Senate Standing Committee on Housing

The Senate Housing Committee will begin in thirty seconds. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Housing for Tuesday, 06/30/2026. Just a few announcements. Today's consent calendar consists of two items, AB 2110 by Assembly member Johnson and AB 2397 by Assembly member Ta.

In addition, we had a special order in the file notice, for a presentation on AB 11 by Assembly member Lee. The Assembly member has pulled that from the agenda, so we will not be taking up AB 11 today. So I see that we do not have a quorum, so we will begin as a subcommittee, begin with our first bill presentation, which is filed in one AB 748 by some Harabedian. And you may begin when you're ready.

There? I know how busy you are. Thank you for hearing this bill. Thank you for all the work by the committee. AB 748 actually is a bill to establish preapproved housing plans for single family homes and small multi unit housing develops, developments under 10 units. This probably looks familiar. We saw a similar bill last year which made it out of this committee without any no votes. I brought it back because the bill got hung up in appropriations.

We took some amendments after that process to delay implementation for cities and counties on the smaller side. Any county that is less than 250,000 will now delay implementation to 2,029 and cities under 25,000 will delay implementation until that time as well.

This is a proven model that we use This is a proven model that we use currently in the state for ADUs. It would turn preapproved housing plans to ministerial projects rather than projects that need bespoke attention from local agencies. We're currently using this model in my district after the Eaton fire. This has helped residents rebuild their lives. It has sped up the process.

We think communities throughout the state shouldn't necessarily need a, disaster to implement smart policy. This certainly won't solve the housing prices, crisis, but we hope it will do a small part in getting us to build more homes. And we just appreciate the committee's attention. And Mister Chair, thank you for your indulgence.

Thank you so very much. Do you have any witnesses to support? No. Okay. So I will now invite anyone wishing to express support for AB 748 to please come forward.

You can please take your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Mister Chair, members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of Fieldstead and Company in support. Thank you.

Nolan Gray, California MB in support. Thanks.

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

Thank you all very much. Okay. I will now invite up to two opposition witnesses to speak in opposition to AB 748. Are there any opposition witnesses present? Okay.

Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 748? Seeing no one Okay.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Members, Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the cities of Burbank, Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Thousand Oaks in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition? Okay. Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments from committee members. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I actually love the idea of having pre approval process to speed and and just helping our developers just get the process going really really quick. You know we have a lot of family members and and family in the construction area and it's incredibly just burdensome to see how long it takes for approval of homes. But I do I'm also come from local control and especially when it comes to small communities, cities, counties.

We have the largest county which is San Bernardino County but we have really small rural communities. And the biggest concern that I have with something like this is a couple of things. One is whether or not the cities have the actual staff and the resources to be able to create a plan that streamlines it for for themselves especially when they're still building their city out.

And number two is the the ability to accommodate and approve all of this without having enough time to figure out the infrastructure part of it.

I have a lot of desert communities In my areas. Matter of fact, 55% of my district is in desert communities. There's a lot of land, they're still developing, they're still working things out, figuring things out. And so the biggest concern I have is whether or not they have the ability to get all that squared away in time to have these approvals for these particular developments. Have you had any conversations with small rural communities and cities?

Many of them are actually not even cities or towns Right. Trying to work with that in in the county. So how would how would any conversations on on that angle?

No. I appreciate it, Senator. And we may have even talked about it last year when the bill came, and I appreciate the feedback. I was a council member of a of a town really of 11,000 people and a mayor, have spoken to a lot of representatives both in the Senate and the Assembly, who represent more rural areas, which I do in my district as well. This and we have ensured that there's total local control.

So small city, small county gets to build the program as they see fit. Their own designs, their own plans. The only thing that is, I guess, uniform is the time in which once the program is established, a preapproved plan that is used by an applicant or developer, that plan needs to be approved in thirty days or less. That's the only thing that really is universal. Other than that, the cities, the towns that you represent, that I represent, they get to make the decisions.

The plans that are submitted to them, they get to say yes or no. They get to continue to have all the land use authority. So the plan needs to actually adhere to, you know, the landscaping of the property, whether there's hills, whether it is a desert, whether there's actual facilities and infrastructure that's there. This merely talks about the design of the building and gives a ministerial review on that.

So, yes, a lot of those conversations I've had actually informed the current version of the bill, and I actually agree with it.

I do think that local control for a lot of this is still very important. We're just trying to take, a piece of the pie that we think can be sped up. And and so I think we're trying to do both. Is it perfect? Probably not.

But we tried to we tried to meld the two.

And I don't have I don't think in my notes, I see if there's any opposition. I was gonna look to see if you had any opposition on on the bills and whether or not you should you're working with them to address any of those

Yeah

Sorry. Didn't mean to jump in there. We had opposition. League of Cities was one of the opposing parties last year. We have worked with them to actually fix the bill so that they they are no longer opposed.

I know that there's a couple cities that just spoke in opposition, but we've come a long way. And as as I guess the attendance shows, there really is no opposition, not that the three cities that that spoke aren't significant, but we will continue to work with those cities and I will continue to try to educate everyone on just how user friendly this is and how how much local control still goes into the pre approval plan. And and I think that should appease everyone that's involved.

Okay. As long as you're taking consideration and accommodations for the small rural communities and that don't have a lot of the of the staff available to them. I think that's important for me. And then the other component and I just it's just a comment. So last year, I met one of the the lead city planner for the city of Salt Lake.

And it's incredible that they actually have a an expedited approval process for the development. And I thought how does a large city like Salt Lake actually able to do this in a way that's very efficient and I mean the time I don't remember exactly and I don't wanna put a false number out there. But it was I was very impressed. And if a big city, a large city can actually do this and be effective in that end, I thought, what a great idea.

So actually, I was really grateful to to see the bill again this year.

And so I will be reluctantly I'm gonna say reluctant because I was gonna actually not support the bill today. But I think if you have those accommodations, I will be able to support the bill today.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

We are on AB 748 by Assemblymember Harabedian. Unless there are any other questions or comments from the committee, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Many of the amendments came from conversations last year from Senator Cabaldon, so he does know the bill well. Respectfully ask for an aye vote and appreciate the comments, from Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Okay. Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum yet, but at the appropriate time, we're gonna turn a motion. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I have to go, step out and so Senator Cabaldon will Chair my absence. Thank you very much Senator. And I believe next in file order is Assemblymember Wilson.

Alright. Thank you Mister Chair and welcome to Assemblymember Wilson who has filed item four AB 1621 and you're welcome to proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Alright. Good afternoon Chair, members. I'm pleased to present AB 1621. Okay.

Sorry. Just wanna clarify. Alright. I'm pleased to present AB 1621, which aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of California's housing approval process. Currently, delays in post entitlement permits both slow down housing production and drive up costs, making homes less affordable for Californians.

Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's housing crisis, as highlighted by the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform. These delays continue to slow production, increase cost, and make housing less affordable. This is why I've chosen to introduce this legislation. It builds on AB 660, which I'm thankful had strong bipartisan support in the committee last year.

AB 1621 builds on existing law by establishing clear timelines and real accountability for local agencies to process post entitlement permits, ensuring that approved housing projects can actually move forward.

It also provides applicants with a clear path when agencies fail to meet their obligations. This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process targeting areas where housing developers have experienced significant issues. It prohibits a local agency inspector from requiring a project to make changes in the field that would deviate from plans a local agency has already approved. It also stops local agencies from delaying the process by sending applications to outside reviewers and limiting how many times they can ask applicants to revise and resubmit their plans.

Now we have heard concerns around this bill.

It's important to note that local agencies can go beyond the two plan check limit if there's strong evidence that more review is needed to address a serious health or safety issue. It's this bill simply closes the gaps and improves existing law regarding the timelines for local agencies to act on post internment and post entitlement permits. With me today on the importance of this to testify on the importance of this legislation are is, Audrey Riticek on behalf of the California be building industry association.

I think she's coming from over there.

Welcome. And you'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Audrey Rytaycek on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, and we're here in strong support of AB 1621. This is critical legislation needed to improve the efficiency, fairness, and accountability of the post entitlement permitting unprecedented housing supply and affordability crisis. And despite legislative process progress in recent years, particularly the enactment of AB 2234 by Assembly member Rivas, which established important procedural timelines for local agencies when processing post entitlement permits.

Serious barriers remain to continue to delay much needed housing across the state. AB 1621 addresses those barriers and strengthens the existing framework with a narrowly tailored approach by prohibiting last minute field changes that contradict previously approved plans and limiting excessive plan check resubmittals. The need for these reforms is clearly documented.

As highlighted in the final report from the Assembly select committee on permit permitting reform last year, Failures in the permitting process have played an outsized role in the overall housing crisis, with delays directly contributing to increased costs and uncertainty for developers. This not only affects the viability of projects, but also impacts affordability for future homeowners and renters.

AB 1621 offers a balanced common sense solution that does not override local control or compromise safety. Instead, it creates a clear, consistent, and accountable framework that ensures timely permit processing, fair treatment of applicants, and ultimately the ability to deliver the housing our state so desperately needs. For these reasons, the California Building Industry Association asked for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. So just one one registered witness and And witness.

Support. Alright. Then would anyone else wish to register support for the bill? Please share with us your name, affiliation, if any. No thanks to your lobbying firm and your position on the bill.

Bob Naylor, Robert W. Naylor, advocacy for FuelSet and Company. That's Howard Amundson Jr. In support.

Thank you.

Ally Saferman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

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

Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

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

Jennifer Speck on behalf of California Association of Realtors also here in support.

Good afternoon. Molina Meniktis on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis in support.

Mr. Chair, Michael Gunning on behalf of Circulate, Habitat California, San Diego Housing Commission, SPUR, CalMB and, Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Steven Stenzler on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Nolan Gray on behalf of California Indian support. Thank you.

Carrie West on behalf of Valley Sanitary District. The author did a lot with amendments. We appreciate you and support.

Alright. Are there two witnesses in opposition that would like to testify? Welcome and you'll have two minutes as well.

Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair members. Brady Geertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition, but wanted to first commend the work that has been done throughout the conversations. It's really helpful.

The changes still account for health and safety, so we definitely appreciate that. But I will say we do remain concerned about the two plan check limit for a variety of reasons. A lot of times, the multiple rounds of review tends to be applicants not fully understanding the laws. They're very complex, very challenging to get through. And then instead of denying the project, cities can collaboratively work with the applicants to ensure that the codes, both local and state codes, are being met.

So we do remain concerned about that. We also remain concerned that, the language allowing only health and safety could potentially open local governments to litigation for non health and safety reasons if they're denying a project given the housing accountability act over time. So we do remain concerned but appreciate all the work we've had on this and for those reasons we respectfully ask for a no vote today. Thank you.

All right. Are there other folks here who would like to register their opposition?

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Rural County representatives of California. I'll line our comments with the lead. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties. Also align our comments to those of the League and we're opposed. Thank you.

Chris Lee on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in Opposition.

Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the cities of Belmont, Carlsbad, Corona, Rancho Cucamonga, Thousand Oaks with an opposed position and then the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members have an opposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Max Perry on behalf of the City of Camarillo also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Oiwa Taub on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in opposition.

Afternoon, Chair and members. Apologies, took me a minute to run over here. So I'm a little bit late. Matt Clobenstein on behalf of Zillow in support. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other testimony, let's turn it to the committee for any questions or comments.

Sure. I'll help facilitate some conversation on the bill. So thank you for bringing this forward. I am I'm actually supported of the of the intent of the bill which is to expedite that that approval process. I the concerns that I have and I and I want the League of Cities to to to note on the concerns that I have or that many people, not just I but I I speak on behalf of many folks.

Is the fact that there we have cities that are incredibly for housing that, you know, will do their their checks and will get, the plans back to the developers really quickly and without a problem. But then we have cities that are taking two to three years to literally give feedback, have the plans going back and forth on on that approval process.

And factors such as new codes come into be to play where, you know, laws are passed that now they have to implement in in that process of three years, two, three years, whatever it may take, sometimes four. Also, the when you have changes in leadership, say the fire marshal changes, or, you know, the city manager changes, and new things are being brought up all the time.

And so I think there has to be some some sort of time frame where is reasonable to say, okay, you have the review component.

You you have the the ability to review the plans up to a certain period of time or times and say, okay, this is it. You're you are now going to follow this this time and point in time with all the rules and regulations and codes of that period rather than extending it over and over again.

So I do have a question for the League of Cities because if two times the review is not enough, what is a reasonable time frame and review because going back and forth every couple of months for three years, I think that's unreasonable. So what is a reasonable time frame? And of course it varies from city to city.

But what is really truly a reasonable time where we can say, okay, review the plans, give us some feedback, go again. And I completely agree with the arguments that sometimes the first time around, it's not gonna be okay. You're gonna have a lot of findings but you're having that that first time from the city's perspective to be able to review it and give feedback. So what is a reasonable time, number of times that you can review and and give back if it's not a time frame?

Yeah. Appreciate that question, Senator Chobog. And I and I understand where you're coming from and and and get where you're coming from. I mean, I think it to your point, it is very hard for depending on the staff levels of different cities to have a reasonable time to do that. Now I will say when we are having discussions with amendments, one of our requests was, hey.

After two additional times, we need to be more clear in our findings of how we're missing the mark. Where why are we denying the application? And then you can't move forward with those directly. So it still provides that flexibility for cities to be like, hey. Here's where you're missing the mark, and it holds our feeds to the fire to be like, this is why we're denying your project or why we're sending it back.

And for the sponsors, and, it wasn't something that they were open to. So, you know, I think, you know, historically, it depends on where you're at, but we've heard that it takes three, four rounds. But a lot of times, it's not necessarily cities moving the goal post. It tends to be applicants just don't understand the building codes. They're really complex.

So I think that's kind of how it is. So it's hard to put a time frame on it, which is also the challenge, I think, with this bill where it's a set firm to deadline and then you have to deny it, and we'd rather see it. Like, let's have the back and forth to make sure we're getting things certified. We have to get housing built in the state.

We're aware of that, but we also need to make sure that we're complying with all the mandates the state and locals are being required to place because of building codes and other regulations.

So that's where we're coming from in in our concerns on the measure.

So when you receive the plans originally, say there's a lot of mistakes, a lot of feedback is given to the plans. When it comes back, do you believe that they're going to make when you're talking about there there's a lot of mistakes and and there's more more things that they don't know what they're doing and therefore you're giving more feedback.

Are you are you referring to the fact that they've done changes to the plans based on the feedback that chief folks gave them and then it's coming back in ways that it doesn't meet the the requirements of the cities. Is that what you're saying?

I think I'm saying it it depends on the situation. Right? Sometimes it is not new you know, you have new changes that happen to your point you had mentioned earlier. But for the most part, when you're getting it back, it could just be, hey. You know, we flagged for you this concern and you still haven't addressed it.

Right? Like, that's the challenge. Right? It and again, it depends on I'm I personally am not on the ground, but from what we've heard from our cities, a lot of it tends to be, hey, there's just so com so much complexity. We try to be clear and collaborate and sometimes it doesn't work and that's why we need three or four rounds.

We'd rather have those conversations rather than just denying a project and then restarting it all over again. That doesn't seem hopeful for anyone.

But it also happens when you don't approve the the plans within say three years and you come back and says, you know, we want you to start the process all over again. That's a problem. So there is an actual issue at hand at the at the local level that needs to be addressed. So, member Wilson, how did you come up with the two the two reviews? Right.

How did how did that, you know, how did you decide, okay, this is the magic number. This is what we we wanna see in moving forward.

The two reviews really came about, and I wanna be clear, for members of the public. There is the plans that are approved by the local agency, which is a long and exhaustive long and comprehensive process. And so those plans are done. And what we're talking about is once those plans are improved and now you're in the field and then the change is made.

So when they go in and do that type of inspection and look through, there'll be those initial type of issues that the developer should fix.

And then by the time you do the second one, maybe you found new things that you didn't necessarily see, but then that's it. Right? Like, you've you've fixed the other things, the other issues, and then you've now on your second turnaround, that should that should be done because you've had a time to do you've approved plans. Now you're in this post entitlement permit process. Now you've had two times there, and so we're saying that should be enough.

Sand something that's health and safety, things come up. Right? And so if it's urgent and it relates to health and safety, then you can make adjustments. And so the two really was you should be trying to exhaust as much as possible that first time around. And then the second review, you're making sure they complete it the first time and then looking for any other outstanding issues that you missed the first time around.

I don't think I think three would be a lot because it's just another it's just kicking the can down the Road. I and I don't think we've even talked about if I remember correctly, I'm gonna look at my sponsors. If it needed to be three, I think we've been with two, and we haven't got a suggestion for three. We've really got suggestions as testimony noted, which was around clarifying when something is complete.

Did you complete all the other items from the first time before you got to the second time so that we then can get a third time if you didn't?

And then also this denying of it, is there litigation if we deny it for a non health and safety reason? So a new reason because we came up with something after the second time and we deny it, will we get sued for doing that? And so those are the issues that are outstanding. I think the second one with litigation, I don't know I don't believe there to be a litigation risk.

And then on the first one, I think we can we've tried to address that in in some of the amendments that we've taken, and I'm happy to continue to work on as we navigate the legislative process.

This is not the end, this end of policy, but not the end. And so happy if we if we if we land on the right language, happy to accommodate that. But as I understand it, it wasn't having the third one. It's just having additional reasons for able to give a look back, not necessarily just having one more.

Right now would might be the reason to be able to look back and and come back with with you. Right. I'm gonna support your bill and I and I do, you know, for my League of Cities because I am I know we've been at odds just on certain big bills with the League of Cities and I've always been a proponent of the League of Cities, great partner of the League of Cities.

But I just want you to know and share with your members, it is incredibly disheartening to hear and see where we have incredibly wonderful cities that are just on point when it comes to approval process and we have cities that do not. And unfortunately here's where the state comes in and says, okay, we have cities are not are not doing their job effectively in conducting business and therefore now we have to introduce legislation that kind of helps kind of move them in that way.

And the problem that we have in the in the state coming from a local perspective is that now we have something that's gonna be a one size fits all. And that's where we start having problems because it doesn't address the cities that are not up to par. And the question is how do we tailor legislation to only those that are responsible. They're not being as responsible in their duties in this case with the approval of housing.

So just something to just consider, Mayor Wilson is is how do you maybe perhaps and not that we're gonna do negotiating anything on here but just a thought.

As we're working on legislation that really tries to address the the cities are not fulfilling their responsibility or doing their work effectively. How do we narrow the the legislation so it's not a one size fits all but actually just really tailors to those that need a little more support in doing the work that they're supposed to be doing. Especially in in light of the housing crisis that we have in California. And that's my biggest, takeaway from this.

If, you know, and I will talk to my local cities about that as well as far as that goes.

But with the health and safety component, be able to go back and make those changes. I'm gonna support the bill today but I do want us to to have those honest conversations about tailoring bills to to jurisdictions that really are not fulfilling their their their full responsibility. So Thank

you. Thank you, Senator. And if only we had a framework to identify those who are doing their job and producing actual housing, so that we could distinguish between the top performers and the folks that need a little more accountability. And so I look forward that Bill did not move out of this committee. And I don't think unique supported it either.

And that's we're in this situation as a result. We have we are we do end up writing one size fits all legislation that is intended to make sure that we punish the wicked and we thereby prevent unleashing the great. And so it is a challenge, but it's a challenge more fundamentally in our approach. And we do need we do need tools to distinguish between those two exactly those two populations.

They're really talented, highly motivated performance outcome based jurisdictions that are doing it right and we can trust that they know as much or better than we do.

And those that are either not caring or are affirmatively trying to skirt the law and we have both of those kinds. So we need to distinguish and I know that's hard for the associations. They're like, no, we won't treat everybody the same. Well, when that's the answer, we treat everybody like this. I mean, that's just that's the hard reality of it.

Mr. Garten, if you're still here, I can see that you are. I did have a question for you that wasn't that. And just looking at the opposition letter, so you wanted to turn to this question around what happens, what would trigger an additional review and the bill currently says based on substantial evidence in the record that the additional review is necessary to address a specific adverse impact on public health or safety which you've argued is too strong.

And the alternative that you proposed is written findings identifying the permit standards which the plans do not comply with.

Those seem pretty far apart and both in scope in terms of public safety only, I'm sorry, health and safety only versus any of the permit standards, both in scope but then also in kind of the level of like how do we really know. So you're saying written findings, the bill says substantial evidence in the record. What why that level yours is a pretty broad door.

I I had similar concerns that you expressed about the languages in the bill but yours seems to be as troubling but in how broad that it is. So can you share with us why this level of discretion should be left to cities that if they just write down their reasons that that's enough to go past the two the two turns the two turnarounds?

Yeah, sure. Appreciate that question, Sundar. And it's it's actually interesting to have the back and forth. I really appreciate this opportunity. So thank you all for this opportunity today.

But I will say, you know, I think one of the challenges that local governments have, and I know with everyone's background in in local government that's here right now, like, one of the challenges is we have non health and safety violations that we also have to enforce that the state has required us to do. Right? So you look at solar mandates. You look at EV charging mandates. Those are things that we as locals have to account for.

So the problem is is if we are being tasked with well, we're required by law to enforce those. We have to now enforce them and apply them locally to our communities. There could be non health and safety issues that's requirements from the state that we now could be at risk for litigation because it's hard to go I think it would be hard to go to a court and be like, well, they they didn't have solar that's why the permit was denied.

And I know it's probably hard to argue that's a health and safety issue. Right?

So I think that's the challenge that we're we're grappling with locally.

Alright. I I am largely persuaded on that point if there was language that said or health or safety or to comply with a state mandate of some kind.

But can we turn next to the level of proof that's necessary here written findings versus substantial evidence in the record written findings because that seem like the most the most discretion possible and have you had conversations either with the sponsor with the author or with your coalition about why it would need to be so broad as or such a low standard as written findings?

I think the written findings provide more clarity so everyone's on the same page. So it seems like a better solution in terms of, hey, here's why we're denying the permit for example, like what you're missing the mark on. The goal of that language is to say, hey. We want to make sure that everyone is on the same page and understands what we need to what's expected moving forward.

And they may already be required in state law to do that, but I don't know if it's as clear and that's why we're saying, you know, hey.

After two denials, if we're still denying it, let's be clear to the applicants so they understand where they're missing the mark and we can work with them and so they understand where we're missing the mark. And, you know, if it includes adding language that's like, hey, you know, you can't ask for more beyond that, I think we'd be we're definitely open to

that.

So what what what would be wrong with based on substantial evidence in the record then?

Well, substantial evidence has a higher legal finding than than, written findings does which is like a back and forth process. So that's the challenge. Right?

But but I think you said the purpose was to make sure everybody's on the same page which that's the point of the back and forth process and establishing in the record written findings is just a declaration that everybody's going to be on my page which is not quite the same. So I'm I'm so that's what I was trying to explore. Assemblymember Wilson?

And I I would note that a part of the plan check process, as you know, there are written findings at each one of of what we where you think you're, out of of sorts. And and just thinking about the long standing conversations we've had with opposition coming from local gov. I care about local control. I care about giving them the grace that they need to do their job, especially coming from a local city where you necessarily don't have all the resources.

So I have that in mind as I do this bill and note that I introduced this bill last year as AB 1621, and there were a lots of negotiations surrounding that bill.

And some of the language that we have was specifically provided by the opposition that we took wholesale, which was a local agency or state agency may deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following two plan checks and specification reviews. So that is in this language, and that includes that kind of written finding. And so now you've done all of that.

At this point, now we're moving to if you wanna do something, it has to be substantial evidence that it's related to health and safety. Otherwise, we would just get into this iterate process of another plan check, another plan check, another plan check, which is what the problem that we have now.

This is a way for our cities to understand what is required of them and to be proactive knowing that they only have two. They will then it will be much more comprehensive because they don't have multiple bites at the apple like they currently have now. And so now I I know I only have two. So that means I'm gonna be more thorough in each of my plan checks and make sure I get it right because I only have two.

And he noted EV mandates and things of that nature.

All of those state laws, we we usually don't have urgency state laws around housing where it just brings up you overnight. Usually, there's a determined time that something is into effect, and then there's a certain time where a project might be past that point or in front of that point.

And that that I've I've not, as a local leader, doing housing and doing development projects in general have or even in my my purview as being a part of home building have had that issue where we weren't clear about what law applied at what process, at what stage we were in the development of the project, whether that's from land acquisition to land development to actually building, you know, the homes.

And so, you know, so that one, I take a little bit exception with, in regard to whether I can resolve that specific issue because I don't think pertaining to here it is. And so we introduced this bill and we've made even after negotiating for a whole year and a half on that bill, we've continued to negotiate because I wanna get it right.

And then can I you know what I was saying? But can can I can can I ask you about the

Yeah.

The reasonable person versus the maybe the alternatives like sort of reasonable inspector, you know, so at least the way that the opposition letter has framed it up is that the bill sets a standard of like a reasonable person's interpretation of the permit and the standard or whatever As opposed to somebody that would have knowledge or expertise or professional licensure in that field. And that's that and that's a Right. In this case, it might be a strange

Yeah. And so what I would note is that if you look at all of our recent, housing reform laws that this is now the common standard. And the courts have interpreted that this standard understands what is reasonable depends on the nature of the subject matter. So when you're saying reasonable, you're not saying Lori Wilson who's never physically built anything. That is not a reasonable person, but the person who is

She's pretty she usually.

I'm pretty amazing. I know that. But but I'm saying, like, in the context of inspecting that they're they're using the reasonable person is the reasonable person who has the skills or whatever necessary to do whatever job they're doing. And that is the reasonable person, not just the standard reasonable person. I am not a lawyer, but from lawyers, I understand that that is the standard.

Okay.

Okay. Well, thank you. And thanks for and if you have any other questions, Mister Gurden. So I'm also gonna support the bill and the chair's recommending, and I I I I would as these conferences, this is a year of conversations continue to the end.

It does seem to be reasonable if you're in the middle of the two reviews and a state mandate changes and it can be a law, it could be finally you get guidance from HCD or something else but that a statement that changes in that period that that's not an unreasonable issue to be contemplating.

I think I agree 100% that just any state mandate you should know. If you knew about it, you could have known about it at the beginning that should have been part of the first round of reviews. But I would encourage you to keep thinking about that as the bill is moving forward.

Will do.

All right. We'll take the motion when we have a quorum. But after you have an opportunity to close.

I think I've said a lot. So I will just say at the appropriate time I respectfully ask for it. I move.

All right. Thank you so much and happy birthday. All right. We have next up Assemblymember Quirk-Silva for I—file item three, AB 2748. Welcome.

Thank you, senators. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. First, I want to thank your committee consultants for working with our office and I do accept the committee amendments. Today, I present AB 2748, which delays the new electric vehicle readiness requirements in the California Green Building Standards Code for 100% affordable housing developments only. California has been tackling some of the state's most pressing needs, housing and climate.

This bill is not about choosing one or the other; they are both important. However, when those goals come to an impasse, we need to work together to reach some sort of middle ground. The sponsors of my staff have met with several groups, environmental, as well as electric vehicle groups, and have had robust discussions. I want to emphasize again that AB 2748 does not eliminate the installation of EV charges.

It keeps the previous installation rule at 40% for fully affordable housing developments only and delays the recent 2026 increase, which increased installation 100% for three years. And that is the current amendment, just to delay for three years. We know that we need to move forward with putting in these chargers. So, why would I bring a bill like this when I actually agree, agree with having electric chargers? Simply because of the cost.

The cost that it adds to our 100% affordable units. We know for per unit, they can be, in the past, up to $2,000. Now, we're expecting them to be about 2,500 to 3,000. So, if you add that, just say 2,500 for 100 units, that's where the additional thousands of dollars can arise. So, again, it is not to have a two-tier system.

It's just to give more time in order to get these units build built, get people housed. And then, secondly, make sure that once the three years have passed, move on to certainly building those EV chargers. With me today, I have—Graciela Castillo-Krings, partner of Sacramento Advocates, representing the California Housing Consortium. Oh, it's not.

Welcome, Graciela.

Good afternoon. I'm the other cosponsor, Paul Schaefer, with the California Council for Affordable Housing.

Thank you very much, Chair and members. CCH represents the full continuum of the affordable housing industry, including tax credit investors, lenders, developers, and long-term property managers across the state. Affordable housing providers share the state's long-term climate and equity goals, and we recognize that electric vehicles are becoming an increasingly common transportation option. However, the EV charging requirements in the 2025 Green Building Standards Code create significant financial and operational challenges for affordable housing developers that already operate on extremely tight margins. The cost impacts are substantial.

Based on real world project experience, we are seeing EV-ready infrastructure costs increase by as much as three times, compared to the 2024 code requirements. And because every affordable housing development is different, those costs can vary dramatically, depending on site conditions, parking layouts, wiring distancing, and the need for electrical upgrades. Utility coordination adds another layer of complexity. Developers must work with the utilities to assess service capacity, conduct load studies, and determine whether panel, transformer, or meter upgrades are needed.

These requirements can add both significant costs and project delays to developments that are already financially constrained.

With the proposed committee amendments, AB 2748 offers a balanced and practical solution. The bill does not eliminate EV charger, EV-ready requirements. Instead, it gives affordable housing developers the option to, to continue using the 2024 standards, which require 40% of total parking spaces to be EV-ready or comply with the new 2025 standard.

This flexibility will keep projects feasible while providing time for the used EV market to mature, cost to decline, and utility programs and funding sources to better align with affordable housing financing. Most importantly, AB 2748 helps ensure that the most scarce affordable housing dollars remain focused on producing and preserving much needed homes rather than being diverted to infrastructure that may be underutilized in the near term.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2748. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, Graciela.

Oh, where'd you come from?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Graciela Castillo-Krings. I am here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, a nonprofit organization working on the preservation and additional production of 100% affordable deed restricted housing. I don't have to tell this committee how important dollars are. It's thanks to this body that we passed a $10 billion bond highlighting the need for additional funding.

And the reality is most of the programs that are funding units are running out of money. So, what we are asking for is for an additional three years of delay, not to say no to EV charging, but just simply to let us go back to the 2024 supplemental, which, again, is 40% of EV readiness and 10% of EV charging or chargers. That actually is 50% of total.

All we're saying is give us three years and hopefully by then, in November, the voters will say yes to the bond, and we will be able to actually fulfill both the climate change goals that the state has and our affordability goals, because at the end of the day, our entire goal is to make sure that people continue to be housed.

With that, I hope that we can get your support. Thank you.

Alright. Thanks to you both. Do others wish to register their support on of the bill? And if so, please come forward and, and share with us your name, your affiliation, but please no advertisements for lobbying firms, and your position on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michael Gunning, here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, in support and urge an aye vote.

Steven Stenzler, here in support with Bay Area Council. Thank you.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California and on behalf of the California Housing Partnership, in support. Thank you.

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

Alright. Thank you to the witnesses in support. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition?

Welcome, and you'll also have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. My name is Dennis Kurellis, deputy state architect retired with the National Charging Access Coalition. Joined in opposition by 50 groups, including affordable housing developers, unions, and advocates for transportation equity, public health, climate stability, and green tech jobs. We support reducing the cost of affordable housing, but this bill does not achieve that goal. It's based on a misunderstanding of the current 2025 code.

Informed by expert stakeholders, the current code ensures each household with parking gets a simple charging outlet, like this one here, and

it also reduces construction costs by removing the 2022 code requirement for more expensive EV chargers. The 2025 code provides twice as much access to charging for about the same or less cars cost in the 2022 code. With either code, developers can reduce costs by assigning parking spaces to specific dwelling units and wiring the charging outlet to the corresponding unit's meter. This saves money for property managers by eliminating the need for third party billing or management services.

Here's an example of an urban 100 unit complex with 50 parking spaces.

The 2022 code, shown in blue, requires 20 charging outlets and five full chargers versus the 2025 code, shown in green, which requires 50 charging outlets. With assigned parking, complying with either code costs essentially the same, just a small fraction of the total project budget. Yet the 2025 code gives twice as many households access to charging. In suburban and rural areas, a 20 a 100 unit complex could have 250 spaces.

In this example, with 200 assigned and 50 unassigned spaces, developers save about $96,000 by following the 2025 code.

This is typically the case whenever there are more parking spaces than dwelling units. In conclusion, AB 2748 does not save developers money as hoped and should not be advanced. I'd be happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you. Alright. You will also have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Hello. I'm Linda Hutchins-Knowles with NCAC. We appreciate the amendments.

We remain deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. First, going back to the 2022 code would drive higher costs. It's much cheaper to add charging during original construction when concrete is being poured and panels are being sized. The state has spent $2,300,000,000 and utilities have spent over half a billion to retrofit existing buildings. Rather than burden taxpayers and rate payers with more future retrofits, developers should continue to follow the streamlined 2025 code.

Second, the bill would establish a state sanctioned double standard where all residents of new market rate apartments can charge at home, while only half the residents of affordable housing get access. This penalizes the lowest income Californians and may even violate the Federal Fair Housing Act. It would also reduce jobs for electricians. Third, the bill makes it harder for residents to access the cost savings of driving electric. Used EVs are now the most affordable type of car to drive to buy.

The state utilities state and utilities are spending millions to help low income residents access these health and economic benefits. Residents with older cars can get $12,000 toward an EV, essentially a free car if they income qualify. And they can also access care and fare at charging rates, but only if they can charge at home. Here in Sacramento, if you charge at home, you pay between 85¢to $2 per gallon, but gas is over $5 per gallon. Commercial charging is much costlier.

It's often six times the cost of home charging. Reducing access to charging perpetuates this barrier. A 2023 survey of affordable housing residents found 70% said they would lease or buy an EV if home charging is available. We respectfully ask for your no vote on this unnecessary and harmful bill. Should you still choose to export it, in addition to the three proposed amendments, please also require developers who follow the outdated 2022 code to make the remaining 50% of spaces EV capable.

That means you'll run the race ways, put in the panel access and low capacity, making it much easier and less costly to provide EV charging access in the future for the three years of delay. Please ask us questions You're prepared with more details about

Your time has expired, but thank you very much. Appreciate you. Alright. Now, we'll ask folks who wish to register their opposition to the bill. Please.

Yeah. Julie Malonowski-Baum on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in opposition.

Michelle Canales in respectful opposition on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, Green Latinos, Redwood Energy, and the Climate Center. Thank you.

Marie Lu representing NRDC in Opposition. Thank you.

Bill McGavin Kolish for Clean Air also opposed.

Mark Fenstermaker, Earthjustice opposed.

Good afternoon. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Vanessa Warheit in strong opposition speaking on behalf of Moon five Technology, recipient of CEC REACH funding for installing charging at affordable and low income housing. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Colleen Corrigan with Spur. We took an opposed unless amended position, but appreciate the authors' and sponsors' willingness to ensure that at a minimum, AB 2748 does not prevent developers from fully utilizing potential cost savings. We'll withdraw our position upon seeing the amendments in print. Thank you.

Run.

Matt Klompenstein on behalf of the Center for Stable Energy in Opposition. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. That concludes all the testimonies. We'll turn back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Ochoa Bogue.

Certainly. So it's interesting because from a construction perspective we talk about we on our side talk a lot about the requirements that are placed on development in order to meet the goals of the legislature. And how every single I remember receiving a list of everything that the legislature had required of developers to add to the cost of that added to the cost of the development and it's incredible on what it costs to build in California.

I'm grateful that we're putting a pause on this particular mandate on our ability or on the affordable housing building centers. But I do have a question which was intrigued.

I did not know it. I appreciate it from the opposition that said that if you if you build it to your prior code, it would make it easier moving forward to add the infrastructure. Could you, if through the Chair, if it would be okay just to clarify what standards would that be and has there been any conversations on your end member Quirk Silva as to, you know, having that modification just to make construction more feasible moving forward. Would you mind explaining that requirement that

We we proposed this. We met with the bill sponsors and proposed to them five amendments. This was one of them. Basically, what we're saying is developers, if you accept amendments today, developers will have a choice of the 22 or the 25 standards. If they do the twenty twenty two standards, we're simply asking that the 50% of spaces that will have no charging infrastructure whatsoever.

you were Yeah.

That's where it costs so much later to dig the concrete, to resize the panels, bring in transformers. There's no transformer upgrades when you do it in the beginning. You size it right. So we're saying make the extra 50% of spaces EV capable. It's extremely inexpensive.

We're just talking about raceways and panel capacity breaker space. And the old code, the original 2022 triennial before the the supplemental that this code refers to did require some of the spaces to be e b capable. That definition is in the code. So it basically would be taking the 2022 code and saying the 50% of spaces that don't have access need to be e b capable.

They won't be wired, but they'll have the raceways already run before you pour the concrete and they'll be sized properly to avoid those upgrades of transformers that cost so much.

You've got a letter from your co housing. They spent $29,000 per port because they hadn't sized it properly. They literally did and that's what we're trying to avoid.

That seems pretty reasonable and kind of more of a wise perspective in moving forward. So has there been

actually taken that amendment to allow the flexibility so developers can choose if they want to use the twenty twenty five standards. I believe it's a twenty five twenty five or

Yeah. Just to clarify, we're saying that if they get to use the twenty twenty two, they have to make Twenty twenty. Be capable the other ones. So 20 50% have to be under 2022 code. We're saying the other instruments have e b capable.

It was one of the remnants we proposed but they wasn't taken up but we'd love to have the committee support that.

It just it it makes sense if you're moving forward on there to make it less expensive. In my opinion, if I were a builder, I would say, you know, I would accommodate that. But I'm not sure if that's something that the builders would consider or not as far as the option. And I guess that's what you're saying is you you're giving them the option in this bill to be able to do that or not?

We want them to have the flexibility, but we also the goal of the bill is to shave off dollars from a 100% affordable housing project. Now this space that I'm in is actually a little awkward for me personally as, you know, I've mostly worked in bringing affordable housing. And now that there's opposition, which respectful to the opposition, I think you can do two things at once. And one of the things that we have a really hard problem with, is imagining two things can happen.

And that is we want to build the units as quick as we can knowing that affordability, a 100% affordable housing units, the people that are going to be able to attain these units, it's life changing for them.

So getting in the unit, getting it built, and having those very sacred dollars, affordable housing dollars used as quick as possible to build as many units as possible is imperative. Secondly, the EV charging is not only a state mandate. It's part of our climate goals, and we wanna attain those too. We're just asking for a pause within three years. Again, mentioned right before I came into committee, we have a housing bond and we're we're imagining that that's going to get passed.

We've also worked incredibly hard to put dollars into the state budget, fighting to keep dollars into the state budget until that bond is passed. So this pause would say, in the meantime, let's have this opportunity. But, certainly, developers can, as you said, use the alternative if this is this bill passes as it is, to do the the groundwork, as you would say, that could in essence be less costly. But for now, when, as we hear often through trades and others, is the project gonna pencil?

Is the project gonna be able to be built with the dollars have?

If you can shave off $25,000, that means something. But I don't like being in the position to, you know, being a housing advocate advocate and if you want to say, for the opposition, being against climate goals. But sometimes, we have to make the most the choice that gives people the best option. And the best option, there's three things people need. They need housing.

They need food. And they need water. That's about it when we come to livelihood. You Evie yeah. You you can shake your head.

But when we look at people who are trying to pay their rent, who are trying to get to work, we know that our vulnerable communities' housing dollars are the the largest part of their budget by far. It's why we have people leaving California. It's why many of us have stood on boxes about the crisis of California. So we're trying to put forward something that is not perfect. It makes people uncomfortable.

It gets people angry. But it's a pause. We're not saying, you know, people who, are in affordable units should never have the option to have a charger, or an EV charge. But by the way, right now, even if we say gas is more expensive, when we go and we look at the sales of EV for many of our most vulnerable, they're not out there buying them. Why?

Senator Eric Crooks, could I ask you to maybe to defer this this line until the close?

Alright. Well, that will be my close. It kinda gets me wound up when it's insinuated by the opposition that somehow we can't do two things at once. We must do two things at once. Thank you.

Alright. Senator Chok, can you both?

So just for the powers that are there listening, I Aye, you know, I've been trying to streamline the way that we we we construct in California because it's so expensive and I hear that from our developers in my area all the time. Think about five years ago, six years ago, just to break ground on just to break ground and be able to build. It was about a 125 to $145,000 just to break the ground on on those homes. It's incredibly expensive.

But by the same token, there are these climate change that the that the legislature has been pursuing.

And, I do wanna give the the opposition just the the just the validation that I think you're absolutely right. You know, if you're going to create, you know, EVs moving forward, you know, fully electrify, it does make sense for developers to do the groundwork before the concrete gets the port because once that concrete is poured, it does become much more expensive moving forward. So I understand that the bill before us is just trying to ensure that we put a pause on the whole scenario.

But the powers that be and the developers planting that seed I think is important for them to know on that end. I'm going to support the bill today, because I think it's important to build and to cut costs as much as possible.

But if we're looking at long term and it would be hard if it's not required at this point for developers to move ahead and do that pre planning and place the infrastructure to be ready when they're not required to do so because they're not gonna be around to be, you know, doing the follow-up of the electrical charging stations. They're not gonna be responsible. The developers are gonna be long gone.

It'll be up to the to the owners of the of the of the properties to to to do that and facilitate that charging. So I get your point, but I also understand the the the the effort by the Assembly member to streamline and cut costs and build.

So, somewhere along the the way hopefully someone will be listening and the developers that are forward thinking and and proactive, maybe we'll they'll take that that that consideration into place. But I but I absolutely hear what you're saying. With that, I'll be happy to move the bill when the time is appropriate. I have

a quorum.

All right. Thank you. I agree with Senator Cho Bogue's analysis in every respect. I think it's the suggested amendment is a totally reasonable one and I would encourage the author to continue to work that through because it is substantially more costly. I mean, I guess in this, I'm sad that we are in this position not just on this, but the coalition that we've seen over the last decade of sort of climate advocates and housing advocates has been one of the most potent contributions to both.

And whether it's the actions we saw at CARB that have basically wiped out the entire affordable housing and sustainable communities program on the one hand or this, I mean, we're we I hope we're not going into our corners and just grabbing whatever crumbs that we can in order to try to we're not going to be able to solve either the housing or the climate crisis if we can't refashion that coalition and figure out pragmatic ways to accomplish both goals at the same time.

So I share the concerns but strongly urge the consideration of that amendment. There may be others from the opposition in order to do this. I get the reason. And then I just want to say one other thing and that is that this is likely the final hearing that we will have Assemblymember Quirk Silva with us.

And I just wanted to say on behalf of the Housing Committee and the Senate how much we have appreciated your, colleagueship on housing issues, and your leadership every single year fighting hard to, make sure HCD gets the resources and the accountability that it needs, the dollars for affordable housing and for homelessness, and of course, bill after bill after bill to make sure that the system is efficient and effective at producing the housing that we need. Thank you for all of your work.

And with that, I'd like to invite you to actually to close for real.

Yeah. And we and we will continue to work with the opposition. And I hear them. I see you. I know that being in the middle of these two discussions, it's not the first time we've dealt with CEQA other housing, but really the goal is to house people as quickly as possible, but not letting go of our climate goal.

So we have work to do. We'll continue to do that. Thank you so much for those comments and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We do not yet have a quorum, but when we do, the motion will be placed and the motion will be do pass do passes amended to appropriations. Thank you so much. Alright. Next up is Assemblymember Wicks Alvarez.

Sorry. Sorry. Okay. I didn't mean to give me a heart attack. Assembly member Alvarez who has AB file item number five, AB 1732.

Welcome Assembly member Alvarez and please proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, and I will be brief. Thank you, committee members, for the work you do on housing. I am really pleased to be with, you before you today on Assembly bill 1732, which built on some of the work I've been doing over the last couple years on housing. And this bill in particular is focused on student housing. As you all well know, we are very proud of California's being the leading state with the greatest public university system and our community college system.

But we've also had to face real decisions on on students and the challenges that they have including, you know, the large percentage of UC students and CSU students who have unstable housing and the very large number of community college students who face the same. We've done things like allowed for students to sleep in their vehicles and parking lots and many other things to try to address this.

And as we've tried to address housing in general, we've done some pretty great things over the last few years in particularly streamlining of projects, through the secret process, projects who, meet the needs of California, including affordability in the housing developments. And so this bill is really just, along those lines. Current law allows private colleges and universities, cities, school cities, and counties to streamline through CEQA process their affordable projects that meet certain criteria that's outlined in the bill.

And as we did, I think, excellent work last year to try to do this with AB 130, we neglected to include universities, colleges, and CSUs and UCs that have long range planning documents as part of this. And so this bill addresses that. It allows them the same type of opportunity to build housing, utilizing this tool whenever there are plans at universities and college campuses. You all know the data. I'm not even gonna get into that at this point.

I've been talking about this for a long time of of need for affordable housing, but I'm really proud to say that this work is being led by students and to testify on behalf of sponsors for the Student Homes Coalition. I'd like to now introduce our first or I think our only test testimony today, Kate Rogers.

Good afternoon, members. My name is Kate Rogers here on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition. So as as a member mentioned, student homelessness is directly downstream of the shortage of housing on our campuses. Every single year, 30,000 students across UCs and CSUs end up on housing wait lists. And competition for off campus housing is just as intense as lease up begins in October for the following academic year, nearly ten months before those lease terms even begin.

So the current situation is absolutely untenable for California students. If we at student homes have learned anything about this working on this for the last four years, it's that we cannot just keep nibbling around the edges of this problem. If we're gonna restore the affordability of education in California, real structural change is necessary. And we believe AB 1732 is that change. So the lack of development on our campuses is not because our institutions don't want to build, but because they can't.

Outdated state regulations increase the cost of development, lengthen project timelines, or prevent construction entirely. So from 2018 to 2023, seven UC student housing projects were tied up in CEQA litigation. Campus housing projects are not only critical to solving the student homelessness crisis, they're also incredibly environmentally friendly. They're located in dense, walkable areas and are subject to high environmental review standards outside of the CEQA process. Despite this current law still allows local opponents to weaponize CEQA to block these units we desperately need from being built.

While it is the campuses that shoulder these legal fees and compliance costs, it is the students that ultimately pay the price. Students, faculty, and campus leadership all want the same thing, to make higher education as accessible and affordable as possible. We're incredibly proud to be sponsoring AB 1732 to finally make this vision a reality. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Also happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to register their support for the bill?

Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to register their support for the bill?

And just recall, we'd like to hear your name, your organizational affiliation that you're representing, but not your lobbying firm, and your position on the bill.

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

Thank you.

Mister Chair, Michael Gunning here on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate, SPUR, and the San Diego Housing Commission. I urge your support.

Thank you.

Bob Naylor, one client, fuels set in company. That's Howard Amundsen Junior in support.

Francisco Ornelas with the University of California Student Associations. We're we're proud cosponsor of this bill.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.

Theresa Brown on behalf of the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in support.

Nolan Gray, California MB in strong support.

Alright. Thank you. Are there lead witnesses in opposition to the bill? Does anyone wish to register their opposition to the bill?

Let's then return to the committee. Any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I'm in support of what is being proposed here today with this bill. I'm I think one of the biggest challenges that we have for college affordability is the housing component. It's incredibly expensive for them to actually be able to find housing first of all.

I'm not a big proponent of vouchers per se because I don't think that does anything to add to the housing and it just has an impact on the local communities when we're requiring our universities to increase enrollment and that has an impact on the housing capacity of the communities that these universities are in. So I'm all about building housing in on our campuses, for our campuses, for our students.

So kudos on that. I was trying to figure out the difference between your bill and Senator's bill SB 886. Senator Senator Weiner, I'm sorry. Senator Weiner's bill on SB 886. Do you do you happen to know what the differences are between those two?

Have to remind me what eight eight six is?

In 2022? I'm sorry. Yes. That was in 2022. And it said it exempted faculty, staff, and student housing projects at public universities from the California Environmental Quality Act

Okay.

Basically. Yeah. Do you remember that one?

Our Student House Coalition.

Yeah. I'm I'm happy to take this one. So there's a couple of differences between eight eight six and this bill. I think, really what we've seen since eight eight six was signed into law is that it hasn't been used, and there's a whole lot of reasons for that. There's it's the a lot of provisions in there are incredibly burdensome that, just, you know, cannot be met while still making these projects pencil.

And so we've seen, from our our colleges while that law was incredibly well intentioned, it ultimately hasn't resulted in the effects that we want, which is more development of of student housing and affordable student housing on our campuses.

So this bill is similar, but it has, what what, you know, we believe to be a a much more workable set of provisions, and we've been working with the University of California, the community colleges to make sure that that this bill will be workable and these units will still pencil in. Happy to share more details with you or your office at at any point about the specific provisions that, were in August but are no longer in in our bill.

Okay. If my I know my staff is listening. So I wanna make sure that we meet and and look into those provisions and what failed on that end. Because in the one component that I the the one concern that I have on here is when and what triggers my mind and my lens when I look at construction projects is a requirement for mostly union or union or project labor agreements on those because you're excluding about 80% of contractors in the state of California.

And when we do that there are less contractors bidding for these jobs which impact has an impact on the cost of construction as a whole.

And one on the component of the cost and number two also on the ability for these these projects to be constructive for the development to happen because we don't have enough on that end. So that's the one

Yeah. So our bill does still include labor standards. The primary reason for that is the UC and the CSU have their own labor standards. Even when they are still subject to CEQA, they also have their own labor standards as as state entities.

The sort of realm where these provisions are different between our bill and eight eight six are things like a a lead certification requirement or or having, you know, cool roofs, solar ready roofs, things of this nature that are just add little cost, one on top of the other until ultimately these projects don't end up happening.

But whether, you know, project uses AB 1732 or it doesn't, it will still have have those labor provisions in place due to, unrelated labor language that the UC and CSU are subject to.

Okay. And I and I guess, if you do have that language, I'll be kind of curious to see that language because I think that's one of the biggest, one well, along with the requirements that you're when labor costs are incredibly. And I'm an advocate of opportunity for all and having the most folks at especially if they follow the laws and they're qualified, they're trained, they should have an opportunity to be able to bid.

And I want to make sure that it's not cost prohibited when we're excluding 80 percent of our contractors in our state in this. But other than that I will be supporting the bill because I think it's incredibly needed.

And thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Senator. I also just wanna point out this bill is building on AB 1449, which is another bill that Aye, introduced a couple years ago. And I'll get you more data, but, our report to date this year, HCD is, reporting that that bill, which streamlined affordable housing outside of university campuses but out in the community, has already produced, 10 projects this year alone of affordable housing projects.

So we're hoping that that utilization rate, which is much higher than the previous version that you just mentioned, would also be accepted by universities and so we'll see similar results.

But we'll get you that information as well.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Alves and I'm going to ask you a question but if your answer is the reasons for the scope are where a hospital member by the Assembly Appropriations Committee just let me know and I'll stop asking you. But this is with respect to the limitations on where the projects can which kinds of projects are covered.

So there is a geographic requirement here that is the project is located on a parcel in a city that is at least partially urban or within walking distance to a high quality transit corridor or major transit stop in a low vehicle area or project proximal to six or more amenities. Now those are all urban standards. Correct.

And I'm curious a college of the Siskiyous or Copper Mountain College or other rural campuses which can't possibly meet those standards almost by definition, but also have needs for affordable housing. Why we wouldn't include those and it's particularly sensitive now because we have the money in the bond for student housing and so the extent to which the same project costs more at a rural community college than it would cost because they don't they don't have CEQA at the urban college.

Are we are we categorically disadvantaging I would just

Thank you, Senator. And sorry for interrupting. I would point you to section in Section one, let's see. It's on the second page if you have the printed version, but it talks about within one mile for a parcel in a rural area. So those are the opportunities within those rural more rural communities.

If they have those amenities within those two miles, then they would also qualify. So the goal was to try and not leave out those types of campuses, but also not create a type of development that would be allowed in a rural community which temp which usually is not we hear a lot of pushback on, you know, that kind of development in some of those communities. So so if you look at that, it's within one mile.

Or for a parcel that is within a rural area, within two miles with the following amenities, a supermarket, grocery store, a public park, a community center, pharmacy, drugstore. And so there are some of those amenities are also considered as part of qualifying you for for the utilization of this for projects in these areas.

Okay.

In addition to those urban areas that you just Yeah.

So but why are so, I mean, we have several urban community colleges that are essentially completely by themselves.

They don't sit next to any anything else. And so the requirement for a community center, library, public library that presumably is not the college's library grocery store. I mean they're not like, what what is what is what is this language accomplishing in terms of, I mean, why what is it about call like, any college that just wants to build housing that's affordable for its students and that that that they wouldn't be able to qualify for the exemption? What are we worried about?

Right.

So a lot of this is based on AB 1449, which is my bill from a couple years ago. And so that had to be narrowed down into specific criteria so we can get it get the support for the bill. And so that narrowed it to this list as a result of working with multiple stakeholders for that bill over the course of quite some time.

And so rather than try and interject something that may cause any significant opposition, we were trying to fit it within those confines. We're certainly always interested in trying to make sure that colleges and universities that are in areas where they'd like to build housing but don't meet your typical urban scenario can also participate, and that's why that is in here.

Okay. We're interested in learning if there are other criteria that might be of important significance to other campuses. I think we'd be open to that. Okay.

Yes, I think it's important now because of the bond. So before the bond it would have been like okay AB130 also doesn't apply to everybody including most rural areas. But that's because we're specifically trying to make cases that are obvious under environmental conditions, housing project in an existing city surrounded by other uses whatever. But now we're talking because of the money that's in the bond about projects competing with one another.

And And so the extent to which we don't get that we don't get the like what are we trying to accomplish in the rural areas.

Sure.

And it's not clear to me that for a CEQA purpose like having a pharmacy next door is is really like why why that's not important and it will mean that several colleges just can't even they can't compete because other campuses that will qualify for this exemption will have a substantially lower cost and lower level of and won't be able to deliver as they'll be able to deliver faster than these rural colleges. So it would be great to connect afterwards.

Sometimes if we get stuff that's written for rural areas by staffers who are urban people who have leave it to beaver style notions of what rural looks like. But I think it really is important that we figure out given that that that assuming that the bond passes that there will be resources that we're not we're not just proportionately disadvantaging rural communities who who may have even more of a need for affordable housing because there's no other provider nearby.

And and again, the intent was not to disadvantage. We thought that a a random list of items like these could maybe capture a lot more. But if there are other qualifiers, we'd be interested in understanding what those could be to help more.

Okay. Alright. Then with that, would you like to close?

Again, appreciate it. Thanks for all the feedback. This is building on some of the work that we felt has been successful in California. And hopefully, we can extrapolate that success to our colleges to build housing for our students at the right time, respectfully, ask your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We are we are still hoping to achieve in a quorum very soon. At which point, the motion the motion to of do pass to appropriations will be made and with a recommendation from the Chair of an aye vote. All right. Next we're going to proceed to Mr. Carrillo who has two bills.

First is file item six, AB 1738. Welcome, and please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Senator and committee members. First, I would like to thank the Chair and committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Today, I'm presenting AB 1738, which requires jurisdictions to offer a virtual option for four simple inspections for single family homes. Before I was your colleague, I was an urban planner, and I would conduct final inspections, and I saw firsthand how much of a backlog my building department colleagues faced.

This backlog further exacerbates the housing crisis as building departments juggle the multiple inspections required for new housing projects. With having to also travel to perform on-site inspections for routine home renovations. What should be a straightforward step in the process instead becomes a prolonged and unpredictable wait, illustrating how inspection backlogs can place added financial and logistical strain on Californian families. AB 1738 looks to address this issue and help alleviate the housing crisis by requiring remote virtual inspections for simple home renovations as well.

Requiring these remote inspections will speed up the process for the homeowners and the building department, allowing homeowners quicker inspections and for building officials to focus on permitting more complex projects faster.

AB 1738 takes a measured approach. It does not apply to all inspections, but instead focuses on the most common and appropriate use cases already been implemented successfully across California. Remote inspections will reduce delays, cut costs and save time from homeowners and inspectors. Here with me, I have Colleen Corrigan from SPUR to testify in support and Timothy Wagner, former Placer County Chief Building Official, to testify due to Placer County's robust virtual inspection offerings.

Welcome to you both, and you'll each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Colleen Corrigan, and I'm a policy manager at Spur, which is proud co sponsor of this bill. California's housing crisis is being exacerbated by outdated inspection processes that are quietly adding time and cost as housing production, renovation, and electrification. Homeowners and contractors often wait hours or even days for simple inspections that take just five to ten minutes, adding hundreds to thousands of dollars to individual projects and administrative and standby costs.

As a result, only 10 to 20% of HVAC installations statewide are permitted and one CCA estimated that 30% of rebate or incentive money for electrification is spent on permitting and inspections. Remote inspections aren't a far fetched technology of the future. They're proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD, the National Fire Protection Association, and being used by over 20 jurisdictions in California, small and large. Life and safety concerns are not grounded in reality.

The most populous county in the state along with other jurisdictions has safely conducted thousands, hundreds of thousands of remote inspections for over seven years without a single incident.

Nothing about the inspection process or the plan check or code compliance actually changes except that inspectors don't have to drive an hour and a half to look at a smoke detector. Contractors still bring the same tools and perform the same physical tests and check for things like grounding of solar systems or water heater drain pipe length. The city of Sacramento requires these permits and more to be inspected remotely because it saves them time and money.

AB 1738 preserves full discretion for inspectors to require in person when necessary while establishing much much needed best practices and standards. California's housing crisis requires rethinking the status quo and building on the innovation and expertise of local governments.

I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1738. Thank you.

Alright. Next week is

Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Tim Wagner. I'm a retirement a retired local government safety official with thirty four years of experience, nineteen of those here as the head of the Placer County Building Department. I wanted here, to discuss with you a little bit about video inspection today, and I first wanted you to know that community safety has been my primary objective, really exemplified by my insurance service rating with with Placer County where we've increased to nearly a perfect score.

Really building co compliance and safety equivalency were objectives when we're developing the video inspection program. We developed a list of less complex inspections and established video requirements and protocols similar to in field inspections. The county's video inspection program was born in 2019. As testimony of the program's success, the program has since expanded based on the inspection team's confidence in the video process and the intended safety outcomes. Placer County offers more than 40 inspection types today.

This past year, Placer County conducted more than 80 800 video inspections. And during the six year period of the program, the team did not encounter any fraud or other incidents that would question integrity of safety inspections.

To implement video inspections, there are really three low cost or no cost requirements, a scheduling system, many times the community already has in place for in field inspections, video streaming, which is currently already a business practice by low most local communities such as Microsoft Teams, Google Meeting, or Zoom, and the current business practices for resulting system inspections, which are already in place for in field inspections.

Really, my experience is that video inspections keep jobs moving, save time and money for both the contractor, homeowner, and for the local community, the local jurisdiction and building department, and it was easily accomplished with the same safety outcomes and results. And with that, I'm here to answer any questions,

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

today. Alright. Thank you. You finished just in time. Clifton was about to bully you over. We're now gonna turn to folks registering their support for the bill. Again, you have just name and and or affiliation.

Danita Stromgren, volunteer with AARP California from Davis. In on behalf of a 3,200,000 members in support.

Matt Clavinson on behalf of the Center for Sustainable Energy and Zillow in support.

Ali Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Bob Naylor for Fuel Stud and Company in support.

Michael Gunning for Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Habitat for Humanity California.

Brian Ingarcio with Advanced Energy United in support.

Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support.

Nolan Gray, California MB in support.

Steven Senza on behalf of Permit Power, proud cosponsor of this legislation and also been asked to be give a me too for Climate Resolve, US Green Building Council, Menlo Spark, and the Climate Center. Thank you.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.

Mister chairman and member Scott Wych, on behalf of California, Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Mill Workers with the committee amendments. We are neutral on the bill. Thank you.

Alright. With that then, are there any witnesses in opposition? Or does anyone wish to register opposition on the bill? Seeing none, we'll return to the committee for any questions or comments. We've we've we've been the only ones for quite a while.

Okay. I'm a stickler for ensuring that we have a little bit of conversations when it comes to bills. I think, so I'm okay with virtual inspections for certain things but not all things. I do have concerns about, you know, an inspection for smoking carbon monoxide detectors. Yeah.

Not a big deal. But I am concerned about other things where they're a little harder to to view especially with the camera and and the logistics of it. So I will not be able to support your bill today on that end. You know, the the roof component I think it would be very difficult to do virtually. Even the the solar panels I think might be a bit difficult.

Just from a realtor perspective doing inspections I had to be in, you know, I had to meet the inspectors and be with them while they did the inspections and so forth. And I see the the physical challenge of getting in and going out. And so there's certain things that I'm I'm okay with and there are other things where I just do not feel comfortable with.

So I will not be able to support the bill today, but I do appreciate that you're trying to streamline and make it a little more feasible for folks who cut the cost of doing inspections and I do appreciate the effort on the bill.

I appreciate the conversation. Thank you.

Just one question, which is that so the and it may relate to the size of the bill as well, but the bill has the standard state mandate disclaimer for fees being able to be charged. And I'm just so I'm curious if a small any city but just bigger small city in your district or mine that now has to offer this option. So they have to execute a contract. They're not unlikely to be developing the system in house so they have to hire something to happen.

And over the long run they might save money as they don't have to contract out for inspect private inspectors what have you.

But in the short run they have a cost is why it's key to the state mandate. The bill has the fee disclaimer that says cities can charge a fee in order to recover that cost. What fee would that is it the inspection fee?

Inspection fee, yes. I'm realizing that cities rely on fees Yeah. Inspection fees, one of them. It typically is done through the permitting cost. When you pull a permit, the cost of the permit includes the inspections In my experience.

There'll be occasions when the inspector or in this case, virtual inspections have to be done over because they failed after two or three inspections, and there may be another charge for doing an additional inspection. But the bill just talks about the fees that cities have to recover for providing the service.

Yes. This I mean, this is a much bigger issue as I think if you've been in this committee with me at any point, I raise this on a lot of bills. It's just the cost of create of launching the actual service isn't associated with the specific applicant.

And so whether or not you whether or not you're a prop to IT in a city is on solid ground to say we're going to charge only users of the remote system the cost of paying for the remote system maybe the case but that's one I'm trying I've just been on every bill trying to explore is as we put that disclaimer in is it real that a city could actually recover their cost? So I understand the explanation. No. Absolutely. Yeah.

This is not intended to waive any fees. Cities obviously recoup the cost of providing the service inspection. It may actually be a lower cost because then they'll be saving the staff time and and, you know, the vehicle to send someone to do the inspection physically. So eventually, you know, it it may become even a lower cost if they do a virtual inspection Yes.

Because cities can only recoup the cost of them providing the service.

Yeah. I agree with you. I think over the long run that's almost certainly going to be the outcome. In the near term you still have the cost. I appreciate the responses there.

I do this is a very low definition of a small city. So as you're continuing to think about this, I would encourage as somebody who represents cities from 700 people to the gigantic cities that are 120,000, the distinctions between 5,011 people cities aren't that big in terms of issues like this. So we just encourage you to reflect on whether that threshold is really the right one in terms of at least where we start. I mean,

because they're very different from LA obviously and that's a pretty low threshold but appreciate you. Alright. Would you like to close, Assembly member?

I simply request for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. It was appropriate time to ask and we will take hopefully we will get a quorum soon. Just a reminder of any schedulers or chief of staff or legislative directors are watching right now for members of the committee. Please have your Senator come to the committee so we can at least establish a quorum and begin taking motions on the bill. But thank you very much, Assembly member.

Next, we'll proceed to your second bill, which is file item seven, AB 2160

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and committee members. Back in October of last year, I had the opportunity to visit MAMU in Sweden along with other members to learn how Sweden is successfully addressing their housing crisis. Just like our constituents, the Swedish face high prices and severe housing shortages. And just like California, Sweden is searching for innovative solutions to bring relief to their people.

One of their most successful strategies has been investing in and expanding factory build housing. Factory build housing is when either the entire unit or various panels are constructed off-site in a factory before being shipped over to be assembled on-site. Factory built housing is cheaper, more efficient and has a wide variety of different designs. Unfortunately, off-site housing factories in California struggle to find projects and stay open because they are unable to get insurance coverage.

Insurance coverage is important because for housing projects, each component is expected to have coverage for the percentage of cost that they contribute to the project.

So for example, if the materials are 30% of the cost of the project, the material providers are expected to have insurance to cover at least 30% of the value of the entire project. Because factory built housing is a relatively new industry in California, these factories do not have a long project history. This causes hesitance from insurers. This, in turn, makes some builders reluctant to contract with these factories, scared about what may happen if the factory fails.

This then leads to these factories having even less projects and subsequently still having a short history.

This cycle is a market failure with broad public consequences. Without intervention that addresses this, California will struggle to stabilize factory capacity, preventing major cost reductions through repetition and scale. AB 2166 is that intervention. This bill will create a state financial backstop to allow companies to ensure state California based factories for multifamily projects, allowing contractors to feel confident they will deliver on these promises and lifting these factories out of this negative cycle.

Here with me is Marte Espinosa from California Housing Consortium to testify as a cosponsor and Tyler Pullen with Attorney Labs as a technical witness to answer questions.

Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and committee members. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of affordable housing, and we are proud to cosponsor AB 2166. Factory built housing presents the state with a meaningful opportunity to lower construction costs and reduce construction construction timelines for housing projects. There is a lot of interest in using innovative construction methods like factory built housing to build more affordable housing in California.

While there are many potential benefits to it, the perceived risk associated with this product type prevents the production of factory built housing at scale. As a result of the challenges factories face in securing performance bonds, developers and lenders that pursue these projects often have to take on additional risk. This makes it difficult for factories to develop a steady pipeline of projects, which in turn affects their ability to secure the bonding they need.

By creating a financial backstop to make it possible for surety companies to ensure more modular factories, AB 2,166 will promote growth in the industry, prevent factory closure, and reduce financial risk. AB 2,166 also ensures that factories have a greater level of stability and a steady pipeline of projects, giving factories and development teams the certainty they need to pursue more modular projects.

This is smart policy that will allow factory built housing to scale up more quickly and with more certainty to help California achieve its housing goals. I urge you to support this bill today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Megan Murray with the Weidemann Group on behalf of Autodesk in support.

Let me ask, was there did you have a second witness? Yes. The Turner Center? Okay. Thought so.

Alright. I'm just here to answer questions. I'm not submitting any formal testimony.

Okay. I won't ask you if you give it two for your opinion on the bill in two minutes. But okay. Folks who'd like to register, their support.

Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of, sorry, the California Housing Partnership in support.

Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Again, Tran members, Brady Gurn on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Housing Trust Silicon Valley in support.

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

Nolan Gray, California MB in support. Thank you.

Steven Sandler on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Alright. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Does anyone wish to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none, but let's return it to the committee. Any questions or comments?

Senator Ochoa bogh?

Yeah. We have a we have a motion. Oh, sorry. What's that?

Oh, we

don't have a quorum yet. No. We

don't. Chet. Good enough.

So grateful for the bill. Glad you're bringing this measure forward. I think I just have one question. I understand that you've been working on the bill. Has there been a determination as to the percentage of the surety bond that would be covered by the credit backstop under this new program?

That's where my second witness comes in over.

Yeah, happy to answer that. It isn't specified in the bill. The idea is that IBank would be the one determining that amount. Okay.

So it's not something that we're gonna be seeing here that we put into half before the bill gets signed into law, I'm assuming. And that makes sense that the bank would determine that. I was just kind of curious. And then And then also as far as being the priority of how this would be awarded, has there been an additional criteria that would be needed to be met in order for the surety company to receive priority under this program?

That also has not been called out in the bill yet. I think we would like the department, I Bank specifically to determine what that should be.

Okay. And then lastly, would it be limited to the to only those bonds that are issued to factories that are new to the market or classified as a small business?

I will, call Tyler up for to phone a friend here.

Yeah. Sorry. And to clarify, I've been providing technical assistance on these and many of the other bills, but we, Turner Labs and Turner Center at UC Berkeley are, non advocate, non lobby, so I can't issue a formal opinion. To your specific question, this is not, I don't think, intended to be designated for any specific new businesses, which would need a definition or small businesses.

For the most part, the factories that have been consulted in the ideation of this bill have been in the last five or started in the last five to ten years, but typically operating facilities on the order of 50 to a 100,000 square foot factories.

So doing, like, multimillion dollar, revenue per year would not qualify under most definitions of small businesses. I think the idea is that new factories are the ones in need of the support. More long standing or tenured factories don't have as big of an issue getting the bonding capacity or having the cash flow to be able to support their own bonding already.

Okay. And for the record, I think it's important for the public who's listening including some of my team and myself. Could you give us a a a formal description of a factory built housing and what that looks like? Or it includes?

Yeah. Short of quoting the HCD definition, this is generally categorized by some partial components or sometimes entire volumetric modular units, which can be an entire apartment unit, built partially or complete completely off-site in a facility that could be 20 miles from the construction site where the home would actually be located. It could be 700 miles, away. I think most of the industry tends to follow volumetric modular.

So where they're building entire, apartment units or similar, trying to get as much of the work off-site and into a environmentally controlled factory facility as possible, but which Assembly member Carrillo mentioned, there are also hybrid methods like panelized construction where you can build wall panels that include electrical, mechanical, or plumbing.

I think that is a smaller part of the market. Technically, they are still eligible as factory built housing under current HDD definition. But for the most part, this applies to larger factories mostly doing volumetric modular control.

Okay. And then, last last question. Examples of where we could see some of these projects already in place?

The factory built housing projects?

Yeah.

Around the country and world. In California there's been Four

blocks from here.

Four blocks from here?

We just recently did a tour right here that we hosted together, in Downtown Sacramento

as well. Okay. So I'm next on the tour. I'll skip on that. I will go take a look.

Thank you very much.

For sure. Thank you. Alright.

I I

this the the term state backed credit backstop not for the hearing but I would appreciate as the bill moves forward which has the recommendation of Chair Aragon. I'm fully intending to support and glad to see this bill here. We need to be innovating financing tools especially for the factory built sector. I would like to understand the interaction of the state backed terminology with the constitution requirement and limitations on the state's own credit being used as backing for credit insurance or backstops or what have you.

So I know a lot of smart people are involved in this including the author, so I'm sure it's taken care of, but I'd like to understand it better as we as it goes into appropriations.

But we don't need to it's not a question for me about whether I'm gonna support the bill today, so I'm gonna vote for it. But I would appreciate a little bit of a briefing or back a background or if possible on that at a later date.

That way through IPAC. Miss Espinosa, I think she just left. She's here. Is that can you answer that question?

I think it's definitely something we can continue to explore and further specify.

Okay.

Great. Alright. Then would you like to close?

Consider.

I respect we ask for a neighbor. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Alright. Alright. Now Assemblymember Wicks is reclaiming her time. Welcome.

Assemblymember Wicks has file item eight which is AB 1815.

Thank you members. Thank you Mr. Chair. And I was enjoying that conversation quite a bit as the Chair of the Select Committee on Housing Construction Innovation, and the personnel pleaded delegation to Sweden and Idaho to look at some of the factories. I'd welcome you, Senator, if you wanna come on some of those trips because it's absolutely fascinating and was inspiring to me.

And that's what's actually inspired this bill and the previous bill and a body of work to try to figure out how we can actually solve the housing crisis. So, I was enjoying that conversation. At any rate, I'm here to present AB 1815, and I want to thank the committee staff for all their work on the bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments.

As you know, I've been leading Select Committee on Housing Construction Innovation with the goal of bringing down the cost of construction so that we can build housing that is affordable for our working class families. Factory built housing has the potential to do exactly just that. Our goal is not to get rid of traditional stick built construction. That's how we build the vast majority of housing, but instead to supplement it by creating a viable pathway for the factory built housing industry to scale across the state. This is part of our yes and all of the above approach to housing. AB 1815 prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing or enforcing building standards that exceed the state minimum building standard on a factory built housing project. Just like any other manufactured industry, standardization is crucial for these factories.

It allows them to develop streamline production processes and build consistent high quality products. But California has five forty local jurisdictions that can impose unique sets of standards. This building code fragmentation forces factories to reconfigure their product and production lines to meet jurisdictions bespoke building codes, which significantly diminish time and cost savings that factory built housing may otherwise be able to achieve. This prevents the industry from scaling across California at a time when the state needs innovative housing solutions most.

AB 1815 creates the necessary standardization to achieve economies of scale by clarifying and reinforcing the state's existing building standards framework, ensuring it is applied consistently to factory built housing projects.

Importantly, local jurisdictions maintain control over building code standards for wildfire risk mitigation and also for flood risk mitigation with the amendments I I am accepting today. With me here to testify is Tyre Pullen from UC Berkeley's Terner Labs and Ali Sapirman from the Housing Action Coalition. And when the time is right, if we get quorum, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Welcome. You all have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Ali Sapirman, the Advocacy and Policy Manager at the Housing Action Coalition. The Housing Action Coalition is a statewide pro housing nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all income levels. Our members include the developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners who build housing across California. The legislature has made tremendous progress over the last decade removing regulatory barriers that make it so hard to approve and permit housing.

But there's a frontier that remains largely untouched, the cost of construction itself. Factory built housing is one of the most promising tools we have to bring those costs down. And AB 1815 takes direct aim at one of the biggest structural barriers barriers preventing it from scaling. The data on costs and timeline savings is real. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, off-site housing construction reliably cuts construction timelines by 10 to 30%, with estimates reaching closer to 50%.

Terner's Director testified that the factory built housing has the potential to reduce hard costs, labor, materials, and equipment by 10 to 25% under the right conditions. Those are real dollars in a state where construction costs are one of the primary drivers for housing unaffordability. But those savings only materialize when factories can operate at scale, and scale requires standardization. When over 500 local jurisdictions can layer their own requirements on top of state minimums, manufacturers can't develop and replicate consistent product designs across markets.

Every jurisdiction specific speculation - specification means a factory has to retool, re-engineer, and re-seek new approvals.

Projects approved one time under varying rules make it nearly impossible to build a steady pipeline a factory needs to operate efficiently and competitively. AB 1815 directly solves this. By establishing a clear statewide standard, limiting the local variation, this bill gives manufacturers what they need to invest, replicate, and grow. It doesn't lower quality standards. State standards remain fully enforced.

It removes the fragmentation that industrialized construction economically unenviable. HASC members have told us firsthand that this type of regulatory fragmentation is one of the most concrete obstacles to adopting off-site construction methods. This bill gives the industry a real path forward. We urge and I vote and thank Assemblymember Wicks for her continued leadership.

Alright. Thank you. Witness in a mode of inquiry? Maybe your analysis but not support?

Extra detail. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Tyler Pullen, and I am the Building Industry Innovation Lead at Terner Labs and Researcher at UC Berkeley's Terner Center. I'll provide extra information regarding this bill based on our research into innovative construction.

Firstly, on local reach codes themselves. There's a lack of data and research on the full extent of local reach codes in and outside of California. Local code amendments should be submitted to the state and subjected to a reasonableness standard, but industry interviews suggested that enforcement in this process is inconsistent and that there is no database of specific reach codes in place across the state.

Anecdotally, the codes include green building measures related to specific materials or design features such as solar and battery storage, wildfire risk mitigation measures such as increased ember protection. But with specific respect to wildfire and flood risk, some reach codes may reflect an under accounting of risk in state, hazard, and federal hazard maps, which the bill seeks to accommodate while maintaining uniform standards as is.

Interviews, interviewees also suggested that reach codes often do not offer significant health or safety improvements to the state model code, but they do create inconsistency in design and construction requirements as well as code enforcement even when the building code and conditions or even when the building conditions are the same across jurisdictions. This makes it more difficult for innovative companies to standardize their production and achieve consistent quality and cost savings.

Secondly, on the cost threshold defined by this bill, the factory built ratio requires at least 15% of hard costs spent on factory built components for a given residential structure to benefit from this bill's provisions. Practitioners reported that multifamily residential structures can achieve factory built ratios as high as 40 to 50% of hard costs through volumetric modular construction. The remaining hard costs, reflect the substantial amount of on-site work still required, such as podium floors, stairwells, and elevators, and the system connections in between factory built components.

And practitioners suggested that a lower threshold is inclusive of projects with more podium floors, where this can be 25 or 25 to 30%, or those using more hybrid methods such as advanced panelization. Overall, Terner and others research highlights the value that building code harmonization can offer innovative housing delivery and the industry writ large. Thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. And we...really? Five of us is not enough? Okay. Alright.

We're almost there. We're getting there. Thank you very much for your testimony. Other other witnesses wishing to register their support for the bill?

Good afternoon. Steven Stenzler, in support on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the California Council for Affordable Housing. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Meegen Murray with the Weideman Group, on behalf of Autodesk, in support.

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

Mister Chair, members, Michael Gunning here on behalf of Spur, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sean Topekian, on behalf of Elevate California and the California Downtown Association, in support.

Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium: proud co-sponsor and strong support.

Don Wilcox with the California Conference Carpenters, in support.

Nolan Gray, California YIMBY, in support.

Graciela Castillo-Krings, on behalf of the Abundance Network, in support.

Jordan Grimes, on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, in support.

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

Steven Stenzler, again, I was asked to express support on behalf of the Casita Coalition. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition? Welcome and you have two minutes.

Mister Chairman and member, Scott Wetch on behalf of California Coalition of Utility Employees, the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. I'd like to thank the committee and the author. The amendments taken today make this a much better bill. We do believe that it's missing one major component.

The author statement in the analysis, several times, talks about wanting to scale up production in California, yet there's no Buy California or even a Buy America provision within the bill.

You know, this bill provides for a lower standard of allowing manufactured housing to be built to a lower building standard than required in certain counties today. But, we think it's going to be very difficult to enforce that in Indonesia or China or even in Idaho where they do major manufacturing. We have at least half a dozen to a dozen manufacturers in the State of California.

I might point out, given recent discussions and concerns in this committee, that Idaho has a minimum wage of $7.25, no prevailing wage. China doesn't have any minimum wage, and neither does Indonesia.

I would think in order to protect the integrity of what this bill intends to accomplish, at a minimum, there should be a Buy America provision, of which we have many throughout the state statute, or a Buy California requirement. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Lead witness? I'm sorry.

In opposition? Alright. Does anyone else wish to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none, let's turn it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. I wanna thank the author for working on this on housing tirelessly and with many times, you know, facing some real some real problems that that you go through. As you know, for me, bringing together the creation of good jobs together with issues around climate, standards in our community, opportunities for our community, all rolled up in one is what I continuously fought for. So, if you could answer

Sure. Happy to.

Madam author, the concerns because it's one thing to prohibit local building standards that exceed the state minimum. That's with regards to safeguards. But the other is about more factory built in California. We're proud of California.

Out of our labor standards and we always fight to have include labor standards. So how do you respond to that?

Yeah. I appreciate the opportunity, Senator. So, thank you for asking. So, my goal is to build more housing, particularly housing for our lowest income, middle income folks. And I've as expressed been pretty militant on it since I've been in the legislature.

We haven't quite solved the problem yet, but we're going to keep working on it. So, that is my North Star with everything that we're doing here as it pertains to the Housing Committee and the work that I do in Housing Committee. HCD inspects everything. They go to Idaho and inspect the units there. So, we do have inspectors, certified inspectors that actually look at all of this product regardless of where it's made.

If it's going to be built here in California, it's going to be inspected. So, I would respectfully disagree with the opposition's comment on that. The other thing I would say is we don't have a law in California that says EpiPens must be made in California, right? We need those EpiPens. Those are lifesaving devices.

We haven't put those kind of standards on other things. And I would put housing as similarly as a big need. We have a deficit of 2,500,000 homes of where we need to be here in California. Some of that a couple thousand of those units are coming from Idaho. I went toward those factories.

Those units, I actually have one in El Cerrito in my district right now that just went up, took three weeks to get up. Actually amazing to watch to see how fast it goes up. That was built off-site with Carpenters Union. So, union project built from a product that came from Idaho, inspected by HCD built here with union workforce here in California assembled here off-site. So, I don't know why we would not want that.

Those are 70 units serving our lowest income folks, average 50% AMI, right on a transit corridor. To me, that's an example of exactly what we should be doing. I do have a vision one day of having factories up and down the State of California, some of which are already organized, which I would welcome because to your point, I think that's critical.

That's why the Carpenters Union is sponsoring this bill and been a part of these conversations and has organized factories and has a whole facility in Las Vegas trained to do this and has been very active in this conversation because I think we need a broader vision board. The last thing I'll say is, since Idaho was mentioned, there was a CEO of one of the companies who came and testified.

You know, we did hearings up and down, conversations up and down the state. We spoke to dozens and dozens of experts through the committee. We went to Sweden. We went to Idaho. I've been to factories here in California toward I've been to more factories now probably than, like, any other lawmaker in the United States, which I quite enjoy actually and and find it to be interesting.

But one of the CEOs was testifying in one of my hearings early in the year and used, for example, a project that he projected saved $18 million of taxpayer money because it was using factory built housing of a product that he created in Idaho. That's $18,000,000 of public money that we can now put somewhere else into more housing units. So, I would not want to turn that spigot off right now. I think we need a yes and approach.

I would love and want to have factories up and down the state of California, and that's the goal.

And that's where that's why this bill has been crafted with the input of factories in California who have this exact desire and need along with the other bill we just heard earlier, and another body of work. So, I think hopefully that will help illuminate kind of my thinking on it. But I don't think now is the time to diminish or reduce the effectiveness of these types of bills on housing. I think we want to be expanding our ability to actually do this type of work.

Yes. Please continue, Senator.