Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We have five items on our agenda today. Item five, SB 1092 is for reconsider reconsideration and vote only to facilitate the goals of this hearing. Within the time we have, each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition.

Each main witness gets two minutes each. Please feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website. I will this will become a official part a a part of the official record of the bill. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. This morning, we are in Room 437 at the Capitol.

The hearing room is open in person for in person attendance of this hearing, and all are encouraged to watch hearing from this live stream on the assembly's website. Thank you for your patience and understanding. We do not have a quorum yet, so we will start as a subcommittee. One, two, three, four. For one short.

Nor do we have authors. So jumping jumped ahead a little bit there. Senators, if you can hear us, join us. We can take any of the senators who have bills up. Yeah.

We will wait for that one. We don't have a quorum. So alright. So

minutes ago.

Oh. No. I'm against that.

Is that what you do or did you just share?

I I last week, I had.

It's almost a year and a half hour.

Alright. We we will take Senator Padilla, which I think will be quick. Come on up. Item number 2SB996. Thank you for being here.

Jump on in.

Good morning, Mister chairman and members. Thank you for your patience. I'm pleased to present SB 996. If you are well aware, our affordability crisis has made wealth building for working class families exceedingly more difficult year by year. Manufactured homes are a low cost but underutilized form of housing, but finding affordable financing options for these homes historically been very challenging.

Under existing law, manufactured home can only be classified as real property if it is a fixed on a permanent foundation. Homeowners are required to title their homes as personal property similar to an RV or car despite the fact that a vast majority of manufactured homes are never relocated. According to research by the Pew Charitable Trusts, inability to classify homes as real property causes manufactured home borrowers to rely on high risk, high interest rate contract financing and limits their access to other real property benefits.

For example, high cost loans available for personal property of interest rates typically conventional mortgage financing rates hover around five to seven. As an example, other states like New Hampshire now allow all manufactured homes to be titled as real property, which has led to expanded access to homeownership and wealth building for families.

This bill would create an opt in process for manufactured homeowners to have their homes titled. Tax treatment is titling, as real property, and in turn gain access to more favorable financing options such as traditional mortgages. Stakeholders to assure that this new process is works as seamlessly as possible and delivers financial benefits to manufactured homeowners. This is a vital step toward making homeowners more home ownership, excuse me, more affordable for Californians across our state and opening the door for wealth building for working families.

And joining me to testify is Ryan Sears, the head of policy and research at neighborhood part neighborhood partnership housing

services. Great. Welcome. Two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Ryan Sears, head of policy and research in neighborhood partnership housing services. SB 996, as Senator Vidyo shared, is a bill rooted in expanding financial services and consumer protections. With the conventional mortgage, there are a full list of consumer protections that are afforded to mortgage holders. Unfortunately, those same protections do not extend to those who hold personal property loans.

A prime example is how CalHFA had or sorry. CalHFA had the CalAssist mortgage relief program in the aftermath of the Palisades fires. If we saw homeowners able to access, you know, mortgage relief, but that did not extend to anybody with a personal property loan. And so for hundreds of mobile homeowners, they were not able to access that same kind of benefit and protection that the state has extended to other homeowners. You may be asking how would a titling change actually effectively lower rates and help homeowners?

The answer is title insurance. Right now, you cannot insure the title easily or effectively on a manufactured home, and that stands in the way of effective financing because it means that there is a lot more risk imbued into the process of lending. So as a mission driven nonprofit lender, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services is committed to expanding financial access for as many Californian families as we can in a safe and responsible manner. And with that, I respectfully encourage NIDA. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Others who are here in support of this bill.

I don't want me

to touch the technology. Good morning, Terry and members. Rachel Mueller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, a coalition of over 50 CDFIs in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Dani Kando Keising here on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network and the Cameo Network in support.

Good morning.

Nolan Gray for California MB in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Justine Marcus with Enterprise Community Partners in support.

Good morning. Graciela Casio Cranes here, on behalf of ROC USA, another cosponsor of the bill, and also asked to do a meet too for Casita Coalition. Thank you.

Good morning. Provo Badaj Shragi with Housing California in support. Good morning. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos. Yes.

In support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Not seeing any. And do we have anyone in opposition?

Good morning. Larissa Mercado, behalf of the California Assessage Association with an opposed and submitted position. Wanna thank the author, sponsors working with us. We understand you're having to obviously go back to multiple organizations and check with them. There's just been so many versions that we're still trying to massage through those, but look forward to working with you all in the summertime.

So thank you.

Great. Alright. Bringing it back to the committee. Miss Wicks.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think as I've mentioned to some of you, I grew up in a mobile home.

My I we were

in a trailer park for a long time, and then my parents finally bought property and moved the mobile home onto the property where and this they bought it in 1978 for $12,000. It's still on that property. They ended up building their dream home eventually when I was in college, but they still rent that out to this day, and the ROI on that investment has been hugely beneficial.

So I'm just appreciative of all this work that you're doing in this space, and, I strongly believe we need all the tools in the toolbox. Manufactured homes are certainly a piece of that equation, especially in a lot of our rural communities and other places as well.

So when we have a quorum, happy to, move the bill and would love to be added as a coauthor. So thank you.

Thank you.

Great. We don't yet quite have quorum. Anyone else? I don't see any other questions or comments. Mister Padilla, you may close.

Thank you very much, Mister chairman. Appreciate the collaboration and just appreciate the sentiments of my distinguished colleague as well. Every tool in the toolbox exactly. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Appreciate your your leadership here and and your efforts to unlock more homeownership opportunities for residents across the state. I know you're continuing to work with opposition and affected agencies, so this new pathway can be implemented. And at the appropriate time when we have quorum, we will, take a motion in a second and move this bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chairman. Thanks, members.

Alright. We'll go to item number three, SB 1090. Senator Perez, welcome. Alright. Begin.

Thank you so much, Chair and members. I wanna start by thanking the committee for working with us on amendments that I will be accepting to make this bill's moratorium applicable to 2030, as well as providing for affordable housing development in that same time period as defined. SB 1090, the keep Altadena lands and Altadena hands act, will impose a three year moratorium on state housing density laws in Altadena from 2027 to 2030.

Driven and in response to a call to action from Eaton Fire survivors, demanding equal protection afforded to the communities, impacted by the 2025 Palisades January fire, Altadena January fire. In January 2025, the Eaton fire ravaged the Altadena region.

Among the challenges raised during the recovery process is the increased presence of investors aggressively pursuing business opportunities to seek out impacted properties often at below market prices for the purpose of building dense market rate housing. This dynamic can be referred to as disaster capitalism and has occurred in several post disaster communities. The threat of disaster capitalism can have a ripple effect on the fabric of impacted communities, driving up housing cost, eliminating naturally occurring affordable housing, permanently displacing disaster victims, and destabilizing communities through gentrification.

Following a major disaster, communities like Altadena are vulnerable to per prospective displacement and speculative investment as families are facing insurance shortfalls, rising construction costs, and prolonged displacement that outside entities will use to make unsolicited pushes to get people to succumb to those challenges and elect to sell their homes even if they did not intend to move.

In Altadena, concerns about predatory real estate speculation have led to large spread community advocacy, particularly among residents worried about potential displacement of the area's historic black community, which has a uniquely high concentration of homeownership as compared to the rest of the state.

The threat of post disaster community displacement has largely been brought on by what I would characterize as unintended consequences of recent urban info laws Being used to take away housing from disaster victims for the benefit of business interests. This includes interested parties pursuing applications of SB 9, as well as SB 684 and the subsequent SB 1123.

While these laws seek to encourage gentle urban infill building, in this instance, they have been exploited by outside business interest to aggressively harass survivors seeking to rebuild their homes and live in our community. Although while intended to address the state's housing shortage, these laws do not contain sufficient safeguards tailored to protect communities that have been impacted and devastated by a disaster.

Now I want to note part of the reason why we are bringing this forward is because a similar executive order already exist for both the Palisades and for the Malibu community.

This was an executive order that was signed by the governor last year to exempt them from both SB 9 and SB 1123. Now that executive order does not apply to the community of Altadena. Part of the reason why Altadena was left out of that executive order is because Altadena is not considered a high fire severity community.

Now this would come as a surprise to you if you lived in Altadena given the amount of devastation that the Altadena community saw as a result of the Eaton fires. But prior to the Eaton fires occurring, the Altadena was not in the high fire severity zone.

So what our bill is doing is rather than just applying this to the high fire severity zone, this is applying it to Altadena based off of ZIP code so we can ensure that they have the same exemption that the Palisades as well as Malibu has had in place since last year. After this executive order was passed, Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass issued an executive order suspending the application of SB 9 in Pacific Palisades within the city of Los Angeles.

Likewise, the county of Los Angeles suspended the application of SB 9 in unincorporated Sunset Mesa and the aforementioned there's Foothill area of Altadena, but most of Altadena had been left out. I also just want to mention that there has been a number of advocates around the community that have come together to advocate for this bill. There is recently an Altadena town council meeting to discuss this and to discuss what some of what the community seen happening.

Over 450 people came out concern has been overwhelming. And frankly, there's been a lot of frustration that Altadena residents were left out of the re the executive order that was passed last year. And that is part of the reason support of both the town council as well as LA County supervisor, Kathryn Barger, who's joined us today. And I will now turn it over, to our supervisor to go ahead and present.

Before we have you do that, let me establish quorum so we can take a vote on the bill. I didn't leave.

[Roll Call]

We have a quarum. I'm sorry about that, supervisor. begin your testimony.

Thank you, and good morning, Chair and members. I am Los Angeles County supervisor Kathryn Barger proudly representing the people of Altadena and serving as a sponsor of SB 1090. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. The Eaton fire changed Altadena forever. Nineteen people lost their lives.

Nearly 6,000 homes were destroyed. In just a few hours, generations of memories and hard work disappeared. But if you spend time in Altadena today, you'll hear something remarkable. You'll hear the rumble of construction trucks coming and going, the buzz of crews steadily working, sounds that reflect my constituents common home. I just want to go home.

That is why I am here today. SB 1090 is about giving those families a fair a fair opportunity to rebuild before extraordinary redevelopment pressures permanently change, who has the opportunity to call Altadena home. Let me address a concern that has been raised about this legislation. Some have suggested that this bill is anti housing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

California needs more housing. No one can argue that against that. And the Los Angeles County recognizes that reality as we continue to do our part to increase housing opportunities. Altadena has never turned its back on thoughtful housing growth. Altadena residents created a community standards districts that went beyond the base density proposed by the county.

Just three weeks before the Eaton fire, Altadena residents supported the West San Gabriel Valley area plan, which upzoned hundreds of parcels to accommodate new multifamily housing units throughout the community. Following the Eaton Fire at my direction, Los Angeles County changed its rebuilding policies so homeowners could construct and occupy accessory dwelling units before rebuilding their primary residence. That change is expected to result in nearly half of the rebuilding properties, including an ADU, creating additional housing while allowing multigenerational families to recover together.

With the applications currently received, we are on track to bring an additional 1,350 ADUs online, and that's just with the applications that have been submitted. We are also working on advancing an ordinance to bring bungalow courts back to Altadena, expanding opportunities for gentle density in a manner that fits with the community's infrastructure.

Our record speaks for itself. If this bill reflected intent to stop housing, we would not be taking these actions. SB 1090 is about something very different. This legislation is temporary and narrowly tailored. SB 1090 recognizes that while California's housing goals remain critically important, the expanded development authorities created under state law were never intended to determine the future of a community recovering from a devastating wildfire.

While Altadena has made progress, almost half of destroyed homes have yet to start rebuilding. I am continuing to push the state and federal at state and federal levels for critical disaster aid that can help thousands of families close the gap and return home, but we need more time. Homeowners need time to continue their recovery planning and rebuilding. Some have asked whether SB 1090 interferes with private property rights. It does not.

Property owners retain broad rights to improve and use their land. Others have asked why Altadena should be treated differently. Here's my reply. Because what happened in Altadena was different. We lost nearly 6,000 homes.

Thousands of families are still navigating insurance disputes, rising construction costs, and financing challenges. Even today, nearly half of the destroyed houses have not yet entered reconstruction. These families are not asking for special treatment. They're asking for time to settle their claims, time to secure funding, and time to rebuild. And most importantly, they are asking for the chance to return home before speculative investment outpaces their recovery.

I'll end with this. This is not about choosing between housing and recovery. California can and quite frankly must do both. We can continue addressing our housing shortage while recognizing that communities devastated by disaster deserve thoughtful temporary protections that give residents a fair opportunity to come home. A vote in support of 1090 is a vote that is pro recovery, pro families, and about giving survivors a fair chance to return to their community.

So I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this legislation, and I thank you all very much for your attention and for allowing me to speak today.

Thank you, supervisor.

We also have Darlene Green here at the Altadena Town Council who serves as their treasurer. Darlene?

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Darlene Greene, and I serve on the Altadena town council. Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify in support of SB 1090. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to the Senator for even authoring this bill.

As you know, the Eaton Fire devastated our community. A lot of people were lost, homes, businesses, churches. And over the past months in my capacity, I've witnessed firsthand the challenges in the aftermath of this fire, directly, but as somebody that was also impacted and seen others people's walk through this road as fire survivors. Many multigenerational people that have lived here for decades, raised their children here, built

a sense of community, and people that have lived here for decades raised their children here, built a sense of community. Now are survivors who may not be able to stay home. I know about people being solicited and pressured to sell their homes. A 70 year old woman was told in in in in exact words that if you don't sell, it's inevitable. It's coming.

And this cannot happen. SB 1090 fixes those problems temporarily so that people that have lived there most of their lives can come home. At the same time, we obviously have seen a clear disparity in our community with historically ethnic working middle class people versus the Palisades fires, and we are asking for a chance to come back home and to be able to rebuild. That is why SB 1090 is necessary in a narrowly tailored response.

Altadena obviously is supporting new housing, and SB 1090 strikes the right balance for us.

It provides temporary protections that give survivors time to rebuild while preserving opportunities for future housing and community serving development. We know that recovery cannot happen in a vacuum. It requires bold, targeted legislation that meets the scale of the tragedy that our town has suffered. Altadena has done the work. We need your partnership, and we're asking that you vote yes on SB 1090 and help us please rebuild. Thank you so much for your time today.

Thank you both for your testimony and for for being here with us. Is there other folks who are here in the hearing room who are here in support of this bill? Come up and, state your position, your name, and your affiliation. If you have any?

Good morning, Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Neuberger here in support on behalf of California State Association of Counties.

I am Nick Arndzen, the Chair of the Altadena Town Council, a full loss survivor, and I'm in full support as well as for an urgency clause to get us the help we need now.

Sorry. I have to get on my tiptoes. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Antoinette Raines. I'm a 58 year Altadena. Two homes totally lost in my family. I'm here in support of SB 1090. Please vote yes so our community is not torn apart more than it already has been. Thank you.

Justine Marcus on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners and our Southern California team that's part of the Eaton Fire Collaborative in strong support and thanks to the committee for the provisions around making sure a 100% affordable housing moves forward.

Jennifer Svec, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, also on behalf of the Pasadena Foothills Association of Realtors whose members were greatly affected by the fires and hope to have an opportunity to rebuild their homes before developers. Thank you.

Thank you, committee. Shauna Dawson Beere, beautiful Altadena, total loss fire survivor representing a large swath of our community, in strong support of this bill of ten ninety with amendment, with an urgency clause that is desperate needed by our community, and preferably without a 180 vesting period that will allow a fire sale on our town. Thank you.

Hi. Eric Pusto, total loss fire survivor who's returned to Altadena. Proud Altadena and in full support of this along with an urgency clause. Please bring back our community.

Hi. James Risolo, community member, in support. Thank you.

Noelle Miner with Altadena Recovery Watch, a coalition of Altadena organizations representing nonprofit affordable housing developers as well as neighborhood groups. I'm here in strong support of the bill. We ask that you close the loophole as soon as possible. Thank you.

Good morning. Hans Allhoff, Chair of Altadena Heritage, total loss survivor. I echo all that has been said before me, in support of SB 1090. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Marceal Dil Saver Hughes, Altadena resident impacted by the fire, also representing my neighbors and friends who have been impacted. We ask you to please vote yes on this important Senate bill with also the ability to protect us from now until this bill can go active in January 27.

Thank thank you. Thank you all for being here. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Please come up to the front. You will have two minutes each.

Alright. Good morning, Chair Haney and members of the Assembly Housing Committee. My name is Azeen Khanmalek . I'm the executive director of Abundant Housing LA and a Los Angeles resident with multiple family members, close friends, and staff that lost their homes in both the Pacific Palisades and Altadena. The road to rebuilding those homes and these cherished communities has been and still is arduous, marked by barrier after barrier.

But the prospect of one's neighbor down the block building one or two or three units is not one of those barriers. Instead, many households may be asking, how do I pay my mortgage and my rent on a temporary unit while I try to rebuild? Or how can I even afford to rebuild my home when the payout from the California Fair Plan is not nearly enough to build what was there before? These questions are not theoretical.

These are the questions that I attempt to help my mother-in-law, whose Fair Plan payout is not even enough to build a structure 1,000 square feet smaller than a previous home and who is facing the prospect of paying rent and a mortgage while on a fixed income to answer on a daily basis.

They are the questions that I discussed with my uncle and cousin and close friends and staff over dinner and lunch. Displaced households are contending with inadequate insurance, lack of resources, and the high cost of construction. This legislation, unfortunately, does not address those barriers. On the contrary, tools that allow homeowners to build an ADU or two or split their lot can be a financial lifeline for folks that require additional equity to pay for the cost of rebuilding.

This legislation will, not only not provide that material assistance, but may also close off access to a tool that in the absence of meaningful dedication of financial resources may help some residents support to rebuild their homes.

If we seek to help disaster impacted communities remain intact and flourish, we must help residents rebuild their homes and return. That requires monetary resources and financial assistance, not bans on a modest amount of new housing. I would welcome the opportunity to work with Senator Perez whose vision and tenacity to continually fight for her community I deeply admire, as well as, supervisor Barger, whose, work I deeply admire to achieve those aims. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Good morning. I'm Caroline Paulus, an Altadena resident, living in the burn zone in a standing structure. When I first moved to Altadena, I knew immediately that I had found a community that was unlike any other. People were, unique and independent and very caring, and they welcomed me with open arms. And it was a place I could imagine myself living forever.

But then the fire happened, and it devastated us. It destroyed our community. And the neighbors that used to stand in my driveway to chat and share plant cuttings were scattered cities, counties, or even states away. So a lot of my neighbors have rebuilt, about half of them on my block, and that's very exciting. But about half of them haven't even touched their lots.

And I believe that the character of Altadena lies in the people and bringing them all back. So I asked myself for my neighbors who are renters, who are under insured, or who are seniors, the the traditional construction process is a crushing weight upon them that they can't handle. So who is going to build them houses? How are they going to come back? Nominally, the point of SB 1090 is to stop greedy developers from taking advantage of Altadenans, which of course we all agree with.

But I believe what it actually does is prevent Altadenans from housing themselves and also Altadenans from helping to house each other. For example, before the fire, I cofounded a construction technology startup that builds naturally affordable bungalow courts, which is a form of housing that, is very well suited to Altadena and is very much beloved. But, if this were to go through, then the plans that we've made would have to be scrapped.

And the amendments and unfortunately, even the bungalow court ordinance, which I do very much support, doesn't go far enough to keep these plans intact. So the plans that I that we were hoping to make to house my very own neighbors, that this we'd have we'd have to cancel them.

So while the physical destruction of Altadena was bad enough, what really breaks my heart is the thought that the people that made the community home to me in the first place are people I may never see again. And for these reasons, I would urge you to vote against SB 1090. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there others who are here in opposition to this bill?

Good morning, Mister chairman and members. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I just wanna thank you for the amendments and for your testimony. Supervisor, we'd like to continue to work with you on finding, some amendments that that address all of the concerns raised by the opposition. I think we can do that. Thank you.

Nolan Gray for, California YIMBY, and on behalf of the Council of Infill Builders, South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth, and Bill Casa, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Ally Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, respectful opposition. I wanna thank all the speakers today.

Sylvia Aguilar on behalf of Casita Coalition, respectfully opposed.

Sean Beto on behalf of OS Capital, middle income starter home developer, I respectfully oppose.

Chris Manasserian on behalf of Kensington Group and the Stone West Stone West Homes. I'd like to respectfully oppose and also mention that we were originally encouraged by county planning to do this before we were called disaster capitalists. Thank you.

Thank you all. Alright. Let's bring it back to the committee. Miss Wicks.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you for bringing the bill forward, and I just deeply appreciate the testimony from everyone here. I cannot even imagine, the experience that you all have been going through and the overwhelming, crushing thoughts of rebuilding in any capacity just is unbelievable. So thank you all for your courage and strength in coming to testify. And to everyone also in the audience who came up, I know it's not easy to come up, from Southern California, so just appreciate everyone's testimony here.

So and I'll I'll I'm gonna vote for the bill today because I view this as a kind of a district specific bill. And when there's, I think, collegial leeway for those types of things generally in the legislature, You know your district better than I do. And but I do wanna just flesh out some of the concerns. And I just have some questions and and wanna lay out some of some of the issues as I see it.

So I guess the first question is, has SB 9 proven to be a problem in, Altadena and that you're seeing widespread, you know, developer speculation or kind of, predatory kind of, you know, actions using SB 9, in a predatory way from the developer community.

I can speak to that a little bit, and then I'll also turn it over to the supervisor. There was an assessment that was done last year by a nonprofit, SAGE, which is an acronym of which I cannot remember right now. They did an assessment to see the number of for profit corporations that were coming in and purchasing lots in Altadena. That were purchased at the time that they did the study last year had been purchased by corporations.

And we had heard directly from many fire survivors that they were receiving phone calls from developers, from corporate developers, offer making all cash offers, lowball all cash offers.

People were very aware that this is a working class community. Many folks don't have, access to insurance, executive order to make it so that you could not make all cash offers to somebody after disaster like this has happened. So that was kind of the initial stage.

After that, what we've seen is through the application process, you know, developers coming in and pursuing lot splits, particularly not just through SB 9, but also SB 1123, which allows you to split a lot up to 10. So taking a lot that is intended for a single family home, splitting that up to 10, and we've seen

a number of those applications. Now our frustration with that and our questions around that have been that these were bills as we've worked on them up here, that were not intended for communities that had been completely burned down and devastated by a fire. And there's also been real questions about whether or not these laws can even be applicable in certain areas where there is if they're intended for infill development, there's nothing around them, then is it infill development if there's no community in existence.

And so there's been lots of back and forth, particularly with corporate developers about these laws who are trying to pursue and push through to create these types of developments. And I'll turn it over to the supervisor to speak a little bit more to some of the applications that they've seen.

Yeah. So on SB 9, we have approved plans for individuals in Altaena who actually are not planning on building. They're turning around and selling the property with the approved plans. I get it. It's within the legal limits.

But SB 1123 is a whole different issue. We actually voided all applications because this was meant to be infill building and and there's nothing around. But we are seeing, in one case, an individual who bought seven pieces of property and below market in order to take advantage of SB 1123. You know, as I said in my remarks, the goal is not to eliminate because I understand I understand the need for housing.

If you talk to people in Altadena who after the fire were looking for a place to live, it was near impossible to get someplace close.

And if you did, you were you were paying an incredible amount of money. But I feel that the law, as it stands right now, will create a disadvantage for people in Altadena. And I can get you specific numbers before the final vote. But, again, I'm more concerned about 1123, quite frankly, than I am about SB 9.

And to your point, I couldn't agree more about insurance and all, and that is why I continue to work with the Department of Insurance to hold accountable, people that are not paying their fair square their share.

Because I I I see that there was, what, 6,000 or so Yeah. Houses lost. Right? And I was reading the analysis. There's about 3,400 permits that have been applications that have gone through.

Yep.

And I was discussing with the consultant about SB 9 applications, which is about less than 1%. Right? So it's a pretty narrow it's seemingly a pretty narrow use of SB 9 in this example. And so that's why I'm just wondering, like, is there is it a problem, or is it more of, like, the concern of the future problem?

I I think it's a little of both, quite frankly. You've got a community that is walking on eggshells.

Yeah. Of course.

And and, I mean, I still get emotional when I hear people talking about the loss

Yeah.

Because it's real.

Yeah.

And for lack of better term, I think it's breathing room for many of them who are in fear of the fact that you're gonna get a group coming in and buying up property and changing how Altadena was before the fires.

Yeah. I mean and and, obviously, this is, like, a traumatized community. Right? But but I just don't know if this is gonna be the solution. Right?

But at the same time, again, I wanna defer to our Senator who represents this area and and you all who represent these communities. I don't represent them. You know better than I do, but I just worry this isn't gonna solve that problem. You know? But I I hear you on the breathing room.

The other kind of question I have or or, you know, concern I have about it is for some of these property owners, under insured, don't have the resources, are we taking away a tool that would then allow them to be able to actually rebuild?

That is always a concern, and that's why immediately after the fires sponsored a motion to eliminate the need for a house in order to build an ADU with the goal of providing a resource for individuals that want to rebuild, can live on their property, and then once their house is rebuilt, bring housing online, affordable housing.

I'm also working with the Federal Government, with Mayor Bass on SBA loans, because they are very restrictive and have been very problematic as it relates to insurance and the insurance claims coming in, taking away from the ability to draw down SBA loans. So that's something we continue to work on to look at ways to build that that delta that exist for individuals that that wanna rebuild but are finding it financially difficult. I'm not gonna lie to you. It's it's been a real challenge.

Insurance, especially. State Farm should be ashamed of themselves for what they've done to the people of Altadena. And I still have yet to hear accountability, on that front for paying pennies on the dollar of what people are owed. So it will continue to be a challenge, and I will continue to fight for it. No question about it.

But, again, I think that that that the Senator has said it. We're not asking for a favor. We're asking for what we feel is equity, for a community that has truly suffered.

Well, I appreciate all of your work on all this. I do share the concerns with opposition, but I'll vote for the bill today, because I'm deferring to your all's judgment of the, you know, the local needs, what you all have there. But I do, share some of the concerns. But thank you.

Mister Patterson, vice Chair.

Great. Thank you, Mister Chair. You know, this is one of those bills that my staff didn't know where I'd be on, you know, because it's got a lot of conflicting issues here. You know, I don't you know, this is a very pro housing committee, you know, on a on a bipartisan basis. We we pass out a lot of laws that are look to incentivize housing being built in the state.

And, you know, I don't I don't represent these individuals, but I've kind of become their adopted legislator since Congressman Gallagher's, been elected to Congress, you know, people of Paradise who, you know, lost 11,000 homes in that fire. And just yesterday, I had dozens of them up in the Senate talking about, you know, relief that they're still seeking as a result of a of a wildfire. And so, you know, to hear their testimony and and the issues that they're going through, and these things are very unique.

But I I I would say, you know, they're doing pretty amazing work rebuilding that community. And I think, you know, as a state, we need to kinda come together on on those best practices on how to do that because, you know, you're never really prepared for your community to burn down, but it is kinda something you gotta think about.

You know? And they're doing a really amazing job. And, by the way, they're always happy to help any other community kinda facing the same thing. But, you know, out of all the housing laws we have in the state, I think these two will are kind of like kind of what Assemblymember Wicks was saying. You know, I I agree with her.

I mean, they kinda seem, like, the most actually beneficial for individuals who actually just wanna start rebuilding on their own property and, you know, using an investment to help rebuild, you know, their primary structure. And so I had a lot of concerns sort of going into this. I think those are some of the smaller laws. I think there are much bigger laws that I think could really change the character of communities that have burned down.

And, I mean, there's an argument to be made that maybe this bill should be expanded to, you know, the the the the bigger the bigger laws, I I guess you could say.

But, you know and I have a general frustration not with the County of LA, but, you know, the City of LA fighting, some of our state policies that we've passed in this legislature very recently.

But I think where, Senator and madam supervisor, where you've got a lot of shouldn't be surprised, but a lot of credibility in this area, obviously, making this request is when you talked about the ADU, you know, the move that you've made locally to get people to build ADUs on their property without a structure. So your request coming up here asking for this isn't like, you know, trying to stop people from doing what they wanna do with their own property. You seem to like, hey.

We're we wanna hear the concerns and work with them so people can rebuild.

And that added a lot of credibility, I think, you know, in my perspective, and I'm glad I sat here and listened to the you know, all all the testimony and what you had to say. So, so I'm I'm in support of this measure. I do have kinda similar concerns to, Assemblymember Wicks. However, who am I to sit here and say, like, what's best for your community? And this is a very district bill.

And if this is what's best for your community to help it rebuild, I'm gonna support it based off that alone. So, so thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill, and I look forward to supporting it.

Yeah. I just wanna thank the Senator, for bringing this. I actually echo the same sentiment that some of my colleagues have. I believe kinda stuff like this actually may force all of us as legislators here in the state of California to come up with a disaster recovery plan because we know that this isn't the last fire.

And so instead of coming back every single time and saying, okay. Well, maybe this is what we need to do and maybe this is what we need to temporarily suspend, that we just come up with a statewide disaster recovery plan that actually grants a lot of the approvals back to the Board of Supervisors and to the City Council. So that way, you can make the best decision for your local community.

And that's exactly why I'm gonna support this bill today is because I represent one of the largest wildfire high risk severity zones. And where I truly believe is going to happen within my tenure here is one of the largest fires in American history because of the amount of, mismanagement of the forest and the issues that we have representing the Sierras, Yosemite, and the High Desert area as well.

So, again, out of respect for the Senator, because this is your community, I I just believe that we maybe look into the future so that way we don't have to come back every single time temporary temporarily pause things that provide options to some of the local residents that we simply, in a recovery plan, grant the authority back to the local board of supervisors and planning department, back to the local city, allowed the residents to say, well, this is the only options that actually work for us.

And so, I think that's something that we can have as a future conversation, figure that out, and I look forward to supporting today and trusting the author to take care of their your own residents. So thank you.

I also wanna just thank the Senator for bringing the bill forward and your championing for always for your community and all the Altadena survivors who have also very consistently called my office too and how much and how much they support this bill. I just wanna point out that, you know, in in what the witnesses have said and what the senators said, they're not asking for anything special.

In fact, you know, the compromises and the sunset that's put in this bill is not present in the executive order regarding the Palisades, which, you know, there are demographic differences between the communities. So I think it is more than fair and equitable to act, at least for Altadena, to have these exemptions and have very robust compromises, which I'm sure there'll be more conversations of.

I just wanna highlight for a community like the Palisades, which also went through a great tragedy. They don't have these compromises. They don't have these restrictions on them. And maybe you would disagree with that as well, but, you know, we have to be consistent about this. And I think as we look at rebuild and not have developers swoop in and tear up the community in any negative way, we have to make sure that's balanced.

And I think this bill, especially in compromise form, is very, very reasonable, and that's why I'm gonna be very much proud to support today. Thank you.

Miss Caloza.

Thank you, Chair. Nice to see you, supervisor, and Senator, and to everyone on both sides, for coming to testify on this bill. First and foremost, thank you both to, these two incredible leaders who jumped into action right away. We got sworn in and, you know, we dealt immediately with the Ian and Palisades fire. So I think we saw each other a lot, in the early days of our first term together.

And so I know that you have both been on the ground spending countless hours with residents and constituents really wondering how do we recover, how do we rebuild, how do we really understand the immediate needs of the community. And and so thank you both for your tremendous leadership, and thank you for your testimony to both of our Altadena residents. And I think so much of it has been said already by my colleagues as what you've heard is we do so much pro housing work here.

We work a lot with a lot of the pro housing organizations here. And so, you know, a lot of the concerns that have been shared, you know, I also am am concerned about, you know, a lot of the housing laws that we're suspending and to the point that many have made already We've we've already seen how those exemptions have already made for been made for other communities in the Palisades fire.

And so I think that, just to restate, this is a temporary exemption from our state housing laws. And so I know that, so many of the folks before us, want to build housing, want to ensure that we have more housing in Los Angeles. And so we share, I think, a lot of the same goals and how we get there, I know, is is what we're what we're debating.

And so I'm happy to to support this this bill, and I know also I'll just say for the many residents in Altadena who are actually also temporarily my residents right now who live in Northeast LA, We heard from many of them who called my office, so thank you for reaching out. And I know also I have many constituents here at the table on both sides as well, so this is a very complicated issue for me. So thank you all for for making a trip up here. But I'll I'll be supporting this bill today. Thanks.

Alright. Not seeing any other members who wanna make a comment. I'll I'll give you the opportunity to close, Senator.

Yeah. I first of all just want to thank all of the members who who spoke and offered their support, you know, and the opposition raising their concerns. You know, I think as the supervisor stated, I mean, I have someone sitting next to me who has just risen to the occasion in in so many ways for the community of Altadena.

I mean, you heard her share some of what the county did, you know, through executive order, making sure that we're expediting that process to get people home as quickly as possible, allowing for ADUs to be built where folks are working on building their full home. And, you know, Supervisor Barger has represented the region for some time.

She really understands the Altadena community and its needs, and I think has moved forward, policy proposals that have really centered that. And so I I just wanna thank and acknowledge all of her work and support on this measure. This is very much a a district specific bill. As I mentioned, this is only applying to Altadena and its ZIP code. And as you see, we have so many residents here today from the community that are here supporting this.

And, you know, I just wanna thank and acknowledge them, all the time and effort that they've put in to reach out to your office, as well as traveling up here on their own dime because this is important to them. You know, as was mentioned before, I wanna ensure that my community is being treated the same as other communities. And Altadena residents have continued to feel left out of the conversation, in many ways.

And, you know, that feeling in particular can hurt when there are such huge demographic differences between the Palisades, Malibu, and Altadena. And I'm here to make sure that my community is being treated fairly and equitably, and that's exactly what this bill does. So respectfully ask your aye vote, and and thank you all who have shared your support.

Thank you, Senator, for for for your leadership. And I know that, you know, we've seen firsthand how you have, jumped in, with, incredible focus and care and tenacity on behalf of, Altadena and at a time when, they've experienced, just unimaginable loss and want to rebuild, but want to be re rebuild in a way that, truly reflects the what made Altadena special and what and, of course, that is both the people and and also the way that this particular community has been able to sustain itself and grow and protect itself, and build a a a a type of, really connectedness, between the people who live there that, they don't wanna lose, and they want to be able to bring back, and they want to protect.

And so I know that's the spirit that you all come forward in and that we've heard from all of the folks. And I wanna thank everyone who's here, all of the witnesses, all of the residents who've traveled here and and are advocating for this, and also those who have concerns about it. I think as you've heard, we are the housing committee.

We are pro housing. We passed these laws with with great enthusiasm. And at the same time, we can have some reflection and humility that there are aspects of them that in this particular situation may not have considered the impact on on on on a community that really has been devastated to this degree by by a fire.

And so the as I've spoken to you about it and we've engaged on it, I have also you've helped me understand that, and I think that where we've landed has struck that balance. I will say that, of course, what is here again will allow for a 100% affordable developers.

That was very important. Applications who are submitted before it is in place will have to be processed. Again, I know there are folks who've talked about urgency, and that can still be something that can be considered as as as the bill move forward moves forward. And at the same time, for folks who've expressed concerns, we have to also think about for for for for for folks who've lost their housing, including renters. I'm a renter.

People who may not be able to rebuild, how we build the adequate types of opportunities, for folks, and that may mean creative types of density that are not considered here. And so I I do hope and I know that, that will be a part of the conversation moving forward.

So we can pass this, and recognize this is needed for this period of time, and also understand that the conversations have to continue about the, many residents who who who are concerned that housing will not be built, that will allow them to to return and that the the diversity of housing needs need to be met in in in in in as we move forward. And, and that's that's, a responsibility that we all have, in working together for that.

So appreciate, everyone being here and and your leadership, and, we will continue to to be a partner with you all, as we, work to support the Altadena community.

So with that, we will, the motion is do passed to the Assembly committee on local government. I don't know if we had a motion. We have a motion from Mister Lee and a second from Mister Schultz. And of course, I'm I'm in support of this of this this bill.

Haney. Aye. Haney, Aye. Patterson. Aye. Harrison, Aye. Ablafarias. Kalozet. Aye. Schulz. Aye. Schulz, Aye. Colra. Aye. Carlra. Lee. Aye. Lee, Aye. Quirk Silva. Aye. Quirk Silva. Aye. Ta. Aye. Ta. Thank you for Thank you for aye, Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye, Wilson. 10 to zero.

10 to zero. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright.

We are going to have miss Wicks present item number where is it? Item number one, which is SB866 Blakespear. Alright. This is item number one. Item number one, SB866. Blakespear presented by, miss Wicks.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I'll do my best to channel my inner Senator Blake Spear here. I'm pleased to present on behalf of Senator Blake Spur, SB 866, which requires cities and counties to include key homelessness information in their existing annual housing element report. As we all know, homelessness is one of the most urgent challenges facing all of our communities, and it's not confined to any single city or county.

People experiencing homelessness often move across jurisdictions in search of shelter, services, housing, employment, and family support.

Because homelessness is regional in nature, addressing it effectively requires coordination among cities, counties, continuums of care, and other regional partners. Yet today, it can be difficult to understand how homelessness resources are being deployed across a region, whether communities are coordinating effectively, and where service gaps exist. Local governments are already undertaking important work to address homelessness, but information about those efforts is often scattered across jurisdictions and difficult to access in a consistent format.

SB 866 helps create a more complete picture of local homelessness efforts by ensuring key information is reported through an existing statewide process. Under current law, cities that receive direct HAPP funding are already held to planning and accountability standards for addressing homelessness.

However, only 14 cities receive HAPP funding directly, leaving most cities without a consistent requirement to report the resources, outreach, coordination, and prevention efforts that are essential to a regional response. Following discussions with local governments and stakeholders, SB 866 has been amended to use the an the existing annual progress report process in the housing element framework rather than creating a separate new reporting process.

By utilizing an utilizing an existing reporting structure, SB 866 improves transparency and accountability while minimizing administrative burden on local governments. SB 866 helps create a more complete picture of local homelessness efforts by requiring local governments to annually report information on homelessness funding received, outreach efforts, point in time count data, actions taken to support housing for extremely low income households, regional coordination efforts, and homelessness prevention programs.

This information paints a clearer picture of how homelessness services are being deployed, and it helps identify gaps in services and regional coordination.

This is essential so we can know how to intelligently invest our resources. Simply put, we cannot effectively address homelessness if we do not know where the resources are going and how they are being used. With me here to testify in support of eight six six is John Doherty for New California Coalition.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Wanna thank the committee, committee staff for all the work, the author, and, of course, Assembly member Wicks. The New California Coalition is a nonpartisan movement that reflects and represents the views of a majority of common sense Californians. We wanna champion pragmatic policy solutions that address our state's most pressing challenges.

As we all know, housing and homelessness is among the top of those. We are pleased to support SB 866 effectively addressing street homelessness, requires every level of local government to be an active forward looking partner. Eight six six brings value by integrating comprehensive homelessness data, concrete prevention strategies, and clear regional coordination efforts. This new information is critical for establishing a unified, transparent, and statewide effort.

The bill has cities and counties formally outlined homelessness strategies and ensures that local governments develop actionable data driven plans for connecting people with housing, shelter, and supportive services.

It's a pragmatic step towards solving our public crisis by ensuring all jurisdictions plan responsibly and have clear standardized information. For those reasons, we are pleased to support AB 668 AB 866 and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Others who are here in support of the bill. Seeing anyone, is there any opposition witnesses? Not seeing any. Any questions, comments, concerns.

We have a motion by Mister Schultz and second by Mister Culvera and a comment from miss Quirk Silva or okay.

Yeah. I wanna thank the member for bringing this bill forward. It's kind of a quiet bill in the sense that we don't have long lines here either supporting or opposing. And with all the work that we've been doing, it could kind of get lost. But I think it's a really important bill as was mentioned.

You know, the big cities are getting the big dollars, if we wanna say, in HAPP. And yet there's many surrounding cities that are smaller cities or rural or or areas that don't get much attention. And yet, they have to really be the partners to to in many times on their own, figure out how are they gonna house the unhoused in their neighborhoods. This is not an easy task. This is a task that some areas come together and pull their money together to put up various shelters.

That happens in my area. We have 10 cities that could pull their, I believe it's SB 2 money, together, to put one shelter in Buena Park that surrounding cities. But we have to know the numbers. So bottom line, this is knowing the numbers. We have to know, are there changes in the numbers?

Are people moving from one community to another, one region to another? I know even the point of time, there's a variations from county to county of how they do that. Most counties do it annually. Orange County does it every other year. So with that information, we could get very inaccurate homeless numbers.

So I think this is the right step for each city or a jurisdiction to have to have a report. I know that people do not want more reporting. I know that it it feels onerous, but we have to be able to track these numbers to get a authentic count. And even though we feel that numbers are going down in homelessness, are they really? So with that, I know it's been moved and supported supported.

Miss Colosa.

Thank you, Mister Chair. This is, like, the one bill I actually had questions on. So I will follow-up with the senator's office. I will not, ask questions for missus Wicks, but, maybe the witness, knows the question. Does this apply to non HAPP cities and counties?

Yeah. That I mean, that's the intent. Yes.

That's the intent? Okay. Got it. I was I had some follow-up questions on this bill only because I know we had an entire hearing around some of the overreporting around the HAPP dollars. And so but I'll follow-up with the Senator, and we'll support it today.

I will spare miss Williams.

I can give you my best guess. That's good.

Thank you.

Mister Patterson. Thank you. Couple years ago, I had A Bill, AB 2570, that required more reporting, on this program, and, passed out of the legislature pretty, routinely. Thank you everybody for support, and it was vetoed. So just keep an eye on that.

But I look forward to supporting this measure. So Thank you.

Let's hope that doesn't happen here. Alright. Not seeing any other members. Miss Wicks, if you have a close.

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Blake Spear.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. The motion is do passed to the Assembly committee on appropriation, and we had a motion in a second, and we can take a vote.

Haney?

Aye.

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

Calosa? Calosa, aye. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Colorado?

Aye.

Colorado, aye. Lee, Cork Silva? Aye. Kirk Silva, aye. Taft?

Ta, aye. Thank you, Puff. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye.

Aye.

Wilson.

Alright. 80. Senator D'Arazo is on her way.

400K number two.

Oh, yes. We're gonna call some of the ones that people missed.

It says like a colon. Yeah. We have to have Are you gonna

do that right now?

No. No. No. Okay.

I can go present another bill, another committee.

Yeah. Okay.

Alright. We have Senator D'Orazo here.

Oh, let's

Let's go.

Move with you?

What do you got? Oh, okay. Alright. Yes. On item number two, SB 996, we have motion second.

Cara

You said second.

Second? Alright. No. We have Chrome.

Worries. And the motion is to pass to the Assembly committee and appropriations. Oh, sorry. Motion is to pass to the Assembly committee and appropriations. This is item number two, s p 996.

Haney?

Aye.

Haney, Aye. Pearson?

Aye.

Pearson, Aye. Avila Farias? Kalozar? Kalozar?

Aye.

Schultz, Aye. Cola?

Aye.

Cola, Aye. Lee. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork's Dubai, Ta.

Thank you, Pat. Wicks

Aye.

Wicks Aye, Wilson. 666.

Alright. You made it. Welcome, Senator Garazzo. This is I item number 4SB1388.

Okay.

Okay. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you all for your your patience here. I wanna thank the committee, of course, for their hard work, and I want to accept the committee amendment on page four of the committee analysis.

SB 1388 establishes the affordable housing risk reduction program to help affordable housing providers reduce insurance costs by providing technical assistance and supportive serve resources, including guidance to mitigate a provide provider's risk portfolio. This will support providers in pursuing alternative models and securing more affordable insurance options than available in the current market. California is facing a dual crisis, an affordable housing and insurance crisis.

While California is experiencing an ongoing supply shortage of affordable housing, affordable housing providers across California are facing limited availability of insurance coverage, significant premium and deductible cost increases, and reductions in the scope and quality of coverage. California has experienced some of the highest insurance premium hikes in The US with increases as high as 500%.

For example, in my district, the Little Tokyo Service Center, a community development nonprofit, had insurance premiums rise by over 300%. This severe insurance crisis is significantly increasing costs for affordable housing developers, limiting their ability to build new affordable housing and preserve existing units. Given the insurance challenges, many providers have expressed interest in alternative risk financing options to increase availability and the affordability of insurance coverage. However, several affordable housing nonprofits lack the technical expertise and the financial resources necessary to evaluate, establish, or participate in these models.

This program will address these challenges by having the state provide technical assistance to affordable housing developers so they can pursue risk mitigation strategies and alternative risk financing options.

Housing providers need affordable insurance options so California can continue working towards our housing goals. This bill will reduce barriers for the production and preservation of essential affordable housing and help us reach the the goals. We have Justine Marcus, state and local policy director with Enterprise Community Partners and Purva.

That's Archie. Yes.

Regulating regulatory affairs advocate with Young Housing California. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Justine Marcus. I'm here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners. We're a proud cosponsor of SB 1388. As the Senator mentioned, we're facing a nationwide insurance crisis and affordable housing providers are being hit very acutely.

The highly regulated nature and thin operating margins of affordable housing make it difficult to weather the dynamic private insurance market putting these properties and, more importantly, these residents at risk. In the current insurance environment, affordable housing providers have demonstrated an interest in alternative risk financing options outside of the traditional commercial insurance market. Options like captives, risk retention groups, joint powers authorities, where housing providers can collectively assume, manage, and finance their own risks rather than seeking insurance on the private market where options are limited and unaffordable.

These models have been shown to help increase the availability of coverage, lower costs, and they've been proven to be effective and utilized frequently by public sector entities and commercial property owners. What we've heard from our housing provider partners, particularly our nonprofit partners, is that they face challenges to joining or, starting these alternative risk financing entities.

This bill would address these barriers, providing the necessary resources and support, and it builds on success that we've seen across the country, a similar program in New York State, which has been piloted to support nonprofit housing providers facing similar challenges. Thirteen eighty eight proposes a systems level solution for a system wide problem and would be able to, support California housing providers to remain stable and continue producing new affordable homes across the state.

We thank Senator Durazo for her leadership on this issue and to the committee Chair and staff for working with us on this bill and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. Corbavata charged you with Housing California, a proud cosponsor of SB 1388. California is facing a severe insurance crisis that has significantly impacted the affordable housing sector. Between 2020 and 2022, insurance costs for affordable housing providers increased by 56% on average, with some providers experiencing rate hikes as high as 500% from 2022 to 2024. These rising insurance costs are a threat to the viability of affordable housing organizations, their properties, and the low income residents they house.

Affordable developers are legally required to restrict rents to levels that are affordable to low income people. So unlike market rate developers, they cannot and should not pass on the cost of rising premiums to their tenants. However, these providers are still recovering from rental arrears during the pen during the pandemic, making it even more difficult for them to absorb rising insurance costs.

Already, they have been forced to lay off staff, dip into their operating reserves, postpone improvements or upgrades to properties, decrease services, and reduce insurance coverage, which exposes them to risk. But these strategies only provide short term relief, where what we need are structural solutions to the insurance market that make insurance more accessible and affordable.

SB 1388 is an important step in that direction. As Senator Durazo and my colleague shared, the affordable housing risk reduction program will help affordable housing developers access more insurance options than available in the current market. Given that the state has invested billions of dollars in building affordable housing, ensuring that continued financial sustainability of these properties and stability of the residents should be a priority. We thank Senator D'Orazo for authoring this important piece of legislation and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Others were here in support of the bill. Anyone is there any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Are there anybody here in opposition?

Seeing anyone? Alright. Bring you back to the committee. So motion and a second. Mister Patterson.

Well, I look forward to supporting the bill today and in the future. What I would say, you know, insurance crisis is is really big in many of our districts and has been for a long time in my district. In fact, Aye, now a, customer of the fair plan. But, you know, one of the issues I hear consistently from all sorts of developers is the inability to get insurance, you know, on on not just high density projects, but they're building single family homes, for example.

And they know that they're not gonna be able to, but the future buyers won't be able to get insurance on those properties.

And so now a lot of developers are actually going out there and sort of, like, trying to get insurance in advance before even construction so they can, so the residents will will have insurance on their homes. And it's a really sad situation. But so all I would say is I look at this bill as a pilot program because I think, you know, we should really consider expanding it to basically all development.

So so I look forward to supporting it today, and maybe we'll see an expansion in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Clauser.

Thank you, Mister Chair. To my Senator, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think it's a great bill. I think it looks at it from a different lens of risk mitigation and how do you try to account for all the things that as affordable housing providers you uncover in the process. And so I would love to be added as a coauthor, and thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Alright. Well, I'll give you opportunity to close.

That's where I wrote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your leadership here. We know that rising insurance costs are a huge issue for all property owners, but especially challenging for affordable developers who may have limited funding to spend and providing them with some assistance and support with that to navigate this issue. It makes a whole lot of sense and essential for our shared goals to be able to support existing and future affordable housing.

So the motion is do passed as amended to the Assembly committee on appropriations, and we could take a vote.

Okay.

Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson? Aye.

Harrison, aye. Ava Laffarias. Kalosa? Kalosa, aye. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Colra?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Lee Cork Silva?

Cork Silva, aye. Ta. Thankipa. Wicks Wilson?

Aye.

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

Alright. The bill is out seven zero.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Appreciate your support. Thank you.

Alright. If we could ask the absent members to come back because we need to take final votes here. Okay. Alright. On item five, SB 1092, is there any objection to unanimous consent for reconsideration?

Can I ask more about that? If we if I said yes, do we go just go vote? We'll still vote on it?

You would have a we'd have a roll call vote on reconsideration.

So, typically, although I have not been granted reconsideration from time to time, You know, this was a pain a painful presentation, and, you know, I wanna allow him to have more chance. But this is a bit of a unique process, right, in terms of how this came is coming to a vote right now. Is that is that correct?

He he he asked for reconsideration in writing, which is allowed. It's within the rules.

Yeah. Right?

I've just never seen it.

And this will not be in a there will be no debate, no presentation. There will be a vote on reconsideration if there's objection, and then just a vote straight up and down on the bill itself.

Yeah. I'm okay.

Alright. So without objection there, we will take a vote on reconsideration. Oh, sorry. Sorry. On the bill itself.

And the the motion is do passed to the Assembly committee on judiciary.

Oh, for for

the senator's bill?

Yes.

Okay. So we're reconsidering now?

Yes. Oh, okay. Yes. Now.

But No.

Yes. Yes.

Mister Chair.

And then we're gonna

Maybe it's

playing it for the benefit of

the public.

Yes. And

we need a motion and a second on this. This is my first time doing a reconsideration, so I'm also learning here. We have a motion. We have a second. Second.

Second by Mister Schultz. And this is a it's do passed to the Assembly committee on judiciary. Yes.

For reconsideration. Right?

For just vote on the vote.

Now the vote of the bill. This

is Yeah. This is

Now we're reconsidering it. So repeat vote now.

Yeah. Yeah. You're voting on the actual bill right now.

You're voting on the bill. Yeah.

So we're going to vote on the view? Yeah. Yeah. Deal. Right?

Yeah.

Yes. Yes.

Yeah. Without debate. So that's why

you're

not seeing anybody up here.

Alright. Yes. I saw it over there. Yep. Let's take let's let's let's take the vote here because Alright.

Miss Carl, you gotta go.

Stinky. Alright.

Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Parson? No.

Parson? No. Abila Farias? Aye. Colossa, aye.

Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Calra?

Aye.

Calra, I Lee. Cork Silva? Aye. Cork Silva, aye. Ta?

Aye.

No. Ta? No. Tankipa, Weeks Wilson.

Yeah.

Wilson, no. K.

Five to three. We'll keep that open for absent members. We're gonna go through the remaining bills for those who are or sorry. The prior bills for folks who are here so you can get all your votes in, and then we'll wait for the absent members.

Item numb item number one, s p 866, do pass to the Assembly committee and appropriations, Avila Farias. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, aye. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, Aye. And that is 10 to zero.

Item number two, s P996, do pass to the Assembly committee and appropriations. Avila Farias. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, Aye. Ta?

What?

This is a number item number 2, SP996.

I think that was in the code. SP996. Right?

Correct.

Aye.

Assembly member is aye. Wilson.

Aye.

Wilson, aye. Assembly member thank you for wearing number two. An I?

Assembly member, thank you, but it's an Aye. 234561011.

Aye.

Aye. Right? I need to go Aye. Is that correct?

Correct. Correct. Assemblymember, thank you very much. We can go back to item number one, SB 866.

Aye.

Aye. We are moving on to item number three, SB 1090, do pass to the Assembly committee on local government. Avi Laffarias. Assembly member Wilson. Aye.

Aye. See you. Item number four, SB 1388 to pass as amended, to the Assembly committee and appropriations. Avi Lefarious. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, aye. Ka?

I'm not boring.

Not boring? Kangipa? No. Kangipa, no. Wicks.

Eight one.

I'm not sure what

Not 40. And item number five, this was this is every Senate bill SB 1092. Assembly member Lee?

Assembly member Lee is aye. Assembly member Tankipa?

Aye.

This is the actual vote

or not.

The actual vote, the consideration was that no. Assembly member Wicks. So six one, two, three, four.

We're gonna you're gonna you're gonna vote. We'll go well, not on reconsidering, but on the bill itself, you have to vote.

That was gonna

Oh, you voted already. Okay. Yes.

we're waiting for miss Wicks.

So

That's it.

You already know.

We'll we'll have to Alright.

If you're ready, ma'am. Assembly member, I'm gonna go ahead and announce the bills and you heading on. Perfect. Item number one, SB 866, you pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. Assemblymember Farias?

Aye.

Aye. And that bill is completed, sir, 12 to zero. Item number two, s P996, Assembly member Avila Farias.

Aye.

Aye. And the vote is 12 to zero. That's complete. Item number three, s P1090, Avila Farias.

No.

No. That will be eleven two one. Item number four, s P1388, Assemblymember, Avila Farias.

Aye.

Aye. Nine q one with one member not boarding. And item number 5, SP1092. Assembly member Avila Farias? No.

Assembly member Avila Farias is a no. Congratulations. Right. Item number 4SP1388. Assembly member Wicks.

Aye. Aye. 1021 with one member not boarding. And item five, SB 1092, Assembly member Wicks.

Aye. That bill is out, sir, 725.

Aye.

75. Alright. Please adjourn.