Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright. Welcome to the assembly housing and community development committee. We have 29 items on our agenda today. Eight items are on consent. That's, 6, AB 1926. Item eight, AB 2044. Item 15, AB 2174, item 18, AB 2264, item 19, AB 2320, AB 20, AB 2329, item 25, AB 25, 81, and item 26, AB 2692 are all on consent to facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time we have.

Each bill will have two main witnesses of support and opposition, and each main witness will get two minutes and submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, which will become an official part of the record. We will not permit any conduct that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes on the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. This morning, we are in Room 1 26 at the Capitol.

The hearing was open for in person attendance, and we are encouraged you're encouraged to watch this hearing from its livestream on the assembly's website, and thank you for your patience and understanding. We are going to begin today as a, subcommittee. We don't yet have quorum, and, we are going to allow, miss Colosa to kick us off, with item number one. She's got lots of places to be this morning. So you can start, and then we will move from there.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you, chair and members, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to present AB 1725 today. Thank you to the committee consultants, to our amazing housing staff, and of course, our sponsor for all of their hard work on this measure. My witness is also en route, so if you see somebody sit down next to me, that's Nico from the Sunrise Movement.

To honor also my commitment to the members of the Judiciary Committee, please accept the committee's proposed amendments, which would narrow the bill's scope to my district.

For too long, families across California have lived with serious environmental hazards right under their noses. Communities, especially low income communities and communities of color, are disproportionately impacted by oil wells, which pose significant health and safety risks. Our residents have a fundamental right to know what exists in their own neighborhoods. They have a right to know what is directly affecting their families, kids, and homes. California's continued development in housing and infrastructure must go hand in hand with transparency, accountability, and environmental responsibility.

And yet, currently, there are no consistent statewide requirements that disclose the presence of oil wells on or near their schools, hospitals, parks, and local communities. Furthermore, there is not an existing law that ensures that methane monitoring systems are functioning properly. This lack of information is an injustice to Californians, leaving families and communities vulnerable. We know that 66% of active and idle wells leak methane, a highly flammable gas that can cause respiratory illness, explosions, and with prolonged exposure, death.

Uncapped oil wells also release harmful chemicals linked to cancer and chronic disease.

We have seen this in communities, like in my own district in Vista Hermosa Heights, where residents have reported methane monitoring systems that are disabled or inoperable with no clear response or resolution. No family should have to live in fear of this uncertainty and risk. AB 1725 addresses these gaps by establishing clear and consistent standards for disclosure and methane monitoring so that we can better protect our neighbors, families, and communities. With that, I can, I don't think I see him?

He may be en route, but I can begin at least to share some of what my witness was gonna say.

I know they had a little bit of a delay. This is a statement from Nicholas Gardner Gardner. My name is Nicholas Gardner, and I'm a senior organizer and the chair emeritus of the Sunrise Movement Los Angeles and a resident of Assembly District 52. For the past five years, I have led our work to address the impacts of urban oil drilling and toxic pollution.

We are proud to be community partners with the Vista Hermosa Heights Community Group, a group of residents who have been organizing and fighting for years for the health of their community.

I'm humbled to be able to represent them today. Vista Hermosa Heights in the West Lake area of Los Angeles sits at the heart of historic of the LA of the historic LA City oil field. This field stretching from four miles from Koreatown to Dodger Stadium contains over 1,300 wells. This is a very densely populated stress stretch of Los Angeles where apartment buildings are the norm. Over 200,000 residents are estimated, to live along the LA City oil field.

Very few of these wells produce, but all of them are underneath and next to homes, buildings, and places of worship and centers of community. Urban oil drilling is a public health crisis. Uncapped oil wells leak toxic chemicals such as methane, benzene, and hydrogen sulfide. Repeated exposure can lead to a variety variety of serious health conditions such as respiratory illnesses, cancers, cardiac and neurological events, birth deficiencies, and other chronic conditions.

Uncapped wells can and will cause oil spills and will also release methane, leading to a potentially deadly buildup underneath homes and offices.

Most often, residents of these areas have no knowledge of the potential dangers of wells, maybe even feet from their homes. Even then, the residents of Vista Hermosa are all too familiar with their impacts. Community members report that respiratory illnesses are common in Vista Hermosa. It's not uncommon for residents to develop cancers and other chronic conditions with no reported family history. Residents report methane monitors going off nonstop and an ever present smell of oil and rotten eggs.

One of the community leaders we work with, Rosalinda Morales, has also shared that growing up, children would often dig up oil nuggets and would fall in oil in puddles of oil. Rosalinda's own mother passed away far too early from an aggressive form of cancer, where Trozalinda attributes to gardening without gloves on and being constantly exposed to the oil rich soil.

In the past ten years, this community has had to live through three emergency well cappings and multiple oil spills, including a major one in 2019 where oil oil flowed down Furman Street and coated cars, homes, and animals. Vista Hermosa is not alone. This is a problem that impacts communities up and down the state.

There are over 5,000 uncapped oil wells in Los Angeles with over a 100,000 across California. In Los Angeles, over 75% of oil wells are within a few 100 feet of sensitive zones. I myself grew up in an oil zone in the shadow of Torrance and Wilmington oil fields. My own family has faced issues with respiratory illness, and I know of too many friends who deal with chronic conditions as a result of living next to a refinery.

Good morning. The cost of these communities, the cost these communities are paying is very real. It's in years lost. It's in medical bills. It's in the stress of managing this crisis.

No one deserves to be poisoned where they live, and that is why AB 1725 is so important. Despite the present methane emergency in Vista Hermosa, only a few buildings have methane monitors. Those that do are not always maintained. There is only a limited time to respond to a methane emergency requiring monitors in all buildings will ensure that residents have the systems to keep themselves safe in a time of crisis.

Through disclosure to prospective tenants and property owners, this bill would empower the residents of Vista Hermosa with the knowledge to keep themselves safe to prevent exposure as much as possible.

Real estate disclosures are a common tool to provide needed information. There's a long standing practice to disclose environmental hazards given and given the risk that oil wells present, residents have the right to know about them. The residents of Vista Hermosa will be healthier and better protected under AB 1725. Every oil community deserves at least these protections.

We urge you to vote yes and ask every legislator and we ask every legislator to examine how this might be impacting your community and join us in the struggle for the well-being of oil communities everywhere.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anybody else here in support of this bill?

Linda Hutchins Knowles with Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley in strong support.

Thank you so much. Alright. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, chairman and members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We wanna thank the author for hearing our concerns and continuing to work with us, but we must continually, continue to respectfully oppose. I know the bill is being narrowed, and we thank you for that. We believe the bill focuses on the wrong industry.

We need to fix the problem. If these wells are not capped correctly, they should be. If the state has taken over a well because the owner has abandoned it, then the state should take responsibility for capping the well and ensuring that individuals in the area are kept safe. And if they're abandoned, we do believe the state has that responsibility. We unfortunately, the bill does not fix the actual problem, and we'd like to continue to work with you to find a solution.

So thank you for hearing our concerns.

Are there folks here in opposition?

Yeah. Good morning, mister chair. Member, Silvio Ferrari, in behalf of California Building Industry Association in opposition.

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

Alright. We will bring it back to the dais. Members? No? Alright.

Give you the opportunity to close.

Actually, I respectfully ask for your aye vote but. Actually, would like to give my witness the opportunity to close if that's okay since he had to run away and didn't get a chance to give his full test testimony to him.

Wonderful. Apologies for being late. Flight was laid out of LAX this morning. But I appreciate the opportunity for this bill to be heard as was probably covered in the talking points. You know, this is a community that lives on top of a historic oil well where a lot of the wealth that built Los Angeles and built California was first extracted.

At one point, this this oil field produced over 25% of California's oil. But it's the residents that are paying the price now. It's folks who are struggling with medical bills, who are struggling with family members that are chronically ill or have passed away, unfortunately. And many don't even know what's going on in their own communities and understand why they're getting sick. And that's why this bill is so important.

Because every interaction we have with community, every time we we we organize in this area, we just hear horror stories about how it's impacting folks. You know, at at a recent well capping, a child actually fell into an oil well because that well was in his backyard. At the most recent window at the most recent emergency well capping at 423 Furman, AQMD took a reading and actually saw that it was 10,000 times the normal limit. So these are the conditions that folks are living in.

It is underneath their apartment buildings.

It is in their backyards. It's underneath their schools. And that is why this bill is so important because it will make sure that if you live in an apartment building, which 90 plus percent of the folks in Vista Hermosa do, you will have the required systems to keep yourself keep yourself safe when there's only moments to act.

And for all new residents that are coming in, folks are look wanting to build in Vista Hermosa, it will give them the information to keep themselves safe so they know how to protect themselves so we can avoid more unfortunate situations like Rosalinda's mother that was unfortunately got sick because of repeated exposure. So that's why this bill is important.

You know, I'm humbled to be able to represent the folks from Vista Hermosa today, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for being here, and appreciate your your advocacy and and your your representation of of your community and and to the author. You know, thank you so much for working to protect your people and making sure they're aware of potential hazards, health hazards, and protected from them. And appreciate you taking the amendments and and continuing to work with the opposition.

I know your your your intentions here, and I and I'm I'm looking forward to see you move this for bill forward and and be able to protect people in your district. So we will take a motion and a second once we have a quorum, and appreciate it. Thank you for being here.

Thank you so much.

Alright. I see Miss Johnson here, and you have two items. So item 10, AB 2110 and item 15, AB 2174. Either of these on consent? One is on consent?

Yes. Okay.

That's what I thought.

So just item 10, AB 2110.

Good morning, Mister chair and committee members. Do you have me nervous when you said two? I was only prepared to do one, but, yes, consent. Thank you. I'm here to present AB 2110 that provides local governments with the authority to establish tax increment financing districts for the purpose of financing workforce housing for education, manufacturing, health care, and public safety personnel.

I don't need to tell this committee we are all aware that California is facing a housing crisis, and we are pricing our constituents out of homes across our state. We are seeing market failure where the professionals we rely on most cannot afford to live in urban and coastal areas where they work. In my community, we are called a commuter community, where someone is driving anywhere from 60 to 90 miles one way daily to find work.

These these these types of folks living in our community often fall into a stability gap, earning between 80% and a 120% of the area median income, which leaves them with a few subsidies to help bridge the gap for high housing costs. AB 2110 provides local governments with specialized market flexible tool to address this by authorizing tax increment finance districts dedicated specifically to our workforce housing.

To ensure the benefits reach the intended workforce, the bill establishes the 80-20 rule. 80% of funded units will be reserved for targeted industries like public safety, health care, and manufacturing. The bill also mandates affordability standard where 70% of these units serve lower income professionals and 30% serve moderate income tiers. This measure is designed with significant fiscal safeguards to protect existing revenue streams. It explicitly prohibits the capture of any funds designated for school districts or educational revenue augmentation fund, ensuring education funding remains untouched.

We have also prioritized local control and accountability while district formation is subject to a protest proceeding. Any issue of any issuance of debt requires a two thirds vote from the voters. Additionally, the state controller is mandated to perform regular audits to verify that the tax divisions adhere strictly to the approved financing plan. The bill represents a strategic evolution in local finance, empowering cities and counties to invest in their own human infrastructure without the need for state grants or new tax burdens on residents.

By allowing workers to live closer to their jobs, we can reduce long commutes, help ensure the people who make our communities possible can actually afford to live in them.

This is a bill idea that came home from my hometown in my district. AB 2110 has no opposition and has passed unanimously out of local government committee. I respectively ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses in support?

I do not.

You do not.

You just get me today.

Anyone here in support? No one. Is there any witnesses in opposition? There you go. Oh, it's balanced.

No. Neither side. Great. Miss Quirk Silva, anything you would like to ask or share? No?

Alright. Give you the opportunity to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Well, thank you so much for your leadership on this. It is an important tool, and I appreciate you bringing it forward. And we will take a vote at the appropriate time when we have quorum.

Thank you, chair and committee members.

Alright. I don't know if you wanna present just to me, but or me to you. I don't know the option, but sure.

Alright. Item 16, AB 2185.

I heard you need an offer.

Alright. We'll call an audible here. AB- Item4, AB 1771 Alvarez. An AB- Item 2, AB 1732.

Thank you, Mister chair. Appreciate you trying to get this going today. I know you have a long agenda, so I appreciate that. Thank you for the opportunity to present assembly bill 1732, Student Faculty Housing Opportunity Act.

Before I begin, I wanna acknowledge the and thank the work of the committee before, really partnering with our office, and accept the committee's amendments to work that was done. Appreciative of that. California is home to the greatest public university system in the world, both the UC and the CSU system, but also our community colleges. These institutions are the on ramps to the middle class for millions of Californians, the path out of poverty into a career and a better life.

That's certainly the story, my story and the story of so many other Californians.

But today, there's a difficult truth. We are failing students who walk through those doors because too many of them cannot find a place to sleep at night. Just some very quick statistics. The LAO shows that roughly 7% of UC students and 11% of CSU students face housing instability every year. And at community colleges, the number is 1 in 4 students.

So we've heard the story, students sleeping in cars, couch surfing, dropping out entirely because they cannot afford to stay housed. We have also seen, campuses issue enrollment deferrals due to the simple fact that they do not have enough housing to accommodate the demand of students who are seeking those opportunities. At the same time, UC and CSU and community college campuses hold land that many cases are already planned for, have been studied, have been approved for development through years of rigorous institutional review.

Current law allows private colleges and universities to access streamlining within California's, CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, within the AB 170 framework this legislature passed last year, AB 130. However, that door is not open to public universities and colleges.

Meaning that we allowed local cities, counties, others, to have a streamlining process, but we left out, I think, by accident the universities and colleges which have a different authority. So AB 1732, this bill closes that gap. It expands existing streamlining, and the bill ensures that housing projects at our public campuses can qualify for the same streamlined CEQA Review already available to comparable infill development.

AB 1732 is all supported by the University of California, the School Employees Association, the faculty association. We have zero opposition on this bill, and I appreciate that.

And I ask Tyler from the University of California to provide some testimony.

Yep.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Haney and members. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California, UC and its 10 campuses are pleased to stand in support of this bill. We appreciate Assembly member Alvarez for carrying this legislation. As you all know, California's housing crisis is a current reality that creates significant challenges for our campus communities.

For students in particular, this instability translates into a struggle to balance academic success with the basic need for shelter disproportionately impacting low income first gen eligible students. At the UC, student housing remains a top priority for the University of California system and to further increase housing inventory. More than 13,000 new beds are currently in development across 14 active projects. And the 2025 to 2031 UC Capital Financial Plan includes additional 8,000 beds with identified funding and 7,000 in early planning stages.

These projects represent not just the physical expansion of UC, but also are committed to improving the student experience overall. Simply put, AB 1732 will help the university build this housing faster, more efficiently, and stretch limited financial capacity further.

By providing a clear streamlined pathway for approval, this bill allows us to better meet the urgent needs of our students, faculty, and staff without the cost delay a cost and delay often associated with CEQA and any subsequent litigation associated with those projects. Importantly, this streamline does not sacrifice our commitment to environmental or social responsibility. These projects are amongst the most, environmentally friendly in the state, and furthermore, this bill maintains high labor standards, including prevailing wage, and also incorporates a new modernized tribal consultation procedure.

By streamlining CEQA for public higher ed housing projects, we can accelerate the construction of the student housing that our students, faculty, and staff urgently need, and we urge an aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

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

Ali Sapirman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

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

Good morning, chair members. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY support.

Great. One more.

Good morning, chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.

Alright. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition or anyone in opposition.

Good morning, chair and members. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium. We do not have a formal position on the bill, but we do have some concerns with the amendments that were made to it in assembly natural resources committee, which impact the existing, exemption for projects that are 100% affordable. I think there's a way, that our concerns can be resolved, and we look forward to continuing discussions with the author's office about that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. We also don't have a formal position, but just wanted to echo the comments of my colleague before me and look forward to working with the author's office to think through it. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Alright. Bringing it back to the committee. See any questions or comments?

We will give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate the those who registered, support and also those who made comments on, some of the amendments that were made. Obviously, the intent is always to, facilitate this and not undermine previous, laws that have been approved by the legislature. So we'll be taking a closer look at that, and I appreciate, the opportunity to, again, bring this before you today and an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. And thanks, as always, for your leadership in this space of making sure that we, both meet the the needs of our universities, our students, our faculty, our staff, and also give our our the tools needed to be able to develop the housing to meet those needs. So I appreciate your leadership here, and we will take a vote at the appropriate time when we have quorum. We will move to your next bill, which is item four, AB 1771.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, thank you for your leadership on this committee and the work. And thank you to the staff and the thoughtful analysis certainly in the conversations that have occurred as it relates to this issue in general. Accepting the amendments as proposed by the committee, as we'd like to do some further due diligence on identifying how we can address this issue.

So thank you for that. And the whole goal of Assembly Bill 1771 from the beginning and in its amended version is to try and analyze and under better understand and perhaps review and change a 1960s era regulation about on-site management at apartment buildings.

This the amendments now require that this there be a report that goes comes back to the legislature. A report being done by the Department of Housing and Community Development back to the legislature with recommendations on whether to maintain that, to modify that, or to repeal the requirement altogether.

As I stated, right now apartments buildings, apartment buildings with 16 or more units are required by law to have a manager that is physically present on every one of those sites. That requirement was written in the 1960s, certainly long before technology, which has tremendously changed over the course of the last 65 years.

AB 1771 does not repeal that requirement today. It's just doing a study on this rule. The bill requires HCD to look at the full picture, tenant safety at the center, emergency response, and the employment stability of current resident managers. It also ensures renters, owners, and local governments have a seat at the table to provide input.

Just as travel technology has changed the world since the 1960s and really in the last couple of decades exponentially, so has the management of building and the technology involved with allowing that to happen. We have things like smart locks and AI maintenance triage.

24/7 call centers that often can provide faster and more reliable service that potentially an on-site manager could provide. However, there, you know, are different types of buildings, and I think there are different types of uses of technology in buildings. And so we need to look into that much more carefully. So this is a study bill, not a repeal bill.

We're asking that HCD bring us back the evidence, bring us back the information, provide us with the information so we can make a better decision, an informed decision. So thank you for that. And with the Rental Housing Association Southern California Association is Pat Moran.

Mr. Chair and Members. Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. While I understand you amended it to make a study bill, the reason we brought this bill forward is because it recognizes the California resident manager law has not kept pace with how apartment communities are actually operated today.

The regulation was put in place, and it was a regulation, it wasn't a bill that was passed, in 1961. Why they picked 16 units or more, I don't know. Maybe they transposed the numbers. It's a mystery. But we think it's impractical. It's a 1960s law that may have been necessary then, but it's not necessary now with the technology we have today.

Today, many buildings are professionally managed through combination of, of regional supervisors, trained leasing staff, maintenance teams, after hours call systems, security technology, and rapid response vendors. Owners should be able to choose the management structure that best serves their residents and property rather than being locked into an outdated mandate.

We look forward to seeing what the study shows, and we support the bill. But we are disappointed that it's a study bill. California is the only state in the nation that has this requirement. New York City has something similar, but no other state in the nation requires this at all. So with that, we urge your support. Thank you.

Any other folks were here in support of the bill?

Members. Ron Kingston representing the Apartment Association of Orange County, all of Orange County and Riverside, and the East Bay Rental Housing Association, all of Alameda and Contra Costa County, in support. Urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Right. Anyone here in opposition to the bill? Witnesses or... Nope. Not seeing anyone. Alright. I will give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Definitely interested in understanding how technology has changed and perhaps for the better for the support and the of tenants in apartment buildings and looking forward to this information coming for us so we can make that decision at another time. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thank you again for working with our staff and with me directly on this bill. I think it is something that we should look at and a law that, as you said, existed in a very different time when there wasn't the same way of operations and management of these buildings that exist now. I think is something for us to consider.

I also would say, and part of the reason why it's a study bill, there's, you know, thousands, tens of thousands of people who currently have these roles that operate essentially as their job, and eliminating that will have very serious consequences for them and other potential connected consequences as well.

I think for 60 years, we've had this in law, and as a result, I think there are other parts of our laws, including tenant protections and others, that may be connected to the expectation or existence of these on-site managers. And so I do think we should do this in a in a thoughtful, intentional way, but I really appreciate you bringing this forward.

It is something that we should look at, and I think the question of whether this is necessary in all cases I think is one that we should consider and likely make some changes to over time. So with that, we will take a vote on this when we have a quorum. And again, appreciate you bringing it forward and appreciate your leadership.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Alright. Yes, ma'am, if you run up there quickly, nobody will get into the door before you. Alright, this is item 16, AB 2185.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Today, I'm presenting AB 2185, which provides an additional solution to our state's housing crisis. The housing crisis is like an onion. I think that's the first time you've heard that in this committee. There are many layers, and there is no one solution.

Over the last decade, we've been working on many different layers, including increasing density, streamlining the permit processes, providing specific tax credits, as well as introducing other forms of housing such as ADUs. However, California cannot solve its housing crisis with only yesterday's tools. The UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation recently released a report titled Potential Pathways to Scale Innovative Construction Methods in California, which explored opportunities to adopt industrialized construction methods, including factory-built housing in California.

AB 2185 is one of a package of bills aimed at increasing these pathways for housing. Factory-built housing, where substantial portions of a home are built off-site and installed on-site, can reduce construction costs by 10 to 25% and reduce construction timelines by 20 to 50%.

Factory-built housing can lower costs and deliver homes faster, but our state programs have not kept up. When funding structures delay projects instead of supporting them, we lose time, we lose units, and we lose opportunities for families who need housing now. AB 2185 updates our affordable housing programs in line with how homes are actually being built today. The bill removes barriers, supports innovation, and helps us build more affordable housing at the scale California needs.

With me today to provide testimony in support and to answer any questions from the committee is Graciela Castillo-Krings, partner at Sacramento Advocates, representing the California Housing Consortium.

Yes, ma'am.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Graciela Castillo-Krings here, representing California Housing Consortium in strong support, and actually, we are proud to be sponsoring this piece of legislation. As the assemblywoman has mentioned, this is one of an additional package of legislation to really kind of just spur the type of innovation that we are seeing.

If you think about most of how our commodities are produced, if you think airplanes, you think toys, most of that has benefited from industrialized processes that we are trying to kind of learn from and bring into the housing space. We are starting to see a lot of success and innovation in other countries such as Sweden.

I think the analyses continue to point out that we have lessons to basically take from those countries here in California and really advance the production of housing. But to do that, one of the catalysts for how we actually fund housing and produce it is a lot of our state programs. And so we are hoping that by modernizing how some of the regulations are looking at factory-built housing, we're going to be able to unlock additional units, really kind of spur the market.

So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. The other folks who are here in support of this bill.

Good morning, chair. Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Meaghan Murray with the Weidow Group on behalf of Autodesk in strong support. Thanks.

Good morning, mister chair. Isaac Lassiter, cutting edge modular modular housing manufacturer factory built housing manufacturer in support.

This is easy.

Convergent Good morning, chair members. Paul Schafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY support.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

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

Great. Thank you.

JT Herichmack, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support.

Alright. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Not seeing any does anyone wanna register their opposition? Not seeing anyone? Alright.

You may close.

Thank you, mister chair. AB 2185 direct state agencies that administer administer multifamily affordable housing programs to update their guidelines and regulations to support factory built housing. That simple. And with that, I request an aye vote.

Great. Appreciate your work and your leadership on this, and we will take a vote when we have quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, you have a second one. Sorry. AB 2748, item 28.

Alright. Mister chair and members, today I present AB 2748, which delays the new electric vehicle readiness requirements in the California green building standards code for a 100% affordable housing developments. California has been tackling some of the state's most pressing needs related to housing and climate. This bill is not about choosing one or the other. They both are important.

However, when those these goals come to an impasse, we need to work together to find a middle ground. The sponsors and my staff have met with several environmental groups as well as electric vehicle groups and have had robust conversations. I believe these discussions are vital as we are seeking to balance the state's climate goals with our needed housing affordable goals. AB 2748 does not eliminate the installation of EV chargers.

It keeps the previous installation rule at 40% and delays the recent 2026 increase to a 100% for affordable housing developments.

EV ready infrastructure costs approximately 2,000 per unit today, rising to 25 to 3,000 per unit under the proposed code changes while fully installed level two charges may cost 5,000 to 15,000 per parking space, excluding major major utility upgrades. For a 100 unit apartment complex, these unit these requirements can translate to into hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs. Unfortunately, without a sustained funding source for affordable housing, any additional cost can make already difficult financing impossible, threatening the viability of a project.

Giving affordable housing developers additional time to comply, and I wanna underscore that additional time, to comply with the new EV charging readiness requirements balances to state priorities, producing more more affordable housing and equitably reaching climate goals. California's housing crisis requires us to make hard choices about what comes first.

We are committed to our climate goals, but we cannot keep adding costs that stall affordable housing before it even breaks ground. For the families we serve, the question is not about charging infrastructure, but rather whether they can find a safe, stable place to call home. AB 2748 keeps us focused on building now. It gives affordable housing, a 100% house affordable housing, the breathing room to move forward without abandoning our long term climate goals.

When we talk about equity, it starts with whether we build housing that people can actually live in.

This bill helps us do that and helps us do it now. With me today to provide testimony and support is Graciela Castillo Krings partner at Sacramento Advocates representing the California Housing Consortium, and Lori Doyle, executive vice president of the Affordable Housing Development Corporation.

Great. Thank you. You will each have two minutes.

Thank you, mister chair. And members, Graciela Castillo-Krings here representing the California Housing Consortium, an organization that is focusing on the production and preservation of affordable housing. As the assemblywoman outlined, we are not against EV mandates. In fact, we are doing what we can to comply with the 2022 requirements, but the reality is affordable housing is really at a crossroads. We are running out of state funding.

A lot of the costs from COVID have we have not been able to recover, and we right now are trying to just get the bin the units built. We have had very good conversations with the opposition and agree, this shouldn't be a decision between housing or environmental goals. There has to be a middle ground, and we are trying to work through to try to figure out a policy that balances both needs.

Because at the end of the day, we also believe that people that are living in affordable housing should have access to charging. The issue is when we are still struggling to get money from the general fund in the budget allocated, it is not the right time to ask us to do an additional 60% at this time.

So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote on this bill.

Sorry. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Lori Doyle, and I'm the executive vice president of Affordable Housing Development Corporation. We are an affordable housing developer with over 2,200 units in our portfolio, serving thousands of families throughout California. We are also a proud member of the California Council for Affordable Housing and are here today in strong support of assembly bill twenty seven forty eight.

Electric vehicles are slowly becoming a more mainstream transportation option, and affordable housing providers share the state's long term climate and equity goals. However, the EV charging mandates included in the 2025 green building code standards present serious financial and operational challenges for affordable housing developments that already operate on extremely thin margins. The cost impacts are significant. As mentioned, based on our initial estimates, the updated code requirements increased cost between 2,500 and $3,000 per unit, not including utility upgrades.

For a 100 unit affordable housing project, those additional requirements can quickly translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars in added costs.

Coordination with utilities such as PG and E add further complexity and delays. Property owners must engage early to assess service capacity, Meter upgrades, and system readiness for high demand EV charging. Required load studies, Meter, and panel upgrades, not to mention potential transformer upsizing, increase both project timelines and cost for developments that are already financially constrained. AB 2748 offers a balanced and pragmatic solution.

It does not eliminate EV readiness for affordable housing, but instead allows these developments to continue using the 2022 building code standards through 2035, which requires 40% of unassigned parking spaces to be EV ready.

This approach gives the market time to mature, cost to come down, and utility programs and funding sources to better align with the realities of affordable housing finance. Most importantly, the bill helps ensure that scarce public and private resources remain focused on producing and preserving affordable housing, rather than being diverted to unfunded mandates. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support of AB 2748. Thank you for the opportunity today.

Great. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and affiliation, please.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús of Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California in support.

Good morning, mister vice chair and members. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support.

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

Steven Sanzer with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association Local Housing Finance Agency is in support.

My apologies. I came up at the wrong time. Cal ETC opposes. I apologize.

Well, thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Thank you. You will have, two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning. Bill McGavin with the Coalition for Clean Air. We oppose rolling back the building code standard because we want the residents of affordable housing to have access to clean and affordable transportation. And we know that low income Californians want electric vehicles.

We've spent many years trying to democratize the electric vehicle and have successfully provided some programs that that need to be expanded. We do see a lot of demands from low income Californians for clean transportation. Michelle Pierce from the UN Empire was unable to be here today, so I will read her brief statement. I quote, when I lived in an apartment that provided charging, I got my first EV and I've never looked back. The money I saved on gas and maintenance helped stretch my limited budget.

In 2015, I started EV Nirvana because I saw firsthand how important it is to get EVs into the hands of families with low income. To see that some developers want to reduce access to at home charging for the families that need it most sickens me.

I ask that as you decide how to vote on this bill, you center the needs of residents to access the affordability and clean air benefits of driving electric and not allow government subsidies to be used to create second class housing like last century's cold water flats, unquote. We've been very involved in creating and supporting the clean cars for all program, which has provided affordable electric vehicles to tens of thousands of California residents. The legislature has supported it many times through budget and policy bills.

And with the the recipients are really happy. They're saving money. It costs half as much to fuel an EV as a gas car if you can charge at home and pay residential rates, which is why these standards are so important. And driving an EV saves in maintenance. Consumer reports found it cost half as much to maintain its EV, an EV as a gas car.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Linda Hutchins-Knowles with the National Charging Access Coalition representing 30 plus organizations that advance transportation equity, affordable housing, clean air, public health, climate stability, and green tech jobs.

We a 100% support the goal of building more affordable housing, but this bill is not the way to do that because it saves the builders only a fraction of the total cost while burdening the residents who will live in these homes for decades to come, and the taxpayers who will bear the cost of much more expensive retrofits down the line. When PG and E retrofitted a 60 unit apartment complex, they paid $18,647 per port. For the bedtime and construction, it would have cost 1,410.

There's even more extreme cases that were submitted to you through the portal. We've been consulting with affordable housing developers who find that the cost to comply with the current code is much less with than what sponsors are citing. We've met with the sponsors we're looking forward to seeing the members that their estimates are based on. We're happy to share ours. Our the sponsors say that it costs 25K to 3K per unit.

That's more than double what the affordable housing was we're talking with have found. They estimated cost about 900 to 1,500 per charging outlet. So in a complex of a 100 charging outlets, the total incremental cost would be between 90,000 to 150,000. In the context of a project that cost millions of dollars to build, Calgary or sorry. CARB estimated that was 0.1% of the total cost.

These building codes are essential for equity. We worked with the the coalition working on the building codes, worked regularly with the CBIA. They did not oppose the building codes. In fact, they voted for them. There were three changes to the building codes that reduced the cost to developers.

We're happy to work with the sponsors. We could think they're overestimating. Maybe they're not designing the buildings where they could do it to make savings. So instead of requiring chargers that look like this, the the code or this, the code requires simply outlets. These are very inexpensive to install.

And instead of requiring that every parking space be electrified, it only requires that half of the space I'm sorry, that only the units that have parking get it. In affordable housing, there's often less parking, so it's not such an onerous cost. And finally, it doesn't require full power level two. It only requires low power level two. That cuts the power demand in half.

Please pause on this bill. Building codes are frozen. This is not the time to roll back building codes. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other, witnesses in opposition, name, and affiliation only, please?

Thank you. Michelle Canales expressing opposition on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists and California Electric Transportation Council, Cal ETC.

Thank you, mister chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy, community tourist aggregators serving San Mateo County and the city of Los Banos. We are in the proverbial Tweener position, have some concerns aligned with the opposition. I've been having some positive conversations with the sponsors and look forward to more.

Alicia Priego on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy. Align our comments with the previous speaker, and thank you to the sponsors and author for working with us.

Hello. My name is Bryce Nesbitt. I'm a construction guy, and building code is really bloated. Really. There's a lot of

Name and affiliation only, please.

Bryce Nesbitt, I'm speaking here as an individual.

Thank you. I do. That's all the time we have right now. Thank you.

I'm here in opposition.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Any, comments from my colleagues, mister Kalra?

Thank you. Happy Earth Day, everyone. You know, this is challenging because, you know, these are very I think everyone's acknowledged these are both really important priorities for our state, for our communities. And I I've I've really tried to focus a lot, and I think we need to focus a lot. And I know this is something the author and others agree with in democratizing EVs.

That EVs over the last, you know, decade, decade and a half, they've really grown in usage and popularity and purchases have still been something out of reach for so many Californians. And I think a big part of that is the infrastructure aspect of it. I think that we're making they are becoming more affordable. There there's a lot of used EVs on the market now compared to prior years that that are within reach of of working families. It's that infrastructure aspect.

And so I my my hesitation is kind of slowing that down right now at a time where I think we should be rapidly increasing it and and and and slowing it down over, you know, approximately decade period where I think that, you know, maybe we can put some of that emphasis in actually getting resources into these multifamily, especially affordable, and helping to subsidize some of these legitimate costs that are there there are costs. And and it's true.

It does cost a lot more to do it after the fact. I think that's ultimately what's gonna happen, you know, especially when we phase our combustion engine. They're just gonna, after the fact, retrofit at a much higher cost.

And so I think that, you know, I I think putting the energy into trying to help to subsidize some of that cost of of of or especially if it's purely a 100% affordable housing. I think there's some good justifications for us as we look at how we're spending our, you know, capital invest funds and other kinds of funds. If we truly wanna democratize the use of EVs, we have to put our money where our mouth is.

And I think part of that is would be justified in getting some resources to affordable housing developers to help offset some of that cost. And so I I think there is a win win opportunity there without having to necessarily kind of roll back the the current timelines that we have with our building codes.

But I, you know, I have such so much respect for both sides because of the work that you all are doing that are of of critical importance. And I would love to see more more working families, you know, have those have access to those electric vehicles. And I I think we can make I think we can make both happen.

Thank you. Any other comments? Great. Well, my my personal position is I think this is you know, I coincidentally, I was recently at my mom's apartment who lives in 100% senior affordable housing, and oddly, nobody drives a EV in her, in Napa. So, maybe we wanna get there, and I think actually, what mister Kalra was saying is is

a good point. If if we wanna get there and help people who live in affordable units, own EV vehicles, then maybe the state ought to invest in that because their new one still isn't, you know I mean, they're they're really not affordable. When you can buy a $15,000 you can get a used one like you were mentioning, but you can get a $15,000, you know, combustion engine vehicle.

But but a lot of individual you know, I mean, my I mean, just I'm just speaking of story of one, but my mom's still driving a 2006, you know, Ford Focus. That used to be my car when I bought it new.

So, you know, that's just a story of one. But I I did actually witness you know, look at all the other cars that were out there, and they did have some charging stations and things like that. And it wasn't you know? I mean, I just think the reality is we're not we're not quite there yet. And our my priority is is, you know, to get more housing built.

I think that is the the leading one of the leading issues in the state of California, and to me kind of overrides, maybe, you know, a need for EVs. But, if the author would like to close, of course, that that is your right and would love to have you do that.

Thank you, members. And this this is a difficult conversation. This is the in many ways, the conversation of our time. So whether today we're talking about EV chargers and housing, but we regularly talk about CEQA and the environment and housing. And it does pit, I think, people that want to see Californians housed sometimes against people who are advocating for the environment.

What I would say is you can do two things at one time. You can be want to see housing built aggressively to address our homeless problem issue that we have. We know California is suffering from units that have not been built, and we have done almost everything that I can imagine to speed up and get housing. And you can also be supportive of the environment, but it takes compromise. And many times, we have a hard time with that.

So I do appreciate some of the opposition who are saying there could be a place. I do appreciate your your comments to my colleague because, of course, if we could incentivize or as you say, subsidize some of this EV infrastructure, that could be a solution as well. In a very tight budget, as we know we're cutting some essential services, whether it's health care or CalFresh, it makes it harder. So just to reiterate, this bill is not about eliminating standards. It's about delaying standards for EV infrastructure.

But I do understand. I can commit that that our teams will continue us to speak to the opposition, and we want to get to a place, I think, where we can make progress, but that we don't shut the door on opposition. So with that, I would ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you. We haven't yet reached quorum, but when we do, I'm sure there'll be a motion.

Thank you. Thank you, members.

Alright. Next, we have Mister Harabedian, AB 20- okay.

Alright. Deferring to the, kind Senator, Senator Cabaldon, SB 417. Thank you.

Please start your presentation.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. And also a a big thank you to the kind gentleman, from Assembly member Harabedian for letting me go ahead. Mister Chair and members, over the last decade, California has enacted landmark housing policies, many of them emerging from this house and provided affordable housing developers with powerful new tools to streamline permitting and zoning, site acquisition on hundreds of thousands of parcels statewide.

But those affordable homes won't build themselves to unlock the full promise of all of the reforms that the legislature has enacted requires just the basic capital to move projects from approval to construction.

And around California, affordable housing developers and their partners and local governments and local communities have done all the work. They've sent they've gotten every signal we've sent, every direction, every mandate, every please, and they've acquired parcel after parcel. They've applied for permit after permit. They've rezoned and rezoned. They've dealt with Caltrans air airspace.

They've done everything they need. They've gone out and gotten in many cases 50, 60, 70, 80, 85, 90% of the funding to complete their projects, and all they need us to do is get this across the line. And so SB 417 would place a $10,000,000,000 affordable housing bond act on the November ballot asking voters to make that critical investment to get the job done. The bond directs the bulk of the funding to proven programs in California.

It's not a Christmas tree of new initiative but instead, puts the most of the funding in the multifamily housing program, the portfolio reinvestment program, California's most effective affordable housing programs.

It does that because we're not looking to do experiments in this legislation. Instead, the bond would help to fund and bring make real more than 40,000 shovel ready units across the state of California that are already in the pipeline, ready to go, just waiting for us to refill the bond pot that we have done so many times in California before.

Every California dollar that we invest is matched by $4 in federal tax credits, local grants, rent, leverage that the state loses if we fail to act. You know this better than anyone. This committee and this this house passed thirteen months ago.

The assembly version of bond act and the author of that legislation, Assemblymember Wicks on our we are closely cooperating and collaborating on this issue. Finally, the Senate's here to match to meet you up. And so we're continuing to engage stakeholders and the leadership of both houses in the Governor's office to finalize the allocations, and you'll hear about some of those issues today.

But I wanna assure you that those are not finished and that that we're inviting and urging folks to as as we invite urging folks to very quickly get to us their priorities as well and and ask for an aye vote. I'd like to introduce our witnesses today.

First is Chione Flegal from the Executive Director of Housing California, then Anne Silverberg, the President and CEO of Related California Affordable Housing, and I'm gonna ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Before, we continue, we're gonna pause here to establish quorum, and, then we will allow this to go.

Haney? Harrison?

Here.

Harrison, here. Avila Farias?

Yes.

Avila Farias, here. Caloza?

Here.

Caloza, here. Garcia? Kalra?

Here.

Kalra, here. Lee?

Here.

Lee, here. Quirk Silva? Quirk Silva, here. Ta? Tangipa?

Here.

Tangipa, here. Wicks? Wicks, here. Wilson?

We have a quorum.

Great. Perfect. We have quorum, and we will continue two minutes each, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister chair and members. My name is Chione Flegal. I'm the Executive Director of Housing California. We are a statewide organization leading efforts to create affordable homes and solve homelessness.

I'm also speaking today on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, a partner we work closely with to advocate for the production and preservation of affordable homes. Housing California and CHC are both in strong support of SB 417. As Senator Cabaldon points out, we've made important progress in recent years toward addressing the shortage of affordable housing in our state, provide proving that when investments are made to get and keep Californians housed, we actually make great strides. But we're at a turning point.

Millions of Californians are still struggling every day to find and keep an affordable place to live, and the need is growing faster than our ability to respond.

This means that families, essential workers, seniors, veterans, and people across our state are still stuck on wait lists, priced out, or living one crisis away from their homes. I think you all understand this problem probably more than anyone else in this legislature. While our affordable housing pipeline has gained incredible momentum, it is at risk of stalling. Funds from the last statewide housing bond ran out last year. This year's budget includes no new dollars the state's most effective housing and homelessness programs.

We're facing a funding cliff that will significantly delay or derail projects that are ready to go forward. Currently, there are over 40,000 shovel ready units in the pipeline waiting to get built. For many of these projects, what's the only thing that's standing in the way isn't planning or political will. It's a lack of resources to get the job done.

SB 417 will help us do that by putting a $10,000,000,000 bond before voters and providing the stable long term funding needed to keep the affordable housing pipeline moving.

These resources will fill an immediate need supporting the construction of more than 35,000 affordable homes and communities of across California while providing essential funding for preserving and rehabilitating tens of thousands of existing affordable homes that we've already invested in.

Voters have consistently shown that they're willing to support investments that target major challenges facing our state. Now is the time to give them a chance to support building more of the affordable housing Californians both need and deserve. I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you to the Senator, and thank you to all of you members and staff of the Assembly Housing Community Development, Committee. My name is Anne Silverberg, and I'm the President and CEO of Related California Affordable. Related develops affordable housing all across the state in the North and the South and the Urban Coastal locations as well as the Suburbs, Central State as well as rural locations as well. And in our history, we've developed over 20,000 homes for Californians.

I wanna start by saying thank you again to the Senator for his leadership SB 417, and thank you to all of you for your leadership on housing and hopefully for your consideration for your support for SB 417.

SB 417 is absolutely critical for the future of California. It provides for the continued production and preservation of affordable housing that's so desperately needed all across the regions of the state. There are affordable housing units, of course, in the Bay Area and LA, but also in the Central Valley and Rural locations that are in need of funding in order to move forward. SB 417 will create an environment that will allow these units to be delivered to Californians.

As an example, we've been working on a phased development in a rural area near Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County.

This development provides vital housing opportunities for families who have been suffering from the housing crisis. Previous phases of this development were supported and made possible by state level funding that doesn't exist anymore. SB 417 would directly benefit this housing and help us provide these housing units to the families that need it. Another similarly situated development in Rancho Cordova, very close to here in Sacramento County, would provide 60 units of affordable housing in this very fast growing city.

Again, the need for additional funding is what is holding up the project and not allowing it to move forward.

With the funding, this project could move forward. SB 417 would directly benefit this housing as well. The impact of the state housing bond will be felt statewide in cities, in towns, in suburbs, in rural areas. Each of these areas is directly experiencing the consequences of the affordability crisis, and each would benefit from this statewide response. SB 417 is needed to address the housing affordability crisis for Californians across the state. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there others in support of this measure? Name and affiliation only, please. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chairman.

Position. Sorry about that.

I will give you the position. Yes. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Chamber of Progress in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Chris Lee on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as well as the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors in support.

Chair and members, Duncan McFetridge on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in support.

Ali Sapirman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support.

Good morning. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Good morning. Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the Public Interest Law Project, Self Help Enterprises, and People's Self Help Housing all in support.

Good morning, Vanessa Flores on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and strong support.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California expressing strong support on behalf of several organizations, Homes and Hope, Urban Habitat, PATH, the Housing Leadership Coalition, the National Alliance End Homelessness, Tenants Together, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Disability Rights California, APEN Action, AAPI Force, MidPen Housing, and the ACLU California action. Thank you.

Good morning. Isha Iyer on behalf of the City of Redwood City and the City of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you.

Amy Brown on behalf of the Cities of Riverside in West Sacramento in support.

Good morning, Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the cities of Santa Monica, Goleta, Beverly Hills. Also, on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, and Burbank Housing. Thank you.

Nicole Wolderman on behalf of Orange County and the City Of Santa Cruz, support of amended to include local housing trust fund dollars

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the County Of San Diego in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership with strong support.

Good morning, chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities as well as the American Planning Association California Chapter in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power City Action in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Klopfenstein on behalf of Zillow in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, otherwise known as La Casa, Spur, San Diego Housing Commission, and Circulate Planning and Policy in strong support.

Good morning, chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.

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

Good morning. Eddie Ocampo on behalf of Self Help Enterprises in support.

Hello. Miguel Arambula with the San Joaquin Valley Housing Collaborative in strong support.

Mister chair, members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Varvais with Kaiser Advocacy here for the California Community Land Trust Network in support.

Good morning. Jason Murphy on behalf of the University of California. We have support for that position. Thank you so much.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association of House- California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies in support.

Good morning, Graciela Castillo Krings, on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, All Home, Enterprise Community Partners, and Rock USA in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Andres Ramos on behalf of Public Advocates, Tenants Together, and Housing Now in strong support. Thank you.

J. T. Herchmack, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support.

Carrie West with Townsend on behalf of the Cities of Berkeley, Brea, Fremont, La Habra, Monterey Park, Palo Alto, Santa Barbara, Orange County Housing Finance Trust, and San Gabriel Valley Cog in support. Thank you.

Good morning. David Krieger on behalf of the United Wholesale Mortgage in support.

Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support.

Alright. Thank you all. Hi, Senator. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition or anyone here in opposition? We do. Alright. Come on up. Two minutes.

Thank you. Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. I'm Holden Weisman from Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco, serving San Mateo, Marin, and San Francisco Counties. I'm here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California and more than and our more than 30 affiliates across the state in opposition of SB 417.

Unless it is amended to explicitly allocate 10% of bond proceeds to the CalHome program, California's only funding program dedicated to increasing the supply of affordable homeownership opportunities through production and preservation.

I fully appreciate, Senator Cabaldon, and your comments about continuing negotiations on this, about allocations, and we heard that yesterday from Assembly Member Wicks as well. So I just wanna acknowledge that we really do appreciate that that's going forward.

But 10% for CalHome, it's not a random number to us. It is an allocation of bond funds that is completely consistent with past funding levels for CalHome that we've received in previous housing bond issues. Chair Haney, as a Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco housing bureau, we know that you are well aware that the cost of building a a single affordable unit of housing in San Francisco now reaches close to $1,000,000.

CalHome is a critical part of the complicated funding puzzle that we have to piece together. This includes CalHome mortgage assistance that helps us keep mortgages low enough to ensure that our homeowners never pay more than 30% of their incomes to housing costs.

The support that we receive from CalHome is key to unlocking additional private funding that helps us complete this very, very tricky funding stack. Unfortunately for us, many of our plans may be put on hold. CalHome is now completely out of money with no guarantee that it may be restarted in the budget.

Though, Mr. Chair, we do appreciate your efforts in the Assembly to do so. But this level of uncertainty about whether or not we can make funding work is truly a killer to our affordable home projects. We need certainty about whether and how much CalHome funding will exist each year.

And not have to worry about how much is going at CalHome or how much will go to down payment assistance or how much will go to other homeownership programs. The very simple amendment that we ask for is a guaranteed 10% of funds for CalHome. This this will not only gain our...

If you can please wrap up.

Yep. Our very strong support for the bill. It'll ensure the increasing supply of new affordable homes for ownership in California. And we ask, please again, amend SB 417 to explicitly include 10% for CalHome.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Apologies. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Nicole Kurian on behalf of the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, here to support the bill if amended. As been as has been communicated with both authors of the housing bond bills, Mayor Bass appreciates their leadership in this area and respectfully requests an allocation for interim housing, specifically for the acquisition of properties.

Including motels, hotels, and existing vacant buildings to provide emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Similar to the state's incredibly successful Project Room Key, while Mayor Bass of course supports investments in affordable housing, this investment would help cities like Los Angeles address an urgent need to get unhoused Californians off of the streets. Thank you.

Alright. I see no one else in opposition. We can bring it back up to the dais, and I see Ms. Wicks, Ms. Quirk-Silva, and then... Oh, Ms. Quirk-Silva. Go ahead.

Thank you. We appreciate this effort. It's a major investment in getting people housed in California, which I think so many of us are working towards. My looking at the list, and I know there's still a lot of negotiations that will be going on.

The one marker I wanna put down that it's not in this is when we look at student housing, which I fully support campus student housing. Whether it's community college, UCs, or CSUs, I really think the marker there has to be affordable student student housing. If we're going to use bond money to build student housing, it should be affordable. Thank you.

Ms. Wicks.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I wanna thank Senator Cabaldon for bringing this, I think, virtually identical bill forward from the Senate, which I think also indicates the priority from the Senate. And your Pro Tem has done great work moving this quickly through, so much appreciation to her. I think I introduced this bill first when I was Housing Chair four years ago. We tried to get on the ballot in 2024.

We were forced to take a back seat, but no more. But I am excited. I'd like to make a motion to move this bill forward. We've done so much in this committee and in this house and the Senate to try to streamline housing, cut through red tape, CEQA reforms, ADU law, all the things. And we have to have public investment for our lowest income folks who cannot cannot afford current market rate. That's a critical piece of this.

So happy to move it. I'm a principal co-author. Wanna get this thing through, get it off the floor, get it to the ballot. Eager to get the governor's support as well, and everyone else lined up to support this. So thank you for your work, Senator Cabaldon.

Mr. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the author for also doing the companion the companion bond in the Senate version as well. You know, not to add to the long laundry list people asking for things for Christmas, but I do think, especially given our fiscal constraints and everything, even though I think the bond should have been in much earlier in 2024.

I think it is important to consider allocating money for social housing so that state and local municipalities construct their own affordable housing. Secondly, also considering the dire financial states we're in is to create a more revolving loan fund kinda system in it too rather than a grant based system so that we have a long term longevity of the funds.

So I trust the author. You're gonna have a lot of negotiations. You're gonna keep pushing this thing through, but that's my 2 cents. Just consider social housing and long term revolving loan funds so that we can recoup the money and continue to disperse money on a long term basis. Thank you.

Vice Chair Patterson.

Thank you. I wanted to comment, add on what Ms. Quirk-Silva said. I think if the state's gonna be investing in money at a community college or CSU or basically anywhere, those should count towards the local municipalities RHNA numbers, basically.

And right now for some underground regulation, HCD's interpreting that not to be the case, and I think that policy ought to change. This could be a good avenue to do such a thing. Because why would we invest so much state money to help our communities, you know, if that's if that's not gonna happen.

But one other comment I wanna make, which I don't expect agreement on is my concern. So I just supported Assembly Member Wicks' bill. I am not saying I'm not going to support this one. Still, we'll decide when it the roll call happens.

But my concern is an excuse for the governor to continue to cut general fund money to housing, which he has consistently done almost every year. Now fortunately, the budget committees in the legislature have restored a lot of that funding, and the cuts in the proposed budget were not quite as severe as he's done the previous two years.

But having sat on that budget committee, that sub one year and then just the general budget committee, it's I don't want this to be an excuse for the governor to cut really what I think is a general obligation to, to fund housing projects.

And I kind of expect that's what he's gonna do if the bond passes, frankly. But because I believe we do need public investments in housing to continue. So that's why I'm still considering supporting the bond today. So thank you.

Probably have about 60 seconds to decide. So. Not seeing any other Member of the Committee.

I can filibuster for you. I'm a Senator.

Alright. Senator, you may close.

Thank you so much. And this hearing has spotlighted some of the some of the issues that still need to be taken into account. Obviously, we need a $100 billion in this program right now, and you've heard some of the reasons why.

And California's debt capacity doesn't provide, doesn't allow us to do a $100 billion bond, so we will need to make some choices in the 10. But whether it's student housing or home or dream for all youth housing, social housing, these are these are exactly the issues that that need to get reconciled.

The North Star for me, I will say, is we need we need to get these 40,000 units built. We need to be able to deliver for California the units that we have already invested in. Virtually none of the affordable housing projects in MHP, for example, get a 100% of their funding from the bond, and it's like, hey, go.

They have they we through our processes and just the nature of the finance markets, they've already gone and gotten 17 other funding sources. And the challenges, unlike some infrastructure projects, we can't say, well, if we didn't do it this year, maybe we should do it... Hey, look. What about next bond cycle or what have you? Is that these projects collapse.

The whole financing structure depends on funding sources three through seven require that you have to encumber the funds by the end of this year, and there's no funds. And so it's not just a question of timing. It's whether or not the entire pipeline itself collapses.

So that's got to be our top priority. That said, there are really critical investments in a variety of programs that are essential and that are also proven and that Californians understand are gonna help to meet the needs. So this is this is really attuned to the business case and the leverage case for those projects to make them happen.

I 100% agree with the Vice Chair on the issue. I serve on the budget subcommittee in the Senate that is where we've been battling with the governor on the same exact issue. Because the reason why we're seeing so much pent up demand here is that we're not making the appropriate annual investments.

It's not a one time problem, and so we need to be continued to make those annual investments and make that a top priority in the budget as we have been doing. And so I'm with you, and I know we are in the Senate. I know the Assembly has been as well. We have to create a reliable source of funding because, again, it's not just the money.

It's also knowing if I start a project in Rocklin tomorrow and I'm an affordable housing developer, that will any of these programs have money in them by the time I've gone through permitting and zoning and gotten this first seven funding sources so that I can there's a chance. And right now, the message that we've been sending at the state level is take your chances.

Good luck to you. And this the combination of the bond and appropriately funding housing in the budget are essential to make sure that projects that have met all the tests and that are, that are ready to go and build and to house Californians that need shelter, need to survive, that this bond is an essential step forward. So thank you so much for your, as the Assembly has led on this.

As Assembly Member Wicks reminded, just in committee yesterday, you did this more than a year ago. I'm glad that we're here to catch up, and thank you to our to our leadership as well. But this is absolutely essential. Appreciate also the governor's conceptual support. And with that, I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. Thank you for your leadership and to the to the coalition that's behind it. I hope that we have a huge, huge level of support, both to get this on the ballot and to get it across the finish line. And it does feel like there is a lot of unity on this both within the Senate and the Assembly as a priority for a bond for this year's ballot.

I know that, you know, last cycle, there was a conversation about it, and there were the folks who were pushing really hard for that. But we desperately need this. There's no way for us to meet our goals, as you said, and to meet the needs of Californians most importantly.

We hear again and again that this is the top issue connected to cost of living concerns. And as much as we do to make it easier to build housing, quicker to build housing, we have to make these public investments and this is a way to do it in addition to the funding that needs to be in the budget. So I we established quorum while I was out. Alright. So we had a motion and a second, and we can take a roll call vote.

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

Is that a Patterson aye I heard? You got him with the close, I think. That's it. Powerful. Alright. 8-0. Keep it open for absent Members. Thank you so much. Alright. Mr. Zbur. Item number 3, AB 1740.

Good morning, Mister Chair, members. I'm proud today to present AB 1740 sponsored by the City of Santa Monica, Streets for All, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles. Before I get into what this bill does, I'd like to elaborate on why this bill is so critically important. Since the passage of the Coastal Act in 1976, the Coastal Commission has done paramount work to advance twin objectives, safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring equitable public access to the coast.

Yet in the fifty years since the Coastal Act was passed, much has changed in California.

While public access was once defined by roads and parking lots, today, cars are a part of an equation, in some of our denser urban coastal areas, an equation that now includes trains, buses, bike lanes, and walkable streets. Yet in these cities, the commission can often be seen as treating built out urban areas as if they were undeveloped coastline.

In places like Downtown Santa Monica, which I represent, routine actions such as changing the use of a building or constructing already approved housing often requires Coastal Commission approval, which goes on months and years. If these activities were taking place in a sensitive ecosystem, they might pose a real environmental threat. But in a built out city, they have no impact on coastal resources or public access.

However, the lengthy delays caused by the Coastal Commission review process do have a real impact on the city, on the residents, on the businesses who wait months and even years for approvals, and on visitors who can't access public access and public recreation in these areas. I can provide any number of real world examples of this happening, including in the city of Santa Monica, a city that is renowned for its commitment to sustainability. AB 1740 offers a solution to this problem.

It establishes a narrow designation of urban multimodal communities, which are cities or specific areas within cities that have high quality transit, bike infrastructure, and climate targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Once certified, control over a limited but important set of activities return to the city.

These include managing certain parking requirements not near the coast, adding bike or bus lanes, updating existing buildings or changing their use, constructing housing already allowed under state or local law, permitting and managing temporary events, and approving outdoor dining. Crucially, this bill returns some local control to a city, specifically the city of Santa Monica in this this case due to amendments that were taken in the natural resources committee that meets the intent behind the Coastal Act. And in that spirit, this is an opt in designation.

The city will choose whether it will wishes to be certified, and nothing in the bill compels the city to build or permit anything. This bill now only applies to Santa Monica, an urban built out city with robust public transit and will preserve the California Coastal Commission's authority and ability to protect beaches and coastal resources from activities that threaten sensitive habitats, including in Santa Monica to the extent there are any.

This bill would only apply to areas without protected coastal resources, such as wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or coastal bluffs. By returning control over a limited but important set of permitting activities to local government, this bill will alleviate an unnecessary regulatory burden, improve local flexibility, and reduce cost and uncertainty for government, individuals, and businesses in Santa Monica, and importantly, allow people that want to visit the coast to access the kinds of public recreation and activities that they deserve to find in these urban built out areas.

It also advances a key goal of the Coastal Act, which is basically to concentrate development in already built out areas. If we want more housing in the coastal zone, and, and when we're building more housing, we've had this debate about the Coastal Commission's impact on housing. If we are going to build housing in the coastal zone, it should be in these built out coastal areas that don't threaten habitat, and that's why this bill is so important.

I had hoped to include additional cities within this bill, and as you can see from the previous as you can see from the previous versions of the bill. However, the bill was limited to the City of Santa Monica and Assembly Natural Resources Committee, but I want to say that the architecture of the program and the standards for, for the multimodal communities remains in the bill to allow other cities through subsequent legislation to come in and take advantage of this program.

So, while there are there are clearly are other cities that want to benefit from a bill like this, I think that Santa Monica is an excellent starting point and provides an opportunity to show that this kind of common sense modernization of the Coastal Act can both deliver on our affordability and housing agendas while maintaining extremely strong environmental protections.

I will also be accepting the recommended committee amendment, which clarifies the that project sites identified for multi unit housing in the housing element, not just the land use element, are eligible. And with that, I ask for a I vote at the appropriate time.

With me today, as bill sponsors, I'd like to introduce, a council member Dan Hall, council member from the City Of Santa Monica, and Scott Epstein, director of policy and research for abundant housing in Los Angeles.

Good morning, Chair Haney and Members. My name is Dan Hall, council member for Santa Monica, here in strong support for AB 1740. The city of Santa Monica is proud to cosponsor this bill. Let me start with this.

Our community deeply values the California Coastal Act and the mission of the Coastal Commission. Protecting our coastline, the environment, and ensuring public access are core to who we are. For decades, we've invested in clean water and runoff collection infrastructure, dune restoration, and public transit and multimodal access to our beaches. This bill now only applies to Santa Monica and only to a limited set of low impact activities that do not restrict access. Here's why that matters.

At city hall, we hear the same thing time and time again. Applicants are ready to move forward until they encounter the additional layer of coastal commission review that can be unpredictable in timing, cost, and outcome. At that point, projects stall or they don't happen at all. That uncertainty affects housing production, adaptive reuse, and businesses trying to open and expand. We're seeing this uncertainty impact housing projects near our downtown Metro station where builders face feasibility concerns.

It's reflected in the vacancies on the 3rd Street Promenade that remain an existential threat to our local economy, where businesses have told me they can't afford to wait on coastal approvals for interior renovations. AB 1740 helps fix that. By allowing local approval of limited low impact projects, it supports urban infill housing near transit, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and advances our climate goals, while making it easier to activate vacant storefronts and support businesses.

Members, this bill is about aligning coastal protection with our state's housing, climate action, and our local economic recovery. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Scott Epstein, and I'm the director of policy and research with Abundant Housing LA. We are a nonprofit advocacy organization fighting for more homes across LA County and California, and our proud cosponsors of AB 1740. The California Coastal Act is a landmark bill that has helped protect sensitive environmental areas along our beautiful coast and ensure pedestrian access to our shoreline for all, not just the well-to-do.

It is also the case that the Coastal Commission has acted as a major obstacle to key investments in urbanized areas in the coastal zone, such as safe streets redesigns and zoning compliant housing.

California's coastal cities are some of the most exclusionary areas in our state, and one of the best ways to increase access to the coast is to expedite multifamily housing in coastal communities. The impact of the Coastal Commission on housing production is real and dramatic. Housing along the coast is regularly delayed, downsized, and often not proposed at all as a result of outdated regulations and lengthy burdens and processes.

The result is that teachers, nurses, hotel workers, and more who serve coastal communities in California typically cannot afford to live in those very same communities. AB 1740 would address these inequities by transferring permitting authority from the Coastal Commission to the local jurisdiction level for a discreet set of environmentally beneficial project types, including zoning compliant housing.

As currently drafted, AB 1740 only applies to the city of Santa Monica. But the bill was initially drafted as an opt in program that would have allowed a coastal city to be certified as an urban multimodibility community if the city has adopted climate plans and offers sustainable transportation options. That framework was a win for both sustainability and housing as it reduced uncertainty around housing approvals and incentivized sustainability policies and infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the assembly natural resources committee required the amendment to scale the bill down to just Santa Monica despite the fact that elected officials in cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, and more support the previous incarnation of the bill. We are committed to expanding the geographic reach of this pivotal reform now and in the future.

I would like to thank assembly member Zbur for his leadership on this important bill. I urge an aye vote and ask for your support on efforts to expand the reform to other interested jurisdictions. Thank you very much.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Mark Klickovich on behalf of Streets for All. We're one of the sponsors of the bill. Really appreciate the author and the Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Gurnen on behalf of the League of California Cities. We were in support. We have to southern move to neutral, given that it's a narrow application and won't apply statewide to our coastal cities, but hope that more cities will qualify in the future. Look forward to those conversations. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Esau Flores on behalf of the California Restaurant Association in support.

Good morning. Shaka taking on behalf of the California Downtown Association in support.

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

Ali Sacerman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support with one caveat. We'd love to see the bill expanded.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate Planning and Policy, San Diego Housing Commission, and SPUR, all in support.

Good morning. John Skoglund with the County Of Los Angeles in support.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Thank you.

Bob Millett for Fields, Said, and Company. That's Howard Amundson junior, a coastal protection advocate in support.

Steven Stedzer with the Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California EMB in support.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you all. Primary witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon, and happy Earth Day. I'm Natalie Brown of Earth Advocacy testifying on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, Azul, The Surfrider Foundation, and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin in opposition to AB 1740 unless amended.

Our groups support expanding coastal access, affordable housing, and keeping our beaches reachable for all Californians regardless of income or where in the state they live and have supported long list of exemptions for a wide range of unrelated development types, including multi unit luxury housing developments with no affordable component, commercial mixed use housing developments, transportation projects, major building expansions of up to 50%, and increases in public parking rates, removal of public lot spaces, and the creation of exclusionary resident only parking areas that threaten to significantly reduce public access, not expand it.

Clearly, this is not a minor bill with no impacts. It's a major carve out of a city from the Coastal Act, which is the first ever since the city since the act was passed by the legislature in 1976.

Worse, these exemptions would continue for a full decade, silence the public, and remove the right to appeal no matter how harmful the project or its consequences would be. The Coastal Act provides a correct path, very importantly, the local coastal program. Santa Monica can legally assume permitting authority by certifying an LCP, yet it has never done so despite fifty years and three hundred and seventy five thousand dollars in coastal commission grant funding to do so.

Santa Monica's existing record is a cautionary tale, proving a luxury hotel for wealthy developer without any low cost overnight accommodations, allowing illegal demolition of affordable motels, raising beach parking rates. All these actions erode the public and your constituents' right to access the coast affordably.

Santa Monica should certify its LCP as the vast majority of coastal jurisdictions have already done. We urge this committee to keep the Coastal Act intact and oppose AB 1740 unless amended to remove this broad Coastal Act exemptions it contains and perfect protect Californians treasured beach access. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. I'm Sean Drake, legislative manager for the California Coastal Commission. Last week, the commission voted unanimously to oppose AB 1740 unless it is amended to remove the proposed Coastal Act exemptions. As has been mentioned, AB 1740 would exempt a broad universe of projects from the Coastal Act, including mixed use projects, housing, building expansions, long term events, bike lanes, elimination of public parking, film productions, and more for the city of Santa Monica.

The Coastal Act already contains tools for accelerating these types of projects.

These include permit waivers, categorical exclusions, expedited approvals, and more. These tools are available to the 64 coastal cities and counties that have complied with the statutory mandate to have a local coastal program. Unfortunately, the city of Santa Monica hasn't done that despite receiving nearly $400,000 in grants from the commission to do so. The author and the sponsors have pinned Santa Monica's lack of an LCP on the commission's supposed positions on housing and transportation.

If that were true, the commission wouldn't be working collaboratively with dozens of other coastal cities and counties to regularly update their LCPs to promote infill housing and multimodal transit.

Candidly, the main sticking point in Santa Monica is luxury hotels and specifically the city's general unwillingness to provide low cost overnight options as required by the Coastal Act. Because of the city's objection to this core Coastal Act policy, which is critical for keeping the coast affordable for visitors, Santa Monica remains one of just 12 cities that don't have coastal permitting authority. As a result, the commission is still issuing all coastal development permits in Santa Monica's coastal zone.

We would welcome amendments that would actually get the city to a completed LCP so it can take the reins for permitting in its coastal zone. While we understand that the coastal planning takes work, we invite Santa Monica to rejoin us at the table to do that work and promote a coast where everyone is welcome.

And we remain ready to coordinate with the author's office on a bill to help make that happen. Until then, the commission is respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Right. Other folks were here in opposition to the bill.

Hey. Good morning. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon in California in opposition. Also hear to voice opposition for the following organizations. Heel the Bay, Environmental Defense Center, Green Foothills, Orange County Coastkeeper, Endangered Habitats League, Ocean Defenders Alliance, Humboldt Waterkeeper, 350 Bay Area Action, Clean Earth for Kids, California Coast Keeper Alliance, Save Our Shores, and lastly, 25 individual members of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in opposition.

Good morning. Azul in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Alright. Bringing it back to the committee. Members? Miss Wicks?

Sorry. Remind me again your name. Council member?

Dan Hall.

Dan Hall. Sorry. Thank you for your testimony. You talked about project seeking the permits from the Coastal Commission and then it taking a while, and then by the time they finally happen through the delays, the projects are no longer feasible. What's a sense of yours and, like, the how long that additional delay takes?

And I mean, you might not have data, but at least anecdotal, what's your sense?

We've seen everything from six months to eighteen months to multiple years for for affordable, a 100% deed restricted to affordable housing projects.

So affordable housing taking potentially up to years. Correct. Yep. And the scope of this bill is Santa Monica with a lot of parameters around has to be zoned accordingly and all the other kind of local restrictions that are required for the housing to be permitted. Correct?

Yeah.

That's correct.

And we require a 15% affordability requirement for our projects in our city.

Yep. I mean, to me, this bill just seems like common sense. We wanna be able to we have to be able to build somewhere in our coastal zones. You're talking about infill projects that have these requirements around them. Removing these delays is exactly what we should be doing as a state.

I'm I believe I'm a co author. If not, I'd like to be added and I'd be happy to move the bill. And I appreciate the author working on this, working with your local community to try to resolve an issue that we know is real and happy to move the bill.

Do you have a motion, mister Patterson?

If the bill hasn't been seconded, I will second it. But I'm gonna repeat something I said a couple years ago. And this isn't personal, but this is just my perspective.

I find it absolutely appear apparent that a regulatory agency, which is tasked with interpreting the laws of the people of California not making policy, comes into committee to oppose the leg a legislator's piece of legislation to set policy, which is within its not only its right, but its actual function as a government to tell the regulators what to do. And I understand you have constitutional protections that the people have given you, that the legislature wanted to see happen.

But, you know, you mentioned in your statement your your deep concern for keeping the coast affordable for visitors. Well, the Coastal Commission has done nothing to actually keep the coast affordable for people who wanna live there. And all the people who work in those hotels that you're talking about, are people who likely live in, like, Riverside County and they're driving to the coast. And, you know, I mean, this legislature passes policies. We say, hey, we want ADUs.

The Coastal Commission rejects ADUs. I just you know, it's about time that the legislature reign in the Coastal Commission. I mean, maybe just gut its budget, you know, do something crazy because it acts independently and it actually sends people to the legislature to oppose policy. It's our job to create policy. Your job or not your job, the Coastal Commission appointee job to implement the desire of the people of California in the legislature.

We are the policymakers, not the Coastal Commission. So I'll continue to say it every single time the Coastal Commission feels the need to send somebody here to testify on a piece of legislation. So I look forward to supporting this measure today.

Alright. We I think we had a motion in a second. May I close?

So first of all, I mean, this bill has been characterized as sort of a broad set of exemptions in the coastal zones. Even before this was limited to the city of Santa Monica, it applied to a about a dozen portions of a dozen jurisdictions and to a very limited number of things, including housing, outdoor dining, temporary events, bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, all things that actually allow people from the state of California to enjoy and live in the coastal zone.

I think that's consistent with Coastal Act policy. It's not inconsistent. We have done everything we can in we we worked with the former chief counsel of the Coastal Commission to basically refine the bill and make sure that we weren't doing anything that allowed any kind of impact on sensitive coastal resources.

We also refined the bill significantly many, many amendments that basically, protected public beach parking and parking along the beach, and be for beach access. So the assertion that we, are allowing beach parking lots to be taken out is just absolutely false. If you look at the amendments, that doesn't allow that. The assertion that this is a broad that this applies to mixed use developments is also not accurate.

And then I just wanna say something about just sort of the underlying assertions about the city of Santa Monica and the LCP.

I asked the city of Santa Monica to give me a history of what happened with the certification of their LCP. The last LCP that they submitted in full was in 2020, and the Coastal Commission asked them to withdraw it because they didn't have the resources to comply with the time deadlines to process it. Then when they came back, they asked them to completely redo the LCP on a resubmission, which required them to start up the whole process again. This has been going on for many years.

This is not the fault of the city of Santa Monica.

It's a it's the it is the it is part of a very long process where there are some some legitimate policy debates between the city of Santa Monica. But what I will say is that the whole vision of the Coastal Act was that LCPs were supposed to be things that were the vision of the city. They were supposed to be coming from the city, and the Coastal Commission was supposed to be assuring compliance with those policies.

So I just, you know, just wanna take a little bit of umbrage about sort of the vilification of Santa Monica for not having an LCP. That is not the fault of the city of Santa Monica.

And and then the the last thing I'm gonna say is this bill isn't about Santa Monica. This bill is about issues that we have across these kinds of areas in many jurisdictions in the state of California, some that have LCPs approved, some that don't. And it's really about the the fact that, that it is really difficult in these areas to have things that allow people to live and enjoy the coast getting approved where we don't have habitat that we have to protect.

This is all about public access. And when we, when cities like Santa Monica and Los Angeles and San Diego and others, have invested in transit, we should be supporting the transit.

The fact that we can't actually build bike lanes in Santa Monica without having a parking lot added to actually, you know, to support, I guess, the bike lane because the the bike access is not viewed as public access to the coast it's just something that just indicates that that the Coastal Commission policies are advancing really sort of non you know, antiquated policies in terms of what constitutes public access.

With that said, I do think that one of the things that the coastal advocates raised about how this bill how this bill would have initially potentially impacted the ability to access the beach for people who drive to the beach and are gonna continue driving to the beach and aren't gonna take public access. We've taken many amendments. That's what we work primarily with the former chief counsel of the Coastal Commission, and we basically really tightened up the requirements so that you can't take out beach parking lots.

So that we're protecting parking at the beach.

So we're protecting the ability of someone who is not gonna take transit or bike or pedestrian to be able to drive to the beach and be able to park. We we included caps on even raising parking rates so that parking rates can't be raised more than than CPI.

So I think we've done a good faith effort to really try to address, I think, the legitimate public access issues that were raised, and I do think that there were some legitimate issues that were raised with the first version of the bill. So with that, I just wanna thank, the bill sponsors here today. I wanna thank the opposition.

We will continue working with them, as the bill moves through this, through the process. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Mister Zibur, and thank you for your your hard work on this together with your your your sponsors. And and as as you know, I'm supportive of the bill. I you know, for for our state, the need to invest in and support the growth of urbanized housing dense transit rich environments is critical. It's critical for what this committee does, which is working to meet the housing needs of our state, but it's critical also for our climate goals.

It's critical for our economic opportunities, and some of that is going to happen to have have to happen along the coast.

I represent in some ways a similar community in some areas, and, our need to be able to do that in a in a way that reflects, the need to grow, the need to go in a thoughtful way, but the need to invest in transit, they need to invest in bike lanes, to invest in housing, to allow for these kind of opportunities, is so critical.

And I appreciate the the thought and the care that you're putting into this to make sure we can do that while also recognizing the concerns, as you said, the valid concerns that have been raised by some of the opposition. And this is something that I know is meeting the needs of of of a community you represent and also aspects of it, I think, you know, could meet the needs of other parts of our state as well.

And so with that, we have a motion in a second. We'll take a roll call vote.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. Haney. Aye.

Haney, aye. Harrison. Aye. Harrison, aye. Avila Farias.

Caloza. Aye. Caloza, aye. Garcia. Kalra. Lee. Kalra, aye.

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

Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson.

6 - 0. We'll leave that open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Mister Harabedian. No agenda item number nine, AB 2094.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And thank you for your work on 2094, the bill in front of you noting that there are two other authors, behind me. This one is not very controversial. This bill would establish a social housing coordinator within HCD. That housing coordinator would come up with a plan and a timeline for actually building social housing.

This is a small bill in many ways and shouldn't be very controversial, but I think it's important for all the reasons laid out in the analysis. And I do appreciate the committee's work. This bill looks very different than it looked when it came to you, and I think it is an important step. There will be a study that's published at the end of this year on social housing. This will be the the next step.

We'll have a quarterback to act actually implement it here in the state. Wanna give a shout out to Assemblymember Lee, who has been a champion of social housing long before I have. Here with me is Scott Epstein with Abundant Housing LA. Again, I know time is of the essence. I'd ask Scott to probably get to the punch line, maybe an an abridged version of whatever he was going to say, and then we're happy to answer any questions.

So thank you.

Yeah. Fantastic. Hello again. Scott Epstein with Abundant Housing LA. Proud to support AB 2094.

You know, everyone in this room knows that we're in a huge housing crisis, and a crisis of this magnitude requires a range of solutions, and social housing is an important piece of that puzzle. I would say Abundant Housing LA is particularly interested in mixed income social housing models that create financial stability and widen the political constituency, for publicly funded and administered housing. We are also excited about the opportunity to accelerate the use of surplus public land for housing.

As the assembly member said, there is a report coming by the end of the year pursuant to a Senator Wahab's bill. This is a way to move the ball forward by, appointing a social housing coordinator who can create a concrete scaling plan for social housing.

I strongly urge your support. Thank you so much.

Alright. We have other folks who are here in support of this bill.

My name is Isaac Glasser. I'm with Cutting Edge Homes and Cutting Edge Modular in support of the bill.

Alright. Do we have anyone here in opposition to this bill? Opposition okay. Right. Was that opposition coming up or yes?

Hi. Thank you, Chair. Anthony Tannahill with California Special Districts Association. We had an opposing list of men on our prior version of the measure and are still looking at it, still talking to the author. I just I saw some analysis. I wanted to to to mention that. Thank you.

Okay. Mister Lee.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I really appreciate the offer bringing this before. And I know this is not the initial bill you dreamed of, but I do think it is very important that we continue to advance the model of social housing and catch up with other countries in the world, but also now other states in the world.

As many of my colleagues know, I work on a lot of niche cutting edge issues that are not very popular at the time when we start working on them, but I'm very happy to see this bill advancing. And I do think it's complimentary to the efforts of the study is should the study come out very favorably, coordinate position or position person inside administration should use that information to act on in a more concrete way.

I I don't know if the, report itself is a much more actionable as is a vision as a coordinator position, so that's why I think it's very valuable. And so I really appreciate your work in advancing social housing. I'd love to join you as a joint author on this bill, and I would be happy to move the bill today. Thank you.

Love to have you. Thank you.

Great. Miss Quirk-Silva.

Yeah. I wanna appreciate the author author for bringing this forward, but also Assemblymember Lee who, as he just noted, when he initially started speaking about social housing there, there was quite a bit of, I think, individuals that were not sure. And he has done an excellent job of educating and getting not only individuals, but members to understand that this is yet another type of effort that we could make in the state of California.

But your bill makes it very intentional by working through HCD to have a focus, And I think it's going to provide an opportunity that we haven't looked at seriously once this moves forward with a report and then an individual that's focusing on this. So with that, I would move the bill unless he already did.

Motion to second. Alright. Any other comments? Not seeing any.

May I close? Appreciate the comments. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, mister Harabedian, and thank you for your leadership on this. And I know mister Lee has been working very hard on this for some time and excited to see other folks step in. This has been a strategy that this committee has been very, very supportive, and I think this is an another important step to how we can make sure that we move forward with this opportunity for our state.

I know there's some analysis and studies and such that are happening, but we'd like to see the beginning of the framework that will actually allow us to make this happen and appreciate your leadership in moving that forward, and we will take a roll call vote.

Motion do pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. Haney. Aye.

Haney, aye. Harrison. Avila Farias. Avila Farias. Aye. Caloza. Aye. Caloza, aye. Garcia.

Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye. Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson.

Alright. We have would be Stephanie. Item number 13 AB2146.

I do have witnesses. You want me to start without my witnesses? Okay.

I move the bill.

Yes. Second.

Okay. Okay. I'm done. Okay. Great.

Here he is. Okay. Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues. I'll be quick because I see a lot of my colleagues in the back. Today, I'm presenting AB 2146. And what this bill really is about is making sure that we're getting homeless people housed and cutting all the bureaucratic red tape that really continues to get in the way. Right now, we are asking, people who are homeless to prove that they are homeless before they get a unit.

We are asking them for rental histories, verification letters, and references, documents that many people do not have or have really no safe to keep when they're homeless.

And while they try to track down those papers, they have to wait for a unit. This bill allows individuals to self certify that they are homeless instead of forcing them to chase down that paperwork. That really delays their paths to housing. It recognizes that when someone has finally reached the top of the list, the system should be opening doors and not putting more hurdles in their way. It also addresses an issue that, supportive units, can remain vacant for a long time.

I remember being on the board of supervisors with you, Chair Haney, and we would hear from our housing providers that we have all these people out on the street, but often these units are sitting vacant because our system's not working in a way that's getting people housed, and that absolutely needs to stop.

AB 2146 also creates a practical backstop so that if a unit has been vacant for too long, providers can act to fill it while still preserving fairness and protecting the role of the coordinated entry system. At its core, this bill is about removing unnecessary red tape so people can get housed faster. No one should have to prove they're homeless in this way that we're asking them to, and no home should be left empty while someone's waiting for a place to live.

With me, I have two incredible witnesses, J.T. Harechmak with the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, and William Goodwin with Resources for Community Development and a member of the Resident United Network Committee at Housing California.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and members of the committee. Excuse me. My name is William Goodwin. My journey through housing insecurity began when I became disabled.

In a matter of months, I was terminated from my job, losing my apartment, and then everything I owned in storage. I did not have the safety net of community and resources I was familiar with, and so my medical condition worsened as I quickly realized you can't heal physically while you are experiencing mental trauma.

I took some time to recover, but after seven long years, my daughter and I were fortunate enough to find our affordable union, but there were 2,400 other applicants who also deserve housing, all vying for 72 units of available housing. We are the lucky ones. My number came up in the lottery list, but as we know now, those lists are up upwards of 5,000, 10,000 people waiting, and it was touch and go for me.

Sometimes it's just one thing that could determine whether a person will get housed or not. I recall being in the rental office and the property manager was speaking to someone on the phone asking whether they had this document or that document first and last, able to pass background check, et cetera. Finally, after hanging up the phone, he turned to me and he asked, do you have all your documentation?

I felt fortunate to be able to say yes, but what he didn't know was that it had taken upwards of several months for me to get the documents that I needed. First, a birth certificate, then a Social Security card in order to get a license or an ID.