Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

I'm gonna start. Alright. We are going to welcome to the assembly housing and redevelopment committee hearing. We have eight items on our agenda today. AB 1899 and AB 2390 are on consent.

We will, have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each main witness will have two minutes each. Feel free to submit written testimony for the position portal on the committee's website. This will become an official record of

the bill. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. We this morning, we are in a new room, different than usual, Room 126 at the Capitol. The hearing room will be open for in person attendance, and all are encouraged to watch the hearing from its livestream on the assembly's website.

We are will begin as a, subcommittee, and, we are going to call the item of the assembly member who is right there ready to go from the very beginning.

And that is item number 4AB2005. You can begin.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Members. I would like to start by thanking your very hardworking committee consultants for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments.

So thank you so much for all of the staff work on helping me with this. AB 2005 allows current homeowner owner occupants to participate in the process of building more housing, and it protects the current guardrails and existing law that deter corporate participation in this process.

Specifically, AB 2005 will allow the trustee of a living trust who is currently the primary resident of a single family home or the owner or member of a limited liability company, LLC, to apply for the urban lot split.

Under existing law, these common estate planning tools cannot be used for a lot split applications. This restricts the process to individuals with substantial financial resources and expertise. This bill does not increase the number of units that can be constructed on an SB 9 lot split or reduce the number of owner occupied units.

In fact, lot splits constructed under AB 2005's new pathway will create additional owner occupied units. AB 2005 creates an alternative option where an existing homeowner may partner with a small home builder to manage the lot split and construction on the second lot.

This process... This process is complicated and requires expertise and access to financing. This option will create not just one but two new owner occupied units for sale. The current version of SB 9 only creates rentals after the lot split.

SB 9 passed in 2021 and we have learned that in the real world it's simply not working. Our job as lawmakers is to not only create new laws but to evaluate existing laws and make changes if we know they are not working. It is our responsibility to improve them and to make sure that they are producing the intended outcomes.

This bill is about fixing an existing law to improve outcomes and build more housing and maintains the the existing and robust protections against corporate ownership and speculation. It is a vital advancement in the state urgently needing more housing units, especially in Silicon Valley.

I wanna thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with my office regarding this bill before the hearing. We have received late opposition to this bill, and I am committed to continuing the conversation. However, I am not interested in protecting the status quo, which is not working.

I am open to any suggestions on how to improve the use of existing housing laws and to suggestions of how to improve the intended outcomes, which is to produce more homeownership opportunities in our communities. With me today is Louis Mirante, the Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council, and Stephanie Yi from AlphaX RE Capital.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Louis Mirante. I'm Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council. I'm here to support SB AB 2005. The Bay Area Council represents more than 370 of the region's largest employers.

We share the goal of keeping California a thriving epicenter of innovation, and that is not possible without housing that workers can afford. It is no secret that our residents in our state struggle with housing affordability. And with the cost of a home quickly outpacing the median salary of a working class family, California's ability to attract and retain workers is becoming nearly impossible.

You may have read that the median age of a first time home buyer in the United States just exceeded the age of 40 for the first time. People who make less than $300,000 in the Bay Area cannot afford the median priced home. This is an urgent crisis.

SB 9 was one of the legislature's recent contributions to fixing that crisis and making homeownership more accessible. It provides a streamlined pathway to create small scale housing opportunities on existing residential parcels.

This important piece of legislation empowers existing homeowners to build on their current properties and creates a scalable solution for Californians across the state. On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2005. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Stephanie Yi. I'm a CEO and the founder of AlphaX, a woman founded, woman owned small infill development company. So we actually have vertically integrated system in our in Bay Area.

And we have comprehensive capabilities in the Bay Area and all over California. So we've super focused on creating more homeownership opportunities in California. I would like to share with you that in the past couple years, SP 9 as passed is now working.

My experience is a lot of homeowners actually came to us and asked us to help them because they are lack of knowledge, they lack of resources. They don't understand the whole complicated process. They couldn't do it on their own. I would like to share many of the homeowners that work with them also hold their homes under LLC or living trust.

So this purpose of AB 2005 allow them to advantage, take advantage of their lost place. As Assembly Member Ahrens just stated, AB 2005 creates an alternative option where homeowners may partner with small home builders to manage their lost split and a construction process on the second lot.

SB AB 2005 will lead it to the production of more housing units for sale in California, and I believe that this bill will allow current homeowners to participate in the process of building more housing. Thank you. I strongly support this bill. I respectfully ask you all to your aye vote on AB 2005. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here who is in support of this bill?

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs in support today on behalf of SPUR, Abundant Housing LA, and Circulate California.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY.

Great. Thank you all. I know there was a late opposition letter. I don't know if we have an opposition witness or anyone who wants to come up and provide any opposition. Not seeing anyone. Alright. I'll bring it back up to the dais. And this is, again, item number four, AB 2005. Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. And a particular thanks for looking at previously passed legislation and finding ways to improve implementation if we don't see it being implemented the way we intended or if it's not, you know, advancing the way we wanted it to advance and it being taken advantage of in the community like we expect it to.

And so I like the overall intent of the bill. I did have a couple of concerns that I wanted to flesh out with you, if you don't mind. How would... So a lot split is a final action. So there's no way to undo a lot split.

So how do you see it being enforced that it is owner occupied and that, you know, that it wouldn't be creating a loophole for corporate investors to be able to take advantage of this new, this new opportunity to do a lot split and create additional ownership opportunities.

We want it to be, you know, owner occupied opportunities, but you could see how it could be used as a, you know, creating a loophole. So how do you see enforcement going?

Well, I'd like to turn it over to my technical witness to answer that. Thank you.

Sure. Current law requires that people who apply for this subdivision under AB SB 9 sign an affidavit. And the affidavit is a condition of recording the separation, the lot split with county registrar. This bill would require that same affidavit of anybody who receives the title of one of the subsequent lots.

So the committee amendments today specified that it's the people who receive the lots. So you could actually see the affidavit requirement that has been reasonably effective in current law actually doubling the number of owner occupants who sort of receive one of those transfers.

But I guess the owner occupant today, under current law, is not, is an individual. Right? And likely to have to in order to get another loan, you know, that would be noted that there was an affidavit in their current property. Right? And so that would probably could prevent them from getting another loan.

Most people don't have a ton of cash laying on hand to buy it. So when you look at... And that could be the same for a living trust. Typically living trusts are just individuals. They're not, you know? But when you get to LLCs where you have multiple people.

And it would be an affidavit of only the person who was occupying there, you could see that it would be harder to enforce because once it's recorded there is no other mechanism to hold it accountable. Right? Am I missing something?

Yeah. Can I add on it? There are two parts of it. Right? So number one, when you actually, the AB 2005 actually needed three years deed restriction on the split to the lot, which is same as affordable housing 55 years deed restriction.

That's number one to make sure there are actual homeowners do it. Even one homeowner, I said, I'm going to, I lost my job. I'm going to sell my home. The new owners come in, can you take over in the rest of two years? Make sure the homeowners actually leave me there at least for three years.

Well, they wouldn't be living there. They would just they can sublet it. Right? They can lease it. There would be nothing against the law that says they can do that. Right?

No. There is an opportunity that needs to be signed, and the deed restriction that needed to say is primary owner's residence.

But that prevents me from selling it for three years.

It's not selling. It's kind of, like, needed to be owner occupied. It's homeowner occupied.

I guess what I'm saying. And just so you know, to the author, I support this and will be voting for it. I just wanna, as we work through the legislative process, I want to see that there's a flaw as I was looking at it. I'm a, I purchased this additional lot and say by affidavit that I'm gonna be there for three years. Who is verifying that I'm living there for three years?

And then I'm not sell. That I'm not, I can own it, but I'm the one living there and I'm not subletting. We're allowed to sublet. Right? And do you know what I'm saying? And so I think when you have an individual doing that, it's harder because it's an individual's home and they have to live somewhere.

But when you move into, and I don't see that problem so much with a living trust, just how living trusts work. But I see when you get into LLC, there's this little loophole here. You could do that and then you can lease it and there's no issue.

Absolutely. So I'm definitely committed to continuing these conversations. But those are hypothetical examples of, you know, very limited use cases under current law right now. These SB 9 applications are hardly being used at all. And so going from one extreme to another...

Happy to look at improving language to have more guardrails. But the reality is this mechanism is hardly being used at all in the state of California. Going from that to finding a potential loophole for a potential abuse, you know, is definitely something I would wanna work with you in on firming up, but it really...

I think you should consider that. I look at it as not a potential but a likely loophole, likely loophole when it comes to LLCs. Just because the nature of them and there is no enforcement mechanism and the lot split is a final act.

There is no, oh, I did it. Oh, wait. Now I'm gonna undo it. Right? So I think it's something to consider that in an effort to improve a law that we don't create a loophole, and that's what I wanted to...

And that's why we're keeping the three year owner occupied requirement in there. But, you know, the devil's in the details. But I will could say now is it's not being it's not being abused now.

I don't... And I don't, I really don't anticipate the scenario that you brought up, but I'm happy to see if we can find firmer language to find that enforcement. But the reality is is that...

Whenever there's possibility, that's where it happens. But thank you. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. Thank you for the back and forth discussion. I appreciate your willingness to make sure that we don't create any loopholes that could be taken advantage of because where there's a profit motive, there is an opportunity to take advantage. Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate those comments, and I think that was something that we also grappled with as we were looking at this as well. I think, you know, putting the entire onus on the owner and figuring out this entire process and having the resources to do so I think is clearly a limitation that is holding back some of the opportunities presented by this law.

And yet at the same time, we do wanna make sure that this is truly meeting its purpose and that it's not sort of used in for other ways even as we wanted them to be owner occupied. How do we verify that? How do we ensure it over time?

And so appreciate your diligence around those issues as this moves forward and working with some of the concerns that have come up late as well. And, but again, we set out this year really wanting to look at the laws that we've already passed.

And making sure they're actually working and how to produce more housing. That's the goal. And so we really appreciate your leadership in helping us do that. And with that, I'll give you the opportunity to close.

I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. We will take it up when we have a quorum, and appreciate it.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Alright. We will continue on as a subcommittee. I see we have another author here, Mr. Gallagher. Item number 8, AB 2676. You still don't have any backup up here though, but we'll treat you fairly.

No problem. Thank you, mister chairman. I am proud to present AB 2676, which would clarify certain provisions of the housing crisis acts of of 2019 to more effectively prevent actions that limit housing development.

I think as many of you know, Senator Skinner, brought, this housing crisis act legislation forward and passed it, you know, declaring that we do have a housing crisis in this state and and providing for protections for already planned housing density in our local affected counties and cities, and ensuring that those couldn't be sorted. There couldn't be a moratorium placed, on that housing.

And we know now that, we you know, despite some progress, we're still way behind on the housing that we need to build. As of I'm sorry. Lost my place there. Demand for housing is completely out raking supply and the Department of Housing and Community Development determined that California needs more than 2,500,000 new homes by 2031. We're not even halfway to that goal yet.

And that is why I've I've introduced AB 2676 is to clarify and solidify the protections of the housing crisis act that ensures that, referendums or initiatives, that would be included in what is called an affected city or effective county. There was a recent court case that actually ruled on this matter and NRF Project Owner LLC versus City of Oceanside, ruled that a referendum preventing housing development is a violation of the housing crisis act.

So that's what AB 2676 would codify, is that, this includes, referendums and initiatives that would act as a moratorium on housing, in those affected counties and cities. This will help reinforce our state's commitment to housing development and reduce confusion for both cities and developers, and I respectfully ask for your eye eye vote on this important legislation. Here with me to testify is Tim Murphy with the North State Building Industry Association.

Association. Good morning, Chair Haney and members. My name is Tim Murphy. I'm the president and CEO of the North State Building Industry Association, a local home building association here in the Sacramento region with more than 500 member companies. And I'm here today to respectfully urge your support for AB 2676.

The bill provides a necessary clarification to the housing crisis act by closing an ambiguity that has allowed approved housing projects to be delayed or effectively stopped through local referenda. Even projects that fully comply with state law and general plans can be overturned for approval, creating uncertainty that undermines housing production and the intent of the housing crisis act of 2019. AB 2676 makes it clear that these actions function as a de facto moratoria and should be treated as such under state law.

It also establishes a clear framework for review and enforcement, restoring predictability to the entitlement process. Housing development is a multiyear capital intensive effort.

When approvals are no longer reliable, costs increase, timelines extend, and fewer homes get built. At a time when California faces a significant housing shortfall, we cannot afford that instability. 2676 reinforces a simple but essential principle. If a project meets objective standards and is approved, it should be allowed to proceed. For these reasons, I ask for a nigh vote.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this bill? I'm not seeing anyone. Is there any opposition to this bill?

I didn't think so. Alright. Bringing it back up here. Miss Wilson.

Just had one question. Understand the intent. Thank you for bringing it forward. There was language that I didn't quite understand the purpose of and and what you intended by, and that was in Section two, the it is intent of the legislature that the amendments made by this act shall operate retroactively to any pending action or proceeding. I was trying to understand the purpose why that was necessary. I thought that was right.

And it was around intent, not saying that it applied. It's of the doc of I'm here. It's page nine, line 31. I think it might be. You have a version that looks like that.

Yeah. I mean, so the intent here is that this is, you know, sort of a restatement of the law and clearing up clearing up an ambiguity in the law, but this was always the intent of the housing crisis act.

Is that when we had planned for growth and we had planned for certain density, certain zoning, and we have projects that are consistent with that with that zoning that we can't have something that acts as a moratorium on projects that are consistent with the planning and and zoning codes. So to the extent that, you know, that has happened in the past, this this would clarify that that was incorrect.

And there has been a court case already on on the books that has held exactly that that, you know, where an initiative referendum acts as a moratorium in the Oceanside case, that it is a violation of law of the housing crisis act.

So someone, does that mean that someone today if if this was to go into effect signed into law, that someone could use now the additional wording that you've added or clarification and go back in time to 2020 and litigate over a matter related to a housing project tonight? Is that how it is would be used?

I mean, I'm not I'm not a specialized lawyer in that Okay. In that field, but I I would I would say that the intent here is that, hey, this is the law and that it applies certainly in between when we passed the housing crisis act and and today.

From 2019. Yeah. So you're saying that you're trying to make sure that not just now going forward, this is clarity in the law, that someone could use it from that 2019 to 2026. If there was a project or something, they could they could go back and and and maybe get an approval where they otherwise didn't, whether it was not determined in their favor based on this law with this new clarification. Is that the If if they were rejected Yeah.

That's what I'm talking about. In the case of rejections.

And that is found to be not consistent with the housing crisis act, then yeah.

The new clarification

be able to go back and say, yes. This was a violation. But I but I I I would say it's also, like, consistent with, you know, the current understanding of law, and we're just we're cleaning up the the ambiguity that has been there. Right? At least and I know at least one court has found that that was the case.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Actually, let's establish quorum here. Look at that all at once. Wait.

Oh, okay.

Oh, great. Okay. Alright.

Haney?

Present?

Haney here. Harrison? Here. Harrison here. Ward?

Here. Here. Colossa, Garcia, Cholera? Here. Cholera here.

Lee, Cork Silva?

Yeah.

Cork Silva here. Ta. Ankypa?

Here.

Ankypa here. Wicks. Wilson. Here. Wilson here.

Wilson here. Alright.

We have a quorum. And, folks, we are on item number eight, AB 2676, Miss Quirk Silva.

Yes. I just wanted to comment and thank the author for bringing, I think, a very important piece of legislation. Being on this committee now for several years, we see legislation and then we see cleanup legislation and then we see other companion pieces of legislation. And yet under this theme of housing crisis act of 2019, This simply means in regular speech that once a project is approved at the local level that you cannot use moratoriums or voter initiatives to block. That is that the case?

Is that what we're looking at here?

Right. Yeah. Where you have a project that's consistent with, you know, all the general plan and zoning, you know, meets all that requirement, been approved, that you can't end run, you know, the Housing Crisis Act by using an initiative or referendum.

And why this is significant and really important is because we've seen this playbook over and over, where a project makes it through planning, makes it to the council. Council chambers is packed, and many times a project then is overturned at the council level when, as you said, all the objectives have been met, and this is a way to stall and delay housing. And the title, the housing crisis act of 2019 is not only relevant, but it continues today.

So I appreciate not only you for bringing this forward, but what it really means is let's get forward move forward with approving these projects that have made their way through planning to the council without using voter initiatives. And I've seen this so often, particularly in my area where people get signatures and all of a sudden the pop project disappears.

So I appreciate you and I move forward the bill. Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. You may close.

Yeah. I just wanna clarify one thing. This is why we have good staff. Right? So in answer to your question, Assemblymember, the retroactive v is for the statute of limitations and just for pending actions.

So pending actions can use the new clarity of the statute of limitations under this legislation. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Appreciate that.

Alright. We have a motion. Thank you. And a second. And thank you again, mister Gallagher, for your leadership.

And we will take a roll call vote.

The motion is to pass as amended to the assembly committee and local government. Kany.

Aye.

Kany, aye. Harrison? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.

Colosa, Garcia, Cholera Cholera, Aye, Lee, Cork Silva. Aye. Cork Silva, Aye. Ta. Aye.

Ta, Aye. Aye. Thank you, pa.

Aye.

Thank you, pa, Aye. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, Aye.

Let's do it.

Alright. 70. We'll keep that open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chairman.

Alright. Why don't miss Wilson, do you wanna

Thank you.

consent in the first bill?

Yes. We have a motion and a second on the consent items. Alright.

[Roll Call]

Great. We have a motion and a second on item number four.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, mister chair. Members of this committee, I'm pleased to present a D sixteen twenty one, which aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California's housing approval process. Currently, delays in post entitlement permits both slow down housing production and drive up costs, making homes less affordable for Californians. Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California housing crisis. As highlighted by the assembly select committee on permitting reform, these delays continue to slow production, increase costs, and make housing less affordable.

This is why I've chosen to reintroduce this legislation as AB 1621, building on AB 660, which I'm thankful had strong bipartisan support in this committee last year. AB 1621 built on existing law by establishing clear timelines and real accountability for local agencies to process post entitlement permits, ensuring that approved housing projects can actually move forward. It also provides applicants with a clear path when agencies fail to meet their obligations.

This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process, targeting areas where housing developers have experienced significant issues. A v sixteen twenty one will prohibit local agency inspectors from requiring a project to make changes in a field that would deviate from plans a local agency has already approved.

It stops local agencies from delaying the process by sending applications to outside reviewers and limiting how many times they can ask applicants to revise and resubmit their plans. Well, we have heard some concerns around AB 16 twenty one. It's important to note that local agencies can go

beyond the two plans local agencies can go beyond the two plan check limit if there's strong evidence that more review is needed to address a serious health or safety issue. AB 1621 simply closes the gap and improves existing law regarding the timelines for local agencies to act on post entitlement permits. With me to testify on behalf of this legislation are Arjorie Radajak, on behalf of California Building Industry Association, and Deborah Colton on behalf of the California Apartment Association. Yeah. Genetics in there.

It's always on her right. Good morning, chair, members of the committee. Audrey on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, and we're here in strong support of AB 1621. This is critical legislation needed to approve the efficiency, fairness, and accountability of the post entitlement permitting process for housing development projects. We're in the midst of an unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis.

And despite the progress made in recent years, particularly with the enactment of AB 2234 from Rebus in 2022, which established important procedural timelines for local agencies when processing the post entitlement permits, there are serious barriers and some gaps that remain that continue to delay much needed housing across the state. AB 1621 addresses those barriers and strengthens the existing framework with a narrowly tailored approach. The need for these reforms is clearly documented.

As the assembly member mentioned as highlighted in the final report from the assembly select committee on permitting reform last year, failures in the permitting process have played an outsized role in the overall housing crisis with delays directly contributing to increased costs and uncertainty for developers. So a v sixteen twenty one offers a balanced and common sense solution that does not override local control or compromise safety.

Instead, it creates a clear, consistent, and accountable framework that ensures timely permit processing, fair treatment of applicants, and ultimately, the ability to deliver the housing our state so desperately needs. So for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your vote.

Good morning. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I cannot overstate the value of this legislation. It is very important in getting, us to the final, occupancy level. Apartments in California can take up to eight years or longer before they can at least complete the project.

This will certainly help us, expedite the process. And for that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any other folks here in support of this bill?

Mister chairman, members, oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in strong support.

Morning, mister chair and members. Skyler Wanaka on behalf of the Building Owners and Managers Association of California and NAOP California in support.

Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in support. Thank you.

Holly Fermina Dace, who's with Blythe House Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate California, Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, San Diego Housing Commission, and SPUR, all in support.

Allison Barnett with Platinum Advisors for client California Self Storage Association in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YNB in support.

Bob Naylor on behalf of Field Set and Company in support.

Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California here in support.

Alright. Is anyone here in opposition to this bill?

Good morning, chair and members. Brady Gurnon on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful proposal as amended. First off, great to see everyone again. I know it's the first time I've been here at least this year, so it's good to see the committee again. But I did wanna, first of all, really appreciate the work we've had and the conversations we've we've had with the assembly member's office. We we do remain concerned for a

variety of reasons with the proposal. Now, we understand and we support streamlining and making sure that permits are done effectively and efficiently, but we also wanna make sure they're safe and that they comply with the local requirements or the state requirements that the state has adopted for building codes, including environmental stuff, which may not necessarily account for non health and safety issues.

So your solar energy systems, which is required for new construction per the state, as well as EV charging stations, which is also required a lot of the new multifamily complexes, would probably not fall into the health and safety standards yet. Our local governments have the task of approving and making sure that all development projects comply with those regulations.

Now the challenge with the two permit reviews process is we would have the ability to deny the project, but also historically denial is very challenging for a lot of local governments because of our housing crisis, which we all acknowledge.

And the health and safety protections are important, but there's also a lot of non health and safety issues that we have to account for locally, which is gonna put cities in a tight spot. The other unintended consequences is it could provide loopholes for applicants to avoid some of these other requirements that the state has designated that are not health and safety related, and that could lead to, projects not complying with those requirements.

The other big challenge that we have is that the reasonable standard can be very challenging. Building codes are really complex and highly technical. Multiple rounds of review tend to be with, either not understanding the codes or not getting clarity.

The amendments we had offered, we're trying to work that balance in terms of, hey, after two plan checks, we can be more specific on what type of regulations you're not complying with and providing those details so applicants understand what it is. But we wanna make sure that all the local codes are complied with and that we're doing our part to enforce what the state has drafted as regulations for local governments to enforce regarding building developments.

So we look forward to continuing those conversations with the author's office and the sponsors, but we remain in post unless amended today. Thank you.

Alright. Anybody else here in opposition to the bill?

Good morning. Tracy Ryan with rural county representative of California and on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We had lined our comments with Cal Cities in an opposed less amended. Thank you.

Anyone else? Standing there. No? Alright. Bringing it back up to the dice.

Mister Patterson.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, mister chair. You know, I when I was building or not, I wasn't building. I was I definitely don't have that skill set.

When we're doing tenant improvements on what would become, our new district office, that's funded by the state of California. The city in which I used to be mayor, which is an amazing beautiful city, the plan check guy decided that because we had a conference room that the phone line needs to be drilled into the concrete and like wiring for a phone line that we never were gonna put in because of future tenants potentially. You know?

But this was our office that the state of California is paying for. So plan check comes back, it takes, like, six weeks, you know.

This is definitely not a life and safety issue, you know. I I texted the city manager. I'm like, hey, dude. Like, what's going on? Like, I might put it in a phone line.

She's like, well, just tell him no. You know, just tell him you're good. I was like, that's not really how it works. You know? It's no matter what, I'm delayed several weeks on opening state office to serve my constituents because a plan check individual decided that I needed to have something that wasn't life and safety.

And, you know, a, I think this bill passes out of the assembly 80 to zero. And so I just wonder, like, you know, like, you know and I mean this with all due respect, Brady, but when I look at the board of League of Cities, they're all electeds. And as an elected on a city council myself, when I would get these calls, because I called my city council members, I find more times than not as a city council member, I'm having to deal with these issues.

I actually don't think city council members support would would support this bill, to be honest with you. Like or or sorry.

Wouldn't support the the position of the league. I actually think as a city council member, I got kinda, like, tired of dealing with getting calls from business owners and developers because somebody on staff made a determination that I think is, you know, outside of the scope of really what they're trying to do.

So, you know, if I had the opportunity to speak to the board of the league, I would really ask them, you know, to to think their position on these bills because as a city council member myself and I former, and I think they would agree that this issue in particular causes more headaches for a city council member than a lot of the other issues.

And I just feel like, you know, this bill is gonna pass out 80 nothing, and we gotta find a better position to make sure that this plan check process is not holding back projects because one person with such huge power, you know, it makes this determination. And I think making written findings and then used to fix it and then you get more written findings.

It's like how many written findings do we need? You know, so I think we need a standard that says you get two cracks at it and that's it. That's why I'm very happy to support this bill. And I would love to speak with the board at some point about about this exact topic if if if the opportunity presents itself.

Mister Tangipa.

Thank you, mister chair. And I I like this bill because it it does streamline some of the barriers and hurdles because I think one of the numb one most important issues for everybody today, especially in my generation, is we just want to get out of our parents' home. Just want to get out and be in a place where you can afford somewhere. And sometime and it and this is cutting down bureaucracy. But I do hear RCRC.

I hear the League of Cities. And one of the things that I've mentioned for my colleagues too is that for some of these rural areas, as we're putting so many local burdens on them that we have to meet, whether it's solar standards, sprinkler standards, all of these additional standards. We must make sure that we're giving you some of the modernization tools as well to make the standards that the state of California is putting on you.

And I think that is something that I've talked to a lot of my cities, board of supervisors, is we must allow some of the smaller communities to have modernization plans as well and allow them to incorporate AI and processing. But there are a lot of bills that are coming right now that also strip them the ability to do so.

And when I have counties and communities that are supposed to meet all of the state requirements that LA can afford, San Diego can afford, the Bay Area can afford, but I have one plan checker for one county, an entire county of 50,000 people. The only solution to that is to modernize the process.

So while Aye, again, support this bill, I hope that we also think into the future that if we're asking our local municipalities to abide by what the state wants, we also give them some of the modernization tools, and we don't prevent that from being implemented at the local level under the skies of protecting jobs where there just aren't jobs there. They can't afford it. Our counties cannot afford this.

And so I look forward to supporting this bill, but I really hope that my colleagues also look at what can we do for the League of Cities, for the local municipalities, for our planning, for our departments to give them some of the tools so they can actually meet the goals that the state sets for them. And so thank you. I hear our CRC.

I wanna work together with them on a full scale modernization plan because I think that's really where the issue is coming from is they're just saying, we don't have the ability to do so, and I know that coming from a a rural county. But that's something that we should be able to get there through school's full scale modernization plan.

So thank you, and thank you to the author for bringing this. Miss Witts.

Thank you, mister chair. And sorry. I missed the conversation. I was in another committee. But I wanna thank the author for reintroducing this bill this year, and I'm a proud coauthor.

I don't know if there's been a motion to move it or not. I'm happy to make it. If not, and just wanna just compliment your work. You know, I let this, like, commit in on, permitting reform last year. I know this was part of the package last year, so thank you for continuing this.

You know, I'm as you are as we all are a bit of a broken record here on this issue of how important it is, and also so much of our housing has just been death by a thousand cuts. And this is an example of a way that we can fix some of that. And the the permitting reform work often feels very niche, but it's actually incredibly important, incredibly powerful. So I just wanted to thank you.

I would add on as coauthor if I wasn't already, and excited to support this bill today.

Thank you.

We have mister Ward.

But I want to concur as well for your work in the space. You know, one of the issues that came up last year with a v two fifty three, which guarantees sort of a parallel pathway for private permitting review if there was an impact to a local government, was whether or not, sort of, now, of course, that's signed into law moving forward. There have been some subsequent issues that have been raised that we're studying.

We want to sort of implement it as well, but this might be timely for what you're trying to do because one of those issues has been what do you do about subsequent plan checks

And whether or not there's an opportunity to sort of, like, you know, make try to thread that that opportunity for outside support as well to also be able to help to navigate through anything past sort of plan check round one. So just something to take a look at as well. Yeah. This is the time of timeliness. If not, then it's something I I tend to look at for next year as well along with a host of other issues.

But we're in that space, and I wanna be able to make sure that you're as effective as possible. Thank you. And happy to support yourself today.

Thank you.

Great. The opportunity to close.

Thank you. I appreciate the discussion and and the comments. Well, it's especially the comments from opposition because as they know, you know, I care about the locals champion for local control and making sure, that they have the resources that they need to do their job. And at the same time, having been a local leader myself, I also recognize the inefficiencies that can happen at local government. And and we don't want our locals moving with goalpost.

We recognize that there are, state requirements. There are local requirements, and those standards exist. But I think this will allow our local agencies to be more efficient, because they know they have two bites at the apple. So we right now, they can come as many times as they want to and they could do it in the field. So somebody could say, okay.

Well, here, here's this back and know that they'll get them later. Right? But now they know they have to do all of that in advance and they have two times to do it. And then it could expose to your point where there needs to be modernization and then request help in modernization so that they can effectively do a two plan check review and save any other issues they find as it relates to, health and safety and address those laters.

And so I think this is important step forward.

I will continue always to work with opposition, especially, you know, our locals from Cal Cities, our CRC, and CSAC to see if there is anything that we could do to address this. I appreciate the comment from my colleague as we have other bills signed into law and we find we were talking about this earlier with another bill with implementation issues, making sure that we're incorporating that on a go forward for other bills that deal with the same topic. And so we'll definitely, look to incorporate that.

And thank you for that feedback. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. We had a motion from miss Wicks and the second from mister Tangeepa, and we will take a vote.

Motion is to pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. Haney.

Haney, Aye. Harrison. Aye. Harrison, Aye. Ward.

Aye.

Aye.

Ward, Aye. Colosa Garcia. Cholera.

Aye.

Cholera, Lee Kork Silva. Aye. Quicksilver, Aye, Ta.

Aye.

Ta, Aye. Thank you, Pa. Aye. Thank you, Pa. Aye.

Wicks. Aye. Wicks, Aye. Wilson.

Happily, Aye.

Wilson, Aye. Thank you.

Eight zero. Alright. That bill is out. We'll keep it open for absent members. And we will go to item number three, mister Solace.

A b 2002.

Thank you, chair and members of the of the opportunity to present AB 2,002, which will codify the regional early action planning grant, a program known as REAP one point o. I'm grateful to you and the committee staff for the hard work and thoughtful analysis on this bill. We are facing an unprecedented a housing crisis, as you all know, that requires bold policy vision. But California's housing vision only works in every region, county, and the city has the tools to carry out the state's mandates.

Housing for all starts with good plans, and good plans require funding.

Staffing and technical capacity, especially for communities that have historically been left out like those in my district. The regional housing needs assessment arena is the foundation of our statewide housing strategy, yet it remains unfunded a mandate. The demand on our regions have grown greater and greater, and the seventh RHNA cycle will be the most complex and expensive for regions in in state's history. Without support, local governments, especially small and under resourced jurisdictions, will struggle with, to meet the state's expectations.

Luckily, we have known that, what works.

The 2019 REIT one point o program demonstrate one of the highest return and investment housing programs that the state has ever funded. In Southern California, SCAG leveraged its 47,000,000 REIT one point o allocation to facilitate the adoption of a 140 fair housing programs and provide direct technical assistance over a 129 agencies, resulting in nearly 450,000 units being submitted for a permitting 222,000 units being permitted, including a 109,000 affordable units between twenty twenty and twelve and twenty three in SCAG region.

CataFI and three one point o protects the state's housing framework from instability and ensures regions can meet the, increasingly complex requirements we have placed on them. Alongside this bill, we have submitted almost a 125,000,000 budget request spread over several years, only a small fraction of the state's housing budget. AB 2,002 swings the state's housing commitment and ensures that no community gets left behind because they are under resourced.

We did receive some late feedback from stakeholders on this bill, and we are committed to continue engaging with them. With me, I have the honor of, having my former colleague, as you all know, I might I was on SCAG myself, and our former president and now Caltech president and, councilwoman in Palm Desert, councilwoman Jan Harnick, as well as SCAG deputy planning director Elizabeth Carajal. Thank you, mister chair.

Well, good morning, mister chair, mister vice chair, and committee members. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to talk about this bill authored by the one and only Assemblymember Solace. So he's told you my position. My name is Jan Harnick. And as you've heard, AB 2,002 could codify the REIT program, which in 2019 was the first time the state provided funding to support housing development as set forth by the RHNA program.

The program provides technical assistance to cities, counties, and regions, and in to develop and adopt good housing elements. And in the Coachella Valley, our low resource cities have benefited from it. Couple of examples, an investment to develop a plan for the Coachella Valley Affordable Housing Catalyst Fund to address financing barriers to affordable housing production in inland and rural markets. Another investment supported over 2,300 affordable housing units between twenty twenty one and twenty three in the Coachella Valley, including the 298 unit Palm Desert family apartments.

These examples demonstrate how small investments make a big difference.

Arena is an answer to our housing challenge. But without a resource, it's just a promise we can't keep. AP two thousand two changes that with GoodSend Solutions. So thank you for your consideration of AP 2002 today.

Thank you, chair.

Yes. Okay. Thank you, chair, vice chair, and committee members. Once again, my name is Elizabeth Carvajal. I'm the deputy director of land use with SCAG. AB 2,002 is an opportunity to build on the local and regional capacity that has arisen from both REAP one and two.

The 2019 REAP one program created a foundational shift in how the state and MPOs like SCAG support our cities to plan for the regional housing needs assessment and more importantly, the policies and processes that need to be put in place to make housing a reality in our state and region. In the SCAG region, we use our refund dollars to provide technical assistance and allocate resources to help local jurisdictions update their housing elements and build their capacity to support housing production.

We have a 186 of our 197 jurisdictions or 94% with compliant housing elements. A few examples of repo projects include efforts in the city of Los Angeles to conduct RHNA analysis to help them map and analyze arena capacity and create a rezoning program. For context, the city had to plan for over 450,000 units, more than 30% of our 1,300,000 unit allocation.

SCAC's reprogram also helped Orange County partner with Ventura And Gateway Cities Council Of Governments to develop an ADU suite of programs for model ordinances, a website, and how to guides. These three subregions represent 71 cities. In San Bernardino County, the REAP1 funding supported cities by providing technical assistance for housing element development and staff augmentation to help our lower resource cities execute this important work. The COG also conducted a full site inventory and analysis identifying sites that are suitable for housing to meet the RHNA.

These are just some examples of projects and local planning efforts we were able to build with REAP one from scratch.

Without AB 2,002, MPOs and their jurisdictions risk losing the access to the programs and resources that will enable critical planning work essential to meeting the next RHNA cycle, housing element development, and the capacity building and planning work that is foundational to addressing the state's housing crisis. Thank you for your consideration of AB 2,002. I'd be happy to take your questions.

Thank you so much. Other folks who are here in support of this measure.

Mister Sherman, on behalf of the city of Pico Rivera, strong support.

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair members. Chris Lee here on behalf of three clients, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the Urban Counties of California, and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, all in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Britney Gernon on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Lawrence A. Valencia representing the American Planning Association in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Vincenzo Caprile here on behalf of the California Association Council of Governments, proud cosponsor and strong support. I was also asked to register support on behalf of both CSAC and RCRC.

Great. Thank you all. Are there is there any witnesses here in opposition to this bill?

Good morning, chair and members. I'm Ben Turner with Acxiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I just wanna start off by saying that we, support the author's intent. We recognize that local governments, need additional funding to deal with the increasingly complex, RHNA process. However, we are opposed unless amended, and we've had some productive conversations with, some of the rest of the staff already to that effect.

The main issue we wanna see is that, some of our members in the, in the reprocess have conditioned funding eligibility on adoption of, policies, such as, rent control or inclusionary housing that exceed, state standards. And we want to, we'd like to see some guardrails for COGS such that they can't condition refunding on additional policies that layer additional complexity and compliance on those funds. And, yeah, we're we look forward to working with the author to to address those concerns.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to this bill? Not seeing anyone. Bring it back up here.

Vice chair, Patterson.

Well, thanks. Thank you, mister chair. You know, I haven't had enough coffee this morning, so I'm a little grumpy. But, you know, I think, you know, I've said this before in this committee, but I think the arena process is completely ridiculous. Doesn't deliver houses, homes.

The number of city staff, county staff, COG CAT staffs that are spending time, you know, filling out paperwork. I mean the ink isn't even dry on the last housing cycle or the existing one and people are already gearing up for the next one. And all these staff members working on it, probably hundreds of millions of dollars statewide to basically fill out a bunch of paperwork which then later on we have HCD making, you know, probably underground regulations for every single city in the state of California.

So I think the process sucks. And that said, the reason why I like this bill is because the cities and counties need the help to comply with the law.

And I totally agree with everything that the BIA said, by the way. I mean, you know, but part of the reason why local jurisdictions are putting on these requirements is because, they're mandated to zone for certain types of housing, which which already have difficulties getting delivered in the first place. And so then the local jurisdiction says, well, hey, You know, to create, you know, affordable housing, we're gonna create a new fee, you know, to help fund it.

And then said fee never, you know, doesn't actually deliver housing. So I agree with totally agree with what you said.

But I do think the local jurisdictions have, you know, they need help complying with all of these underground regulations instituted by HCD. So so this will be a helpful bill to get to that point and I look forward to supporting it.

I'm glad I got to hear your comments before I spoke to my colleague.

Miss Quirk Silva.

We're both gonna vote.

Yeah. You know, the state does go through many exercises as local governments, but the goal with Rina is to build housing. And it's to get cities who have been lagging to move forward. We have had more and more compliance, but it's only because the state has had to push on those. And unfortunately, there have been some cities that actually are in legal battles with the state because they absolutely refused to do any type of housing, which pushes the housing on on to other cities.

So the more we can invest in planning, I think the better off we are. But there are lots of dollars that have been expended to get to this. And I've always said of each city according to their size would build something versus nothing. We'd be much further along. And when people sit out or push it to someone else, it's why we're in this situation.

But that being said, I do have some question as the refunding does come through our budget, committee. And in this budget cycle, there is no funding stated for it. But this bill, if you could, or any of the witness explain the difference from and you do acknowledge it on page seven, between what you're trying to do with this next cycle with this funding because I see in addition, this bill adds local housing trust fund activities as eligible, and you've added a few other things.

So if you can, just in a little snapshot, show us what you're trying to do that is different in this cycle and whoever would like to answer that.

Sure. Elizabeth Carvajal here. So this this program would fund everything that was allowed in REAP one, which is essentially helping with the RHNA process, setting up the methodology, helping jurisdictions participate in RHNA and update their housing elements. In addition, it is allowing for establishment and funding of housing trust funds.

That's a new, addition to the program, as well as looking at utility capacity planning as well. So, essentially, a lot of it is focused on getting folks ready through the RHNA process, updating housing element elements, and the new additions are largely related to housing trust funds.

So so for example, if we created a program, a jurisdiction could apply say they have an existing trust fund, but they wanna explore creating a new type of loan program. They could apply and say, we wanna get some funding for a feasibility study to focus specifically in predevelopment loans. So it could focus on expanding capacity of an existing trust fund, as well as looking at the feasibility of creating a new one in a subregion excuse me, a subregion or a city.

So I wanna ask, are the housing trust fund Not every jurisdiction has one depending on the county or the city, but this would say that you could use. So if a city or a county got a grant, you're saying then you could take some of that money out and put it into a housing trust?

Alright. Well, I I'd like to speak more about that after the committee. I just I have some thoughts about it, but I do support the bill. I know that the the planning is essential, and so I would support this bill.

Thank you, chair. Thank you to the author for, submitting this bill, introducing this bill. I think it's extremely important, having been a local leader, that, as a county, we were able to take advantage of, refunds through, ABAG. And I sat on I sat on ABAG and sat on housing. And so I understand how vitally important it is to be able to have this resources which provide technical assistance and others to be able to meet these goals.

I also am familiar having been in housing and served on these housing boards, how the resources are used for a regional framework. Our state dollars are precious. And as you noted that it it was noted by my colleague that this bill is not yet funded. And when it will be funded, it will be funded with state dollars that are that are competitive and small. I mean, you know, and not small, but I meant we're prioritizing something over another thing because we just have very limited resources.

And so I think it is really important that our resources go to ward state goals. And and I do recognize that a lot of times locals, having been one myself, we will add additional layers which could cause housing cost to go up or prevent housing. And so we we wanna make sure that these resources that we're using that we're using to accomplish state goals and not necessarily additional local goals. And so I think that's important.

I think that's something consider as you work through the legislative process absolutely supporting today.

I wasn't here for the whole time, so I don't know if a motion has not been made. If it hasn't, willing to make that motion now. But I do think you should take into consideration the fact that state resources should be used to achieve state goals.

Thank you, miss Wilson. Alright. We have a motion and give the opportunity to close.

May thank you so much to the committee. You know, it's interesting to see the discussion because not too long ago, I was, you know, on the other side of the aisle. And, actually, I was a witness in this committee, you know, as a as a as a as a former mayor and council member. So I do appreciate the committee's, questions and feedback.

I know miss, sir, Chris Silva, obviously, from Fullerton, the man from Fullerton has had a lot of involvement in this space, obviously, in in her capacity, and we appreciate her, yeah, her vote, yes on this as she's leaving the last year of her life saving year on a very high note, supporting something so important.

And, you know, like mister Patterson said, also from the member from oh my god. R. Rocklin. Rocklin. Thank you. I was like, no. It was R. R. I I couldn't I couldn't agree on the other R. I couldn't agree with you more on the frustrations.

I sat on SCAG, and almost 200 cities represented. And trust me, there was a lot of discussion. We have so many counties and almost 200 jurisdictions being represented. And those frustrations are not unique of of this process. But to your words and to, miss Wilson's, the fact of the matter is that we have to continue funding, this.

This is a a proven a proven, program. Someone asked me why are you not focusing on two point o? I said, because two point o is projects. One point o is actually planning and giving the cities the resources and the actual work to do. So, again, being involved in SCAG and just understanding, the local issues really, really matter.

And I even let, you know, the Coachella Valley representative talk about her region, in this example. And I do wanna address also, mister chair, the opposition's concerns. I think if you know my office, our office would now be supporting something that would not give local cities that that that work jurisdiction, some of the areas that that that were presented.

So just know that our office is gonna continue working with the on some of the feedback that we feedback they receive because there's a concerns that I I would definitely agree that we have to make sure that cities are also protected. So appreciate the continuous conversation.

And today, mister chair, we appreciate us really putting our mouth and our money where our mouth is at about funding these policies and these issues, and that's what really we have to really focus on. And so the last thing I'll say is not only are we moving this bill forward, we're asking us for a 125,000,000 budget as as well. So and, of course, through the process, we'll see what that happens. Thank you.

Great. Well, thank you so much for your leaders leadership in bringing your experience and your all of the background that you Harabedian in seeing how this some of the laws that we pass here actually play out at the local level and the support that is needed to be able to plan appropriately and have the resources in place so that we can plan for it, the the the housing growth that we need and actually make it happen.

And so I appreciate your your leadership here, and we'll we'll we'll have your back there as you as you as you fight for those resources that are associated with this bill and continue to work with folks who have some feedback on on how this looks as it moves forward. We have a a motion, and do we have a second No. A motion motion from miss Wilson and, second from our vice chair Patterson, and we will have a vote.

Motion to pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. Haney.

Aye.

Any, Aye. Harrison. Aye. Harrison, Aye. Ward.

Aye. Ward, Aye. Colossa, Garcia, Cholera.

Cholera, Aye. Lee, Cork Silva.

Aye.

Aye.

Cork Silva, Aye. Ta.

Not boring.

Not boring. Thank you, Pa.

Thank you, Pa. Aye. Wicks, Wilson.

Aye.

Alright.

Seven zero with one not voting, and we'll keep that open for absent members.

Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. Mr. Hoover, item number 6, AB2118. And then we just have one more bill after this for anyone who would like to join us. And that's my bill. So Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2118. California continues to face a severe housing crisis with rising home prices and rents making it increasingly difficult for residents to find affordable and safe housing. Despite ongoing efforts to develop affordable and mixed income, housing developers still face regulatory hurdles that slow the construction of new units.

AB 2118 refines the streamlined pathway created by AB 2011 in 2022 by clarifying that all permits and approvals, including those by state agencies, are exempt from CEQA. The bill also prohibits objective development standards imposed by local governments from limiting or prohibiting mixed uses under AB 2011 projects. With me today is, Katie Kaciras, organizing manager for the Student Homes Coalition, and Michael Lane, policy director for SPUR, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association.

Would love to turn it over to them.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Katie Caceres. I'm the organizing manager for the Student Homes Coalition. We're a collective of statewide and campus based student organizations fighting for accessible, affordable, and abundant housing. The coalition is sponsoring AB 2118 because we believe it will not only build on our previous work in campus development zones, but because it'll also deliver much needed affordable units for all Californians.

Previously, AB 2011 created the streamlined pathways for fully affordable and mixed income developments along commercial corridors near transit stops, and the intent there was to promote development in high resourced areas, which gives low income tenants access to both affordable housing and opportunities like high quality jobs, transit, and schools. And then AB 893 expanded those opportunities to students, which is very exciting to us.

But despite the obvious benefits of affordable housing near campuses, transit, and commercial corridors, some local governments are still finding loopholes to block those projects from being built. AB 2118 steps in to make a few technical changes that would prevent bad faith permit denials, and this is important to help ensure all Californians, including students, can access the full potential of campus development zones and commercial areas.

Students really just wanna live somewhere that they can afford and can easily get to places like their classes and the grocery store.

Ideally, maybe even A Bus stop. So this bill would move us all a little bit closer to an affordable California with dense walkable communities near humanities. On behalf of the members of the Student Homes Coalition, I urge you to vote aye on AB 2118 today. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Madam chair and members, Michael Lane with Spur Public Policy Think Tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. First, I'd like to commend the committee for holding an oversight hearing in February on AB 2011 by miss Wicks, to review implementation, obstacles, and outcomes. We must continue to improve and perfect these housing approval streamlining laws as we receive feedback from practitioners and subject matter experts based on their experience in the field.

AB 2118 does just this by addressing two of the remaining obstacles to full implementation of the Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act of 2022. First, it clarifies that state permit approvals along with local ones are to be granted ministerially as long as objective standards are met.

And second, by proscribing the application of residential development standards that inhibit or prohibit mixed use developments proposals on qualifying sites. Such mixed use developments in commercial zones drive foot traffic to adjacent retail restaurants and services and revive struggling shopping centers, all while providing the housing we need precisely where we need it and we respect the request and I vote.

Oh, here's our good chair.

Folks were others in support. Is that where we're?

Yes.

Yes. Others were in support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus for Lighthouse Public Affairs in support on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and circulate planning and policy.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Bob Naylor for Fuel Stud and Company in support.

Great. Thank you all. Is there any opposition to the bill? Not seeing any opposition here. Alright.

Well done. Back up to the dais. Not seeing any questions or comments. You left everyone in support and and and ready to move forward. So do you can if you have any closing comment.

Yeah. I just would respectfully ask for an eye vote, and thanks to the committee for working with us.

Alright. Do we have a motion from, Mr. Tangipa and a second?

I second.

Second from miss Quirk-Silva, and we can take a vote. Thank you.

Motion to pass the Assembly Committee and Natural Resources. Haney?

Annie, Aye, Patterson. Ward. Aye. Ward, Aye. Colossa, Garcia, Kalra.

Aye.

Aye.

Cholera, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Quirk-Silva?

Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ta?

Aye.

Ta, aye. Tangipa?

Aye.

Tangipa, aye. Wicks Wilson.

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

Thank you, everyone. Alright.

Eight to zero. I will keep it open for absent members. And the last bill we have is my bill. So might be back up here.

Which one is this? Welcome, mister Haney. You are presenting a B2074.

Alright. Thank you, madam chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 2074, which will address two overlapping challenges, California's housing, shortage and our struggling downtowns, many of which have not yet recovered fully from the COVID nineteen pandemic. AB 2074 will create a streamlined ministerial pathway for high rise, mixed income housing in transit rich city centers.

It will help bring residents and activity back downtown, establish a revolving source of project financing, and ensure that the projects we are building, support a well compensated, well trained construction workforce.

The bill focuses on a small number of the state's largest cities, those with populations over 400,000 and multiple major transit stops. Those cities are Los Angeles, San Diego, San San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, and Long Beach. At the same time, other cities may opt into the bill, allowing them to designate a regional transit hub District and access the bill's financing tool to attract downtown developments if they choose to participate.

Within these districts, AB 272074 establishes land use controls to allow high rise housing including minimum standards for high density and floor area ratio appropriate for downtowns. Notably, most of the cities affected by this bill already have high density downtown zones.

So this bill, will, help to support, existing, strategies, and and and enhance, the opportunities for this type of development. It includes the same labor standards as SB 423, requiring prevailing wage, for projects under 85 feet and skilled and trained workforce requirements for larger buildings. It will also include, a a a a state back revolving loan fund administered by CalHFA, which is being pursued through a broader budget request to provide low cost financing.

I realize I've taken all of the talking points from my two witnesses, so I will stop there. I hear them whispering about it.

So here with me to testify are our cosponsors, Eric Aaron Eckhouse from California YIMBY and Jeremy Smith from the state building trades.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. My name is Aaron Eckhouse. I'm proud to be here from California YIMBY to speak in support of AB 2074. This bill would help revitalize California's downtowns by supporting high rise housing development there.

We know that changing work patterns after the pandemic have hit downtowns hard. We know that more housing is a great way to bring life back to them, and we know that the transit rich downtowns of major cities are a place where we can really go big on addressing California's housing shortage.

AB 2074 combines land use standards to ensure high rise housing is possible, streamlined permitting to protect that housing from delays, labor standards to support workforce development as we build that housing, and low cost financing to make sure those projects actually get off the ground. I wanna talk more about the low cost revolving loan fund in the bill because it's such a powerful tool to catalyze sustained investment in downtown regrowth.

It's a secret ingredient of this bill that we really think takes it to the next level as a way to unlock new housing.

Because of the way loans from the fund are structured, it will leverage private capital to magnify the impact. And because the loans revolve back into the fund, it allows a modest one time commitment from the legislature to unlock sustained support for downtown housing. AB 2074 adds a powerful new tool to California's efforts to address our housing crisis as well as revitalize our downtowns. It will help our biggest cities build the homes our economy and workers need.

Near transit and jobs, and communities where people can walk to work, school, and all the other amenities of urban life.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, madam chair. Members, it's gonna be Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. Proud cosponsors of this legislation. I'd like to thank, Dory and, mister chair for the hard work, you've all put on this bill. It's nice to

be in in this space, cosponsoring a bill with California DMV and working together. This is the type of bill that we wanted to see for a long time where, there's an acknowledgment of, the need for housing, especially in these, downtown corridors, economic revitalization that comes with that housing, but also an acknowledgment of the workers who are building it. I know that we are all aware of what we need in this state when it comes to housing.

And we spent a lot of time over the last decade reminding policymakers, let's build our way out of this. Let's not forget about the workers who are gonna build the housing.

And this bill, this bill does that. A lot of our members, especially when they become journey men and journey women, they're making very good salaries in the construction industry. But a lot of them can't live where they work. So when we come here and we complain about there not being labor standards in these in these different housing bills, we we take that very seriously, but we we want everybody to realize that our members need housing too.

And so we're not this this isn't fun for us to have to oppose a lot of these bills.

So we're happy to work together on a bill that that acknowledges, that there are some bigger, cities in the state, that can accommodate this type of construction, but that the workers who are gonna build it are gonna be taken care of as well. And, I think the other, important thing to note, Aaron mentioned it, is this revolving loan fund idea.

I think that, this state we think this state needs a prop 98 type of of, of space of funding for housing, where there's a certain amount of money every year, that's for housing. I know that there's a lot of different pots of money all over the place, and that bureaucracy gets a little hard to get get through. But this revolving loan fund, I think, is something that has merit.

I know the budget is very difficult this year. I think we all know that. So we'll see what May revise says. But we're excited about this idea. We're excited to be partnering with California and beyond this and look forward to working together as the bill moves forward.

Thank you today for the time.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Any other witnesses in support?

Holly from the Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate Policy and Planning in support.

Any others in support? Seeing no others, do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, madam chair and members. Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income Californians. And, first of all, I have to say, I don't wanna be here because there's a lot of things in the bill that is seeking to accomplish that we believe in.

I wanna just point out that the analysis does a fabulous job outlining the challenges that we have in our state when we are producing housing, especially multifamily.

And one of the things that we were disappointed in is that the this bill focuses specifically on high rises and only provides financing opportunities for those type of projects, which tend to be the most expensive and the ones that have the least affordable units that are available. And I'm not just talking about deed restrictive, but just affordable options in general. And so we understand what the author and the sponsors are trying to do. In fact, we agree. I love the Prop 98 idea.

Would love to work with California EMB and the trades to accomplish something like that and believe that there is a lot of good and merit in the bill that the author is seeking to accomplish. So we hope that we can work together to ensure that we provide financing opportunities for early stage development for all kinds of projects in California that are all across the regions and not just specific urban points. So with that, thank you, and I apologize that we're opposing.

Any other opposition?

Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California expressing concerns with the bill. Really appreciate working with the author's office to date, but we feel strongly that limited public funds should be used not to support mostly market rate housing, but housing that serves the lowest income Californian. So look forward to continuing conversations and pre appreciate the conversation.

Thank you. Bringing it back to members.

Back to members. Any questions? Assembly member?

Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. For continuing to work on all the issues that we need to for effectively managing more housing. I'm trying to understand Kinda getting I'm kind of curious, you know, with the implementation of the standards here that are outlined in the bill, what would be the practical effect? I wanna talk about the fund in a second.

But as far as, you know, the development capacity that you're looking at right now, what might be the added value there of a, development capacity that's not already afforded by existing local ordinances, SB 79423, etcetera. I'm trying to think, obviously, Aye, you know, very, you know, focused on San Diego, but I know your district as well in San Francisco and some of the other major cities that would be eligible under this bill.

Where are you seeing the sort of ministerial approval that that isn't already existing?

Very good question. So s s p 79 and and other efforts tended to focus more on mid rise construction. So generally, not higher than 75 feet. And this bill is really focused on high rise construction up to a hundred and fifty and four hundred and fifty feet. So these are this is a much higher level of of of of of construction in terms of what we're what we're offering.

Obviously, as you noted that that that the opportunity to receive funds through the revolving loan fund is also a big part of it to be able to address some of the financing gaps that can that can create challenges here. The cities will have the discretion to choose and define the coverage area. So we we really wanted to to balance out their, local local control over the area that would be included in this.

And and it it is including types of development that again, in terms of how significant the high rise is, goes beyond what is what is provided for within SB 79. I think there was a conversation late in some of the amendments that were taken later on SB 79 about this particular need for this highest rise development.

And so we're kind of continuing that and getting that that part of it done in in in in in in in conversation with the stakeholders. I know that the city of San Diego is very excited about this. We're gonna be announcing it in San Diego and and and and hoping you'll you'll you'll be a part of that. And the mayor's very excited about the opportunities that can come about from this.

So it's been something that is is this sort of particular type of development opportunities that exist that I think has not been fully addressed by the the bills that have been forward around the the the the much more high rise dense type of opportunities that are really existing in some of our larger cities.

I I don't know if if that if either of you

But in some of these little players, for example, in San Diego, you know, we have actually a high cap in the downtown area because of the FAA restrictions, you know, 500 feet limit. So well north of a 150 feet. But because the land value is down there, you're never gonna build anything less than a 150 feet.

Yeah.

And so I guess I'm wondering how does this afford any additional benefit, I guess, to what already is an opportunity, I guess, for in that area. Obviously, you can go higher than 500 feet in a one square one square mile area for your home city, and you would want to because your land values are very high as well.

Yeah. I would defer to the leadership of the city the city of San Diego as to why they view this as as an opportunity. They certainly have been very supportive of it, and the mayor's been very supportive of it. It's a it's a combination of, some of some of the particular ministerial approvals that we're putting in here on these types of developments, as well as, what they see, as you said, of around some of the the financing that's needed.

Sure.

And and it may be the the the financing, the revolving loan fund that is most attractive for a a place like San Diego that might not otherwise have might be able to do many of the things that we're doing in this bill or already have without this state policy change.

You know, much more affordable capital is something, yeah, everybody would would want. Where what do you anticipate? I know this is gonna be a budget question. What are you anticipating as sort of, you know, a c or do what are you requesting, I guess, as a c funding for this revolving loan fund? Should we be successful?

500,000,000.

500,000,000?

Okay. We'll see how far that stretches. But okay. Happy to support the bill here today. Hope it adds value.

Yeah.

And, you know, we'll definitely I think I think it's gonna come down to the money.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Other questions? Assembly member Tangapoff.

Yes. Thank you. And, you know, for me, it's personally I know how important s p 79 is. I know what a lot of people have been looking at, but from the position the state is in, but not only in the position that the state is in. Every single one of the cities that the author actually had mentioned are in large scale deficits.

City of LA, in a billion dollar deficit. City of San Francisco, in an 800 plus million dollar deficit. City of San Diego, over $200,000,000 deficit. City of Oakland, deficit. City of Sacramento, deficit.

The state of California is projecting the LAO and the Department of Finance under the governor's office is telling us that our deficits in the future are in excess of $20,000,000,000. So this is more from just fiscal responsibility that if we have massive deficits on our largest municipalities and also the state of California's in a projecting massive deficits, and this is the good time with a positive stock market, I just fear for the future.

You know, that there's a reason why these cities won't actually add their own city line of credit and build their own loan program. They are asking us if the state to do so because they don't have any money. Nobody has any money, and yet we're locking things in for the future.

So housing is one of my number one priorities. I do believe that we should have you know, if we don't want to build out, we do need to build up. And that's what places like New York and why they have large scale municipalities and population dense areas. But when we have no money and it's the good time, we need to think about when we have no money and it's the bad time. And so I can't support this bill.

I I think that it's gonna lock us in. And while I understand Prop 98 funding, that type of ballot box budgeting actually removes our ability as the power of the purse here in the state legislature to actually allocate resources properly. So it is just fear of the future when we're looking at the budget, when we are being warned, and there are red flags everywhere. We should be very cautious, when we're doing things like this in the good time that is already struggling.

What will the bad time look like?

And then that's where the real conversations start to happen. So thank you.

Assembly member Wilson.

Thank you to the author for your leadership in this area, and I'd recognize that, many of our cities are struggling and our state is is struggling too. We have decisions to make as it relates to our finances, and there'll be decisions to be made on this bill later as it relates to the finances. This is the policy committee. I think it's good policy. And with that, I make the motion.

We'll ask the author to close.

Thank you. And thank thank you for those comments, and and and thank you to our witnesses. I think it's very notable that we have, the California Building Trades and California YIMI coming together, on this bill and working together and and recognizing how important, it is that we, build housing. We also, build housing in areas where we have tremendous opportunity. You know, we have a lot of conversations here about how we need to build more in certain parts of our state and certain cities.

And, well, we have huge amount of capacity and opportunity in some of these dense areas where we do have transit, where we do have a lot of jobs, and we have to build a lot more there as well and and build with a high paid, high trained workforce. So that's what we wanna do here. We hear a lot also of how we can change zoning and we can change permitting, which we we need to do. But also, we need to address the financing.

And this is a great investment that we can make.

I know our state is and our cities are struggling, with their budget deficits, but we can't stop growing, and we can't stop investing, and we can't stop building. That's how we're gonna create the kind of growth, I think, that is gonna address those deficits over time, and that includes, building, investing, and housing. And so with that, respectfully ask for your vote.

Alright. This bill is a do pass as amended to the assembly committee on local government. The recommendation is a support. And with that, can you take the role?

Of course. Haney?

Aye.

Haney, Aye. Harrison, word word Aye. Pelosi Garcia. Aye. Garcia, Aye.

Cora?

Aye.

Cora, Aye. Lee Lee, Aye. Cork Silva?

Cork Silva, Aye. Ka. Thank you for

Aye.

Thank you for no. Wicks?

No.

Wicks, Aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, Aye. She's gonna call for a vote.

Aye.

And then our secretary will call the role for additional add ons.

Four?

Correct.

Alright. We're gonna go through and take some votes here. Item number four.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Meetings adjourned.