Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development hearing. We have five items on our agenda today that were referred to the committee pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2 to facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time we have. Each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition if you want. This is just concurrent.

So, we will not permit any conduct that disrupts you know, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's hearing. We are in Room 437 at the Capitol, and it's open in for in person attendance, this hearing and all are encouraged to watch the hearing from this livestream on the assembly's website.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. We do not have quorum, but we will begin as a subcommittee. And we do have one author here, so we wanna just go ahead and do this.

So we'll call item one, which is AB306 Schultz. Wow. This finally made it back. It's a long time ago. This is it's been a while.

Well, thank you very much, Mister Chair. Would you like me to begin now?

Yes, please. Perfect. Just so you know, I have no witnesses, so this should be short. But, yes, AB 306 is back. Similar in spirit, but a little different in approach. It addresses a practical barrier to housing delivery, and that is the fact that the 540 jurisdictions in local jurisdictions in the state of California can and often do interpret the state building code differently.

This bill really aims to have a centralized statewide process to adjudicating those complaints, those disputes, and having common, standards and interpretations of the state building code. With that, respectfully submit, and at the appropriate time, ask for an aye vote by the committee.

Alright. Thank you. No no witnesses. Do we have anyone here in support of this bill? Aye. Not seeing anyone.

Do we have any opposition?

Aye. Not seeing anyone. Do we have any opposition, witnesses, or anyone at all? Alright. Not seeing anyone, colleagues. No comments or questions?

Alright. At the appropriate time, we will take a vote on the bill. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you all.

Alright. Yeah. Who do you need? For

Silvas,

Verne,

Mercies?

Alright. We can establish quorum, and we do that. Now if we could get us some authors alright. Recent. Yep.

Let's take a quote, please. Thank you.

Haney?

Present.

Haney, present. Harrison? Here. Harrison, here. Avila Farias?

Here. Avila Farias, here. Colosa? Here. Colosa, here.

Garcia, Cora, Lee?

Here.

Lee, here. Cork Silva, Ta, Tankipa?

Here.

Thank you. Here. Wicks. Here. Wicks here.

And we do have a quorum.

Alright. We have a quorum. Six We could take a vote on we need a motion and a second on item one.

Thank you. Right. Motion is to concur on Senate amendments. Amy?

Amy, Aye. Harrison?

Aye.

Harrison, Aye. Abila Farias? Aye. Abila Farias, Aye. Colosa?

Aye.

Aye. Carlos, Aye. Garcia, Cholera, Lee.

Aye.

Lee, Aye. Quirk Silva, Ta. Thankiva?

Aye.

Thankiva, Wicks?

Aye.

Wicks, Aye, Wilson. And we have seven books.

Alright. We are waiting for the other three authors.

Alright. We are waiting for the other three authors.

Yeah. Sir? Okay.

Alright. We can take you now. Item number 4, AB 1128, Marasucci. Welcome.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair, members of the committee. Let me get the right file here. I'm here to present AB 1128, which is a gut and amend. So your first opportunity to review this. Although, this is building on the efforts of our colleague, Assemblymember Quirk Silva, where she had written the law establishing the proposed mobile home rent stabilization of 3% plus inflation capped at 5% annually.

She had gotten that signed into law previously, and so this bill originally was proposing to extend that rent stabilization scheme statewide. The Senate Judiciary Committee limited it to the mobile home parks 10 mobile home parks within the city of Torrance. This was not our original desire and and goal. However, this is the bill that is before this committee. And so I am pleased to have this bill sponsored by the Mobile Home Resident Coalition, here to testify, in support of the bill.

Hi. Good afternoon, Mister Chair, members of the committee. My name is Aaron Branagh with Cruise Strategies, here on behalf of Terry Williams, the president of the Mobile Home Residence Coalition, a nonprofit representing 58,000 manufacturing homeowners across the state. The Mobile Home Residence Coalition is in strong support of the AB 1128 despite the amendments taken by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which limited the bill from statewide applicability to only the city of Torrance.

The Mobile Home Residence Coalition is still in strong support because AB 1128 still provides affordable and predictable rent increases for homeowners living in the 10 manufactured housing communities in the city of Torrance.

Despite the fact that there is there does need to be statewide, statewide legislation on this issue, this is seen as at least a small step in the right directions direction. Californians who will primarily benefit from this bill are seniors on fixed incomes, veterans, peoples with disabilities, and working families. As you are aware, California is presently facing an affordable housing crisis. And historically, mobile homes have widely remained an important stronghold for affordability in the state. Unfortunately, this has not been the case as recent.

Many manufactured housing homeowners are already spending on average 66% of their income on housing related costs with some paying as much as 80 to 90%. Meanwhile, large manufacturing housing community owners have experienced extraordinary financial returns. A February 2025 Wall Street Journal article reported that some major mobile home park companies generated returns of more than 4000% since the housing crash. AV eleven twenty is about creating balance for vulnerable mobile home residents. We are not trying to prevent community owners from earning a fair profit.

We are simply asking for reasonable limits on excessive rent increases so that homeowners can afford food, medicine, and homing and while maintaining their financial security. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1128. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you. Others who are here in support of the bill? Not seeing anyone else in the room in support. Can we bring up the primary opposition witnesses, please?

Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair, assemblyman, and members of the committee. Chris Wyshocki representing WMA, and we are the largest, trade association of mobile home park owners in the state. And while we appreciate that AB 1128 was amended in the Senate, to apply only to the city of Torrance, downgrading it from a statewide rent control measure. We still have serious objections to the bill and would recommend a no vote, of this committee.

I think it's important in this case. I our arguments against rent control have been fairly straightforward, and I think most people in this committee understand them. We believe that it rent control and mobile home parks artificially increases the price of the homes because the rent is suppressed to a place below market. In fact, we do see this in the in the areas around, Torrance. For example, Torrance does not have rent control, and I'll explain that in a little bit.

But, homes outside of the rent out of Torrance rent for about $5,000 a month, and that's high rent. And inside the Skyline development, which is in the city of Torrance, rents are about 1,700 to $22.50 a month. And that's be largely because of the Torrance, the park that was purchased in 2021. Skyline was purchased for about $67,000,000 from the prior owner, and there was a huge property tax increase associated with that transfer.

The owners raised the rents of the local residents by about 16% that year to account for the property tax increase.

And while that was going on, the residents actually asked the city of Torrance to adopt a local rent control ordinance. And when the city of Torrance City Council decided to not do that, my understanding is that the assemblymen personally engaged with the city council. And again, the city council denied the, rent control ordinance from taking in taking place. There are a 106 cities in the state of California that currently have rent control.

And we just think that AB 1128, by forcing the city of Torrance, which is proactively and affirmatively declined to adopt rent control in its own city, to be told by the state of California that they must adopt an ordinance that they actually rejected.

We think is out of out of line with the best interest of the state's powers. And for those in many reasons contained in our letter, we would urge a no vote on this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Others who are here in opposition to the bill? Not seeing anyone. Alright.

I will bring it back up to the dais. Questions, comments? Mister vice Chair.

Thank you. Yeah. I just I was wondering if you could respond to that in terms of I I think the voters rejected an ordinance as well, specifically on mobile homes and the council could potentially do it themselves if I'm not mistaken. So I'm just wondering if you could respond to those comments.

Sure. So first of all, I I wanna emphasize that the bill originally was proposing a statewide rent stabilization. It was not focused on the city of Torrance. It was not focused on any particular mobile home park. Only because of the Senate Judiciary Committee was the bill limited to the 10 mobile home parks within the the city of Torrance.

As to, the the City Council, there was, there was actually a, a recent June, election where the composition of the City Council had, dramatically changed. You know, we we are more optimistic of providing relief. The bottom line is that, you know, many of these Torrance mobile home residents have seen their rents increase by 50%, by a 100%, in the past, ten years, as, was stated earlier. Many, if not most, these residents are seniors living on fixed fixed incomes.

You know, affordable housing is one of the last remaining pools of truly affordable housing in the state of California, especially in areas like Los Angeles County and the coastal areas in in my district.

And, and and and so, that is that that is the history of why the bill was, went from a statewide proposal to being limited to the city of Torrance, you know, only because of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But this is, you know, would be critically important for the 1,100 mobile home residents within the city of Torrance to help move the statewide picture forward.

Miss Havilah Harris.

Thank you so much. And I I appreciate thank you. I wanna thank the author and presenters for for bringing this forward.

I have relooked at the bill and seen the changes, but I'm still really concerned not only from a statewide perspective, but even locally that overall, we we need to just reengineer our housing model that's outdated in California because we're gonna continue to have these type of issues emerge, and we can't spot land use and plan and who we're gonna, you know, go after or not go after. It's an affordability crisis.

Right? And mobile home parks are also based with the changing dynamics. And when they, you know, first emerged even sixty plus years ago, the model is very different. And there's cost now, different costs that they have to contend with. So I I always lean in the spirit that people don't wake up in the morning and say, how can we inflict harm on our community members?

I think they're market forces that create environments that, you know, unfortunately have to be passed on to tenants at times. Community members, need to legislate in a way and also, finance the type of housing that we need to accommodate our most vulnerable, and create the housing stock, and we're just not there. And I think this this bill does not help the housing crisis. This bill does not help this market, and I think it would destabilize and set some type of precedent.

You know, it was attempted at the statewide level, and now we honed it in.

That's a good way to legislate either, to spot plan decisions based on communities. I mean, there are nuances that, you know, not all communities are the same. But housing principles and concepts are pretty much the same. And so I always am very cautious on these type of bills around housing affordability.

In the name of affordability, I'd rather be in a space where we holistically, as a committee, as legislators, really reimagine what housing needs to look like, and we have pulled a lot of levers around housing affordability.

But at the end of the day, we we need that housing bond. At the end of the day, we need a, you know, financing mechanism to create a diverse palette of affordability to finance throughout the state of California. And so, unfortunately, today, I will not be in support of this bill. But I think there's different pathways that we we can achieve, you know, affordability, but I don't think it's through this legislation.

Thank you. Mister Chair, if I may, through the Chair, I I I I would just make the point that, you know, I I understand that rent stabilization for, say, apartments may arguably be a disincentive to build more apartments and to increase the overall housing supply. I I would, you know, for this committee, make the clear distinction with mobile home parks, where it's not the it's not like there are more and more mobile home parks that are being, built.

To the contrary, the the trend has been to replace the the valuable real estate upon which these mobile home parks are located to convert them into, condos, townhouses, single family homes. Again, taking away that, you know, one of the last few remaining, pulls of truly affordable housing in the state of California, especially in our coastal areas.

And so, you know, the the argument that rent stabilization, rent control would disincentivize the building of of, increasing the supply of affordable housing, you know, I believe does not apply to mobile home parks.

If I may have Chris respond because I think it's really understanding. I I I I hear your perspective. I I just don't agree with that perspective. The fact that that market has not grown, is a big factor of how we've legislated in the state of California. There should have not been a reason why the mobile park home, you know, market did not grow because it is a form of affordable housing.

And I'm gonna let a subject matter expert speak to that of, why that market hasn't grown.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. And, you know, respectfully, I I and probably not surprisingly, I have a disagreement with the assemblyman. And, you know, essentially, rent control and the adoption of rent control at the local level has been a large reason for the lack of construction of new mobile home parks around the state. And the reason for that is unlike apartments, the real estate involved in a mobile home park is large and huge. We have a huge infrastructure to maintain.

We we are responsible for the streets, the roads, the lighting, the security, the common amenities, clubhouses, and whatnot. And these are extremely expensive. And when it comes to developing new parcels, sometimes, yeah, it may not make sense with a rent control environment to build more mobile home parks. You know, there's there's a common phrase that's used here in this in this building that talks about affordable homes being the last unsubsidized form of affordable housing in the state.

And I would argue that that's not true because it is subsidized when there is rent control.

It's just not subsidized by the government. We are the ones that we are the ones that are we are the ones that are supporting the subsidization of of of the value. And when it comes to just more parks being built, there are a couple in the state that are being being constructed, and they are in non rent controlled areas. And that's generally in areas where there's lots of land still available, where you can actually develop a community where people have, individual homes. They own the homes.

They rent the land. And we're in a position as an industry of trying to figure out how we can construct new mobile home parks. We're in the business of, you know, building. We want more parks. Yeah.

Otherwise, our association wouldn't see wouldn't wouldn't be relevant. So, you know, for those reasons, I I respectfully disagree, and I hope I answered your question. But, really, rent control has prevented us from increasing the supply of naturally market based affordable housing in the state. You know, and just to kinda close on that point, it's important to note, you can buy a home in Skyline Mobile Home Park.

This is the one that, was referenced in the Senate Judiciary Committee as as being kind of the reason for the bill.

You homes there, you know, you can buy one for probably under $300,000. City Of Carson, which is right next door, it has rent control. Homes there are going for about $450,000. Same home. What's the difference?

It's rent control. It's that the you're paying more for the home and less for the rent, or you're paying more for the rent and less for the home. And that's kind of the just just the reality that we live in as as today. Thank you.

But but I would also add I mean, I I guess the point I mean, I hear what you're saying, but the point of land use costs are very much different than when the model first started. Correct. And infrastructure, local zoning, permit fees, the the cost there are have ballooned that the return on investment has to be there for new parks to emerge. And if we keep overregulating the existing parks, we will not have that housing inventory available in its new form.

And and I'm just saying that we need to stop legislating in a reactive matter and legislating in a more holistic new utopia of what our housing market and legislation needs to be to create all the affordable entry points from first time high home buyers to even end of life housing needs for constituents in California.

And and I think it's a multi prong.

Mister Lee. Alright.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Very important question to the author. Is this your last committee bill you're presenting in?

It it looks like it's gonna be my last one before this committee.

Okay. Well, at least before this committee. I just wanna commend you for fighting for your district for twelve hard fought years. And as one I think it's really commendable of one of your last things you're doing as a, you know, last bill is to fight for your Mobile Hope Park residence in the city of Torrance that you've been representing for twelve years. And I think that speaks volumes to how well you've been fighting for constituency.

And I think in the time we're talking about affordability, we can talk all the time about hypothetical inventory of new housing, but these are the real there are real people living there now that they are facing affordable crisis, and we wanna make sure that they're what they're paying for is controllable. And you're not asking for something that's crazy or untested before this exists in the in the in California and the country.

And I think it's very reasonable that as the representative for Torrance, you're fighting for Torrance, and I think we should be supporting you and your residents so that they can stay housed. So So I think it's a really, important bill, and I will make a motion for the bill. Thank you.

We have a motion and a second. Miss Wilson.

Please excuse me. I didn't get a chance to, be a part of the first part of the discussion on this bill. I know you and I have briefly, talked about this bill, and it sounds like the question of rent control or rent caps have already been discussed. And in particular, it sounded like as I was walking in, there were discussion around the mobile homes already being the most affordable inherently. So I won't go on those two subjects.

But I did wanna follow-up on one that I don't know if you've all discussed yet that we talked about and just wanted to make sure it was on the record. The cities in cities are allowed to do what you're asking the state to do already. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay.

And the city of Torrance, at some point, had considered doing something like this and they declined to do it?

In the case of the city of Torrance, with a Republican majority, yes, they have declined to to help the residents.

Okay. So you

felt like

it might have been partisan, but the the city who has jurisdiction over this park and in their community did decline to have anything like this. And so Aye, so for me and I get that it is a district bill.

And and to the Assembly member's point, your you know, you being having had the opportunity for the last twelve years to represent your community faithfully, I commend you for that, and I consider you, you know, a well, thought out legislator as it comes to the type of policy that you put forward and as imagined as it aligns with both your passion as well as your, you know, support to do the right thing by your community.

When we come in as a state and say we think something should happen over a jurisdiction that has the authority to do that for themselves and singularly centered around that, It's not outside of the other issues that I have that I think were already brought up and articulated. I I struggle with that overriding a community's already having weighed in on the topic and having the ability to weigh in if they would choose.

And so I don't know if you wanna speak to what circumstances exist today for the benefit of the members of this committee that make you wanna override what the what has already been discussed at the community, but that I think is a concern that should be considered.

Yes. Well, thank you for the question. You know, again, you know, Torrance has historically been a a Republican town. And and the it it was a Republican majority City Council that that rejected rent relief for mobile home park residents. And and and and and that is, you know, that is the voice that has prevailed thus far on the City Council.

I I would argue that, you know, we just voted on, a bill yesterday or the day before, to establish a, JPA, Sacramento County and city housing and homeless effort that was opposed by Sacramento County and the city of Sacramento.

I I can I can highlight plenty of other precedents where this body, you know, giving deference to the author who represents the district, who knows the district, better than anyone else that, you know, oftentimes, we see the difference in in the politics, at the local level versus what we try to do at the,

you know, to do the

right thing at the statewide level to protect this last bastion of affordable housing mobile home, rev mobile homes? And so I would ask you and all the members of this committee to give me the deference. You know, I know the city of Torrance, and and its politics and its history better than anyone in this room, and I would ask, for your deference.

Miss Cara. Uh-huh. Oh, miss Cara.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you, Assembly member, for bringing this forward as as mentioned by another colleague, you know, going out, representing your community, I think in a very effective manner. I wish this was a statewide piece of legislation. I know that it was narrowed, which oftentimes happens. And San Jose has more mobile home residents than any other place, any other city in the state.

And when we look at the mobile home model, the the growth of mobile homes happened when the state and many cities were in a very much of a sprawl kind of spread out mode.

And that's why San Jose has so many mobile home parks, and they are old. They're from the sixties, seventies. There's some a little bit more recent, but there there aren't any that are relatively new. And I doubt you'll see a city like San Jose approve mobile home parks again in the future unless there's a a rebuild of a of a current one because it's counter to how we've been building more recently, higher density, and not as sprawled out.

And I mentioned that because you are correct that that it has become a bastion for of affordable housing.

The reason why mobile homes are less expensive is because you don't own the land, and and you really, in in some ways, are at mercy of the the landowner. And that's why they become affordable. De facto senior affordable housing, certainly. I have a a staff member whose family, a working class family, lives in a mobile home park as well. And I menti1d all this because, you know, our number 1 priority, we're talking about affordability, is our residents and those who are struggling to get by.

It doesn't mean we don't have sympathy for mobile home park owners or apartment building owners and so on and so on. But our number 1 priority should be for those that are literally struggling when it when there's an organization called Rebuilding Together where we go and do rehabs of homes, almost always at 90 of them in San Jose are at mobile home parks. Seniors living in mobile home parks that don't have the money to fix up their own place. We go in to repaint.

We fix their staircase, this, that, and the other, the plumbing because they're living, you know, by a thread.

So the the I I I it's not that there's not sympathy for the mobile home park owners, but I would hope that we would have more sympathy for those that are just struggling to get by. And there there's still profit to be made by mobile home park owners, but, you know, this is larger than the general rent control conversation when it comes to apartments.

We're talking about the space that someone's home is on and whether they have the ability to at least budget their lives so that they continue to live there and not be completely priced out. And I do understand there are in some parts of the state, there there may be new mobile homes coming, but it is a model that is more, more in the past for most jurisdictions, not all.

And the last thing I'll say, especially, as a majority party, and I I think our our colleagues in minority party probably agree, we read those a lot that that that speak to local control that when we when we feel that especially as it applies to housing, when local jurisdictions don't do anything on building of housing at all or building affordable housing.

I believe in local control because I came from City Council, but I do think at some point, you abdicate your risk when you abdicate your responsibility that there are good there are good reasons for the state to step in.

And I think many of us, certainly, the Democrats, have voted on plenty of piece of legislation that sometimes our our the our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they criticize us for it, but it's because we don't feel the needs of our constituents are being met. And so in that regard, I fully support this bill and appreciate you for bringing it forward.

Thank you.

Alright. If not, do you have any more questions or comments? I'll give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you. Thank thank you for, this, very important, discussion. I first of all, I want to emphasize that I want to thank and acknowledge a subliminal, Quirk Silva's leadership in this space for many years. Not only has she been a champion for affordable housing more broadly, not just limited to mobile homes, but she has been fighting for her mobile home residents in in her district. And the law that she wrote is what this bill seeks to build upon.

She wrote a law that established exactly what this bill is proposing. The 3% plus inflation capped at five percent rent stabilization, not rent not flat out rent control, but, you know, rent stabilization to give these seniors living on fixed incomes some predictability, some stability to be able to live in their coastal communities, and as well as throughout the state of California. Again, you know, our original goal was a statewide rent stabilization proposal that was limited to the city of Torrance. That was not my choice.

But as has been discussed, we have voted on plenty of bills, to, to to to override, the decisions of, local city councils when we believe that, it was not in the interest of of the residents.

Bottom line is I'm fighting this fight, because I have heard loud and clear from our mobile home residents, in the city of Torrance as well as throughout the state. They need rent relief. And, you know, the only way we we we're gonna provide rent relief to these mobile home residents is through government regulation. You know, they're they're not gonna be building more mobile home parks, especially in coastal areas of of Los Angeles.

If given a choice between building townhomes and building mobile homes, which one are you gonna go with?

I mean, the market is clear. The market is for making maximizing profits for building more townhomes, building more apartments unless there's government intervention. That's why this bill is needed to provide that relief for mobile home residents, our most vulnerable housing, residents. And for those reasons, I ask for your vote.

Thank you, for, your, leadership and for certainly, taking the the time to stand up for, I know, a group of residents that you've been fighting for and that you believe that this this policy will will certainly help to protect. And as as all my colleagues, I know, have lots of thoughts on this as a as a general policy policy matter, and it's one that also I'm learning about as well because I do not represent a district that has any mobile home park.

So it is it is very much a new issue for me, and I appreciate all of the work that everyone at this at this on this committee and beyond have done on this issue. At the end of the day, this is a very narrowly tailored approach for a community that you represent and that you, as you said, intimately understand. And so I'm gonna support it today.

And we have a motion and a second, and we will take a roll call vote.

The motion is that Senate amendment speaker, Curtin Haney.

Aye.

Haney, aye. Pearson? No. Avila Farias, no. Colosa Garcia?

Aye. Garcia, aye. Cora?

Aye.

Cora, aye. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva? No.

Ta, no. Tankipa? Nope. Tankipa, no. Wicks?

Aye. Wicks, aye. Wilson? Not

voting. Wilson not

boarding. Six to three, we will gonna be six to four. Six to four, we will leave that open for absent members.

Thank you.

Alright. Mister Ziburr, item number 5AB2181.

Good afternoon. Thank you all. Mister Chair, members, I'm proud here to present, AB2181, which is cosponsored by Unite Here International and Unite Here Local eleven. Before I begin, I wanna thank the Chair, committee staff, Dory, for your extensive help on this bill. I know that we've, you know, been doing a lot to make sure that it's resident in the right places in the code, and I know that there was a lot of conversation about that.

And so I really wanna thank you all for that, for that assistance and help. AB 2181 is a narrow clarification that ensures that density bonus potential can only be used in valuations for hotels and motels when a real approved, when it is real approved invested. It simply ensures that ground lease rent resets reflect reality, not speculation. This is a pro housing bill that promotes and protects density bonus law, which is one of the state's most important tools to incentivize affordable housing.

The bill does not change or limit density bonus eligibility in any way.

Instead, it protects the integrity of the policy by ensuring that the benefits are tied to actual housing production. This bill addresses a real world problem that is that has emerged and one that's emerged specifically in my district. Appraisers are now using hypothetical residential redevelopment scenarios to inflate land values when no housing development is planned or contemplated or can be planned or contemplated even in the near term.

Density bonuses that have not been pursued or approved are used to inflate property values, and that inflated value is then used to reset hotel and motel lease rents, creating real financial consequences impacting existing businesses and workers, especially in the hospitality industry. For example, I have a fully operating hotel in my district supporting jobs union jobs and tourism.

It is a long term ground lease that makes redevelopment not feasible for decades. No housing project is is proposed or approved, yet the appraisal assumes high density residential redevelopment using density bonus law. No housing is being built, but the idea of housing is driving real consequences such as potential worker job loss, reduced tourism activity, and pressure on long standing productive land uses.

The state is appropriately expanding density bonus tools to increase housing production and new policies like higher density thresholds or double density concepts increase the theoretical redevelopment capacity. However, without guardrails, that expanded capacity can be misapplied in appraisal scenarios and used to further inflate land values based on these hypotheticals.

AB 2181 provides a simple guardrail where density bonus can only be considered in valuation when it's pursued, approved, invested. This bill is narrow in scope and intentionally focuses only on hotels and motels. This is where long term ground leases are common, Redevelopment is often constrained, and the impacts are most acute. To be clear, this bill does not restrict housing development. It does not change the density bonus law, and it does not prevent future redevelopment.

This is a technical fix with real world impact. It protects hospitality worker jobs. It prevents speculative valuation practices, and it keeps housing policy tied to actual production. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support, I'd like to introduce Matt Broad, who's representing our bill cosponsor Unite Here International.

Mister Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Unite Here International Union. I'll keep my comments, brief. I think the Assembly member did a really good job summing up the importance of this legislation. It's narrowly tailored and make sure make sure that we're protecting the integrity of density bonus, making sure that it's used for real housing development purposes. With that, I would urge your Aye vote.

Thank you. Great. Others who are here in support of the bill?

Good afternoon. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in support.

Great. So opposition witnesses. Anyone here in opposition? Not seeing one. Alright.

Back to the dais. Any questions, comments? Not seeing. We have a motion and a second. Motion and a second.

Alright. Let you close.

I respectfully ask for you. I I wanna thank you all again. I wanna thank our bill, sponsors. I think in other hearings, we've actually had, members of the Unite Here local union whose jobs are being threatened. I mean, realistically being threatened by, just this huge inflation and the land value for this hotel and, obviously, that threatens their ability to operate under these ground leases.

So I just wanna thank you and ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you for for your work and your collaboration with our committee and, definitely support maintaining the integrity of the density bonus law while also protecting hotels and hotel workers and appreciate the work of the sponsors as well. And we will take a roll call vote.

Alright. Motion set that Senate amendments we concur in. Haney?

Aye.

Haney, aye. Person?

Person, aye. Abila Pareas? Kalotha? Garcia? Aye.

Aye.

Garcia, aye. Cholera? Aye. Cholera, aye. Lee?

Aye. Lee, aye. Korg Silva? Aye. Korg Silva, aye.

Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Tankipa?

Aye.

Tankipa? Aye. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye.

Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Okay.

10 to zero. That is our

thank you very much.

Okay. Alright. For our last two bills and per last two bills, we think, miss Quirk Silva. Item two, AB 750, and item three, AB 956.

Good afternoon, Mister speaker. We are gonna start with AB 750, which, was presented in the Senate. AB 750 expands access in the Department of Housing and Community Development's portfolio reinvestment program to challenge developments in need of rehabilitation in order to avoid a loss of precious, affordable housing in California. Members, we have spent a lot of time talking about housing across the board from affordable housing to market rate to town homes.

This bill simply is trying to reinvest in the the housing stock that we already have.

We know that we have over 50,000 500,000 affordable renting rental hell homes for low income families over the last decades. We know we need more, but we also know that if we do not reinvest into these units, we will see what we do not want to see, which is that they fall into disrepair. And, in essence, then they become the housing units that, I think none of us want to see in our community.

A B 750 expo expands the types of developments that can qualify for loans or grants to include developments that do not have HCD loans but are defined as challenged developments. With this bill, we've had bipartisan support.

And with me today, we have Tyesha Watts, who is associate director of policy advocacy for the California Housing Partnership, and Marina Espinosa, the policy director for the California, Housing Consortium, to make remarks.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Tyeh Shewats with the California Housing Partnership. The partnership was created in 1988 to help increase the affordable housing and sustainability of homes throughout California. We are proud to cosponsor AB 750 alongside our partners at the California Housing Consortium.

This bill makes targeted common sense improvements to HD's portfolio reinvestment program that together protect affordable housing and preserve housing stability for working families across California. California faces an acute worsening affordable housing preservation crisis. Since 2001, the California Housing Partnership has found that California has lost over 17,000 subsidized affordable homes due to expiring regulatory restrictions and owners' decisions to opt out and convert to market rate.

Today, more than 46,000 affordable homes are at risk of losing affordability in the next ten years, and more than 6,000 may lose affordability as soon as next year. Losing these homes represent a significant loss to residents and surrounding communities.

Given California's need to produce 1,200,000 homes for extremely low income and very low income renters over the next decade. Failing to preserve what we have already built is simply not an acceptable public policy option. AB 750 provides the relief needed to to preserve California's housing stock.

The portfolio reinvestment program was designed to decrease the risk of conversion to market rate housing, extend the remaining useful life and long term affordability of existing HED funded projects, and assist the most at risk projects in HED's loan portfolio by providing loans for rehabilitation and operating subsidies. AB 750 builds on this proven foundation.

The PRP program has demonstrated a record number of results. In just its first two rounds, the program preserved nearly 2,000 affordable homes that directly benefited 4,000 individuals across Northern California, Southern California, and rural communities. Combined in the policy outlined in AB 750 with the 750,000,000 allocated for PRP in the veterans and affordable housing bond, We are projected to double this number of homes we can preserve.

AB 750 expands the reach of the successful program by extending PRP eligibility beyond HCD funded projects to include challenged developments, properties that are not state funded but are at least fifteen years old serving low income households. This expansion will allow the state to reach and preserve more homes that would otherwise be lost.

The California Housing Partnership respectfully add to your aye vote.

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're proud to cosponsor AB 750. We believe this bill plays a critical role in preserving the existing stock of deed restricted affordable housing, which is critical to addressing the housing shortage. I will keep my comments brief, and I'm happy to help answer answer any questions.

Thank you. And who else here in support of the bill? Anyone, is there any opposition? I don't believe so. Mister vice Chair Patterson.

Thanks, miss Quirk Silva. Are these your last couple bills here in committee?

They are.

Well, that's great. Too bad. But, you know, I thought that was a great presentation as my stomach eats the lining of itself, you know, waiting for lunch. But just kidding. No.

Well, it's been a pleasure working with you on housing issues. And, you know, of course, I'm gonna support this measure in your next one also. But, you know, thanks for being a great colleague on housing issues.

Thank you.

Ditto. Alright. Not seeing any other members give the opportunity to close.

Just respectfully ask for a nigh vote.

Alright. Do we have a motion and a second? We do not. We have a motion and a second. Thank you, miss Quirk Silva, for your leadership here.

This is, I know, something that we've discussed, and we have a lot of buildings in San Francisco who that are older, deeply affordable developments that could use access to this. And, we're we're excited, to be able to have that opportunity, hopefully, with the bond, but either way, to be able to access, this, I think expanded, eligibility, which is critical for a lot of different types of buildings across the state. And with that, we will take a roll call vote.

A motion is Senate amendments to be concurred in.

Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Harrison. Aye.

Harrison, aye. Avila Farias. Aye. Avila Farias. Aye.

Colosa Aye. Wix? Wix, Aye. Wilson? Wilson, Aye.

Alright. 11 to zero. Fill us out. Alright. Your very last blip though, for real this time.

And if you are miss Colosa or her staff, please send her here because we need her to finish. Item number 3 AB956.

Yes. Good good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. I'm presenting AB 956, which clarifies existing accelerate dwelling unit law by allowing a homeowner to build up to two detached ADUs on a property provided those units comply with all existing related size, height, setbacks, as well as health and safety. Specifically, this bill authorizes either two detached ADUs that meet requirements or one detached ADU and one detached JADU consistent with current law. I just wanna take a little moment here.

When I first started way back when in 2012, I was not on the housing committee. And to be honest, really didn't have some of the expertise I see with some of the people sitting on the committee. I was on local government as a council member, and we were not talking in any way. And when I was on council from 2004 to 2012, really about the housing crisis. It really snuck up on us.

We were not talking about ADUs. Although, we know in going back in time, these ADUs were called granny units or mother-in-law units, I think, some of those names. And they were built quite a bit in the thirties, forties, fifties, some not permitted, but many and then they just kind of stopped being built. And then what we found, somewhere around I'm gonna say I don't have the dates in front of me, about 2018 ish.

There were other legislators that sat on this housing committee and began to really explore what's happening with ADUs. Why did they stop being built? And I believe it was Assembly member Richard Bloom. That's all I can remember at this point. He really put some intentional effort into talking about ADUs and what was keeping them from being built. A lot of what we found out were impact fees, regulations, permitting, all of these things.

So speed up to 2026. I think we can be very proud of the work that has been done in the ADU world. We are seeing more and more permits throughout the state of California. We are seeing people kind of take back their own properties and say, what can I do? But particularly for those reasons mentioned from the 1930s, how do we house people like our mother-in-law or like our adult kids that are finding it very unaffordable for a 2 or $3,000 apartment.

So that's one of the reasons I've been very invested in this, and it has been a little bit of a glimmer in housing. We we have areas that we haven't seen progress on.

We have areas that we know we need to do more, but this is an area that I think we can share about and allowing families to be very clear on what they can put on their properties as long as, of course, they comply with all of the requirements as far as height, setbacks, and so forth. So that is why this bill is here today.

It is being has was brought back in this committee because it was a two year bill, and we really wanted to make sure we could get it right.

But the amendments that were taken in the Senate clearly state how many ADUs and JDUs a homeowner can build, which has not been clear depending on your city. Makes minor clarification of the legislative intent of the original law and maintains consistency with SB 9 and avoids inadvertently triggering the density bonus law. So with me today, I have, from YIMBY, Jordan Carbajal to speak in support.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Good afternoon, members. ... YIMBY... As the Senator mentioned, this this was a two year bill. We took some amendments in the in the Senate side, which just says, if you do two detached ADUs, a local agency is not required to approve a JADU in the property, finding a fair balance within the ADU space and the lots, for the families.

So we've seen some ADUs have been successful throughout the years, and also credit also goes to Senator Quirk-Silva for that. And so with that, we respectfully request that aye vote for AB 956. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And who else here in support of the bill? I don't see anyone. Is anyone here in opposition to the bill? Opposition witnesses not seeing anyone?

Mister Kalra.

Thank you. I'd like to move the bill.

Second.

I wanna thank the Assembly member for bringing it forward. I think in many existing neighborhoods, the only way you can build housing stock is with ADUs. San Jose was the first city to actually have an ADU sold, and I think there's there'll be more to come in and especially some of these suburban ish neighborhoods. The lot sizes are all varying sizes in some cases.

So I think I like the idea of the as long as it's complying with local ordinances, setbacks, that if there's space for two, I think that makes complete sense. And although I never received a Quirk-Silva Award, I will be giving you a Kalra Award today Oh. As well as the Kalra Lifetime Housing Achievement Award.

There you go.

Thank you so much for your your yeah. Yeah. Legacy Award for your incredible work during your time here in the Assembly. Thank you.

Miss Wilson.

Sorry. We're just convincing one minute. My apologies. Appreciate your service on this committee, for the number of years, which has been the majority of years of your service on here and even your work on ADUs. I just wanted to know because I won't be voting for it today, just my fundamental opposition of, you know, that of allowing our locals to determine, the number in a particular community and take in other factors.

This doesn't allow any other factors to be considered just what the homeowners desire is based on the rules, that as you noted, that there are local ordinance and such. But there is a discretionary part of it depending on the particular neighborhood, schools that are nearby, all of these other impacts that we have to consider. And so when you get to multiple ADUs, I think that that is something that they still should be able to factor in. Most of the time, ADUs are handled at the planning commission. They don't go to the, full council.

And typically, at the planning commission, because it's not by right, they do allow for additional requirements for a particular ADU. And so this wipes out that whole process that has been working, and and I don't consider the by right feature a barrier, to ADUs. Thank you. So I won't be supporting it, sir.

Miss Wicks.

Thank you very much. Wanted to just take a moment, if I could, Mister Chair, to ask Potek about miss Quirk-Silva, who I've been very lucky to serve now on this committee for six years, I think, together, and served in the legislature for eight years. Obviously, we had our big farewell speeches last week, and I'm not prepared to sing a song like Gail, miss Pellarin. But, I wanna underscore the work that you've done in housing in particular.

You know, I've I've been in the foxhole with you, miss Quirk Silva. You are fierce. These especially in your YOLO stage of, legislating these last couple years, you've been such a truth teller. I've learned so much from you. I'm very appreciative of your work. You've made me and all of us better legislators, and your willingness to take on the tough hard fights because I know that what your North Star is is making sure our working class communities have a roof over their head and have the housing security that they need.

And the state is better off because of your service, and I just wanna express extreme gratitude for all the work that you've done for us. So thank you.

Mister vice Chair.

Great. Thank you.

Are you gonna sing?

No. No singing. Okay. Maybe later on Monday night, 10PM. You know, I've recently met with some some local jurisdictions have come to me about concerns they have with ADUs being built, you know, and and how it changes, you know, the sort of, like, the intent of what the community is and things like that.

And, you know, my feeling always was around that. And it it's a tough conversation to have. But, you know, upon inquiry, it because, you know, local jurisdictions can have some control over, you know, how high the build you know, how high the buildings are and things like that. And and, you know, so you ask, like, well, does this comply with your zoning? You know, I was like, yeah.

You know, yeah. It's as high as we've said it can be and and those sorts of things. And so, you know, not that I think jurisdictions should go changing all their zonings and all that to prevent ADUs.

But I think what this bill does is allowing people to use their this has always been my fundamental view on housing issues, and I'm always fighting with many of my friends on my side of the aisle about this, but it's like people should be allowed to do within reason what they want with their property. If you if your property is zoned for housing, you ought to be able to build housing on it, you know, within reason.

And so that's why I'm looking forward to supporting this measure, and I would have coauthored it. And I'm not gonna do, like, what happened earlier to say, like, can you add me as a co author? Because then you have to send it back to the Senate. So I'll just go ahead and support it today, and, thanks again for your work on this topic.

Mister Lee.

I just wanted to quickly also commemorate your legacy of fighting for housing. I think it again, it's very fitting that this is probably, right, probably your last bill and you're fighting for more affordable home homeownership. I know it's in the news lately. It was in San Jose, I think, where, you know, an ADU went for, like, 700 k, and it is, like, laughably high, and it is way too high.

But when you look at the single family homes even in my own ZIP code, right, they're, like, 1,800,000.

So an ADU is still half less than half the price, but it shows how pivotal important these opportunities are. Right? Rather than just segmenting off a kitchen or something like that, you can at least have a real structure, a real home, And, hopefully, those are means to be on the continuum. Right? And I really wanna just thank you for fighting for housing and doing bipartisan coalitions.

Even before housing was popular or trendy as a larger topic, you understood how pivotal it is because I think you also understood how pivotal is for your kids, my generation, and people who went after me that they need to attain the California dream. And it was you've always brought that real heart and passion to it. And I've really learned a lot from you over the years too, and I really just wanna thank you for inspiring us, leading the way in so much, Sharon.

And and I second that I love the YOLO stage as well. You really take out even harder fights and inspired us to go even harder. Right? The spicy yeah. The spiciest QS era. So, yeah, I just really wanna appreciate you, Sharon, and thank you so much. Thank you.

Miss Avila Farias.

Sharon, I'm so excited to be able to support this bill as a big fan of ADUs as a housing pathway for so many people, whether you're at the beginning of your life, of the housing market, or towards your end of life needs. So seeing you legislate in this space, is really exciting as someone who's very passionate about ADU policy in the state of California.

But beyond that, I just wanna correct the record as someone who has been a practitioner in the housing and affordable housing development field, at the county, state, and federal level that, you know, we're a certain group of nerdy housing people, and, we all know each other in the industry.

And for you not being an actual practitioner, I wanna say to you that serving with you on this committee, I would have never known that you did not work in a redevelopment or a housing community development space. Your expertise, your knowledge, and your desire to learn the space, and quite frankly, it's impossible to master.

But again, you have done an amazing job here in my short tenure of watching you here two years. And, you know, you are definitely in the ranks of a housing professional. And, you know, your legislation speaks in volumes around that space. So thank you for your service here, and it's been such an honor to serve with you in a space that I'm very passionate about and really happy to be supporting this bill.

Alright. We'll turn it back over to you.

Oh, thank you. Thank you for all the kind remarks. And before I close, I do wanna thank the housing staff because we've been through many committee meetings. Miss Engel actually came down to my district to talk to lots of our, planning and builders to, kind of navigate what happens in Sacramento. I urge you all to do that in your districts.

A lot of times, as you said, to my colleague, Mister Patterson, it's that they don't really understand, not because they don't want to, but there's a lot of mystique about what we do up here in government. So bringing, the state down to your district, I did for many years, bringing the secretary of state down, bringing, the LAO person down for breakfast, and it really gets people to connect with what we're doing.

Because if we knock on doors, a lot of times, they'll be, like, Assembly member. What are you assembling? But it's they just don't know what we do.

But I am really proud of the work that I've done on housing. It has been an involvement, and there will be more to come and all of you will be part of those conversations. But as I'll just end with my little graph that I make. I like to draw things out. I think you've seen this before.

But on the house, the home, I don't know if you could see it. I think it's the three h's. The foundation is housing. So whether it's market rate or affordable or manufactured, any of these housings, people need a house to be housed. So when we looked at three h's, I always call it housing, investing in homelessness so we don't have homeless, and then the supports, which would be the human services, the wraparound.

So those are the three h's. The three p's are really protect the what you are all going to be talking about after I leave, which is preservation. I believe Jesse Gabriel got one of the little awards, and it's because he's gonna really push an HCD to to formalize discussing preservation. Because if we build these units and we don't preserve them, then they, in essence, become not usable, but also the production and protection.

And so those are my three little words, preservation protect to protect and to produce and then the three h's.

And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote on my very last bill in this committee, and thank you all for working side by side with me on AB 956.

Well, thank you. Echoing the course of appreciation and gratitude, you're a you're a teacher to the very end here, and you've taught us a lot, not only in the way that you have led. I think that's first and foremost with purpose and integrity and joy and collaboration, but also the way that you've taken on, both big issues and issues that may people may think are smaller issues, issues like this, but issues that can really make a difference.

And you've seen how that that these types of policy changes over your time here, can be what makes the difference as to whether the housing that people in our state so desperately need is actually getting built and is available and is affordable. And so, we will continue we'll commit to continue your work and continue to lead with what you have taught us, and we know that this is also not the end for you and your housing you leadership.

You have become, as many have said, truly one of the the most, informed and effective advocates and leaders on housing policy in our state.

And so we hope that there is certainly, a a role for you to continue that leadership at whatever level you choose. So we have a motion and a second, and we will take a roll call on miss Quirk-Silva's likely last bill in this committee. You never know. Roll call, please. The motion is Senate amendments to be con concurred in.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, members.

Alright. Ten zero two not voting. That is out. Thank you. Alright.

We have a couple folks who need to catch up on a couple votes. Alright.

So wait. We're not quite done yet. We have a couple votes here.

Again, with all of the bills on the agenda, we are concurring concurring on Senate amendments, and with item number 1, AB 306.

[roll call]

Alright. 12-0.

Item correct, it is.

Yes. You you were here.

Yeah.

You did?

You did. You were

You're here at the beginning.

Well, we did it after. Yeah.

Afterwards. Yes.

Alright.

Any questions on that bill before we go to the next?

Alright. Item number 2, AB75.

[roll call]

12-0.

Item number 3956 is concluded. Item number 4, AB 1128.

[roll call]

7-4 when not voting the bills out.

And item number 5, AB 2181.

[roll call]

And that is 12-0.

Alright. Officially, I think this is our last hearing. Thank you all. Thank you, committee members. Thank you, committee staff for all your incredible work this year.

And we are done. Meeting is adjourned.

Literally, bills being No. Put in forward today.