Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright. Welcome everyone to the Assembly Housing Community Development Committee hearing. We have 19 items on the agenda today. Five of the items are on consent. That's item number four, AB 1817.

Item number seven, AB 2020, 11, AB 2127. 14, AB 2480. And 16, AB 2596. Item five, AB 1892 Davies. And it has been was noticed for consent earlier, but has been pulled from consent and will be heard this morning.

To facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time we have, each bill will have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each witness will get two minutes. You can submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, which will become a part of the official record. We do not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings.

This morning, we are in Room 437 in the Capitol, and the hearing room is open for in person attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from this livestream on the assembly website, and thank you for your patience this morning.

We have we do not have a quorum, so we will start as a subcommittee. And we are going to be hearing items in in file order. So I see we have our first author is here. Item number 2AB17O8, Salasier. Okay.

Sure. Your your your item was pulled by some somebody who's not here, so that was the sensitivity. But I I I we'll we'll let item number five. Davies can go now. Go ahead.

Good morning, and I appreciate the consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 1892. I would like to start off by thanking committee staff for working with my staff on this bill. Members, AB 1892 is a common sense measure meant to clarify three provisions of the Davis-Stirling Act related to HOAs.

First, the bill clarifies it is the duty of the HOA to repair and replace utility services to a common area including gas, heat, water, or electrical services when the interruption of service begins. Second, clarifies and aligns HOA election nomination notices with all other HOA notices of 30 days.

Lastly, requiring these those seeking to vote electronically in an HOA election gets the ballots not less than 30 days before the election. That's it, Members. That's the bill. It is essentially a technical cleanup measure and has no opposition. This is industry supported on both sides. With me here to testify on behalf of the sponsor is Louis Brown, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee. Ms. Davies passed a bill a couple years ago that allowed for election by acclamation.

Which states that an association would not have to use a paper ballot process if there were the same number or fewer candidates as there are vacancies for the board. This was meant to save associations money and expedite elections. In doing so, we added an additional 60 days to that election process.

Now that the election by acclamation has been in process for quite some time, we've noticed that that additional 60 days becomes an obstacle for associations because it extends the election up to 180 days in full process.

So we're asking that that additional 60 days be taken off. This would put the full election process in 150 day process, but with all the same notices and requirements as the normal election process. And with that, we ask for an aye vote.

Anyone else here in support of this bill? Not seeing anyone. I don't believe there's any opposition. But if there's any opposition or opposition witnesses, you could come forward. Not seeing anyone. Alright. I'll let you close.

Oh, I respect...

Oh wait. Sorry. Is there... Not seeing anything. Okay.

Again, I appreciate you allowing me to go first, and I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. And thank you for working to streamline this process and make it work better while continuing to maintain some of the important notices and timelines. We appreciate your work on it, and we will take it up a motion and a second when it when we have a quorum. Thank you. Appreciate it. Alright. Mr. Solache. The gentleman.

Item number two, AB 1708.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm gonna first introduce my guest because I'm so excited to have them here today. I have two local leaders, mayors from my community. First, Mr. Sonny Santa Ines to my left, who is a Mayor of Bellflower where I was born in my district. And of course, one of my newest cities I get to represent, Mayor Peggy Lemons, who has been a champion for her community.

So I just wanna give him a little bit. You know, we do as elected officials and always give our local leaders the best kudos because they're the ones who do the hard work locally. On that note, I'm grateful again to the committee and staff for your hard work. I'm here to present AB 1708. Your thoughtful and analysis on this bill is really, really much appreciated.

AB 1708 seeks to improve the existing Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention known as HHAP by ensuring that smaller jurisdictions have the opportunity for more meaningful engagement, regional collaboration on homeless solutions.

Currently, only 14 of the states 483 cities can access HHAP funding directly, and there is no statutory requirement for direct HHAP recipients to equally and meaningfully engage to allocate funds to smaller cities in the region. As a result, many small and mid sized cities lack a clear pathway to resources even as they invest significant local dollars to address homelessness.

After working very closely with the committee and stakeholders, AB 1708 was amended to address concerns around funding uncertainty and ensure that any changes are too burdensome or not too burdensome. I especially want to thank the Cities of Lakewood, Paramount, and Bellflower in my district for helping us take the feedback and receive to develop amendments.

As we continue to advocate for renewed investment in HHAP, AB 1708 builds a framework that ensures that in the future program rounds can be more fully integrated, smaller cities, and active partners in regional coordination and planning.

As the state continues to demand meaningful results in addressing homelessness across California, there needs to be a stronger support to framework to help smaller cities continue serving their unhoused residents. I am proud again to join by these local mayors to testify in support. Again, introduce Mayor Peggy Lemons and then Mr. Sonny Santa Ines. Mayor Peggy Lemons.

Good morning, Committee Chair and Members. Thank you. My name is Peggy Lemons. I'm a Council Member for the City of Paramount, and I'm here in strong support of AB 1708. Paramount has made addressing homelessness a priority. Because of this, we have seen a 51% reduction in homelessness since 2022.

We've invested significant general fund dollars, committing close to a million dollars every year to support shelter beds and services. For a city of our size, that is major and an ongoing investment. And still, the need continues to grow. Paramount is surrounded by state highways and freeways, which are popular encampment locations.

When these locations are cleared out, Paramount is left to pick up the pieces and provide support for countless individuals. But our challenge is not a lack of commitment. It is a lack of access to consistent state funding. Programs like HHAP are essential, but smaller cities like Paramount often don't have a clear or direct path to access those funds.

With equitable, with equitable access to state resources, we could do more. Expand interim housing, strengthen outreach, and deepen partnerships to connect people to the care they need. Similar to the City of Mountain View, we've hired a Community Preservationist Manager to find creative ways to secure stable housing for anyone experiencing homelessness in Paramount.

Thanks to Assemblyman Solache, AB 1708 is a practical solution to our growing problem. It ensures smaller cities are included in regional planning and creates a clearer, more transparent path to funding. Homelessness is a regional issue, and it requires a regional response. That includes every city, not just the largest ones. For these reasons, the City of Paramount respectfully asks for your aye vote on AB 178. Thank you.

Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee, good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak before you this morning. My name is Sonny Santa Ines, Mayor of the City of Bellflower. Bellflower is a small city of 6.1 square miles with 79,000 population.

We believe that homelessness is a regional and statewide issue. We know that what we need to do is share in addressing this issue. That is why in 2020, we opened a New Hope Shelter to accommodate up to 50 unsheltered individuals. It's a small city, and yet we have a shelter. It costs lots of money to open and operate a shelter.

10 improvements alone to convert a warehouse into a shelter cost us $2.3 million. For the six years that the shelter has been operating, it cost us $15 million. Yes. We received grant funding from the state in LA County for a total of 5 million. The bulk of the funding, $10 million, came from our general fund, thus placing a substantial strain on our city's financial resources.

To put things in perspective, during the county's Measure H, Bellflower collected 15.8 million, and yet we collect we received zero from that county. Under the current structure of HHAP, funding only flows to large cities with population over 300,000, counties, and continuums of care.

This leaves cities like Bellflower without access to this critical source of funding. We need help. AB 1708 is a thoughtful and balanced solution. It's trending the regional, regional process to ensure that smaller cities are included. AB 1078 also maintains the accountability that the state expects.

This bill would ensure cities like Bellflower can continue to support the most vulnerable residents while preserving the flexibility that regions need to make smart funding decisions. For these reasons, the City of Bellflower supports AB 1708 and respectfully asks for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much to both of our mayors who are here. We appreciate your leadership and you being here with us. Are there others who are here in support of this bill?

And just a formality, I just have to. League of Cities is a technical support in case. I just wanna be respectful that she's here. Thank you. Sorry about that.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the City of Encinitas in support.

Jack Wursten from Nossaman on behalf of the City of Ventura in support.

Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Gonsalves. In addition to the Cities of Bellflower and Paramount that are clients, we represent about 50 cities, all small, medium sized cities that would become eligible under this bill. We thank the author and the committee for their support.

Good morning. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority in support.

Mr. Chair and Members. Silvia Solis Shaw on behalf of the Cities of Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Luis Sanchez on behalf of the City of San Bernardino in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Pico Rivera, strong support.

Good morning. Patrick Foy with the City of Redondo Beach in support.

Good morning. Kindra Begley on behalf of the City of Carlsbad and City of Thousand Oaks in support.

Great. Thank you all for being here. Is there are there any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing any witnesses. Is anyone here who would like to express opposition to this bill?

Good morning. Nicole Kurian on behalf of the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Lewis Brown on behalf of the Corporation for Supportive Housing. We oppose unless amended. While we agree with the goal of ensuring small cities are meaningfully involved in regional planning processes, we're concerned that the bill will impose additional excessive administrative burden on HHAP grantees without meaningful benefit. HHAP is showing signs of progress.

The state recently reported that HHAP funded programs that have helped over 100,000 people move out of... It helped over 100,000 people move out of homelessness into permanent housing. Obviously, more is needed. Rather than adding additional planning processes and bureaucracy to HHAP grantees, we should be doubling down on programs at work. Thank you.

Alright. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I do support AB 1708. It's a little tricky in the sense that we have limited HHAP dollars. We have request to double what is in the current budget. And I know that I have met with some of our big city mayors who definitely not only want those funds but wanna have the flexibility.

But this is about allowing our smaller cities the opportunity to have access to these funds and to be able to move forward. But I'm sorry. The Mayor of... Bellflower. That's what I thought. Your comments are exactly right.

Which is many times it's our smaller cities that are holding up these shelters. In my area of Orange County, North Orange County actually has a shelter in Placentia, Fullerton, and Buena Park. And they're not only the host, but also putting in quite a bit of their own general funds.

So we have to do something to support smaller cities. There is one little point that I don't disagree with, but I'll be happy to see happen. It's item number four on page one. It says, allows a region receiving funding under HHAP Round 8 to allocate a portion of that funding to smaller jurisdictions to support the programs and regional plans.

That is a great hope. I will tell you, as many of you know, when people get money, they don't like to share, whether it's a big city to the city next door. So I will be happy to see this move forward. And I know if anybody's gonna get cities to share, it will be this Assembly Member. So with that, I support this bill.

Alright. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and to the Committee Members. And first and foremost, Mr. Chair, you are a local leader in a big city. I appreciate and commend the work you've been doing in the space, housing, and to all the big mayor cities and all the the advocates. We are just saying we matter too. This is not a or.

This is and. Right? So I think that's what really comes down to. We wanna make sure that as we all share boundaries and cities and freeways, that we all have common issues. And so this vehicle is really to move forward the conversation of these dollars to be, you know, to be shared with all of us in our small cities.

And I tell people all the time, you know, I represent eight communities, and those seven of those eight communities are seven of 88 cities in Los Angeles County. So we wanna just make sure that we're at the table and not on the menu at for that matter. Right? So we wanna make sure that these small cities.

And my district is between Long Beach and Downtown LA. We know, we understand, the issues are happening in our own communities. And I commend people like Bellflower that have a shelter that they're committing their actual dollars to provide for our unhoused community. And at the end, it's a humanity issue.

It's a humanity issue of ensuring that our unhoused community has advocates in small cities and big cities alike. And so we are continuing the discussion. We are looking forward to just ensuring that as we combat and deal with these issues locally, that we always add a human touch to how we address the unhoused community.

And wanna thank League of Cites, as they represent all cities throughout California and ensuring that we continue to be in the voice. And what better way than to having the Sub Chair on this issue be a voice as well.

And, you know, this is not a new issue for any of us, and especially to those of you that are more senior to me as a new Member. And I just wanna applaud the work of this committee. I look forward to ensuring that more unhoused community members get housing soon.

As we have the champion of housing here to my right, Ms. Buffy Wicks, who has been a champion in that space. And the more we all do collectively to ensure that we have more folks housed, and it takes all of us, not just some, to be part of the conversation.

And the last thing I'll say as we did some concerns from some bigger cities that amplifies why small cities need a voice as well. And as Ms. Quirk-Silva say, I will leave it at that. I will always be a voice for our small cities and our small communities. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Well, I definitely appreciate all of that, and I wanna thank you for your leadership. It is so important to have state leaders and local leaders who step up and say, we want to actually be a part of the solution. We wanna welcome services. We want the to make investments in supporting people who are unhoused in our city.

And as you all have said, there are so many cities and places and people who just wanna act like this is not an issue in their community and wanna just push people out or claim that this is something that comes from somewhere else.

And it is so important that we treat it as a regional and statewide issue with a comprehensive regional plan. People who are unhoused or homelessness or affordable housing issues do not respect city boundaries.

And people who are unhoused don't know when they're crossing a city's boundaries. So I think, you know, last thing I'll say as somebody who represents a larger city and was a local leader in a larger city.

I think big cities should desperately need and want and support smaller cities who step up and it could with the challenges that we're facing in our cities, the larger cities can only be met by having smaller cities in every city step up and do their part.

So I hope that we see some big cities even if there's a limited amount of funds overall, wanna see other cities, smaller cities, medium sized cities, the folks who do wanna step up and provide for services or shelters or a street level response or navigation centers, supportive housing to be able to access the funds to do that.

That's the only way that we're we are all gonna be successful in tackling, I think, what is still one of the biggest challenges we face as a state. So appreciate your leadership. Appreciate working with us and the committee and taking the amendments, and we'll continue to work together on these issues moving forward.

And I appreciate the mayors being here and all the cities who are here. And we'll take a motion on that when we have the... We don't have a quorum yet, when we have a quorum. So thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Lot of support there. Yep. Thank you. For sure.

We need one more one more person for a quorum. So we will. Alright. We will keep it moving. Mr. Harabedian, item number 9 and 15. Which one would you like to start with?

2058. Do that first.

Yes. Number 9. Item number 9, AB 2058.

Well, thank you, mister chair. Thank you, committee members. I will just say that the genesis of twenty fifty eight really, was assembly member Wicks' select committee on housing, construction, innovation. And many of us, including some of the committee members here, have taken delegation trips with Senate member Wicks to explore factory built housing. Everyone here knows that we need to build more housing.

We need to build more housing faster. And that experience for me was transformative. Walking into these facilities where factory built housing is being built was probably akin to in the horse and buggy days walking into the first factory that was building cars. You see the future in front of you. And it becomes so clear that the ways in which we have built housing up until this point are really antiquated.

And you see how other countries are building, housing just so much quicker and more efficient and cheaper than us. And really, what they're trying to do is utilize factory built housing. And the more that we explore this on this delegation that I was on in Boise, Idaho, the more I became confused because you talk to more and more folks who do this work and develop factory built housing.

And it was really only saving, and the Turner Center at Berkeley has done amazing work on this, 10 to 20% in cost and time. And that doesn't really make rational sense considering how quickly these units come off the factory floor.

And a big reason why we learned the savings and the efficiencies aren't there is because there are duplicative, barriers that have been put forward, in the way of developers like Curtis Wong here from Cloud Apartments. And much of that is for the inspection and the permitting. For factory built housing, HCD oversees the inspection. It oversees permitting for the state. They do a great job.

The quality of of the building is top notch. But, unfortunately, after going through the HCD inspection and the permitting at the state level, you then have to do duplicative inspection and permitting processes at the local level, which add time and add cost and really eat away at a lot of the efficiencies that factory built housing provides. So this bill really is an elegant and narrow solution.

There's a lot hurdles, frankly, beyond permitting and inspections that need to be addressed, and there's a package of bill that bills that assembly member Wicks has brought forward with other joint authors, and assembly member Wicks is a joint author on this bill. This is one piece of it.

And, really, what this bill does is one say, what we've seen in the past, local inspections cannot disassemble factory built housing and really do things that compromise the building itself. And we've seen that at the local level. This bill will require that any local inspection does not actually do that. And then secondly, the big thing is it it reduces the permit and the local permitting and inspection fees by 50%.

And that is really critical, not only to save cost, but I think it it it it rights a wrong historically of double dipping on the permitting and inspection fees.

And it also allows factory built housing developers to choose to use a third party to do the local inspection. Because we've seen that when you're able to do that, it not only saves time, but it could save you money as well. And, again, we're trying to incentivize more units coming online. With that, I I wanna hand it over to mister Wong to, to say a few words. I also know that, Assemblymember Wicks might wanna say something as well at at the right time.

So thank you, mister chair.

Alright. Thank you. Hi, chair and members. So, again, my name is Curtis Wong. We have a few thousand units using this method of construction.

I personally dedicated my career to do this method. What, I I wanna explain a little bit about the process. Just very high level. In order to build, imagine apartment building where you have a portion that is factory built, you have a site built portion, be it a podium or just foundation. You have two different building permits you need, and you have an inspection process across two parties, right, the factory and the site.

You can get a four week permit, actually, for the factory boat portion, which is great because it's repeatable. You have units that should be able to fly down. Right? The site portion with different jurisdictions can be a challenge. It can take over six months for almost no work, in my opinion, and it's a lengthy process.

And so it makes perfect sense that some of the fees, relate to how long it should take for each of those portions. Now I will say with the inspections, right, it makes sense to factor with the housing law where you have an insignia to approve the modules when they come out. They've been approved, inspected, ready to go. When they arrive on-site, often the local inspectors will have a different interpretation, and that's where disassembly occurs. And this is very common.

Code is fuzzy, so different interpretations on the individual level, again, is very common. So we have two different groups looking at the same thing. It is, again, very common that they tear it apart or something changes. Those have already been inspected, so we don't think that should happen. Repeatability and standardization at the inspection level makes sense.

Again, modular is supposed to streamline this. You want experts that look at modular to do that.

When they arrive, that is an issue. Modular to do that. When they arrive, that is an issue, and installation, which is an expansion of the inspection scope from the third party agency, makes sense because installation is also standardized. You can imagine boxes arriving on-site with a standard process to install those. So we don't want different jurisdictions that have different interpretations again to do this.

We support this bill. Would vote. Ask for an aye vote and hear for questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there folks who are here in support of the bill?

Good morning. Good morning, chair members. It's Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you.

Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California here in support.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus, the White House Public Affairs on behalf of Spur and Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition in support.

Graciela Castillo Crings on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in strong support.

Great. Thank you all. Is there anyone here in opposition opposition witnesses or come on up.

Good morning. My name is Isaac Lassiter. I'm a modular home manufacturer factory built housing manufacturer. I'm opposed unless amended because I believe that the delineation between installation and site work is not clear enough in this, proposed law. And I think that the description of what is and what is not, built on-site, I've I've painted out a nice orange area, which is built in the factory, the pink, which is built on-site, and where is the line clearly drawn between the two?

The first project that attempts to get permitted and inspected under this new regime will cause confusion, and I ask that you more clearly define the line between the factory and the site work.

K. Thank you. I see nobody else in opposition. I'll bring it back to the committee, Miss Wicks.

Thank you. Wanna thank the author for, one, being part of the select committee, putting a lot of time and energy into the select committee, coming on the tour to Boise, Idaho. I think the select committees are kind of only as good as the energy we all put into them. But I find them to be a very useful exercise to actually try to take a deeper dive in understanding what's working and what's not working.

And I think some of the things that we learned are exactly what you said, mister Harabedian.

You know, we wanna realize the benefits of factory built modular housing so that we can bring on the cost of construction so that our homes can be more affordable for our working class families. We don't want factory built housing for the sake of factories. We want it because we wanna bring on the cost of housing. That's the goal. And when you look at our regulatory environment, you realize we don't allow ourselves to realize the benefits.

And that we have the ability here in this committee and in this body to actually create a better environment to bring down the cost. And that is what this is a this is a piece of a broader strategy to do so, but an important piece. You know, this package of bills, is maybe the least controversial thing I've done in housing, and could have a huge impact. So, that's, exciting to, be be working on this with you.

I'd actually love to explore some of the conversation that the opposition or opposed and less amended gentleman raised because I think we're in the first house our first committee of the first house, so let's entertain some of those conversations and see if we can make this the strongest bill possible.

But I'm excited about the work, excited about this body of work. Hopefully, you know, when you know, some of us went to Sweden, 85% of their single family homes are built in a factory. They are beautiful homes. 30% of their of their multifamily is built in a factory. Learned a lot from that.

How can we learn here in California where other places are doing well and try to incorporate that into what we're doing because we still have a crisis here to solve. So with that, I'm happy to make a motion to move the bill to be a joint author and happy to support this as it moves along. Thank you.

Miss Caloza.

Thank you, chair. I would like to thank, and echo, Assemblymember Wicks' comment and thank the chair for bringing this forward, and and just to add on, you know, in visiting other places to to learn from factory built housing and all these housing innovations that other states and countries are doing well, it'd be great to see other people start to visit California to look for housing solutions.

And I think one of the ways we need to do that is to continue to incentivize developers and builders to come to California to invest in an emerging industry that we're trying to build, thanks to the work of of so many folks, including our our select committee chair here. So thank you, and would love to be added as a co author. Absolutely.

Thank you.

Alright. The opportunity to close.

Respectfully, ask for an vote at the proper time. Thank you.

Alright. Well, I I wanna thank, the author for for looking at, not only opportunities for innovation, in how we build housing and do it, faster and cheaper and get more of it done, but, also, you know, some of the ways in which, current policies may get in the way of that and sort of create unnecessary bureaucracy or addition additional fees or extend the timeline. So I think this is a a thoughtful approach, and I know you're gonna continue to work on it as it moves forward.

And we will take a motion in a second and vote on it at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Would you like me to go into 2576?

Sorry. We have a second ago. Yes. Alright. Sure. Yeah. Item number 15AB2576.

Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. This bill is a very straightforward, narrow clarification bill related to SB 79. I was a proud supporter of SB 79, and this bill really just clarifies that the historic resources that are protected under SB 79 not only include local, but also state and national historic resources and landmarks that, communities have recognized. The bill was, ambiguous, on that.

And so this bill would really just clarify that any community that is implementing s p 79 projects, historic resources on the local state and national level will be protected as well as landmark districts. And here with me today is Kira Ross, who's representing the city of Pasadena in my district.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the, city of Pasadena. And the city is synonymous with rich rich cultural resources and decades long commitment to historic preservation. Thank you. The commitment is rooted in the community's genuine desire to protect its most cherished resources, like Old Pasadena, the Pasadena Civic Center, and the Pasadena Playhouse, historic resources that are currently listed on a state or national register of historic places, but not on a local register.

Under SB 79, cities have the ability to delay the impact of the law until the seventh cycle of RHNA for historic resources that were placed on a local register before 01/01/2025. However, this language does not historic resources on a state or national register. AB 2576 addresses this issue by including resources listed on the local, state, or national historic register.

In Pasadena, multiple historic resources fall within one half mile of the A line metro stations, and these changes ensure that all resources are protected without an arbitrary limitation. Pasadena is acutely aware of the statewide housing crisis and the important steps that must be taken to address it.

In recent years, it's undertaken a number of efforts to increase housing supply near transit as part of a holistic community planning strategy while still protecting our historic resources. We explicitly promote the use of adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and restoration as part of our preservation program. An example of this is the old Stewart Pharmaceutical Building, which is located across the street from a transit oriented development stop, and has been successfully adaptively reused with multifamily development around it.

AB2576 continues those efforts and allows us to continue pushing forward on housing while still honoring our commitment to historic preservation. We ask for your aye vote on this bill.

And, mister chair, just to be clear, I didn't make this at the top, but I am accepting the committee amendments. Thank you very much to you and and your staff for the work on the bill. So thank you.

Thank you. Other folks who are here in support of this bill.

Mister chair members, I'm Tony Gonzalez here on behalf of the California Preservation Foundation in support of the bill. And if I can just take five seconds, given the amendments that are being adopted today, those amendments would restore an ambiguity regarding alternative plans that we would like to work with the author in the committee and the Senate if the bill makes it that far to resolve, if the bill moves forward today. Thank you.

Good morning. Kendra Begley on behalf of the city of Glendale in support.

Thank you, mister chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments. We have a support position the current version of the bill. We also, suggested some amendments in a late letter, so I'll follow-up with your office. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Good morning. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Association of Governments or SANDAG. We are supportive of the delay provisions in the current version of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Brady Ven Engelen on behalf of the League of California Cities. Apologies. We didn't get a letter. We are supportive amended and have had those conversations going on. We think there's a larger cleanup than these happen, so we look forward to those conversations. Thank you.

Carrie West with the city of Sunnyvale. Thank you.

Alright. Do we have anyone here in a opposed to the bill to testify as a witness? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone here who is opposed to the bill or something in between?

Good morning, chair member. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein here on behalf of the Bay Area Council. We were in a opposed unless amended position, but, with the new amendments, we are now moving to neutral. Thank you.

Good morning. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY and Street Sprawl. Just echoing the same concerns. We look forward to the committee amendments, and we'll be reviewing the bill afterwards. Thank you.

Alright. Bring it back to the dais. Miss Quirk Silva.

Yeah. I wanna thank the author. My question is if you could go through the amendments and then after that, I'll have a response.

Yeah. So, effectively, what's left after the amendments would be just the provisions that speak to the clarification that the historic resources would include state and national historic resources. Everything else that the bill had laid out has been amended out, and so it's it's a very, you know, narrowly tailored, bill at this point.

I appreciate that. And, because it is a little bit conflicting for me as last year I did, the piece of legislation, that was a AB 1061, that chaptered, the statues for narrowing hysteric, historical, preservation exclusions. And I know this just refers to eight SB 79, but I do wanna comment on that as a whole.

And I know Pasadena, a beautiful city, and some of the other cities, every city has a corridor, a building, a neighborhood, that we believe is exceptional and may, in fact, be on these, historic registers. Our issue or my issue and others have been when local jurisdictions use that to delay or stall or not build.

And we've seen some real bad actors in this space where there could be one side of the building, and now we can't build anywhere near that. So this is to say, in your narrow, narrow, language, I can support this. But it is to say to the local jurisdictions that continue to find ways to stall and delay and not build. We're on it. We've seen this this map before, and it continues to come to local governments, city councils where they use this.

So whether it's livable California or any of these other groups under the guise of preserving historic. It's really to say we don't want these buildings in our community. And I'm sorry. I'm not I get a little wound up on this because, it winds me up because, it it's it's something that we know we need housing, and it can't be in our neighborhood. We're gonna do everything to protect and preserve, but you over there can build it.

And that's just not acceptable. But I appreciate you taking the amendments, and we'll support it.

Thank you.

Welcome, mister Patterson.

Thank you. I was just, you know, sitting on the couch watching TV. You know, well, sorry I missed the presentation. And so so feel free to obviously sorry. I have a couple questions.

One is, do we know, you know, an s p 79 pass, we could actually look at a map of, you know, where it would apply to. Do we have any kind of information like that on this bill where where the historic districts are that, would be preserved under this bill?

So, yeah, I think for for example, the city of Pasadena, they would have their own map and their own list that would be affected, and the maps would obviously align with the original maps in s p 79. So for each community, it would be different, right, based on which historic, resources we're talking about. And in my district, I I went through and and staff worked with local cities to map out where the historic resources would be.

And I just think that for every assembly district or Senate district, it it's gonna be based on that that local information.

Yeah. And does this how much leeway do under this bill, do cities have in creating these historic resources?

So if the historic resource resource hasn't been designated by and I think the date is.

01/2025.

Yes. 2025, January 1, then then that's it. I mean, I think that there was a lot of talk about trying to prospectively designate historic resources under under the bill. And

for all the reasons that Senator Quirk Silva said, I think that would be problematic and dangerous. So, really, it's up until that date, which has passed us, you either have to have a local state or national historic designation. And if you don't have that, then it wouldn't count.

No. Well, I think you're gonna have a fun time in the Senate, you know, should I make it there. But, you know, I know you've personally worked, you know, hard on increasing housing in California, and I know you take that seriously. I don't look at you as some, you know, anti housing person or something like that. And so just based on the kind of trust that I have in you, you know, I'm willing to support this bill.

I think, you know, my concern is, you know, we try to intensify density, particularly around the urban core. I mean, that was kind of the objective of SB 79. You know, it's better for the air, you know, you know, reducing the number of cars that need to be on the road and and all that sort of thing.

You know, Pasadena is kind of an interesting area, though, you know, that one in particular because it's kinda like suburban out there, you know, that happens to be in a very large urban area. But but, yeah, you know, just given the trust and faith I have in you, you know, I'm willing to support this bill today.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Alright. I'll give you a opportunity to close.

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for the comments and the questions. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Well, I appreciate your your leadership here in in making sure that when we make these efforts like we did in s p '79 to spur housing construction, that we do it in the right places and that we have, the most effective limited in their own way, but but important safeguards for historic buildings and certainly buildings that have been previously designated local, state, or national should be included in that.

I've dealt with this issue on some other bills as as has miss Quirk Silva and making sure that we don't allow this to be a tool that's misused On the other hand, because we don't have a a single way to designate historic structures that is universal, we do have to look at local, state, and national and and and have had bills that did that.

And, of course, Pasadena is a wonderful place, and we wanna protect its its character at the same time as we look for opportunities to build housing. So appreciate your leadership here.

At the appropriate time, we will take a motion and vote on the bill. Appreciate you. Thank you, mister. Thank you. Alright.

We will we don't have any other noncommittee authors, so we're gonna take some committee authors. We'll start with miss Quirk Silva and then maybe miss Colosa.

Did you see me run up here as quick as I could? Speaking of streamlining and going fast. Matter of fact, my my alleged director put on my notes quick, Silva. That was a a mistake, but but it's okay. I'll own that.

Alright. Here we are. And I do wanna just make a note before I begin. You know, on when you're on housing for long enough, you're gonna be on all sides of the issues. And so you're gonna have people who support what you do, and then sometimes you're gonna be with people who don't support.

And, it it's just how this committee evolves. But today, I'm proud, to present AB 1751, missing middle townhomes. Good morning, mister chair and members. I do want to thank your committee staff for their robust and thoughtful work on these committees, and I am happy to accept the committee amendments. I'm here to present AB 1751, which builds on recent housing reforms by expanding access to one of the most attainable path pathways to homeownership, townhomes.

Ownership is moving further out of reach for too many Californians. Today, only 18% of households can afford the median price single family home. A family now needs an annual income of roughly 221,000 to purchase that home. These numbers reflect a market that is pushing people out of stability and out of their communities and and in some cases, out of the state. I just recently, heard a headline news that, 50,000 people have left Los Angeles.

This is real for Californians. AB 1751 allows for ministerial approval of qualifying townhome projects that meet clear objective standards. This approach reduces delays, provides certainty, and helps bring more more ownership opportunities within reach for working Californians. If we are serious about addressing affordability, we need to create more pathways into homeownership. And I'll just pause here.

When we talk about home townhomes, this is what we're talking about in this bill. But, of course, I support very low affordable housing and market rate. We need all of the above. Townhomes are a critical part of that solution. With me today to testify in support is Ed Manning on behalf of the New California Coalition, our sponsor.

Holly Fertani? Fertani. Oh, Fertani. I think you're Fertani De Jesus on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, mister chair and members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the New California Coalition. New California Coalition has been around about four years. It's a nonpartisan statewide, business and civic group coalition. We are working on mobilizing California leaders and voters to solve complex problems of affordability and livability in multiple areas.

And one of the areas that we're focused on is is housing. First of all, thank you to miss Quirk Silva for taking this bill on. It it is ambitious. And thank you, mister chair, for you spending the time on this bill and your staff to work with us on amendments. The many raised the question why why does this bill focus on townhomes?

And so just talking about some numbers that are relevant in terms of homeownership in California and opportunities. The last several years, we've had about a 110,000 housing starts a year building permits pulled, and about 25% of those have been for ADUs. Number of homeownership opportunities is not increasing in California despite multiple efforts. Townhomes in particular, and this has been documented now by numerous studies and data, and we're doing further analysis that I'll mention.

But roughly, there are about 30% more affordable than single family homes in every part of the state.

In some areas, it's a little less. In some areas, it's significantly more. Our analysis, we have hired a firm called MapCraft. That firm, I know, has done work in the legislature before work with assembly member Wicks on her legislation last year. Their analysis, which is preliminary, we'll have a final report in the next several weeks.

But their their data is showing that that dual income families, working families, working class families that make between a hundred and fifty and two hundred fifty percent of AMI are gonna have significantly increased opportunities to buy and establish housing if this bill is passed. And that that's a significant directional shift. And so the the townhomes in particular that are eligible for this bill are at a minimum density. And with the bill with the amendments are significantly narrowed in suburban areas and rural areas to infill.

But, in particular, in urban areas, we're looking for more and more opportunities and enough sites to move the needle to start to be able to build these products.

The other thing about the townhomes, there's a lot that you've heard about, construction defect liability, SB 800, which I worked on, which evidently isn't working so well, which is being revisit the right to repair act. But, these types of products can be either condos or not condos. But even even the condo structure, they, unlike high rise condos, don't have the same complexity of construction liability issues. And so they are more insurable, they're financeable, and they're buildable.

So for those reasons, we think this bill is important.

It will help really move the needle to create more homeownership opportunities for entry level buyers and middle class buyers and, ask you to support the bill. Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California. As many of you know, they're building in 42 counties throughout the state that include urban, rural, and suburban.

And some of you know, or probably hopefully all of you know, and if not, you now know, that the one program in the state of California that helps, build affordable homes for low income people at a price point they can afford, the CalHome program, is out of funds, like many other programs that are out of funds. So now more than ever, we need tools like seventeen fifty one to help us build more townhomes faster in every part of the state, and it gives us more certainty.

So thank you for all the work that the author and sponsors have done and the committee, on this bill, and we look forward to your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. The folks who are here in support of the bill.

Good morning, chair and member. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.

Good morning, members. Jasmine Advencolo with the Cal Asian Chamber in support.

Great. Thank you all. Is there anyone who is here, as an opposition witness?

Good morning, chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful oppose unless amended position. Just wanted to commend the conversations we've had with the assembly member's office and the sponsors. And I know there are forthcoming amendments, so we'll look forward to reviewing them. I know our main concern was really treating all townhomes the the the same.

The areas that you zone for for multifamily, for single family require different infrastructure and public service capabilities. So we wanna make sure that, the area is meant for the increased density. Multifamily have all that infrastructure available, and we felt like a ministerial we we feel like a ministerial approval process doesn't allow that to happen. So, you know, we look forward to continuing those conversations. I mean, the big challenge that you have is the subdivision map act for the different types of parcels that you have.

If you have four or more or four or five or more or four or less or five or more, you have different terms of review that you have to look for because the infrastructure is much different, and that's where we're concerned from. So that's why our hope is to, focus on the multifamily residential zones and can to comply with object local objective development standards, and take out the single family zone area.

But we look forward to those continued conversations and, hope to, move off to neutral, should those negotiations go okay. Thank you.

Great. Anyone else who is here in opposition to this bill?

Not in opposition, but, Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, we had sent in a letter of concerns. Really appreciate the hard work the committee did on this bill and all the good conversations we've had we've had with Ed about it as well. The committee amendments address a lot of our issues. We have a few remaining things, but I'm pretty hopeful that we can get to a resolution on that as it all moves forward. Thanks.

Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. We are also not in opposition and submitted some concerns to the committee along with Anya. So just wanna echo her comments and thank the committee for your good work work on the bill.

Thank you. Alright. Let's see. Anyone else in the opposition, we'll bring it back to the committee. Miss Wicks.

Thank you, mister chair. I wanna, thank the author for her work in this space. This is, I think, important and big bill. You know, I think one of the things that we haven't discussed or focused on enough, as a legislature is, homeownership. And for far too many people, it's just not, affordable.

And this is how you build wealth in this country, and it's particularly not affordable for our our lowest income folks, disproportionately black and brown folks. So I'm excited to support this bill. Would love to do we have a quorum? Have we established quorum?

Yeah. We have. Okay. I'd love to make a motion. And would also love to be added as a joint author if you have me, miss Quirk Silva. So thank you for your work in this.

Alright. Any mister vice chair?

Thank you. I have some questions and appreciate, you know, I spoke mostly with, mister Manning about this bill on more many occasions, and I appreciate the consideration of my comments as you moved along. So one thing I've been thinking about is areas in which there are preexisting housing stock, you know, where people are living in, you know, neighborhoods and things like that.

And I noticed the there I think in the amendments, there's something about, you know, underutilized housing or something like that, I think, to address, part of my concern. But what would stop somebody, you know, in the middle of, like, a relatively, newish development or something like that from tearing down and and putting in some condos.

You wanna go ahead?

Sure. Thank you, chair. Mister Patterson, so you're being pulled out. I've been stalking you. So

Well, yeah. That's correct. But Just kidding.

The your question is and and the hypothetical that you've talked to to me about is, you know, in a residential neighborhood, single family homes, what would be stopping someone from coming in and buying several lots and tearing them down and building

Even just one. Even just one.

Even just one. Yeah. And the answer is in the bill. Basically, there's a definition of underutilized, and it's on page five of the bill, line 36. And if there's a permanent residential structure, unless it's abandoned and uninhabitable, then you could not build on that site.

You wanna speak to the exemptions we made for mobile homes and Yeah.

Yeah. And and then there's there's a litany of places that you also can't build listed in the bill. I I writ large environmentally sensitive sites, mobile home sites And and others. So but I I hope that answers your your question.

No. It does. And I appreciate that. And one question sort of what the league brought up, and I'm sure your response is gonna be it's in the bill. So that's kind of embarrassing.

But what about because in the ADUs, well, part of the reason for success of ADUs has been being able to basically not get inundated with all these fees. Right? I mean Yes. And and how does this bill approach connection fees and and things like that?

This bill does not touch the authority of local governments on on the existing fee structure. I think our view is, well, there are certainly concerns about fees expressed in in some in some areas, some communities. We in this bill, you would have to pay building permit fees and development fees, and we think that's important because that helps pay for the infrastructure necessary to support the housing. So nobody's ever thrilled to pay the fees, but, you know, the fees are also necessary.

Yeah. Well, at least, I mean, I could probably argue both sides of this argument. You know, at least that can help, you know, offset some of those concerns expressed by the league in in terms of, you know, the infrastructure and things like that. However, I can also see the other side where it's like some of these some cities have absolutely discussing fees, you know, the park fees, you know, things like that, and it's abusive. And and, I don't think they're justified in any way.

And just the fact that you have to put together I've participated in these, you know, as a local, City Council member, you know, put a hire a consultant to, you know, basically, hey. We need this much money, and then you backtrack from that, and that's what the fee is gonna be. And it's abuse it's an abusive practice. And so I you can make a strong argument that to set some kind of limits to that in this bill.

Maybe that's a battle you don't wanna take on, but I do.

But it it is a reasonable approach at least to say, hey. We will pay we'll even pay the fees. We'll even pay the fees. And in a house that's not being used, it's uninhabitable, you know, and we're gonna expand it, put people in that housing. I think it's a pretty good compromise.

Thank you. I'm I'm not sure you're out here. I need to answer that. I I think we look. We're we're trying to find the balance.

I mean, and it's it's it's difficult. There have been a lot of bills in this legislature, that have attempted to address the fee issue and the nexus issue and the studies that need to be done over the past several years. It's it's, you know, it's it's very difficult to solve that problem holistically in this bill. And so and certainly, the ADUs are being built in part because they're not burdened by excessive fees, and the legislatures emphasized that.

But but we're trying to find the right balance in this bill.

So it's certainly something we'll think about.

Yeah. Well, you know, also just thanks to the author. You know, I know she's given you some latitude to work on this bill a lot and have those conversations that are necessary and seek out who'd be concerned. You know, you did call me very early on in this process. And I think that that's you know, the collaborative approach of this bill has been really great.

So I think I really appreciate that. And, because I did have some concerns, and I actually think they've been addressed, like, exactly what I've raised to you, you know, months seems months ago now. So, excellent job. So I look forward to supporting it today.

Alright. I'm not seeing any other comments from the committee. Keep the opportunity to close.

Yeah. I want to just note that although there is opposition, we clearly have made some some progress on the amendments, and we'll continue conversations. I do wanna note to those following out there on page two of our analysis is a whole list under number nine of where this bill would not apply to, but just farmland, wetlands, hazardous waste sites, quite a lengthy list.

We are trying to, as was, noted, find a balance to not only build, but to be respectful, to, some of the partners that I've worked with, particularly the housing consortium. I do want to reiterate this is a narrow type of housing that we believe will ultimately, if passed and signed, will focus on the type of housing that we know is missing.

And we are looking for that, but I am still very dedicated to all types of housing being built. And I think there's a space for for us to do that. We can I think one of the authors, put it earlier? We can do, missing middle town homes and very low and affordable housing and market. We need to be doing them all.

So with that, I ask for respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you so much, miss Quicksilver. You you know, you've you've led on so many different issues, and I really appreciate how you're you're continuing in your last year to tackle these, huge policy areas where we know there's opportunity. I've learned a lot from your sponsors and from you and from working with the committee about townhomes and what townhomes are and what the opportunity is there.

And we've seen a lot of bills, I think, that have focused on homeownership opportunities knowing that we continue to be one of the states with the lowest, homeownership rate and needing to see not only rental housing get built, but but, homes for ownership as well.

And I know not all of these will be, condos or or or for homeownership, but they, do provide, an opportunity for, a type of housing that we think, you know, can get built, maybe pencils in more places, maybe has a demand that is not being met in other areas.

And so I'm excited to see this bill and appreciate the work on the amendments to address some of the concerns that came forward. I know it will continue to to evolve as it moves, but I I do hope that we are able to get this done and appreciate your leadership. So we had a motion And a second. Alright. Take a vote.

[Roll Call]

Eight and eight zero, and we'll keep that open. I mean, the bill is out. Alright. Looking at who we have over here, we are going to go in file order unless these folks have worked them something else out. So I'll take mister Gabriel, which is item number 6AB1924 and item number 19AB2626.

Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. It's nice to be back in this hearing room, and I am pleased today to present AB 1924, which ensures that homelessness prevention becomes a central pillar of California's homelessness response. As this committee is well aware, California continues to grapple with a statewide homelessness crisis.

Unfortunately, while the state's critical investments are helping to move people off the streets, even more Californians are falling into homelessness. Current data shows that for each individual we house, nearly three new individuals become at risk of homelessness for the first time.

In Los Angeles, the ratio is even greater at four to one. To make meaningful progress in addressing our homelessness crisis, we must shift towards prevention. AB 1924 would create a comprehensive statewide strategy for homelessness prevention, including coordinated action plans, identification of best practices, and accountability measures to track progress.

This bill also would develop model best practices for homelessness prevention. These can include programs that involve short term and emergency rental assistance or legal services, but also new and innovative programs that communities across the state have already implemented that can be expanded elsewhere. These best practices would provide state and local agencies with data driven tools to prevent homelessness that have already been shown to work.

By centering homelessness prevention in the state's response, this legislation will help our most vulnerable residents and will most effectively target limited state resources. This is both a moral and an economic imperative. I'm pleased that this legislation has support from a broad coalition of service providers and organizations who are working to end homelessness in our state.

With me today to testify in support of the bill are Janey Rountree, Executive Director of the California Policy Lab, Erin Stanton from Sacred Heart Community Service. And also available for technical assistance as someone who probably needs no introduction, a former Assembly Member and someone who has dedicated his life to addressing issues like this, Mike Feuer, Senior Policy Advisor for the Inner City Law Center. Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote.

Good morning, Chair Haney, honorable Committee Members. Thank you. I just wanna say thank you to Assembly Member for your leadership on this issue. I'm Janey Rountree. I'm the Executive Director of the California Policy Lab at UCLA and author of multiple research reports on how to prevent homelessness in California.

Ending homelessness in California requires not just responding to it, but preventing it before it occurs. You heard the ratio of four to one. Let me put it in slightly different terms. Every year in Los Angeles, 55% of everyone enrolling in homeless services is new that year.

And that number is four times larger than the number of people the system can house. Preventing homelessness is good policy that helps reduce the demand for some of our most expensive public resources, but it's also more humane.

And the good news is that we know how to do it. Effective prevention programs target resources to people who are at high risk of ending up on the street or in shelters. It gives them cash assistance, and multiple evaluations have shown that this strategy is effective. Some local programs do this well.

Our research led to the creation of the LA County Homelessness Prevention Unit, the first program of its kind to use artificial intelligence to target resources for people who are high risk, give them case management, and prevent them from becoming homelessness.

It reduces homelessness among participants by 70%. There are Bay Area programs, including All Home and others that are leading on this as well. The state, however, has yet to develop a prevention strategy that lays out these best practices and leverages state funding to prioritize high risk households.

AB 1924 would address the gaps in the current state action plan. For example, it would require that prevention goals have accountability measures, something that the plan is lacking. It would require agency and department specific strategies that are coordinated by the state.

And it would set out what are evidence based program models for prevention. Based on our research, it's imperative that the state make evidence based prevention a centerpiece of its efforts. As a technical witness, I'm happy to answer questions.

Good morning. I'm Erin Stanton with Sacred Heart Community Service in San Jose. We are the lead agency for the Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System. To solve our state's homelessness crisis, we must shift from focusing on reacting to the crisis to proactively reducing the inflow of people pushed into homelessness.

In Santa Clara County, we've seen what's possible with an evidence based coordinated prevention strategy. In 2017, we partnered with Destination: Home to launch the Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System. Our model combines financial assistance, case management, and legal aid, and is targeted to assisting people at highest risk of homelessness.

Since its launch, this program has helped stabilize nearly 44,000 at risk people. Two years after receiving assistance, 93% of households remain housed. We believe this effort is a big reason we've been able to reduce inflow by nearly 20% over the past five years.

Our program was the subject of a randomized controlled trial conducted by Notre Dame, which found participants who received financial assistance were 81% less likely to experience homelessness in the next six months and 73% less likely to experience homelessness one year later.

These results are cost effective. We've successfully prevented homelessness at a significantly lower cost than rehousing someone. Our model returns nearly $2.50 for every dollar invested. These results are scalable, but we need the state to play an active role.

That's why we are so excited about AB 1924. Right now, we're only able to help a fraction of the people seeking assistance. Developing a comprehensive statewide homelessness prevention strategy, including goals and accountability measures and state agency specific action plans will serve as a critical step towards meeting the enormous need.

In addition, as more service providers and local jurisdictions consider launching their own homelessness prevention programs, developing evidence based practices will be an invaluable tool for helping localities develop effective prevention strategies. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And welcome back, Assembly Member, and thank you for your leadership. Other folks who are here in support of this measure.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Good morning. Jess Hudson on behalf of Destination: Home in support.

Purva Bhattacharjee with Housing California in support.

Lewis Brown with the Corporation for Supportive Housing in support.

Chet Hewitt with... Chet Hewitt with the California Community Foundation in support.

Isamar Dominguez with All Home in support.

JT Harechmak with the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support.

Great. I don't imagine there would be opposition to this, but is there anyone opposed to this? Not seeing anyone, or maybe I scared them away. Colleagues. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assembly Member Gabriel, for bringing this forward. And thank you for platforming some of the work being done in Santa Clara County. I've always felt my county has been very innovative and collaborative in this, and it's great to have the opportunity to see what could be done at a statewide level.

We kind of think about it in those terms as well of what we can do as a state rather than having kind of these regional. We all know it's a statewide issue when it comes to housing and certainly appreciate our former Assembly Member's continued work on this. I would love to be added as a co-author and look to move the bill.

Well, thank you. Lovely.

We have a motion and a second. Mr. Tangipa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I wanna thank the author as well for this bill. Yesterday, we had a fairly robust conversation on accountability measures, numerical goals. And I think that this bill is perfect because, not only under HCD and all of the other departments that are underneath us that we're asking for accountability, this puts us in that same position as legislators asking for accountability.

One of the areas that I would ask for in the future is a clear numerical goal and a direct timeline as well. That the goal of the state of California and its legislators is to reduce homelessness by 10% within three years. Or what are our clear numerical goals?

Because whenever we say that, that makes sure that the people know our goals with a clear timeline. So again, I just wanna make sure that I'm thanking the author as well for bringing this. It puts everybody on record that we, the state of California, want to prioritize homelessness.

We want to prevent homelessness. It's an area that I understand very, very well that if we stop them from getting on the streets, it's significantly cheaper. I shared yesterday, my mother's income is $24,000 a year. When it comes to our mortgage, if we ever fell behind after I lost my father, that was our number one goal. We cannot lose at home because our mortgage is $1,400.

The average rent is over $2,500 in a majority of California. So the average rent of California exceeds my family's income. And that has to shock people that there are so many. And when we hear data points, like, one in every four individual that's applying for services is a new individual, I think that's indicative on the state of California for what's happening on the affordability end.

And I think, again, this measure is something that puts all of us on record that we demand accountability. We wanna find some things. And if we can set some numerical goals that are very clear on a timeline, I think that would help everybody. So thank you to the author.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Well, great. I just wanted to, well, I too am supporting this bill and just wanted to comment on my good friend's comments. He's absolutely right. You know, in fact, I had legislation just a few years ago that passed out of this legislature, maybe unanimously. I don't know.

But, you know, Republican bill passed out of the legislature. So probably pretty close unanimously. And it required some kind of accountability in reporting from local governments about the HHAP program. Unfortunately, that bill is vetoed by Governor Newsom.

So that's too bad because we would have been able to see, you know, maybe some of the successes that Santa Clara has had, what they've done, and maybe get more, you know, insight into what's working and what's not. But, unfortunately, that didn't transpire. So the good news is though is we have this legislation, which hopefully it fares better, and I look forward to supporting right now. Thank you.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I'm very talky today, so I apologize for that. But this bill is going to get the second Quirk-Silva award. Because I'm doing my own awards this year. And why? Because I agree with my colleague right here, and we don't always agree. And where we may not agree related to this bill in the future is we do need the data.

We do need the metrics, and we certainly have not focused enough on housing prevention. But what we are going to need into all of that is to really focus on how do we keep individuals in their existing housing arrangement.

Whether it's rent or even a home. And that will require some type of subsidy, which a lot of people get very upset about. And yet, I just did the math. Just say you have a renter in their home, and they get $500 a month in subsidy to stay in their rental.

That is $6,000 a year. Now yesterday, we talked about how much does it, in my Budget Sub 5 Committee, our Budget Sub 5 Committee, how much does it cost once somebody has fallen into homelessness and they're actually in a shelter? And I think was it 45,000?

45,000 on the low. So if we do the math on this, we can see that sometimes doing that gap funding, if you wanna call it that, subsidy, if you wanted to call it that, whatever you call it, to keep someone in their home can actually save dollars.

And I'll just end with this takes me back to my days as a California school teacher in the third grade classroom. And of course, our job as educators are to teach reading, math, and writing. But I always knew that if somebody was housed and they weren't worrying about where they were going to sleep the next day.

All of those issues that we know surround families, they were gonna have academic success. And unless we really look at families holistically, and sometimes it is this housing prevention to stabilize families, we will have more success. So you get the award, and I say yes.

That's a big deal. I hope the bill gets signed, but that's a that's a much bigger deal than the perks of award. Ms. Caloza.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to thank the author for putting together an important bill. When I read it, I was like, wow. This makes so much sense. Why haven't we done this before? So we appreciate all the sponsors and authors for this. And I also think that, as Ms. Quirk-Silva mentioned, in yesterday's Budget Sub hearing, we also heard from the governor's team around the reorganization.

And so it seems like now is the exactly the right time to do something like this as the reorg is happening for the new cabinet level agency to prioritize homelessness and housing in the governor's office. And so I think that this is great timing and would love to be added as a co-author if you'll have me.

Be honored to have you.

Alright. You may close.

Well, first of all, I just wanna thank my colleagues for the thoughtful conversation. Appreciate all that. Obviously, would be delighted to and honored to have you as co-authors. And also appreciate the very thoughtful comments from our Republican colleagues. I guess just what I would... And deeply honored by the award. That's definitely the highlight of my day.

We do rosebud and thorn with my kids. This is the rose for my day. So thank you. But on a serious note, I mean, I think that there is, I I've been talking since I was elected to the legislature about the importance of prevention and how we need to shift our strategy to focus and emphasize prevention more.

And what we have at this point a few years later are data, research from UCLA, from the University of Notre Dame. We have real world examples from here in Santa Clara County that this approach is working and that it's both a more humane approach.

You think about what happens to a family when they become homeless, what happens to the children when a family becomes homeless. And that it also is the most effective use of scarce of state of scarce state resources. And all of you have talked, heard me talk on and on about how we need to be more thoughtful, tighten our belt, and be make sure that we're spending resources in a way that is gonna advance our goals and priorities.

And so, you know, it was talked about here. You know, you mentioned the conversation you had in the Budget Committee about $45,000 or more. They are for under $10,000 a year with very targeted interventions in Santa Clara County keeping people in their homes.

And they're leveraging data to understand who needs the interventions and who doesn't. So it's smart, it's targeted, it's effective, and I think it could do a lot of good for a lot of families and do a lot of good for our state. So with that, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And there's a lot of praise for this bipartisan praise, which is great. It shows how much it is needed. I think there's also an opportunity as we are going to be launching under the governor's leadership a housing and homelessness department for the first time.

And so I think this aligns very well with that effort. And as you said, I think anyone who has studied this issue, anyone has who has worked directly on this issue, anyone who has led, I would say we are underinvesting and under focusing on prevention.

If we can get one person off the street, but three people go out, we're not actually making any progress. And that's, unfortunately, what's happening. And there is a mismatch from from all of the the studies that have been done between how much folks are making in our state and how much housing costs, and that's leading people to become homeless.

And so if we can help to address that on the front end, we will have a lot more success. Because it's a lot more expensive. It's a lot harder when people are ending up homeless to be able to get them back into a home they owned or own home they had or or the stability that they that they previously had.

So appreciate your focus on it in this bill and in and in prior efforts, and would also love to be added as a as a co-author. And did we have a motion and a second? We do. Alright. Let's take a vote.

Motion do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright. Eight. We'll keep it open. Take your second bill. Item number 19. Thank you so much. Yeah.

Good to see you, assembly member. Item 19 AB 2626. Let's see if you can get a second Quirk Silva award here. That would be One. Less than one. You have a few months left.

Alright. Thank you so much. K. Alright. Good afternoon, mister chair and colleagues, and, thank you again for the opportunity today to present AB 2626, which provide targeted flexibility to state government to protect low income Californians from losing their homes.

California's affordable housing developments already operate on razor thin margins. Many are at risk of foreclosure because of a rock skyrocketing insurance cost and other financial pressures. AB 2626 would address this challenge by authorizing HCD to waive annual monitoring fee payments when the department determines that such relief is necessary to maintain the fiscal integrity and long term viability of a development. This is a targeted fiscally responsible tool.

Fee waivers are only permitted when HCD determines a development's fiscal integrity requires it, ensuring relief goes only when it is truly needed.

This bill will help stabilize vulnerable properties, prevent foreclosure, and safeguard long term affordability so that we can keep our residents house. This bill is supported by a broad coalition of affordable housing advocates and builders, including the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, the California Housing Partnership, Enterprise Community Partners, and the California Housing Consortium.

I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill, Taisha Watts on behalf of the California Housing Partnership, and JT Henk Herichmark on behalf of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. I think I mostly got that wrong. Thank you, and respectfully request your aye vote.

Good morning, chair members. My name is Tiyesha Watts with the California Housing Partnership. The partnership was created in 1988 with a mission to increase, sustainable homes and affordable housing in California. Over the past decade, California has made significant progress in advancing housing policy and increasing funding for affordable housing. We're beginning to see the results of this investment.

However, that progress is now at risk. Affordable housing developments across the state are still recovering from impacts of COVID nineteen rip moratorium, which forced many developers to draw down operating reserves just to keep tenants housed and services intact. At the same time, developments are facing growing insurance crisis with some properties seeing a premium increases of up to 70% on average, in some cases, far higher. These external pressures are now being compounded by state imposed cost structures, particularly the current monitoring fee model tie alone size.

Today, these fees average about 1,000 per unit per year, totaling around 11,000,000 annually across recent projects.

For properties operating on razor thin margins, these significant costs that directly impact their ability to maintain operations, make repairs, or remains financially stable. AB 2626 are offers a targeted common sense solution. The bill allows the Department of Housing and Community Development to waive residual receipts or required loan payments on a case by case basis when a development is at risk. This is not a blanket waiver. It is a discretionary tool to preserve housing that is otherwise viable but under financial strain.

Importantly, this approach is fiscally responsible. By relieving pressure on operating budgets, developments can support more private financing, potentially unlocking up to a 135,000,000 annually, reducing the need for additional state subsidy. The alternative is far more costly. If these developments fell, the state risk losing affordable homes it has already invested in. At a time when California faces a housing shortage, preserving existing affordable housing is one of the most cost effective strategies we have.

AB 2626 helps ensure these homes remain stable and available to low income Californians who depend on them. For these reason, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Alright. Thank you. Good morning. My name is JT Harechmak, the policy director at the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. NPH is a proud cosponsor of AB 2626 alongside the California Housing Partnership, Enterprise Community Partners, and the California Coalition for Rural Housing.

I wanna give a specific example here. The California Multifamily Housing Program finances housing for low and very low income households with affordability restrictions of fifty five years or more. This is the program that allows a lot of my members to do extremely deep targeting with their, affordability levels. And these loans require annual monitoring payments to HCD. These payments are calculated as a percentage of development costs.

And as we all know, development costs have skyrocketed. At one time, these were smaller monitoring fees than they are now. And the concern that we now have is as we are seeing these cost pressures rise, many of my members in the Bay Area and that that developed statewide, are feeling the pinch and are feeling that, the the concern on the monitoring fees is there needs to be some kind of allowance. We don't have an allowance right now.

HCD has their hands tied and can't waive these if they would like to.

So it's a simple targeted fix. It would give HCC this this discretion. It doesn't eliminate monitoring. It doesn't reduce oversight. It just gives the state a tool to respond when those those compliance costs are themselves threatening the viability of affordable housing.

So losing affordable housing development because of administrative costs the state has power to adjust would be a significant failure of our housing finance system, and preserving those existing affordable homes is far more cost effective than replacing them, especially for the the residents living in these developments, the low income families, seniors, people with disabilities, they cannot afford to lose their homes. So we urge your aye vote on AB 2626. Thank you.

Thank you. Other folks were here in support of the bill.

Good morning. Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, proud cosponsor of the bill in support.

Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California in support.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in strong support.

Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners in strong support.

Alright. Is there any opposition witnesses to for this bill? Anyone who is here in opposition or something in between? Not seeing anyone. Bring it back to the committee.

Miss time mister Tangipa.

Yeah. I wanna thank the author again for bringing this. The main thing that I wanna point out is I hear all of the arguments, that are going on. And the main reason why I hear all the arguments that are going on is because even private developers, private individuals, side have stated the same thing. Rising cost, insurance, utility cost.

So what I I just want to highlight is I never believe in hypocrisy, and I like to stay consistent. But when our private entities, when the apartment associations, when builders, when other ones are saying the exact same thing that you're saying, We should look at ways to not put more over regulatory burdens on them, especially if we all see this as a solution. Because we're choosing for nonprofits and affordable housing, things that I've heard arguments in this committee that were used to demonize private industry.

So in the essence to stay consistent, I do believe that there are some solutions that we can do, especially if we're setting goals for a lot of these affordable housing and the payments and structures on it. And if we are going to provide relief there, we should also consider providing relief to the other industries because it's a it's an entire spectrum from affordable housing to private housing to multifamily to the big businesses and developers as well.

So I thought about a lot of the arguments that you were making, and I've heard the same arguments from other industries talking about that that we should also consider. And so for mine, stay consistent. Look forward to supporting this bill. The one question I do have is if you could provide a real life example for how this would be implemented.

So if a and I'm familiar with some of the affordable housing developers, you know, that have stated to me that because they're housing some of those that sometimes could be a little bit violent Sometimes addicted, Their insurance costs are significantly higher.

That is really I mean, the margins there are actually now in the negative. I've seen that. I understand. So could you provide a real life example? Would it apply to that individual and how long for this to be implemented on the temporary pause?

Yes. For so for the build, when it's implemented, what HCD will look at is to see if the development is at risk. It looks at its reserves and its positive cash flow. If it is determined that the cash flow is in the negative, then by waiving these monitoring fees and their residual receipts, it gives the development the opportunity to figure out ways to finance their development. So it gives them relief and temporary relief.

I wanna note that they still have to, you know, pay down their loan. They're in a fifty five, year regulatory agreement. But by waiving the monitoring fees and residual receipts, it allows them to keep their positive cash flow to help with their operating costs and any rising expenses that occurred such as that, rising insurance piece that you asked what

Do we have the average number on what the monitoring fees typically are?

Yes. On average, from looking at the twenty twenty five awards, we saw that on average, developers are paying 1,000 per unit, which equates to 11,000 11,000,000 annually.

1,000 per unit, is that individual doors?

Yes.

Really?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. So no. And I and and this is something that I often refer to as the cost of government. You know, what are what is the cost on government that people are going through because of things that we've imposed on this building? So if we can target more areas on the cost of government, again, not just for nonprofits and affordable housing We should really look at that. What is our cost of government in other areas?

And if this can provide relief in all of those arguments, I believe we're a 100% sound.

We should look at that and the others. So, thank you. I really do appreciate that because that's insane. Yes. Especially if it's a thousand dollars per door.

You know, this is immediate relief where, you know, multifamilies, different organizations, you know, if you're looking at margins of 6%, 7%, 8%, you know, nobody works for free. So thank you, and I thank you to the author for thinking creatively. Thank you.

Great. Let me close.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much, and, thank you to, to my colleague for those thoughtful comments. And I I just wanna say express my general agreement with you. I think we need to be thinking about this across the board for for all types of housing.

How do we make it cheaper, easier, quicker to build housing? We know we have a housing crisis in the state. We need missing middle housing. We need affordable housing. We need deeply subsidized affordable housing.

We need market rate housing. And so, you know, I I agree with all of you. I think what we have identified here is a very specific problem that is putting at risk, you know, affordable housing units, which are so essential, and I think the witnesses did a beautiful job of describing that. And we have developed what we believe is a, again, a targeted intervention that just by granting by by by granting HED this flexibility to to make sure that we're gonna preserve that housing.

And so with that, we'd respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Thank you again to you and your sponsors for your leadership. And do we get a motion or a second? No.

We need a motion and a second. Moved by mister Lee, seconded by miss Colosa. We'll take a roll call vote.

[ROll Call]

7-0. Keep it open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you so much. Alright.

Thank you every for all the authors who are here, for your patience. I'm gonna try to be consistent here and stay in file order, and so we'll call mister Ward. Item number ten, AB 2089. And then we will have miss Pappan, who I see here as well.

Well, thank you, mister chair and members. Good morning. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2089 and for thoughtful engagement of our staff, with this bill. AB 2089 supports affordable housing projects by ensuring the continuity of welfare exemptions during homeownership transitions and by promoting an efficient, transparent application and recertification process.

The property tax welfare exemption, improves project feasibility for eligible affordable housing providers supporting long term affordability and financial stability for low income Californians. Affordability housing projects lose crucial and extremely limited affordable housing dollars by paying for property taxes upfront, straining some of their limited resources. This bill, AB 2089, would reduce the cost of sustaining affordable housing by allowing eligible organizations to withhold relevant tax payments without penalty during periods of ownership transition.

This bill would also ensure adequate time to complete recertification, including the labor intensive process of verifying tenant's income. And by authorizing verified electronic signatures, AB 29 would modernize and streamline the recertification process.

I know that there are author's amendments, I believe, that are, gonna be processed as well as a part of this or the Committee Committee Amendments. We've already we've already processed those. Great. Okay. So great.

I'm glad that with your work in the committee, we've already had this bill is already fully amended before you. And so for witnesses and support, I have Recinda Kay Shafer from the Riverside Charitable, and Graciela Cristillo Kings from the Enterprise Community Partners. Community Partners. Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Recinda Kay Shafer, and I'm the deputy executive director of Riverside Charitable Corporation, a nonprofit affordable housing provider. RCC provides family, senior, supportive, and special needs housing to more than 20,000 families nationwide. We are also a proud member of the California Council for Affordable Housing. For over twenty six years, I have managed and filed for property tax exemption, the documentation annually.

I can say from experience that the current income verification and filing process is extremely resource intensive. Each year from January 1 through February 15, our staff spend the equivalent of more than a full workday each and every day, focused solely on the process, often working evenings and weekends to meet the statutory deadlines. This places a significant strain on our already limited nonprofit staffing resources. The most burdensome aspect is obtaining the tenant signatures on required affidavits.

Because counties mail certification forms after January 1, nonprofits cannot distribute these documents before then.

As a result, thousands of tenants must complete and return forms within a very short window, leaving little time for review, correction, and submission before February 15 deadline. This challenge is magnified for many organizations processing income certifications for thousands or as RCC does, tens of thousands of residents each and every year.

Allowing earlier release of the forms forty five days prior to year end and permitting verified electronic signatures would significantly reduce our administrative burden, potentially cutting our workload by half, and it would still preserve the program integrity. Greater uniformity and modernization of our processes at the county assessor level would improve efficiency statewide. It would reduce the backlogs in understaffed counties and allow nonprofit housing providers to focus more of their resources on serving our residents than navigating the inconsistent administrative requirements.

We believe targeted reforms to affidavit requirements, verification procedures, and filing and filing timelines would benefit the assessors, would benefit the property owners, and most importantly, to the residents that we serve. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Graciela Castillo Krings here representing Enterprise Community Partners. Enterprise is a national nonprofit that develops technical capacity for many nonprofit developers. And we are very happy to be here today cosponsoring this bill alongside California Council of Affordable Housing and the California Housing Partnership. Affordable housing operates on very thin margins, and the welfare exemption plays a critical role in the financial feasibility of production and preservation of units.

However, given the complexity of the process itself, a lot of the times, we have to also hire consultants to help the the developers be able to apply. And we think that it is time for modernization of the process, and AB 2089 is a perfect way of doing that in advance of some critical reforms. Clearly specifying the documentation needed for an exemption is critical.

Although the State Board of Equalization provides detailed guidance to county assessor's office regarding procedures for granting exemptions and annual recertification, affordable housing providers must also abide by locally imposed standards, which can vary from county to county. Additional requirements such as intensive backup documentation of household incomes are not standardized across the state and can change year to year adding to the complexity and difficulties with the program.

A lack of consistency and transparency can prolong processing time significantly. With longer processing times, affordable housing groups must pay higher property taxes when their finances are already very stretched thin. So AB 2089 would increase transparency and decrease exemption processing times by requiring county assessors to post a list of required documentations on their website. For those reasons, we ask that you support the the measure in front of you. Thank you.

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

Harrison Linder with Leading Age California here to support.

Good morning. Paul Shafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here as a proud sponsor. Thank you.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California and on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in strong support.

Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association in support.

Tiyesha Watts with the California Housing Partnership, a proud co-sponsor of the bill.

Alright. Is there anyone here in opposition to the bill? Not seeing anyone. I'll bring it back to the committee. Not seeing any questions or comments.

May close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much, again, for for your leadership on this and your thoughtful common sense, approach, and, we will take a motion and a second. I don't think we have one yet.

Moved and seconded.

[Roll Call]

60. We'll keep it open for proxy members. Thank you. Alright. Miss Papan, item number 12 AB 2296.

Come on in, people. Have a seat.

Alright. Let's make it happen. That's something I remember happened. And so we have file item 12 AB 2296. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm delighted to be with you this morning, to prevent probably a a bill that's in similar vein as I was sitting here listening to, some of the previous bills. And this bill pertains to HCD and the effectiveness of HCD or lack thereof. So, and it deals with the housing element process.

So local governments, as you know, play a key part in planning for new development. But I wanna be clear, cities actually don't build. They just plan for building, and they do so through the housing element process. And in that process, they establish what their ring or they they tell us how they're gonna meet their regional housing needs assessment targets. So this bill is to help those good actors, those cities out there that are really trying to comply in their dealings with HCD.

The current housing element process has become extremely complex and burdensome, and it's taking a real toll. Good faith cities are doing the work, but they're stuck in this endless cycle of revisions and resubmissions, often with dealing with moving targets. The auditor's recent report on HCD and their performance found that the sixth cycle housing elements took over twice as long as the housing elements did in in the fifth cycle. And these delays are slowing down housing production. They're draining local resources.

You talk about, having to spend a whole lot of money on consultants. I think cities could put that money aside for things like rental assistance rather than spending on housing elements and consultants to try to keep, ACD happy in this ever moving target, if you will. And it also exposes those cities that are really trying, to potential penalties that they don't really deserve. So AB 2296 addresses these procedural turn procedural challenges directly in three ways.

Number one, it allows the RHNA process to start earlier.

This bill moves the start of the regional housing needs allocation, the RHNA process up by six months, giving local governments more time to engage with HCD and begin planning for housing needs sooner. Number two, it requires clear and actionable feedback from HCD. Can't keep moving the target.

So AB 2296 mandates that HCD provide clear, actionable feedback to local governments, and, this feedback will help cities avoid the confusion and costly delay delays that result from inconsistent or unclear guidance, allowing them to make informed revisions to their housing elements and get them over the finish line. And the third thing that the bill does is it, will separate Southern California from Northern California.

One of the things that the auditor suggested is that, you implement, the housing element, process on different schedules. So, the Council of Governments will operate the ABAG in the North will operate on a different schedule than than SCAG in the, in the South. So they have different due dates. They'll be three years apart, and they'll hopefully free up some of our bureaucratic resources to go over those housing elements. That way, they're not getting them all at once.

So I think this bill really represents a pragmatic common sense approach to improving the housing element process by providing clarity and consistency, and it'll enable cities to meet their housing goals on time and avoid unnecessary penalties. The result will be a more transparent, efficient process that encourages housing production and supports California's broader goals of addressing our housing crisis.

So with me today, without further ado, I have Brady Gurden on behalf of the League of Cities and Dane Hutchings on behalf of my beloved city of San Mateo. Alright. Thank you. Who's gonna go first?

I'll go. Alright. Good morning again, chair and members. Brady Guretin, proud sponsor, on behalf of the League of Cities, to sponsor AB 2296 and a work with some of the member of Pappan's office on this. As the assembly member mentioned, AB 2296 focuses on two key solutions to improve the housing element process. It allows local governments to start updating their housing element earlier, and it requires HCD to provide clear direction and guidance to local governments.

During the sixth cycle, local governments experienced various challenges in obtaining certification from HCD. The good news is over 90% of our cities have gotten certified, but it came with a lot of challenges to do that. And with a fast approaching seventh housing element cycle, we want to make sure that that process will go smoother for the upcoming seventh cycle.

The California State Auditor's Office in this January report, for example, found that most local jurisdictions submitted two or more drafts to HCD before the department could determine compliance. That that's the median time.

If you look at some of the three or four rounds of drafts, it was a lot higher if you look at the, the data provided in the state auditors report. It also, as the someone member mentioned, required a median time that went to, from initial drafting to compliance by more than one year, which was a hundred twenty six percent increase in the time to get those certified compared to the fifth housing element cycle.

Now AB 2296 isn't the silver bullet to it, but it will help address a lot of these challenges by providing more certainty in the housing element review process. One of the challenges local governments face was the multiple rounds of back and forth before receiving certification, unclear guidance. Due to unclear guidance, there was a lot of department staff turnover.

The audit reflects a lot of the challenges that we've heard from our cities for the last several years. By providing more data and findings in the review letters, it can reduce that guessing game and gets cities their housing elements certified on time. Additionally, under current law, cities have less than ten months to get to complete their housing elements if the RHNA process goes through the whole appeals.

By pushing up that allocation deadlines for local governments to receive their final RHNA numbers, the state and local governments can have more time for technical assistance and feedback, helping reduce the number of times cities resubmit their housing on the drafts. And for these reasons, we strongly recommend an aye vote on AB 2296 and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, members. Dane Hutchings here on behalf of the city of San Mateo in strong support of AB 2296. As the largest city in the county, San Mateo is committed to partnering with the state HCD and our community to meet our regional housing needs. The city of San Mateo knows firsthand what it looks like when this process goes wrong, And AB 2296 is exactly the kind of reform that would have made a real difference for us.

The initial work for the sixth cycle for our city began in 2020, and our first draft was not submitted until Earl or till July 2022.

The city underwent three formal revisions and two informal revisions. Throughout that process, the city worked with multiple HCD reviewers, often offering different interpretations and new requirements. One of the biggest challenges the city faced was that HCD could not tell us clearly what compliance actually was required. Across five rounds of, revisions, HCD could not provide context on why revisions were required, citations to legal authority for their requests, and this left our team trying to meet shifting expectations without clear direction.

And as a result, the city spent nearly $2,000,000 on specialized planning consultants and legal outside legal council to help navigate the sheer complexity of the process.

This does not include the cost associated with the internal team consisting of six new full time community development staff as well as significant support from the city attorney and the city manager's office. So despite these resources, the city did not receive formal certification until June 2024, meaning that they were out of compliance for nearly seventeen months.

AB 2296 recognizes the real structural challenges cities face as we head into the seventh cycle, six additional months for the RHNA process, giving a longer runway, requirement for HCD to identify the specific legal basis for any deficiencies, by statute, not just general findings, and a requirement for HCD to provide specific analysis or text needed for the to fix those definitions, not just finding us noncompliant, but actual, an actionable direction.

The state auditor confirmed what cities have been saying for years that the current process asks local government to meet a moving target without adequate time or clear direction. AB 2296 seeks to address that, allowing cities like San Mateo to be effective partners with the state in planning for California's housing needs.

On behalf of the city of San Mateo, I wanna thank Assemblymember Papan for her continued leadership and respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2296.

Thank you. And before we continue, Assemblymember Papan, do you accept the committee amendments?

I do. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2296?

Thank you, mister chair. Matt Robinson from, the hopefully still beloved City County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Kendra Bagley on behalf of the City of Foster City, City of Mountain View, City of Redwood City, City of Belmont, and Town of Hillsborough in support.

Thank you.

Morning, chair and members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments or SANDAG in support.

Thank you. And, anyone in opposition to AB 2296?

Allie Saberman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and respectful opposition, we understand that, there are new amendments and we look forward to reviewing those. Thank you.

Brooke Pritchard, on behalf of California YIMBY in opposition, we also look forward to reviewing the amendments and having further conversations.

Mister chair, members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf in, the opposing unless amended, on behalf of Spur, Abundant Housing LA, Circulate Planning and Policy, and I'd like everyone else look forward to reading the amendments. Thank you.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association here in opposition as well. Looking forward to reviewing the amendments. Reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Alright. Bringing it back to the committee. Mister Tangipa.

I just wanna thank the author. I think a lot of our cities have just been asking for more time, especially as the goalpost have been shifted coming down from the state.

You know, so I look forward to supporting this bill in the sense of, one, I think we need a full scale look at the entire arena plan, what we need to do, and where if our cities are being asked to meet these goals, they also need the tools and also the responsibility of state to help them. So while I understand the opposition's position on this, our our cities need help. I mean, they've all been asking us.

Our local municipalities are saying, you guys are telling us this is the goal you want us to meet. You're giving us a timeline that is unattainable because sometimes the state doesn't even work as fast as what you're asking for. And I think we've seen that. So look forward to supporting this. Thank you.

Alright. We'd be happy to see if we close.

Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. I I I would just like to say that cities really do need certainty and they need clarity. Because when they don't have that, it just ends up costing a whole lot more money on consultants. And I really think that we could use that money for things like rental assistance.

It's a better better use of of our resources, and it will help us meet that shared goal. And that shared goal is to help folks with housing. So respect request and I vote.

Great. Thank you, so much, for your work on this, for accepting the committee amendments, for working with us, and to trying to make sure that, as all of this that we're asking, of of our, cities and counties to be able to to move forward and planning to build more housing, that we're also, giving them the clarity and the, the time that they need to be able to get it right.

When they're moving in good faith, we should be able to work with them, to be able to move forward. So appreciate your work on this and work with us. And do we have a motion?

No. We do not. We have a motion from miss Wilson and a second. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Alright. 8-0. Keep it open. Alright, miss Bonta. Item 13AB2351.

Good morning, chair and members. I would like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee for working closely with my office on this bill. AB 2351 strengthens California's coordinated statewide response to homelessness by requiring local governments to report the number of shelter beds and housing units serving those experiencing and exiting homelessness operating within their jurisdiction as part of their annual progress report in the California Department of Housing and Community Development. California is making real progress on homelessness.

A 9% drop in unsheltered homelessness in 2025, the largest decrease in over fifteen years, following more than $5,000,000,000 in state investment.

Yet still, too many Californians are forced to live on our streets. In 2024, for my community, that number was 6,343 unsheltered residents in Alameda County alone, including 66 children under the 18 and two 113 young adults between 18 and 24. Responding to homelessness is a top priority for my constituents and for many of us here in the legislature.

Yet, when we try to understand the work being done at the local level, much of it can only be viewed through the lens of the state's 44 continuums of care. While these are valuable local bodies, COCs boundaries don't always align with city and county lines, and a single COC can serve population as varied as a dense urban core and a sprawling rural community.

At eighty twenty three fifty one addresses this by adding the number of shelter beds and housing units serving those experiencing or exiting homelessness as a required reporting element for local government's annual progress reports, giving the state and the legislature a clear picture of local homelessness response at the city and county level. Critically, this bill imposes minimal new burden for allowing cities to report data they largely already collect through a state level process that already exists and that local government already completes each year.

We cannot solve a problem when we lack the data to understand where this progress is being made and where more work is needed. With me to testify today are Elizabeth Funk from c CEO of Dignity Moves and Adrienne Covert, a senior vice president of public policy for the Bay Area Council.

Thank you, chair Haney and committee members. I'm Elizabeth Funk, the founder and CEO of Dignity Moves, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2351, the Shelter Bed Transparency Act. And I wanna commend the thoughtful leadership of assembly member Bonta on this issue. Dignity Moves is a nonprofit focused specifically on unsheltered homelessness. And over the past few years, I've been thrilled to see our state begin to focus increased attention on this critical issue.

And through programs like HAPP and the Encampment Resolution Funding Program, it's working. As the assembly member mentioned, we have seen a remarkable decrease of 9% in the last year. We need to keep up that momentum. We all know the data is essential for tracking and setting goals and measuring measuring progress. Today, we already know how many individuals are homeless and how many are unsheltered, generally broken out by city in the annual point in time report counts.

But even with all the work that I've been doing in this space for a while, I was shocked to learn that there is no parallel data for inventory of shelter beds. The inventory available of shelter beds, both how many exist and how many are available, is reported on an aggregated basis through the continuum of care, one number, It's often inconsistently reported and inconsistently through other channels. As we're starting to maintain our focus on ending unsheltered homelessness, we need both pieces of data.

That's gonna allow us to see which cities are performing well and which ones aren't. It will create a foundation so that smaller cities could collaborate on finding shelter solutions that they could do together, and it holds transparency so that we can see our progress, measure that progress, and continue to put resources where it's working.

AB 2351, the Shelter Bed Transparency Act, would provide that foundation of basic data. So I urge you to vote aye on this important measure. Thank you.

Thank you, chair Haney and members of the committee. My name is Adrian Covert. I'm with the Bay Area Council. And it's it's trite but true that you can't manage what you don't measure. And today, California is doing a, an improved but still poor job in managing its homelessness inventory, its inventory of beds and homeless housing.

And that has negative implications for how we go about managing our homeless crisis. California's inventory of homeless shelter and housing is a patchwork of thousands of beds and housing units stitched together ad hoc over decades, with inventory expanding only where funding and political will align and not necessarily where it was most needed or most strategic. And this has very likely created vast inequities in the distribution of homeless services.

San Francisco, for instance, has 11% of the Bay Area's population, but about 40% of the Bay Area's permanent of the entire region's permanent housing inventory. Evidence of vast discrepancies in the accessibility of beds and of housing.

Yeah. We know this about San Francisco only because it's a city and a county. Its inventory of housing is published in the annual housing inventory count, so we can see it. But with every other city, shelter and housing data is aggregated and reported at the continuum of care level, which for most jurisdictions is the county. The result is that we're unable to easily see who's investing in what, where, and how.

AB 2351 helps fix this problem by requiring cities to report their inventories of homeless shelter beds and housing units as part of their annual housing element progress reports to HCD. This will greatly enhance transparency in California's homeless response system while adding negligible new burdens for local governments on a reporting process they're already doing. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you both. The folks here in support.

Hello. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Purva Bhattacharjee with Housing California in support, also representing National Alliance End Homelessness. We greatly thank the author's office on their collaboration with us. Thank you.

Lewis Brown with the Corporation for Supportive Housing in support.

Are there folks here in opposition? Didn't think so. Bring it back to the committee. Alright. We have a motion and a second.

Respond to me close.

Thank you. Members, this is a very straightforward transparency bill designed to ensure we have the data we need to make one of the fourth the fourth largest economy in the world have the information they need to so that everybody can have a place to sleep at night. And I respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. I appreciate your leadership, and thank you so much for this effort. I it's hugely important that we have this data and information and transparency. Love to be added as a coauthor. And let's take a roll call though as would miss Colosa.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Nine zero. Keep it open. Thank you. Alright.

Missus Schultz. Alright. Let's begin. Thank you very much, mister chair and

committee members. I'm pleased to present AB 2612 this morning, and I wanna thank committee staff for their hard work on the bill. And just to be clear, we will be accepting the proposed committee amendments as further described on page seven of the committee analysis.

AB 2612 requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to research, develop, and propose for adoption standards for a qualified plug in photovoltaic system or PV for short to function as an energy source within residential and nonresidential electrical circuits. The building standards commission may then adopt, approve, codify, and publish mandatory building energy standards for new construction, building electrical circuit features to enable a qualified plug in PV system to function as an energy source within residential and nonresidential electrical circuits.

These new standards could go into effect beginning with the first, triennial edition of the building code adopted after 01/01/2031. Therefore, in the point that I'm making is that the bill works hand in hand with AB 130, which we passed last year and included a six year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of new state building standards. Plug in PV systems are attracting interest as a new low cost pathway for households and businesses.

This class of technologies allows electric customers to access affordable clean energy and help take control of their energy costs by deploying small scale solar to offset their electrical use without major electrical modifications to the property. These systems can be bought today at your local Lowe's or Home Depot and used to lower your energy cost.

And the cheaper systems, by the way, can be bought for as cheap as about $500. However, California lacks standardized requirements for how these systems should integrate within a building's wiring, raising both safety and consistency concerns. AB 2612 aims to close that gap by directing state agencies to establish clear uniform electrical circuit standards for plug in solar. In developing these standards, the commission and HCD must consult with stakeholders and encourage public participation in the standard development process.

In closing, by establishing uniform rules for plug and play solar, AB 2612 facilitates safer adoption of emerging distributed, generation technologies, reducing barriers for households and businesses interested in deploying solar.

With me today to speak in support of AB 2612 is Freddie Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We also have with us today Pete Jackson, the lead regulatory engineer for UL Solutions who can provide technical background on under Underwriter Laboratories' UL 3,700 standard and speak to any safety concerns with plug in PV systems. Thank you very much.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Freddie Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We support AB 2612, which would allow households and property owners to bring down their electricity costs by reducing barriers to accessing plug in photo photovoltaic systems in the multifamily homes. This bill will increase access to affordable clean energy while not overwhelming a building's electrical systems. For these reasons, we support a v two six one two introduced by the assembly member.

Thank you. Did you have anything? Yeah.

Oh, with the chair's permission, please. Yes.

I do.

Good morning. Thank you, chair and members. My name is Pete Jackson, and I am a chief or a lead regulatory engineer for UL Solutions. I'm also the former chief electrical inspector for the City of Bakersfield, California and a former member of code making panels four, eight, and the correlating committee for the National Electrical Code, responsible for writing the requirements in the NEC for these types of systems.

In the capacity of my of chief electrical inspector for the city of Bakersfield, I had the responsibility for the inspection and approval of more than 70,000 rooftop PV systems.

And for over a hundred years in this country, the safety for, people has been facilitated through what we call the tripod of safety. And that's, first of all, products designed, manufactured to consensus based US product safety standards to installation of those products in accordance with consensus based installation codes, such as the National Electrical Code or the California Electrical Code here in California. And finally, inspection and approval of the above, the product and the installation of the product, by the local jurisdiction.

UL Solutions is a leading global safety science company founded in 1894 as Underwriters Labs. Through testing, inspection, and certification, we verify the products comply with the applicable US product safety standard.

In 2025, Utah legislature passed HB 340 to allow the use of plug in photovoltaic systems, PIPV, without an interconnection agreement with utility. Under the language of the legislation, this exemption applied to PIPV systems that, quote, meet the standards of the most recent version of the National Electrical Code and are certified by Underwriters Laboratories. When the law was enacted, there was no US product safety standard available to which a certifier like UL could do the testing and certification.

So in 2025, UL Solutions produced a white paper inter interactions with plug in PV protection of existing power systems to identify any safety concerns, and we developed a technical standard product a consensus based based US product safety standard, UL 3,700, to address the unique hazards. The 24 page white paper can be downloaded at Ul.com/pipv.

We did in in accordance with the NEC requirements, the CEC requirements, and and those hazards that are addressed to those installation codes. We identified three basic hazards that need to be considered for plug in p PIPV systems. First of all, and I'll I'll be brief. I won't get too much in the weeds, but, introducing a second source of supply to an existing branch circuit in your home, can provide overload or overcurrent to that circuit.

It's only designed to have one power source, the utility, that circuit breaker in your panel board.