Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We have eight items on our agenda today. Two of the items are on consent, SB 722 Wahab and SB 1426, which is a housing committee bill. To facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time we have, each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each witness will get two minutes each.

Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website, which will become part of the official record. We will not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. We are in Room 447, which is a different room than normal for us. And the hearing room is open for in person attendance, of this hearing. And all are encouraged to watch the hearing from this live stream on the assembly's website.

We, do not have quorum yet, so we will start as a subcommittee, but I see we do have some authors. So we will go in file order. So we'll start with number item number one, SB457 Becker, and then quickly get to mister Seyarto, who I know is here on time as well. Mister Becker, SB457, you may begin.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Before I begin, I wanna thank the committee and their staff, for their work on this issue and let you know I will be accepting the committee's amendments on page nine of the analysis. SB 457 directs HCD to develop statistical formulas grounded in historical development data that cities can use to satisfy the site inventory analysis of their housing element. We all know the RHNA process has become enormously costly.

Cities in my district spend approximately $25,000,000 or spent, approximately $25,000,000 on the sixth cycle alone with some city spending up to 15% of their annual budget to achieve a compliance.

So we wanna achieve the goals, but how can we do that with less spending? Those costs were all for paperwork, not for housing. Reno requires every city to conduct a site's inventory analysis to show that it has enough land realistically capable of being developed to meet its housing allocation. But the law vaguely defines what realistic means in practice. The result is a parcel by parcel analysis that has frustrated both cities and I should say HCD alike.

Meanwhile, over 40,000 approved affordable housing projects remain unbuilt statewide. We're experiencing scarce resources, and expending, excuse me, scarce resources on paperwork while families are struggling to pay the rent. I've talked extensively with housing advocates, local governments, and developers. They all agree that our current approach needs to change. SB 457 creates new tools for cities and provides a compliance safe harbor for those who correctly apply their formula to their site inventory analysis.

To be clear, this bill does not tell cities how to zone. It does not exempt a city from developing their housing element with input from the public, and it does not remove requirements that cities affirmatively further affirmatively further fair housing. This bill takes an important step towards grounding the housing element process in real data. And I'm really excited to have an all star team here with me today in support.

We have the city economist of San Francisco, Ted Egan, and noted UC Davis professor of law, Chris Elmendorf.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Ted Egan, and I am the chief economist of the city and county of San Francisco. I direct an office under the city controller that reports on the economic impact of pending city legislation, and I've held this position since 2007. Since that time, my office has analyzed many pieces of legislation related to housing, zoning, and development.

Over the past ten years, in collaboration with the Blue Sky Consulting Group, we have built models that allow us to understand how changes in fees, taxes, zoning, and other policies would affect housing production in San Francisco.

The models we have built are similar to what SB 457 would require HCD to build. I'm here to describe our work and to answer any questions you might have. For our purposes, the value of these models comes from the fact that they use data on past construction to forecast the future. They look at every parcel in the city over a number of years and use statistics to answer what explains why each parcel did or did not develop new housing in that year.

These factors include market factors like housing prices and construction costs.

They also include characteristics of the parcel like its size and location and existing use as well as zoning policies like allowable land use and building heights. The model can tell us how sensitive citywide housing production is to propose zoning changes or to other changes that would affect the developer's revenue or costs. Obviously, many decisions will need to be made about how exactly a model like this would fit into the housing element planning process.

But having a credible way to estimate how much housing a rezoning would produce does seem like a missing piece of a planning approach that relies on zoning to meet housing targets. I believe this type of model, while novel, is no more complex than the transportation and land use models that are already being used by metropolitan planning organizations across the state.

I hope our experience is helpful as you consider this approach if this approach would be a feasible and worthwhile step forward for California planning. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for inviting my testimony today. I'm Chris Elmendorf, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law with expertise in California land use and housing. SB 457 is a modest effort to tackle two fundamental problems with California's housing element process. The first is that the law presumes that sites are either good or bad for housing development with nothing in between.

Yet as recent studies show, sites exist on a continuum of development potential. In fact, one study found that during the last planning period, most housing development in Bay Area cities was occurring on sites that hadn't been included in a city's housing element.

Instead of giving cities zero credit towards their arena target for zone capacity on putatively bad sites and full credit for capacity on the supposedly good ones, that's more or less how it works today, the law should give partial credit to all sites in proportion to their probability of development during the planning period. Put differently, sites would count for their expected yield in new housing.

The second problem is the housing element law is supposed to let a city's duly elected leaders decide where and how their city will grow so long as it grows enough.

Yet the requirements of the law have become so opaque and complex that no one can say with any certainty whether a given housing plan is legally sufficient. For a city's elected leaders to exercise meaningful authority over where and how their city grows, there needs to be an objective rubric for scoring housing plans.

If the rubric was known at the start of the planning period, city planners could draw up and present a range of compliant plans and the city council could then make the political choice that the law assigns to them. SB 457 empowers HCD to establish that objective scoring rubric using the expected yield definition of site capacity. No city would be required to use it, but cities that do so would be insulated from lawsuits arguing that their housing plans do not provide sufficient capacity.

The scoring rubric won't be perfect, but it will be a big step in the right direction adding economic realism and restoring meaningful political choices to the housing element process. Lastly, time is of the essence. The first housing elements for the next cycle are due in January 2029, which means that this bill must pass this year if it's to work for the next planning period. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Other folks who are here in support of this bill, name, organization, and position, please. Are you you here? Yeah.

Michael Lang with Spur, bill sponsor, and strong support. Thanks.

Good morning. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good morning,Chair, Members of the committee. Jordan Perna Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much.

Alright. Is there any opposition witnesses to this bill?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and respectful opposition. I would like to sincerely thank the committee, for their work on the measure and also wanna express my gratitude to the author and his staff for their tremendous engagement. The author has a tremendous open door policy, so we really appreciate that. Again, thank you for accepting the committee amendments, and we look forward to continuing to engage with the author's office regarding our remaining outstanding concern.

Thank you so much.

Great. All right. Anybody else here in opposition to the bill? Not seeing anyone. All right.

We will bring it back to the committee. Committee members, questions, comments? Nope. Not seeing any. Alright.

Give you the chance to close.

Well, thank you. I wanna thank our experts here. And, you know, when I my folk you know, try to have practical bills that are focused on how can we get the house development we need, while streamlining processes and, yeah, and just trying to take that that kind of practical approach, and I appreciate the research, Dennis, or experts that lead to this. Appreciate my team for the work, and thank you for hearing the bill respectfully asking for my vote.

Thank you, and thank you, Senator, for for your leadership. I agree with you. Sometimes, you know, we write these laws or have these requirements and how it plays out in reality is not always how we we we thought it up.

And I think this is going back and making sure that if our goal is to have the capacity and the zoning and the the plans that is going to lead to housing actually being built, some of this parcel by parcel way of doing it may not be the only way to think about it. I think this is an interesting approach and and one that has some urgency with the the coming cycle.

So and, of course, having my my own city economist here sways me a bit. But, generally, really appreciate your leadership here and and look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other ways that we can make sure that the housing element compliance works for localities and also accomplishes its goals. So we will take a vote on this when we have a quorum and, again, appreciate your work and your leadership. Thank you. Good to see you all.

Alright. We will call up item three, SB 904. Mister Seyarto, welcome.

Alright. Well, thank you very much. Honorable Chair, I'm here to present SB 904 in committee. SB 904 builds upon the broad and coordinated agency response efforts demonstrated in the LA County and Palisades Fires last year, and ensures similar responses will be undertaken for all future state of emergency wildfire disasters. Specifically, the bill codifies the provisions from executive order n four twenty five that focus on identifying permitting requirements and building codes that may impede rebuilding efforts.

While there is a long road ahead for rebuilding in LA County, rebuilding permit reviews are averaging under thirty days in accordance with the goals of the executive order, and roughly one for every five of the homes lost have been permitted as of January 2026. This exemplifies a relatively faster recovery process than in years past. Contrast this with the communities impacted by the Camp Fire in 2018. Almost eight years later, only one in five homes have been rebuilt.

While there are varying factors that impact recovery speed in different communities and contexts, one wonders how much similar regulatory relief efforts and agency coordination could have assisted in their recovery as well.

The bottom line is that this sort of relief and urgent coordination ought to be standard procedure for all wildfire disasters moving forward. This bill will help to ensure no wildfire disaster communities get overlooked in future recovery efforts. Furthermore, this standard reporting mechanism with state and local agency expertise will equip the legislature with the best data to respond to each emergency context.

Should the bill pass out of committee today, I also intend to introduce the author's amendments in Assembly Emergency Management Committee to further limit the scope of the provisions relating to electronic document submissions to exempt cities with the population less than 50,000 and delay implementation until 2028. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do you

Thank you. Do you have witnesses? No.

No witnesses. I do not sincerely bring.

I do not sincerely bring

Handle this on your own. They're being absolutely necessary. Alright. Let's hope it's not. Anyone here in support of the bill?

Alright. Hey. Brave man here. Alright. Do we have anybody here who's in opposition to the bill?

Not seeing that either. Anybody who wanna register opposition? No. Okay. Committee committee members.

Mister Ward.

Thanks. I wanna thank the other for bringing this forward. I certainly understand your interest in working on the subject areas, your long

your your long

lived experience on emergency management and and working on fire related challenges and your commitment, of course, to working on expediting housing. But I'm having trouble understanding, I guess, the the need for the bill, given that we've already passed legislation that is I mean, this is a study bill that is really going to yes. Wanna codify things that, happened in the executive order, which, of course, can always be done for further executive orders.

But we've also learned from those lessons pretty quickly and passed even, legislation, assembly bills, Senate bills that have now required certain action in the form of permitting, streamlining. So what what do you hope to gain out of a study bill that would not be implemented until 2028 that we're already doing to expedite housing and keeping our permit times under thirty days?

Yeah. This isn't a study bill. This is, requires HCD to, gather the information on each of these different fires on the various, aspects of code I mean, building codes and and and other related, regulatory items so that they, they are considered by us when because not every fire is the same. You know, some of them involve coastal commission. Some of them involve, different habitat conservation agencies and things like that.

And so each area has something to learn and, and something to be gained. And when we are able to coalesce this information, doesn't require, any changes to anything. What it requires is that they get the information promptly so that they can make a plan and get these people back to building their homes and get their, their homes rebuilt. It is simply a streamlining, it streamlining process, so that we can, enable people to recover faster.

And that is something that has, been put into place and it obviously, has worked, to to some extent.

Probably not as well as we would like it to work, but, when we compare it to past incidents, when they have to reinvent the wheel after every single incident, This is the what we have done works better and that's why it's I think it's a good idea to codify it so that HCD knows what their responsibilities are and the local agencies and whatever regulatory agencies are out there know what their responsibilities are to be able to, to help us navigate that when we are trying to help people recover.

Because I guess as much as I've been paying attention to it too, I haven't heard that there's a problem of understanding, people's responsibilities and jurisdictions. And again, I'd underscore that, you know, we've been, as a legislature responding to really compel, expedited action and really, we we know where the barriers are and we know we want to break through whether it's a wildfire response and emergency rebuilding or, just general need for more housing production. Right.

That, you know, we've had a tuned eye towards that over recent years right now. You said it's not a study bill, but, maybe I'm maybe I'm, you know, sort of meant some words here. But literally, this bill just requires reports to the legislature.

It requires prompt reports to the legislator specific to the incident that happened. And and that's I, I'm not quite sure what you're

What the bill is asking.

Because you can't you can't determine for every fire in advance what the impacts are or or what the agencies are gonna be involved in that are going to require, say, habitat studies and and other things like that. When you have you're you're talking about replacing a house that burned down. The house is already there. There are certain things that can be streamlined. And it doesn't even say we're waiving any of that stuff.

All it's saying is it's identifying promptly those areas. And, while some of our actions are they're related specifically to the two fires that we have had in LA They don't apply to other fires. We have, the airport fire down in which is closer to our our district. There's a 150 homes that burned down and those people are still standing there with their ashes. And, because some of the regulatory relief that has occurred with the other fires is not occurring with theirs.

Yeah.

And so, as we have more and more of these fires statewide, we better have a plan to be able to help those people get recovered recovery faster. Because for some of them, this is they don't recover.

Yeah. They had to I've been specifically require legislation that we passed as requires a like for like replacement and automatic permit issuance for a like for like a facility structure. Right. And so, again, so what the bill is asking here is, you know

What other impediments are there to getting that done specific to wherever that emergency is?

Sure. What the bill is asking for is more governmental function, time, study, review, reports of the legislature in several years. And I'm wondering, while I haven't opposed that in the past, to what end and what benefit are we getting for a bill that's being authored to ask for more governmental activity? And that would be good if I felt like there was something that we were going to get out of that investment.

Right. So what we should be getting out of it is having one in five permits done in one year as opposed to one in five permits done in eight years. That's the that's the good that is being done by this bill.

But you

would acknowledge that in recent efforts right now, we're seeing permits being issued with under, less than thirty days.

Right. Because of the actions that were taken to identify the impediments to be for these people to get to the rebuilding process. Right. And also making sure that permits are are turned in in time. Not like I said, not every incident has the exact same issues.

Yeah. And the the even the laws that we have passed are not going to necessarily cover every issue. Yeah. This is specific to the fires where they happen and, and enable the agencies, all the regulatory agencies that are involved in that to be able to quickly identify what their process would be so the HCD can report to us that, hey, these are the these are the things that need to be done for these people to recover.

And these are some of the things that we probably can do to streamline that.

And, and if we have to take any legislative action to do more, like we have already done Then we can identify that and learn from that. And and as we go on, there'll probably be less and less of a burden for for these agencies. But the biggest burden is on the people whose houses burned down, and they're standing there two years later looking at ashes and not cleared lots Yeah. Because they can't get through a process that everyone else has been able to get through

Because we finally figured it out. And that's what we're trying to do. That's all we're trying to do is help help make sure that we have streamlining available and the information we need is at hand in a timely manner so that we can take the actions that we need to do to help people.

Yeah.

And I appreciate that. And I know we have another author right behind you too. So I'll sort of wrap up and say, I think about that too and have been to Harabedian and have been to many of these communities that have had you know, the we're on the early front of this recent spate of devastation that we're seeing and their need to be able to have government reduce these barriers and be able to rebuild faster right now.

You know, thanks to now Congress member, Gallagher, we've been able to improve things for the Paradise community and others areas of Northern California. And I think, again, as we've seen, like, this continued evolution and more, incidents of devastated communities, you know, the legislature has responded.

So I'll think a little bit critically, as this kind of comes up here to to to vote timing right now about, you know, the necessity for this. But I wanna underscore, I just don't wanna do something that is going to cause state agencies to have to, like, you know, basically spin their wheels when we already may already be ahead of the game. Actually, we should be ahead of the game because we know what we need to do to be able to reduce these barriers.

We're already analyzing it pretty quickly through these executive orders. And if we can, you know, wrap that up within a year to be able to reflect that in more direct legislation, direct action, that's what I'd like to be able to see about our work effort.

So we'll think critically about this.

we'll we'll think critically

Thank you, Mister Chair.

about this.

Alright. Let's establish quorum first.

Haney. Present. Haney, here. Harrison. Avila Farias. Here. Avila Farias, here.

Present.

Haney here. Harrison. Abila Farias. Here. Abila Farias here.

Caloza. Here. Caloza, here. Ward. Ward, here.

Kalra. Lee. Lee, here. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, here. Ta. I'm here. Ta, here. Tangipa. Here. Tangipa, here. Wicks. Wilson.

Tab?

I'm here.

Tab here. Tangipa? Here. Tangipa here. Wicks?

Wilson.

Alright. We have quorum. Mister Tangipa.

Yeah. I just wanna thank the Senator for really bringing this forward. And I do believe that the, we understand the intentions here. And, you know, I know that the the member from San Diego had some concerns, but I think the main point of this bill is if we can expedite housing and we can see that permitting can actually come through, it shouldn't take an emergency, an executive action to say whether we can or can't do it because the proof is there.

And entire communities shouldn't burn down for us to learn from it.

But if we are going to learn a lesson from it, we should be able to implement that to build housing quicker. And those are the lessons learned that we're seeing through a lot of what's happening with these catastrophic wildfires, that we should probably look at implementing that into our system to say, okay. If we can expedite permitting here, we can get people back into housing. Maybe there are lessons learned that we should also implement into general permitting. So I wanna thank the Senator for that.

We need to get people back into their homes, and especially if we are on the precipice for some of the largest fires probably in American history due to some of the conditions of our forest. We can work together to make sure that we're prepared for the next type of emergencies. So thank you.

Miss Quirk-Silva.

I too wanna thank the author. I mean, over and over, almost every hearing that we have in housing, whether it's on the Senate side or the assembly side, it has been with the intent to not only build housing, but to streamline. And, unfortunately, when we have had these fires up and down the state from Chico to Paradise to to Los Angeles, we can go back to those communities as I have.

We I actually toured, I believe it was Chico in Paradise last year, and we saw that five years later, particularly with the Paradise fire, there was still some building happening, but certainly not at the rate that we would expect. And we have seen that in Los Angeles, that even though the families are there, moving through the steps that they are asked, we have, many times a backlog and bureaucracy that keeps, these units or should say family homes being built.

So I would move the bill today and continue to focus on streamlining.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second on the bill. Mister Sarathy, may close.

I think we explored most of this issue pretty well and I simply asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your leadership.

As miss Quirk Silva said, we have unfortunately had to have a lot of conversations about how to rebuild following fires in this committee and we'll have to continue to and making sure that it actually gets done, that we're looking at how to do it in a in a resilient way, but also a fast way and any barriers and requirements that may exist that that could help us do that, I think is is a thoughtful approach and appreciate your leadership and commitment to it.

And because we have a quorum, we can take a roll call vote. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management.

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

Aye.

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

Caloza? Aye. Caloza, aye. Ward? Kalra? Lee? Aye.

Lee?

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

Aye.

Aye.

Ta, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Wicks? Wilson?

Aye.

Hanky Puff? Aye.

Hanky Puff? Wicks Wilson.

Alright. Can we do a motion and a second on the the consent?

Thank you.

Yeah. For sure. Thank you.

Okay.

Alright.

Beautiful.

Consent item number two, SB 722. One Do pass to the assembly committee and local government. Item a, SB 1426, housing do pass. [Roll Call]

Aye.

Haney, aye. Patterson. Avila Farias?

Avila Farias, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Ward.

Aye.

Cholera.

Lee? Aye.

Lee, aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Pork Silva, aye. Ta?

Aye. Ta, aye. Tagipa? Aye. Tagipa, aye.

Wicks Wilson.

Alright. The consent calendar is out. Alright. Miss Caballero, welcome. Item number four, SB1091. You may begin when ready.

You may begin when ready.

Yeah. He already came.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. First, let me personal privilege, thank you so much for doing a tour, when you were going around the state last year. It was great to see you in Fresno and really appreciate the time that you spent in the downtown area where they've really prioritized, building up and, creating economic opportunity. So thank you for that.

So, mister Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1091, an important bill to stabilize the low income families to stabilize low income families in their communities and prevent tenant displacement through the acquisition, preservation, or otherwise known as AC rehab of existing rental housing.

Specifically, the bill creates the community anti displacement and preservation program or CAP within the Department of Housing and Community Development. The program will provide financial resources and technical capacity building for community organizations, nonprofit affordable housing developers, and local jurisdictions that wish to acquire unsubsidized, naturally affordable housing developments that currently exist and preserve them as affordable rental or homeownership opportunities. As California's affordable housing crisis crisis worsened, unsubsidized affordable housing is disappearing at an alarming rate, and fewer low income families can find stable housing.

As rent outpaces demand, housing becomes less accessible and more unaffordable, displacing people from their homes and communities. Acquisition and preservation of unsubsidized affordable housing is a proven successful local model that prevents displacement and grows the supply of affordable housing.

SB 1091 is one important step to prevent displacement, homelessness, and to stabilize families in their communities in homes they can afford. With me today is Justine Marcus, policy director with Enterprise Community Partners, and also Tamika Lecluse, the executive director of Sacramento Community Land Trust.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Justine Marcus, policy director with Enterprise Community Partners. We're a national nonprofit that develops technical assistance, advocates for policies, and delivers capital for affordable housing. We're proud to be one of the co sponsors of SB 1091.

There's no silver bullet for our housing crisis. We need a comprehensive approach for the state, and this bill would fill a niche yet unmet by the state with resources for acquisition preservation. In communities across California, nonprofits, community land trusts, cities, housing authorities have already been doing this innovative work for over a decade. These organizations are purchasing rental housing from the private market where low income households live today and preserving it as deed restricted affordable housing for the long run.

CAP was envisioned and designed to build on these best practices from the local level and bring this model to scale.

Drawing from the success of the state's Golden State Acquisition Fund, which for over a decade has provided acquisition capital for land to build new affordable housing, CAP is a partnership between the state and nonprofit lenders to quickly distribute program funds at the speed of the market. Local nonprofits, community based organizations can then manage these buildings as deed restricted affordable housing, rental, or ownership. We like to say that acquisition preservation is a two bird, one seed approach.

It both prevents displacement and homelessness for the residents of these buildings today while also growing our supply of affordable housing for decades to come. We hear from local partners regularly about the impact of their local work, but we also hear about the missed opportunities in the absence of state resources to scale this work.

SB 1091 was designed to fill this gap and with a potential state affordable housing bond this November to provide the needed resources, we have the opportunity to jump start this program. We respectfully urge your aye vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Haney and members of the committee. My name is Tamika L'Ecluse. I'm the executive director of Sacramento Community Land Trust, and I'm here today representing the California CLT Network. Sacramento CLT prevents displacement and builds power in for historically discriminated communities to combat neighborhood deterioration and market speculation by fostering multigenerational equitable development.

You all know about California's housing crisis, but I what I wanna tell you is about the power of affordable housing preservation and why it can have such a big impact here in Sacramento and communities across the state. In Sacramento County alone, there are more than 23,000 naturally occur occurring unsubsidized homes in multifamily buildings that are at risk of becoming unaffordable within the next five years. That represents 57% of unsubsidized affordable homes in the county.

That's tens of thousands of families that could be priced out or displaced, and we see these similar trends across the state. But the good news is these buildings are generally fairly affordable to acquire, far cheaper than new construction, and quicker than building from the ground up.

We can readily move people into these homes. Across California, we have a strong and growing ecosystem of community land trusts and other nonprofit affordable housing organizations who are positioned to identify, purchase, rehab, and steward these properties as affordable for generations. And we know that this works because we've seen it at the local level. In 2020, LA County dedicated $14,000,000 to preserve eight multifamily properties with 43 homes enabling a 110 individuals to live in stable housing.

And if you're doing the math, that's only about 325,000 per unit.

However, there's no state program, zero state funding to acquire and preserve existing affordable homes on the private market before speculators come in and flip them and residents are priced out of our communities. At the local level, funding has been limited and consistent, and it's often one time in nature, meaning that today we're unable to bring this strategy to scale, a strategy that has proven to be successful, cost effective, and quick.

So cap will change that, and we urge your aye vote today on SB 1091. Thank you.

Thank you. Others who are here in support of the bill, name, organization, and position, please.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of All Home and the California Housing Partnership. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Raymond Contreras on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission in strong support.

Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California, proud co sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Maddie Ribbel on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network. Proud co sponsor in strong support.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Andres Ramos with Public Advocates, but on behalf of the Housing Now Coalition and tenants together in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Committee members. My name's Annette Williams with Public Advocates. We are proud co sponsor of SB 1091. Thank you, Mister Chair, members.

Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association in support.

Hi. Good morning. Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Mountain View Community Land Trust and Housing Trust Silicon Valley in support.

Good morning. Brian Augusta on behalf of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Coalition for Rural Housing, and the Sacramento Housing Alliance in support.

Yeah.

John Collins on behalf of the Oakland Community Land Trust and the California Community Land Trust Network in strong support.

Jean Diaz, Saint Joseph Community Land Trust in Lake Tahoe. We very much support this bill.

Good morning. Danny Kendall Kaiser on behalf of public council in strong support.

Great. Thank you all for being here, and thank you for your work. Do we have any opposition witnesses? I don't believe so. Do we have any opposition at all? Not seeing any. Bring it back to the committee. Have a motion.

Second.

And a second. Miss Quirk-SIlva.

I really like this bill. Thank you. And it, I have some housing words that I like to use. But this really lands in what I think this year is going to come down to which is prevention, which means keeping people in their units. And we had an excellent bill from Assemblymember's Jesse Gabriel a few weeks ago related to prevention and asked asking HCD to really be more focused on that.

And this bill is about preservation. So prevention and preservation. And we can't underestimate how much that really means to keeping people housed, and we've spent so much time in this committee on homelessness and on building units, and sometimes, the solutions are right there in front of us, and we haven't acted as aggressively as we can.

So I expect that this is not only a excellent bill, but it will be something in the next years, which is prevention and preservation that we're going to have to really put at the top of the list. As we know, there's many other issues of how fast you can build a unit.

What's the affordable price? But when we see these units that can be attained, and yet we don't have the investment ready to move on. That's where we can lose opportunities and see more people in the house. So not only do I appreciate it, love to be added as a joint author in it, and and it gets my third award of the year. Quirk Silva's Housing Awards. There you go. Our third award of the year.

If I don't get one by the end by the time you leave, I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm a feel some type of way. She's only given out three.

We hear a lot of bills, so this is really hard to get award. Miss Caloza.

so this is this

is really hard to get award. Miss Colosa.

Thank you, chair. And I echo the sentiment from assembly member Quirk Silva. I was actually nominate this for an award as well. But thank you so much to the Senator, to the sponsors for your work on this. And, you know, I think there's we're we we focus a lot on the pipeline and the building of the housing, which is really, really important preservation and prevention is is really important.

And so if we can focus on those three p's, you know, I think we're gonna really make a dent in our housing crisis. And so I would also love to be added as a coauthor. And thank you for your leadership, and thank you to the advocates for, coming to testify and support.

Alright. Give the opportunity to close.

Thank you very much for the comments and for the offers of co authorship. Bottom line is that in many of our communities, we have people who can no longer afford to live in those communities and they're moving out. Whether it's voluntary or a forced move out, it's the same thing. They they lose the connection with the neighborhood where they've raised their children or where their children are going to school.

And so this really creates an opportunity for us to look, to take a proven model that has been quietly operating, on limited funds and make it, a statewide opportunity for communities to really look at where where are there unsubsidized affordable housing and how can we preserve it into the future. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And again, Senator, as as you've heard, we really, really appreciate your your commitment on this effort. I know it's been, an issue that you've worked on for a number of years, and, I know, sadly, we are we're not gonna have you here forever. And so you you have our commitment, to continue this advocacy and to make sure that this is a part of and centered in the conversation around what we're gonna do to address our housing needs.

I had the opportunity to work on a number of small sites when I was, on the board of supervisors in San Francisco.

We have a a small sites program. And just a few months ago, I ran into someone who stopped me, at an event, and she said, you know, do you you remember me? And I said, well, I not not exactly what what she said. Well, you advocated for my family and I to receive funding to say save our our housing, and to be able to stay in the building that we were in. And we just moved back in just a few weeks ago.

This was a building that had three generations of Filipino family members in it, in South Of Market, which is a long standing Filipino neighborhood that is experiencing in in a lot of displacement, and, and they were a part of that community for many, many decades. And the the the building was gonna be is rent controlled, but it was gonna be sold and they were all gonna be forced to leave.

Instead, because of the small sites program, they we not only purchased the building, renovated it, made sure it it was up to code and everything else, and the families moved back in and they're gonna be able to to stay there in a in a in a permanently deed restricted home. That is so necessary and needed, not only in San Francisco, but many places across the state.

And the fact that the state does not invest in that, I think, is is is is, unfortunately, not going to allow us to meet our broader needs, what as it relates to affordable housing.

So really excited about this bill. I also would love to be a co author if I'm not already, and I hope to see it, be in, the bond as well so that we can make sure there's there's there's funding for it. I know we work together a lot on the budget, ask on this as well. So with that, we have a motion, a second. Did you already close or you did close?

I did and you are a co author.

I am a co author. I thought so. I always join you on this effort. I know as we start off the year, whether it's the budget request or this bill. So again, I hope hope we get it done and get it in the bond as well.

We have a motion in second and we'll take a roll call vote.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Five to one, so we'll keep that open. Thank you. you. So much, Senator. But let's just start. Mister Allen, Yep. We're ready.

Sorry. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and friends. So, residents belonging to homeowner associations and condominium complexes oftentimes find it difficult to make the switch to an electric vehicle because unlike single family homeowners, these residents need to use common area spaces to install the needed infrastructure to charge their vehicles. And we know that the biggest barrier to, you know, to large-scale market proliferation of EVs is accessibility to charging stations. So,more has to be done to, you know, to help prospective EV drivers, including in HOAs.

All right.

Thank you very much, mister chair and friends. So, residents belonging to homeowner associations and condominium complexes oftentimes find it difficult to make the switch to an electric vehicle because unlike single family homeowners, these residents need to use common area spaces to install the needed infrastructure to charge their vehicles. And we know that the biggest barrier to, you know, to large scale market proliferation of EVs is accessibility to charging stations. So more has to be done to you know, to help prospective EV drivers, including in HOAs.

So, last year, I sought to address this issue, and with your support, I authored SB 770, which removed a requirement for HOA residents to name an association as an additional insured on their homeowners' policy. Many consumers were struggling to find insurers that would allow them to add an endorsement for the HOA. Now, we engaged in a lot of dialogue last year, and I made a commitment to Louie that we would get a key issue that remained unresolved from last year's bill addressed this year.

And with your support, I authored SB 770, which removed a requirement for HOA residents to name an association as an additional insured on their homeowners policy. Many consumers were struggling to find insurers that would allow them to add an endorsement for the HOA. Now we engaged in a lot of dialogue last year, and I made a commitment to Louie that we would get a key issue that remained unresolved from last year's bill addressed this year.

And that's what we're coming together to, to present to you. So, there are some concerns that folks from the HOA community had about uncertainty, with regards to liability for damage or injury that might be caused by a charger.

In many cases, the EV charger has to be installed in the common area of a shared parking lot, and privately owned chargers can then potentially create liability for an association for injury or damage that might occur in that common area space. So, this, this bill, SB 1267, would require the installer of an EV charger's charging station to indemnify the association during the installation of the charger and make homeowners, liable for any costs arising from the use of a privately owned charger.

You know, you know, we certainly haven't seen any significant risk of damage or injury associated with these chargers, but I understand and I understood at the time and I continue to. I wanted to honor my commitment to the HOA community. You know, during last year's discussions, there, there's a lack of certainty that's worrying to the HOA's and, and, and, you know, and they're concerned about how it might make it more difficult for them to obtain adequate insurance policies in an increasingly unaffordable market.

So, we've, we have—the only reason why this is not a consent is because the realtors had some issues with particular language.

We have—we've worked closely with them on their opposition. We're gonna be taking amendments in the next committee to address their concerns, and it's my understanding they'll be removing their opposition. Appreciate working with the committee and respectfully ask for an aye vote. We have Louis Brown here who represents the the, the HOAs in their totality.

Yes. In their totality.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf the Community Associations Institute in support of SB 1267 and just express our sincere appreciation for the Senator following through on the conversations we had this last year to address some of these concerns, and we ask for an aye vote.

Yes, ma'am.

In support of SB 1267, and just express our sincere appreciation for the Senator following through, on the conversations we had, this last year to address some of these, concerns, and we ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Anyone else here in support of the bill? Name, position, organization.

Good morning, committee chair. Kai Claussen on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, in support. Thank the author.

John McHale, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, here in support. Thank you.

Ruth McDonald, with Climate Action California, in support.

Alright. Anyone here in opposition? Good morning.

Kevin Rogers on behalf of California Association of Realtors. We want to thank the author, their staff, and sponsor for their efforts to address our members' concerns. As proposed to be amended, the amendments will remove the bill's application subsequent buyers. So, CAR looks forward to formally removing opposition to SB 1267 once the amendments are in print. Thank you.

There you go. Alright. Anyone else here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. Any members of the committee?

Mr. Tangipa?

Yeah. I just wanna thank the author too for working with the opposition. As a former realtor myself, you know, a lot of the questions that were being asked, I kinda understood. But a little bit of their concerns. But I do appreciate the author for working with them to do that.

I was gonna make a motion, but it's already done. So, thank you for that and look forward to supporting.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. May close.

Yeah. I just appreciate all the work and last year and this year and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Well, thank you for being a, a man of your word and, and addressing some of the, the concerns that came up with your work to make...

I burned your vehicle, but it was worth it.

I hope not. Yes. We want more at-home EV charging stations.

It's not an electric vehicle. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. We broke out. It's like, alright.

Yeah. Yes.

I thought you said these things are safe. Right? Alright. We have a motion and a second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second.

Yeah. You're not here yet.

Indemnified.

Yes. You've been indemnified by this bill. Better pass it quickly. Alright.

Motion and second. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

Aye.

[Roll Call]

Haney, Aye. Patterson. Aye. Harrison, Aye. Abila Farias.

Aye. Abila Farias. Aye. Colossa.

Hello, sir. Cholera, Aye. Lee. Lee, Aye. Quirk Silva.

Quirk Silva, Ta. Thankiva. Aye. Quicks Wilson.

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

Alright. For sure. Alright. Let's take a motion and a second on item number one, Becker. Motion from Mr. Lee.

Second from Ms. Caloza. She did it like...

I'm sorry.

She gives me a hard time when she goes first, and I didn't acknowledge that. Sorry, Mr. Kalra, it was like tie. Alright. Well, we have a motion and a second. The motion is—what is it?

Alright. Well, we have a motion and

a second. The motion is what is it?

do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. This is item number one, SP457.

Do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. This is item number one, SB 457.

[Roll Call]

Aye.

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

Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colossa? Colosa, Aye. Ward.

Cholera. Aye. Cholera, Aye. Lee. Aye.

Lee, Aye. Cork Silva? Aye. Pork Silva, Aye. Cap.

Kangipa? No. Kangipa, no. Wicks, Wilson.

Alright. Seven to one. We will keep that open for absent members. We have two bills that we are waiting for, for the authors. Item number five, Mr. Cervantes, SB 1117.

If you're miss Cervantes or her staff, if and you're able to come to the committee room, we would appreciate it. Or, miss Durazo, SB 1361 item seven. Those are the two that we are still waiting on. We did already. We can take some votes. Go ahead.

Sorry. Adding on the consent calendar, item number two is P722 and item number eight is SB1426. [Roll Call]

And so if we if we are ready, we have one more item that we have members here that were absent at the time. And that's item number 3 SB 904. This is assembly member say art of Bill [Roll Call]

Great. Thank you. Well, we are going to move to Senator Cervantes. We have SB 1117. And whenever you're ready.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present Senate bill 1117 today, which will clarify and strengthen existing accessory dwelling unit law. As many know, existing law requires fee charge for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Local governments are barred from imposing impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has interior livable space of 750 square feet or less and requires any impact fees charged for an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space to be charged proportionally in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit on the property. California's housing crisis continues to limit homeownership opportunities and increasing housing cost.

Housing experts estimate a shortage of between 840,000 to 3,500,000 housing units. ADUs are a key component of our housing strategy because they expand housing supply while enabling homeowners to increase the capacity of their homes and build home equity. The legislature has taken many steps to reduce local barriers to ADU permitting, including limiting the imposition of impact fees and prohibiting impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller and requiring the fees for larger ADUS be charged proportionally.

However, some local governments are calculating the impact fee amount based on the entire square footage of the ADU once it exceeds 750 square feet, rather than basing the rather than basing the fees only on the portion above that threshold. This interpretation increases project costs far beyond what the legislature intended and may discourage the construction of ADUs. In jurisdictions where impact fees are more than $10 per square foot, that change can add more than $8,000 to a project cost. Property owners are often forced to either reduce the size of their design to stay under the cap, which limits their potential usefulness of their ADUs or abandon their ADU plans altogether.

feet, rather than basing the rather than basing the fees only on the portion above that threshold. This interpretation increases project costs far beyond what the legislature intended and may discourage the construction of ADUs. In jurisdictions where impact fees are more than $10 per square foot, that change can add more than $8,000 to a project cost. Property owners are often forced to either reduce the size of their design to stay under the cap, which limits their potential usefulness of their ADUs or abandon their ADU plans altogether.

footage of the 80 you once it exceeds 750 square

SB 1117 will help reduce impact fees for homeowners in California.

It clarifies the existing ADU law by ensuring local government assess impact fees only on the portion of the ADU exceeding 750 square feet. This does not increase, reduce, or alter the existing 750 square foot exemption in existing law. By aligning these fee calculations with the intent of the legislature, the bill promotes consistent statewide implementation, it reduces unnecessary cost burdens on homeowners, and supports continue ADU permitting as a pathway to increase sustainable homeownership throughout the state of California.

I understand that there are some concerns that have been raised that you may hear about today, but I'm certainly looking forward to working through those throughout this legislative process.

With me today, we have experts on ADU, Stephanie Gutierrez, and we have Max Debler with California EMB. But I'll allow them to further give comments on the bill today.

Great. Thank you. I think we're gonna do two minutes each. Is it right? Two minutes each. And thank you very much.

And thank you very much.

Hi. My name is Max Dubler. I'm a licensed city planner and policy analyst in California. You can be here to answer any technical questions.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Stephanie Gutierrez. I'm an ADU strategist.

Would you mind moving the mic a little bit closer? Sorry about that.

Yes.

My name is Stephanie Gutierrez. Is that good? Awesome. I'm an ADU strategist with ADU West Coast, and I'm here to speak in support of SB 1117. ADU West Coast works directly with California homeowners and families navigating the accessory dwelling unit process every day from permitting to financing to construction.

We see firsthand how these fees impact real families. SB 1117 will make it less costly to build ADUs by removing an arbitrary financial penalty that many jurisdictions impose on ADUs over 750 square feet. This bill passed the Senate Housing Committee with full bipartisan support, which speaks to the importance of this policy. I want to share a real example of a family I'm currently working with in Orange County.

They want to build two ADUs on their property, one for each set of grandparents on each side of the family.

This is multi-generational housing at its best. And to comfortably house elderly family members, each ADU needs to be roughly 751 square feet, to be exact. Because they cross that threshold, they are facing impact fees between $12,000 to $14,000 per unit, totaling up to $28,000 in fees alone. The $20,000 plus difference is exactly what is killing their financing. Their lender confirmed it, and their project is on hold at this point because they're using a HELOC loan and were capped out at a certain amount.

Most people building ADUs are everyday homeowners trying to house aging parents, support adult children, or offset their mortgage. Financing is already one of the biggest challenges in the space. Adding, as I mentioned, of over 28,000 in impact fees is the difference between a project moving forward or not. This small but meaningful change improves efficiency. It boosts accountability and it gives local governments and families a clear path to delivering homes.

No fee is eliminated under this bill. Local agencies still collect on the square footage above 750 square feet. The only thing that is removed is the disproportionate penalty imposed on the proportionate penalty imposed on the moment the family needs one to two additional square feet. This bill passed Senate Committee 10-0. That bipartisan support reflects agreement that this fix is reasonable, proportional, and necessary.

For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1117.

Thank you.

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

Good morning, chair, members of the committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Dirt to Keys, Southern California Obtainable Housing, Unidos US, and Power Cap—Power California Action—in support. Thank you so much.

Morning, Mr.Chair and members. Raymond Contreras, Blue House Public Affairs. On behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circular Planning and Policy, Inner City Law Center, and the two hundred for homeownership, all in strong support. Thank you.

Matty Hyatt, with California Civil Liberties Advocacy and the Capital Business Alliance, in support. We feel it protects homeowners, small landlords, and families. It's one of the few tools that we have for housing and that is pro-business.

Thank you.

Charles Contrebecki, intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of Elevate California, in support.

K. Thank you. Are there any, primary, witnesses in opposition?

Okay. Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, and you will, each have 2 minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'm Anthony Canahill with the California Special Districts Association. I'm here to speak in opposition to 1117. The measure expands the policy set in 2019 by SB 13, which gave impact fee discounts to homeowners to build accessory dwelling units. And as we pointed out then, there was and is still no provision to offset these impacts as we incentivize the ADUs, but not the supporting infrastructure to provide the services to those ADUs.

Many local agencies are heavily reliant on impact fees to fund infrastructure to serve that growth. And the special districts likely impacted by these policies may have limited revenue pathways and are yet still dedicated to providing the essential infrastructure services and the quality of life we want to come with this growth. Special districts may not have alternative funding to backfill for the discounts. And the mitigation fee already has very strict boundaries on how the fees are set, applied, and spent.

We find that planning for growth and density should also come with a plan to serve that growth and density going forward to maintain quality infrastructure and services.

While we applaud meeting our housing needs from multiple angles, we must also recognize that housing is inseparable from the broader development ecosystem that these fees support. And for those reasons, we respectfully oppose.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposition. Our concerns relay a lot of what the special districts say, but I think 1 of the bigger challenges is as California has seen a lot of successes in ADU development, part of that has been getting communities on board with the development of ADUs and incentivizing homeowners to do that.

Now part of that ability to promote those is making sure that we have the infrastructure there to support the development.

Now the reduction of impact fees and the collection of those, which are strictly evidence based reasoning and determined by nexus studies, removing that and not providing the infrastructure will continue to be a challenge. I know as some member Quirk Silva also has a Bill moving to densify and increase the amount of ADUs development, but I think the challenges will continue to be for local governments to provide the infrastructure and public services we need to support that development.

So although right now, we've been able to get a lot of the communities, so a lot of communities have been on board and we've seen a increase in the development of ADUs. That's partially because we can provide the infrastructure and services we need to make sure that it's protected. And we're concerned that by eliminating this and reducing that as we continue to densify, we're not going to have the necessary infrastructure and public services we need to provide thriving, equitable, and livable communities.

So with that, we respectfully ask for a no vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the cities of Belmont, Burbank, Foster City, Redwood City, Thousand Oaks, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members, all in respect for opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Park Durer expressing opposition and wanting my comments to those provided by Cal Cities and CSTA, with the California State Association of Counties also registering opposition for the rural county representative of California.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members. I'm with Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. We have an opposing less amended position. We've been working with the author's office and these sponsors on trying to find a solution. But thank you.

Thanks. Great. Seeing no others, we'll turn it over to committee for questions or comments. To my colleague, Mister Tangipa.

Yeah. First and foremost, I wanna thank the author, but I do have some technical questions that I wanted to ask, especially and I appreciate you bringing a city planner here. Everybody knows that I am a YMB myself. I do want more people to build, but I do understand some of the difficulties that a lot of our special districts are asking. The main reason why is because I represent some of the most special districts in the entire state of California.

I represent 25,000 square miles, second largest district in the assembly. And I bring up this as an example is I have a county service area that has infrastructure that was built pre 1980. Fisher Wells, they have their own local sanitation and leach field and everything else, but they were prepared for capacity, and they're pretty much maxed out. What are we doing to make sure that we can have the proper infrastructure?

I'm not the biggest fan of impact fees because I've seen cities actually not use it generally for where it's supposed to go.

But for some of these areas that we've done, general city planning, load capacity, what would be something in this build to prepare that if we are overloading our sewer system, water systems, and development that we're trying to mitigate to make sure that we don't have system failures while we're also trying to make sure our goals of building more housing is there.

It's a lot of touch. Yep.

Thank you for that question. I'm gonna face this way because that's where the mic is. So right now, sort of I think what's important here is to consider the status quo and what the proposed change is. Under the existing law, all ADUs under 750 square feet pay no impact fees. And the overwhelming majority of ADUs that are actually built are under 750 square feet and pay no impact fees.

So my prediction, you know, and I cannot look into the future for what this Bill will do is incentivize their construction of slightly larger ADUs that do pay impact fees on that marginal square footage. So my expectation is that this will increase the funding for this vital infrastructure. Does that make sense?

No. I understand on that part, but it's just it generally, just talking about the general impacts on special districts that you know, if we have some of these rural communities out there CSAs, CSDs, that also increase their capacity, It's with outdated infrastructure, I do understand that makes it hard. And I grew up in an 800 square foot house. We can call it an ADU, but they are homes.

But I do know that when these areas are developed, you know, they consider how many people are going to live in a square mileage basis.

You know, are they using 3 and a half inch pipes, or are they using 7 inch pipes? You know, all of that needs to be taken into consideration. And you know, I represent the community of Tuolumne. I also represent Calaveras County as well. Their infrastructure, the way that they still get water is a wood flume.

Most people don't know what a wood flume is so I use Splash Mountain or the Matterhorn to tell people that in my district today. They still get their water and their power from Splash Mountain. That is the type of infrastructure that I have in my district. I mean, it is a wood flume that can burn down at any point that supplies water to over 50,000 people. You know? And I know sometimes my communities wanna use those to upgrade their infrastructure.

My only worry is that we are putting so much housing without the preparation of the services that are needed to make sure that we have adequate, services in place. Sewer, sanitation, water infrastructure, but we're increasing load.

So those are only pretty much my main concerns is that typically we should be in the position where we're incentivizing or we're helping out our city's special districts to say well let's get you to a point where you guys can increase your capacity by 10,000 people. By building proper infrastructure, by building I mean they ask that I make for my district is we just want pipes. Pipes that can't burn down in a fire.

You know, I shouldn't be able to say that the Matterhorn is how my community gets water.

You know, can we get to that point first prior to just increasing load? So those are just some of my general concerns, kinda when I have in those areas. And I do hear the concerns of our cities. I do believe we need to build more. I know we have to get there, but are there steps in place that we should take first prior to getting to load capacity?

So thank you, and I appreciate that. And I understand the point of the Bill. I just think sometimes we might be getting a little bit too far ahead, prior to. And I hate to impact fees as well. So I definitely understand the intentions. So thank you.

Well, thank you, Miss Wilson.

My apologies for missing the presentation and the back and forth from our the proponents and opponents of the Bill. My concern with this strong supporter of ADUs wanting to see ADUs in our community. It's additional way to add housing, especially multigenerational housing. So instead of someone who might be aging and, you know, a grandparent or such instead of them going to another type of apartment off away from the family.

They're getting to stay in the in you know within the family structure, the same thing for college students.

So I think ADUs are good and pretty much have been supportive of most of the things that we've done on ADUs. 1 thing that I haven't been supportive of and consistently as a local leader is surrounding ADUs as it relates to impact fees because they do have an impact. The legislature decided at some point that 750 below didn't need impact fees, and I think that's what the legislature decided to do. It is state policy.

But I think to go the step further and start inching closer to where ADUs don't have to pay, quote, unquote, their fair share by taking off the 750's making the first 750 not accounted for, I think is a bridge too far.

When you consider that ADUs do not trigger property tax reassessments, so there's no way for a local government to capture the impact except for the impact fee. ADUs already over 750 square feet get a benefit because the they don't have to they're not assessed on the 4 parcel, only on the actual facility itself where impact fees has additional stuff related to the parcel.

So for me this is you know, I don't think it, I think it might incentivize folks to do a ADUs, but it also hurts our cities, our fire departments, our public safety departments, whether it's fire, police, and all the other amenities that you get. It relates to impact fees and develop and property tax, as well as the additional infrastructure that may be needed by additional folks being there. With 750, you're likely to get 1 or 2 larger. It could be more.

And a city is planning for that and and having the appropriate infrastructure for that, and now they won't have the resources to be able to update upgrade that infrastructure if we get the level of ADUs that we would really want as a state to address this housing crisis. So I won't be able to support that today, but happy to hear if you have any comments related to that. Thank you.

I'll address them in my notes.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? Alright.

Seeing none. Question maybe for 1 of your witnesses, if you wouldn't mind. What percentage of ADUs that you work on or feel free either of you to answer are over 750 square feet and under.

I would say about 60% under. Right? Because many times they're avoiding impact fees, school fees, and they're already having to pay most of them have to pay for upgraded utilities like electrical panel you know, and so they're they they have all these other costs associated with it. But I'd say about 60% under 750.

Okay. Alright. And this Bill allows prorated impact fees over 750 square feet. So I think you know, I understood what my colleague Miss Wilson, was saying. And the way I look at it is this does cover the impact over 750 square feet by allowing the charge of the fee but current law allows you know, if it is state policy to say hey.

Under 750 square feet, you know, there's no impact fees, and we go over that, and then we charge for the entire amount you know. I think this actually aligns with what our state policy is supposed to be. But I did have 1 technical question on this Bill and 1 thing that I think has made me so interested in this area is because I think, unfortunately I mean, we have a lot of local governments.

And when I was on a city council, we only controlled about 20% of our impact fees. The other 80% were special districts and things like that. And some of the connection fees were just straight up abusive.

If you had a 10 square foot unit you know, paid the same impact fee if you had a 10,000 square foot mansion. And so how would this Bill apply in those cases in which you know, it's and maybe it doesn't maybe it doesn't apply. Maybe we should consider amending it to that. But you know, if you so I'll just give you an example.

There's a district that's they charge it might be up to, like, $12,000 an hour or some something like that, but for a connection fee.

Right? And again, whether you're 10 square feet or 10,000. So if presumably, if you're 750 square feet under current law, you're not paying you're not paying that impact fee, but you hit 751, now you're paying 10,000. Does this Bill also apply to where there's just like, a set connection fee at a certain amount where it's not based on square footage?

Yeah. So the existing proportionality standard under state law requires the fees charged to ADU be proportional to the main house. So if there's a per unit house or per a per unit fee, and your home is quite large. So let's say you're doing a thousand square foot ADU and you have a 4,000 square foot house. The fee for the ADU would be one quarter of the fee for the the main house.

And there's a weird wrinkle here where if your house is smaller and your ADU is larger, then you pay a higher proportion of the fee. We're looking at that for a future Bill, but that's how that works.

Yeah.

Well, I'm I'm bad at math, and that's why I ran for public office. But but this but in short, because I'm a picture book guy, this would apply to those situations based on the current law with proportionality and and things like that.

Yeah. It'd be the same standard, but exclusively applied to the marginal square footage.

Okay. So if you go to 751 square feet and let's say 25%, your ADU is 25% of the main unit. Right? So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is. Right?

Yes. When you hit 750 square 751 square feet under this bill, is it are you only paying for that a portion proportionality of the because originally, it'd be 25%. So you're only gonna pay 1 foot of the 25%, or are you gonna pay the full 25%?

You would pay the 1 foot.

Okay. Alright. Just have to make sure that this applied in those set fees also, I guess, is what I'm saying. So okay. Yeah.

Well I you know, I think what's kind of interesting about this is a I don't really know enough. It would be interesting to learn just how how big a lot of these ADUs are. I know there are limitations to how big they can be based on the primary residence, although the strange wrinkle you discussed. But I do feel like this might actually this is the only area in state law where we've had success building other homes, by the way.

I mean, we've passed so many Bills out of this place and with marginal success, and ADUs are the only levels of success.

Now I can understand that we need to collect impact fees for people who are gonna be living there, but I also feel like if you're doing an 800 square foot ADU you shouldn't pay the full full amount. Obviously, those people in many circumstances probably make the decision to limit it at $7.50, but this could allow for slightly larger homes and the ADU to or the local governments to collect the fees that they need to accommodate for those.

And I don't think it's really fair to charge the full fee because you went a little bit over the 750. So I think this actually strikes a nice balance with the intention of what the law was or what the law was intended to do. So I'm gonna be supporting this measure today personally.

Do do we have more? I'll get back to you. Yeah.

Thank you, Senator, for reading the Bill. I just wanna align my comments with our Vice Chair here. I agree. Would love to be added as a co-author. Our ADU legislation has been some of the most successful, and I think we need to do everything we can to jump start more ADU production.

And if this sort of gradual fee strategy that you've laid out, which I think does strike right balance allows us to do that, then I'm supportive and would love to make a motion if there wasn't one already.

We have a motion with from Miss Wicks and a second from mister Kalra. And well yes. Go ahead.

Yeah. And I just wanted to make 1 more comment as you know again, I appreciate the author. But my question would be, maybe as a consideration for the Bill itself that if a local jurisdiction or may if a local municipality can show that the ADU, itself will have an impact on critical infrastructure when it comes to sewage, water, or anything else that maybe they have the ability to see what they can do.

Like I said, I believe that sometimes connection fees are fairly ridiculous when it comes to what they're trying to do. But if a local special district can at least say like, hey.

We're at full capacity right now. We can't have every single home here include an ADU, and at least there's a way to remedy it. And I just simply ask that for consideration for a lot of the special districts in mind if that's something that the Senator would just look into or even have negotiations.

And I hope that a lot of the special districts would actually have that conversation that if there's a way to prove that this will have a monumental impact on critical infrastructure in these special districts. That maybe that there's a way to remedy. So just an ask just for consideration. So thank you.

I will always continue to work with those who have concerns and work through those, throughout the legislative process.

Alright. I'm not exactly sure we are where we are except that clearly was a very robust conversation. Miss Caloza.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanna thank the Senator for your leadership on this. I think calculating these impact fees fairly and proportionately makes sense and align with the state policy. I also know that you also talked about working with the opposition already and would love to be added as a coauthor to your Bill. Thanks.

Alright. So we have a motion and a second, and lots of people clearly had a lot to say. So thank you for that. Mostly, he told me he delayed it until I came back. Did you have a chance to close? As I'm guessing that's where we are.

Mister chair, appreciate the conversation here today. Just in 2023 alone, more than 20,000 ADUs were built in the state of California. And to answer a question that was posed earlier according to a UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, the majority of California ADUs, 61% contained just 1 bedroom, while studios are the second most common type ADU, which is at 18%.

This Bill is simply removing the fee cliff which would we believe, encourage homeowners to build ADUs, more ADUs, which will likely increase the total amount of impact fees that local government collect on ADUs.

And so absent just any change, many homeowners will continue to build at the 750 square foot threshold that is law today. We want to give homeowners more opportunities, especially with our housing crisis in the state. We know that our laws on ADUs, have been successful. We want to continue down that path and provide more opportunities for California homeowners to increase their capacity as well as build home equity, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Well thank you, Senator, for your leadership. And, as you said, this is a bright spot in housing law, getting more ADUs built. And we wanna make sure that we continue policy that can allow for them to move forward, and appreciate your work and leadership in helping us do that. We have a motion and a second.

I have no idea who that is from, but we can go ahead and take a roll call vote.

And the motion is to pass to the Assembly Committee and Local Government. [Roll Call]

Mister Razzo, welcome. Item number 7 SB1361. And then after that we will go through with all of the ketchup votes if that hasn't already been done.

So just gonna let you know the Burbank lobbyist is here.

Hi. Good morning, mister chair and members. California is making real progress in aligning housing and transportation. LA Metro has a plan to build 10,000 homes on public land near transit with 50% set aside as affordable deed restricted housing. It has already delivered approximately 2,600 homes.

This is a historic transit build out. We have invested its generational investments tied to mobility, clean air, jobs, and economic opportunity. That momentum reflects the kind of coordinated approach we want we want to see, painting paying pairing housing production with strong public transportation. At the same time, since last year's enactment of SB 79, unintended consequences are beginning to surface. Under current law, SB 79 transit oriented housing requirements applied to both existing and planned future transit stops.

In some communities, local governments are facing significant pressure to not support planned transit stops and routes because these projects could trigger SB 79 density and high requirements. This includes additional environmental review of transit projects due to possible SB 9 SB 79 impacts. The open conversation, suggestions, threats of reducing certain services along planned routes to avoid SB 79 application, withdrawing support for federal funding applications due to opposition to SB 79 requirements. When local support becomes uncertain, the consequences are real.

Project delays, higher construction cost, and reduced competitiveness for for federal infrastructure funds.

This bill is a narrow practical and narrow and practical to address the issue. It does not change existing SB 79 housing standards. It simply ensures that local governments cannot take certain actions just to avoid SB 709's density or high requirements at existing or planned transit stops. At the same time, transit decisions should continue to be based on legitimate planning considerations such as safety, station design, traffic flow, pedestrian access, construction mitigation, and neighborhood connectivity.

It is my hope and my expectation that most local jurisdictions will not need to use this bill.

I believe that planning can, should, and has always been cooperative at the local level. This is also a JAWS bill because for workers and communities, what's at stake is not abstract. Delayed or canceled transit projects mean delayed or canceled construction work, delayed hiring for operations and maintenance, fewer apprenticeship opportunities, and lost economic act activity. The bottom line is this, SB 1361 protects transit investments, protects jobs, and protects taxpayer funded infrastructure from avoidable disruption.

Witnesses, today are, Madeline Moore, executive deputy executive officer of LA Metro, and Matt Broad representing the Teamsters.

Thank you, mister chair.

Good morning, mister chair, mister vice chair, and members of the committee. As the Senator mentioned, my name is Madeline Moore. I'm here representing LA Metro. I am pleased to be here and to speak in support of SB 1361 and thank the author for her leadership on this issue. As Senator D'Orazzo mentioned, Metro supports increased housing near transit.

Metro is also leading the nation's largest transit capital program, investing a $120,000,000,000 over forty years. These projects are critical to serving our customers, 89% of whom are very low income and 85% of whom are transit dependent. LA Metro works closely with cities to secure competitive funding and build transit projects throughout the region. We have a long history of working cooperatively with our municipalities on issues such as utility relocation, bus lane enforcement, and transit signal prioritization.

However, we believe that SB 79 is threatening our transit progress by creating unintended consequences in Los Angeles County.

By linking increased density and development standards to both existing and planned transit stops, opposition is forming against transit capital projects themselves. We are already seeing this on the ground. Local jurisdictions and stakeholder groups that otherwise support transit are expressing resistance to rail and bus rapid transit projects. SB 1361 removes the ability for objections to be made to transit projects on the basis of opposition to increased density requirements in SB 79.

We believe this will better support our common goals of advancing both housing and transit in the state of California.

I thank you for your time and look forward to taking any questions.

Mister chair members, Matt Broad here on behalf of California's Teamsters and the Amalgamated Transit Union. I'll keep my comments brief. Both unions represent workers that are impacted by SB 79 projects, whether it's on the construction side, but also, in transportation, particularly operators, maintenance, transit ambassadors, and transit police. We supported SB 79 last year and are excited about transit oriented developments.

Think that particularly in this moment with the the transit fiscal cliff we're facing, it's very important to sort of build out transit capacity, and and do it in in ways that also makes it easy for workers to get to their jobs.

And so, we were happy to support SB 1361. I think it's a narrow and tailored measure to make sure that there's no gamesmanship, with compliance with the law. So with that, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Other folks who are here in support of the bill. Miss Wicks? You can you can do that from up here if you if you if you'd like.

Morning, chair, members of the committee. Jordan Panna Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you so much.

Great. Alright. Is there opposition to the bill? Seeing any anyone who would express opposition? Yes?

Sure. Good morning. Kiera Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Alright. Some SoCal beef there. Alright. Members, questions, comments? We have a motion and a second.

We have a motion moved by miss Wilson, seconded by Second. Mister Lee. You may close.

Thank you very much. You respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much for your work on this and your leadership. And we will take a roll call vote. The motion is to pass to the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Nine to zero. Two not voting. Alright. It's out.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Alright. We will go through all of the others and make sure everybody gets to vote. Is there anyone we're missing?

Assemblymember Mister Ta.

We need mister Ta back. Alright. Let's go through for everybody else.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Everybody else can be excused. Will wait for mister Ta. Alright. That is it.