Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. I finally get to chair this committee. Alright. We have five night I we have nine items on our agenda today. Two items are on consent. Item two, ab 1573 Brian, and item eight, ab 2162 Brian. To facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time that we have, each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition. Each main witness gets two minutes each. Please feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website. This will become 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 of this hearing. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its livestream on the assembly's website. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and we will be going to item is mister Ward here? Or You went to. Yeah. But but but you're a committee, so I think we have you go at the end. Is that correct? Correct. Correct? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Committee members go at the end. So. Who was here first out of the three of you? Alright then. Okay. Alright. Alright. The assembly woman from from Southern California or Newport Beach. Welcome.

Are we ready?

Okay. We will be hearing ab 2035 by Assembly member Diane Dixon.

Good morning. Thank you, madam chair. I was gonna say mister chair, but madam chair, congratulations for your promotion. And members of the committee, I am pleased to present AB 2035 today, which would allow greater flexibility in updating CC and Rs for large homeowner associations, otherwise known as HOAs. Under existing law, if a homeowner's association is unable to achieve the quorum requirement established by their covenant conditions, and restrictions, otherwise known as CC and Rs, the HOA is permitted to petition the superior court of the county in which the HOA is located for an order that reduces a percentage of affirmative votes necessary for an amendment to their declarations to 50% of all homeowners. The current statute exists due to the fact that many HOAs often struggle to meet quorum requirements in order to update their CC and Rs. This struggle can happen for a multiple of reasons, including low voter engagement and high percentages of nonresident owners. One such HOA is Laguna Woods Village in my district, who have been unable to update their CCNR since 1988. To put this in perspective, this was kind of a fun fact, Mikhail Gorbachev was president of the Soviet Union that existed at the time, and George H. W. Bush was president of The United States. The last time, there's Laguna Woods' CC and Rs were amended. This struggle to amend CC and Rs is not for lack of trying as Laguna Woods Village has done everything in its power to pass these much needed updates. Since 2019, the HOA has spent over a $140,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections. In addition, due to the large size of the HOA, which is over 6,000 interest, these elections have been conducted in partnership with industry professionals to ensure a fair and efficiently administered process. Despite all these efforts, they still have been unable to update their severely out of date CC and Rs. To remedy this issue, a b twenty thirty five creates an additional affirmative vote affirmative vote reduction in California law. This amendment would allow an HOA to petition the court for approval of the amendments to their CC and Rs if 37% of all homeowners vote affirmatively. HOAs utilizing this process will need to meet stringent requirements, including the following. Number one, it is a senior citizen housing development. Number two, it has more than 6,000 separate interests. Number three, more than 25% of the separate interests are occupied by non owner tenants. And number four, the common interest developments declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years. These stringent requirements represent a narrow solution that would allow HOAs such as Laguna Woods Village to update their CC and Rs while maintaining the preexisting court approval process. Our office has been in communication with the California Association of Realtors who submitted a letter of concern earlier this week, and we welcome the opportunity to work together on this bill. I have with me today Kathy Van Austin Van Austin, who will be speaking on behalf of Laguna Woods Village and can answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Good morning. Is this is it I think this is on. Kathy Van Austin, MBM Strategy Group representing, third Laguna Hills Mutual. I won't repeat, what the assembly member, stated in her opening statement, but just wanna get give you a sense of the difficulty that this association has had. It's a HOA. It is the broad governing HOA for Laguna Woods Village. There are many independent ones. A little bit closer? Okay. Usually, I people ask me to stop talking. So the problem that we've had we had change in management in 2019. And what we know from that point forward is that there have been two elections, $140,000 spent. They hire professional campaign organizations to run these elections. They're just too big. So this is not a, you know, run by volunteers. And the best that they have been able to achieve is a 47% turnout. Our CCNARs call for 67%, which I don't think there's an HOA on the planet that could meet that. So that's in the CC and RS. But with the statute, the state law that does allow you to go to court, you still have to have that 50% affirmative vote. So we were able to get 47% of our homeowners to vote. 85% of those who voted voted in favor. So this wasn't a controversial, you know, issue. It's just a matter of updating. And so what it translates to is we had just under about five point o 5% under a 40% affirmative vote by those homeowners in the association. They just can't get to the 50 no matter what. So we've worked this bill. We've drafted this bill to be very specific, very tailored. We don't wanna impact other HOAs in what they're doing. If there is another large senior citizen HOA that hasn't been able to update, they would be able to do this. But it really is a a significant problem. And you you might ask, well, why aren't people voting? We have at least 25% of our homeowners don't live there. They they have tenants. We have many homeowners that live internationally, and so they just frankly don't have much of an interest in voting, unfortunately. So what's what we've missed is nearly forty years of updates to the Davis Sterling Act that we've not been able to incorporate in the, CC and RS, which leads to confusion for those prior attorneys who like to read all this stuff. So we have that. And then we've also have technologies that have come around, electric vehicles, chargers, solar energy, technological developments. Good morning, mister chair. And, you know, balcony inspection. So there are a number of things that they have been wanting to incorporate into the CC and RS that they just haven't been able to do. So we very much need this measure in order to sort of bring our CC and ours into, frankly, the twenty first century. And with that, I will ask for your aye vote.

Just to make sure I know where we are here. Are there other folks who are in support?

Yes. Okay.

Is anyone else in the room who are in support who wanna register their support? Seeing anyone? Do we have anyone here in opposition? Witnesses or anyone in the room who wants to register their opposition, not seeing anyone? Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Thank you so much, chair. Good morning. Thanks to the author for bringing this forward. So just to clarify, is this only impact, third Laguna Woods Mutual in your district, or do you know if it impacts any other senior living facilities?

I'm not aware of any or any who's contacted.

Right. I have spoken with the CAI. I'm going to forget the name of the organization, but I have spoken with the association that deals with HOAs. They don't think so, but we haven't heard of anybody else. But it would be potentially one or two others, but I don't think there's anybody that hasn't been able to update their CC and Rs in in close to forty years. If and what I will do is I will go back and confirm that, and I'll get back to your office just to confirm it.

Yeah. I think that would be my my only recommendation for this because I know it sounds like it's specific to your district, but in the event that this impacts anything else other than this one development where you're having issues because your, owners live internationally. I know the threshold for 37%, is pretty low. Yeah. And can you also just, elaborate why it's 37%? Like, why that percentage threshold specifically for the vote?

Why they put that in?

Or what how do how is that decided? Not why not 30% prior to 1988,

and it was by the residents who voted in 1988. And the demographics have really changed, I mean, in terms of the, nonresidency of many of the homeowners and the property owners and renting out their homes. I mean, just life has changed for homeownership and how people use their homes and their property. So that 37% was certainly approved, wasn't it?

Well, actually, that was the 67% that was adopted that's in the CC and Rs from 1988. The 37%, the association, through the board, through, you know, understanding what their prior elections would look like, they thought that that was something that they could achieve. What they don't wanna do is spend an average of 65 to 70,000 or more on additional elections and fall short. So this really is a means to make sure that we can achieve that vote. We can get the CC and Rs updated. And, you know, at that point, you know, they can then go to court. A court still would have to approve this. This isn't just we get 37% of the vote and you call it a day. You get 37% of the vote, which would then allow you to go to the superior court for them to approve the amendments.

Sure.

Okay. Thanks for that answer. Yeah. I'm just wondering how that number came about. The reason why I'm asking is because I have a lot of HOAs in my district as well, and I just wanna make sure that, this is just specific to your district given the concerns that you're raising. So I will support it today, but I will be following up Sure. To ensure that it's not having broader impact. Also wanting to make sure that since it is a senior living facility and we're lowering the threshold for what it takes to get approval, then maybe there's additional protections if there's other things that are going through the HOA for approval that maybe, you know, they may not be okay with. Right?

And so I'll follow-up. So I'll support it today, but I'll be following up with the author and the sponsor.

I have a question for you on a technical basis. I think mister Todd did an assembly bill a year ago related to voter thresholds. Was that signed into law? And it wasn't that what percentage was that?

Yes. He signed to law.

So at 37% as well or a lower I think it was lower.

Their brother knows about about the Group activity.

Yeah. So that's the current law.

That's the current law. Yeah.

Is it Many HOAs really have difficulty getting voter participation. I have spoken to one where they could not get to 20% of their membership to vote. So, you know, that's not our experience, but it's not unusual.

But, again, this bill is very narrowly constructed Very narrow. To the circumstances related to Laguna Will Woods Village.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thanks for your best responses.

Yep. Well, thanks for thanks for this discussion. Sorry I walked in a a little late to this particular hearing. When, you know, when I was reading the bill, obviously, it was very clear to me that it's very, very, very, very narrow bill. You know, obviously, I think we're you know, precedents and things, you know, we're gonna look at. But are there things we can do in the legislature? And, you know, I'd I'd like to ask you that to, you know, maybe improve voter participation in HOAs. Like, are there some red tape or regulatory burdens? I mean, I live in a quite large HOA myself, and, you know, we never meet our voter thresholds. And it's, you know, quite the experience. And I and there are things that the HOA needs to do, you know, but also I don't really like the idea of, you know, narrowing it to select few necessarily. Right? So, I mean, I'm okay with this bill. Well, plan on supporting it, but I'm just curious. Are there things we can do to alleviate that or increase participation?

I think you could attempt to do that, but with I would say that with great trepidation because you do have homeowners association groups that are very focused on elections, on notification, on the right type of materials being delivered, how they're being delivered. So I think, you could venture down that path, but I would recommend if you want to do that, to to help clear the way for greater participation, I'd recommend a stakeholder group to, you know, kinda come and figure it out and then come with the solution so that, you have everybody participating because there are folks who really do not like elections to be tampered with. And I'm sorry. That's the wrong term.

That that would be me. Such a bad term. That would be me.

Yes. They they they get nervous about changing election rules.

Yeah.

Oh, I'm so embarrassed for change.

Yeah. I agree with that. And, obviously, we wanna bring together stakeholders. I look, I'm gonna support this bill and would support probably supported Assemblymember Todd's bill. You both you have amazing bills, always mystics in, you know, every piece of legislation you do. But I I do think we gotta, you know really to The broader discussion needs to happen Yeah. Soon, you know. So and I'm always interested in those. So thank you. Look forward to supporting

We could work together on that. Keep Sure. Yeah

We wanna establish quorum here. Alright. And we haven't

Haney.

Present.

Haney here. Patterson?

Patterson here. Avila Farias.

Here.

Colosa? Here. Colosa here. Garcia?

Here.

Cholera here. Lee? Quirk Silva?

Cork Silva here. Ta?

Here.

Ta, here. Thank you, Peeks. Wilson.

I'm here.

Here.

Wilson here. And we have quorum.

Alright. We have quorum. Thank you. Any other questions or comments for miss Dixon?

So moved.

Alright. We have a motion Second. And a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair and committee. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much, and I appreciate your your work on what I know is a very narrowly tailored solution to solve a problem in a particular HOA. And and we look forward to seeing some of the the questions and comments around the sort of broader impact and broader questions addressed as it moves forward, but I know it will solve a problem that your HOA is facing. And so we have a motion and a second, and we will take a roll call, though.

Haney, aye. Patterson?

Motion is to pass to the assembly committee and judiciary, Haney.

Aye.

Aye.

Patterson, aye. Avila Farias. Calosa? Aye. Calosa, aye. Garcia, Kalra? Kalra aye

Kalra, aye. Lee. Quirk-Silva?

Aye.

Aye.

Cork Silva, aye. Ta?

Aye.

Ta, aye. Hankipa? No. Wicks Wilson. 56.

0. We'll keep that on call. Thank you.

Alright. And we're gonna stay going in file order. So I think mister Ward is here. There he is. And then we'll go to mister Carrillo after that.

Alright. Thank you.

Well, good morning, mister chair and members. I have another HOA bill for you. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB sixteen eighty four, which will address HOA air conditioning access, and I wanna thank our staff for very thoughtful engagement on this bill. This bill will prohibit a homeowners association from restricting a homeowner's ability to install, use, or replace a home cooling system.

Now, you all know that today, our heat waves are coming in pretty fast and fierce, and we have a lot of extreme weather in The United States with population like children, seniors, and people with respiratory illness being particularly vulnerable to heat related illnesses or injury.

We know that working home air conditioning is the number one protective factor against heat related mortality. And we have a annual air temperatures. Air conditioning installations in California have, increased since that time, by 30% in the last five years. Now, approximately 65% of California homeowners do belong to an HOA, and many of which include, restrictions on the kinds of cooling systems that a homeowner may install. Now, this poses a concerning barrier to adequate heat protection for the varied health needs, and financial statuses of California families.

Homeowners should not, have to pursue legal action in order to secure the cooling system of their choice. So this bill is actually originated from a, constituent in my district, in Assembly District 78, who faced an onerous process to be in, able to install a reasonable system of his choice because he was unable to travel from San Diego as a witness. I'm sharing his statement as part of my opening testimony as well.

Quote, I offer this personal statement in support of a b sixteen eighty four to share my experience and explain why this bill is necessary for California residents. A member of my household is particularly susceptible to heat, which makes reliable cooling a health and safety necessity.

My age away initially allowed only the use of a portable air conditioner in my home. However, the available portable units did not properly fit in my windows and were extremely energy inefficient. Compounding the issue, I was prohibited from modifying my windows to accommodate the equipment. As a result, I was effectively forced to rely on a cooling system that could not adequately perform its original function while significantly increasing my energy costs.

Ultimately, I was required to retain legal counsel to obtain permission to install a mini split air conditioning system so that my household's cooling needs could be safely met.

The mini split system is substantially more energy efficient, requires no window modification, and effectively maintains safe indoor temperatures. Air conditioning system that best meets their health, safety, and energy needs. While I was ultimately able to secure professional installation and legal assistance, doing so required significant time, expense, and stress simply to install an efficient and reasonable cooling system. I hope that my experience demonstrates why AB 1684

is an important step towards bill here today, I have Freddie Quintana with the California Apartment Association. And when the time is appropriate, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Good morning, chair and members. Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association. We support this legislation as the approach provides options for homeowners who are serving as landlords to purchase and install cooling systems in the units they're renting. The denial and delays are restrictive, and the only recourse to a denial would be legal actions. So for this, we support Assemblymember Ward's efforts today in this committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this bill? Somebody there in the back.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Ben Swartmanaju with MCE California's first CCA in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to the bill?

Lead witness, sir? Two minutes.

Good morning, mister chair, members of the committee. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute, California Legislative Action Committee. We represent 55,000 homeowner associations in the state. AB 1684 goes beyond just ensuring that people have access to cooling systems. It removes reasonable HOA authority to manage impacts in common areas and shared property while also exposing associations to civil penalties. HOAs are responsible for maintaining common areas of structural integrity and shared systems like utilities, mechanical, electrical systems, panels, etcetera. This bill would make existing rules void and unenforceable if they are interpreted as restricting cooling systems. For example, if an HOA, may currently require window AC unit to be properly installed, drained to avoid water damage, and located to minimize impact on shared walls or neighboring units. Under the bill, those requirements could be deemed a restriction and no longer enforceable. If an HOA attempts to enforce these protections, it can face civil penalties under the the bill as written. This could increase, the risk of damage to common area walls, balconies, exterior surfaces, noise and nuisances, issues between neighbors, safety and structural concerns for improper installation. Ultimately, it shifts the cost to the entire association and its members. Now we understand the need for cooling systems, but we feel that there's a balanced approach that can achieve the bill's intent while avoiding some of the unintended consequences. We have shared some amendments with the author, and we hope to continue those conversations. Some of those include, clarify that the reasonable restrictions are allowed to that they don't significantly increase cost or reduce efficiency of the association, the placement, aesthetics, noise, structural safety, electrical capacity, and protection of common areas. Also preserve the association's ability to require archit architectural approval processes. And, of course, confirm that the homeowner including, all the installation, maintenance, and repair costs that may result in the installation of a of a cooling system. So for those reasons, we have an opposed less amended position, and we look forward to working with the author to address some of these concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room here in opposition to this bill? Not seeing anyone. We'll turn it back to the committee. Questions, comments? Mister Patterson.

You just call me mister patter dude. That's what it sounded like. You know, just I think there probably could be some reasonable amendments around common areas, I think, you know, in terms of, like, drainage of, you know, the the the water. I think I think those are reasonable. The electrical the electrical side, I think those are reasonable, so it doesn't you know, we're not having damage to other property. But, I would suggest, for the opposition to to, I mean, I have a feeling this bill is gonna pass out and get signed by the you know, get to the governor's desk. So I probably limit, you know, the the concerns around those kinds of issues.

I think the having architectural review committee and things like that, I understand the justification for that, but I don't think I think my guess is the legislature is gonna pass the bill, and so we don't want it to get muddled up, you know, with things that I think you raised some very legitimate concerns as well, you know, that I could support, mister Ward putting into the bill. And I don't know if you have a response to that.

Thank you, mister vice chair. So one thing I would say is that nothing in this bill actually prohibits either or supersede local ordinance or, of course, our own health and safety code, any of our building standards. So any installation would still meet, I think, these health and safety tests, and any installation would certainly have to meet the requirements under local ordinances that would address issues like drainage. We are studying these amendments, and we wanna make sure they're not necessarily duplicative or con conflicting, with some of these other, regulations. And so we'll be happy to, continue to take a look at those and make sure there's improvements so that these conditions are satisfied.

Yeah. I think that's fair. You know, when Aye, lived in San Jose for a while, we lived in, like, South San Jose where they you know, you still pretend like you don't need air conditioning, but you really do. And, so I stuck in a wall or a a window unit. And, you know, I mean and I grew up in Napa. It's kinda the same thing, you know, where nowhere really had air conditioning and kinda put in these units. And and I think, you know, the low around these portable units, there there, you know, there really aren't any you know, the rules just basically don't damage your neighbor's property, essentially, you know, but the local governments are probably a little lenient on enforcement of that. So but, yeah, I'd be interested to see how the amendments and would definitely encourage you to look into some of those things, and it sounds like you are. So I think that's great. I look forward to supporting the bill today. So thanks.

Thank you.

Any any South San Jose comment you wanna make here?

Mister resident of South San Jose. A beautiful place. Okay. Just I'll just leave it.

Okay. Okay. Yes. That's okay. True.

Alright. Colleagues, any any other questions, comments? Not seeing any, mister Ward, may close.

Well, thank you, mister chair. Again, I appreciate the committee's attention to this bill, and I would respectfully request your high vote.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your leadership on this, and, certainly, it is getting hotter in in our state as we know, and we wanna make sure people have the opportunity to install a cooling system that fits their needs and fits their budget and that they're not restricted from doing so and appreciate your work and leadership on this. Colleagues, do we have a motion and a second? Motion to move. Second.

My motion from mister Cara, seconded by miss Quirk Silva. We will take a roll call vote.

Motion to pass to the assembly committee, and judiciary. Haney?

Aye.

Haney, aye. Patterson?

Aye.

Patterson, aye. Avila Farias. Colosa? Colosa, aye. Garcia?

Aye.

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Lee. Quirk Silva?

Garcia, aye. Kalra?

Aye.

Cork Silva, aye. Ta?

Aye.

Ta, aye. Tangipa?

Not boring.

Not boring. Wicks? Wicks aye. Wilson?

Alright. Miss Carrillo, thanks for your patience. We will start with your choice. 1710?

1710, Good morning mister chair.

Good morning, mister chair and committee members. First, I'd like to say that I'm also a Dodgers fan to Assemblymember Garcia and Assemblymember Colosa. No disrespect to the chairs or their baseball team. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1710. AB 1710 is a bipartisan effort to address California's unprecedented housing crisis, a crisis that has left too many people without a home, struggling to pay rent, and unable to achieve homeownership.

This bill builds on the proven success of s b three thirty in 2019 by ensuring that once a housing project begins with the entitlement process, it is subject it is not subject, excuse me, to certain regulatory changes except for essential updates related to health and safety concerns or to mitigate significant CEQA environmental impacts among others. As a former city planner, I've seen firsthand how video credit hurdles and consistent regulations solve projects for years, driving up cost, and making housing unattainable.

A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive state to build multifamily housing, and I believe that we all know that, largely because of long approval timelines. Projects in California take over twenty two months longer to finish than in Texas, for example, which greatly increases cost. If we don't fix our permitting system, we will continue to lose housing invest investments to other states that offer a more predictable and efficient approval process.

A strong reliable housing supply is critical to keeping workers in California, supporting local businesses, and fueling economic growth. Without enough housing, employers face hiring challenges, communities become longer and more costly. AB 1710 addresses these challenges head on by increasing transparency, providing certainty, and ensuring fair, timely project approvals. We need to testify in support is Audrey Rychachak, and Nick Camarota with the California Ambulance Industry Association or CBIA.

Thank you. Good morning, chair, members of the committee. Audrey Rytajcak here today on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, and with me is Nick Cammarado, our general counsel at CBIA, and he's here for any technical questions. We're here today in strong support of AB 1710. Ab 1710 builds on one of the most important housing reforms that California has enacted in recent years, sb 330 the housing crisis act of 2019. S b three thirty brought much needed clarity to housing projects, to how housing projects are evaluated by local governments by establishing clear rules of the road. It gave developers predictability by locking in the rules and standards that apply to a project at the time the preliminary application is submitted. And just as importantly, it clarifies how those rules would be interpreted by applying a reasonable person standard to prevent arbitrary denials based on overly subjective plan consistency arguments. SP three thirty has worked and delivered predictability, accountability, and results in moving forward much needed housing in California. It also included strong common sense safeguards, including exceptions for, legitimate health and safety concerns and significant environmental impacts under CEQA. However, s b three thirty only addressed local governments. And as the select committee on permitting reform emphasized in its 2025 final report, this leaves a massive gap. In California, housing projects often require approval from a dozen or more state and regional agencies, each with their own permitting authority rules and interpretations. The same problems s p three thirty solved at the local level, unpredictability, shifting standards, and subjective interpretations are now manifest manifesting at the state and regional level and are undermining the effectiveness of s b three thirty itself. So that's where a b seventeen ten comes in. A b 1710 expand expands two key pillars of sb 330 and applies them to state and regional agencies. Just as sb 330 locks in local rules and standards at the time of application, ab 1710 extends those productions to state and the regional level. It's a practical evidence based extension of policy we already know works and has a proven track record. So we're here today in support. And if you have any questions, thank you.

Thank you. Do you have other folks in the room here in support of this bill?

Morning, chair and members. Freddy Quintana with on behalf of the California Apartment Association and the California Business Property Association in support.

Good morning. Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in strong support. Thank you.

Morning. Colin Parent with Circulate Planning and Policy in support.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur, Abundant Housing LA, and Field Send support. Thank you.

Good morning. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

I thought you were lining up. Cecilia loves this bill, isn't it? Our our majority leader. I have this bill. Alright.

Do we have opposition witnesses? If you could please come up to the front.

Good Morning, Chair and Members. I'm Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. First, I wanna thank the author and the proponents for the willingness to engage with us both today and in prior iterations of this measure. As we just learned, AB 1710 expands the list of objective ordinances and policies and standards at the time of the application for development.

But to our concern specifically, it adds post entitlement standards to the mix, and our concerns there are centered around this vesting provision that may put us at odds with the state and regional and federal rules, regs, and laws and goals.

If it's the, if the goals are set by a legislative body, at any level of government, local agencies will need to try to achieve those goals, and we may run afoul of them and have multiple layers of of projects in development over many years.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your no vote unless the measure is amended to address some of these concerns. And I look forward to continuing to work with everyone. Thank you.

I also wanna acknowledge that the author did make some amendments in a prior iteration of this bill and and and honored those this year that dealt with a reasonable person standard While regrettably, my members still find it lacks some specificity that it's solving for, but we are grateful for for that last round of amendments.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your no vote unless the measure is amended to address some of these concerns. And I look forward to continuing to work with everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. The folks who are here in the room in opposition.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. Align our comments with Mr. Tannehill. Respectfully, oppose unless amended.

Good morning. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies, also, in alignment with CSDA, oppose unless amended, respectfully. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Colleagues, Miss Wicks.

Thank you, thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this bill back again.

I know it was part of the fast track housing package bills that we did last year, and it, ended up dying an unfortunate death in the Senate. So I'm glad that you're doing it again. I would love to be added as a joint author if you're willing to have me. I'm just happy to make a motion to move the bill.

Alright. We have a motion. Any other? Seconded by Miss Quirk-Silva. Any other comments or questions? Mister Tangipa

Thank you. Mister Carrillo, I just wanted to make sure that I was asking too because since I represent such a rural area, I have a lot of special districts. Some of the issues that I've heard from them is here, some of the laws that we passed in Sacramento, we shift the goalpost every so often.

And some of our special districts do want to make sure that they they have the opportunity that if they have goals that state or where alignments we can be, you know, how do we make sure that they're working together if, you know, say another state law passes that, again, shifts the goalpost on where we want for our local housing ordinances and different changes that happen. So, what are your concerns to that to address some of where our special districts, have?

Thank you, Mister Tangipa. I think that's the, goal on this bill, to not change the post goal after post entitlement process. Once projects get approved, you know, in my experience as a city planner, I know that there are so many different ways that projects get delayed. And some of the those delays have to do with moving and going the the poll, the at the end of the day.

So that's what the bill is trying to do, not to have them have to comply with new regulations with the exception, again, as I mentioned, we have to do they have to do with CEQA or other health and safety concerns, which are valid concerns in my opinion. But, again, that's one of the goals of this bill to not move the goalpost.

Yes. Especially at the local level. But, I mean, like, sometimes we here in Sacramento, we shift the goalpost at times too that my, I look forward to supporting this bill today, but I, I hope that we can work with some of our special districts that if we, we change some of the state laws, that these special districts also have a chance to potentially weigh in.

That if there's maybe potential future amendments that again, if the state itself is shifting some of the local ordinances, then maybe we can then give some of the special districts a chance to to work into that. Thank you.

Absolutely. I think that the opposition also mentioned that we addressed one of their concerns with the reasonable person standards. So the first time we introduced this bill. Happy to continue to have those conversations, and try to not, make it more difficult for, special districts to have to comply with the the bill.

Thank you, sir.

I don't see any other questions or comments. Mister Carrillo, you may close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I just like to ask for your aye vote on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. And I know that we had this bill in front of us before in committee, and and we supported it then and happy to see it come back. And I know there are, as as you stated, a lot of often different types of approvals and agencies and and and such that in our state, you have to interact with to be able to move a housing project forward.

And this bill recognizes that and, as you said, will help make it clearer and and and more straightforward and predictable for folks who are engaging in those approvals and, appreciate your commitment to work with opposition as it moves forward, particularly, some of the the special, agencies who are here.

And with that, we have a, and special districts, we have an, a motion from Miss Wicks and a second from Miss Quirk-Silva, and we will take a vote.

Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. [ROLL CALL]

9-0 goes out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Let's take up your next bill, which is, AB 1738.

Good morning, again, Mr. Chair and committee members. First, I would like to accept the committee amendments and express my gratitude to committee staff for their work on AB 1738. AB 1738 helps address an issue that, like many of you have experienced firsthand, waiting weeks to get an appointment for a building inspection for a simple renovation.

For many homeowners, even routine projects can be delayed for weeks while waiting for a required building inspection due to limited staffing. During this time, projects often remain unfinished, preventing full use of the space and delaying final payment to contractors.

These delays can also lead to additional cost, such as extended equipment rentals or rescheduling fees, while creating uncertainty around project timeliness. What should be a straightforward step in a process instead becomes a prolonged and unpredictable wait, illustrating how inspection backlogs can place added financial and logistical strain on Californian families.

I am also, as I mentioned before, a recovery urban planner, and would conduct final inspections during my past professional life. I saw firsthand how much of a backlog my building department colleagues faced. This backlog further exacerbates the housing crisis, as building departments juggle the multiple inspection required for a few housing projects with having to also travel to perform on-site inspections for routine home inspections.

AB 1738 looks to address this issue and help alleviate the housing crisis by requiring remote virtual inspections for simple home renovations. Requiring remote virtual inspections for simple renovations will speed up the process for the homeowner and the building department, allowing homeowners quicker inspections and for building officials to focus on permitting more complex projects faster. AB 1738 takes a measured approach.

It does not apply to all inspections, but instead focuses on the most common and appropriate use cases already being implemented successfully across California. Colleagues, remote inspections will reduce delays, cut costs, and may save time for homeowners and inspectors.

I respectfully ask an aye vote when appropriate, and I believe that you have a little pamphlet in front of you. And this is just an example of how the County of Placer conducts virtual inspections. If you notice on the back, there's about 40 virtual inspections that they perform. This bill will only be applied to nine inspections, I believe.

And with that, here with me, I have Colleen Corrigan from SPUR to testify in support and Timothy Wagner from Placer County to testify as a technical witness due to Placer County's robust virtual inspection offerings.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Haney and members of the committee. My name is Colleen Corrigan, and I'm a policy manager at SPUR, which is a proud co-sponsor of AB 1738. As the Assembly Member mentioned, California's housing insurability crisis is being exacerbated by outdated inspection processes that quietly add time and costs to housing production, renovation, home hardening, and electrification.

We've talked with many homeowners and contractors who often wait hours or even days for simple inspections that take between 5 and 15 minutes, adding hundreds to thousands of dollars to individual projects and administrative costs and standby costs.

Remote inspections are a proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD, the National Fire Protection Association, and several other states. RVIs are already working successfully across at least 20 California jurisdictions, both large and small, like Placer County, LA County, and San Diego, which reports that it can complete as many as 50% more inspections per day using RVIs. Remote inspections free up limited resources and reduce work backlogs, thereby allowing building inspectors to prioritize complex projects like multi-family housing.

Jurisdictions we've talked to report no difference whatsoever in compliance or failure rates between remote and in-person inspections. In fact, the tool allows inspectors to zoom in further than the naked eye on some projects, like electrical panels, and reinspections can be inspected quicker when they fail.

AB 1738 takes a balanced, common-sense approach by limiting RVIs to simple, low-risk permits that are already being inspected remotely by jurisdictions right now while preserving full discretion for inspectors to require in-person when safety or connectivity issues arise. Importantly, this legislation will encourage more homeowners to obtain permits instead of avoiding the system altogether due to delays and complexities.

AB 1738 represents one of the fastest and lowest cost ways to reduce delays and make government work better for Californians, including during disaster recovery. The bill also establishes clear standards and accountability to ensure consistency and safety statewide. I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1738. Thank you. I'll pass it to Tim.

Well, thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Timothy Wagner. I'm the Chief Building Official and a deputy director in the building services division of our community development within Placer County. I've worked for Placer County for nineteen years in the capacity as a building official for about sixteen of those years.

I'm here today just to share a little bit about our remote video inspection program, which we began in 2019. I did provide this pamphlet that speaks to Placer County specifically and what our program looks like today, and that we do offer video inspections for a multitude of permit types: service line replacements, electrical panel upgrades, solar panel inspections, heating and air change outs, reroofing, kitchen and bath remodels, and many more, as you'll see.

We do reserve more complex inspections such as foundations, framing, and other structural components for field inspections. We just feel there's a better experience when the field inspectors are there on-site for those. And as you can see, we have more than 40 inspection types that we conduct.

And in the past year, we've conducted more than 800 video inspections. As you heard, we have had an increase in not only daily, weekly, but an overall period of time just with the video inspection component. I should mention we also use video inspection for our short-term rental property inspections in our Tahoe area for fire and life safety functions, and I've had a great experience with that as well in gaining compliance and being able to move forward short-term rental permits in accordance with our ordinance.

Remote video inspections save time and money for homeowners and contractors as well as the operational cost for the county. It additionally reduces greenhouse gas emissions by limiting trips to sites for inspections.

Video inspections allow our building inspectors to focus on complex and multi-family projects and to save time driving to and from project sites where the video inspections usually only take about 5 to 15 minutes to complete. In particular, we found it keeps jobs moving, resolves outstanding compliance issues quickly, and many times the same day those deficiencies are identified, we can video-inspect those and allow the project schedule to keep on track.

The execution of our video inspection system, we utilize really four technologies. The first is our website. In there, we outline process, provide instructions and how-to steps, recommend video equipment, which in most case, permit holders utilize their smartphones. The second step is to schedule the video inspection through-- we use a private system, a third-party system, which is called DaySmart appointments.

Once that is scheduled, then we contact the permit holder and send them a Microsoft calendar appointment, which connects to the Microsoft. We actually use Microsoft Teams now as a component to do that video and have found great success with that. The last piece is, is traditionally, we do use our Accela permitting system, which is, again, a third-party system that we capture not only the permit record but the results of the inspection, so that method has not changed for us.

In our experience, we found a very similar safety result from video inspections. We've not experienced any quality degradation and have found compliance results similar to that of traditional field inspections. During our more than six years in operation, we have not experienced any concerns with job location, work accuracy, misrepresentation, or any other really what I would call funny business. We audit, have the choice to cancel, and complete a field inspection at our own discretion to ensure good faith acting.

Having said this, we do reserve the right to disallow our permit holder from using video inspection programs or being a bad actor, and at this point in our six-year experience, we have not rejected anybody from our program. Initially, there was some skepticism from my staff for the ability to what we'd, say, see the required elements of inspection, but after a short while, those were dispelled as the team gained experience and comfort with our process, and today, the system's embraced and has added value to our process.

Remote inspections are an important tool to keep the cost down and making inspections readily available and reducing service interruptions and then speeding up the approval process simply due to the convenience and timeliness of video inspections.

Sites ready for inspection, schedule a video inspection within two hours lead time, and we'll receive approval the same day. With that said, and in closing, I'd like to share that I'm very proud of my team and embrace this inspection evolution for their hard work and dedication in making Placer County a leader in the building safety field, and I'd also like to thank you for this opportunity to share this program with you, and your time, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Appreciate both the witnesses. Do we have folks here who are in support of this bill?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Steven Spencer with Brownstein, here on behalf of Permit Power, a proud sponsor of this legislation. Also been asked to give MeToo for a few climate organizations that are supporting this: Climate Resolve, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, All-Electric California, 350 Humboldt, Casita Coalition, Active San Gabriel Valley, Carbon Free Palo Alto, and the Climate Center, all in support. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of SPUR, a proud sponsor, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, the 200 in Fieldstead. Thank you.

Nico Molina, on behalf of the NRDC Action Fund, in support. Thank you.

And Colin Parent with Circulate Planning & Policy, in support.

Great. Thank you all. Do we have our opposition witnesses here? I don't see any opposition witnesses. Do we have anyone here who is opposed who want to register their opposition?

Good morning. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California State Pipe Trades Council. We have concerns with the bill. We have an opposed unless amended position, but we look forward to working with the author to address those concerns. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Ms. Quirk-Silva and then Mr. Kalra.

I want to applaud the author. I think this is a great bill. I wanna be added as a joint author, but I really-- to the County of Placer, I love this. This is-- actually both sides. I even noticed you have a inspection for a bear bin, and although that's definitely more Placer, even in Pasadena, they've had issues with bears.

But the reason I like this bill so much is it really speaks to local homeowners who wanna make these improvements, and so often, they get very, very frustrated with their planning department, trying to get appointments, waiting at the counter, all of these things. And to be honest, many of them just choose to not get the permits.

So not only is this something that I think is innovative, it also will encourage others to get permits, which will add the safety around homes, but it will add also, if the fees are reasonable for these permits, that local governments are really struggling for at the loss of some of these fees.

So I'm a big fan. I think I'm gonna start today with a little award that I make up my self. This gets a little award for pragmatic and my award, the pragmatic award. Great job.

She's a former star.

All right. Mr. Kalra.

I have a new goal in life: to earn the Sharon Quirk-Silva Pragmatic Award. And also, Mr. Chair, just to point out, one of our committee members, Mr. Garcia, I think, is violating decorum in general dress.

Can we have the sergeants come and take care of this?

It's really unacceptable. I wanna thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this bill forward. I definitely think, you know, to some of the points that Assembly Member Quirk-Silva made in agreement, I think it's also some of the building inspectors, I imagine, right?

I know just from at least in my local jurisdiction, they also are so backlogged and get-- you know, they have some-- a larger project they have to focus on, but they have to do all these, you know, quick checks. It can also add up. And I just have a couple of comments.

One, you know, requiring them to create a program can-- I'm assuming that inspectors, you know, they need to go-- physically to go, even after doing an a virtual check, can do that.

And so what would be important to me also just as the legislation is moving forward is that we don't end up having a scenario where the people start outsourcing that out-of-state. It needs to be building inspectors in the jurisdiction. So especially because if there needs to be follow-up, you want the inspector that looked at it virtually be the one that's now gonna physically go there. And that-- I think that will be a really important component.

And the other aspect of it-- and I appreciate that the amendments, minor electrical work, minor plumbing work, because those are things that you really kinda have to get behind the scenes, especially on the more-- the larger work being done.

And even on the minor work, if they see something they wanna-- go, you know, I need to go double check this, that person can go and do that, but one thing is--and I think that we do need to embrace the ability to have technology to speed up the permit process to reduce the workload of these building inspectors--but as we-- one of the big topics we have all the time on AI, I wanna be very cautious that jurisdictions, in order to save money, don't go down that road, especially for something this important.

Obviously, technological tools can be helpful, but, ultimately, when it comes to especially talking about plumbing, electrical, you know, there could be catastrophic damages and, of course, you know, injury or loss of life. And so, again, I wanna kind of-- I want this program to be not just better for the permit applicant, but for the building inspectors themselves so that there's-- so they can get things off their desk, but, ultimately, they should be the ones kind of deciding what the final sign-up should look like. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, and you bring up a good point, Assemblyman Kalra, the jurisdictional inspections. We're happy to have those conversations as the bill moves forward. Thank you, sir.

Yep. Go ahead.

Yeah, I just wanna thank Mr. Carrillo, Assemblyman Carrillo, for bringing this bill. I think this is a big step towards modernization. We already see that there are multiple cities and counties that are doing this, and it seems like they work, and especially in a lot of rural areas, places that I represent. I mean, I know that there are some inspectors that one to 20,000 or 30,000 people.

And so, I think that this is, again, just a great modernization step. I know that, obviously, there's been shared concerns on what we can do, but I think this helping and speeding up the process-- time is money. I also say time is cost as well, and-- yeah. I just wanna make sure that I was thanking you, and if you're looking for any co-authors, I'd love to sign on with you.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

All right. You may close.

Well, with that, Mr. Chair, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1738.

Thank you, Mr. Carrillo, and thank you for your leadership and for working with the committee. I think we appreciate the work to try to streamline some of these inspections and use technology in pragmatic ways. You've already received an award for that here, and also narrow it in some ways around certain scopes of inspections related to ADUs, and appreciate your your partnership on that.

And I know you're gonna continue to work on this bill, including with some of the labor groups who had some particular areas that they were concerned around. So appreciate your leadership and continued work to try to make sure we can get housing built and remove some of the unnecessary barriers and time constraints. So with that, we will take a roll call vote. Oh, do we have a motion? We do not have a motion.

Second.

Motion to move.

Ms. Quirk-Silva moves and Mr. Kalra seconds. Take a vote.

Motion: do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. [Roll call].

All right, eight/zero. The bill's out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our Majority Leader, Ms. Aguliar-Curry. This is Item Number Six: AB 1890.

Good morning. Smiling faces. Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Our farm workers do some of the top, toughest work there is in Napa County. They're out there every day, making sure our agriculture economy stays strong and thrives, and we all depend upon them.

But many of them are struggling just to find a decent, affordable place to live. That's where Onapa County's Farmworker Housing Centers comes in. They've been a lifeline, not just here locally, but for workers across the region. They provide safe, affordable housing along with basic services people need to get by, meals, laundry, Internet service, and even help navigating the immigration issues.

In 2017, I established the farmworker center account to the states, so the state could step up and match local funds up to 250,000 a year to keep these centers up and running.

The rising cost and, as you can imagine, inflation have created a growing funding gap. So if we don't act, the county could be forced to raise rents on workers, cut back on how people they can serve, or worse, we could even shut down the centers altogether. AB 1890 helps fix this. It increases the state's matching support to 500,000 a year, which allows Napa County to keep this program going through 2036.

This makes sure that the state does its part to sustain these centers and protect the workforce the California agriculture's economy depends upon.

So I respectfully ask your right vote today for AB 1980 to make sure our farm workers have a safe, a reliable, and affordable place to call home. With me today, I have Sonya DeLuca on behalf of the Farmworker Foundation and Anne Cottrell on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors.

Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair Haney and honorable committee members. My name is Anne Cottrell, and I am the Napa County supervisor for District 3, which covers the northern part of the county and is home to all three of our county operated farmworker housing centers.

Today, I respectfully request your yes vote on AB 1890, which would reaffirm the state support for Napa County's public private farmworker housing model. Put simply, Napa's model works, and it could work across the state as well. Our three farmworker centers are funded by an innovative model using a combination of public funds, private capital, and self help.

Lodger rents cover 40%. Grower self assessments cover 30%. The state's contribution now makes up about 10%. The county covers the balance with support from direct donations. Local growers vote to reauthorize the assessment every five years.

Growers supported the last reauthorization by an overwhelming 87% margin, demonstrating their recognition of the significant value of these centers. And the centers average an occupancy rate of about 95% year round. Our farmworker centers are a high yield investment for the state.

These centers, as you've heard, are central navigation hubs for our farmworkers, offering a range of resources from two hot meals and a packed lunch every day to mobile health care provided by an FQHC to permanent housing navigation. The state's annual contribution leverages substantial local capital and demonstrates ongoing support for an essential agricultural workforce.

I wanna conclude by extending an invitation to the members and staff of this committee to visit a Napa County Farmworker Center as you have done, thank you, to see what we're doing, why it works for us, and how this model could work for communities across the state. Thank you for your time, and I'd now like to turn it over to Sonya DeLuca, executive director of the Napa County Farmworker Foundation.

Thanks, Anne. Good morning, Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. As Anne mentioned, my name is Sonya DeLuca, and I'm the executive director for the Napa Valley Farmworker Foundation. I am here today in strong support of AB 1890. The Farmworker Foundation is an independent 501 c3 nonprofit created by and for the farmworker community in Napa County.

Our mission is simple, to invest in the people who grow and harvest the wine that has made our valley famous. We do that through education, workforce development, and community support, and the Napa County Farmworker Housing Centers are absolutely central to that work because these centers are not just places to sleep.

When a farmworker checks in for the night, the week, or the whole season, they are not just getting a bed and a meal. They are stepping into a community hub. The Farmworker Foundation brings programs directly to these centers from English literacy classes, safety certifications, and viticulture training that help workers build careers and not just fill seasonal positions.

When we meet farm workers where they are, we know that when they have the opportunity to learn and grow, our entire community thrives. But these centers are under real financial pressure. Operating costs now exceed 2.2 million a year. The state's contribution, 250,000 annually, covers just 10¢ of every dollar needed to operate them. That contribution hasn't changed since 2018 even though operating costs have significantly increased.

Local growers, donors, and lodgers themselves are carrying the weight of those cost increases. AB 1890 is asking for Sacramento to remain a viable partner. AB 1890 is a modest ask for a proven model. It protects a workforce that is irreplaceable. It protects the programs that help that workforce thrive, not just survive.

It protects a model of public private partnership, funding farmworker housing that can and should be a model for all agricultural communities in California. On behalf of the Napa Valley Farmworker Foundation and the thousands of farmworkers we serve each year, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1890. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Allison Barnett with Platinum Advisors here in strong support for the Napa Valley Vintners.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of UnidosUS in support. Thank you.

Great. I don't believe this bill has opposition, but anyone here opposed to the bill? No? We'll bring it back to the dais. Yep.

Yep. And, also, Fiza, good to see you. I look forward to coming and joining you, hopefully, in the future. You know, I, I know in this bill too, it's just simply increasing the state's ability to send more money to help out. I know when I met with some of the vintners, we were talking about the 218 and hopefully commissioning a 218 study, in the future for the CSA to make sure.

Main reason why I just bring up these concerns is, you know, future ongoing deficits, you know, really do make me worry that future allocations aren't able to, meet that. So I know that the CSA has taken additional steps to really make sure that they're prioritizing workers' increases on their daily pay, but I would really recommend on that part just to make sure that there's stability in the future, you know, especially as the state's gonna increase the allocation by a 100% on our end.

And I hope that the locals do so as well. So thank you, and I appreciate it and look forward to supporting this.

Quirk-Silva

Another great bill. What's going on today?

Do I get an award?

Yes. You do, it's a second award. No. I really like this model. I did not know about this these centers until you came to visit me. But I do agree that this could be a model for other, types of, industries, whether it's nursing.

We know that, we have traveling nurses, and one of the reasons they're not able even at we, I went to visit Yountville not too long ago, and they are having a very difficult time attaining nurses in that area. So in veterans' homes, but having the type of centers where people could come in as a guest for, like you said, a week, a month.

One clarification that I know you told me, but I do wanna make note of it is it's not just the farm workers that work in the vineyards. I think you told me that other ag workers could stay as well. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes.

So thank you. I appreciate it, and I'd be happy to move the bill.

Thank you.

Alright. I have a motion and a second. Miss Aguir-Curry, you can close.

You know, I love my initial bill that we did and to see the success that has come from that. It just makes me really happy to see when you go to the farmworker housing to see what they have done and what the community has done because this is truly a partnership. And everybody put in something to this, including the workers. So I would like to respectfully ask your aye vote today.

Thank you so much, and thank you for your leadership and also your, your county's leadership. And and we we actually spent a significant amount of time learning about, this model at a hearing that we had last week on farm worker housing and the broader needs of, rural areas when it comes to housing.

And so I was incredibly impressed by it as a model, the way in which, folks from the private sector and the county came together and with support from the state and certainly allowing for the state to, to increase our contribution to this, I think, model that serves the needs of not just the region, but that, the state benefits from in so many ways as well.

So very happy to to support this bill and and appreciate your leadership and the, and the leadership of the county and and everyone who has come together to build this model. And with that, we have a motion and a second. We will take a vote.

Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

8-0. The bill is out. Thank you. Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Alright, Mister Alvarez. Prime time.

Good morning. I was hoping Miss Quirk-Silva will still be here so I can get a star next to my name too. One of our great teachers in the assembly. Well, thank you, Mister Chair, Committee Members. Appreciate the opportunity to come before you to present Assembly Bill 2433 affordable homes bonus law, density bonus.

I want to extend particular appreciation to the Chair and the, committee consultants for their work, not just with my staff, but with myself to get us to where we are here today. And that includes acknowledging the amendments that are being proposed in the analysis and accepting those as we go forward.

And thank you again for that work. The, the affordable homes bonus law is intended to modernize and improve California's most successful housing tool, the density bonus law. As our sponsors here today will share with you, density bonus law has contributed to over a 140,000 really not contributed, but resulted in a 140,000 entitled housing units across California in the past five years alone.

This is certainly a significant achievement when we talk about actually building housing in a policy that we've implemented and approved in California. This has been, among the most successful in achieving that goal. This bill builds on that, momentum to help address our state's housing crisis of which many of you know too well as members of this committee, and I will not go over the numbers.

But the most recent data from HCD indicates that we need to increase our production and building of housing from a 100,000 units now to a 180,000 units as we have fallen behind even further. And that's the centerpiece of AB 2433

Want to get into the specifics of what the bill will require. It will require local governments to proactively notice applicants if they are eligible for this, density bonus law. Data that has been compiled and analyzed as stated in your report found that approximately 25% of housing projects that were eligible for this bonus did not actually use it. I believe that number is 14,000 units.

And while that's not the gap between a 100 and 180,000, it is a significant number of units that could have been built if this was used if the applicants would have known about it. So this requires that, the notice to the applicants that are moving forward with projects.

Local governments, are already required to notify the applicants that, they may qualify for a number of units, but they only leave out the fact that, they're not eligible. It's just that simple of a change hoping that we can encourage more to use the program. Second, it allows the builder to deed restrict units at an income level that are lower than what's in the law.

So if someone's actually building more affordable housing than what the law requires, wanna make sure that they know that that counts towards their contribution of affordable housing so that they can get the bonuses right now.

If you're making, units available at a more affordable level, you may not be qualifying for the density bonus, which is definitely not the intent of the bill, and so this clarifies that. It also clarifies that granting a bonus, granting a bonus law are not discretionary. This is already the intent of current density bonus law, and this bill reaffirms that.

It allows, fourth, it allows for the calculation of density bonus by using floor area ratio, which a lot of jurisdictions our local jurisdictions are now using, and they've adopted that, and that's opposed to the per unit or unit based density calculation by using floor area ratio. I know that's happening in San Diego and in other places as well.

Fifth, it allows for ministerial approval of projects that qualify for density bonus to make that clear that this is a ministerial process. It then also, six, aligns state law with recent court findings in the Friends of Lagoon Valley.

And seven, most importantly, 24, AB 2433 offers two additional incentives for projects that provide deed restricted units that can be purchased by Californians. This is something that, is very important to me and really central to the whole, intent here. We've made a lot of progress, and we've seen, development and building of affordable housing, not to the level we need to, but certainly a lot of progress.

But often that's just rental and not for sale. And this will provide some incentives for those who want to build for sale that are deed restricted at affordable levels so that our families can afford. I want to emphasize the importance of, again, of that last point as, we've done a lot of good work, but not always focused on for sale product.

I, so this is because according to the California Association of Realtors, over 70% of families in California cannot afford to buy, and those statistics are felt more and more by even some of our colleagues who have shared their inability to afford a place to buy in California. An annual income of 163,000 is required to make a monthly payment of $4,000 a month.

That's the, for a medium price condo that's going for $650,000 in the market today. So while most Californians become a homeowner by age 49, according to recent UC Berkeley study, that's obviously regressed from where we were in previous decades. Now I'd like to turn it over to our sponsors who are here to testify. First, we'll have Colin Parent, CEO, General Counsel for Circulate San Diego, and then Michael Lane from SPUR. Colin?

Thank you, Assembly Member. My name is Colin Parent. I'm CEO and General Counsel with Circulate Planning & Policy. Recently had a name change, based in the San Diego area and former City Council member in the great city of La Mesa. Here as sponsors of this bill, it it does a lot of things that the assembly member, you know, outlined.

It's these are all, by themselves, fairly modest changes to the law, but there's, but they're all the the sorts of changes that are intended to to make sure that more projects who are willing to build affordable homes are able to take advantage of the benefits of the of the program the existing program.

So the the bill doesn't add any additional density, doesn't add any different types of benefits, just makes it easier for for projects to to receive the benefits that the legislature has already chosen to provide for projects that are willing to include affordable homes.

Circulate has some experience with this policy. We sponsored the last two big bills to enhance bonus laws benefits, AB 2345 in in 2020 and AB 1287 with Assembly Member Alvarez in 2023.The first gave it the 50% bonus, and the second, the stacked second 50% bonus.

Circulate's gonna be publishing a report next month. We previewed some of that data in our support letter to the committee members. And, and it's trying to and this report is going to be helping to document some of the impact and success of the bonus law over the years, especially after these changes to legislatures made in the last five years.

So some of the previews that we included in that is that if you total up all the streamlining laws that are tracked by HCD's, data, AB 2011, SB 35, SB 9, SB 6, You total them all up in 2024. Bonus law produced 10 times as many units as all of them together. And that's that's been a a tremendous success, for legislative action on this.

And what this bill does is makes it easier for projects to take advantage of that to help growing that, growing that that amount of production. And also one of the things that we shared in that in that data that we'll, we're gonna detail more in the report is that a lot of projects use use this, use this law, and they don't use any density whatsoever. They, they don't use any extra density. Right?

And so what they, what they're using is there's, they're using the incentives and the waivers and the other benefits in the program that this bill is designed to make it easier to access. And so those are very, very important things. A big part of why projects are being able are using this program, choosing to build affordable homes and to be able to receive entitlement. So this has just been a big success.

We're looking forward to to talking more about it with you and and and hope that we can make this program even easier for more projects to use.

Mister Chair and Members, Michael Lane with SPUR, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. State density bonus law is a powerful tool to create both mixed income and 100% affordable housing developments, both rental and for sale. The law provides incentives for market rate housing developments to include below market rate units, enhances feasibility for inclusionary housing requirements, and ensures that units can comfortably fit on the project site.

AB 2433 is based on, on the ground experience and feedback and aims to improve local implementation and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this important tool. It's also important to note the bill does not increase the maximum density bonus available under current law. We respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Are the folks here in support of this bill?

Hello, Chair and Members. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Hello. Katie Castres on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition in strong support.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission, Habitat For Humanity California, Fieldstead, Inner City Law Center, and the Two Hundred all in strong support. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Alright. Do we have anyone here in opposition to this bill? Anyone who wanna register their opposition or something in between? Not seeing anyone. Alright.

We'll bring it back to our members. Colleagues? Questions? Comments? No. Not seeing, wow. Just yeah. Just you would think this is just such a simple, easy, small bill. It's actually a hugely important, impactful one, but it shows the the the support that you have here and and the hard work that you put into it. So we had a motion and a second, and we will let you close.

Thank you all. Appreciate the work the committee is doing, on on the issue of housing crisis. You know, I've approached this problem from when I got here from a policy perspective given the lack of resources that are in, affordable housing, and this is one of the policies that I've been proud to work on that has resulted in success as was stated by the testimony, and we hope that this law continues and builds on that success. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And thank, thank you for your partnership on it and how how deeply you've dived into this particular issue and and particularly the, the density bonus law, making sure that it it works as intended, that it works even better.

It's one of our most successful housing laws, if not the the most successful one of recent years, and and there's more that we can do to to accelerate, in particular, the homeownership opportunities, which we know is a tremendous need as well. So I appreciate your leadership, and we'll take a roll call vote.

Motion is to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. [ROLL CALL].

10-0. It was out.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. For sure. Mister Ta our last bill. Right? Yes. Consent.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. First, I want to thank the committee staff that work on AB 1567. AB 1567 would authorize the housing and community development department, SCD, to include assist living community in a housing element report and allow city to count this unit toward the regional housing need allocation goal. As we all aware, California face that housing shortage The state need 3,500,000 additional home to meet demand. One of our largest growing population in our aging population.

In fact, according to report by PPIC, California oldest older adult population is projected in risk by 55% by 2040. One category of housing, the HCD has not been counting as a seed leaving because SED does not have a clear definition. In SED report, California Housing Future 2040, SED recommend that the DOF use a clear rule for capitalizing development that may include group quarter and housing unit. In fact, in the same report, SGD also suggest that legislation may wish to explore possible change to improve clarity.

City and county are unable to cap assist living communities toward arena numbers.

However, a b fifteen sixty seven would encourage city and county to ease the production of more assist living community as defined by section fifteen sixty nine point two of the health and human services. Hopefully, to free up more home to be available for purchase by families.

The sponsor of the bill, you see, the Front Valley was unable to make make a trip up to Sacramento today as well as a League of California cities who were while supporting the bill, but they do have Daniel Parsons with the California City Living Association whose group is supporting this bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblyman Ta. Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Danielle Parsons, with the California Assisted Living Association. We represent assisted living, memory care, and continuing care retirement communities. This bill, AB fifteen sixty seven, specifically deals with our assisted living communities, which are known by their license type RCFEs or residential care facilities for the elderly. We're a social nonmedical model, and we help our residents with their needs of, further acts of daily living. So this could be something like showering, dressing, or medication management. Our residents call our communities home, often moving between a spectrum from independent living, assisted living, memory care, and maybe even hospice care within our communities. California has a quickly growing aging population with the population 65 growing by fifty nine percent by 2040, 2040 sooner than it sounds. That population has a seventy percent chance of needing some form of long term care in their lifetime. Because of this growing population, California needs to invest in assisted living living along with other parts of the continuum of long term care now if we wanna be ready to take care of our seniors in the future. We'd like to thank Assemblyman Taw for authoring this bill and recognizing the importance of investing in additional senior care options, including our CFEs, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of the bill? Seeing anyone? Do we have anyone in opposition to the bill? Seeing anyone? Questions or comments? Motion from miss Colosa, Second from mister Calra. Mister Taim, you may close.

I really I really appreciate the chair's support and the committee staff, so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. I supported this last year, and we'll do it again today. And I appreciate your work on on this important issue serving, this, critical need, in our communities as it relates to housing access, and, we will take a vote. Right.

A motion do pass to the assembly committee and local government. Haney?

Aye.

Aye.

Avilafarias, aye. Coloza? Aye. Garcia?

Garcia aye. Kalra?

Aye.

Haney, aye. Patterson? Avila farias?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, aye. Quirk Silva?

Quirk Silva, aye. Ta?

Aye.

Aye.

Ta, aye. Tangipa?.

Aye.

Tangipa. Aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Wicks, aye, Wilson. It's 10 to zero.

Ten to zero. The bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. We ask that any absent members please report back to the room here.

With the consent calendar. We have a motion on the consent calendar for mister Calra and a second Second. From mister Lee.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, everyone. Committee's adjourned.

Yes. We did call it. And, yes, sir, just to verify, you and I on that. Is that correct? Okay.