Senate Standing Committee on Housing

The Senate Housing Committee will begin in sixty seconds. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Housing. Just a few announcements as we begin today's hearing. Today's consent calendar consists of AB 1899 Colosa, AB 1924Gabriel, a B2020Gabriel, a B2626Gabriel, a B2044 Petrie Norris, and a B2174 Johnson, and a B2185 Quirk Silva.

Seeing that we do not have a quorum, we will operate as a subcommute. I know we're waiting for Assembly member Wicks who's gonna present, the first item on our agenda, which is a special order to take up AB 1751. Once we establish a quorum, we'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar, and I'd like to ask the sergeants to please call absent members to come to Capitol Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business.

So the committee will be in recess until the first author shows up. Thank you.

I know we have a lot of people here for the first item on our agenda, and we're gonna do our best to help facilitate the public comment. And just wanna summarize our public comment procedure for our bill hearings. On each bill, the author has designated two principal witnesses to speak in support of the bill. They'll each have two minutes to speak on the bill. And after that time, we'll invite anyone else who wants to come up to express support, but their testimony will be limited.

Just state their name, the organization or city they're from, and their position on the bill. We won't be able to take any other extemporaneous testimony. We'll then invite up to two opposition witnesses to testify in a bill and those opposition witnesses should be opposition that have filed a letter of opposition in the portal prior to today's hearing. And then we'll do the same thing. We'll invite people to come up and state their opposition by stating their name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you all for being here today. And just in order to facilitate the hearing, we are gonna limit, the testimony so we can get through our agenda. Thank you very much. Okay. We're gonna reconvene the Senate Housing Committee in thirty seconds.

The Senate committee on housing is back in session, and we're gonna proceed with our special order, which consists of one item, Assembly bill 1751 by Assembly members Quirk Silva and Wicks, and Assembly member Wicks will be presenting, the bill this afternoon. And good afternoon, Assembly member, and I wanna invite any, principal witnesses to also join us as well.

Okay. Seventeen fifty one. Well, thank you, Mister Chair, members, and staff. I'm proud I'm a proud coauthor of AB 1751, and I'm presenting today on behalf of miss, Assembly member Sharon Quirk Silva, who is not feeling well today. I'll do my best to channel my inner, Quirk Silva.

Before I begin, I wanna thank the committee members and committee staff for their thoughtful conversations on this bill. After productive conversations with the Chair, which we deeply appreciate, we are prepared to accept the following committee amendments today based on your recommendations. First, we are striking the wave wage provision in the bill. We continue to strongly believe that the tangible upside of raising wages for our lowest paid construction workers from $16.90 to $28 per hour greatly outweigh the theoretical downsides.

However, based on the staunch resistance to this change from the building trades, we are willing to drop this provision in order to let the bill proceed.

We are also accepting amendments C and D in the analysis to limit the size of units of net average of seventeen fifty square feet and limit on project sizes no more than 150 units. At this point, we are not accepting proposed amendments a, b, and e regarding downzoning, demolition protections, and site locations. We're happy to work on each of these issues and think that there's a nuanced pathway for all of them and wanna continue those conversations.

But collectively, these amendments would have neutered the bill, and we are not able to reach an agreement at this time, but, of course, wanna continue conversations with you as well as other committee chairs as we move forward. And any members who have an opinion or concern, our door is always open as well as with all stakeholders, of course.

Now onto the bill itself. AB 1751 builds on recent housing reforms by expanding access to one of the most attainable paths to homeownership, which is townhomes. Homeownership is out of reach for far too many Californians. Only 18% of households can afford the median priced single family home, and a family now needs an annual income of roughly $221,000 to purchase a home.

These numbers reflect a market that is pushing tradespeople, nurses, teachers, firefighters, and our young adults out of stability, out of their communities, and in many cases, out of the state of California.

This is a structural failure that is pricing out people who keep our communities running, and frankly, this is a policy choice that we have made over time. AB 1751 allows for ministerial approval of qualifying townhome projects that meet clear objective standards. These townhomes would have to be on land zoned for multifamily housing or underdeveloped single family sites. They could no they could be no higher than three stories of occupied living space.

In keeping with other bills that allow ministerial housing, they would be required to meet all local inclusionary housing ordinances for projects over 10 units and avoid sites that are environmentally sensitive or hazardous.

If we are serious about addressing affordability, we need to create more pathways into homeownership, and I strongly believe this bill delivers exactly that. With me here to testify in support is Ed Manning on behalf of the New California Coalition and Danny Curtin on behalf of the California Conference of Carpenters.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the Ed Manning . New California Coalition is a statewide coalition of business and civic organizations focused on trying to improve the life of ordinary Californians. We are proudly sponsoring this bill. The bill is called the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, which tells you a lot about why we're doing the bill.

In California, the last five years, we've had about a 100,000 housing starts, give or take a year. And in the most recent data, 20 to 25% of those starts are ADUs. HCD says the need is over 300,000 new units a year just to keep up with demand. So we're falling behind every year. Why townhomes?

Townhomes are unique in that they are financeable. They're buildable, and there is demand. They're 30% on average below the price of a single family home, which makes an enormous difference to people trying to get a mortgage and make payments. They use land more wisely. There's a minimum density of this bill in urban areas at 25 units an acre.

So we're trying to maximize every inch of space. And importantly, the way this bill is structured, we will create more sites, which is the key. There have to be enough sites to build townhomes on. This bill will will significantly increase the number of sites available. We've done analysis by MapCraft, the consulting firm.

They've looked at sites across the state. The, the result of that based on their analysis is that it will create significant new home ownership opportunities for working class families who make between 150 to 250% of area median income. The bill, as Assembly member Wicks says, reserves a whole bunch of sites that we cannot touch. You cannot down zone sites that are designated for affordable housing and the housing element. You can't touch sites that are under rent control.

You can't touch sites where the housing is under restrictive covenant for affordability. So we've tried to go and look at any site that has any sort of affordability component or protections to make sure those sites are untouched. The promise of this bill is based on metrics and data and a lot of work. We appreciate the work of the committee and the committee consultant on this bill. And there are, I assume, gonna be a lot of questions about how it would work and the mechanics.

But the one thing I can say is that we're very, very confident that if this bill gets put into law, it will move the dial. We will create competition, and there'll be pressure on pricing in a good way for this type of housing. Thank you and ask you to support the bill.

Mister chairman, member, Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. Thank you very much. The carpenters have cosponsored this bill, AB 1751, for three reasons. One, a union carpenter at the top of their game does not earn enough today to qualify for a mortgage for a bottom tier home in California. That was the first and foremost.

Two, it contains and it enhances stronger private enforcement provisions for our joint labor management programs, which we all know about or at least many of us do. Three, it will begin to increase wages for housing construction workers, the most abused workers in the construction industry. You've asked Mister chairman, you've asked the authors to drop the minimum wage increase. We support this bill and we will continue to support this bill, but we do not support that request.

There is no public opposition registered to the increase in the minimum wage from any segment of the construction industry that I'm aware of except for the building trades.

We've heard no explanation to why the minimum wage increase should be dropped, and especially now, since we've limited the minimum wage in our proposal increase to the carpentry scope of work only determined by the Department of Industrial Relations, it won't affect any other craft or any other workers. According to the billing trades, AB 1751 effectively undermines California's prevailing wage law. By supporting it, you will turn your back on a hundred years of prevailing wage law.

Supporting it means no requirement to use apprentices like existing prevailing wage law. The point here, senators, is this bill addresses private construction.

It does not address public works construction. Carpenters would never support a bill attacking prevailing wage laws. We are part of the architecture of how what the laws are. If you were here twenty five years ago, you'd know a lot more what I'm talking about. There are over 330,000 largely immigrant, nonunion housing construction workers in California, more than the entire union construction workforce in California.

That's a fact. You can look it up. Wage theft in the underground economy are rampant in the housing construction industry. For the workers in that industry in today's America, and this is something that's extremely critical, just going to work in the daylight is an act of courage for those workers, considering what's going on in our country. No one in this room represents those workers.

We do not see them as our competition or as a threat to our jobs. We see them as future members, but we must work for it. Raising the minimum wage in this industry to $28, a 60% wage, will make a huge difference in many of their lives, and it will definitely send a strong signal that the California legislature sees them and cares. Now more than ever, that matters. We ask that you don't let politics get in the way of good policy.

This issue should be discussed in this housing commission committee. And Mister chairman, I want to just let you know that Carpenter strongly believe it needs to stay in this bill. Thank you for the time. I know there's been discussions, and it's been a little bit disappointing from our perspective, but we're realist and politics is a long game. So thank you.

Thank you, Mister Curtin. Okay. We're going to invite anyone else who would like to express support for Assembly bill 1751 to please approach the microphone. And if you can limit your testimony, just state your name, the organization or city you are from, and your position on the bill. I know that we have people outside, so we're gonna do our best to kind of facilitate that public comment.

So if there's anyone in the room or outside who wants to express support for Assembly Bill 1751, You can please state your support at this time.

Good afternoon, Chair members. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council and on behalf of Habitat for Humanity in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair members, Bob Naylor for Field Set and company. That's Howard Amundson junior in support.

Thank you.

Jasmine Adbankula with the Cal Asian Chamber in support. Thank you.

K. We'll wait a few a few more seconds to see if there's anyone out in the hallway who would like to express support. Thank you. And then after that, we'll take opposition witnesses. And I know that there may be people here who are tweeners, meaning you don't have a support or a post position.

So we'll take, we'll take that testimony after that. Yeah. So we're just waiting for see if there are any more support witnesses because we have a lot of people out in the hallway and we're the sergeants are helping bring people in.

So we'll take, we'll take that testimony after that. Yeah. So we're just waiting for see if there are any more support witnesses because we have a lot of people out in the hallway and we're the sergeants are helping bring people in.

No one else? Okay.

Okay. So that completes, support testimony. We'll now take only opposition testimony. Are there two principal opposition witnesses? Thank you.

And then after that time, we'll take any opposition or tweener testimony, meaning, in between. And, you both have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of The Public Interest Law Project and a coalition of equity groups who have an oppose unless amended position on this bill. We had raised three issues in our letter, one of which is addressed in the amendments accepted today, and one of which was in the proposed amendments that were among those that the coauthor indicated are part of an ongoing conversation.

And I want to focus my remarks on those provisions because they're extremely important to us and to our low income clients. And those are the provisions related to ensuring adequate demolition and displacement provisions.

It's critical that as we add these new tools to remove barriers to construction of new housing, that we also do so in a way that does not do so at the expense of existing households, with a loss of rent stabilized units or in a fashion that results in other rental housing being lost. And in recognition of that, over the past many years, the legislature has enacted a fairly uniform set of protections in that regard.

This bill today deviates from those provisions in two important ways which we hope will be addressed as the bill continues to move forward. The first, is that while it protects rent stabilized units as the co author noted, it does so in using unusual language and it says that only those units that were enacted by adopted ordinance.

That phrase does not appear in any other similar provision in state law that's intended to protect rent controlled units and I think it's worth noting that several local rent control ordinances including the city of Berkeley and the city of Santa Monica were enacted by voter initiatives.

So is that enacted by adopted ordinance? That seems to create enormous ambiguity about whether this rent controlled units in the city of Berkeley are protected or not. Secondly, and equally importantly, every measure in this regard has said that you can't use these streamlining tools on sites where there's existing rental housing or housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past X number of years, five years in most cases. And this bill deviates from that in two important ways.

One, it only protects rent, rental housing that's rent stabilized. So not other units occupied by tenants, but even worse it does not include for one category of uses. The protection on the five-year look-back, which means that a developer can easily or the seller can evict all the tenants, demolish the units and then voila, they now have a vacant site that qualifies for streamlining even though the intent was to ensure that those sites are off limits and that's why this look back provision is so important.

We have to ensure that it's not just presently occupied units, but also sites in which in the five years preceding, they have were occupied and Ellis was not used to remove those units. Until we can address those issues, our organizations remain opposed, but we look forward to working with the author, sponsor, and subsequent committees to address those issues.

Thank you, Mr. Augusta.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition to the measure. Our concerns result in--or relay several things. I think the proposed amendments looking at ensuring that the density cities have planned for that are higher than the minimum density would have qualified, unfortunately, aren't gonna be accepted. But one of the concerns that we have from a city perspective is both sides the coin in the housing debate.

One, if a city has planned for more density in their multifamily zones, this measure says that you cannot have objective development standards that physically preclude the construction of minimum 75% of the mullein densities, which therefore means that cities that have planned for more density, which has been the push for the legislature for the last ten years, would be required to decrease the amount of density that they plan for and then they have to go find additional sites in their state approved housing element which is gonna put challenges for built out cities and for cities that have planned for more density.

So there's that side of the coin. On the other side of the coin, for areas that are single family zones, the requirement would be that if they're vacant, they would have to be upzoned to be the three stories. Now the challenge with that is the infrastructure challenges that we have planned for.

So we do remain concerned about this measure and continue to urge the, to ensure that objective development standards and those density and infrastructure that cities are planning for through their housing elements and through their general plan are relied upon and, respected before approval. So with that, happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now invite anyone wishing to express opposition to Assembly Bill 1751. If you'd like to express opposition, please approach the microphone, set your name, organization, and position on the bill. Can we check, sergeants outside if there's anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 1751?

Purva Bhattacharjee with Housing California. We are respectfully opposed unless amended to address affordability, renter protections, and downzoning. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property, and we are opposed unless amended.

Thank you very much. I believe those are all the opposition witnesses. We'll now invite anyone else like to come forward to state any in between position. Once again, name, organization, and position.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. If I just may have ten seconds, just say, we look forward to seeing the amendments in print. We understand the amendments that were taken today take the wage language out of the bill.

We are pleased with that. Just wanna remind everybody there's already a minimum construction worker wage. It's called the prevailing wage. And it's time in this building that we stop blaming workers' wages for why things aren't getting built. Thank you.

Vince Sugrue, on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, here to support the committee chair's amendments to protect the prevailing wage.

Mister Chairman and members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, I'd like to thank the committee and the authors for the work on the amendments. And with that, we're neutral. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Erica Valentine with UA Local 393. I stand before you on behalf of 27 locals in the state of California with over 50,000 members. Those standing behind me are UA Local 38, 62, 159, 228, 246, 342, 393, 442, 447, 448, DC 36. We ask that the workers be--here to support the committee chair's amendments to protect the prevailing wage. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Casey Van Den Heuvel. I'm here representing thousands of working-class families from Monterey and Santa Cruz County as president and CEO of the Building and Construction Trades Council. I am here today to support the chair's amendments, to protect prevailing wage. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Mark with the San Joaquin County Building and Construction Trades Council. We appreciate the amendments from the committee here, and we will be neutral. Thank you.

Mister Chair, members. Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. We are very supportive of the the amendments that the the committee proposed. Thank the committee and the author for their work on this, and we look forward to seeing them in print so we can, hopefully get to a neutral position. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, committee members. Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council, also I'm Northern California Vice President for State Building Trades Council. We're here to support the chair's amendments to protect prevailing wage. Thank you.

Good evening, committee members. I'm Ansermio Jake Estrada here on behalf of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council. We're here to support the committee chair's amendments and protect the prevailing wage.

Chair, members. Nick Romo on behalf of the City of San Jose. We remain concerned that the proposal downzones high-quality transit areas, costing us 5,000 ready-to-go homes in some areas. So we look forward to continuing working with the author and sponsors.

Okay. Thank you very much. I know that we have people, kinda entering and exiting the room. And so, while while that's happening, ask the sergeants if you can ask anyone in the--in the corridor. Is anyone else wishing to give testimony?

Okay. It sounds like we have five more five more speakers. Believe that those are all the witnesses. So we'll bring it back to the committee for discussion, colleagues. And we do not yet have a quorum.

We're waiting for three more members. I know the sergeants have a lot of work today, but I know that they're also reaching out to the member offices to make sure we can get a quorum, because at the present time, we can't entertain a motion yet. But I wanna now turn over to my colleagues for questions or comments, whoever would like to begin the discussion.

A few of both of them.

Okay. Okay.

I'll turn it over to vice Chair Ciarato to begin.

Alright. Well, thank you all for being here because this is an important issue. One of the issues with housing is are we building the right kind of housing? Are we helping people launch their, their personal lives in a in a right direction? And this middle middle part, where you're actually buying your first home, you might not be able to home afford a single family home, but you can certainly, you're a lot closer to affording a condominium or a townhome or something like that.

So we're talking about things that you can buy and build wealth on. And and then when you're done with that, you can move up to the next level. Right now, what's happening is, we are putting people into what I call temporary housing, which is is mostly rental housing, and that's what we're building. Lots and lots and lots of rental housing.

But the problem is once somebody has lived in rental housing, especially if it's market rate, eventually, there comes a time when they have to make a decision.

Because if they're paying market rate rental housing, they're not gonna be able to save for a down payment for a house. No matter what kind of gimmicks we may come up with to get you a down payment, if the prices aren't, reasonable enough, you won't be able to afford the mortgage even if you had the down payment. And so people are left with, a decision of whether to stay here in California or leave. And, and a lot of our young people are leaving because of that.

So it's important that we address this middle housing.

And, you know, from a housing perspective, this bill makes a lot of sense. It helps incentivize building the type of housing that we're missing right now that we're it's it's the step in the ladder that we need to make. Otherwise, we're not there is no step. The step is a big hole. People fall through the hole.

They get up. They dust themselves off, and they go off to another state and buy a house or buy a townhome. So so it's really important, that that we we try to incorporate this. Now the other problem, and we'll be addressing some of this in local gov next week, I think, is, a lot of these come with, what has become an interchangeable word, but it really isn't interchangeable if you've ever been in local government. By right housing is not the same as ministerial approval.

By right means you you have a right to it and, really doesn't matter what anybody says. You get to go build there. You just check-in with the, the the city and let them know what you're doing. Ministerial approval, actually, all it does is bypass planning commission and City Council, and and then you have a hearing with the planning director. And that's who does the ministerial approval on behalf of the city.

They still have some control over what's going on and how this project looks and and whether it meets all the requirements, that are needed in the city infrastructure requirements and things like that. So while we've kinda con you know, we've kinda conflated those two things, so they almost mean the same thing to a lot of people. They don't mean the same to me.

And as a former official on a or as a former mayor and council member, I I remember this issue long ago when it came up. And, you know, why have this big process for something that we already know is going to be approved?

And all we're really doing is getting everybody mad. And, and so you have you know, we set up something where, we could have, an easier process, that allows it still be heard, allows people still to have input, but it doesn't have to wait months and months for everything to get scheduled up through hearings. So, with this, you know, they're talking about ministerial approval, which to me means it goes to the city and they still have input.

But the other part of this this issue is HCD's role. I have some fairly new cities that and I'm talking new in the last thirty years.

They've had some boom and bust in all the cities as far as their growth is concerned. And as HCD has become more and more of the, buy right organizer for the the buy right community, cities have had less and less, input. They've had less and less control. Their and it's driving their citizens nuts, to be honest with you. When we're looking at these townhomes, this offers a different variety of home and a different asset for a community that HCD can play a role in.

But if HCD is going to make cities comply with this and then replace it with even more density somewhere else, that's not gonna be helpful. That's not gonna be helpful for cities. And then from a local gov perspective, I would say I would not vote for that. But from a housing perspective, trying to address this middle middle, housing thing, that's that's a laudable goal.

We just find have to find, you know, the the sweet spot where we don't have we don't give HCD the the the authority to do more damage to cities than they're already doing.

I wish they would work with our cities. I really do. But I I have not had that experience with them personally. And, and so I I would like them to work with us, to make sure that when we add assets into a community like this, that they're not being punished for it elsewhere. So, you know, today, from a housing perspective, I am supportive of of what they're trying to do here.

And, and so I'm probably going to support this today. But we do have this in local gov, and local gov has different issues next week. And, and I hope there are some discussions about with HCD about how they're going to react to this. Are they going to make them replace the units that and when they when they have a less dense units that you can buy, are they gonna make them replace it with other units somewhere else?

Because they've already inundated some of our cities with so many apartments, they can't even fill them right now.

We don't have enough jobs for if people moved into them, for them to be out there. And and so that's where our housing issues are going awry, is we're building all the front end stuff, entry level apartments, probably not enough affordable parts, but there's nowhere for people to go after that because everything else is unaffordable. There is no fix that we are going to do that's going to make prices go down. Prices are supply and demand.

And, if there is not enough supply to meet the demand, the prices are gonna stay high.

If there's too if there's a lot of supply and not that much demand, then the prices are going to drop. We can't legislate a drop in prices. However much it costs to build homes, all of that counts. It's not all labor. It's all the other stuff, the material, the legal environment.

And I understand from the author, you do have a bill regarding that. Right? Construction defect bill?

Yeah. So that has to be also addressed in order for something like this to work, because we can pass all these we want. If we don't cons if we don't fix that other stuff, they're still not gonna be able to build it because it won't pencil out. Building the thing, and then add in your legal your your legal, liability for ten years or whatever it is, it doesn't pencil out. Nobody's gonna build it.

Yes.

You don't build stuff. You don't it doesn't pencil out. Nobody's gonna build it. You don't build stuff that is you you can't make any money on at all. So those are some of the challenges that we're having right now, and I applaud people that are trying to work on this and and trying to start looking at parts that are broken and fix them, like, the author's bill on another thing.

But I I don't I don't see I I see problems that need to be addressed beyond just this thing. And, and and hopefully, we can continue to work on that. I'm more than welcome to meet with anybody who wants to talk about the next phase, which is gonna be local gov. This passes out of committee today and and what the effects are.

And, and if HCD wants to have them that meeting about what their role can be that's a little more positive than it is today, I'd be more than happy to sit down with them and talk about that.

But, like I said, I I've had some meetings on some critical issues regarding housing and reasonableness. All they're worried about is numbers. We need to worry about numbers, and we need to worry about, what fits in communities and what what's missing in those communities so that we can create this balance. Because that balance balances out demand, and that balancing out demand will help lower prices. So, anyway, so I am probably gonna support this today and, appreciate the work that everybody has put in to this.

But, next week is gonna be a little bit of a challenge. So thank you.

Thank you, vice Chair of CR two. Any other members wishing to speak at this time?

No way. Come on, man.

Senator Cabaldon? There are four bills today

I haven't spoken on in committee. Come on, Kelly, Senator Zajardo. I I am also gonna support the bill today. I think that some of the reforms here are important to move forward a a a key part of the of a key segment of the housing market. We need to build all of all of more of everything, apartments, townhouses, condos, yurts, what whatever.

We need it we need it all, and this bill will help to, to make this segment of the market, which is particularly affordable in nature, not not all the time, but much more viable. I do wanna say, I I I the amendment package that's been adopted today, I I understand the why. I am it's heartbreaking to me that we're that we are in this situation, though.

I mean, we we last year had a same the same issue come forward, around how do we how do we do right by the men and women the men and women of the state that are building a large amount of the housing in the state, and and and we we we hope and we wish for them to be represented and defended and championed just like other construction workers in the state, but many of them are not. A majority of them are not.

And and they need to live their lives today and be able to afford a place to live and health care and and everything else. And I I understand all of the but I I I shouldn't say that. I I understand some of the politics and organizational relationships, and those all those all matter. They're all they're all real in the domains that they're in.

But rather than sort of put this over for another year and say, let's keep thinking about it and not produce, let's I hope we can resolve as a as a as a legislature and as the, you know, the the labor family and others, like, let's seriously figure out how to take this on.

I mean, we did we did do fast food minimum wage in advance of everybody being unionized. We were working on, you know, wage floors in other areas, and it just seems like the the right thing to do in concept. I realize that concept is not everything. But for those who are are feeling disappointed about the amendments today, I share your heartbreak.

For those who are feeling excited about it, I hope you're also committed to to making sure that we're doing right by these workers on their way hopefully to to becoming represented, but in the meantime, making sure that they that they have the, you know, a basic level of wage support in the state in order to to to keep them.

Because we need more of them, we need more housing. And so thanks thanks to the author and to the coauthor, for your for championing this. I know the chairs worked hard also to try to make something, work together, and I support that. But really, let's not let let's not have one more, you know, battle where they where everybody goes home and we come back next year and have it all again.

Let's really, you know, dedicate ourselves to to to to coming up with solutions that will will help this important segment of California's construction industry that will make sure that we can provide the housing that we need for California.

So thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Rosso?

Yeah. We some of us have had these conversations multiple times over multiple years, and we are where we are. We'll keep on keep on trying. I just want to clarify, Mister Chair, in terms of the amendments. Yes.

Just to be sure in terms of what I'm I'm voting on. Yes. There is a a wage provision that was struck as one amendment.

On page 14 of the analysis under number 10 summarizes six amendments that we have we have proposed to the author authors, and sponsors and in discussion with them. Ultimately, we came to agreement on three, and those are 10 c, limit the size of the units to a standard net average of seven seventeen fifty, That 1,750 square feet. Limit the project size to no more than a 150 units and strike the wage provisions in the bill.

So those are the three amendments that we have negotiated with the authors that that the authors have accepted today, and that would be part of a motion to advance the bill today.

Okay. I just wanna add that along with the with the with the amendments that were accepted that you that you proposed, that there were others that I agreed with and unfortunately, they were not accepted. But I do believe that they need to be addressed, and my intention is to address them in local gov. So just to make make that real clear on down zoning, on demolition protections, on preventing sprawl, affordability requirements, general plan consistency, the Coastal Act, tribal consultation, and, wage standards for large projects.

So, I just wanna make it clear those are all these issues that are still outstanding for me on local gov, and we'll take them up at that.

That that's all.

K. Thank you. We're on AB 1751, Senator Gonzales. And would you like to speak at this time?

Yeah. Thank you so much. And Aye, I do wanna say thank you to the Chair and, you know, both parties for being able to come to the table. But, you know, it's been it's I I will have to concur with Senator Kovalton a little bit frustrating. I know our our good, colleague in the Assembly is no stranger to that.

And I know that, you know, there's a lot of certainly a lot of work to go around, but I know that in this space, I am a little bit frustrated with the wage being taken out just given that, you know, we do have a segment of folks that need to make more than just minimum wage. But I understand where we're coming from. I just wish that much of this would be taken care of ahead of time versus in committee here.

And then now I've got a lot of projects going on in Long Beach where, you know, a lot of multi, you know, unit projects happening that are really robust, really great. And I don't know how much those folks are gonna make.

I would hope that they'd make, a bit more than minimum wage, but we don't know. So, but with that, the goal I think that we're all concentrated on is absolutely ensuring that we're building robust housing, and that is the goal, and that's what I'm committed to. I will, certainly support this today. I just look forward to more conversations and hopefully not having this constant, issue come up again and again. Thank you.

We're still waiting for one more Senator to join us so we can establish a quorum. So if you are the senators or staff for Senator Chua Bau, Senator Caballero, Senator Cortez's, Senator Grayson, or Senator Padilla, I know some members are in other committees as well. But if you are able to come to Capitol Room 112, we would greatly appreciate it so we can establish a quorum and entertain motions and conduct business. I will close and just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward.

I know we had conversations early this year with the New California Coalition about this proposal.

And I agree with everything Senator Ciarato said. This is meeting a critical need in California. We have done so much over the past decade to streamline the production of rental housing, but we are locking out a whole generation of Californians from entering the ownership market, including myself. And so by making it easier to build town homes in urban and rural communities throughout California, which is a much more affordable type, we are gonna be able to get more people to enter the ownership market.

I will pause my comments, and we have a quorum.

And if the committee assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Aragine?

Aragine here. Cierto?

Here.

Here.

Cierto here. Caballero? Cortesi, Durazo? Durazo here, Gonzales? Gonzales here, Grayson?

Ochoboke? Ochoboke here, Padilla?

Okay. We do have a quorum. And just to pick up on my comments, which is why, you know, I'm I'm committed to moving a bill out today and working with the the authors. We landed on a set of amendments to help advance this bill and to continue the conversations. I think it's an important conversation.

And I think part of that conversation as Senator Kabaldin touched on is the issue of how we are lifting up workers who are not represented by any union and who are frankly making sub sub prevailing wage wages right now. As our friends in the carpenters know, this is an issue I know all too well from what's happening in the East Bay, particularly in the city of Berkeley, where we have job sites where there are multiple Cal OSHA violations happening. People are getting injured.

People don't have health care. People are living in their cars.

That's completely unacceptable. And I think we all both those representatives of the billing trades and our friends in the carpenters, and I think all the members of this committee share the goal of making sure that we can create a path to high wage, high road jobs for all construction workers in California. So I do appreciate what the what the carpenters have proposed.

While that that's not part of the set of amendments that I I have proposed to the authors, I wanna express my commitment to working with the carpenters, and I think the trades as well to and and to the authors to continue this conversation in the next few months to see and to ensure that we can land on a on a path to establish some minimum floor. It's a floor.

It's not a ceiling because it's unacceptable that we have construction workers, carpenters, and other crafts in California who are being exploited, who don't have access to housing, who are and who are lit are working in dangerous conditions. So I wanna thank the carpenters for advancing this conversation. I think it's an important conversation. It's a conversation that needs to continue. It's a conversation I want to be part of in working with you, and and working with our partners in the building trades as well.

And I hope in the next several months, we can advance that conversation and hopefully arrive at a a solution that we can advance next year in the legislative session. So with that, Senator Chobot, I think, left the room. Yes. I think everyone has spoken. A motion is in order.

But before that, we will turn it back with the author to close.

Thank you. I just and I'm speaking obviously on behalf of Assembly member Cork Silva as well. Appreciate the conversation and all the issues that everyone raised. I appreciate the conversation from the opposition and wanna continue those conversations. I appreciate the passionate neutrality that was expressed here in the committee as well.

And, obviously, to the Chair of Local Gov Committee, I look forward to those conversations next week. I think it's imperative when you look at what's happening in California, and this, I think, speaks to your point, Mister Sciardo, 90% of our infill housing is rental. We're forty ninth out of fiftieth in terms of owner ownership in this country. And, again, those are policy choices we have actively made that have put us in that situation.

By design, we have actively made these policy choices that have led to the housing crisis that we are in.

But the good news is we can change them. We actually have the power to do that. And many of us were sent here from our constituents to do exactly just that.

And so we wanna make sure we're moving forward in conversation with you, madam Chair, and obviously your support as well, Mister Chair, to craft a bill that will allow these types of projects to pencil, allow them to be streamlined, allow them to exist so that our lowest income folks, predominantly people of color, immigrant community, can actually buy a home. We've done a lot of work in streamlining.

We've done very limited work in homeownership opportunities. And I think that's a critical missing aspect of the work that we've done in legislature, and I'm guilty of it myself, which is why I'm doing the construction defect liability bill this year, which is why I'm doing this townhome bill this year with miss Quirk Silva. So I agree and concur and look forward to more conversations in local gov next week.

And just the last thing I'll say about the wage, you know, this this bill is for private sector, non public works projects. Those are 90 plus percent nonunion, if not more.

And the idea to weigh weigh raise the floor from $16.90 to $28 seems like it should actually be an easy thing for us to do in this legislative body as Democrats who voted to support fast food increases and many other aspects like this. And it was said before, this is an industry that is exploited. Many of these folks aren't paid under the table, paid cash.

You know, the exploitation is very real in this industry, and whatever we can do to bring those workers out from the shadows and into the sunlight. And I welcome conversations with the building trades to be an active part of that solution and try to solve for that problem, that specific problem, which I think needs to be solved, and and welcome those conversations, working alongside the Carpenters and others to see if we can land that because I do think it's imperative.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Are you seeing a motion? Okay. The motion is to pass as amended to the committee on local government. If you can please call the roll.

Senators Ehrguin. Aye. Ehrguin, aye. Ciarguin, aye. Ciarguin, Gonzales, aye, Grason, Ocho Vogue, Badia.

We will keep that bill on call for absent senators. I wanna thank you all for joining us today for this discussion. I know that we have a number of people here for the first item.

We will keep that bill on call for absent senators. I wanna thank you all for joining us today for this discussion. I know that we have a number of people here for the first item.

As you are leaving the hearing room, if you can please do so as quietly as possible, we appreciate your participation in today's hearing. And I know that Assemblymember Wicks is going to present the next item on behalf of Assemblymember Quirk Silva.

Okay. Yeah. The other one is fine. Okay. I'm not a co author on this.

Yes. Okay. I know folks are still falling out. Thank you.

Our people are leaving, the chamber. If you could please do so quietly. I wanna turn over to Assellem Ricks to present now on file into AB 750.

Thank you very much, and thank you for allowing me to present AB 750 by miss Quirk Silva. I'm not a coauthor on this bill, so I have less fluency, but we have some expert witnesses here. But miss Quirk Silva is is not feeling well today, so I'm gonna do my best here. Today, I'm presenting this bill on behalf of her.

AB 750 expands access to the Department of Housing and Community Development's portfolio reinvestment program to challenge developments in need of rehabilitation in order to avoid the loss of precious affordable housing in California.

Affordable housing is at the center of California's housing crisis and disproportionately affects low income families and households. As a result, homes and rentals have become out of reach even for mid to high income earners. In response to this, California has developed over 500,000 affordable rental homes for low income families over the last few decades. After fifteen years or more of occupancy, many of these developments require significant rehabilitation.

Developments with the lowest rents designed to provide affordable units are not in a position to leverage debt or tax credits and therefore lack of financing options.

Without rehabilitation, these developments can fall into disrepair and foreclosure, resulting in the loss of much needed affordable housing options. In 2021, California created the Portfolio Reinvestment Program at the Department of Housing and Community Development. This program was established to provide loans and grants to HCD funded developments that have expired affordability contracts or have remaining terms of ten years. However, thousands of units of affordable housing without old HCD loans also need rehabilitation and remain unassisted.

AB 750 expands the type these these types of developments that can qualify for loans or grants to include developments that do not have HCDs loans but are defined as challenged developments.

Should the 2026 Veterans and Housing Bond pass, which I am very familiar with, it includes replenishing these funds for this vital program. Expanding access while prioritizing at risk HCD projects will reduce the risk of loss of losing affordable housing to disrepair and foreclosure while maintaining safe and affordable housing for California's most vulnerable populations. We have two witnesses here who will self identify. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is right.

Thank you very much. And you each have two minutes, and whoever would like to begin.

Good afternoon Mister Chair and committee members Marina Espinosa here with the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of affordable housing and we are proud to cosponsor AB 750 With housing prices climbing, our state has made affordable housing production a top priority, significantly increasing the number of new units and development over the past several years. To address the housing shortage, preserving California's existing stock of deed restricted affordable housing is equally important.

Tens of thousands of affordable portfolio reinvestment program was created to help preserve these units. The program has played a critical role in helping housing providers make repairs and rehabilitate properties facing expiring affordability restrictions. AB 750 offers important updates to this program. The bill expands the types of properties that qualify for PRP, to include those which are at least 15 years old and those which have insufficient access to the public and private resources.

As miss Wicks mentioned, the affordable housing bond will be a major boost to the state's rehabilitation efforts and we are thrilled that it allocates $750,000,000 to PRP.

To to preserve all of our at risk housing, we need both bond resources and AB 750. I strongly urge you to support this bill today.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership. The partnership is a private nonprofit created in 1988 to increase the supply of sustainable affordable homes in California. We are proud to cosponsor AB 750 alongside our partners at the California Housing Consortium. This bill makes targeted common sense improvements to ACD's portfolio reinvestment program, PRP for short, that together protect affordable housing and preserve housing stability for working families across California.

California faces an acute and worsening affordable housing preservation crisis. Since 2001, California housing partnership has found that California has lost over 17,000 subsidized affordable homes due to expiring regulatory restrictions and owners decisions to opt out and convert to market rate. Today, more than 46,000 affordable homes are at risk of losing affordability in the next ten years and more than 6,000 may lose affordability as soon as next year.

Losing these homes would represent a significant loss to residents and surrounding communities given California's need to produce 1,200,000 homes for extremely low income and very low income renters over the next decade. So failing to preserve what we have already built is simply not an acceptable public policy option.

AB 750 provides the relief needed to preserve California's housing stock. The portfolio reinvestment program was designed to decrease the risk of conversion to market rate housing, extend remaining useful life and long term affordability, existing HDD funded projects, and assist the most out risk projects in HDD's loan portfolio, providing loans for rehabilitation and operating subsidies. AB 750 builds on that proven foundation. The PRP has demonstrated record of results.

In just the first two rounds, the pros have preferred over 2,000 affordable homes and directly benefited nearly 4,000 individuals across Northern California, Southern California, and the Central Valley.

Combined in the policy outlined in AB 750 with the funding allocated in the affordable housing bond, will nearly double the amount of affordable homes we are able to preserve. We are grateful for being able to sponsor this bill, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 750? If you could please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We're about to charge you with Housing California in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 750? Registered opposition, but if there are any opposition witnesses here in the room, you're welcome to come forward. See no opposition witness. I'll bring it back to the dais for questions, comments, or motion.

Moved by Senator Gonzales and vice Chair Ciarco.

Kind of a question. The this has been here for four years now. Right?

Yes. It was funded at $200,000,000.

Yes. And so What was the initial funding amount for that?

$200,000,000? And and how many homes have been held? I think you said 2,000?

Yes. We were able to, help 2,000 homes Right.

At the level of 200,000,000.

Okay. I have to do the math in my head how much that is per house. So so it's been you're basically wanting to triple that amount. Correct?

Yeah. With the amount of getting 750 from the bond, we are projected to triple that amount.

Okay. And is it used mostly to per repurchase or to to because you're talking about some of these that have because we have some of these in in our city that were deed restricted From way back. And and they're coming up on their thirty year life, basically. Are they purchasing those back and keeping them deed restricted? How are they keeping them from going to get getting turned into market rate by the, the owners, the currently owners?

Yeah. So the portfolio reinvestment program, some for affordable housing developers, they have to do a needs assessment on the property that they are putting in the market. And a part of that agreement is that they have to make the needed improvements and upgrades in order to maintain their eligibility for it to be affordable. So with the portfolio reinvestment program, it provides the capital for them to be able to do that.

So then when they are nearing their regulatory agreement approach at expiring because they've made those upgrades and, have abided by the necessary, affordability restrictions, they get to continue to have it on the market for as a locum unit.

So they can they can keep renting it?

Yes.

Because one of my concerns is that you have people that are renting homes. You know, one of the responsibilities of being a homeowner that rents a house is that you take care of the darn thing. And that's part of, you know, you get income from wherever it, you know, your your rental income and and part of that has to go towards maintaining. I

don't want the state to be the de facto fixer of everybody's properties, as they just let them dilapidate for fifteen years and then we have the state come in and do that. So that, you know, I I'm kind of looking that hopefully someday we have a little bit more accountability to ensure that, those type of things aren't happening.

Because, it it can be taken advantage of a little bit by some people, and I wanna make sure that the dollars that we do spend are are spent on the people that can truly benefit from those dollars. So thank you, and I will be supporting the ability.

Okay. Unless there are any other questions or comments, I wanna thank our special guest presenter today, particularly for four years of work. It's on the agenda today, but it is relevant to this conversation. Four years of work to advance the veterans and affordable housing bond, which we'll vote on tomorrow, both the Assembly and the Senate, of which a portion of this will help support, the implementation of this bill. I think so many generations of Californians will be better because of your leadership on that.

So thank you very much, Assembly Wicks, and whenever you would like to close.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And it was, in true partnership with you, met, Mister Chair. So, with that respect, I ask for an aye vote.

By Senator Gonzales. If we can please call the roll.

Motion do pass to appropriations. Senators Erghin Aye. Erghin, aye. Ciarto.

And I was mistaken. I'm staying off. Not voting.

Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortesi, Durazo, Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson, Ochoa, Bogue, Padilla.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you very much. Before we go to Assembly member Schultz who has two bills to present, I wanna entertain a motion on the consent calendar, which consists of AB 1899 Colosa, AB 1924 Gabriel, AB 2020 Gabriel, AB 2026 Gabriel, AB 2044 Petri Norris, AB 2174 Johnson, and AB 2185 Quirk Silva. Moved by Senator Gonzales.

If the committee assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Our next bill and file order, which is followed in four AB 306 by Assemblyman Richholtz. Assembly member, whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill.

Well, thank you very much, Mister Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to be with you this afternoon to present AB 306. We would like to begin by thanking the committee and your staff for your hard work on this bill. AB 306 would require the California Building Standards Commission to hear and decide appeals regarding a local agency's implementation of the state building code and to issue code interpretations. California's 540 unique jurisdictions independently and interpret and amend state building standards leading to inconsistency and inefficiency.

There is currently no mechanism in the state of California for a housing proponent to appeal a local code interpretation and no mechanism to apply for a code equivalency determination across our many jurisdictions. The current appeals process requires local agency and, participation, which is extremely rare. It also requires prior exhaustion of all local appeals. The limitations of the current appeals process led to the following negative outcomes.

Design, solutions deemed acceptable in one jurisdiction that may not be accepted in surrounding jurisdictions, Manufacturers, design professionals, and others who create housing innovations must secure approvals one jurisdiction at a time.

Navigating approvals across our 540 independent jurisdictions is a impediment to scaling innovation statewide, and it significantly increases the cost of housing and the timelines for project delivery. AB 306 addresses the lack of a practical and effective statewide appeals process to resolve code related issues of broad significance. More specifically, it establishes a more workable process for resolving building code issues that have statewide implications while preserving local authority over matters that are appropriately addressed at the local level.

These reforms would help reduce unnecessary barriers to housing, improve consistency in code application, encourage innovation, and support more efficient project delivery statewide. I'd like to note that recent author amendments dealt with most of the concerns raised by labor.

And yesterday, we came to an agreement on language that would make them neutral on AB 306. With me today to speak in support of AB 306 is Bruce Monaghan, licensed architect and Chair of the American Institute of Architects, and California Housing Steering Committee, and Ali Sapremen, advocacy and policy manager with the Housing Action Coalition. At the appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly member. Mute, you have two minutes to present the bill, and whoever would like to begin.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. My name is Bruce Monaghan. I'm licensed architect, and I do represent the American Institute of Architects and the 11,000 members of architects and design professionals across the state. I'd like to begin by thanking, the Chair and the committee staff for their time and collaboration on the amendments to this particular bill. We are sponsoring AB 306 because California's current system for building code interpretations and appeals creates unnecessary inconsistency, delay, and cost.

Today, the same building code can be interpreted differently in five forty different jurisdictions, creating uncertainty and delay for homeowners, builders, and housing providers. In a state facing housing shortage, those delays matter. AB 306 creates a workable process for appeals and statewide code interpretations and significantly while preserving local control. Local governments would continue to make decisions on local issues and projects and specific matters that through their existing processes. This bill simply provides a pathway for consistent interpretation on issues of statewide concern.

The bill also builds on the models that already work. Both the State Fire Marshall and Division of State Architects maintain successful code interpretation process. AB 306 extends a similar approach to other state building standards and makes those determinations publicly available. Finally, the bill supports housing innovation. Today, a new material, method, or technology may be approved in one jurisdiction, but face the same review process elsewhere.

AB 306 helps ensure the lessons learned in a an individual jurisdiction may be shared effectively across five forty state jurisdictions. AB 306 is a balanced practical reform that reduces unnecessary barriers while maintaining appropriate safeguards and local authority. For those reasons, AIA California respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Ali Zaperman, advocacy and policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition. I'm speaking today in strong support of AB 306. At Hack, we represent developers, architects, attorneys, construction professionals, and labor unions across California who encounter building code in inconsistency as a daily barrier to housing delivery. California's 540 jurisdictions independently interpret state building standards, and there is currently no practical mechanism for an affected party to to appeal a local interpretation on their own.

The existing process requires a local agency participation, meaning a jurisdiction must essentially agree to appeal its own decision, which almost never happens. A v three zero six fics that. The bill's code interpretation request process is a meaningful addition, giving any person the ability to request a determination from the California Building Standards Commission, the state body that adopts and publishes the standard, the California Building Standards Code, creates a real accessible pathway for resolving ambiguity that currently gets resolved from inconsistency across jurisdictions or not at all.

For hack members working on adaptive reuse, this matters especially. Local code amendment triggers for adaptive reuse projects very dramatically across the state and there has been no state level forum to address that.

A B 306 begins to change that. The transparency requirement requiring local agencies to post their code interpretations and amendments online is simple and overdue. Hack members regularly discover local interpretations mid project, making them publicly accessible upfront and reduces cost and delay. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 306? Please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Freddie Quintana with the California Apartment Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Raymond Contradas with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spur, and Habitat for Humanity California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Purba Vadasharji with Housing California in support.

Nolan Gray, California MB in support.

Mia Kong, Council of Infill Builders in support.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much. Okay. Are there any opposition witnesses to AB 306? Sounds like you did a good job

We try. Working with opposition. Unless there is anyone coming forward to express opposition? We'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, or a motion. Vice Chair Ciarco.

So from a local perspective, local governments can write more restrictive building codes and ordinances, but they can't they can't be less restrictive.

That's correct.

So are they finding that because, you know, when you're interpreting the code, the the the uniform fire code, the uniform building code, standards code, whatever it is, two feet is two feet. But I think a lot of the angst comes when the local building code that's been injected into the the the other code, and those are all by local ordinance. How is a state going to overturn what the local government has inserted as their own standard?

Because otherwise, that's just like a lawsuit in the in the thing in the courts.

Well, they would not. There's a there's a process called alternative methods of beans. And the AMM process has been used in local jurisdictions to go through and look at alternatives to both the state building code and any local amendments. This process would allow a conversation on AMMs to a state level for clarification as to an availability of that. It doesn't take away local control and it doesn't overturn it.

But out of the 540 state jurisdictions statewide,

there's a lot of different interpretations of a particular code. This is simply an opportunity for get to get a clarification on what that code can be interpreted as as presented. It does not create a precedent, but it does create an opportunity for other building departments to look at as a model to consider within their own local jurisdiction.

lot of different interpretations of a particular code. This is simply an opportunity for get to get a clarification on what that code can be interpreted as as presented. It does not create a precedent, but it does create an opportunity for other building departments to look at as a model to consider within their own local jurisdiction.

Okay. You know, this can be looked at if you're an opposition person. You can it can be looked at as another layer of bureaucracy that holds up the the building of a of of a unit over, you know, try interpretations of the code. But if somebody wants to go down that avenue, that's their own choice, I would think. So if somebody wants to delay their project, then they could access this and and it's delayed for whatever, and then they get the answer they want eventually.

So, that would be a self inflicted wound. So but, giving people an alternative process, I don't know that I'm necessarily opposed to that as long as it's not imposed on them as opposed to a voluntary thing. Thank you.

Thank you. So I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. This bill makes several changes to the appeal process at the California Building Standards Commission. You know, it gives an individual the ability to appeal a decision of a local building department to the CBSC, provides that an appeal may include a request for approval of an alternative building material method of construction that's not included in the state building code. The codes are updated every every several years in the three year cycle.

And so this will ensure there's a there's an innovation in in materials or or construction methods that we're not waiting till that next code update happens, but we have the flexibility to for to be able to use different methods or different materials to help streamline the process and get more homes built in California because that's ultimately the goal that we all have. And then also allowing for an interpretation from the CBSE on the state building code.

I wanna thank the author for the work with opposition on amendments, which I think strengthen the bill. I do have an eye recommendation, and, I'll turn it back over to Cliffs.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair. I'll be brief. I I just wanted to mention that this isn't some theoretical problem that we're trying to solve. In the interim, I was talking with housing providers in my community, and they were telling me horror stories of how, in my district, I represent the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and LA, and they can't agree on the same interpretation of the state codes.

This is a real impediment to housing production that I see in my district, and I would imagine that's true of all of our districts.

The only thing I wanted to know, Mister Chair, is I know that this bill is hopefully on its way to local government, and we look forward to continuing those conversations and looking to refine the bill. But for today, we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I'll entertain a motion on AB 306. Moved by Senator Gonzales. Thank you. If we can please call the roll.

Motion do pass to local government. Senators Aragon. Aye. Aragon, aye. Aragon, aye.

Aragon, Cabelaero, Cortesi, Durazo. Durazo, aye, Gonzales. Gonzales, Aye, Grayson Ochoa Bogue by the a.

We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'll be one more bill, that Assembly member Schultz are gonna present as well, which is filed in five AB 2612.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. Staying true to my propensity for wonky bills, I'm really excited to talk about AB 2612 today. Again, I wanna thank the committee for your work on this one. AB 2612 would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to research, develop, and propose for adoption standards for a qualified plug in photovoltaic system or photo plug in PV for short, to function as an energy source within residential and nonresidential electrical circuits. A little bit of background.

The, Building Standards Commission, may then adopt, approve, and codify, and publish mandatory building energy standards for new construction building electrical circuit features to enable this qualified plug in PV system. And a very important note here, the new standards could go into effect beginning with the first triennial edition of the building code adopted after 01/01/2031.

I bring that up because this bill works in tandem with AB 130, which was passed last year and imposed a six year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of the new state building code standard. So this is not an effort to undermine that legislation. This is very much, working in tandem with that prior legislation.

Plug in PV is attracting interest as a new low cost pathway for households and businesses. This new technology allows electric customers to access affordable clean energy and helps take control of their energy costs by deploying small scale solar to offset their electrical use without major electrical modifications to their property. Just to put a little bit in context, these systems can be bought, at your local Lowe's or Home Depot or whatever your local store is, and they are used to lower your energy costs.

That some of the cheaper systems that are available for purchase go for about $500. However, California lacks standardized requirements for how these systems should integrate with the building's wiring, raising both safety and consistency concerns.

AB 2612 aims to close that gap by directing state agencies to establish clear, uniform electrical circuit standards for plug in solar. And in developing these standards, the commission and HCD must consult with stakeholders and encourage public participation in the standards development process. In closing, by establishing uniform standards for plug in PV, the bill facilitates safer adoption of emerging renewable technologies, thereby reducing barriers for households and for businesses interested in deploying solar.

I will note that 2612 has no known opposition, although I guess we'll find out today. And with me to testify in support of the bill is Freddy Quintana, vice president of state public affairs with the California Apartment Association.

Before I go to Mister Quintana, there was a technical amendment, comment five of the analysis. Just wanna confirm you're accepting that.

Gladly accepting it, Mister Chair.

Thank you very much. Mister Quintana, you got the floor.

Sure. Chair and senators, Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association. AB 2612 provides a road for, for plug in PV systems. This will help households and property owners bring down costs. These systems are a type of technology that allow users to directly access affordable, clean energy, and we ask your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2612? If so, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now invite up to two opposition witnesses to come forward to speak in opposition to the bill. Are there any opposition witnesses?

Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 2612? Seeing no, and I'll bring it back to dais for any questions, comments, or motion. Senator Durazo.

Since this bill doesn't establish safety standards. Right? This bill doesn't require establishing safety standards or doesn't ask the the state agency to adopt safety standards for these devices. I guess the question is, how do we address the fact that it won't be establishing safety style?

Well, I sorry, Senator. I think that the goal of the legislation is to adopt uniform standards through that standard development process so that we have a a safe and consistent method for deploying that technology in new construction. So I think that's very much the aim of the bill. The other thing I would note is that on the Senate side, we have, Senate bill 868 navigating as well. That's by Senator Weiner.

And I bring that up to say that this bill is very much complimentary to that bill. And I think that the two bills taken together really make plug in solar a reality for both business and and residential holders in the state of California.

And then just one other question is, there's an what is it? Like a committee or something, a consultation?

Yes. A public consultation process to bring in stakeholders.

It's certain stakeholders. Right?

Yes, ma'am.

I guess my only just take into consideration is the electric utilities. We're interested in participating as stakeholders. That's what I got.

I appreciate it, Senator. And I can tell you that, we've had good conversations with them so far, and our door remains open. So both in the development of the legislation, but, yes, the aim is that all relevant stakeholders would be consulted as we develop those standards. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? I'll just say that this is permitting the building standards commission to develop building standards for plug in full photovoltaic systems, which would apply to new newly constructed buildings. So this you did comment on Senator Weiner's bill, which is also pending. I think this is absolutely critical, and which is why I support Senator Weiner's bill as well.

And this would just give the commission the opportunity to develop standards. They will go through a a process as they do with developing other building standards that will involve consultation with various stakeholders. This will be done in in the 2031 code adoption consistent with AB 130. So I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. And if you have any closing remarks, I'll turn over to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'll quit while I'm ahead and ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Colleagues, is there a motion on AB 2612? Thank you, Senator Gonzales. We have a motion by Senator Gonzales. If we can please call the roll.

Motion do pass as amended to appropriation. [Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you. We'll keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you very much. And we'll now move to file them six, AB 1070 by Assembly member Ward.

Good afternoon. And if this is a support and support bill, just wanna just acknowledge that.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair and members. It's pretty straightforward, so we can be brief. I am pleased to present AB 1070. It would have each city initiate a study to explore allowing the missing middle housing developments between three and ten units in size to be built under the requirements of the California residential code rather than the California building code.

The shift from residential to commercial code for small housing projects as the change is already seeing positive results in places like Memphis, Anchorage and North Carolina has led to a streamlined plan check requirement, code modifications that cut costs while preserving the health and safety of our developments and an expanded pool of smaller scale residential contractors who are available to build these types of homes.

You all know that development and construction costs are at all time highs. We need to look for efficiencies and cost savings and recognize that better affordability might require more flexibility and innovation within our very own building codes. In addition, AB 1070 requires HCD to conduct a one time evaluation of construction cost pressures for housing construction that are result of existing and new building codes and provide a one time report to the legislature.

With me today to testify in support are Meea Kang, Chair of the Board of Directors for the Council of Infill Developers, and Nolan Gray, yes, senior director of legislation and research for California EMT.

Thank you very much. And what just beginning by say thank you for the work with opposition. I want to California building officials have removed their opposition to this bill. So I'll turn it over to you to present, and you have two minutes to present the bill.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Meea Kang. I'm a housing developer and Chair of the board of the Council of Infill Builders, a proud cosponsor of AB 1070.

California has taken important steps to legalize and streamline approvals for small scale infill housing, such as ADUs, triplexes, fourplexes, apartments. Housing options, but California's building code framework has just not kept pace. Today, projects with one or two dwelling units are regulated under the building under the residential building code. The addition of a third dwelling unit moves a project into the California building code framework.

Many infill opportunities in California are on small lots in existing neighborhoods where small scale multifamily housing may be one of the most viable ways to add housing.

AB 1070 is amended as amended is requiring HCD to commission an independent study conducted by outside experts to evaluate whether small scale multifamily housing with 3 to 10 units can safely and feasibly be built under the residential building code and to develop recommendations for further consideration. The study will evaluate life safety outcomes, fire loss history, fire prevention system performance, feasibility cost, and approaches used in other jurisdictions.

The study aims to identify practical residential code pathways that maintain strong life safety and fire protections while reducing unnecessary costs and complexities for small scale infill housing. The value of this study is that it can identify safe and predictable code pathways for multifamily housing of 10 units and under. And if successful, it could provide the basis for future code updates that help more small scale infill projects pencil out and actually get built.

Thank you. And for this reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Yes. And I'm actually here for technical adviser questions. I'll just say that, your committee staff analysis does an excellent job of explaining why this code is important, and why other states, at least four other states have already made this change. This bill would not make the change.

It would fund the study that I think will provide the necessary research before we're ready to, jump in. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1070? You can please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, Abundant Housing Los Angeles and San Diego Housing Fed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Casita Coalition sponsoring this measure. Holos Communities and Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mahdi Manji with Inner City Law Center in support.

Alright. Colin Parent with Circulate Planning and Policy here in support.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in support. Thank you.

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

Hello. Nikki Dennis Stevens, executive vice president of the American Institute of Architects California in support.

Thank you all so much. We'll now invite up to two opposition witnesses to speak in opposition to AB 1070 if there are any. Seeing none, anyone wishing to express opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to the dais. Once again, thank you, Assembly member, for bringing this bill.

It's really important. I think a study is gonna be really instructive around how we can improve our building codes to create this missing middle type of housing, which we so desperately need in California. And once again, thank you for working with opposition, and they have removed their opposition. So, colleagues, any other questions or comments? Moved by Senator Gonzales.

Thank you. And I'll turn it back over to you to make a closing statement.

Thank you, Mister Chair and senators. Yes. I do appreciate it. I also wanna commend and thank the Senate analysis as well. I really like the chart that's in there.

It really shows exactly what we're talking about. When you go from a duplex to a triplex, all of a sudden, all these new requirements are there and a triplex is a far cry from a 100 unit downtown high rise, right? So like very, very different stands that we're talking about. We believe this will go a long way when it's fully implemented to reduce costs.

And so to any extent that I think this will probably go into appropriations next, we certainly will prioritize it there because a little bit of state investment here means probably billions of dollars of impact on on on the private cost that we're we're trying to be able to hold back here from future development.

So with that, respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Gonzales. If the committee assistant, please call the roll.

Motion do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay. Thank you. We'll keep that bell and call for absent senators. Thank you very much.

I don't think we have another author present. The next bill and file order is file item seven AB 1237 by Assembly member McKinnor, then we have Assemblyman Haney. Okay. We're gonna recess the committee while we wait for an author.

We are gonna reconvene the Senate Housing Committee Hearing, and we do have an author present. And so we're gonna go out of file order to file them 16, AB 2181 by Assembly member Ziburr. And welcome. I know we have a couple witnesses here. And whenever you're ready, Assembly member, you may begin your presentation.

Okay.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members. I am proud today to present AB 2181, cosponsored by Unite Here International and Unite Here Local eleven. AB 2181 is a narrow clarification that ensures that density bonus potential can only be used in valuations for hotels and motels when it is a real, approved, and vested. It simply ensures ground lease rents resets the ground lease rent resets reflect reality and not speculation.

This is a pro housing bill that promotes and protects the density bonus law, which is one of the state's most important tools to incentivize affordable housing.

The bill does not change or limit density bonus eligibility in any way. Instead, it protects the integrity of the policy by ensuring that the benefits are tied to actual housing production. This bill addresses a real problem that has emerged. Appraisers are using hypothetical residential redevelopment scenarios to inflate land values when no housing development is planned or contemplated.

Density bonuses that have not been pursued or approved are used to inflate property values, and that inflated value is then used to reset hotel and motel lease rents, creating a real real financial consequences impacting existing businesses and workers, especially in the hospitality industry.

For example, I have a fully operating hotel in my district supporting jobs and tourism. It has a long term ground lease, that makes redevelopment on that parcel not feasible for decades. No housing project is proposed or approved. Yet the appraisal assumes high density residential redevelopment using density bonus because of the density bonus law. No housing is being built, but the idea of housing is driving real consequences such as worker job loss potential worker job loss, reduced tourism activity, and pressure on long standing productive land uses.

The state is appropriately expanding density bonus tools to increase housing production, and new policies like higher density thresholds or double density concepts increase theoretical development capacity. However, without guardrails, that expanded capacity can be misapplied in appraisal scenarios and used to further inflate land values based on hypotheticals. AB 2181 provides a simple guardrail where density bonus can only be considered in valuation when it is pursued, approved, invested. That will ensure housing incentives remain tied to real projects and valuations reflect legally permissible realistic conditions.

This bill is narrow in scope, and intentionally focused on hotels and motels.

This is where long term ground leases are common, redevelopment is often constrained, and impacts are most acute. To be clear, this bill is not does not restrict housing development. It does not change density bonus law or and it does not prevent future redevelopment. This is a technical fix with real world impact. It protects hospitality worker jobs.

It prevents speculation speculative valuation practices, and it keeps housing policy tied to actual production. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today, in support, I'd like to introduce Matt Broad, representing Bill cosponsor Unite Here International, and Maria Espinosa, member of Unite Here Local Eleven, and a housekeeper in the city of Santa Monica.

Thank you very much, Assembly member. Good afternoon. And you each have two minutes, and I'll turn over to you. And I know, we'll have another witness I believe you're interpreting for the witness as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Unite Here International. We are, as the Assembly member said, proud cosponsors of AB 2181. In this instance, as he described, we have a very good employer that's doing all the right things that's sort of being put in a tough situation due to this loophole that exists.

But I think the more salient point is this bill is in line with, unite here sponsored legislation, including SB 838 and SB 92, which moved through this committee last year.

Were signed by the governor, that were principally about making sure housing laws are being used for housing purposes. And that's not just for the the creation of good housing, which, of course, we want, but clarity of rules ensures no gamesmanship and a clear playing field. So with that, I'd just like to thank committee staff. I know this moved to very quickly on a short notice, and we would urge your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Good night. Good afternoon.

I'll be interpreting for the witness today. My name is Maria Espinosa, and I've worked as a hotel housekeeper for over twenty two years at a hotel in Santa Monica, California. I'm a proud member of Unite Here Local eleven. Every day I clean rooms, turn over beds, and make sure guests have a good experience. It's hard work, and it's work that keeps our hotels running.

But too often, the people who do this work, the housekeepers, the servers, the front desk staff, don't have a real voice in the decisions that affect our jobs and our workplaces. That's why this bill matters. Hospitality industry works not just for owners and investors, but also for the workers who keep who keep it going every day. It's about fairness, respect, and making sure that when decisions are made, they don't make decisions that affect our jobs and our workplaces. That's why this bill matters.

AB 2181 is about making sure that the hospitality industry works not just for owners and investors, but also for the workers who keep who keep it going every day. It's about fairness. Respect and making sure that when decisions are made, they don't come at the expense of the people on the draw. Stability matters, fair treatment matters, knowing that our jobs are protected and that our work is valued. That matters.

This bill helps move us in that direction. It recognizes that hospitality workers are central to California's economy and deserve to be treated that way. I'm proud of the work that I do. I just want to know that the systems who work and support us too. I respectfully ask for your support on AB 2181.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Well, I invite anyone else who'd like to express support for AB 2181 to please come forward to the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Mister Chair, member Sarah Flock, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Leah Barrows on behalf of California Hotel and Lodging Association in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any opposition witnesses to AB 2181? Seeing no one come forward, does anyone wish to express opposition to AB 2181? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions, comments, or motion. Okay.

Moved by Senator Raso. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Okay. If not, I'll just get back over to the Assembly member to close.

Again, this is a very narrow bill. It's intended to preserve a density bonus laws, which are a good thing, but also make sure that they're not misused to basically, in a speculative way, increase ground rents and drive good hotels out of business and which would affect our workers. So with that, I respectfully ask for your vote.

You very much. If you have to make amendments to the bill because the Senate operates differently from the Assembly, you can't add coauthors unless you make an amendment. I'd love to be added as a coauthor. And I'm I wanna speak for the Chair of Local Government, but I'm sure she would as well. And thank you very much for bringing this forward.

This builds on work that we've done to focus our housing laws, particularly the density bonus on housing, not hotels. So we have a motion by Senator D'Arso. If we can please call the roll.

Motion do passed to local government. Senators Ehrguin. Aye. Ehrguin, aye. Ciarguin, Caballero, Cortesi, Durazo.

Bills and file orders, so we're gonna go next to Assemblymember McKinnor and file item seven AB 1237.

Hello. Good afternoon. We are now on AB 1237. If there are any witnesses in support, you're welcome to join us here. And each witness will have two minutes. And whenever you are ready, Assemblymember, you may present on the bill.

Mister Chair and members, AB 1237 aligns California law with development trends found across the nation and around the world, where hotels and condominiums now offer private in unit swimming pools. While this is a new development trend for California, AB 1237 takes a smart approach to ensure appropriate health and safety standards to keep residents and visitors to the golden state, safe while enjoying this new amenity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and with us today is John Moffatt on behalf of Kane Development.

Stakeholders are available, Alan Lee and Steve Barrow and Cathy Barankin.

And we thank you for joining us. We're just gonna hear from two witnesses today. So whoever like to begin. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members of the committee. John Moffatt on behalf of Kane Development. We appreciate the Assembly member carrying this bill. The one Beverly Hills project is probably one of the largest single site construction projects happening in the state of California right now, maybe even west of the Mississippi. $5,000,000,000 development, new condominium tower, new hotel that we are trying to get ready in time for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics.

As we're going through building the project, this new unique, these new unique swimming pools here in California, we're looking at the law. Are they private pools? Are they public pools? The California law didn't really wasn't clear. AB 1237 clarifies that and we appreciate the bill and happy to answer any technical questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Hi. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Mister Chair, members, I'm Cathy Barankin with the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, and we were the sponsors of the original Pool Safety Act and are so grateful to our author and to the sponsor of the bill for making sure that kids are gonna be safe in these pools. We appreciate it and support as amended. Thank you.

Wanna add anything, sir?

I'm a me too. I'm the vice chair of the state's Drowning Prevention Foundation and the whole drowning prevention community, and we're in support of the bill as amendments. And we're really pleased that the author and the sponsors will work so well with the growing professional community.

Great. Thank you very much. So anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1237?

Good afternoon, Chair and members. George Kavinta on behalf of the California Pool and Spa Association and the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance in support.

Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1237, are there any opposition witnesses to AB 1237? Seeing no one come forward, does anyone wish to express opposition AB 1237? And seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you. The only concerns I had were about pool safety and kids, just like you had said. What were the amendments that were taken that make the indoor pools secure, just like a pool at home has to be?

So happy to go through those. They aren't in the bill yet. We actually just got to agreement on the language on the different revisions. So these pools will follow the Private Pool Safety Act, which already requires two of seven different safety measures. In addition to that, what we are also gonna be doing for these pools, they're gonna have pool depth indicators, emergency communication devices on the patio that are geo located so that they can connect directly with hotel operator emergency services.

We're going to have certified pool operators. We'll be maintaining the pools for water quality and other issues related to that.

We will be disclosing to all guests that they will if they once they check into the or when they check into the hotel that, their room does have a pool and that the hotel, either will have a cover or a mesh fence available for installation on the pool, if they have children or if they'd like those things covered, and that the hotel is the only ones who can take those things off. And I feel I feel like I forgot one. Did I forget one?

Basis of of the issues that I was concerned about. You have kids that go into these that are unfamiliar even with a pool, and it only takes a minute for somebody to take their eyes off of them, and and they're in. So as long as the the safety part of it is addressed, I'm okay with it. Thank you.

And I apologize. One more. AEDs on every floor with pools.

Right. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Senator Cortese, we are on file seven AB 1237. Mckinnor.

Any other questions or comments? Moved by vice Chair Seyarto. You know, it's always interesting. You find it there's some quirk in the law, and so I I thank you for bringing this bill forward to align the law. And with that, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Motion by vice Chair Seyarto. If we can please call the roll.

Motion do pass to health. [Roll call]

Keep that bill on call for absent senators. Thank you very much.

Thank you, senators.

Okay. I saw Seminar Hoover, but I see Seminar Haney. So we're gonna go to Seminar Haney now. And he is next in file order. We're going out to file it in eight AB 1556.

Here?

Yes, please. Okay. And if there are any, principal witnesses support on the bill, you're welcome to join us here.

Great.

Whenever you're ready, Mister Chair, you you may begin.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 1556, which strengthens and clarifies California's approach to drug free recovery housing. Recovery housing is an evidence based model that provides stable, supportive environments for individuals working to maintain sobriety and rebuild their lives. But under current law, recovery housing providers are navigating conflicting guidance between California's Housing First policy and administrative rules on maintaining drug free environments.

This lack of clarity makes it difficult for providers to protect the safety and stability of their residents while may remaining compliant with state requirements. And for residents, this gap has real consequences. Not every person's recovery journey looks the same and for many, a drug free living environment is essential to maintaining stability. Yet today, individuals seeking sober living environments often face limited options and may instead end up in housing that does not support the recovery needs. Eighty fifteen fifty six provides a balanced common sense solution.

It creates a clear statutory framework that allows recovery housing providers to maintain drug free environments while ensuring that individuals who return to use are not pushed back in homelessness. This bill requires recovery residences to adopt a written return to use policy ensuring transparency, consistency, and support for residents. And these policies must include access to treatment providers, recovery support, and a non punitive approach that prioritizes connection to services.

Importantly, AB 1556 ensures that individuals are offered a warm handoff to alternative housing or services before any discharge related to substance use. This bill is about meeting people where they are, protecting recovery environments, expanding housing options, and helping prevent relapse, overdose, and returns to homelessness.

Here with me to testify today are Marion Sanders from the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and Amber Richmond, a San Francisco resident and individual with lived experience battling homelessness and addiction.

Mister Chair, before we go to the witnesses, there were amendments that were reflecting comment 12 in the analysis, which I believe will need to be taken in the Senate Health Committee due to

the hearings. Yes. I wanna confirm that you are accepting those amendments.

Yes. We will accept those amendments and take them in the Senate Health Committee.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. You each have two minutes.

Chair members, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1556. My name is Mary Ann Sanders, and I am the chief deputy director of the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. Over the past decade, California has faced a devastating addiction crisis that has taken thousands of lives and deeply impacted communities across our state. In San Francisco, thousands of lives I'm sorry. We see more people experiencing homelessness also struggling with substance use disorders and seeking recovery oriented services.

We need a full continuum of options to meet people where they are, including recovery focused housing for those actively seeking sobriety. AB 1556 is important because it would clarify that local governments can use state funding to support recovery residences. That flexibility matters. We know this model can make a difference. According to the Benioff Center for Homelessness and Housing, forty six percent of homeless Californians, roughly eighty six thousand people, report substance use as currently leading to health, legal, and social or financial problems.

Between 2011 and 2020, overdose deaths among homeless Californians surged four hundred and eighty eight percent. We also know recovery housing is associated with decreased substance use, reduced likely to return to use, lower rates of incarceration, increased employment and income, and stronger family relationships. We have already seen the the promise of this model locally. San Francisco recently opened two new recovery focused transitional housing sites and both filled quickly.

Their early success show there is a real demand for these spaces and real value in having recovery oriented housing as a part of a broader homelessness response.

With greater state funding flexibility, we would like to be able to do more of this. AB 1556 is a practical step that would help save lives, support recovery, and give local governments another opportune another important tool to the overlapping crisis of homelessness and substance use. Thank you for your consideration.

Hi. Okay. My turn. Alright. Good afternoon, honorable Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Amber Richmond, and I'm from San Francisco. I started using drugs my junior year of high school. It began with OxyContin and then whatever pills I could find. I swore I would never touch heroin. My father died from it when I was 12, but that's exactly what I where I ended up.

I could list everything heroin has cost me, but we don't have time for that. I will say this, few people survived two open heart surgeries from injecting drugs. I did. After those surgeries, I went right back to using. Later, I spent six months in a San Francisco navigation center before receiving section eight housing in 2020.

Today, I have six months of sobriety, and I work as a housing navigator with Episcopal Community Services, adult coordinated entry program, helping people access housing every day. I have not only lived in the system, I now help people navigate it. What I see is that people are not one size fits all. Last week, I met a man who had spent nearly three years waiting for permanent supportive housing. He had recently gotten sober and was working hard to maintain his recovery.

When his name finally came up for housing, his only question was whether or not there were any options available that would support the recovery he had worked so hard for. He wasn't asking for a private kitchen. He wasn't asking for a private bathroom. He wasn't demanding special accommodations. He was simply asking if there were housing options that aligned with his recovery goals.

We often talk about meeting people where they are, but people but meeting people where they are means recognizing that people have different goals, different challenges, and different paths forward. Harm reduction based housing should remain available for those who want it. AB 1556 does not take housing away from anyone. It does not force anyone into recovery. It simply creates another pathway for people who want a recovery oriented environment.

This bill creates the kind of environment I needed, but makes it intentional, not accidental. Housing gives people stability, recovery support environments give many people a real chance, and people deserve both. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I wanna thank you for joining us today. Your story is really truly inspiring, and really appreciate the courage to come and tell your story and the work you do to help so many people. So thank you very much. With that, we'll invite anyone else who wishes to express support for AB 1556 to please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association and proud support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of mayor Daniel Lurry, proud sponsor of the bill as well as the city and county of San Francisco and also the California State Association of Psychiatrists, all in support. Thank you to the witnesses. Thank you for being a champion, Haney. Running it again. Appreciate it.

Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council, a proud cosponsor in support.

Pete Nielsen on behalf of the California Addiction Recovery Advocates. In support.

Good afternoon. Christina Padilla on behalf in support. California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, support.

Thank you all very much. Are there any opposition witnesses? Okay.

Thank you all very much. Are there any opposition witnesses? Okay.

You're welcome to sit here or whatever you're comfortable with. You'll be Also, each have two minutes and whoever like to begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Court of Attraction here with Housing California in respectful opposition to eighty fifteen fifty six unless it ended. Eighty fifteen fifty six is a reiteration of last year's AB 255, which was vetoed because of existing Cal ICH guidance, which already outlines how existing state dollars can support recovery residences. Rather than building on that ice cal I see framework. We are concerned that the bill introduces new complexities, to, at a time when we're seeing a decline in federal funding as well.

State homes, this funding should support, a variety of different evidence based practices rather than creating incentives to shift limited resources solely towards recovery housing at the expense of the full continuum of, evidence based homelessness interventions. The bill is also inconsistent with existing state law, California housing first statutes, make it clear that the use of alcohol or drugs by itself is not grounds for eviction.

Yet AB 1556 requires recovery homes to adopt return to use policies that imply tenants may be removed from housing simply due to relapse. We believe there is a better path forward. We urge the committee to either codify the existing Cal ICH guidance or amend the bill to ensure tenants cannot be evicted for relapse alone and eliminate provisions that conflict with California's existing housing first laws.

We've deeply appreciated the continued engagement with Assembly member Amy's office, as well as the bill sponsors, and thank them for continued dialogue to address our concerns.

Good afternoon.

Hi. My name is Mari Castaldi, and I'm the director of state housing policy at the center on budget and policy priorities. Center on budget doesn't actually take positions on legislation. So we have no formal position on the bill, but rather context for the committee to consider, decades of research evidence supports that housing first models overwhelmingly end people's homelessness and support their recovery. That's why the state of California adopted it as a model to guide state investments ten years ago with a lot to show for it.

The latest data show homelessness decreasing led in large part by HAPP investments that have supported over 110,000 Californians exiting homelessness in just the past two years. Unfortunately, that progress is threatened by ongoing fiscal pressures that leave most California communities just struggling to maintain the current level of housing and services, which, of course, we know is insufficient to meet the scale of need.

This underfunding could get a lot worse because California is also at great risk of losing out on a huge portion of federal homelessness funding that supports formerly homeless Californians. The most recent funding notice from HUD's continuum of care program could take housing assistance away from at least 14,000 Californians in 2027 alone through diverting funding away from permanent supportive housing models and harm reduction services.

Quality recovery housing models can be an important part of the continuum of substance use treatment options, but are notably less effective when it comes to the outcome of housing stability.

As such, AB 1556 could compound federal funding cuts by diverting state funding away from homelessness programs with the strongest track record of solving homelessness and towards more short term program models, including enforced sobriety. Instead, California leaders could consider prioritizing state funds to protect permanent housing for the over 10,000 people at risk of returning to homelessness due to misguided and punitive Trump administration policy.

Does that complete your testimony?

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1556? Please approach your microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. And if there's anyone after this gentleman, if you can please line up.

Yes.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property, and we respectfully oppose unless amended.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else come forward, I'm gonna bring it back to the dais, and I wanna just summarize the amendments that the author has agreed to take in the health committee. Amendment One, remove a reference to eviction solely on the basis of possession of drugs or alcohol. And the rest of the bill states otherwise. So just really providing clarification and ensuring that we're advancing a housing first approach.

Require documentation of eviction for alleged program violations that are submitted to local grantors be remitted to the state during the existing state funding annual reporting requirements. This ensures that we have state oversight over evictions occurring, for recovery housing programs. And lastly, the last amendment, replaces references to recovery residents to recovery housing consistent with the Cal ICH guidance. The bill has been drafted to codify the Cal ICH guidance on sober living.

It specifically refers to housing recovery programs that meet the core components of housing first, and also offering tenants choice.

This bill incorporates protections to ensure that tenants are not evicted solely on the basis of relapse. And I know that there may be additional work. I think the next committee, this bill is gonna go to a Senate health. But I think the author's goal is to ensure that we are advancing a housing of first approach. We're providing options for people.

And so with that, I wanna turn over to any committee members. Any questions or comments on the bill? Okay. Senator Cortes, and we'll go to vice Chair Cierta.

This is Sam. I'm supportive of the bill. I you know, it's probably one of those bills that we could, you know, use that trite line with. It it might never be perfect, but it is it is supportable, especially with the amendments. And I just wanted I'm so I'm so happy to hear some of those amendments, because I think one of the most devastating things you could possibly do to somebody who's diligently in in recovery.

Somebody who's going you know, people there are people that go to meetings three times a day, and they'll do that for ten days, fifteen days in a row, thirty days in a row, and they'll have what you're calling a relapse, you know. People in in those meetings call it a slip, and they're right back three meetings a day the next day, three meetings a day the next day.

They're they're working on a recovery, And there's 45%, you know, sobriety that comes out of those kind of efforts ultimately. And pulling the rug out from under them on their housing is, you know, just probably I don't know. I would guess I would guess, you know, one

of the most traumatizing things that could possibly happen, and one of the most disruptive things to their recovery that could happen at that stage, because suddenly they're out looking for housing. They're not able to, you know, continue in the very programs that, you know, they're keeping them sober in the first place. So I'm glad that those amendments have been accepted.

I know the authors worked very hard in this and understands all those principles of of both housing and recovery, particularly, you know, the housing side and the sensitivity of that, or you wouldn't be doing this. So I'll be I'll be supporting the bill.

Thank you. And thank you to the committee for, you know, working on those amendments.

Thank you. Maestro Serta?

Yeah. I'm one of those people that look at look at the actual effect of people going into a home. And and I think that there are different methods for different people.

And for some people, one of the methods that they need is, to not be around the social or the actual environment where drugs are constantly being introduced or alcohol is constantly being introduced because there's no faster way, to turn a sober living home or a drug free home into a drug den than to have one person start, and then the domino effect of others in the in the home also starting to to to relapse with them.

People should be able to choose a a place that that doesn't offer that, doesn't or that offers a drug free, alcohol free environment.

And in in the name of housing, which we I mean, it doesn't say you can't have sober living homes that, you you can't be evicted from. I mean, where where people that do relapse can't be evicted, you can have those, but you should also be able to offer others as well. And, because that's meeting people where they are. And, and, you know, I think while the amendments, you know, we we're going more towards housing instead of the the drug rehabilitation part of it.

And, and and I don't think we meet everybody's needs that way.

And, so, you know, I'm I'm not a big fan of of making everybody have to acquiesce to people that keep relapsing. If that's not if that's not going to help them, they're not gonna go into those homes, and then they're gonna have those issues. So in the interest of meeting people where they are, I think we should have both available to people and and not, close the door, to to either one. So, I'll I'll support this bill.

I was going to support it the way it was before before these amendments.

Basically, it just turns us over living what we have now back to what it is. And, and it shuts those people that need a a sterile environment, shall we say, away. And and I don't like that.

Any other questions or comments from committee members on AB 1556? If not, I'll turn it back over to the Chair to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you for your work on this and and and your, the amendments. I appreciate both of both of those comments. I think they reflect the the challenge that we have in in striking the right balance here. The goal is never to evict somebody who enters a sober living environment or recovery housing environment for, relapse alone. That that this is not about creating zero tolerance environments.

We we we understand that anybody who does this work to help people on their path to sobriety knows that very often it is one step forward, two steps back, three steps forward, two steps back. You're you're you're you're you're you're struggling along the way.

This is about creating environments where people are committed to that path of recovery, where they're intentionally supported with their peers, with the staff who are there, and that the folks who choose to live there have that option and have the necessary support, on their journey to to sobriety and recovery and having a a thoughtful, approach that protects the community, protects the environment, protects the overall goal of a housing environment, but also protects the individual so that they're not returned to the street.

It's actually something I think that we need to be more thoughtful about in the types of permanent supportive housing that are that are not of this type where there are a lot of evictions, unfortunately, in some cases for for behavior that's related to to use. But this is an important step for us to provide options and provide clarity both for the providers, the cities, counties, and also for the individuals who I know, and there are many of them who wanna enter these environments.

And and we tried to strike a balance here, and we'll continue to work on this as this moves forward. And appreciate the the the the feedback and the input from the opposition, and we will continue to work with them as well. And I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

K. Thank you very much. Do we have a motion on the bill? Moved by Senator Gonzales. Thank you very much.

If we can please call the roll.

Motion do passed to Senate health. Senator Ziragheen? Aye. Ehrgin, aye. Searto.

Aye. Searto, aye. Kovaljan? Aye. Kovaljan, aye.

Caballero. Cortesi, aye. Gerrazzo, aye. Gonzales, aye. Gonzales, aye.

Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Padilla.

That billing call for absent centers. Thank you all very much. We have Assembly member Hoover here, and we'll move now to file item 18 AB 2415. Mister vice Chair, do you mind taking over one minute?

Hey, Mister Hoover. Do you have any, witnesses that are gonna be there they are. They're gonna be joining you. Great. Alright.

This is AB 2415. Assembly member Hoover, you have the floor. Go ahead when you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2415. As California continues to face a housing crisis, we are tasked with increasing affordability and availability. A policy such as SB 79 from 2025 do help increase housing development near public transit. However, there are some pro housing communities such as one of the cities in my community, that still aim to protect the character of their historic districts.

Our bill proposes a solution that is narrowly tailored. It would allow a city, if the majority of the transit oriented development zone is part of a local historic district, to reduce the capacity in one zone by more than 50%. The criteria for doing this would would mean the city would have to have more than one transit oriented development zone and a population of less than a 150,000. The local historic district must also have been designated prior to 2000.

With me today is Folsom Mayor Justin Rethal and Jerry Berneault with Berneault Development Corporation to share their thoughts.

We also have Desmond Perrington from City of Folsom for technical assistance if needed. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much for being here today, and you each have two minutes.

Vice Chair members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Justin Rethal. I'm have the privilege of serving in the City Of Folsom as mayor this year. I'm here to express our strong support for AB 2415, authored by Assemblymember Hoover. Folsom takes its housing responsibilities seriously.

For more than twenty years, we've consistently approved and build homes across the income spectrum, and we continue to embrace higher density development in the areas where it makes the most sense, near jobs, services, and transit. At the same time, we have a responsibility to protect our Folsom Historic District. It's the cultural heart of our community and one of the most significant historic assets in the Sacramento region.

In 2024, we had updated our general plan to increase allowable densities in the targeted areas, including the East Bidwell Commercial Corridor, the Folsom plan area town center, and two transit station areas. We intentionally did not apply these higher density overlays to the historic district because its scale and character are essential to its identity.

Even so, the district continues to grow in a compatible way through accessory dwelling units that blend naturally into the neighborhood. This child the challenges that the current law still assigns that high density housing obligations to the historic district in ways that do not reflect its physical constraints or its regional cultural role. AB 2415 provides a practical fix.

It allows Folsom to shift those obligations to transit oriented development areas near our two additional light rail stations, places that are specifically designed for height, density, and modern infrastructure. AP twenty four fifteen shows that the state can support housing production while respecting the historic resources communities are working to preserve.

We can meet statewide housing goals without sacrificing the places that tell our shared story. On behalf of the city of Folsom, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2415. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next speaker,

two minutes. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jerry Bruno with Bruno Development Corporation. I've been developing and building in Folsom for thirty five years. In 1990, my first project was a 400 unit apartment project, the largest of its kind in Folsom at the time.

Today, we just completed grading on a three story mixed use building across from the historic Folsom Light Rail Station, the historic district with a density of 62 dwelling units per acre. I'm here today in support of AB 2415 because it gives cities like Folsom a

practical way to meet housing obligations without compromising a irreplaceable historic district. As a developer, I wanna be clear. We are building housing in historic Folsom, and we're doing it in a way that respects the district's small blocks, narrow streets, limited infrastructure, and unique historical character. These are not abstract concerns. They are real physical conditions that define what responsible development looks like.

Our projects are modest in scale, designed to fit the architectural fabric of the existing streetscape, adding new single family homes, ADUs, and mixed use projects without overwhelming the infrastructure or overshadowing our historic assets. This is the kind of context appropriate growth that keeps a historic district vibrant. If we were required to build densities mandated under the existing law, the result would be out of scale, out of character, and out of step with what makes historic Folsom economically and culturally important.

AB 2415 strikes a balance. It allows those high density obligations to shift to parts of Folsom that can support the height, the density, and has modern infrastructure, especially transfer oriented districts in the two additional light rail stations.

These are areas where larger projects make sense and where developers like me can deliver housing production that the state is asking for. This bill does not reduce housing. It put housing where it belongs while allowing the historic district to continue contributing in ways compatible with their scale and purpose. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. I sincerely appreciate it and respectfully ask for your yes vote.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2415?

Yes to Mister Chair and members. Tony Gonzalez here on behalf of the California Preservation Foundation. Very delighted to support the bill. Thank you.