is a balance that does promote housing development in the state in the way that's most appropriate without creating the loopholes that can be exploited. So with that, I respectfully asked for aye vote.

Well, thanks for continuing to work on the Bill. And take, take, roll, please.

Motion to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government.

[roll call]

It's the vote. 7:0. It's out. But we'll keep the roll open. We have Senator Wahab up next, and I think you have three bills.

Two bills. SB 52.

Two.

Three. It's three.

Yeah. Okay. All right.

Go with file item eight, SB 522, as our witness has to catch a flight.

Okay, great. That works for me. So SB 522. Thank you.

Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, colleagues. SB 522 simply extends just cause for eviction protections to units previously covered by the Tenant Protection Act. The just cause for evictions provision of the Tenant Protections act are based on the certificate of occupancy date for the unit. This becomes problematic when units covered by these provisions are destroyed in a disaster.

When rebuilt, these units would have certificate of occupancy dates that exclude them from the provision of the tpa. Just cause for eviction protections are one of the most basic ways we keep people housed. And by protecting people, units previously covered under the tpa, we help stabilize communities rebuilding after devastating disaster, which we saw in La.

Contrary to the opposition letter. This Bill adds no rent control. And that is always a talking point when I'm presenting a housing bill. But it has nothing to do with rent control, nor does it impede construction.

Under the Tenant Protection act, there are 15 specified reasons a landlord may evict a tenant, including nonpayment of rent, breach of lease terms, nuisance, waste, or using the unit for unlawful purpose, owner move in, and many more items. SB 522 is only about the TPA's just cause for evictions provision.

I'd like to introduce my witness, LA City Attorney Heidi Feldstein Soto.

Thank you very much, Senator, and good morning to the Committee Members. Thank you for your time this morning. I like to tell the story that on January 7th I was up here with a number of bill ideas. I came up with nine. Usually I go home with fewer than I came up with.

January 7th, as most of you probably know, was the date of the fires. And so I went home with 15 different bill ideas. And Senator Wahab was kind enough to pick one of them up. The Pacific Palisades was the origin of this bill idea, but it extends well beyond that.

The Palisades is an entire integrated community that was destroyed, full of homeowners and full of renters. Much of the relief for disasters has focused on those who own property, on those who own their homes, and lost so much.

One of the things that we wanted to focus on, particularly since there is such a scarcity of rental housing in some of our coastal areas, was to be sure that we had tenant protections that would continue to ensure that our most vibrant neighborhoods remained open to tenants and that those tenants would enjoy the benefits of the bill.

So the Tenant Protection act, as the Senator pointed out, is based on the date of the certificate of occupancy. If you look at the Palisades, almost nothing can be occupied. All of the rental units were destroyed.

And There were approximately 770 rental units in the Pacific Palisades, which at this point, without the kind of protection that is introduced by this bill, may well turn the Palisades into a community with fewer rental units and many more luxury condominiums.

You may be aware that the Housing Crisis act provides for a right of return for lower income unit tenants. That right of return becomes meaningless if the units that are replacement units in this community don't enjoy the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act. And so this bill's aims at this point are modest.

We do not bring new housing other than replacement housing destroyed in a destruction within the parameters of any bill. We do not impose any rent controls by the language in this bill. We do not expand rent control or tenant protection beyond the TPA.

You can almost think of it as a grandfathering of the original certificate of occupancy for rental units that are replaced in communities like the Palisades. With that, I'm happy to address any remaining issues or questions that the Committee may have.

Great. Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support? Name and affiliation, please.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Foster City and strong support. Thank you.

Anya Lawler, on behalf of Public Counsel, the Public Interest Law Project, and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Benjamin Henderson, The Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure?

I know today, every day, we can carpool together.

All right, we'll have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. I will be succinct. I am Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. As stated by the author, this bill does impose a just cause eviction rules on any housing built from the ground up after a declared emergency.

Now of course we know that even new housing today has a temporary exemption that was created under a bill by the Chairman of this Committee, Assemblymember Chu in 19, 2019 and that bill says that new housing for 15 years is exempted from rent provisions and just cause eviction.

They did that of course to incentivize construction and to make it easier to obtain financing. We truly need to promote consistency and we really don't want to take a chance that we're getting in the way of housing that is rebuilt, especially after a disaster.

Unfortunately, property owners who have housing that's been destroyed are choosing to leave California and those rental property owners are also choosing not to rebuild as a result of what they believe to be regulatory requirements that are just too stringent. So for those reasons, we're requesting a no vote today. Thank you.

Good morning. Vice Chair and Members. Bernie Seimence-Krieger with the California Association Realtors also opposed to 522. Reiterating some of my colleagues comments, we believe that this bill requires rental housing destroyed again by disaster if rebuilt to be subject to state's just cause eviction rules.

If the property was rented to a tenant at the time it was destroyed, SB 522 would impose significant new burdens on small mom and pop housing providers recovering from catastrophic loss. SB 522 creates an uneven playing field since placing an undue hardship on small property owners who want to reinvest in their communities.

However, to rebuild this property owners will be forced to endure additional finances loss. As for the construction combined with the permitting delays in California will far exceed a property owner's ability to recover and replace the unit OR units if SB 522 is enacted.

Simply put, SB 522 reduces our state's housing supply as property owners will not be able to rebuild the vitally needed rental housing supply we lost due to cars, catastrophic events and wildfires. For this reasons, among others stated by Mcculloch at CIA, we respectfully urge your no vote on SB 522.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and affiliation please.

Tommy Milling on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in opposition.

Mr. Chair, Members. Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association opposed to the bill for the reason stated by Deborah Carlton at CAA. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair. Members Chris Wysocki with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association in opposition.

Good morning.

Sarah Nocito, on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association, as well as our affiliates, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, Berkeley Property Owners Association, Nor Cal Rental Property Association, North Valley Property Owners Association, Santa Barbara Rental Property Association, Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute and the East Bay Rental Housing Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no others, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? All right. Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you, Senator. You know, appreciate your intention with bringing this forward and ensuring protection that we're strengthening our tenant protection laws. But I am concerned about this bill, especially when I was first walking through it and getting briefed on it.

I wanted to make sure I understood correctly that the existing tenants who lost their housing do through no fault of their own because of this disaster had those had the protections necessary when the the units were brought back online, in which I understand it, per existing law, absent this law, they do. Is that correct?

Yes. The concern about regarding the right of return provision. Correct. Right. So the Housing Crisis act does have a right return for lower income tenants. Right. And the HCA does apply after a disaster.

It's triggered by the submittal of preliminary application for a housing development project and does not distinguish between the how the property was destroyed, whether it was a natural disaster or intentional demolition. And additionally, as of yesterday, the HCA is now permanent, making the right of return within the HCA permanent.

Because of the provisions in the HCA, it's unnecessary for SB 522 to have a right of return in this particular bill.

Because it because you started out with low, but because of the recent determination, it doesn't matter if you, whatever income you make, if you lived in the unit prior to being destroyed, you get to come back to that. Yes. Okay.

And so this bill then is saying absent all the other parts of TPA, just the just cause that if it's a new construction, because previously, I mean under existing law, new construction is exempted. So this saying absent all of the other rights within the TPA, just this particular one, just cause would apply.

And I'm trying to understand so if a new person so first of all understanding the constraints of rebuilding, and I know a lot of times people will make the assumption that, well, insurance covers all the costs so there's not new costs related to rebuilding a unit or housing or any type of housing that's been destroyed.

We know that most properties in the State of California are undershored. Like the most part of that is just I think people don't realize how often they need to update it and Then part of it is we have an insurance crisis. Right.

And so I'm trying to figure out why we would offer this new protection to people who weren't returning and just new folks. Why would we, why would, why would we have to offer this new protection for them? Especially because we're not applying the whole rest of the law. We're applying just this one particular piece of it.

And so I'm just, it seems like it actually breaks the spirit of the original agreement and law. So I wonder you to opine specifically on that nature. On the nature, definitely.

And I'll, you know, some of the concerns that were raised, I just want to be very clear is that these are about evictions and you know, based on the unit first and foremost. So the application of the eviction that we are discussing here is based on the unit, not necessarily the tenant foremost.

Right, yeah. And that's the part I want that clarity on, because the tenants are protected, the returning tenants are protected. So now it's about a unit that is a new construction for all intensive purposes.

And these a lot of. And I'll let our LA City attorney answer some of the detailed questions or points, but one of the things is that we are trying to be as equitable as possible. First and foremost, these units were covered at the very beginning. Right.

And there are a lot of tenants that would like to return, would like to, you know, be in the community that they lived in for years, if not decades and so forth. And we are trying to prioritize again, just the rights and an equity based effort.

If you go to the Palisades, which was the, you know, start of this bill, if you will, it's a very wealthy community and the people that are struggling the most are those that are renters. I saw it firsthand. You could see the disparity there. And I'll let our city attorney explain why this is needed.

Yeah. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank you for the question, Assemblymember, and the opportunity to address it. I think I would describe the Palisades as a mixed community prior to the fires.

I'm not sure you were here, but there's about 770 units that were actually pretty affordable rentals that were subject to the TPA as an integrated community that was vibrant and relatively open in the sense of la. It was its own little enclave.

We are trying to do something for the individuals who want to return to that community, who are renters, to return on the same footing as they left most of the.

But I'll pause you for one second. Because the people who want to return on the same foot in their life have those rights, do they not? I thought that was what the testimony. Was to the exact unit they can come.

So if they were in unit A, they have to come back to unit A, Is that what you're saying?

If they were in building A for the right of return to be effective under the Housing Crisis act, they have a right to return to that parcel.

They don't necessarily to the parcel, not building A. But so if I have an apartment complex that is, you know, Wilson Manor, right? And so I want to live there.

So if I have a apartment complex that's Wilson Manor, that was completely destroyed in the fire, and then I renew it, and I had, you know, 100 tenants and 50 of them returned. Those 50, no matter what unit they were in or what building they were in in my property, they would not have the.

They were not protected by law today to return.

They have a right to return to Wilson Manor, okay? They don't have the right to return to Feldstein Soto Manor. And so what we are trying to do is to ensure that the community, to the extent possible, retains its vibrancy and returns its supply. Retains its supply of rental housing.

This Bill was much more ambitious when we submitted, I'm sure, I'm sure.

But I'm really looking at the bill in its current form. So I will say, given that testimony and given our example, the examples, is that I do think a tenant should be able to return and be protected to the apartment unit or the property that they were on before, whether that's two or eight units.

Because sometimes people upsize, right? Like the opportunity you reset, the land is now reset. You can actually do more than what you did before. I don't think that that same right applies to going to another property. I don't think that allowing this to be more based on unit than tenant makes sense to me.

I think it does violate the spirit of the original law and does not take into account the fact that I think we're doing carve outs. And if you start doing carve outs on the original spirit, it just seems like you can completely carve it. And that's why I was saying it would be different if you were trying.

To do the whole.

So it's not a. It's not a carve out.

So what we're trying to do is actually give them the rights that, you know, I think what you are trying to reference here, here's the situation in, you know, just dealing with the Housing and seeing what has happened with the disasters is that people want to rebuild, but they don't want to rebuild multifamily complexes.

They want to build luxury developments first and foremost. Right. That is one of the concerns that a lot of people are having. The other piece is that they're not trying to build. Let's say if they had a, you know, in Wilson Manor, they had 100 units, they're not trying to build 100 units. Right.

And those are some of the efforts that are being pushed by the mayor and so forth to actually make sure that it's as is. So if you had 100 units, you need to build 100 units or more.

But your bill doesn't do that.

Our bill doesn't do that. There's plenty of bills.

Because when we get into that, like, I'm a property rights person, right. And so I think we'll get off the thing, but I don't want to belabor, because I know there might be other people that want to speak. And I think through the testimony, I'm pretty much determined that I'm in the. I was leaning no beforehand.

I'm pretty well not. Not going up on it. And I think that for me, I have to say a little bit more, but I am concerned that the tenant right protections are moving to unit protections. And I don't think that that is the right direction for us to go. I mean, the.

We have a lot of protections in place as it relates to tenants, and those are legitimate and real and should be there, so we don't displace people. But when you move into the unit itself, it gets a little wonky for me, and I don't think I can stretch that far.

But you can keep through the chair if you want to keep going. I just wanted. I didn't want you to do it in a way that you wanted me to move there, because I'm just not.

There, which we can respect. But I will say again, we are doing this for tenants that also don't have that many protections. And that's the honest truth. As a renter, I can wholeheartedly say that what is happening right now is that tenants are being. Being stripped of their rights.

Given the fact that there is a disaster, given the fact that there is construction being done a different way, given the fact that people don't want tenants to have these rights.

And what we are trying to do with this particular bill is ensure that regardless of a disaster or anything like that, that that tenant is able to at least have that unit they are stuck with, you know, figuring out their rents right now. They're stuck on a lot of different things. You brought up insurance.

They are not covered as deeply as the property owner. And they are out on a limb right now. And so what this bill genuinely does is to allow them and give them the right that they were guaranteed prior right. And regardless of the disaster, it is now covering a disaster. It's a very simple process through the chair.

If I can say one more thing.

Of course, I think I could have got with you if you said that someone who was in a disaster area as a tenant, not the unit, the tenant, that they can transfer that to the same area to another unit by law, not, not the rent caps and things like that, but that, that particular portion.

But yours doesn't do that. It says that anybody who, if I just decide to move to a disaster area, all of a sudden, I get those same protection for that units. And that's why you say tenant a lot. But this bill is about units, not.

Tenants, because the current law, the protections are tied to the unit, not the tenant that is renting the unit that is existing.

The unit no longer exists. It is now a new construction. That is, no one's going to build it exactly to what it was originally. It's going to be different. It is no longer. That unit no longer exists. It is new construction.

And unless somebody is building the exact same property over again, no changes, which is not allowed because we have building codes. And so then that would be different, but they're not. And so, and that's, that's the distinction that I'm. I'm drawing for my own personal vote. But thank you.

Yes. And. And I just want to flag this, that understood those concerns. But I will also say that the laws are written for the units. It's based on the certificate of occupancy. It is based on the year that a development was built.

It's based on a lot of things that actually don't protect the individual, it protects the property itself. And.