Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good afternoon. The Senate committee on housing is now called to order. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will operate as a subcommittees so we can get our bill presentations. Just a few announcements as we begin, today's hearing. That was pulled from the consent calendar.

So file item six, AB 1573 by Assembly member Bryan will be taken up on the action calendar. The consent calendar consists now of file one AB 739 Jackson, file item seven AB 2162 brian file item 11 AB 2320 TA and file item 13 AB 2692 Irwin. We'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar when we establish a quorum Wanna welcome everyone to today's Senate Housing Committee Hearing. Just wanna summarize our public comment procedure.

When we get to each bill, the author has designated up to two principal witnesses to speak in support of the bill.

After which time we'll open up for anyone to come forward to the microphone here to indicate your support for the bill. Your testimony will be limited, however, to state only your name, organization, or what jurisdiction you're from, what city you're from, and whether you support or oppose the bill. We won't take any other extemporaneous testimony given the length of our agenda, then we'll, open up for opposition witnesses and opposition me too's as well. So with that, we'll begin, with our first bill presentation. I see Assemblymember Schiavo here.

So proceed to file in 12 AB 2390. And good afternoon. Whenever you're ready, you may present on the bill.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much, mister chair and members, and appreciate the accommodation today. Thank you also to mister Schultz. So, I'm here today to present AB 2390, which is a straightforward cleanup measure to provide targeted clarifications to ensure that streamlined processes are applied predictably, allowing housing projects to move forward without unnecessary disruption while maintaining key safeguards.

This bill ensures that when a project is modified, it is reviewed using the standards that existed while the original application was filed, providing a clear predictable process for applicants.

This measure has unanimous bipartisan support by both policy committees. There is no opposition to this measure. I also wanted to thank the committee for flagging paragraph five, the Cross Cross Reference, and I'm happy to work with committee to make sure we have clarifying amendments. This measure is sponsored by SPUR, and I have Michael Lane here today to testify, and Holly Fermene de Jesus to add any technical assistance.

You'll have, two minutes to address the committee.

Mister chair members, Michael Lane with SPUR of public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. SB 35 has been a boom to affordable housing over the past eight years, producing more than 20,000 housing units with nearly two thirds below market rents. AB 2390 is cleanup legislation to clarify existing law and improve implementation of housing approval streamlining.

The bill one, specifies that minor modifications must be evaluated using the local objective design standards that were used at the time the original application was submitted. Two, subsequent modifications and or must be reviewed using the same methodology as any prior modifications.

And three clarifies that extensions of project approvals due to litigation apply to any modification request, not just the first, and we respectfully request an aye vote.

Here, Holly Fraumeni De Jesus Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles. Again, just for technical support as needed. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll now invite anyone who would like to express support for AB 2390 to please approach the microphone. If you could state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of California EMB and Circulate Planning and Policy in strong support.

Very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2390? Seeing no one else, we'll invite up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Seeing no one can forward, is there any wishing to express opposition to AB 2390?

Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the dais as if any questions or comment. Motion by vice chair Seyarto. Any other questions or comments from the committee? We don't have a quorum yet, but I'll I'll entertain that motion when we establish quorum. And seeing no further questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you so much. Very much appreciate the collaboration on this bill and looking forward for it to bring us housing more quickly, more efficiently, and make sure we're addressing our our housing crisis as quickly as you we can. So with that, I respectfully request, an aye vote when you have a quorum. Thank you so much.

Thank you so very much. Okay. I see we have the majority leader here, so we'll proceed to file them eight AB 1890.

Good afternoon. Alright. Good afternoon. Thank you, mister chair and members. Our farm workers do some of the toughest work there is in Napa County.

They're out there every day, making sure our agriculture economy stays strong and thrives. We all depend on them. But many of them are struggling to find a decent, affordable place to live. That's where our Yolo County's farmworker housing centers come in. They've been a lifeline for us, not just here locally, but for workers across the region.

They provide safe, affordable housing, along with basic services people need to get by. Meals, laundry, Internet access, and even help navigating immigration issues. In 2,017, I established the farm workers center account so the state could step up and match local funds up to 250,000 a year to help keep these centers running. But rising costs and inflation have created a growing funding gap.

If we don't act, the county could be forced to raise rents on workers, cut back on how many people they can serve, or worse, just shut down these centers altogether.

AB 1890 can help fix this. It increases the state's matching support to 500,000 a year, which allows Napa County to keep this program going through 2036. This makes sure the state does its part to sustain these centers, protect the workforce the California agriculture economy depends on. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for AB 1890 and to make sure our farm workers have a safe, reliable, affordable place to call home.

With me today, I have Peter Rumbel on behalf of the Napa County Farm Bureau and Ann Cottrell on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors.

Good afternoon. You should have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Good afternoon, and and thank you so much, chair Arreguin and committee members. My name is Anne Cottrell, and I am a Napa County supervisor. My district is home to all three of our county's operating farmworker housing centers. Today, I respectfully request your yes vote on AB 1890, which as you've heard would continue and strengthen the state support for Napa County's innovative public private farmworker housing model. I'd like to offer a quick snapshot of the centers themselves.

As you've heard, each center has space for 60 lodgers at $18 per night that they pay. Each center offers many other resources including two hot meals and a packed lunch, mobile health care provided by an FQHC, and permanent housing navigation and much more. The funding is the innovative part. Our we fund our three farmworker centers with a combination of larger rents, public funds, and private capital. We do not take any federal dollars.

The private capital is from a special assessment on vineyard parcels first created by the board of supervisors in 2002. Local growers vote to reauthorize the assessment every five years, essentially voting to assess themselves. Growers supported the last reauthorization by an overwhelming 87% margin. Lodger rents cover about 40% of our operating costs, the grower self assessment covers about 30%, and the state's contribution covers about 10%. The county is responsible for the remaining 20%.

Those rents, the self assessment, and the county contribution have all increased in the past six years but the state's contribution has remained flat which is why we are here today asking for your support we are so grateful for the state's participation in this program it is a good investment and it leverages substantial local capital and demonstrates ongoing support for an essential local workforce looking ahead your support of AB 1890 helps keep the state at the table as a meaningful partner I wanna conclude by extending an invitation to committee members and staff to visit a Napa County farmworker center to see what we're doing, why it works for us, and how this model could work for communities across the state.

Thank you for your time and for your support. I'd like to turn it over to Peter Rumble of the Napa County Farm Bureau.

Thank you, and good afternoon. My my name is Peter Rumble. I have the pleasure of serving Napa's agricultural community as chief executive of the Napa County Farm Bureau, and I'm grateful to be here in partnership, with the county of Napa, and in support of, our majority leader to respectfully request your yes vote on AB 1890. The Napa County Farm Bureau was formed in 1913 with well over a thousand members today. It's the largest and oldest trade organization in Napa County.

We represent the majority of agriculture, in our valley, which is, responsible for roughly 70 of the employment, in Napa, and our industry generates over $11,000,000,000, of economic output, that supports, and helps fund state and local government services. The agricultural industry is a proud partner in this, public private partnership, the Napa Farmworker Centers. Supervisor Cottrell noted starting in 2002, every farmer, in Napa County has voted and reaffirmed four times to assess themselves to provide a significant portion of the revenue needed to operate the farmworker centers.

My members continue to vote for this assessment because it's an example of a successful partnership. It's an example of government using its resources well and wisely, and because the farm worker centers provide a crucial benefit to the labor force that makes Napa the greatest wine producing region in the world.

That workforce, our farm workers are welcome at any center with an open bed. Employers do not control access or place any other conditions, on the safe, secure, and comfortable housing. And admission and management of the centers are provided through a nonprofit under the oversight of the county. As an example of the industry's commitment to our farm workers in this partnership, the roughly 12 acres of land for the centers valued well over $5,000,000, was donated by Private Ag producers to the county.

I'm a proud member of an industry coalition that raises over a $100,000 a year.

All of those proceeds go directly into the centers to provide clean beds, new sheets, new, laundry facilities, new roofs, HVAC systems, for the comfort and quality of this housing. The state's investment is sound, leveraging roughly 10 local dollars for every $1 in state funding. It is an impactful and, directly supports farm workers in Napa.

I encourage you to see what we have done together, the agricultural industry, state and local government, and nonprofits as an example of what we can do statewide to better support our California farm workers, but we need more, than that recognition to continue. We need the state's increased support.

We welcome you to Napa to see the success for yourself, and we ask you to support AB 1890.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1890?

Thank you, Mister Chair. Eduardo Martinez here on behalf of Providence, including the Valley Of The including many hospitals, including hospitals in Napa County were in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tim Lynch on behalf of the Napa Valley Vintners, and we're in support of the bill.

Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express for for AB 1890? Seeing no one's come forward. Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one come forward, but is there anyone wishing to add me to testimony in opposition to the bill?

Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais for any comments. Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, thank you, mister chair. As the principal co author of the bill, I wanna thank the assembly the assembly majority leader for, for her work, not just on this bill, but the prior bill as well. There's been a long history of of of legislators representing Napa, working collaborative with folks on the ground in the county in order to to to try something that's not really done anywhere else in California.

And and at each stage that the legislature has taken one more step, the local community farmers, farmworker organizations, the nonprofit community, the county, and others, have at each point stepped up and then doubled or tripled what we thought was possible. And this is completely in line with that work. It's a very successful model.

This is about the housing, but as has been noted, Napa and all the constituent all the people and and farmers of Napa know and and understand the importance of investing in in supporting the farm workers as we're as we're in a month long celebration of the judgment of Paris, victory of of the historic world changing victory of, of, California and the Napa Valley in changing the world of wine, that would not have that would not have been possible without farm workers, and today the success of today's industry, but also of the communities in Saint Helena and Calistoga and everywhere else throughout the Napa Valley.

The housing and the and the education and training and other support services that are in these communities are are what are what makes the valley come to life. And so thanks for thanks for the for bringing this forward this is an important modest but important step forward to support the housing project and at the appropriate time I'd love to move the bill.

Are there any other members who wish to, offer any questions or comments on the bill? Okay. Seeing no one else, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Sure. I wanna thank, the county for stepping up and the farmers that have stepped up. This is a unique these are unique opportunities that we have, and to see that what we have done in Napa County, it's a model for I think the state of California that other farm workers should have the same housing opportunities. So I with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much we don't yet have a quorum but at the appropriate time we'll entertain the motion by Senator Kibaldin. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Since we hear bills and fire older we're gonna go now to file item three AB 956 by Assemblymember Quirk Silva and then we will go to file item four AB 1165 by Assemblymember Gibson. Good afternoon. And so we are on file item three AB 956.

Hi.

And, assemblover Quirk Silva, whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. First, I would like to thank the committee and consultant, Hank Brady for your work, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Today, I'm presenting AB 956, which clarifies existing accessory dwelling unit law by allowing a homeowner to build up to two detached ADUs on a property, provided those units comply with all existing requirements related to size, height, setbacks, and other local development standards. This bill also clarifies how ADU law applies to HOA's and common interest developments.

In 2019, the legislature enacted AB 670 to prevent CC and Rs from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the construction of ADUs.

However, ambiguity in current state, current statute has created uncertainty regarding which properties within common interest developments are covered by those protections. The Senate amendments will specify that ADU law applies to every single family home in a CID. Many families are use ADUs to support aging parents who want to live close by but still live want to live independently. Others rely on ADUs for adult children who are struggling to afford housing or to earn extra income to help cover their mortgage.

Over the last several years, the legislature has worked diligently to reduce barriers to ADU construction, yet many homeowners continue to receive conflicting information about what is permitted on their property.

AB 956 provides clarity. It ensures that homeowners who have the space and meet the rules can move forward with building two detached ADUs. This bill does not eliminate local standards, but rather removes confusion and allows homeowners to better utilize the tools that the legislature has already provided.

I want, you to know that I commit to the committee that should AB 956 advance today, I will amend the bill on its next committee to maintain current density limits and avoid potentially triggering state density bonus law. Specifically, the bill will be amended to remove the allowance for a third ADU in addition to the two allowed under current state law and instead create flexibility in how those two ADUs are physically built.

For example, instead of converting their garage and building an attached ADU, a homeowner would be allowed to build two detached ADUs. I'm also working with opposition to address their concern relating to high rise condos. With me today in support of AB 956 and to answer any questions is Stephanie Gutierrez, an ADU strategist with ADU West Coast, and Max Doubler, policy manager with California YIMBY.

Machu, we just have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Professional here to speak in support of AB 956. Let me tell you about a family I sit with every week. A couple in their fifties, modest home, one lot, her mother is aging and can't live alone, but she wants to be near her grandkids, not in a nursing home. This adult son has job has a job that doesn't come close to a down payment in the state, and their own cost climbs every year. One lot, three generations.

Today, the law lets them build one detached ADU and convert existing space into a second ADU and one junior ADU. This isn't enough space. AB 956 solves it. Grandma moves inside the home where someone can look in on her. The son takes the attached ADU and two detached units in the back become homes for two more households, a teacher, a nurse, and a young couple priced out of the market.

The rent from those units is what lets this family stay in their home instead of selling and scattering. That's not development. That's a family staying together and three more households housed on a lot that already exists. No new land, no sprawl. This is the most natural affordable housing California procedures.

I respect respectfully ask for an a vote on AB 956. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Max Dobler. I'm a certified city planner and a policy manager at California yImbi. California yimbi sorry. California's ADU reforms lead the nation, having spurred the construction of tens of thousands of new homes without disrupting the look and feel of existing neighborhoods.

Existing state law lets homeowners build three ADUs, one new building in the backyard, one interior conversion ADU, and one junior ADU, both from in existing interior space. AB 956 maintains the existing density limits while giving homeowners more flexibility in how they physically arrange their ADUs. For example, instead of converting their garage to an interior ADU and building a detached ADU, a homeowner would be able to do two be would be able to do two detached ADUs, preserving their off street parking.

This flexibility will particularly benefit people who own small houses on large lots and will help multi generational families live together while maintaining everyone's privacy and independence. This bill also clarifies the existing ADU exemption from CC and Rs, ensuring that single family homeowners whose properties are formally, defined as condos are allowed to build ADUs.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 956?

Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. Jordan panana caarbaja on behalf of Southern California, obtainable housing in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras, LightHouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 956? Seeing no one, approach the microphone. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Van Engelen on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition to AB 956. First wanted to, commend the amendments that the the committee made on it. I think that'll be helpful in terms of shoring up, you know, providing some limits in terms of the density, which is helpful. So I acknowledge that that's the problem.

But I think there is still a foundational issues that local governments are gonna continue to struggle with. Now, the pro proponents are argue that this is a clarification of law. This is an expansion of ADU law by expanding it from one ADU that's detached to two ADUs that are detached. So it's actually a big expansion. It's not a minor technical change.

I think the other issue that local governments are dealing with is there's a parallel bill that this committee voted on as b eleven seventeen, which would limit ADU, impact fees for ADUs that more than 750 square feet. They can only be proportional to the amount above 750 square feet.

So the challenge for local governments is gonna be we're continuing to densify single family areas that were not planned for more development, and yet we're gonna have limited resources to provide the infrastructure and necessary public services that we need, so it's putting us in a really tight spot. We've gotten our communities on board with ADUs, we've seen an ex drastic expansion in the developments.

That's because of local governments working with their community and promising, we can provide the infrastructure, we can provide the services to support those developments.

Now we have two parallel bills that are gonna say, alright, you have to densify, and also you're limited in your resources to provide that infrastructure. That's gonna put cities in a tight spot in terms of bringing the community along with the necessary growth that we need to have in the in the jurisdiction. So I think there's just a foundational challenge that's going on here, and and like I said, we we appreciate some of the changes, but the problem is ADUs have been very successful.

Why does more need to happen? And at the same time, we're increasing more or decreasing the ability of locals to provide the necessarily infrastructure and public services that they need to provide equitable, livable, and thriving communities.

And without being able to do that full analysis, it's gonna be very challenging for our locals to do that. So with that, we respectfully ask for a no vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 956? If so, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one come forward, but before we open up for questions and comments, we do have a quorum, so if the committee assistant can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments on AB 956? Senator Durazo.

And maybe that there could be a response to the last issues that were raised.

You've walked in, I think, before we talked about potential amendments in in your committee, but what we would do was be amending, or I would be committing to the committee that if this moves out of committee today, we will amend the bill and its next committee, which would be local government, to maintain current density limits and avoid potentially triggering state density bonus law.

So this bill would be specifically amended to remove the allowance for a third ADU, in addition to the two allowed that are currently already allowed under state law right now.

So we want to give more flexibility for a property. We want to allow families to do more with the property they have, but we definitely don't want to trigger that density bonus and have three d ADUs. But right now, you can have a junior ADU on a lot that is attached with a second ADU. So this would say that you could have two ADUs instead of the junior AD ADU, or maybe you'll just have one. It's it just gives more flexibility to those who are applying for ADUs.

I do know and the reason this came up for me particularly is I live in the city of Fullerton, and we have had this clarity issue, which is this exact issue of if you have a junior ADU, it has to be attached. But some garages in old properties, the garages aren't actually attached. So in order to build an ADU in that junior ADU, you would actually then have to build a garage.

So there's just a lot of these nuances that make it very difficult when somebody goes to the counter to apply to build an ADU. So the point of this bill is to give clarification.

I mean, I do think there's a really important point being made by the local local governments in terms of what we're asking them to do and what they're left with to be able to carry carry that out. So I just wanna support that. And I think as we move forward, we have to be much more mindful of these issues that local governments are facing. It's one thing to pressure those local governments that refuse to do something.

There's a way to deal with that, but that doesn't mean you take away or make it more difficult or more resources. I just want to make that comment.

Okay. That was not a question. Thank you. Are you finished, Senator Durazo? I'll just say that's a separate bill that's not before this committee currently.

This committee did move that bill out. It's in the Assembly, so that becomes law. That's something that we'll have to local governments will have to implement, but that's not before us today. What's before us today is AB 956. And just clarify that under current law, a local agency could allow up to four units, a duplex, and two ADUs.

But this bill could potentially allow up to five units with the primary dwelling, an attached ADU, an attached JDU, and two attached ADUs. And that's why the committee amendment, which the author did accept at the beginning of of consideration this bill, would not allow for the JDU thereby not triggering the application of the density bonus because I think that wasn't that was not, the author's intent to, to trigger the, ability for a developer to do a density bonus in single family neighborhoods.

That's a significant change in state state housing policy. It could have significant consequences to the character of neighborhoods in California. This was really to just better implement existing law which allows up to four units on a lot without having to do a lot split under SB 9.

So, the author has accepted the committee amendment. And with that, colleagues, any other questions or comments? Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thanks for the clarification. I I I will say I I also sympathize, and share the concerns of the opposition about the whole package of things that we're doing in this space, and and and it is correct. So we've got a but I also voted for the other bill as well, and it is in the assembly. But we do need to we need to get this right.

And to the extent to which we're adding additional over the 750, then obviously, it's also having enough they do interact. So appreciate the the the comments, and the concern about the the whole package of stuff that we're sending over to the administration. The only thing other thing I wanted to to flag, I've I've started raising these issues last year, but this year we're sharing them more directly inside the appropriations committee.

But a a a very something has nothing to do with the core of what you're talking about. But the bill, it's it's keyed as a state mandate, and that's because cities and counties will have things that they must do as part of the bill.

Right now, I will process a full, you know, at the at city hall, we will now process the the of a full ADU instead of a junior one as an example or maybe a full ADU instead of nothing because there was no opportunity for a junior before. So there are there are costs anticipated from that.

The bill though also then has the the provision that Ledge Council loves to put in these bills that says the city is not eligible for reimbursement even though we are mandating it, and the constitution requires that whenever we have a mandate we reimburse, but the bill has that, this my least favorite disclaimer that says there's no reimbursement because, well, you know, cities could charge a fee, but the question I ask about each of these bills, which is very live is a very live question in the Appropriations Committee then is, okay, a fee on what?

Like, where would who who would be charged a fee or pay a fee that would cover that cost? Now that's not a big cost. I'm I'm this is a this is sort of a general issue now with local government mandates overall. This this is a of all the bills we're doing, this is probably the one of the least significant mandates that there are. So it's not a magnitude issue, but it is a sort of a policy question about that. So I just wanna flag it for I'm I'm supportive of the bill.

The policy is the right policy, but in the Appropriations Committee, I just wanna encourage you to take a look at this issue.

It's an unnecessary piece, like the and I you're you you also Chair the budget subcommittee that handles state mandates. You know this issue quite well. This is a this is an appropriate state mandate, but we should pay for the very modest, modest, modest cost that would be involved, amended, and not waive it away with the claim that the the city can. Because in part of our other ADU legislation, cities and counties can't charge a fee. These are these are largely ministerial.

In many cases, there's just there's not any discretionary approvals required, so there's no point in which a city could say, you know what, we wanna impose AB 956 fee on you and it's gonna cost you $8. Right? That's not possible. So it's the the that that disclaimer seems to me problematic in this bill, would encourage you to take a look at this as it's on the way to the appropriations committee and potentially correct that problem. Thanks, Mister Chair.

Mister Chair, I apologize for showing up late. I rushed over from another committee, and I I just wanna be sure I understand what the the amendment prospective amendment is gonna be so that I I I because otherwise, I was an abstain I'm concerned about over I mean, I'm concerned about changing the character of a neighborhood with this too many units, and that become like an apartment complex, and we never anticipated that they'd look like a ... So I understand there was

I'm happy to clarify. So the amendment ensures that a property owner cannot add a JDU if they're adding two attached ADU detached ADUs, which would limit the the total possible number of units to less than five, which would then avoid triggering the state density bonus law as any five or more triggers the state density bonus. So right now, with with this bill, without the amendment, you could have up to five units on a lot, single family lot.

What this would say is you can do the two detached ADUs, but you can't also do a JDU, which means it limit limits it up to to four units.

Is that four units or three?

Four. You got you have the primary dwelling and then you

And then a garage conversion?

Attached. You can have an attached and two detached.

Okay. That that that's the one that I'm concerned about. It meant that it for for for units and I I get there may be other legislation out there that's been that's moving, but I'm just concerned with, the number of units. So I'm I'm trying to understand. I think I'm gonna abstain at this point and and we'll see it again.

I I I will turn over to the the author and the witnesses if that was a correct summation of of current law and the application of this bill.

This would just create flexibility. So the same number of units would apply. So if you built two detached ADUs, you could still do one interior ADU if you wanted, but you would not be able to do your junior ADU. So it it preserves more like, it makes us that if you wanted to convert your if you wanted to do two ADUs, you wouldn't have to convert your garage.

Yeah. And I think what what I'm concerned about is my experience with well, my experience of serving in local government is what ends up happening is the the extra units end up in neighborhoods that are already overcrowded, that already have and I I represent a rural agricultural district, and so people are using every space that they have, including sheds out in the backyard to house people. And part of the challenge is it really creates traffic issues with vehicles on the street.

And the more units you put I mean, I have some people in my neighborhood that have six and seven vehicles, and they're parking everywhere, and it starts to look like a mess. Just your average, you know, normal neighborhood.

So I I'm just concerned, and I I I get I understand where this is coming from, but I think at this point, I'm gonna abstain and think through some of the changes. I have supported every single ADU bill that's come through this legislature because we need the we need the space. But but I'm really concerned that we've got to gotten to the point where I may have supported something that, you know, that's already gone through the through the the Senate.

And I'm I'm just worried about the number of units, bottom line. So I appreciate that.

If if you're out at, if you if if it's if we're talking and and what I'm concerned about, and this was what was happening in our in our communities, is that single family homes were coming out and apartments were going in sideways down the lot, and they're concrete pads. There are there's an area tree or a bush anywhere.

And I'm concerned with single family homes ending up in the same situation where they it's one cement pad and you end up with all these different units, and there's no yard and there's no green. And we used to require a certain amount of open space to be in in in open space and I see that disappearing. So I thank you for that. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Are there any other questions or comments? Senator Cortese?

Thank you, Mister Chair. Appreciate your work on on the bill and appreciate the author's work on the bill. I'll be supporting the bill. I do think that I completely relate with with Senator Caballero's, you know, comments about what she's seen in her district and I have a tale of of two cities almost within the city of San Jose.

We have the kind of de facto density bonus that really isn't a density bonus because it's just three families, four families living in units, and that's not five or six or 10.

That's ten, fifteen thousand units across East San Jose, for example. And so, you know, why not make it, you know, have a little more aggressive policy in terms of ADUs to house some of those folks where they already are, you know, if if the property owners are willing to do that, you know, and or I understand it may not be the same folks who are who are living in the ADUs ultimately, but there'll be some displacement.

But then we have areas where the architectural character of the community, I don't wanna just say the character, the architectural character of the community is is at stake for a lot of people. They're concerned, they moved into a neighborhood where it's tough to match the current architecture on the streets, you know, the public facing architecture when you start adding units and you know, I'm I'm a property. It's a person when it comes to that.

I understand they're trying to protect their their own stake in their their property that they've invested in at that point, as homeowners particularly. And and I don't know how to create these kind of bills so that they deal with the equity issue aggressively and they also deal with the the issues of of, you know, I wouldn't call it nimbyism, I would call people trying to to sort of protect the architectural integrity that they bought into in the first place.

So it'd be great if we could always do both. We're gonna have to keep trying to figure it out, but I I don't think this bill goes too far. I think it it goes right up to the limit of what as the Chair alluded to California is always considered to be short of a subdivision, you know, four units or less total. So appreciate appreciate the bill and I'll I'll be supporting it.

Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Vice Chair Seyarto.

Yeah. I've, you know, I've always had issues with taking these out of local control. Because I can point to cities where it's kinda working because they had bigger lots and and more space in their streets, and and they're not over densifying. But then I've also worked in communities. You can see this in action. You don't have to wait. You don't have to wait for ten years until more come online.

Go down to, and I would I'm gonna use one of the cities I worked in, city of Inglewood, go down there, look, between Century Imperial, Crenshaw Boulevard, and and, Prairie, those neighborhoods in there go look at the streets go look at their housing they are so impacted they get cars lined up on each side of the street there sometimes we couldn't get a fire engine down the street They had to, you know, make ordinances so people wouldn't park on the one side of the street, and so people are parking in their in their drive or up on their their front lawns, and so it's it's what what happens when you over densify without city's input, because these are done long before, there's a lot of, a lot of interference by communities and and by cities, and there wasn't that much planning going on.

And, so all of the the issues that our my colleagues have stated, really valid issues, and we don't have to go that far to go see them in action and and kinda figure out that, yeah, that might not you know, they can't widen those streets anymore than they're widened already.

And and it has created some real problems, there's also a density of people problem in those areas. More people in those areas like that also create more social issues that are going on in those communities. So, you know, I can see the need to, you know, the initial foray into ADUs. That's great.

It took some properties in my city that I live in now and made those properties worth $400,000 more than they were worth before but nobody's moving into them and they're certainly not leasing them out or renting them out to homeless people.

Nobody's gonna let the homeless people go live in their backyard And so that's not solving that problem. It is giving some people the opportunity of granny flats where their parents can live in the back instead of in the house. And I've seen some very well done units for that. But other than that, they get used for, you know, Airbnbs and and things, and that's not what neighborhoods were made for.

So I know they sound great, and I know you can pull the permits and look at how many people added to them, but it's for me taking local control and further restricting that, is going to continue to create, some of the problems of the past that people are living with today.

And and frankly, their neighborhoods are really undesirable and their property values reflect it. And and and people are trapped in this world of, if they own the property, it's not worth as much. And if they're renting their property, it's it's not being cared for that well by the owners or the the people that are living there. And and that's just that makes blight in the city. So then, you know, I I struggle with these because I know it.

I didn't know they can be good, but I I think we need to tread carefully and and not to go so fast that we can't undo or slow down what we've done and that's why it's hard for me to support the support bills like this and but I know that the intent behind the bill is well meaning. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Unless there's any other questions or comments, I appreciate the robust discussion on this bill and the author accepting the amendment, I think to address an unintended consequence, which is not trigger five units on a

lot, thereby triggering the density bonus, which have would have a pretty significant impact on the built environment of neighborhoods that California, I think goes against kind of the whole principle behind the the the concept of incremental density that our state AD law has been built on. I know that there have been conversations as well with h h o a management groups and that you'll continue to have those conversations as well if this bill moves forward. And I'll turn it back over to close.

I wanna thank the Chair here and also the members on both sides. I mean, I clearly know this is a tough bill, not only to imagine, but to discuss, but related to some of the comments related to density. I'll just repeat that, the ADUs that are these units would have to comply with all existing requirements related to size, height, setbacks, and other local development standards.

But also to do some level setting when we re when we I've been here now long enough, I think longer than most people up here, where we have done some various serious housing bills And many times, there is opposition and there's a huge concern about what has been stated, the nature of a neighborhood, the impacts, whether it's parking. And yet, when we actually run the data and look at how many permits have been pulled, including ADUs, we are not seeing a run on it.

And why we're not seeing a run-in the city of Fullerton where I live, about a 140,000 people, there has been an average about 200 ADU permits. And so even though we're being more aggressive on trying to allow more clarity or flexibility or even before this bill, more units. We know that, one of the reasons we don't see this huge run is, number one, you have to finance these units.

And for a good amount of time, financing these for, say, a couple in their fifties or even getting closer to retirement, the interest rates, so forth. But secondly, whether it's AB 2011, SB 9, many of these big bills that have really made headlines in California haven't come to fruition as far as permits being taken and the building.

So it doesn't mean there still wouldn't be impacts with this bill, but we have to weigh the impacts with the goal. And right now, if we look at a neighborhood and we say, gosh, there could be five cars, all of us, I believe, I can honestly say elected officials have knocked on doors in our neighborhoods. And we see already without this bill, there is multiple cars parked there. We know when we look at our voter list, sometimes you have three generations living within the same home. So this is real, and then we have to ask why.

Why are you know? And to be honest, living intergenerationally is not a bad thing. It's actually fundamentally a very good thing, childcare cost. So having people close to you, these are really important steps for us to take. So without that with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote, but I do commit to continuing to work, in the next committee and as we get to the final steps if we get that far.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. I'll entertain a motion on AB 956 moved by Senator Cortese. The motion is do passes, submitted to the Senate Committee and local government.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Okay. Before we go to the next author, I'll tune a motion on the consent calendar, which consists of AB 739, AB 2162, AB 2320, and AB 2692.

So motion on consent. Moved by Senator Cortese. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ciarato, aye. Cortesi, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye.

Caballero, Durazo, Grayson. Ochoa Bog. Ochoa Bog Aye. Padilla Perez.

Okay. We'll keep that on call. And then we had a motion from vice chair Ciarato on file item twelve AB 239 d. If we can please call the roll. This is by Schiavo.

[Roll Call]

Cortesi? Aye. Cortesi, aye. Caballero, Durazo, Grayson, Ochoa Bog. Aye.

Aye.

Ochoa Bog, Aye. Padilla Perez.

Okay. We'll keep that on call. Colleagues from the assembly, we do hear bills in file order. I'm sorry, mister Gipson. We're gonna go to mister Schultz who's before you, and then we'll go to you.

I promise. So we're gonna proceed now to file them to AB 939 by Assemblyman Schultz. And whenever you're ready, Assemblyman will be present.

Chair and colleagues, I'm pleased to present AB 939 tonight nine thirty nine today, and I want to thank committee staff and you, chair, for your hard work on the bill. Right now, some lower income designated home ownership units are remaining empty and going unsold for extended periods of time of one hundred and eighty days or more. Nonprofit home developers like Habitat for Humanity, Self Help Enterprises,

and others are prohibited during the entitlement phase of a project from partnering with market rate home builders to ensure compliance with density bonus law. They're also currently prohibited from acquiring and selling to qualified buyers for six months after certificate of occupancy. Existing law, simply put, can cause these units to sit vacant for months, generating unnecessary carrying and marketing costs to the developers before they can transfer the title to a qualified nonprofit to manage the initial sale to a low income buyer.

AB 939 gives developers another voluntary option for complying with existing density bonus affordability requirements. Nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity specialize in finding, qualifying, educating, and supporting low income home buyers.

Services developers of properties intended for individual sales, but don't, don't typically provide. The bill removes a one hundred and eighty day resale restriction in state law if the developer is under contract with a nonprofit affordable housing organization for the transfer of units to be sold to low income individuals directly. Under this bill, income restricted ownership units could be sold immediately to qualified nonprofit affordable housing organizations rather than the status quo, which is they sit vacant after construction for a hundred and eighty days or more.

I wannA Be clear that AB 939 preserves developer choice. This is not a mandate.

It helps affordable homes reach qualified buyers faster and expands homeownership opportunities for families who have historically been excluded from the housing market. I'll note that our office has met with the opposition, and while we haven't been able to reach, resolution yet, that open door policy remains. And with me today to speak in support of AB 939 is Kwopi Reed, president and CEO with San Diego Habitat for Humanity, and Jordan Carbajal on behalf of California Yimbi.

you each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Good afternoon, chair, Arregin and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Kwafi Reed, the president and CEO of San Diego Habitat for Humanity, the affiliate that covers San Diego County. I'm here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of California whose affiliates are working to make the are are are working to make the working to make the dream of affordable homeownership possible for for for for lower income families throughout the state.

Thank you also to Assemblymember Schultz for his leadership in solving the challenges that make affordable homeownership so hard to achieve for for for for so many working Californians.

The need for AB 939 became b b came clear to me when San Diego Habitat was contacted by the city of Oceanside about 11 income restricted homes that had been built by KB homes under the density bonus law. They told me that the homes had been vacant for months be because the builder had been unable to had been unable to had been unable to successfully source and qualify source and qualify homebuyers.

Given that San Diego Habitat typically gets, 30 to 40 applications for for for every home that we have to sell, I was confused. After talking with other developers and builders within our local BIA, I learned that because of the practical challenges of sourcing qualified low income home buyers who have secured financing and have saved enough for a down payment, occupancy delays of occupancy delays of, occupancy delays of many months for these homes is very common.

By eliminating the one hundred and eighty day waiting period before qualified non profits can purchase these homes.

A B 939 will make it easier for builders, qualified nonprofits, and and the cities that and the and the cities that administer and administer this law to create partnerships that, one, qualify and prepare low income homebuyers in time to occupy those homes when they are finished at the same time as market rate buyers, two, eliminate the carrying costs, marketing expenses, and uncertainty associated with the current waiting period, and perhaps most importantly, enable homes to be kept affordable for the forty five years intended by the current law instead of being lost to the market.

These homes are frequently lost because affordable for sale units, must change ownership.

And at the time of resale, cities must either force the current force the force the current owner to find a new low income buyer, which is very hard, or buy the home back themselves via a first right to purchase, which is staff and capital intensive, or as is most common, allow the home to be sold back at market price, stripped of its affordability covenants, and subject to an income restricted equity split b b b b between that seller and the buyer.

And if you could please wrap up your comments.

Sure. AB 939 makes these partnerships easier, and we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair

and members of the committee. My name is Jordan Prana Garvajad, government affairs manager for California YIMBY, which is yes in my backyard. Here to speak speak in support of AB 939. California California faces severe housing crisis, and expanding pathways to sustainable homeownership for low income households must be part of the solution. AB 939 helps achieve that goal by providing developers with additional voluntary tool to comply with this existing affordable housing requirements while connecting qualified low income families with homeownership opportunities.

AB 939 does not create new mandates as the opposition mentioned or or special treatment for any organization. Instead, it preserves developers' choice by allowing developers to partner with qualified nonprofit organizations that specialize in preparing and supporting low income home buyers. And for these reasons, we respectfully request your support for AB 939. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone wishing to express support for AB 939? If you could please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur and Abundant Housing Los Angeles and strong support.

Hello. Jennifer Aguilar on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of California council for affordable housing, the Bay Area Council and housing action coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else coming forward to express support, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Second half of the California Association of builders. Sorry about that. We've had great conversations with the author and his staff. However, CAR remains opposed AB 939 unless amended to resolve our concerns. As outlined in our letter, our opposition is rooted in a 2021 density bonus lawsuit.

Two single family homes in San Diego designated for sale to very low income families were instead sold to an investor despite 81 qualified families seeking to purchase those units directly from the developer with assistance through the local housing authority. The outcome deprived deprive low income families, many of them single mothers, of the opportunity for stable homeownership and long term wealth building opportunities.

AB 323 was specifically enacted in 2023 to prevent this type of displacement, ensuring that deed restricted owner occupied density bonus units constructed by for profit developers first are offered, to qualified buyers that will owner occupy these homes.

As currently drafted, AB 939 would recreate the same harm by allowing nonprofits to step ahead of the qualified owner occupant buyers to impose mandatory contractual restrictions prior to selling the homes, which include among others mandatory use of the nonprofits, mortgage products, as well as including a first right of refusal, mandating the homeowners sell their unit back to that nonprofit, denying families of intergenerational wealth building or family inheritance opportunities.

As currently in print, AB 939 would centralize control of all future below market rate ownership units under single a single nonprofit, creating a monopoly that disadvantages families, undermines the and undermines the state's efforts to ensure fair access to homeownership.

CAIR has very much appreciated the conversations we have had with the author and proposed amendments to resolve our concerns that would, among other things, preserve the ability of nonprofits to sell the units they develop without delay, while ensuring that qualified buyers receive public notice and a fair opportunity to purchase these homes while maintaining the intent of AB 323, which was negotiated with both the California Building Industry Association as well as with Industry Association as well as with the Habitat for Humanity.

Without these amendments, CAIR cannot remove its opposition. The bill as written eliminates meaningful homeownership opportunities for working families and replaces them with a system that consolidates control and limit limits equity building for families of low and moderate income who deserve an opportunity to build generational wealth. We look forward to continued discussions with the author and hope they'll be able to resolve our concerns before the bill advances to the governor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other principal witnesses in opposition? Okay. If not, I'll invite anyone who wishes to express opposition to AB 939 to please approach the microphone. Okay.

Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Senator Cortesi.

Just a question for the opposition and I tend to support the bill, but I'm wondering a little bit more about your concerns on the real estate side. If these are deed restricted units, I'm trying to understand what the risk is with a non profit buyer coming in presumably. Are you concerned about conversion or or some other some different use?

Yes. The concern that we have is is transparency in the market. It's extraordinarily important that you not limit an individual's choice to their mortgage lender. That's one space because that's about fairness and transparency. They should be able to choose who it is that they wanna have the contractual right to operate with for their mortgage lending services.

In addition to that, our real core concern is the fact that it's codifying a practice of first right of refusal. Regardless of the deed restriction, it's still limited in the title records to who you can sell it to. We often are not often engaged in the contractual provisions with the nonprofits themselves, but we do sell these with inclusionary zoned units within the for profit developments. And and quite frankly, working with the local housing authorities is often how that comes through.

In fact, many of my members have contacted me with respect to how this works in LA County and others.

So there is opportunities for families to be able to purchase these. The concern is also about the difference in the, generational wealth building. So when you're looking at the contracts offered by the non profits, if they're using CalHome, within their program guidelines, the individual homeowner can gain 1% equity return over twenty years, whereas, if you're buying an inclusionary zoned unit, you can get the full value and difference when you buy the property to when you sell it based on AMI.

So it's again, it's a question as to who's getting some of the benefit. If you're buying it generally with a non profit, you're getting 20% back to be able to move you out of housing.

The goal is to fix the housing ladder and to have people move in and out of these houses so you can retain the deed restriction long term, but again, the goal is to help people with that down payment that they need to be able to get into market rate housing.

I'm still I'm trying to weigh the consequences of eliminating a hundred and eighty day delay on the transaction when you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, and the willing buyer is a non profit, which, you know, kind of to me is the gold standard of of real estate as I grew up with it. You got a willing buyer, you have a willing seller, you know, let things proceed unless there's gonna be some significant harm to the public interest. Right?

We're we're you know, doing a transaction right in front of where a freeway is gonna be built or something. I mean, something something should be said about that.

I I don't understand the qualitative issues you're talking about from the perspective of of your association. I understand, you know, and I I commend you for advocating for the rights of those people who who live there, and I've argued successfully in in the past in, you know, what is now an adjacent district to mine that I used to represent on behalf of of Section eight Occupants of of a property that they should not be displaced.

They should have an opportunity to, in effect, you know, do a de facto right of first refusal. I'm not sure what it's hard for me to imagine a nonprofit coming in and, you know, pushing for that kind of an outcome, you know, either either displacement or or or some outcome that's going to not be covered by the deed restrictions. That's all I'm saying.

And and I under I understood, I think, a couple of the examples that you brought up, but they're more it seemed to be more in terms of the of the future opportunity, equity opportunities of of the individuals, and I'm not sure that's what we're most concerned with here today. To me, I'm my sense is that what I wanna be most concerned about is we got a nonprofit buyer and and the seller ready to go, and they're gonna preserve the status quo.

We want that to happen right away. Maybe there's a way to balance those two things.

I think that there is. We we have offered amendments to ensure that one that the nonprofits have the opportunity to be excluded from from the intent of three two three.

The real goal of three two three as Sierra was the sponsor for fair housing purposes was to ensure that developers were advertising the availability of the units, which is what they had found in San Diego was not happening, that the public was was was not aware or allowed an opportunity even though they had 81 individuals that had applied to buy those units.

In this particular space, we've offered amendments, one, to make sure that the nonprofits are not included in the provisions of limiting for the hundred and eighty day delay. We've also offered amendments, specifically to remove the codification of the first right of refusal within the contractual process, as well as the obligation that you use their mortgage lender.

That's helpful. And I I appreciate that you're offering amendments as all of us are authors as well, and that helps a lot. We often get opposition that has valid points or making valid points, but they're not offering valid solutions or any solutions. So hopefully, things can still be worked on after this committee because I don't, you know, I don't wanna slow the bill down.

I think it fundamentally is at its roots doing a good thing, and and these details are probably important, but I don't think we're gonna resolve them here.

We're very hopeful that we'll we'll reach resolution. We've had great conversations with us all.

Great. That's great to hear. Thank you.

Okay. Senator Perez, and then Cabaldon.

Hey. I'm filling in for, Senator Gonzales, which is why I'm suddenly here, and I apparently came at the right time. Assemblymember Schultz, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I know that, Habitat for Humanity is a supporter of this bill and, obviously, being so close to my district, you know about the tremendous amount of of work that they've done, particularly in the Altadena area as we have been going through the rebuild process.

And Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity has played a huge and very significant role in assisting, low income homeowners with the rebuild process.

I've gone to several of the openings of those homes and have continued to have to scale up their operations just because of the sheer number of individuals that they're assisting. I know this a hundred and eighty day period can sometimes negatively impact the work that they're doing, and I would love to just have you speak to that a little bit and and some of what we've seen on the ground if we were not to pass this bill.

Absolutely. Thank you very much, Senator. I'll be brief because I have two experts and one with real on the ground experience that could probably speak to it better, but I would say I think the heart and goal of this bill is that we are constructing affordable housing units. I would argue not nearly enough, but we're trying to, and yet they sit vacant. We're not connecting them with qualified purchasers.

There has got to be a way to land this plane because we should get folks into the house the day that it's ready to turn the key and walk through the door. And the fact that it would that's not happening, especially in areas like where you represent the where there's a massive need to rebuild that now missing housing. Time is of the essence. Six months can make or break whether someone's able to still call Altadena home. And I know I don't need to tell you that.

I would just ask from my representative from Habitat if they have anything to add.

Yeah. I would like to offer a couple of just kind of quick clarifications. The first one is that these homes are built almost exclusively using private dollars under the density bonus program, so they do not incorporate CalHome as a funding source. The other thing to remember is that these nonprofits are not only have to be qualified by, not only have to be qualified not only have to be qualified by the state, but these partnerships are going to be overseen by the administering cities.

And typically, those cities will already include a first right to repurchase those homes in order to preserve that affordability and will be able to oversee and and weigh in on what that equity split looks like.

So it's not as if the nonprofit is getting to mandate that. That's going to be up to the administering city to oversee and approve.

Appreciate that and appreciate you sharing that. I know in Altadena as well, some of the things we've worked out with Habitat for Humanity in addition to building housing is, you know, even if somebody is building an ADU in the back that they are now, working with the homeowner to say, if you have family there or somebody else you choose to have live there, you're going to be renting it out, that that be affordable housing as well, and that there be some sort of covenant guaranteeing that.

So appreciate the amount of work that you all have done in my district, and we'll be supporting the bill. So thank you Assemblymember.

Senator cabaldon? Thank you, mister chair. And and I I I do appreciate and understand the the issues that have been raised by by the opposition and, and the trade offs that the author is trying to grapple with. So I I I'm supportive of the bill with one with only one challenge, and that is that it's totally unconstitutional and that is the, the members of the committee are getting tired of me raising this, but I I'm gonna keep doing it.

So this bill, does have a state mandate for the reasons that you just described in terms of the obligations that are imposed on on cities and counties in order to manage these the partnerships and the and the and the and the and the purchase arrangements.

But the disclaimer that's in the bill is but the bill says we're not gonna reimburse anybody for the mandates despite the constitutional requirement that we do so. And we're not going to reimburse because, any of the the only costs that may may be incurred are the direct result of a program for which legislative authority was requested by the the local agency.

Now that that provision is there in case Burbank says we need you to mandate something on us, but we're asking for it, and the constitution says, well, in that case, the state doesn't have to reimburse, but that is obviously not the case here because we haven't heard from 58 counties and 470 whatever cities in that case.

So I'm imagining this is a remnant of a prior version of the bill, but the bill has to either reimburse like any other bill would have to or have a different disclaimer than this one. So I'd I'd like to support it, but I'm I'm I also would like to vote only for a constitutional bill.

So have you taken a look at this already? Or I I do have

an answer for you, and I would argue I I like to think all of my legislation's constitutional, although I guess it's not up to me. No. I I understand exactly what you're saying, and I would just say that based on my discussions are internally with my staff, it is my understanding that legislative council adds the following language language to any bills that are dealing with the density bonus law.

One, it says that cities are allowed to charge permit and planning fees to recover the cost of the service, and two, that cities are also allowed to charge a general plan maintenance surcharge.

I bring that up to say that my reading, my view of that, and you have my commitment, I'll continue the conversation with you offline and look further into it, but my understanding is that the inclusion of that language does does give cities a way to recover any of the costs associated with the implementation of this bill, and is within their existing authority at the local level.

So so I'm only going down this rat hole with you because you're you're an attorney and I'm not. But so that's my third least favorite disclaimer, the fees one, but that would that language would solve that problem. But that's actually not what the bill has in it right now. The bill doesn't have a fees and fines disclaimer in it. The language in the current bill is the local agency asked for this, and that's a completely different constitutional standard.

So if the language were instead the fee the fee disclaimer with the with the provision that you described, it would be it would pass muster, but that's the problem with the language as it's currently in the bill.

Totally understand. I appreciate you raising the point, and what I'm saying is my understanding is that language will be added in the direction of legislative counsel.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, mister chair.

Questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. If not, I'll turn it back over you to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. I see the motion on the bill. Moved moved by Senator Cortezi. Okay. The motion is to pass to the committee on appropriations.

Senators Aragine. Aye. Aragine, aye. Seyarto. Cortesi?

Aye. Cortesi, aye. Caballero? Caballero? Caballero?

Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Grayson. Badia Perez.

Aye. Perez, Aye.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. As we're bringing up mister Gibson, Senator Cabaldon made a motion on file item number eight, AB 1890 by Edgar Curry. So I'll entertain that motion, and let's call the roll on AB 1890.

Motion do passed to center appropriations. Senators Aregene? Aye. Ehrgin, aye. Sciarto?

Aye. Sciarto, aye. Cortesi? Aye. Cortesi, aye.

Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Grayson.

Ochoa Bogue.

Ochoa Bogue. Ochoa Bogue.

Ochoa Bogue. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Padilla Perez. Aye.

Perez, aye.

Okay. We'll keep that bell on call for absent members. Thank you very much. So now proceed to file item four AB 1165 by Assemblymember Gibson. Good afternoon.

And whenever you're ready, you may present.

Good afternoon. Thank you very much, mister chairman and senators. I am very proud to present assembly bill 1165 that we call it the California Housing Justice Act. As you know, California face an affordable housing crisis. California with disabilities, older adults on fixed incomes, people with a without security, stable income, or with low income cannot afford housing.

And we just had a robust conversation with the previous authors. In and this is true across our state and every community in the state of California. This is because housing costs have increased over 20%, while incomes have increased, only 8% over the last ten years. Because rent increase are consistent in California, more people are falling into homelessness than ever before. California is making progress with investments, even witnessing decrease in homelessness.

While these decreases show we've moved in the right direction, the state lacks a coordinated plan to effectively end crisis in housing in the housing crisis. Assembly bill 1165 takes a bold first step by requiring our state housing agencies to create a fiscal analysis and and a financial plan to solve this crisis. Planning with a with that allows the state to shift resources without impeding respond response that works to allow people to exit homelessness for good.

We want people to exit homelessness for good rather than continuing to re rely on defense and piecemeal responses to grow, to growing a crisis. This approach creates a road map for long term investment and coordinating a focus to end homelessness and ensuring every California has access to a stable house, a place they can call home.

Assembly bill 1165 not only makes good policy sense, but it also make good fiscal sense at the same time. By identifying a true cost, and I want to underscore a true cost, to end homelessness and establish a long term funding strategy, a long term funding strategy. The state can make more effective investments and reduce the costly cycle for crisis response. Here with me to provide supporting testimony and to and to answer any kind of technical questions, they will self introduce.

We have the director of the California policy for coordinated supportive housing, including the legislative advocate for the ACLU.

Both will self introduce.

Hi.

Thank you very much. We chat two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Sharon Report. I'm with the corporation for supportive housing. As Assemblymember Gibson said, we are making progress around solving homelessness. Last week, a report came out showing that our point in time count actually decreased by 3% and our unsheltered count, decreased by 7%.

The year before that, we had flat increases in homelessness compared to 18% increase, nationwide. As he mentioned, we still have a long way to go. The state does have an action planned on homelessness and a plan to build 1,000,000 new affordable homes, but the state lacks a multiyear strategy for investment needed to solve this crisis. AB 1165 requires HCD to create the financing plan towards solutions right at a time when the new, agency is standing up.

The plans will begin with using existing data to answer the question, what would it take to solve the crisis?

It would offer a strategic roadmap based on where gaps remain and where existing resources could be coordinated, all shaped by people who have experienced homelessness or housing security, local governments, and other stakeholders. And it would provide accountability and transparency that keep the state spending aligned with the road map, informed through clear metrics and a dashboard on progress with a process to correct for improvement. Multiple jurisdictions have achieved success, particularly around reducing homelessness dramatically through data driven financing plans.

This includes Federal Government reducing homelessness among veterans by 55% over the last twelve years. Virginia, Connecticut, and Delaware all ended homelessness among veterans altogether.

Dallas, Houston, Milwaukee all reduced homelessness dramatically by double digits each year, Milwaukee by 92% by coordinating existing resources toward solutions that that include permanent housing. We can scale our progress by taking this next step, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Yes.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Marshall Arnewine. I'm the legislative advocate for the AC of California action. We are one of the proud cosponsors to this bill in strong support. AB 1165 is about being prepared to solve the homeless and housing affordability crisis.

Housing goals without a financing strategy are just aspirations, but AB 1165 transform those aspirations into a plan. This bill will have California prepared to implement a strategic and sustainable strategy that invests resources effectively to move people into the stable housing they can afford, to keep our neighbors housed, and prevent future homelessness. This is also a forward thinking bill. It gives California the tools to move from reacting to this housing to proactively solving the housing crisis.

Housing is the foundation of economic stability, public health, and community well-being.

What makes AB 1165 so important is that it requires a strategic roadmap informed by research and rigorous data like the roadmap home 2030 and the homeless housing needs assessment, which will help service providers to be able to know about how much affordable housing is needed so they can move from surviving year to year to planning year to year. When providers know what the plans are to fulfill specific needs, they can hire the staff. They can expand housing placements.

They can coordinate the services and focus on the outcomes instead of the constant scrambling to secure the next funding source. Further, this bill requires reporting on concrete metrics to ensure accountability for proven impact and outcomes.

We must be just as intentional about planning for the funding needed to achieve these goals as you are about setting them. This bill gives policy makers, providers, and communities the roadmap needed to make lasting progress, and for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Well, anyone else who wishes to express support for AB 1165 to please approach the microphone.

Michael Henning, California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Mister chair and members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation to the substantial developer of low income housing in Los Angeles in very strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danny Kando Keiser on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network in support.

Mister chair and senators, Adam Kegman on behalf of California LULAC in support.

David Nye with the California Community Action Partnership Association in support.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Provocate with Housing California in support, also on behalf of the California Housing Partnership.

Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Housing and Economic Rights Advocates in support.

Cynthia Castillo on behalf of the National Alliance to end Homelessness, a crowd cosponsor in support.

Rebecca Jackson, with the San Francisco Women's Housing Coalition in full support.

Okay. Thank you very much. Well, now I take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. I don't believe there was any registered opposition filed. Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments.

Moved by Senate press. Thank you. Last Senator De Vazquez.

Yeah. Thank you.

I I just wanna thank you very much. I think it's it seems so simple. How are you gonna build if you don't have a plan for the money to build, which is leads us in lots of different directions. So it's so simple. It's kinda silly.

We hadn't thought of doing it before. So thank you.

Thank you.

Very much. Thank you very much for bringing this bill. It's extremely important. I think really works well with the new state agency that will be launched soon, and would love to be considered as a co author if if you're gonna amend the bill in the future. And unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you very much, and thank you for those for both of you asking to be co authors. Really appreciate it. This is a an approach thinking outside the box. You know, when I've talked about this bill in the community, people get excited because it has transparency, accountability. It brings people to the table to talk about putting a real strategic plan together.

And when I was looking at the numbers, and we have invested money only in surplus years. We put money aside. But how do we know if that money is really effective unless we have a strategic plan? And this really puts a strategic plan together so that we know how much money we're actually putting in to try to address this this epidemic in the state of California. We really don't know if we're actually doing the right thing unless we're actually putting a plan together.

And this actually put the people at the table to really hammer out our actual strategic plan so that we can actually see with measurable results and goals and objectives whether or not we're actually doing the right thing. And so I thank you all and respectfully ask when I vote, and we, look forward to seeing some real results moving forward and moving our brothers and sisters out of homelessness and place them to a place they call home. Respectfully ask when I vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. We have a motion by Senate pres. The motion is do pass the Senate appropriations committee.

Senators, Aragine. Aye. Aragine, Aye. Ciarato. Cortesi.

Cabaldon. Caballero? Caballero? Aye. Durazo, Aye.

Grayson? Aye. Grayson, Aye. Ochoa Bog? No.

Padilla Perez? Aye. Perez, Aye.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. We do take up measures in file orders, so Assembly Dixon Assembly or Patterson is before you in the file order. So I apologize to wait a few more minutes, but thank you for being here.

Assemblymember Patterson will now take up AB 1184

Thank you now I feel a little slightly bad now you know but I appreciate, we gotta stick with committee rules, you know. Well, good afternoon, mister chair and and members. Here to present today, AB 1184, which brings necessary transparency and accountability to homeowners associations. I'm very pleased to live in a homeowners association, a beautiful one, and I think they do a lot of great things for not only my community, but communities, throughout the state.

We have one of the largest populations of HOA residents in the nation. I have massive senior HOAs in my district, but, you know, decisions made by HOAs, we all know, can prevent people from making simple changes to their property, like painting their home, and can even have drastic impacts on their property value. Despite the impacts HOAs have, current law does not provide enough transparency. Homeowners are often left unaware of decisions that could have significant impacts on them and their homes.

For instance, current law does not require HOA residents to be notified of litigation, which can affect property values or their ability to sell their home in the future, nor does it require HOA's to give residents recordings of Board Meetings or provide notice that the meeting is being recorded.

These issues prevent residents from being involved or even knowing about HOA governance that affects their day to day life, and we all know that HOAs have, government like powers, in many cases. So this bill is, you know, pretty simple, fix. We've worked very closely, with, with the California chapter, the Community Associations Institute. You know, they, understandably had a lot of concerns at the very beginning of this process. We're happy to work with everybody.

I have a lot of respect for homeowners associations, but also given their government like powers wanted to have some some additional transparency safeguards. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do you have any principal witnesses?

No. No. Just I I wanted to save your time.

Okay.

So, you know, just brought myself.

I think that we have even better. The author's name. Okay. I'll ask, are there any members of the public wishing express support for AB 1184? So please approach the microphone.

Seeing no one come forward will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Seeing no one come forward, is anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 1184? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee. This was hopefully gonna be on the consent calendar, but I believe the California Association Realtors filed a late opposition letter. I read the letter.

I don't frankly understand their the reason for their opposition. And reading the bill, this just basically puts the same, transparency and an open meeting requirements as we do for a government agency for an HOA, just to ensure that there's, more transparency on the management and meeting protocols for HOA. So, I strongly recommend the bill. I have an aye recommendation, and I'll ask if there are any other questions or comments from members of the committee. Moved by Vice Chair Seyarto.

Any other questions or comments? Yes. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I'm looking at the at the letter or the the quotes that I have from the opposition from the realtors which says the current law already provides a strong governance framework. HOAs must comply with the Davis Sterling Act open meeting requirements, provide annual disclosures, and and and goes on to a couple of other items. So where exactly are they not providing clarity or transparency with regards to lawsuits per se?

Because I think that was the concern that you had on there, that there's no specific requirement to disclose whether or not there is a lawsuit error in the process of going on in in in with the HOAs.

Yeah.

You know, understandably, you know, they don't have to comply with California Public Records Act, you know, like like local governments have to, you know, they have different set of laws and so some of those laws, for example, when a local government's in litigation, you know, those are and they go into closed session it's it's it's disclosed at the bottom of the agendas and obviously the discussions are are private and this bill doesn't make any change to that but the notice to to residents and knowing that litigation is going on especially live if you live in like condominium unit or something like that where litigation can have a drastic impact on what your homeowners association dues are going to be.

But the other thing is, if they're recording meetings already or if they choose to record meetings, residents aren't entitled to those recordings. And I think that that's that's kind of interesting because, you know, a lot of us are are busy and, you know, can't attend the homeowners association meetings or can't attend local governments, you know, and we maybe sometimes we like to go back and watch what's going on in our local government and things that impact our life.

I know in my community, the homeowners association has a has a a very large impact on the quality of life. I mean, it's very involved in the day to day activities almost of what we do, And so I thought it was important that, hey, if you're recording the meetings, you're recording what you're discussing, you're recording decisions, then make sure that the residents know. But the other thing is, many of my friends are on boards of HOA's and have raised this bill to me, the other day.

And and they were they were concerned that there were times that maybe that they couldn't make a a decision over a text message or something like that, you know. And I was like, woah.

Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. I say, hey. You're telling me you wanna make a decision that impacts the HOA, you know, via text message, you know. And I was just like, I just gotta, like, philosophically disagree with that, you know. And so that's kind of, you know, my philosophy on these views because they do have the powers of government. They can, you know, put liens on your home. They can assess you fines and take away your privileges to the homeowners association activities and things like that.

So I thought it was just important to provide the additional transparency that they don't have to under current law. They do have a set of laws, Senator, that they do have to comply with, just not these ones.

Not those particular ones. So that would not fall within, actually enforcing what is currently already in place.

Correct. Like, this bill doesn't, you know, basically restate, you know, current law, basically. It it adds on that if you're taking video recordings, you you have to give it to the residents if if they'd like to look at the recording. That's just one example.

When you say give it, are you referring to how you're making sure that all of the homeowners are emailed the the

No. No. Available To access. Make it available.

No. No. No. No. No.

Make it available on their website. Yes. Okay.

And if that part's not clear, we'd be happy to fix that. But but, yeah, we just wanna have have the access available.

Okay. Okay. I just I think so just one last comment on on here, and you're more than welcome to respond with regards to the opposition here in which it states that it does impose several operational mandates that would significantly disrupt the ability of the HOA board, which many are volunteer run or maybe very small. Do you have any comments on on those concerns?

Yes. I have real estate brokers license. I used to be a realtor myself. I obviously have a lot of respect for the Association. But what I would say is and what I would submit is it's not the homeowners associations themselves expressing those concerns.

It's another organization concerns, it's another organization, and I would say, you know, the homeowners association, the organization representing them that might have that this actually impacts, we've worked very closely with them and they are not the ones expressing that concern.

Which is very intriguing to me on that on that point because I I as I'm reading as a realtor, I'm still currently

Oh, good. Yeah.

I was very intrigued the fact that they were the ones opposing here but not the not the HOA themselves. So just an interesting observation, but thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we had on record their concerns.

Totally.

And and see if you had any thoughts on on what that meant.

Yeah. I wanna be super clear. Happy to work with them at any time. You know, I think this is actually maybe the third year that this bill has been in print and this letter of opposition came in a, you know, a couple weeks ago. So, you know, obviously, we'd be happy to work with them through this process.

I think the proposed amendments that they made were basically gutting the bill. So we weren't willing to go quite that far, but I have a lot of respect for them and happy to continue to engage with them as long as we kind of keep the intent of what we're trying to do with my legislation.

Any other questions or comments? We do have a motion by Vice Chair Seyarto. I'll turn it back over to Close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Have a motion by vice chair Seyarto, which is do passed to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. Assembly Bryan, you are next in file order, but Assembly Dixon's been waiting for at least, like forty five minutes to present. So is it okay if we go to her?

Thank you. Alright. We'll now proceed to file item 9 a B2035 by Assemblymember Dixon.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Thank you. And Senators, Members of the committee, I'm pleased to present assembly bill 2,035 today, which would allow greater flexibility in updating CC&R's for large HOAs, another HOA bill. Under existing law, if a homeowner's association is unable to achieve the quorum requirement established by their covenants, conditions, and restrictions, CC&Rs, the HOA can petition their superior court for an order that reduces the percentage of affirmative votes necessary for an amendment to their declarations to 50% of all homeowners.

The current statute exists due to the fact that many HOA's often struggle to meet quorum requirements in order to update their CC&R's.

This struggle can happen for a multitude of reasons, including low voter engagement and high percentage of nonresident property owners. One such HOA is Laguna Woods Village in my district, who have been unable to update their CCNR since 1988. To put this in perspective, Mikhail Gorbachev was president of The Soviet Union and George H. W. Bush was president the last time their CC&R's were amended.

It's been a while. Since 2019, the HOA has spent over $140,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections. They've made a real effort in addition due to the large size of the HOA, which is over 6,000 interests, these elections have been conducted in partnership with industry professionals to ensure a fair and efficiently administered process. Despite all these efforts, there still have been unable they still have been unable to update their severely out of date CC and R's.

To remedy to remedy this issue, AB 2035 creates an additional affirmative vote reduction in California law.

This reduction would allow an HOA to petition the court for approval of the amendments to their CC&R's if 37% of all homeowners vote affirmatively. This legislation has been drafted extremely narrowly and would apply only to one HOA in the state, which is Laguna Woods Village. This bill represents a balanced change that would allow Laguna Woods Village to update their CC&Rs while maintaining the already existing court approval process to ensure accuracy and fairness.

This bill has also received unanimous bipartisan support throughout the process. I also would mention, homeowner improvements such as solar roof systems, wireless, these type of technology investments that have occurred since 1988 are not included or provided or addressed in the CC&R.

So they really need to address new technologies, the solar process, and other home building materials and such that have just been changed with building codes and such over this period of time. So with that, I I have with me Kathy Van Osten, who will be speaking on behalf of the Laguna Woods Village and can answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Kathy Van Osten, I represent, it's actually third Laguna Hills Mutual, that is the overarching HOA for the 6,100 unit development that has been frankly in development since the early sixties. There are a number of HOA's within that, but they oversee the overarching CC&R's, common areas, and so forth just to to explain how that dynamic works.

I don't wanna repeat a lot of the information, you've heard it, I know you have your analyses, You know, this has been a very frustrating issue for this association. They've tried multiple times to amend the CC&R's.

We know the last seven years, they've spent a $140,000 to to try to update them, and they can't, and there have been a number of changes not only, in technology, that they need to address in terms of, you know, EV, where can your EV charger go, But you've also got changes in the Davis Sterling act over almost forty years that they've not been able to incorporate.

So that can be confusing for somebody, and in particular, if you've got a retired attorney who's going to go back and forth and look at the lung and the CC&Rs, it it can be frustrating and there's a lot of questions to answer. So we are looking for this this basically ability, this pathway to be able to update these CC&Rs, reduce this vote.

And what I'd like to do is the most successful vote, I wanna just walk you through that so you can get a sense of of how that worked. They were able to achieve 48 and a half percent of of participation in that election.

So not affirmative vote, but participation from their homeowners. Of those homeowners who voted, 85% supported the change, which took you to almost 40% of an affirmative vote of all the owners. So they can't even get close to that 50% requirement in state law that would allow them to go to court. So this bill will simply reduce for this specific HOA under these circumstances, very specific circumstances to go to court once that vote happens.

So you still have the court reviewing the document, making sure that it is appropriate to go forward.

So we are we are looking for this narrow pathway and once that happens they won't qualify for this type of situation again for another thirty five, thirty seven years. So, it really is a one size fit one fits one on this bill, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2035? Seeing no one approach the microphone, are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 2035? Seeing no one I'll bring it to the dais for any motion by vice chair Ciarto. Any other discussion? If not I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Vice Chair Seyarto, which is to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. We'll now proceed to file item six AB 1573 by Assembly Member Bryan. And this, I believe, was on the consent calendar, but was pulled for discussion. That as well.

You would present.

Thank you, mister chair and senators. This is actually the first time I'm presenting AB 1573 as it has been on consent the entire time to the legislation, and we're actually happy about that. This is the unseen and unheard housing act. This bill would add survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking to the target populations of cities and counties' housing housing element.

In 2023, a national survey found that sixty four percent of trafficking survivors reported experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity at some point during their childhood.

Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking remain overrepresented in unhoused data. These populations remain neglected, and their needs remain unseen and unheard by the housing systems across California. In California, a general plan is required of every city and county serving as a blueprint and broad policy plans for land use within these jurisdictions. Within the housing element of a general plan, cities and counties analyze the housing needs of groups with special needs also known as the target population under the statute.

Those who are currently covered under the current target population within the housing element are people with low income, those who have one or more disabilities including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, and people who are eligible for services for the developmentally disabled.

There remain a group of survivors of violence. AB 1573 will ensure that the cities and counties take the time to analyze these survivor groups and the housing needs that they have alongside other marginalized groups when updating their housing elements. Joining me today to testify in support of AB 1573 are Rebecca Jackson, vice president of reentry and public affairs at Community Forward San Francisco, and Benjamin Henderson, a housing policy advocate at the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Hey. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us today, and we each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Benjamin Henderson. I'm with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and we are a proud cosponsor of this bill. Domestic violence is one of the leading causes of housing instability and homelessness, especially for women and families. Yet, survivors with urgent safety driven housing needs are not explicitly recognized in California's housing element law.

California's housing element law is an important tool to ensure every community plans for the housing needs of all residents across income levels and life circumstances. Local jurisdictions must assess housing needs, identify adequate sites, and adopt programs to meet their regional housing needs allocations, ARENA. A key technical component of that process is identifying and planning for special housing needs populations that includes people with disabilities and individuals experiencing homelessness.

However, domestic violence survivors who face some of the most immediate and severe housing instabilities are not explicitly included in that framework. As a result, this admission can contribute to gaps in safe and stable housing options for domestic violence survivors.

AB 1573 makes a precise but critical explicitly adding domestic violence survivors and human trafficking and sexual assault survivors. This bill will require jurisdictions to incorporate data on survivors into their RHNA based needs assessment, identify appropriate sites for emergency shelters, traditional and supportive housing, and adopt programs to remove barriers and expand access to safe and stable housing. This is fully consistent with existing housing element obligations, including requirements to zone for emergency shelters by right, maintain adequate site capacity under the no net loss law.

This also aligns existing fair housing obligations to affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring jurisdictions planned for populations with documented housing barriers. Thank

you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. I'm here today representing both the LA Domestic Violence Homeless Services Coalition, as well as the San Francisco Women's Housing Coalition, which I cochair, constituting approximately 375 member orgs combined. Survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual assault are disconnected from housing resources. Data shows we are more likely to experience homelessness for longer periods of time and are less likely to be matched to permanent supportive housing.

Imagine, you have to leave your own home to escape being abused with two small children, four and six, because having your front tooth knocked out was finally the last straw.

Sheltered on a cot in a coed space with strangers watching you, exhausted but terrified to fall asleep only to be offered a housing option where the threat of being assaulted again felt so great that you flee and opt to sleep outside on a park bench in the cold rather than risk being harmed again. My name is Rebecca Jackson. I am one of three generations of survivors, and that was my experience. Today in San Francisco, violence is the number one reason families enter homelessness.

Survivor centered supportive services and housing options are critical for creating long term safety and stability.

In 2024, survivors represented twenty percent of all people experiencing homelessness in our state, and they are currently not named in the housing element. AB 1573 sets the groundwork for addressing this critical gap by making it clear that this population deserves targeted future housing solutions, plan to ensure safety for survivors like me, and we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1573? If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Horovata Sharji with Housing California in support.

Anya Lalor on behalf of the public interest law project in support.

Thank you very much. There was no registered opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Senator Caballero.

Very much, mister chair, and thank you very much for your testimony and and for sharing a difficult a different difficult life experience that is tragic. So I'm I'm very sorry to to hear and it's not unusual. I've heard stories like that unfortunately. Let me let me just say that that I I served in local government for fifteen years. We had a probably well, it's one of the bigger cities at a 160,000 people.

One of the bigger cities in in California. But but I now represent I think at last count, it was close to 24 cities. Most of those cities are under 20,000 population, and one of the challenges is that every idea is a great idea, but it has a different impact based on the population, where it's located, and what the resources are. These communities are located in rural California. And so many of them do not I venture to guess, most of them do not have engineers on staff.

They don't have planning people on staff. What they do is they contract. They don't have attorneys. They contract with a private contractor and so everything costs them a lot of money because they they can't afford to keep them on staff. And what I'm concerned about is is creating I think it makes sense to create a category, and then to within that category to figure out what are the what are the opportunities in the community.

None of these 24, 22 cities have a county office in their city. So there when we talk about services, it's it's the services that end up getting provided in the sexual assault, human trafficking, and domestic violence end up being families that do it themselves. And so the difficult becomes so so as an example, my region of the state has heavy immigrant and asylum seeker issues.

And it makes sense for them to to figure out how they're gonna meet those needs in the community through a housing element. But the question becomes how how do they first of all, is you're asking them to do a lot more work for something they don't have the capacity to do to do.

In other words, there's no county services that come in and do these kinds of and there's no nonprofits that come in and do survivor housing, and and we've been working on it quite frankly. We've been trying to get some of the bigger entities to start doing small homes or small kinds of of of resources in in communities that don't have it.

So I guess what I'm concerned about is putting more and more responsibility on cities to come up with solutions for things that they don't have the resources for and to spend money on general plans that they don't have the resources to provide the services and and and to require them to spend money on something that that is not with within their bailiwick.

In other words, what they are seeing is a lot of immigrants, and so the need for services like and and I'm talking about not just Spanish, I'm talking about people from all over the world. For some reason, the Central Valley is a place where people feel comfortable, maybe because it's rural and agricultural, and it's more like their home country than somewhere else.

And so, anyway, I'm I'm not not opposed to doing to

the work you're talking about. I'm just trying to have it make sense for small communities that don't have a lot of money. And, and when when they're required to do things that that to gather data and information that doesn't exist, it's it's you're spending more money on on on contracts. And it's frankly, they'd rather frankly, what they're spending money on is contracts to improve their water or improve their sewer system because those are the failing systems in in rural California.

doing

So I'm not unsympathetic, it's just that I'm wondering if there's a way for us to, to create a bucket and they pick what the buckets are that that where they think they have.

And and this is I'm talking about the council, the council making the decision or the yeah. It's really the cities because the counties have those resources, and they're the ones that are gonna determine where they put the resources. And so they should be it should be part of the county plan, but I'm wondering if it if it should be part of every single city's plan when a number of the cities are not gonna or don't have the resources.

Yeah. I think I think I definitely understand and hear where you're coming from. What what's tricky about this and part of the reason we named it the Unseen and Unheard Act is is I think every county has domestic survivors and sexual violence survivors

Yep.

And that they are often overrepresented in those who are housing insecure. This bill is non fiscal, and the reason it's non fiscal is because the housing element already requires jurisdictions to analyze the constraints in the process of zoning for regional housing needs as well. So not just trying to meet the needs, but to analyze any challenges that they might have that are unique to that particular region. We also have areas in the housing element where we have called out specific populations of high need.

For example, elderly persons, families with children, emancipated minors, former foster youth, veterans.

All we're doing in this bill is is adding domestic violence survivors, trafficking survivors, sexual violence survivors to that, specific group. And it was largely inspired by an experience I had at the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles, where you recognize that meeting the specific housing needs of this population is not something that's occurring in all places in the way that it needs to.

And even in cities where you have institutions like the downtown swimming center, the need is so much greater than that, and that the state really should outline and highlight, that need as equally as important as some of these other needs that we've called out in statute.

K.

So just to be clear, you've you've created a a bucket, if you will, of special needs, and the communities can they should be looking at that bucket of needs and so I I don't have a problem with that, but if you ask for anytime you do a general plan, there's a study that goes along with it. And if you're asking for studies on some of this I mean, I'm just talking about the small cities.

I'm not talking about the counties that they they should all of this the the kinds of things you're asking for are in the in the census that comes out once every ten years and you can extrapolate some of it out of that. Right? But but some of the the new the new data that you've added, I'm not sure that's in the census.

The human trafficking, I think probably the well, I I can't even say there's there's a different spot. It's in the crime reports that the FBI does, some of this. But I'm just trying to I'm trying to be fair to the smaller cities because I get I get a lot of pushback because we keep putting responsibilities on them. We don't give them any money to do the research and the and the background work, and it it all requires them to contract to get it done.

And those contracts can be pricey.

So I understand what you're trying to do. I appreciate it, and I support it. I just wanna make sure that we're not putting an extra burden on city I don't see them here, so maybe maybe they don't see it either. The good news

But I hear about it when I go home. So just so you know, as my city council members are going, are you kidding me? You know, we we're we're trying to build the housing, not not count things over and over again. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

I think the, the effort here is not to add new work, but to better focus the work that's already required.

Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that.

And we're gonna Senator Ochoa gogh, just wanna call attention to pages four and five of the analysis. We talk about the existing target populations in the housing element statute and just note that the last few lines of that section that there might be some overlap of existing target populations for people that may be victims of domestic violence. So, it may not be a whole lot of additional work beyond what jurisdictions are already doing. Senator Chiopo.

I was actually gonna highlight the fact that part of the, of the folks that are, you know, suffering, from domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, many a times are already within the demographics that are already included in there. So you you actually made the point that I was going to make.

I'm I'm gonna be supporting the bill, but I do wanna highlight I was gonna highlight what our chair mentioned, but also the fact that it still doesn't address the actual cause of the lack of housing that we have. It's still even though those demographics would still be included in in everything else with families and children and especially the economic factor that is pretty much when you're leaving a a an abusive home or you are suffering from, human trafficking.

When you leave all of that, you have nothing.

Nothing, under your belt or in your wallet. And so many of these folks do in the in in the realm we do a lot in in the legislature with segregating folks according to different demographics. I'm more of the the mindset that, economic is one of the common factors that everybody usually, regardless of demographic, falls into when there is a need. So low social economic is usually where I feel we should focus on rather than breaking everybody up in in demographics. That's just my personal philosophy.

But on on the other end, on with this particular bill, you know, we have a good comment here. It says, there's no harm, but it doesn't address the issue, which is the fact that we don't have housing that is affordable or we haven't made housing affordable in the state of California. We've subsidized, but even on the subsidized housing, it's we're not building what we're supposed to be building because it's not it's not it's cost prohibited because of various factors in our state.

So I just wanted to highlight that though I I will be supporting the bill, it still doesn't address the root issue that we don't have housing that is affordable in our state. And we also are not building enough housing to be available and to be affordable in a housing.

So I just wanted to make that that comment here. It's one of those bills that, you know, it feels as makes us feel good about moving forward and trying to address an issue, but it doesn't actually fix the issue, especially when, we can include this demographic within the other, buckets that we already have. So I just wanted to highlight that.

I will be supporting the bill today, but I I just, I think we should really, really focus on trying to address the root causes of the lack of affordable housing in California, or how we build housing more affordably and remove those barriers in there. So I just wanted to kinda share that my personal thoughts on that.

And with that, I will be happy to move the bill.

Okay. Thank you very much. But, sir, we are on AB 1573. Unless there's any other questions or comments from the committee, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Thank you, mister chair. I will say this this bill does more than just makes us feel good. This bill was written by survivors. I spent a lot of time with women who were victims of trafficking, victims of domestic violence, who were in search of affordable housing or even temporary housing, emergency housing in Los Angeles. And similar to the experience that we heard from my lead witness, couldn't find appropriate or safe or existing housing.

And then also found instances where that type of housing uniquely existed like the downtown women's center, but there was no mandate to refer domestic violence cases that way because it doesn't exist in the housing element. And so the downtown women's center could get referrals that were not domestic violence survivors because they're going to take anybody who's unhoused who's getting referred there.

This bill reminds us that different populations have experienced different types of trauma, And while everybody needs emergency housing and temporary housing and affordable housing and long term housing, sometimes it is okay to target the needs and concentrate the needs for a specific population that has unique needs. And And what we're finding here is that survivors of human trafficking and domestic violence and sexual violence have those unique needs, and we should call them out specifically and make sure that the housing then exists for them.

I wish this bill solved every issue with our housing concerns and with our trafficking concerns and our domestic violence and sexual violence concerns.

If you would all like to draft that bill with me, I would be happy to write it with you. But given these specific ideas that came directly from violent survivors, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Thank you very much. It's a great bill, and I think it's just gonna call attention to this this the unique needs of survivors as we are not only doing our our housing element planning, but hopefully investing the resources to increase housing opportunities for them. So with that, we have a motion by Senator Chua Bau. If you can please call the roll.

Motion do passed to the Senate floor. Senators Aragine. Aye. Aragine. Aye.

Aragine. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, Aye.

Caballero. Caballero. Aye. Durazo. Durazo, Aye.

Grayson. Grayson Aye, Ochoa Bog Ochoa Bog, Aye, Padilla Padilla Aye, Perez.

Keep that bill in call for absent members, but it has enough votes to move out today. Thank you. We will now go to file item 10, AB 2128, and wanna welcome the chair of the Assembly Housing Committee, to the Senate Housing Committee, mister Haney, and, whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill.

Thank you, mister chair and members. AB 2128 will protect tenants in public and federally subsidized housing from losing their homes due to work requirements or arbitrary time limits. This bill is a direct response to proposed federal changes that would allow housing providers to require tenants to work up to forty hours a week or lose their housing assistance after as little as two years.

At a time when California is already facing a severe housing shortage and record homelessness, these policies would move us in the wrong direction. For decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, federal housing assistance has been based on need, not on whether someone can meet rigid work mandates or arbitrary deadlines.

These proposed changes upend that foundation and put more than 1,000,000 Californians who rely on HUD assistance at risk of losing their homes. Work requirements and time limits do not improve economic outcomes, and they don't get people into stable housing. Instead, they create unnecessary barriers that can push families out of stable housing, not because they no longer need help, but because they cannot meet inflexible rules in already unaffordable housing market.

Even though the policies from the Federal Government are being framed as optional, housing providers will face pressure to adopt them, putting vulnerable Californians at greater risk of eviction and homelessness. AB 2128 ensures that that does not happen here in California.

It is about protecting housing stability and preventing unnecessary displacement. With me here today is Anya Lawler on behalf of the National Housing Law Project.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, mister chair members. Anya Lawler again here on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, the proud sponsor of AB 2128. Over a million Californians utilize federal rental assistance to afford housing, the majority of whom are seniors, children, and people with disabilities. These are people with extremely low incomes, who would most certainly be homeless, but for this assistance. Cutting off housing assistance to these families based on arbitrary thresholds is cruel.

Renting a family homeless to make room for another family does nothing to respond to the affordable housing shortage. We need more affordable housing, not policies that put the blame on some of the most low income and vulnerable among us for inequities in our society. Again, while this federal rule is going to be optional, we expect that HUD will exert significant pressure on housing authorities in California to opt in. They're already starting to do that. This bill insulates housing authorities from that pressure.

They already have scarce funds that should be used to keep people housed, not diverted for additional and unhelpful administrative burdens. This is urgent. The proposed rule has already gone out for public comment. HUD is reviewing those comments now, and we expect them to adopt it in the next few months. So we need to pass this legislation now to protect California families and avoid increasing homelessness. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2128?

We're about to charge you with Housing California in support, also on behalf of the California Housing Partnership.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property in support.

Rebecca Jackson representing the San Francisco Women's Housing Coalition in support.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee for comments or motion.

Senator Caballero.

Moved by Senator Caballero. Any further discussion? If not, I'll turn it back over to close.

Right before we ask for aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion by Senator Caballero, which is do pass the set of floor.

Senator Aragon? Aye. Aragon, aye. Saarto? No. Saarto, no. Cortesi? Aye. Cortesi, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, Aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, Aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, Aye. Ochoa Bog? Ochoa Bog, no. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, Aye. Perez.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much. That I think, completes all of our bill presentation. So, I think we should go back and lift the call on bills, starting first with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Aye. Durazo, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye.

Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Perez.

We'll keep that the consent calendar on call. I think next is file item two AB 939.

[Roll Call]

Aye. Padilla, aye.

Has anyone not voted on that one?

That's eight to zero.

Everyone's voted? Yes. Okay. So that that bill's out on a vote of eight to zero. Okay. Moving now to five and three AB 956, Quirk Silva.

Moving now to five and three AB 956, Quirk Silva.

[Roll Call]

Senator Grayson, aye. Senator Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Senator Perez?

Okay. We'll keep that on call. Next is Gipson. File item four AB 1165 Gipson.

[Roll Call]

Aye. Padilla, aye.

We'll keep that on call. I think next is file item 5AB1184 Patterson.

[Roll Call]

Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Perez.