Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, Wednesday, April 22, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Very few of these wells produce, but all of them are underneath and next to homes, buildings, and places of worship and centers of community. Urban oil drilling is a public health crisis. Uncapped oil wells leak toxic chemicals such as methane, benzene, and hydrogen sulfide. Repeated exposure can lead to a variety of serious health conditions such as respiratory illnesses, cancers, cardiac and neurological events, birth deficiencies, and other chronic conditions. Uncapped wells can and will cause oil spills and will also release methane, leading to a potentially deadly buildup underneath homes and offices.
Most often, residents of these areas have no knowledge of the potential dangers of wells, maybe even feet from their homes. Even then, the residents of Vista Hermosa are all too familiar with their impacts. Community members report that respiratory illnesses are common in Vista Hermosa. It's not uncommon for residents to develop cancers and other chronic conditions with no reported family history. Residents report methane monitors going off nonstop and an ever present smell of oil and rotten eggs.
Speaker 56
One of the community leaders we work with, Rosalinda Morales, has also shared that growing up, children would often dig up oil nuggets and would fall in oil in puddles of oil. Rosalinda's own mother passed away far too early from an aggressive form of cancer, which Trozalinda tributes to gardening without gloves on and being constantly exposed to the oil rich soil. In the past ten years, this community has had to live through three emergency well capping and multiple oil spills, including a major one in 2019 where oil oil flowed down Furman Street and coated cars, homes, and animals. Vista Hermosa is not alone. This is a problem that impacts communities up and down the state.
Speaker 2
There are over 5,000 uncapped oil wells in Los Angeles with over a 100,000 across California. In Los Angeles, over 75% of oil wells are within a few 100 feet of sensitive zones. I myself grew up in an oil zone in the shadow of Torrance and Wilmington oil fields. My own family has faced issues with respiratory illness, and I know of too many friends who deal with chronic conditions as a result of living next to a refinery.
Speaker 3
Good morning. The cost of these communities, the cost these communities are paying is very real. It's in years lost. It's in medical bills. It's in the stress of managing this crisis.
No one deserves to be poisoned where they live, and that is why a b seventeen twenty five is so important. Despite the present methane emergency in Visseramosa, only a few buildings have methane monitors. Those that do are not always maintained. There's only a limited time to respond to a methane emergency requiring monitors in all buildings will ensure residents have the systems to keep themselves safe in a time of crisis. Through disclosure to prospective tenants and property owners, this bill would empower the residents of Vistaramosa with the knowledge to keep themselves safe to prevent exposure as much as possible.
Real estate disclosures are a common tool to provide needed information. It is a long standing practice to disclose environmental hazards given and given the risk that oil wells present, residents have the right to know about them. The residents of Vistramosa will be healthier and better protected under a b seventeen twenty five. Every oil community deserves at least these protections. We urge you to vote yes and ask every legislate and we ask every legislator to examine how this might be impacting your community and join us in the struggle for the well-being of oil communities everywhere.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4
Linda Hutchinson Knowles with Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley in strong support.
Speaker 24
Good morning, chairman and members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We wanna thank the author for hearing our concerns and continuing to work with us, but we must continually continue to respectfully oppose. I know the bill is being narrowed, we thank you for that. We believe the bill focuses on the wrong industry.
Speaker 5
We need to fix the problem. If these wells are not capped correctly, they should be. If the state has taken over a well because the owner has abandoned it, then the state should take responsibility for capping the well and ensuring that individuals in the area are kept safe. And if they're abandoned, we do believe the state has that responsibility. We unfortunately, the bill does not fix the actual problem, and we'd like to continue to work with you to find a solution.
So thank you for hearing our concerns.
Speaker 7
mister chair, member Silvio Ferrari. We have the California Building Industry Association in opposition.
Speaker 8
Good morning. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. We will bring it back to the dais. Members? No? Alright.
Give you the opportunity to close.
Speaker 2
Actually, I respectfully ask for your I vote. I actually would like to give my witness the opportunity to close if that's okay since he had to run away and didn't get a chance to give his full testimony to him.
Speaker 3
Wonderful. Apologies for being late. Flight was delayed out of LAX this morning. But I appreciate the opportunity for this bill to be heard. As was probably covered in the talking points, you know, this is a community that lives on top of a historic oil well where a lot of the wealth that built Los Angeles and built California was first extracted.
At one point, this this oil field produced over 25% of California's oil, but it's the residents that are paying the price now. It's folks who are struggling with medical bills, who are struggling with family members that are chronically ill or have passed away, unfortunately. And many don't even know what's going on in their own communities. They don't understand why they're getting sick. And that's why this bill is so important because every interaction we have with community, every time we we we organize in this area, we just hear horror stories about how it's impacting folks.
You know, at at a recent well capping, a child actually fell into an oil well because that well was in his backyard. At the most recent window at the most recent emergency well capping at 423 Furman, AQMD took a reading and actually saw that it was 10,010 times the normal limit. So these are the conditions that folks are living in. It is underneath their apartment buildings. It is in their backyards.
It's underneath their schools. And that is why this bill is so important because it will make sure that if you live in an apartment building, 90 plus percent of the folks in Vista Hermosa do, you will have the required systems to keep yourself to keep yourself safe when there's only moments to act. And for all new residents that are coming in, folks are look wanting to build in Vista Hermosa, it will give them the information to keep themselves safe so they know how to protect themselves so we can avoid more unfortunate situations like Rosalinda's mother that was unfortunately got sick because of repeated exposure. So that's why this bill is important. You know, I'm humbled to be able to represent the folks from BistroMosa today, and we respectfully ask for your eye vote.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. Thank you for being here, and appreciate your your advocacy and and your your representation of of your community. And and to the author, you know, thank you so much for working to protect your people and making sure they're aware of potential hazards health hazards and protected from them. And appreciate you taking the amendments and and continuing to work with the opposition.
I know your your your intentions here and I and I'm I'm looking forward to see you move this for bill forward and and be able to protect people in your district. So we will take a motion and a second once we have a quorum, and appreciate it. Thank you for being here. Alright. I see miss Johnson here, and you have two items.
So item 10, a b twenty one ten, and item 15, b twenty one seventy four. Either of these on consent? One is on consent? Yes. Okay.
That's what I thought. So just item 10, a b twenty one ten.
Speaker 9
have me nervous when you said two? I was only prepared to do one, but, yes, consent. Thank you. I'm here to present a b twenty one ten that provides local governments with the authority to establish tax increment financing districts for the purpose of financing workforce housing for education, manufacturing, health care, and public safety personnel. I don't need to tell this committee we are all aware that California is facing a housing crisis, and we are pricing our constituents out of homes across our state.
We are seeing market failure where the professionals we rely on most cannot afford to live in urban and coastal areas where they work. In my community, we are called a commuter community where someone is driving anywhere from 60 to 90 miles one way daily to find work. These these these types of folks living in our community often fall into a stability gap, earning between 80% and a 120% of the area median income, leaves them with a few subsidies to help bridge the gap for high housing costs. AB twenty one ten provides local governments with specialized market flexible tool to address this by authorizing tax increment finance districts dedicated specifically to our workforce housing. To ensure the benefits reach the intended workforce, the bill establishes the eighty twenty rule.
Speaker 21
80% of funded units will be reserved for targeted industries like public safety, health care, and manufacturing. The bill also mandates affordability standard where 70% of these units serve lower income professionals and 30% serve moderate income tiers. This measure is designed with significant fiscal safeguards to protect existing revenue streams. It explicitly prohibits the capture of any funds designated for school districts or educational revenue augmentation fund, ensuring education funding remains untouched. We have also prioritized local control and accountability while district formation is subject to a protest proceeding.
Speaker 9
Any issuance of any issuance of debt requires a two thirds vote from the voters. Additionally, the state controller is mandated to perform regular audits to verify that the tax divisions adhere strictly to the approved financing plan. The bill represents a strategic evolution in local finance, empowering cities and counties to invest in their own human infrastructure without the need for state grants or new tax burdens on residents. By allowing workers to live closer to their jobs, we can reduce long commutes, help ensure the people who make our communities possible can actually afford to live in them. This is a bill idea that came home from from my hometown in my district.
A b twenty one ten has no opposition and has passed unanimously out of local government committee. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Anyone here in support? No one. Is there any witnesses in opposition? There you go. Oh, it's balanced.
No. On either side. Great. Miss Quirk Silva, anything you would like to ask or share? No?
Alright. Give you the opportunity to close.
Speaker 1
Great. Well, thank you so much for your leadership on this. It is an important tool, and I appreciate you bringing it forward. And we will take a vote at the appropriate time when we have quorum.
Speaker 1
Alright. I don't know if you wanna present just to me, but or me to you if I don't want you, but Sure. Alright. Item 16AB2185. I
Speaker 1
Alright. We'll call an audible here. AB Item4AB1771Alvarez. And a b Item2AB1732.
Speaker 12
Okay. Thank you, mister chair. Appreciate you trying to get this going today. I know you have a long agenda, so I appreciate that. Thank you for the opportunity to present assembly bill seventeen thirty two, student faculty housing opportunity act.
Before I begin, I wanna acknowledge the and and thank the work of the committee before, really partnering, with our office, and accept the committee's amendments to the work that was done. Appreciative of that. California is home to the greatest public university system in the world, both the UC and the CSU system, but also our community colleges. These institutions are the on ramps to the middle class for millions of Californians, the path out of poverty into a career and a better life. That's certainly the story my story and the story of so many other Californians.
But today, there's a difficult truth. We are failing students who walk through those doors because too many of them cannot find a place to sleep at night. Just some very quick statistics. The LAO shows that roughly seventy seven 7% of UC students and eleven percent of CSU students face housing instability every year. And at community colleges, the number is one in four students.
So we've heard the story, students sleeping in cars, couch surfing, dropping out entirely because they cannot afford to stay housed. We have also seen, campuses issue enrollment deferrals due to the simple fact that they do not have enough housing to accommodate the demand of students who are seeking those opportunities. At the same time, UCCSU and community college campuses hold land that, in many cases, are already planned for, have been studied, have been approved for development through years of rigorous institutional review. Current law allows private colleges and universities to access streamlining within California's, CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, within the a b, one seventy framework this legislature passed last year, a b one thirty. However, that door is not open to public universities and colleges, meaning that we allowed local cities, counties, others to have a streamlining process, but we left out, I think by accident, universities and colleges which have a different authority.
So a b seventeen thirty two, this bill closes that gap. Expands expands existing streamlining, and the bill ensures that housing projects at our public campuses can qualify for the same streamlined c corp review already available to comparable infill development. AB seventeen thirty two is also supported by the University of California, the School Employees Association, the Faculty Association. We have zero opposition on this bill, and I appreciate that. And I I ask Tyler from the University of California to provide some testimony.
Speaker 41
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Haney and members. Tyler Aylar on behalf of the University of California. UC and its 10 campuses are pleased to stand in support of this bill. We appreciate Assembly Member Alvarez for carrying this legislation.
Speaker 14
As you all know, California's housing crisis is a current reality that creates significant challenges for our campus communities. For students, in particular, this instability translates into a struggle to balance academic success with the basic need for shelter disproportionately impacting low income first gen Pell eligible students. At the UC, student housing remains a top priority, for the University of California system. And to further increase housing inventory, More than 13,000 new beds are currently in development across 14 active projects and the twenty twenty five to two thousand and thirty one UC Capital Financial Plan includes an additional 8,000 beds with identified funding and 7,000 in early planning stages. These projects represent not just the physical expansion of UC, but also are committed to improving the student experience overall.
Simply put, AB seventeen thirty two will help the university build this housing faster, more efficiently, and stretch limited financial capacity further. By providing a clear streamlined pathway for approval, this bill allows us to better meet the urgent needs of our students, faculty, and staff without the cost delay a cost and delay often associated with CEQA and any subsequent litigation associated with those projects. Importantly, this streamline does not sacrifice our commitment to environmental or social responsibility. These projects are amongst the most environmentally friendly in the state. And furthermore, this bill maintains high labor standards, including prevailing wage, and also incorporates a new modernized tribal consultation procedure.
By streamlining CEQA for public higher ed housing projects, we can accelerate the construction of the student housing that our students, faculty, and staff urgently need, and we urge an I vote on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good morning, chair members. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.
Speaker 7
Morning, chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Do we have any, primary witnesses in opposition or anyone in opposition?
Speaker 19
Good morning, chair and members. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium. We do not have a formal position on the bill, but we do have some concerns with the amendments that were made to it in Assembly Natural Resources Committee, which impact the existing, exemption for projects that are 100% affordable. I think there's a way, that our concerns can be resolved, and we look forward to continuing discussions with the author's office about that. Thank you.
Speaker 64
Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California. We also don't have a formal position, but just wanted to echo the comments of my colleague before me and look forward to working with the author's office to think through it. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to the committee. Seeing any questions or comments, we will give you the opportunity to close.
Speaker 12
Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate the those who registered, support and also those who made comments on, some of the amendments that were made. Obviously, the intent is always to, facilitate this and not undermine previous, laws that have been approved by the legislature. So we'll be taking a closer look at that, and I appreciate the opportunity to, again, bring this before you today, and an I vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, and thanks as always for your leadership in this space and making sure that we both meet the needs of our universities, our students, our faculty, our staff, and also give our our the tools needed to be able to develop the housing to meet those needs. So appreciate your leadership here, and we will take a vote at the appropriate time when we have quorum. We will move to your next bill, which is item four a b seventeen seventy one.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chair. And again, thank you for your leadership on this committee and the work, and thank you to the staff and the thoughtful analysis, certainly, and the conversations that have occurred as it relates to this issue in general, accepting the amendments as proposed by the committee as we'd like to do some further due diligence on identifying how we can address this issue. So thank you for that. And the whole goal of Assembly Bill seventeen seventy one from the beginning and in its amended version is to try and analyze and under better understand and and perhaps review and change a nineteen eight nineteen sixties era regulation about on-site management at apartment buildings. This the amendments now require that this there'll be a report that goes comes back to the legislature, a report being done by the Department of Housing and Community Development, back to the legislature with recommendations on whether to to maintain that, to modify that, or to repeal the requirement altogether.
Speaker 12
As I stated right now, apartments buildings apartment buildings with 16 or more units are required by law to have a manager that is physically present on every one of those sites. That requirement was written in the nineteen sixties, certainly long before technology, which has tremendously changed over the course of the last sixty five years. A b seventeen seventy one does not repeal that requirement today. It's just doing a study on this rule. The bill requires ACD to look at the full picture, tenant safety at the center, emergency response, and the employment stability of the current resident managers.
It also ensures renters, owners, and local governments have a seat at the table to provide input. Just as travel technology has changed the world since the nineteen sixties and really in the last couple of decades exponentially, so has the management of building and the technology involved with allowing that to happen. We have things like smart locks and AI maintenance triage, twenty four seven call centers that often can provide faster and more reliable service that potentially an on-site manager could provide. However, there, you know, are different types of buildings, and I think there are different types of uses of technology in buildings, and so we need to look into that much more carefully. So this is a study bill, not a repeal bill.
We're asking that HCD bring us back the evidence, give bring us back the information, provide us with the information so we can make a better decision, an informed decision. So thank you for that. And with the Rental Housing Association, Southern California Association is Pat Moran.
Speaker 44
Mister chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. Well, I understand you amended it to make a study bill. The reason we brought this bill forward is because it recognizes the California resident manager law has not kept pace with how apartment communities are actually operated today. The regulation was put in place, and it was a regulation, it wasn't a bill that was passed in 1961. Why they picked 16 units or more?
Speaker 21
I don't know. Maybe they transposed the numbers. It's a mystery. But we think it's impractical. It's a nineteen sixties law that may have been necessary then, but it's not necessary now with the technology we have today.
Today, many buildings are professionally managed through a combination of regent of regional supervisors, trained leasing staff, maintenance teams, after hours call systems, security technology, and rapid response vendors. Owners should be able to choose the management structure that best serves their residents and property rather than being locked into an outdated mandate. We look forward to seeing what the study, shows, and we support the bill. But we are disappointed that it's a study bill. California is the only state in the nation that has this requirement.
New York City has something similar, but no other state, in the nation requires this at all. So with that, we urge your support. Thank you.
Speaker 57
Members, Ron Kingston representing the Apartment Association of Orange County, all of Orange County and Riverside, and the East Bay Rental Housing Association, all of Alameda and Contra Costa County in support nurture, I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
bill? Witnesses or nope. Not seeing anyone. Alright. I will give you the opportunity to close.
Speaker 12
Thank you again, mister chair. Definitely interested in understanding how technology has changed and perhaps for the better for the support and the of tenants in apartment buildings and looking forward to this information coming for us so we can make that decision at another time. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And thank you again for for working with our staff and with me directly on this bill. I think it is something that we should look at and and and a law that, as you said, existed in a very different time when there there wasn't the the same way of operations and management of these buildings that exist now, I think is is something for us to consider. I also would say, and part of the reason why it's a study bill, there's, you know, thousands, tens of thousands of people who currently have these roles that operate essentially as their job and eliminating that will have very serious consequences for them and other potential connected consequences as well. I think for sixty years we've had this in law and as a result I think there are other parts of our laws including tenant protections and others that may be connected to the expectation or existence of these on-site managers.
And so I do think we should do this in a thoughtful, intentional way, but I really appreciate you bringing this forward. It is something that we should look at and I think the question of whether this is necessary in all cases, I think is one that we should consider and and likely make some changes to over time. So with that, we will take a vote on this when we have a quorum, and again, appreciate you bringing it forward and appreciate your leadership.
Speaker 1
Alright. Yes. Miss, get if you run up there quickly, nobody will get into the door before you. Alright. This is item 16 a b twenty one eighty five.
Speaker 11
Mister Good chair. Today, I'm presenting a b twenty one eighty five, which provides an additional solution to our state's housing crisis. The housing crisis is like an onion. I think that's the first time you've heard that in this committee. There are many layers and there is no one solution.
Over the last decade, we've been working on many different layers including increasing density, streamlining the permit processes, providing specific tax credits, as well as introducing other forms of housing such as ADUs. However, California cannot solve its housing crisis with only yesterday's tools. The UC Berkeley Turner Center for Housing Innovation recently released a report titled Potential Pathways to Scale Innovative Construction Methods in California, which explored opportunities to adopt industrialized construction methods, including factory built housing in California. AB twenty one eighty five is one of a package of bills aimed at increasing these pathways for housing. Factory built housing where substantial portions of a home are built off-site and installed on-site can reduce construction costs by 10 to 25% and reduce construction timelines by 20 to 50%.
Factory built housing can lower costs and deliver homes faster, but our state programs have not kept up. When funding structures delay projects instead of supporting them, we lose time, we lose units, and we lose opportunities for family who families who need housing now. AB twenty one eighty five updates our affordable housing programs in line with how homes are actually being built today. The bill removes barriers, supports innovation, and helps us build more affordable housing at the scale California needs. With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any questions, from the committee is Graciela Castillo Krings, partner at Sacramento Advocates representing the California Housing Consortium.
Thank you, Smolut.
Speaker 24
Good morning, mister chair. Graciela Castillo Cranes here representing California Housing Consortium in strong support, and actually, we are proud to be sponsoring this piece of legislation. As the assemblywoman has mentioned, this is one of an additional package of legislation to really kind of just spur the type of innovation that we are seeing. If you think about most of how our commodities are produced, if you think airplanes, you think toys, most of that has benefited from industrialized processes that we are trying to kind of learn from and bring into the housing space. We are starting to see a lot of success and innovation in other countries such as Sweden.
I think the analysis continue to point out that we have lessons to basically take from those countries here in California and really advance the production of housing. But to do that, one of the catalysts for how we actually fund housing and produce it is a lot of our state programs. And so we are hoping that by modernizing how some of the regulations are looking at factory built housing, we're gonna be able to unlock additional units, really kinda spur the market. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good morning, chair. Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in support.
Speaker 36
Good morning, mister chair. Isaac Lassiter, cutting edge modular modular housing manufacturer, factory built housing manufacturer in support.
Speaker 6
Good morning, chair and members. Paul Schafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies in support.
Speaker 16
JT Herich Mack, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Not seeing any does anyone wanna register their opposition? Not seeing anyone? Alright.
You may close.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chair. AB twenty one eighty five directs state agencies that administer administer multi family affordable housing programs to update their guidelines and regulations to support factory built housing. That simple. And with that, I request an I vote.
Speaker 1
Great. Appreciate your work and your leadership on this, and we will take a vote when we have quorum. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Oh, you have a second one. Sorry. AB twenty seven forty eight, item 28. Alright.
Speaker 11
Mister chair and members, today I present a b twenty seven forty eight, which delays the new electric vehicle readiness requirements in the California Green Building Standards Code for a 100% affordable housing developments. California has been tackling some of the state's most pressing needs related to housing and climate. This bill is not about choosing one or the other. They both are important. However, when those these goals come to an impasse, we need to work together to find a middle ground.
Speaker 63
The sponsors and my staff have met with several environmental groups as well as electric vehicle groups and have had, robust conversations. I believe these discussions are vital as we are seeking to balance the state's climate goals with our needed housing affordable goals. AB twenty seven forty eight does not eliminate the installation of EV chargers. It keeps the previous installation rule at 40% and delays the recent 2026 increase to a 100% for affordable housing developments. EV ready infrastructure costs approximately 2,000 per unit today, rising to 25 to 3,000 per unit under the proposed code changes, while fully installed level two charges may cost 5,000 to 15,000 per parking space, excluding major major utility upgrades.
Speaker 11
For a 100 unit apartment complex, these unit these requirements can translate to into hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs. Unfortunately, without a sustained funding source for affordable housing, any additional cost can make already difficult financing impossible, threatening the viability of a project, giving affordable housing developers additional time to comply. And I wanna underscore that additional time, to comply with the new EV charging readiness requirements balances to state priorities, producing more more affordable housing and equitably reaching climate goals. California's housing crisis requires us to make hard choices about what comes first. We are committed to our climate goals, but we cannot keep adding costs that stall affordable housing before it even breaks ground.
For the families we serve, the question is not about charging infrastructure, but rather whether they can find a safe, stable place to call home. AB twenty seven forty eight keeps us focused on building now. It gives affordable housing, a 100% house affordable housing, the breathing room to move forward without abandoning our long term climate goals. When we talk about equity, it starts with whether we build housing that people can actually live in. This bill helps us do that and helps us do it now.
With me today to provide testimony and support is Graciela Castillo kings, partner at Sacramento Advocates representing the California Housing Consortium, and Lori Doyle, executive vice president of the Affordable Housing Development Corporation.
Speaker 24
Thank you, mister chair. And members, Graciela Castillo Crings here representing the California Housing Consortium, an organization that is focusing on the production and preservation of affordable housing. As the assemblywoman outlined, we are not against EV mandates. In fact, we are doing what we can to comply with the 2022 requirements, but the reality is affordable housing is really at a crossroads. We are running out of state funding.
Speaker 66
A lot of the costs from COVID have we have not been able to recover, and we right now are trying to just get the bin the units built. We have had very good conversations with the opposition and agree. This shouldn't be a decision between housing or environmental goals. There has to be a middle ground and we are trying to work through to try to figure out a policy that balances both needs because at the end of the day, we also believe that people that are living in affordable housing should have access to charging. The issue is when we are still struggling to get a bond on the ballot, when we are struggling to get money from the general fund in the budget allocated, it is not the right time to ask us to do an additional 60% at this time.
Speaker 31
Sorry. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Lori Doyle and I am the executive vice president of affordable housing development corporation. We are an affordable housing developer with over 2,200 units in our portfolio serving thousands of families throughout California. We are also a proud member of the California Council for Affordable Housing and are here today in strong support of Assembly Bill twenty seven forty eight.
Electric vehicles are slowly becoming a more mainstream transportation option and affordable housing providers share the state's long term climate and equity goals. However, the EV charging mandates included in the 2025 green building code standards present serious financial and operational challenges for affordable housing developments that already operate on extremely thin margins. The cost impacts are significant. As mentioned, based on our initial estimates, the updated code requirements increased costs between 2,500 and $3,000 per unit, not including utility upgrades. For a 100 unit affordable housing project, those additional requirements can quickly translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars in added costs.
Coordination with utilities such as PG and E add further complexity and delays. Property owners must engage early to assess service capacity, meter upgrades, and system readiness for high demand EV charging. Required load studies, meter and panel upgrades, not to mention potential transformer upsizing, increase both project timelines and cost for developments that are already financially constrained. AB twenty seven forty eight offers a balanced and pragmatic solution. It does not eliminate EV readiness for affordable housing but instead allows these developments to continue using the 2022 building code standards through 2035, which requires 40% of unassigned parking spaces to be EV ready.
Speaker 53
This approach gives the market time to mature, cost to come down, and utility programs and funding sources to better align with the realities of affordable housing finance. Most importantly, the bill helps ensure that scarce public and private resources remain focused on producing and preserving affordable housing rather than being diverted to unfunded mandates. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support of a b twenty seven forty eight. Thank you for the opportunity today.
Speaker 7
Great. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and affiliation, please.
Speaker 26
Holly Ferminia de Jesus, the Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California in support.
Speaker 1
Good morning, mister vice chair and members of Elbez Franco here on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support.
Speaker 16
JT Herichmak with the nonprofit housing association of Northern California in support.
Speaker 17
Steven Sansa with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.
Speaker 29
Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies in support.
Speaker 1
My apologies. I came up with the wrong time. CalETC opposes. I apologize.
Speaker 7
Well, thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Thank you. You will have two minutes each.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Good morning. Bill McGavin with Coalition for Clean Air. We oppose rolling back the building code standard because we want the residents of affordable housing to have access to clean and affordable transportation. And we know that low income Californians want electric vehicles.
We've spent many years trying to democratize the electric vehicle and have successfully provided some programs that that need to be expanded. We do see a lot of demands from low income Californians for clean transportation. Michelle Pierce from the Inland Empire was unable to be here today, so I will read her brief statement. I quote, when I lived in an apartment that provided charging, I got my first EV and I've never looked back. The money I saved on gas and maintenance helped stretch my limited budget.
Speaker 6
In 2015, I started EV Nirvana because I saw firsthand how important it is to get EVs into the hands of families with low income. To see that some developers want to reduce access to at home charging for the families that need it most sickens me. I ask that as you decide how to vote on this bill, you center the needs of residents to access the affordability and clean air benefits of driving electric and not allow government subsidies to be used to create second class housing like last century's cold water flats, unquote. We've been very involved in creating and supporting the Queen Cars for All program, which has provided, affordable electric vehicles to tens of thousands of California residents. The legislature has supported it many times through budget and policy bills.
Speaker 25
And with the the recipients are really happy. They're saving money. It costs half as much to fuel an EV as a gas car if you can charge at home and pay residential rates, which is why these standards are so important. And driving an EV saves in maintenance. Consumer Reports found it costs half as much to maintain as EV an EV as a gas car.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good morning. I'm Linda Hutchins Knowles with the National Charging Access Coalition representing 30 plus organizations that advance transportation equity, affordable housing, clean air, public health, climate stability, and green tech jobs. We a 100% support the goal of building more affordable housing, but this bill is not the way to do that because it saves the boat builders only a fraction of the total cost while burdening the residents who will live in these homes for decades to come and the taxpayers who will bear the cost of much more expensive retrofits down the line. When PG and E retrofitted a 60 unit apartment complex, they paid $18,647 per port. If it had been done at the time of construction, it would have cost 1,410.
There's even more extreme cases that were submitted to you through the portal. We've been consulting with affordable housing developers who find that the cost to comply with the current code is much less with than what sponsors are citing. We've met with the sponsors. We're looking forward to seeing the numbers that their estimates are based on. We're happy to share ours.
Speaker 30
Our spot the sponsors say that it costs 25 k to 3 k per unit. That's more than double what the affordable housing was we're talking with have found. They estimate it costs about 900 to 1,500 per charging outlet. So in a complex with a 100 charging outlets, the total incremental cost would be between 90,000 to 150,000 in the context of a project that cost millions of dollars to build. Calgary or sorry.
Speaker 4
CARB estimated that was point 1% of the total cost. These building codes are essential for equity. We worked with, the the coalition working on the building codes worked regularly with the CBIA. They did not oppose the building codes. In fact, they voted for them.
There were three changes to the building codes that reduced the cost to developers. We're happy to work with the sponsors who could think they're overestimating. Maybe they're not designing the buildings where they could do it to make savings. So instead of requiring chargers that look like this, the the code or this, the code requires simply outlets. These are very inexpensive to install.
And instead of requiring that every parking space be electrified, it only requires that half of the space I'm sorry. That, only the units that have parking get it. In affordable housing, there's often less parking, so it's not such an onerous cost. And finally, it doesn't require full power level two. It only requires low power level two that cuts the power demand in half.
Please pause on this bill. Building codes are frozen. This is not the time to roll back building codes. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you. You. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and affiliation only, please.
Speaker 32
Thank you. Michelle Canales expressing opposition on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists and California Electric Transportation Council, Kelly TC.
Speaker 43
Thank you, mister chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy, community choice aggregators serving San Mateo County and the city of Los Banos. We are in the proverbial tweener position, have some concerns aligned with the opposition. I've been having some positive conversations with the sponsors and look forward to more.
Speaker 27
Alicia Priego, behalf of San Jose Clean Energy, align your comments with the previous speaker, and thank you to the sponsors and author for working with us.
Speaker 6
Hello. My name is Bryce Nesbitt. I'm a construction guy, and building code is really bloated. Really. There's a lot cost.
Speaker 7
Okay. Thank you. Alright. Any comments from my colleagues, mister Calera?
Speaker 34
Thank you. Happy Earth Day, everyone. You know, this is challenging because, you know, these are very I think everyone's acknowledged. These are both really important priorities for our state, for our communities. And I I've I've really tried to focus a lot, and I think we need to focus a lot.
And I know that it's something the author and others agree with in democratizing EVs. That EVs over the last, you know, decade, decade and a half that they've really grown in usage and popularity and purchases have still been something out of reach for so many Californians. And I think a big part of that is the infrastructure aspect of it. I think that we're making they are becoming more affordable. There there's a lot of used EVs on the market now compared to prior years that that are within reach of of working families.
Is that infrastructure aspect. And so I my my hesitation is kind of slowing that down right now at a time where I think we should be rapidly increasing it and and and slowing it down over, you know, approximately decade period where I think that, you know, maybe we can put some of that emphasis in actually getting resources into these multifamily, especially affordable, and helping to subsidize some of these legitimate costs that they are a cost. And and it's true. It does cost a lot more to do it after the fact. I think that's ultimately what's gonna happen, you know, especially when we phase out combustion engines.
They're just gonna, after the fact, retrofit at a much higher cost. And so I think that I, you know, I I think putting the energy into trying to help to subsidize some of that cost of of for especially if it's purely a 100% affordable housing, I think there's some good justifications for us as we look at how we're spending our, you know, capital invest funds and other kinds of funds. If we truly wanna democratize the use of EVs, we have to put our money where our mouth is. And I think part of that is would be justified in getting some resources to affordable housing developers to help offset some of that cost. And so I I think there is a win win opportunity there without having to necessarily kind of roll back the the current timelines that we have with our building codes.
But I, you know, I I have such so much respect for both sides because of the work that you all are doing that are of of critical importance, and I would love to see more more working families, you know, have those have access to those electric vehicles. I I think we can make I think we can make both happen.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Any other comments? Great. Well, my my personal position is I think this is a you know, coincidentally, was recently in my mom's apartment who lives in a 100% senior affordable housing, and oddly, nobody drives a EV in her in Napa. So maybe we wanna get there and I think actually what mister Kalware was saying is is a good point.
If if we wanna get there and help people who live in affordable units own EV vehicles, then maybe the state ought to invest in that because their a new one still isn't, you know I mean, they're they're really not affordable when you can buy a 15,000. You can get a used one like you were mentioning, but you can get a $15,000, you know, combustion engine vehicle. But but a lot of individual you know, I mean, my I mean, just I'm just speaking of story of one, but my mom's still driving a 2006, you know, Ford Focus that used to be my car when I bought it new. So, you know, that's just a story of one. But I I did actually witness, you know, look at all the other cars that were out there, and they did have some charging stations and things like that.
And it wasn't, you know I mean, I just think the reality is we're not we're not quite there yet. And our my priority is is, you know, to get more housing built. I think that is the the leading one of the leading issues in the state of California, and to me, kind of overrides maybe a a, you know, a need for EVs. But if the author would like to close, of course, that that is your right and would love to have you do that.
Speaker 11
Thank you, members. And this this is a difficult conversation. This is the, in many ways, the conversation of our time. So whether today we're talking about EV chargers and housing, but we regularly talk about CEQUA and the environment and housing. And it does pit, I think, people that want to see Californians housed sometimes against people who are advocating for the environment.
What I would say is you can do two things at one time. You can be want to see housing built aggressively to address our homeless issue that we have. We know California is suffering from units that have not been built and we have done almost everything that I can imagine to speed up and get housing and you can also be supportive of the environment, but it takes compromise. And many times, we have a hard time with that. So I do appreciate some of the opposition who are saying there could be a place.
I do appreciate your your comments to my colleague because, of course, if we could incentivize or as you say, subsidize some of this EV infrastructure that could be a solution as well. In a very tight budget as we know we're cutting some essential services whether it's healthcare or CalFresh, it makes it harder. So just to reiterate, this bill is not about eliminating standards. It's about delaying standards for EV infrastructure. But I do understand.
I can commit that that our teams will continue us to speak to the opposition, and we want to get to a place, I think, where we can make progress, but that we don't shut the door on opposition. So with that, I would ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 7
Well, thank you. We haven't yet reached quorum, but when we do, I'm sure there'll be a motion.
Speaker 7
Next, we have mister Harabedian, a b two oh, okay. Alright. Def deferring to the kind senator senator Cabaldin, s b four one seven. Thank you. Please start your presentation.
Speaker 13
Alright. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. And and also a a big thank you to the kind gentleman from assembly member Harbetin for for for letting me go ahead. Miss mister chair, members, over the last decade, California has enacted landmark housing policies, many of them emerging from this house, and provided affordable housing developers with powerful new tools to streamline permitting and zoning, site acquisition on hundreds of thousands of parcels statewide.
But those affordable homes won't build themselves to unlock the full promise of all of the reforms that the legislature has enacted, requires just the basic capital to move projects from approval to construction. And around California, affordable housing developers and their and their partners and local governments and local communities have done all the work. They've they've sent they've gotten every signal we've sent, every direction, every mandate, every please, and they've acquired parcel after parcel. They've applied for permit after permit. They've rezoned and rezoned.
They've dealt with Caltrans air airspace. They've done everything they need. They've gone out and gotten, in many cases, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, eighty five, 90% of the funding to complete their projects, and all they need us to do is get this across the line. And so SB four seventeen replaced a $10,000,000,000 affordable housing bond act of on the November ballot asking voters to make that critical investment to get the job done. The bond directs the bulk of the funding to proven programs in California.
It's not a Christmas tree of new initiative, but instead, puts the most of the funding in the multifamily housing program, the portfolio reinvestment program, California's most effective affordable housing programs. And it does that because we're not looking to do experiments in this legislation. Instead, the bond would help to fund and bring make real more than 40,000 shovel ready units across the state of California that are already in the pipeline ready to go just waiting for us to refill the bond pot that we have done so many times in California before. Every California dollar that that we invest is matched by $4 in federal tax credits, local grants, rent, leverage that the state loses if we fail to act. You know this better than anyone.
This committee in this this house passed thirteen months ago. The assembly version of bond act and the the author of that legislation, Assembly Member of Wickson, we are closely cooperating and collaborating on this issue. Finally, the senate's here to match to meet you up. And so we're continuing to engage stakeholders and the leadership of both houses and the governor's office to finalize the allocations, and and you'll hear about some of those issues today. But I want to assure you that that those are not finished and that that we're inviting and urging folks to as as we invite urging folks to very quickly get to us their priorities as well and and ask for an I vote.
I'd like to introduce our witnesses today. First is Shioni Flego from the executive director of Housing California, then Anne Silverberg, the president and CEO of Related California Affordable Housing, and would ask for an I vote.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Before we continue, we're gonna pause here to establish quorum and then we will allow the CEO.
Speaker 30
Avila here. Farias here. Colosa? Here. Colosa here.
Garcia. Calra? Here. Calra here. Lee?
Speaker 30
Cork Silva here. Ta? Tanki Pa? Yeah. Tanki Pa here.
Wiggs? Wiggs here. Wilson? We have a quorum.
Speaker 7
Great. Perfect. We have quorum, and we will continue. Two minutes each, please.
Speaker 37
Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Shioni Pliegel. I'm the executive director of Housing California. We are a statewide organization leading efforts to create affordable homes and solve homelessness.
I'm also speaking today on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, a partner we work closely with to advocate for the production and preservation of affordable homes. Housing California and CHC are both in strong support of s b four one seven. As senator Cabaldin points out, we've made important progress in recent years toward addressing the shortage of affordable housing in our state, provide proving that when investments are made to get and keep Californians housed, we actually make great strides. But we're at a turning point. Millions of Californians are still struggling every day to find and keep an affordable place to live, and the need is growing faster than our ability to respond.
This means that families, essential workers, seniors, veterans, and people across our state are still stuck on wait lists, priced out, or living one crisis away from their homes. I think you all understand this problem probably more than anyone else in this legislature. While our affordable housing pipeline has gained incredible momentum, it is at risk of stalling. Funds from the last statewide housing bond ran out last year. This year's budget includes no new dollars for the state's most effective housing and homelessness programs.
Speaker 23
We're facing a funding cliff that will significantly delay or derail projects that are ready to go forward. Currently, there are over 40,000 shovel ready units in the pipeline waiting to get built. For many of these projects, what's the only thing that's standing in the way isn't planning or political will. It's a lack of resources to get the job done. SB four one seven will help us do that by putting a $10,000,000,000 bond before voters and providing the stable long term funding needed to keep the affordable housing pipeline moving.
Speaker 37
These resources will fill an immediate need supporting of more than 35,000 affordable homes in communities across California while providing essential funding for preserving and rehabilitating tens of thousands of existing affordable homes that we've already invested in. Voters have consistently shown that they're willing to support investments that target major challenges facing our state. Now is the time to give them a chance to support building more of the affordable housing Californians both need and deserve. I respectfully urge your I vote.
Speaker 17
Thank you to the senator, and, thank you to all of you, members and staff of the Assembly Housing Community Development, Committee. My name is Anne Silverberg, and I'm the president and CEO of Related California Affordable. Related develops affordable housing all across the state in the North and the South and the urban coastal locations as well as the suburbs, central state as well as rural locations as well. And in our history, we've developed over 20,000 homes for Californians. I wanna start by saying thank you again to the senator for his leadership on s b four seventeen, and thank you to all of you for your leadership on housing and hopefully for your consideration for your support for s p four seventeen.
Speaker 38
S p four seventeen is absolutely critical for the future of California. It provides for the continued production and preservation of affordable housing that's so desperately needed all across the regions of the state. There are affordable housing units, of course, in the Bay Area and LA, but also in the Central Valley and rural locations that are in need of funding in order to move forward. S v four seventeen will create an environment that will allow these units to be delivered to Californians. As an example, we've been working on a phased development in a rural area near Tahoe in El Dorado County.
This development provides vital housing opportunities for families who have been suffering from the housing crisis. Previous phases of this development were supported and made possible by state level funding that doesn't exist anymore. SB 417 would directly benefit this housing and help us provide these housing units to the families that need it. Another similarly situated development in Rancho Cordova, very close to here in Sacramento County, would provide 60 units of affordable housing in this very fast growing city. Again, the need for additional funding is is what is holding up the project and not allowing it to move forward.
With the funding, this project could move forward. SB 417 would directly benefit this housing as well. The impact of the state housing bond will be felt statewide in cities, in towns, in suburbs, in rural areas. Each of these areas is directly experiencing the consequences of the affordability crisis, and each would benefit from this statewide response. SB four seventeen is needed to address the housing affordability crisis for Californians across the state.
Thank you.
Speaker 7
Great. Thank you. Are there others in support of this measure? Name and affiliation only, please. Thank you.
Speaker 17
I will give you the position. Yes. Steven Senzer with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the Chamber of Progress in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good morning, chairman members. Chris Lee on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as well as the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors in support.
Speaker 40
Chair and members, Duncan McFetcher on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in support.
Speaker 15
Ali Zaperman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support.
Speaker 8
Morning. Moira Top on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria in support. Good morning. Anya Lalla on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the Public Interest Law Project, Self Help Enterprises, and People's Self Help Housing all in support.
Speaker 24
Good morning. Vanessa Flores on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in strong support.
Speaker 20
Natalie Spivak with Housing California expressing strong support on behalf of several organizations, Homes and Hope, Urban Habitat, PATH, the Housing Leadership Coalition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Tenants Together, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Disability Rights California, APN Action, AAPI Force, Midpen Housing, and the ACLU California Action. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Good morning. Isha Ayur on behalf of the city of Redwood City and the city of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Amy Brown on behalf of the cities of Riverside and West Sacramento in support.
Speaker 47
Good morning, Sylvia. Solees Shah here on behalf of the cities of Santa Monica, Goleta, Beverly Hills, also on behalf of the San Francisco Board Of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, and Burbank Housing. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Nicole Wertleman on behalf of Orange County and the City Of Santa Cruz, support if amended to include local housing trust fund dollars.
Speaker 24
Good morning, chair and members. Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership in strong support.
Speaker 45
Good morning, chair and members. Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of California Cities as well as the American Planning Association California Chapter in support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good morning, and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power City Action in support. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Good morning, chair and members. Kajar Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, otherwise known as La Casa, Spurs, San Diego Housing Commission, and Circulate Planning and Policy in strong support.
Speaker 54
Good morning, chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Good morning, chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.
Speaker 6
Good morning. Paul Schafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Good morning. Eddie Ocampo on behalf of Self Help Enterprises in support.
Speaker 48
Hello. Miguel Arambula with the San Joaquin Valley Housing Collaborative in strong support.
Speaker 49
Mister chair members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation, in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good morning. Megan Varvey with Kaiser Advocacy here for the California Community Land Trust Network in support.
Speaker 38
Good morning. Jason Murphy on behalf of the University of California. We have support from the physician. Thank you so much.
Speaker 29
Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of House California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies in support.
Speaker 24
Good morning, Graciela Castillo Cranes, on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, All Home, Enterprise Community Partners, and Rock USA in support. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Good morning, Andres Ramos on behalf of Public Advocates, Tenants Together, and Housing Now in strong support. Thank you. You.
Speaker 16
JT Herchmack, nonprofit housing association in Northern California in support.
Speaker 32
Carrie West with Townsend on behalf of the cities of Berkeley, Brea, Fremont, La Habra, Monterey Park, Palo Alto, Santa Barbara, Orange County Housing Finance Trust in San Gabriel Valley, Cock in support. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Good morning. David Krieger on behalf of United Wholesale Mortgage in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all. Hi, senator. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition or anyone here in opposition? We do.
Alright. Come on up. Two minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Jarhaney and members of the committee. I'm Holden Weissman from Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco serving San Mateo, Marin, and San Francisco Counties. I'm here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California and more than and our more than 30 affiliates across the state in opposition of s b four seventeen. Unless it is amended to explicitly allocate 10% of bond proceeds to the Cal Home program, California's only funding program dedicated to increasing the supply of affordable homeownership opportunities through production and preservation. I fully appreciate, senator Cabaldo and your comments about, continuing negotiations on this, about allocations, and, well, we heard that yesterday from assembly member Wiggs as well.
Speaker 51
So I just wanna acknowledge that we really do appreciate that that's going forward. But, 10% for Cal Home, it's not not a random number to us. It is an allocation of bond funds that is completely consistent with past funding levels for Cal Home that we've received in previous housing bond issues. Chair Haney, as an as a habitat for humanity, Greater San Francisco housing hero, we know that you are well aware that the cost of building a a single affordable unit of housing in San Francisco now reaches close to $1,000,000. Cal Home is a critical part of the complicated funding puzzle that we have to piece together.
This includes Cal Home Mortgage Assistance that helps us keep mortgages low enough to ensure that our homeowners never pay more than 30% of their incomes to housing costs. The support that we receive from Cal Home is key to unlocking additional private funding that helps us complete this very, very tricky funding stack. Unfortunately for us, many of our plans may be put on hold. Cal Home is now completely out of money with no guarantee that it may be restarting the budget, though, mister chair, we do appreciate your efforts in the assembly to do so. But this level of uncertainty about whether or not we can make funding work is truly a killer to our affordable home projects.
We need certainty about whether and how much CalHome funding will exist each year and not have to worry about how much is going at CalHome or how much will go to down payment assistance or how much will go to other, homeownership programs. The very simple amendment that we ask for is a guaranteed 10% of funds for Cal Home. This this will not only gain our very
Speaker 51
Yep. Our very strong support for the bill. It'll ensure the increasing supply of new affordable homes for ownership in California, and we ask, please, again, amend s p four seventeen to explicitly include 10% for Cal Home.
Speaker 67
Apologies. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Nicole Curran on behalf of the office of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass. Here to support the bill if amended. As been as has been communicated with both authors of the housing bond bills, mayor Bass appreciates their leadership in this area and respectfully request an allocation for interim housing, specifically for the acquisition of properties, including motels, hotels, and existing vacant buildings to provide shelter for people experiencing homelessness.
Speaker 52
Similar to the state's incredibly successful project room key, while mayor Bass, of course, supports investments in affordable housing, this investment would help cities like Los Angeles address an urgent need to get unhoused Californians off of the streets. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. I see no one else in opposition. We can bring it back up to the dais, and I see miss Wicks and miss Quirksova and then oh, miss Quirksova. Go ahead.
Speaker 11
Thank you. We appreciate this effort. It's a major investment in getting people housed in California, which I think so many of us are working towards. My looking at the list, and I know there's still a lot of negotiations that will be going on. The one marker I wanna put down that it's not in this is when we look at student housing, which I fully support campus student housing, it's community college, UCs, or CSUs, I really think the marker there has to be affordable student student housing.
If we're going to use bond money to build student housing, it should be affordable. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Thank you, miss thank you, mister chair. And I wanna thank senator Kabalden for bringing this, I think, virtually identical bill forward, from the senate, which I think also indicates the, the priority from the senate. And and your pro tem has done great work moving this quickly through, so much appreciation to her. I think I introduced this bill first when I was housing chair four years ago. We would try to get on the ballot in 2024.
We were forced to take a back seat, but no more. But I am excited to I'd like to make a motion to move this bill forward. We've done so much in this committee and in this house and the senate to try to streamline housing, cut through red tape, sequel reforms, ADU law, all the things. And we have to have public investment for for our lowest income folks who cannot cannot afford current market rate. That's a critical piece of this.
So happy to move it. I'm a principal coauthor. Wanna get this thing through, get it off the floor, get it, to the ballot. Eager to get, the governor's support as well, and everyone else lined up to support this. So thank you for your work, senator Rucker Baldwin.
Thank you.
Speaker 53
Thank you, mister chair. I really appreciate the author for also doing the companion the companion bond in the senate version as well. You know, not to add to the long laundry list people asking for things for Christmas, but I do think, especially given our fiscal constraints and everything, even though I think the bond should have been in much earlier in 2024, I think it is important to consider, allocating money for social housing so that state and local municipalities can construct their own affordable housing. And secondly, also considering the dire financial straits we're in is to create a more revolving loan fund kinda system in it too rather than a grant based system so that we have a long term longevity of the funds. So I trust the author.
You're gonna have a lot of negotiations. You're gonna keep pushing this thing through, but that's my 2¢. Just consider social housing and long term revolving loan funds so that we can recoup the money and continue to disperse money on a long term basis. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Vice chair Patterson. Thank you. I wanted to comment, add on what miss Quirk Silva said. I think if the state's gonna be investing in money at a community college or a CSU or basically anywhere, those should count towards the local municipalities' arena numbers, basically. And right now, for some underground regulation, HCD is interpreting that not to be the case.
And I think that policy ought to change. This could be a good avenue to do such a thing. Because why would we invest so much state money to help our communities, you know, if that's if that's not gonna happen? But one other comment I wanna make, which I don't expect agreement on, is my concern so I I just supported assembly member Wick's bill. I am not saying I'm not going to support this one.
Still, we'll decide when it when the roll call happens, but my concern is is an excuse for the governor to continue to cut how general fund money to housing, which he has consistently done almost every year. Now, fortunately, the budget committees and the legislature have restored a lot of that funding, and the cuts in the proposed budget were not quite as severe as he's done the previous two years. But having sat on that budget committee, that's one year and then just the general budget committee. It's I don't want this to be an excuse for the governor to cut really what I think is a general obligation to to fund housing projects. And I I I kind of expect that's what he's gonna do if the bond passes, frankly.
But but because I believe we do need public investments in housing to continue. So that's why I'm still considering supporting the bond today. So thank you.
Speaker 1
Probably have about sixty seconds to decide. So Not seeing any other members of the committee.
Speaker 13
And and this hearing has has spotlighted some of the some of the issues that still need to be taken into account. Obviously, what we need a $100,000,000,000 in this program right now. And you've heard some of the reasons why. And we California's debt capacity doesn't provide doesn't allow us to do a $100,000,000,000 bond, so we will need to make some choices in the 10. But whether it's student housing or home or dream for all, youth housing, social housing, that these are these are exactly the issues that that need to get reconciled.
The North Star for me, I will say, is we need we we need to get these 40,000 units built. We need to be able to deliver for California the units that we have already invested in. Virtually none of the affordable housing projects in a MHP, for example, get a 100% of their funding from the bond, and it's like, hey. Go. They have they we through our processes and just the nature of the finance markets, they've already gone and gotten 17 other funding sources.
And the challenge is, unlike some infrastructure projects, we can't say, well, if we didn't do it this year, maybe we should do it. Hey. Look. What about next bond cycle or what have you? Is that these projects collapse?
The whole financing structure depends on funding sources three through seven require that you have to encumber the funds by the end of this year, and there's no funds. And so it's not just a question of timing. It's whether or not the entire pipeline itself collapses. So that's got to be our our top priority. That said, there are really critical investments in the in in the variety of programs that are essential and that are also proven and that Californians understand are gonna help to meet the needs.
So this is this is really attuned to the business case and the leverage case for those projects to make them happen. I 100 agree with the vice chair on on on the issue I serve on the budget subcommittee in the senate that is where we've been battling with the governor on the same exact issue. Because the reason why we're seeing so much pent up demand here is that we're not making the appropriate annual investments. It's not a one time problem. And and and so we need to be continued to make those annual investments and and make that a a top priority in the budget as we have been doing.
And so so I'm I'm I'm with you, and I know that we are in the senate. I know the assembly has been as well. We have to create a reliable source of funding because, again, it's not just the money. It's also knowing if I start a project in Rockland tomorrow and I'm an affordable housing developer, will will any of these programs have money in them by the time I've gone through permitting and zoning and gotten this first seven funding sources so that I can there's a chance. And right now, the message that we've been sending at the state level is take your chances.
Good luck to you. And this the the combination of the bond and appropriately funding housing in the budget are essential to make sure that projects that have met all the tests and that are red that are ready to go and build and to house Californians that need need shelter, need need to survive, that this bond is an essential step forward. So thank you so much for your as the the assembly has led on this, as assembly member Wickes reminded us in committee yesterday, you did this more than a year ago. I'm glad that we're here to catch up and thanks to our to our leadership as well. But this is absolutely essential.
Appreciate also the governor's conceptual support. And with that, I would ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, senator, and thank you for your your leadership into the to the coalition that's behind it. I hope that we have a huge, huge level of support both to get this on the ballot and to get it across the finish line. And I it it does feel like there is a lot of unity on this both within the senate and the assembly as a priority for a bond for this year's ballot. I know then, you know, with last cycle, there was a conversation about it and there were the folks who were pushing really hard for that. But we we desperately need this.
There's no way for us to meet our goals, as you said, and to meet the needs of Californians most most importantly. We hear again and again that this is the the top issue connected to cost of living concerns. And as much as we do to make it easier to build housing, quicker to build housing, we have to make these public investments, and this is a way to do it in addition to the funding that needs to be in the budget. So I we established form while I was out. Alright.
So we had a motion and a second, and we can take a roll call vote.
Speaker 30
Perfect. Motion to pass to the assembly committee in appropriations. Haney?
Speaker 30
Harrison, aye. Abilafarious? Aye. Abilafarious, aye. Peloza?
Peloza, aye. Garcia? Calra? Aye. Calra, aye.
Lee?
Speaker 1
Is that a Patterson I, I heard? You got him with a close, I think. Yes. Powerful. Alright.
80. Keep it open for absent members. Thank you so much, senator. Thank you, mister. Alright.
Mister Zabur. Item number 3AB1740.
Speaker 56
Good morning, mister chair, members. I'm proud today to present a b seventeen forty sponsored by the city of Santa Monica, Streets for All, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles. Before I get into what this bill does, I'd like to elaborate on why this bill is so critically important. Since the passage of the Coastal Act in 1976, the Coastal Commission has done paramount work to advance twin objectives, safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring equitable public access to the coast. Yet in the fifty years since the Coastal Act was passed, much has changed in California.
While public access was once defined by roads and parking lots, today, cars are a part of an equation in some of our denser urban coastal areas, an equation that now includes trains, buses, bike lanes, and walkable streets. Yet in these cities, the commission can often be seen as treating built out urban areas as if they were undeveloped coastline. In places like Downtown Santa Monica, which I represent, routine actions such as changing the use of a building or constructing already approved housing often requires Coastal Commission approval, which goes on months and years. If these activities were taking place in a sensitive ecosystem, they might pose a real environmental threat. But in a built out city, they have no impact on coastal resources or public access.
However, the lengthy delays caused by the coastal commission review process do have a real impact on the city, on the residents, on the businesses who wait months and even years for approvals, and on visitors who can't access public access and public recreation in these areas. I can provide any number of real world examples of this happening, including in the city of Santa Monica, a city that is renowned for its commitment to sustainability. A b seventeen forty offers a solution to this problem. It establishes a narrow designation of urban multimodal communities, which are cities or specific areas within cities that have high quality transit, bike infrastructure, and climate targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Once certified, control over a limited but important set of activities return to the city.
These include managing certain parking requirements not near the coast, adding bike or bus lanes, updating existing buildings or changing their use, constructing housing already allowed under state or local law, permitting and managing temporary events, and approving outdoor dining. Crucially, this bill returned some local control to a city, specifically the city of Santa Monica in this case due to amendments that were taken in the natural resources committee that meets the intent behind the coastal act. And in that spirit, this is an opt in designation. The city will choose whether it will wishes to be certified, and nothing in the bill compels the city to build or permit anything. This bill now only applies to Santa Monica, an urban built out city with robust public transit and will preserve the California Coastal Commission's authority and ability to protect beaches and coastal resources from activities that threaten sensitive habitats, including in Santa Monica to the extent there are any.
This bill would only apply to areas without protected coastal resources such as wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or coastal bluffs. By returning control over a limited but important set of permitting activities to local government, this bill will alleviate an unnecessary regulatory burden, improve local flexibility, and reduce costs and uncertainty for government, individuals, and businesses in Santa Monica, and importantly, allow people that want to visit the coast to access the kinds of public recreation and activities that they deserve to find in these urban built out areas. It also advances a key goal of the Coastal Act, which is basically to concentrate development in already built out areas. If we want more housing in the coastal zone and and when we're building more housing we've had this debate about the coastal commission's impact on housing. If we are going to build housing in the coastal zone, it should be in these built out coastal areas that don't threaten habitat.
And that's why this bill is so important. I had hoped to include additional cities within this bill, and as you can see from the previous as you can see from the previous versions of the bill. However, the bill was limited to the city of Santa Monica and the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. But I want to say that the architecture of the program and the standards for for the multimodal communities remains in the bill to allow other cities through subsequent legislation to come in and take advantage of this program. So while there are there are clearly are other cities that want to benefit from a bill like this, I think that Santa Monica is an excellent starting point and provides an opportunity to show that this kind of common sense modernization of the coastal act can both deliver on our affordability and housing agendas while maintaining extremely strong environmental protections.
I will also be accepting the recommended committee amendment, which clarifies the that project sites identified for multi unit housing in the housing element, not just the land use element, are eligible. And with that, I ask for a vote at the appropriate time. With me today, as bill sponsors, I'd like to introduce, council member Dan Hall, council member from the City Of Santa Monica, and Scott Epstein, director of policy and research for abundant housing in Los Angeles.
Speaker 57
Good morning, Chair Haney and members. My name is Dan Hall, council member for Santa Monica here in strong support for a b seventeen forty. The city of Santa Monica is proud to cosponsor this bill. Let me start with this. Our community deeply values the California Coastal Act and the mission of the Coastal Commission.
Protecting our coastline, the environment, and ensuring public access are core to who we are. For decades, we've invested in clean water and runoff collection infrastructure, dune restoration, and public transit and multimodal access to our beaches. This bill now only applies to Santa Monica and only to a limited set of low impact activities that do not restrict access. Here's why that matters. At city hall, we hear the same thing time and time again.
Applicants are ready to move forward until they encounter the additional layer of coastal commission review that can be unpredictable in timing, cost, and outcome. At that point, projects stall or they don't happen at all. That uncertainty affects housing production, adaptive reuse, and businesses trying to open and expand. We're seeing this uncertainty impact housing projects near our downtown metro station where builders face feasibility concerns. It's reflected in the vacancies on the 3rd Street Promenade that remain an existential threat to our local economy, where businesses have told me they can't afford to wait on coastal approvals for interior renovations.
Speaker 49
AB seventeen forty helps fix that. By allowing local approval of limited low impact projects, it supports urban infill housing near transit, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and advances our climate goals while making it easier to activate vacant storefronts and support businesses. Members, this bill is about aligning coastal protection with our state's housing, climate action, and our local economic recovery. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 58
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Scott Epstein, and I'm the director of policy and research with Abundant Housing LA. We are a nonprofit advocacy organization fighting for more homes across LA County and California and our proud cosponsors of AB seventeen forty. The California Coastal Act is a landmark bill that has helped protect sensitive environmental areas along our beautiful coast and ensure pedestrian access to our shoreline for all, not just the well-to-do. It is also the case that the coastal commission has acted as a major obstacle to key investments in urbanized areas in the coastal zone, such as safe streets redesigns and zoning compliant housing.
California's coastal cities are some of the most exclusionary areas in our state, and one of the best ways to increase access to the coast is to expedite multifamily housing in coastal communities. The impact of the coastal commission on housing production is real and dramatic. Housing along the coast is regularly delayed, downsized, and often not proposed at all as a result of outdated regulations and lengthy burdensome processes. The result is that teachers, nurses, hotel workers, and more who serve coastal communities in California typically cannot afford to live in those very same communities. AB seventeen forty would address these inequities by transferring permitting authority from the coastal commission to the local jurisdiction level for a discrete set of environmentally beneficial project types, including zoning compliant housing.
As currently drafted, a b seventeen forty only applies to the city of Santa Monica, but the bill was initially drafted as an opt in program that would have allowed a coastal city to be certified as an urban multi mobility community. If the city has adopted climate plans and offers sustainable transportation options. That framework was a win for both sustainability and housing as it reduced uncertainty around housing approvals and incentivized sustainability policies and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the assembly natural resources committee required the amendment to scale, the bill down to just Santa Monica despite the fact that elected officials in cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, and more support the previous incarnation of the bill. We are committed to expanding the geographic reach of this pivotal reform now and in the future.
I would like to thank assembly member Zabur for his leadership on this important bill. I urge an I vote, and ask for your support, on efforts to expand the reform to other interested jurisdictions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. The folks who are here in support of this bill. Good afternoon, chair and members.
Speaker 7
Mark Luksovich on behalf of Streets For All. We're one of the sponsors of the bill. Really appreciate the author and the chair. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Good morning, chair and members. Brady Gurdon. On behalf of the League of California cities, we were in support. We have to suddenly move to neutral, given that it's a narrow application and won't apply statewide to our coastal cities, but hope that more cities will qualify in the future. Look forward to those conversations.
Thank you.
Speaker 59
Good morning, chair and members. Esau Flores on behalf of the California Restaurant Association in support.
Speaker 40
Good morning, Shaka Bacon on behalf of the California Downtown Association in support.
Speaker 6
Good morning. Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Ali Zagerman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support with one caveat, we'd love to see the bill expanded.
Speaker 26
Holly Fermini De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate Planning and Policy, San Diego Housing Commission in Spur, all in support.
Speaker 12
Bob Nehlen for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundson junior, a coastal protection advocate in support.
Speaker 17
Steven Stedzer with the Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.
Speaker 47
Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Good afternoon and happy Earth Day. I'm Natalie Brown of Earth Advocacy testifying on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, Azul, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin in opposition to a b seventeen forty unless amended. Our groups support expanding coastal access, affordable housing, and keeping our beaches reachable for all Californians regardless of income or where in the state they live and have supported legislation to do so. That's not what this bill delivers. Instead, it gives the city of Santa Monica a long list of exemptions for a wide range of unrelated development types, including multiunit luxury housing developments with no affordable component, commercial mixed use housing developments, transportation projects, major building expansions of up to 50%, and increases in public parking rates, removal of public lot spaces, and the creation of exclusionary resident only parking areas that threatened to significantly reduce public access, not expand it.
Speaker 55
Clearly, this is not a minor bill with no impacts. It's a major carve out of a city from the coastal act, which is the first ever since the city since the act was passed by the legislature in 1976. Worse, these exemptions would continue for a full decade, silence the public, and remove the right to appeal no matter how harmful the project or its consequences would be. The coastal act provides a correct path, very importantly, the local coastal program. Santa Monica can legally assume permitting authority by certifying an LCP, yet it has never done so despite fifty years and $375,000 in coastal commission grant funding to do so.
Speaker 32
Santa Monica's existing record is a cautionary tale, proving a luxury hotel for wealthy developer without any low cost overnight accommodations, allowing illegal demolition of affordable motels, raising beach parking rates. All these actions erode the public and your constituents right to access the coast affordably. Santa Monica should certify its LCP as the vast majority of coastal jurisdictions have already done. We urge this committee to keep the coastal act intact and oppose a b seventeen forty unless amended to remove this broad coastal act exemptions it contains and perfect protect Californians' treasured beach access. Thank you so much.
Good
Speaker 16
morning, mister chair and members. I'm Sean Drake, legislative manager for the California Coastal Commission. Last week, the commission voted unanimously to oppose a b seventeen forty unless it is amended to remove the proposed coastal act exemptions. As has been mentioned, a b seventeen forty would exempt a broad universe of projects from the coastal act, including mixed use projects, housing, building expansions, long term events, bike lanes, elimination of public parking, film productions, and more for the city of Santa Monica. The Coastal Act already contains tools for accelerating these types of projects.
Speaker 61
These include permit waivers, categorical exclusions, expedited approvals, and more. These tools are available to the 64 coastal cities and counties that have complied with the statutory mandate to have a local coastal program. Unfortunately, the city of Santa Monica hasn't done that despite receiving nearly $400,000 in grants from the commission to do so. The author and the sponsors have pinned Santa Monica's lack of an LCP on the commission's supposed positions on housing and transportation. If that were true, the commission wouldn't be working collaboratively with dozens of other coastal cities and counties to regularly update their LCPs to promote infill housing and multimodal transit.
Candidly, the main sticking point in Santa Monica is luxury hotels, and specifically the city's general unwillingness to provide low cost overnight options as required by the Coastal Act. Because of the city's objection to this core Coastal Act policy, which is critical for keeping the coast affordable for visitors, Santa Monica remains one of just 12 cities that don't have coastal permitting authority. As a result, the commission is still issuing all coastal development permits in Santa Monica's coastal zone. We would welcome amendments that would actually get the city to a completed LCP so it can take the reins for permitting in its coastal zone. While we understand that coastal planning takes work, we invite Santa Monica to rejoin us at the table to do that work and promote a coast where everyone is welcome, and we remain ready to coordinate with the author's office on a bill to help make that happen.
Until then, the commission is respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 50
Hi. Good morning. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon, California in opposition. Also here to voice opposition for the following organizations, Gilda Bay Environmental Defense Center, Green Foothills, Orange County Coastkeeper, Endangered Habitats League, Ocean Defenders Alliance, Humboldt Waterkeeper, three fifty Bay Area Action, Clean Earth for Kids, California Coast Keepers Alliance, Save Our Shores, and lastly, 25 individual members of the Los Angeles chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. Thank you so much.
Speaker 42
Good morning, chair and members. Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in opposition.
Speaker 41
Sorry. Remind me again your name. Council member. Dan Hall. Dan Hall.
Sorry. Thank you for your testimony. You talked about projects seeking the permits from the coastal commission and then it taking a while. And then at by the time they finally happen, through the delays, the projects are no longer feasible. What's the sense of yours on, like, the how long that additional delay takes?
And I mean, you might not have data, but at least anecdotal, what's your sense?
Speaker 57
We've seen everything from six months to eighteen months to multiple years for for affordable a 100% deed restricted affordable housing projects.
Speaker 41
Yep. And the scope of this bill is Santa Monica with a lot of parameters around has to be zoned accordingly and all the other kind of local restrictions that are required for the housing to be permitted. Correct?
Speaker 57
Yeah. And we require a 15% affordability requirement for projects in our city.
Speaker 41
Yeah. I mean, to me, this bill just seems like common sense. We wanna be able to we have to be able to build somewhere in our coastal zones. You're talking about infill projects that have these requirements around them. Removing these delays is exactly what we should be doing as a state.
I'm I believe I'm a coauthor. If not, I'd like to be added, and I'd be happy to move the bill. And I appreciate the author working on this, working with your local community to try to resolve issue that we know is real and happy to move the bill.
Speaker 4
If the bill hasn't been seconded, I will second it. But I'm gonna repeat something I said a couple years ago, and this isn't personal, but this is just my perspective. I find it absolutely apparent that regulatory agency which is tasked with interpreting the laws of the people of California not making policy comes into committee to oppose the leg a legislator's piece of legislation to set policy, which is within its not only its right, but its actual function as a government to tell the regulators what to do. And I understand you have constitutional protections that the people have given you, that the legislature wanted to see happen. But, you know, you mentioned in your statement your your deep concern for keeping the coast affordable for visitors.
Speaker 7
Well, the Coastal Commission has done nothing to actually keep the coast affordable for people who wanna live there. And all the people who work in those hotels that you're talking about are people who likely live in, like, Riverside County and they're driving to the coast. And, you know, I mean, this legislature passes policies. We say, hey. We want ADUs.
The coastal commission rejects ADUs. I just you know, it's about time that the legislature rein in the coastal commission. I mean, maybe just gut its budget, you know, do something crazy because it acts independently and it actually sends people to the legislature to oppose policy. It's our job to create policy. Your job or not your job, the coastal commission appointee job to implement the desire of the people of California in the legislature.
We are the policymakers, not the Coastal Commission. So I'll continue to say it every single time the Coastal Commission feels the need to send somebody here to testify on a piece of legislation. So I look forward to supporting this measure today.
Speaker 26
So first of all, I mean, this bill has been characterized as sort of a broad set of exemptions in the coastal zones. Even before this was limited to the city of Santa Monica, it applied to a about a dozen portions of a dozen jurisdictions and to a very limited number of things, including housing, outdoor dining, temporary events, bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, all things that actually allow people from the state of California to enjoy and live in the coastal zone. I think that's consistent with coastal act policy. It's not inconsistent. We have done everything we can in we we worked with the former chief counsel of the Coastal Commission to basically refine the bill and make sure that we weren't doing anything that allowed any kind of impact on sensitive coastal resources.
Speaker 56
We also refined the bill significantly. Many, many amendments that basically protected public beach parking and parking along the beach and be for beach access. So the assertion that we are allowing beach parking lots to be taken out is just absolutely false. If you look at the amendments, that doesn't allow that. The assertion that this is a broad that this applies to mixed use developments is also not accurate.
And then I just wanna say something about just sort of the underlying assertions about the city of Santa Monica and the LCP. I asked the city of Santa Monica to give me a history of what happened with the certification of their LCP. The last LCP that they submitted in full was in 2020, and the coastal commission asked them to withdraw it because they didn't have the resources to comply with the time deadlines to process it. Then when they came back, they asked them to completely redo the LCP on a resubmission, which required them to start up the whole process again. This has been going on for many years.
This is not the fault of the city of Santa Monica. It's a it's the it is the it is part of a very long process where there are some legitimate policy debates between the city of Santa Monica. But what I will say is that the whole vision of the coastal act was that LCPs were supposed to be things that were the vision of the city. They were supposed to be coming from the city, and the coastal commission was supposed to be assuring compliance with those policies. So I just, you know, just wanna take a little bit of umbrage about sort of the vilification of Santa Monica for not having an LCP.
That is not the fault of the city of Santa Monica. And and then the the last thing I'm gonna say is this bill isn't about Santa Monica. This bill is about issues that we have across these kinds of areas in many jurisdictions in the state of California, some that have LCPs approved, some that don't. And it's really about the the fact that, that it is really difficult in these areas to have things that allow people to live and enjoy the coast getting approved where we don't have habitat that we have to protect. This is all about public access.
And when we, when cities like Santa Monica and Los Angeles and San Diego and others, have invested in transit, we should be supporting the transit. The fact that we can't actually build bike lanes in Santa Monica without having a parking lot added to actually, you know, to support, I guess, the bike lane because the the bike access is not viewed as public access to the coast. It's just something that just indicates that that the coastal commission policies are advancing really sort of non, you know, antiquated policies in terms of what constitutes public access. With that said, I do think that one of the things that the coastal advocates raised about how this bill how this bill would have initially potentially impacted the ability to access the beach for people who drive to the beach and are gonna continue driving to the beach and aren't gonna take public access. We've taken many amendments.
That's what we worked primarily with the former chief counsel of the Coastal Commission. And we basically really tightened up the requirements so that you can't take out beach parking lots so that we're protecting parking at the beach. So we're protecting the ability of someone who is not gonna take transit or bike or pedestrian to be able to drive to the beach and be able to park. We we included caps on even raising parking rates so that parking rates can't be raised more than than CPI. So I think we've done a good faith effort to really try to address, I think, the legitimate public access issues that were raised, and I do think that there were some legitimate issues that were raised with the first version of the bill.
So with that, I just wanna thank the bill sponsors here today. I wanna thank the opposition. We will continue working with them as the bill moves through this through the process. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, mister Zabur, and thank you for your your hard work on this together with your your your sponsors. And and as as know, I'm supportive of the bill. I you know, for for our state, the need to invest in and support the growth of urbanized housing dense transit rich environments is critical. It's critical for what this committee does, which is working to meet the housing needs of our state, but it's critical also for our climate goals. It's critical for our economic opportunities, and some of that is going to happen to have have to happen along the coast.
Represent, in some ways, a similar community in some areas, and our need to be able to do that in a in a way that reflects the need to grow. They need to go in a thoughtful way, but they need to invest in transit. They need to invest in bike lanes, to invest in housing, to allow for these kind of opportunities, is so critical. And I appreciate the the thought and the care that you're putting into this to make sure we can do that while also recognizing the concerns, as you said, the valid concerns that have been raised by some of the opposition. And this is something that I know is meeting the needs of of of a community you represent and also aspects of it, I think, you know, could meet the needs of other parts of our state as well.
And so with that, we have a motion and a second. We'll take a roll call vote.
Speaker 30
Motion to pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations. Haney?
Speaker 30
Haney, aye. Harrison? Aye. Harrison, aye. Abilafarious?
Calosa? Aye. Carlos, aye. Garcia? Cholera?
Aye. Carla, aye. Lee? Lee, aye. Porksilva?
Aye. Porksilva, aye. Thank you, Pa, Wiggs, Wilson. 60.
Speaker 1
We'll leave that open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Hara Obedian.
Agenda item number nine, a b twenty ninety four.
Speaker 40
Thank you, mister chair. And thank you for your work on 2094, the bill in front of you, noting that there are two other authors behind me. This one is not very controversial. This bill would establish a social housing coordinator within HCD. Housing coordinator would come up with a plan and a timeline for actually building social housing.
Speaker 39
This is a small bill in many ways and shouldn't be very controversial, but I think it's important for all the reasons laid out in the analysis. And I do appreciate the committee's work. This bill looks very different than it looked when it came to you, and I think it is an important step. There will be a study that's published at the end of this year on social housing. This will be the the next step.
Speaker 40
We'll have a quarterback to act actually implement it here in the state. Wanna give a shout out to ascended member Lee, has been a champion of social housing long before I have. Here with me is Scott Epstein with Abundant Housing LA. Again, I know time is of the essence. I'd ask Scott to probably get to the punch line, maybe in a bridge version of whatever he was going to say, and then we're happy to answer any questions.
So thank you.
Speaker 58
Yeah. Fantastic. Hello again. Scott Epstein with Abundant Housing LA. Proud to support AB twenty ninety four.
Speaker 40
You know, everyone in this room knows that we're in a huge housing crisis, and a crisis of this magnitude requires a range of solutions, and social housing is an important piece of that puzzle. I would say Abundant Housing LA is particularly interested in mixed income social housing models that create financial stability and widen the political constituency for publicly funded and administered housing. We're also excited about the opportunity to accelerate the use of surplus public land for housing. As the assembly member said, there is a report coming, by the end of the year pursuant to a senator Wahhab's bill. This is a way to move the ball forward by, appointing a social housing coordinator who can create a concrete scaling plan for social housing.
Speaker 28
My name is Isaac Glasser. I'm with Cutting Edge Homes and Cutting Edge Modular in support of the bill.
Speaker 1
Alright. Do we have anyone here in opposition to this bill? Opposition okay. Was that opposition coming up or yes? Hi.
Speaker 23
Thank you, chair. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. We had an opposing list amendment on our prior version of the measure and are still looking at it, still talking to the author. I just I saw some analysis. I wanted to to to mention that.
Thank you.
Speaker 53
I really appreciate you all for bringing this before. I know this is not the initial bill you dreamed of, but I do think it is very important that we continue to advance the model of social housing and catch up with other countries in the world, but also now other states in the world. As many of my colleagues know, I work on a lot of niche cutting edge issues that are not very popular at the time when we start working on them, but I'm very happy to see this bill advancing. And I do think it's complementary to the efforts of the study is should the study come out very favorably, coordinate position or position person inside the administration should use that information to act on in a more concrete way. I I don't know if the, report itself is a much more actionable as is a vision, as a coordinator position, so that's why I think it's very valuable.
And so I really appreciate your work in advancing social housing. I'd love to join you as a joint author on this bill, and I would be happy to move the bill today. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Yeah. I wanna appreciate the author author for bringing this forward, but also, a solemn member, Lee, who, as he just noted, when he initially started speaking about social housing, there there was quite a bit of, I think, individuals that were not sure. And he has done an excellent job of educating and getting not only individuals, but members to understand that this is yet another type of effort that we could make in the state of California. But your bill makes it very intentional by working through HCD to have a focus. And, I think it's going to provide, an opportunity that we haven't looked at seriously once, this moves forward with a report and then an individual that's focusing on this.
So with that, I would move the bill unless he already did.
Speaker 1
Motion is second. Alright. Any other comments? Not seeing any. May close.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Arbidean. Thank you for your leadership on this. And I know mister Lee has been working very hard on this for some time and excited to see other folks step in. This has been a strategy that this committee has been very, very supportive, and I think this is another important step to how we can make sure that we move forward with this opportunity for our state. I know there's some analysis and studies and such that are happening, but we'd like to see the beginning of the framework that will actually allow us to make this happen and appreciate your leadership in moving that forward, and we will take a roll call vote.
Speaker 30
Calra aye. Lee? Aye. Lee aye. Corksilva?
Aye. Corksilva aye. Ka? Cancupa? Wiggs?
Wilson.
Speaker 62
Okay. Okay. I'm done. Okay. Great.
Curious. Okay. Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. I'll be quick because I see a lot of my, colleagues in the back. Today, I'm presenting a b twenty one forty six, and what this bill really is about is making sure that we're getting homeless people housed and cutting all the bureaucratic red tape that really continues to get in the way.
Right now, we are asking, people who are homeless to prove that they are homeless before they get a unit. We are asking them for rental histories, verification letters, and references, documents that many people do not have or have really no safe to keep when they're homeless. And while they try to track down those papers, they have to wait for a unit. This bill allows individuals to self certify that they are homeless instead of forcing them to chase down that paperwork. That really delays their paths to how housing.
Speaker 28
It recognizes that when someone has finally reached the top of the list, the system should be opening doors and not putting more hurdle hurdles in their way. It also addresses an issue that, supportive units, can remain vacant for a long time. I remember being on the board of supervisors with you, chair Haney, and we would hear from our housing providers that we have all these people out on the street, but often these units are sitting vacant because our system's not working in a way that's getting people housed, that absolutely needs to stop. AB twenty one forty six also creates a practical backstop so that if a unit has been vacant for too long, providers can act to fill it while still preserving fairness and protecting the role of the coordinated entry system. At its core, this bill is about removing unnecessary red tape so people can get housed faster.
Speaker 62
No one should have to prove they're homeless in this way that we're asking them to, and no home should be left empty while someone's waiting for a place to live. With me, I have two incredible witnesses, JT Herichmak with the nonprofit housing association in Northern California, and William Goodwin with resources for community development and a member of the resident united network committee at Housing California.
Speaker 63
Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and members of the committee. Excuse me. My name is William Goodwin. My journey through housing insecurity began when I became disabled.
In a matter of months, I was terminated from my job, losing my apartment, and then everything I owned in storage. I did not have the safety net of community and resources I was familiar with, and so my medical condition worsened as I quickly realized you can't heal physically while you are experiencing mental trauma. I took some time to recover, but after seven long years, my daughter and I were fortunate enough to find our affordable union, but there were 2,400 other applicants who also deserved housing, all vying for 72 units of available housing. We are the lucky ones. My number came up in the lottery list, but as we know now, those lists are up upwards of 5,000, 10,000 people waiting, and it was touch and go for me.
Sometimes it's just one thing that could determine whether a person will get housed or not. I recall being in the rental office and the property manager was speaking to someone on the phone asking whether they had this document or that document first and last, able to pass background check, etcetera. Finally, after hanging up the phone, he turned to me and he asked, do you have all your documentation? I felt fortunate to be able to say yes, but what he didn't know was that it had taken upwards of several months for me to get the documents that I needed. First, a birth certificate, then a Social Security card in order to get a license or an ID, and I thought that was good.
But, no, I needed a letter of of a referral, a rental history, and a personal reference. But thank god I was able to obtain all that I needed because my daughter and I, we found our footing. She began to accelerate in school, winning the president's award for academic achievement. I enrolled in East Bay Housing Organization Leadership Academy, and now I am board chair with the resources for community development and affordable housing developer, as well as a member of the Resident United Network steering committee with Housing California. And my daughter Evelyn now is a senior in college, undoubtedly living her best life.
Speaker 20
But here's the thing, no one can live their best life stuck in the coordinated entry system. How many future college graduates and future board members are waiting for housing now? No one should have to prove that they are homeless. The extensive documentation needed to move into housing is already overwhelming, requiring applicants to provide housing rental history, third party verification, and personal references seems like cruel and unusual punishment just for being homeless. And I see this issue from both sides, on the side of a person experiencing housing insecurity, needing so much after enduring so much, so much trauma, And from the side of an affordable housing developer, having vacant units but constrained with the slowdown process of how long it takes for affordable housing developers to fill vacant units.
Speaker 63
The margins are already thin for affordable housing developers. This added burden of extended vacancies created creates an unnecessary strain. This bill will expedite referrals and provide affordable housing developers with a backstop for units vacant for more than six months. It is literally a win win situation. And guess who wins the most?
You. Because this bill actually moves the needle. I urge I strongly urge you to vote yes for assembly bill twenty one forty six. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Thank you so much. Thank you, chair Haney and members. JT Herchbeck, policy director of the nonprofit housing association of Northern California. We're proud to co cosponsor AB twenty one forty six with Housing California. I wanna make three brief points here.
Speaker 5
First, that this bill was conceived in NPH's permanent supportive housing working group informed by property managers and resident services staff from our nonprofit members who operate thousands of PSH units across the state. They told us the same thing over and over again, a small but persistent share of units sits vacant for six months or more, and the tenants at the top of the CESQ, the people with the least ability to provide eviction records or landlord references, get stuck proving what the system already knows about them. Second, every policy in a b twenty one forty six has a precedent. Self certification of homelessness was already accepted in Homekey. Alternative CES referrals exist in statute today after thirty days of no referral.
Speaker 16
This bill simply applies these proven tools to state funded units. Third, we believe that coordinated entry we believe in coordinated entry and its support for our most vulnerable. Under a b twenty one forty six, CES still gets priority for the first hundred and eighty days. Every unit returns to CES at the next vacancy. This is an incremental fix to our most problematic vacancies for our members who work hard to end chronic homelessness every day.
Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 18
Corvivaticharji with Housing California in support and a proud cosponsor.
Speaker 1
Alright. Anyone here in opposition to the opposition? Don't see anyone anyone here in opposition at all. I don't see anyone. Bring it back to the committee.
Miss miss Coloza.
Speaker 2
Thank you, chair. I just wanted to thank the author for her leadership, as well as to the witnesses for your testimony, for sharing your stories. I think this is a great bill, and thank you for working to reduce some of the the burdens that we've placed on some of our homelessness and housing providers. And I think this is a really important step in making progress on this issue. I would love to be added as a coauthor, and would love to move the bill when appropriate.
Thank you, chair.
Speaker 11
I concur with my colleague. I think this bill is more important than we know. I put down a quote, that, your sponsor said, needing so much after enduring so much. And I think it's really relevant to these processes that we expect individuals who many times don't have transportation, who many times attain something as simple as we think a driver's license to show that you can then attain other documents. I know one of my very first bills way back in 2012, was actually, to allow I I believe it was $25 for attaining a driver's license, in that.
In order to do that, the individual would have to go through a nonprofit in order to acknowledge they are indeed homeless. And we know that people fall out somewhere in this system after going from one office to another office to another office. And when we have units sitting available that aren't being used, it really feels like a crime because we need we know people need housing. So with that, I'm supportive and thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 62
Thank you, chair. And I I just really wanna thank mister Goodwin for sharing his story and his strength with us. It was certainly the bright light that I needed in my day today. So thank you so much, and I hope we can all learn from his experience and make our systems better. For others waiting for housing, we really do have the power right now to make life a little bit easier for people out there, and this bill does that.
And I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, Stephanie, and and for your leadership and and and to the witnesses. Thank you for sharing your your story and for your leadership. I would love to be added as a coauthor if I'm not already. I know that this is an issue that we worked on a lot together when we were on the board of supervisors, and we had numerous hearings. And it was always really just mind boggling and frustrating to know that there were units available where we could get people inside and get them off the streets, but it wasn't happening because of bureaucracy or because of rules that prevented it knowing there were people who were right there in front of us who needed that housing and would ultimately qualify for it.
And so this will help us ensure that that does not happen and that we get people inside. And even those weeks or those months, they can make a huge difference in someone's life. I can be make the difference for them for sure. So appreciate the leadership, and we will take a vote.
Speaker 30
Motion to pass to the assembly committee in appropriations. Haney? Aye. Any, I. Patterson?
Abi Lefarious? Caloza? Aye. Caloza, aye. Garcia?
Calra?
Speaker 1
Next up, we have assembly member Carrillo. Unless something has been worked out, I'm gonna continue to go in the in the final order out of fairness here. AB2166, item number 14.
Speaker 54
Thank you, mister chair. Good morning, chair and members. I first, let me start by saying that I would like to accept the committee amendments and express my gratitude to committee staff for their work on AB 2166. In October, I had the opportunity to visit Malmo in Sweden along with other members to learn how Sweden is successfully addressing their housing crisis. Just like our constituents, the Swedish face high prices and severe housing shortages.
And just like California, Sweden is reaching for innovative solutions to bring relief to their people. One of their most successful strategy has been investing in and expanding factory built housing. Factory built housing is when either the entire unit or various panels are constructed off-site in a factory before being shipped over the over to be assembled on-site. Factory built housing is cheaper, more efficient, and has a wide variety of different designs. So this factory housing is so great.
What is the issue, you might be asking? Well, then that's the reason why I'm here presenting this bill to you all. You know, well, unfortunately, outside housing factories in California struggle to find projects because they're unable to get insurance coverage. Insurance coverage is important because for housing projects, each component is expected to have coverage for the percentage of cost that they contribute to the project. So for example, if the materials are 30% of the cost of the project, the material providers are expected to have insurance to cover at least 30% of the value of the entire project.
Because factory built housing is a relatively new industry in California, these factories do not have a long project history. This causes hesitance for insurers. This is in turn what makes home builders reluctant to contract with these factories, scared about how they may happen if the factory fails, what may happen if the factory fails. This enlisted is factories having even less projects and subsequently still having a short history. This cycle is a market failure with broad public consequences.
Speaker 15
Without intervention that addresses this, California will struggle to stabilize factory capacity, preventing major cost reductions through repetition and scale. AB twenty one sixty six is that intervention. This bill will create a safe financial backstop to all our companies to ensure these California based factories our contractors to feel confident they will deliver on this premise in these promises, and lifting these factories out of this negative cycle. Here with me, have Marina Espinosa from California Housing Consortium to testify as a co sponsor and Michelle Boy to testify as a technical witness, from the Turner Labs of which the research has inspired this bill.
Speaker 19
Good morning, mister chair and committee members. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium. We are proud to cosponsor this bill. Factory built housing presents the state with a meaningful opportunity to lower construction costs and reduce construction timelines for housing projects. However, there is reluctance from traditional investors to put resources into factory built housing projects because of the perceived risks associated with this project type.
AB twenty one sixty six will play an important role in promoting growth in the industry, preventing factory closures, and thereby reducing financial risk. We've heard stories from developers who have had to pivot from factory built to site built construction as a result of factories going out of business. In these cases, developers were forced to absorb significant costs associated with the redesign needed for them to pursue site built construction. By creating a financial backstop, California would make it possible for surety companies to ensure more factories and protect development teams against factory failure. In taking this step, the state would demonstrate confidence in the industry, attracting more private investment to mainstream its growth.
AB twenty one sixty six is a critical bill that ensures that factories have a greater level of stability and a steady pipeline of projects, giving factories and development teams the certainty they need to be successful and pursue more modular projects. I strongly urge you to support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Holly Fermini, De Jesus Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur and Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support.
Speaker 17
Steven Senza with Brownstein. I was asked to give a me too in support on behalf of the Abundance Network. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Isaac Lassiter, cutting edge modular in support. I'd also like to note that this is in support of entrepreneurial companies, not just new upstart companies. If you don't have $20,000,000 to start your factory, you'd also like to be able to get a bond.
Speaker 45
Good morning, chair and members. Brady, on behalf of the League of California cities in support, we weren't able to get a letter in but wanted to reflect that today. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies in support.
Speaker 16
JT Herchmak, nonprofit housing association of Northern California in support.
Speaker 27
Yes. Hello. Good, good morning. I'm Michelle Boyd, and I work at Turner Labs, an affiliate of the Turner Center at UC Berkeley. And I just wanna add to some of the earlier comments already to comment that, this does address a very specific gap we've heard in our research from factories, particularly California factories, who may be earlier stage or have uneven pipelines.
Speaker 25
And that this specific mechanism of supporting their bonding capacity is well designed for the system. They may be able to receive financing for their projects or financing for their factories, but there's a specific gap in this bond. And it is a very common tool for government to use to step into insurance markets or surety markets as this is called. There's examples with SBA, small business lending programs, green banks, other debt products that provide similar level of support in the film industry and agriculture industry as a mechanism that the state can use in order to support this support this emerging sector. We also believe and see that programs like this could support the industry in maturing and may not be needed long term, but in many ways can be a one time investment, in order to support this industry in scaling and meeting the need, for the affordable housing crisis.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to this bill? Any opposition witnesses? Seeing one in the opposition at all? Not seeing anyone?
Committee? Not seeing anyone? May close.
Speaker 54
Thank you, mister chair. You know, I'll just share a small experience. We'll some of these small factories are actually on some of our own backyards. There's actually one in Palmdale. And I think that as expressed by the primary witnesses here is something that we feel is necessary to get these factories to remain open and and why not even expand so that we can meet the number of housing units that we need in our state.
With that, I respectfully ask for a nice vote.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you for your leadership. And, I I I know we are using all of the strategies we have here, including various innovations in in housing construction and making sure that we have the authority in in financing and and and other ways to to include that and what is available for folks to be able to develop. And I appreciate your leadership there. I think miss Wicks has walked in to make a comment.
Speaker 41
You didn't know. Thank you, mister Creo, for carrying this bill. It's part of our package that we're doing together, around, housing innovation. Thank you for coming to Sweden as part of that delegation, being part of the Select Committee for all the work that you've put into this. We're trying to figure out how the market can function better to support and actually realize the benefits of this type of newer construction model.
Hopefully, this will be a part of that, an important part of that, so that the market can function better. I I believe I'm a joint author. I'm happy to move the bill if it hasn't been moved, but I just wanted to thank you. And this is a newer, interesting way of trying to create some sort of a financial backstop. Hopefully, it will work, and eager to work on this in this year and years ahead to jump start this industry in a way so we can, again, with the goal of bringing on the cost of housing for our working class families.
So appreciate you.
Speaker 30
A motion to pass as amended to the assembly committee in appropriations. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Patterson?
Abi Laffarias?
Speaker 59
Thank you, mister chair and members. For the opportunity to present a b twenty four fifteen, I wanna thank committee staff for their thoughtful consideration of the bill. I'll be accepting the committee amendments to better align the bill text with existing statutory language. As Californians continue to face a housing crisis, we are tasked with increasing affordability and availability. Policies such as SB 79 have helped to increase housing development near public transit, which is something that I support.
Speaker 64
Unfortunately, there are some very pro housing communities such as the city of Folsom, that still aim to, protect the character of their historic districts specifically. So we've, put forward this very narrowly tabled, tailored proposal that would allow a city, if the majority of the transit zone is part of a local historic district, to reduce the capacity in one transit oriented development zone by more than 50%. In order to do this, the city must have more than one transit oriented development zone and a population of less than a 150,000 residents. The local historic district must also have been designated before 01/01/2000. With me today in support of the bill is Folsom council member Mike Kozlowski and Jerry Burneau with Burneau Development Corporation.
We also have Pam Johns from the city of Folsom for technical assistance if needed. But now I'll turn it over to my witnesses to share more. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mike Kozlowski, council member for the city of Folsom representing District 1, which includes our historic our Folsom Historic District. I'm here to express our strong support for a b twenty four fifteen authored by assembly member Josh Hoover. Folsom is fully committed to break meeting our share of California's housing needs. We have a long record of approving and building housing at all income levels and a and a straw and strongly support higher density development in areas near jobs, services, and transit.
Speaker 65
At the same time, we have a responsibility to protect the our nearly hundred and eighty year Old Folsom Historic District, our city's cultural heart and one of the most significant historic assets in the Sacramento region. In 2024, the city adopted a general plan amendment to increase allowable densities in targeted locations, including East Bidwell, the East Bidwell Commercial Corridor, the Folsom Plan area town center, and two transit station areas. The historic district was intentionally excluded from these higher density overlays to safeguard its historic character. Even so, the district continues to see appropriate organic housing growth through accessory dwelling units that fit the scale and fabric of that neighborhood. Under current law, however, high density housing obligations are still assigned to the historic district in ways that conflict with its physical constraints and its role as a cultural and economic anchor.
AB twenty four fifteen provides a practical, balanced solution by allowing the city to transfer those obligations to its other transit oriented development areas near Folsom's two additional light rail stations, locations that are perfectly suited for taller, denser development and modern infrastructure. This bill reflects thoughtful negotiation and a shared understanding that California can advance housing production while honoring the historic districts that tell our state's story. On behalf of the city city of Folsom, I respectfully ask for your I vote on a b twenty four fifteen. Thank you.
Speaker 35
For the opportunity to speak, my name is Jerry Burnett, owner of Burnett Development Corporation. For over thirty five years, I've been building in Folsom and with my first development including 400 unit apartment project built back in 1991, the largest in Folsom at that time. Since then, I've built single family, multifamily, ADUs, and mixed use in Folsom and Folsom's historic district. Today, I'm here in support of AV twenty four fifteen because it gives cities like Folsom a practical way to meet housing obligations without compromising an irreplaceable historic district. As a developer, I wanna be clear.
We are building housing in Folsom's historic district, we're doing it in ways that respects the district's small blocks, narrow streets, limited infrastructure, and unique historic character. These are not abstract concerns. They are real physical conditions that define what responsible development looks like. Our projects are modest in scale, designed to fit in the architectural fabric of the existing streetscape, adding new housing without overwhelming infrastructure or overshadowing our historic assets. This is the kind of context appropriate growth that keeps historic districts vibrant.
Speaker 22
If we're required to build to the heights and densities mandated under existing law, the results would be out of scale, out of character, and out of step with what makes the historic district economically and culturally successful. AB twenty four fifteen strikes a balance. It allows high density obligations to shift to parts of Folsom that can support the height, the intensity, and has the modern infrastructure, especially the transfer oriented districts near the cities to additional light rail stations. These are areas where larger projects make sense and where developers like me can deliver housing that the state desperately needs. This bill doesn't reduce housing.
Speaker 35
It put housing where it belongs while allowing historic districts to continue contributing in ways compatible with their scale and purpose. On behalf of Borneo Development Corporation, I respectfully request your yes vote on a b twenty four fifteen. Thank you sincerely for your time.
Speaker 52
Good morning. Kathy Cole. I'm a resident of Historic Folsom as well as a vice chair of the Historic District Commission, and I urge your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have any primary opposition witnesses? Not seeing any any opposition at all. Not seeing any. We will bring it back up to the committee.
Miss Quirksilver? I
Speaker 11
actually really like this bill, and usually, I'm the person who is grouchy when people try to either not build in historic areas or stall or delay or get out of a building. But I like this because, as you said, you are trying to strike a balance, which is saying, we don't necessarily wanna do it here, but we'll find another location that's more appropriate. I was on council several years ago in Fullerton, and we had an area that we were trying to protect, Coyote Hills, which would leave open space. And that was exactly what we were trying to say is, let's not build here. Let's build in the downtown corridor.
They didn't actually do that, but I think this is very underutilized, and it could give other jurisdictions, many opportunities to continue to build, but also protect areas that you feel are worthy of that protection. So with that, I'll move the bill.
Speaker 64
Yeah. No. I appreciate those comments. And, you know, in in the specific case of the city of Folsom, for example, we have three transit stops, two of which are very, I think, appropriate for housing and one of which is in the historic district. So I think this will give, that city and others, some important flexibility while also, meeting our state's, desperate need to build more housing.
So appreciate the, work from the committee and respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 30
A motion to pass to the assembly committee on local government. Haney? Aye. Haney, I. Patterson?
Abi Laffarias?
Speaker 30
Cholera, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Parksilva?
Forksilva, aye. Kangipa, Wiggs. Aye. Wiggs, aye. Wilson.
Speaker 1
Alright. 60. We'll keep it open. Thank you. Thank you.
Alright. Item number 22, finally, AB2439. Rubio, I know that you have a witness here as well who looks awfully familiar. I don't know. I'm not sure where, but
Speaker 1
The hair. We're we're happy to have you both, and thank you for your patience. Go ahead.
Speaker 66
Thank you, mister chair, vice chair, and committee members for giving me the opportunity to present a b twenty four thirty nine. Imagine paying your HOA dues on time only to find out later that the HOA quietly changed payment vendors, never properly notified you, and now you're facing late fees and even a lien on your home. That's not hypothetical. That is happening right now. And if this is happening to me as an assembly woman, I can't imagine all of the other Californians who don't have an elevated voice like I do who are dealing with the same situation.
Speaker 37
HOA members are also dealing with confusing, inconsistent communication where basic information like where and how to pay is unclear if if changes are made. And just as troubling, we've seen unequal enforcement of rules like being cited for parking in front of your own home on the public street while others are not. These situations don't just create frustration, they create financial harm, stress, and a breakdown of trust. This bill sets a simple reasonable standard. If an HOA changes how you pay, they must clearly notify you by certified mail so that there is no confusion and all parties are protected.
Speaker 66
It adds accountability where that doesn't where when that doesn't happen, and it makes it clear that HOAs cannot overreach onto public streets where homeowners have the right to park. For most people, their home is their largest investment and there's sense of stability. They should not have to worry about surprise fees, unclear rules, or arbitrary enforcement. This bill ensures homeowners are treated with the basic respect and clearly and and clarity that they deserve. AB twenty four thirty nine is about protecting people from avoidable harm and restoring confidence in HOA government.
With me today is my principal coauthor, assembly member, Josh Luenthal.
Speaker 67
Oh, okay. Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm proud to be a joint author on the bill and and provide testimony today. So, you know, we're we're we're strange bedfellows. We're we're close friends in legislature, but, similar thing has happened to me.
Mhmm. So around two months ago, I received a registered mail from a collections agency. And it was shocking to me because, I have a nearly 800 credit score. I pay every single bill, and, of course, I I do everything on autopay because I just don't have the time or capacity to, you know, buckle down and and pay bills on the regular every month, and so that's what autopay is for. Well, evidently, my association made a change in their autopay system at the 2024, And I learned subsequently that they did send a mass email to the association.
My email, of course, went into my spam.
Speaker 67
But from I I had a perfect payment record, and apparently, once they changed the system, all of a sudden, I had an imperfect record. And I received no notification until I got that collections notice, and it's about $1,500 of fines and penalties, to get back in the right. I reached out to the board president. The board president refused to talk to
Speaker 52
And his answer, because, you know, issues around collections can be tricky, was that I need to go through the hearing process with the HOA, which, of course, up here, don't have a great amount of time for. And beyond that, he said, well, you can contact the the association management. I placed five calls over a three week period of time, did not get a callback. Finally, I did get a callback. Association management said that they had sent me two letters and emails.
Speaker 67
Mhmm. I've asked for, copies of those letters. I've asked for them to forward the emails. They have not sent those to me. I've asked them how will I get onto, the good graces in the payment structure.
They said, well, you need to start by paying the fines to the collection agency and pay the collection agency, and then we can set you up on the new autopay system. The only remedy I have is either to burn my time completely is to pay these fees, which I think is unlawful, or to litigate, of course, which has its own costs and time.
Speaker 67
been remedied if they had simply sent me registered mail in advance, notifying me that it was gonna be going into collections if I couldn't remedy this. Then there would have been receipts on both sides, on my side and on their side, and all of this matter would be solved. So I'm I'm proud to provide this personal story and sit with assembly member Rubio on this topic and respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there other folks here in support? Seeing oh, also somebody looks familiar there.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon. Robert Vissera, Baldwin Park in strong support of this effort. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Alright. Any opposition to this? We have opposition witness. Witnesses. Two minutes each.
Speaker 29
Mister chair, members of the committee, good morning. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. Apologize. We had a portal issue with our letter, and for it to not have gotten in to make the analysis, but we've been been
Speaker 68
been in conversations with the author for quite some time. We have an oppose unless amended position on this. Clearly understand the issue and do believe that there needs to be an improvement in the process and identify an appropriate means for notice. But as of right now, as we talk about affordability and and other issues in this building all the time, the certified receipt mail would cost about $10.50 apiece, which would be a significant cost to most associations, and so we wanna work through that. Then the other element of the bill is that it would provide the civil penalty on the board members themselves.
And this would be yet another cost driver in that insurance rates would go up, but it also make it much more difficult to find board members to now start serving in these voluntary positions when they're potentially personally liable for actions that they may not have had any knowledge of or control over. So it's for those reasons we haven't opposed unless amended. Look forward to continue to work with the joint authors on the bill, and thank you for the time.
Speaker 46
Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Tom Freely. I'm the CEO for the California Association of Community Managers. First, I'd like to apologize on behalf of the management companies around California. That's absurd.
We represent professional certified managers of homeowner and condo associations. We certainly agree, hands down, that homeowners should be notified whenever there is a change to where they send assessments or the change of management. However, we are opposed unless this bill is amended to remove the requirement that the notice be sent by certified mail return receipt requested specifically. While this may seem minor in our experience, homeowners frequently refuse to sign for certified mail. If delivery attempts fail, homeowners never pick up that certified mail.
Speaker 32
We think this provision could not only be counterproductive, but it is also costly. The actual cost per certified mail, with return receipt is roughly $9 per mailing per lot. For larger associations, this could be in the thousands of dollars at a time where associations are struggling with 600% insurance increases, increased utilities and maintenance costs, and homeowners are struggling to make ends meet, every penny counts. In an association, homeowners are on the hook for every increase of cost. While we agree that notice is highly important, we think there needs to be a balance considering the environment we are all in.
Speaker 46
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the bill be amended to remove the return receipt requirement. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Others who are here in opposition? Not to anyone. We'll bring it back to members. Mister Carlrow.
Speaker 34
I appreciate the authors for bringing this forward. It is an example of kind of the the fact that we also live in the community. We go through things that our communities go through, whether it's going to the grocery store, dealing with HOAs, you know, and what have you. And that kind of lived experience does enter its way in appropriate ways into the capital. And, you know, I although I sympathize with the extra cost, the reality is that that's a pretty significant change if you that that I believe every HOA resident should be fully aware of, especially if it's gonna end up affecting them, the credit record.
And ultimately, if the goal is to have them make sure they're paying their HOA, I what I what boggles my mind is there's so much simpler ways to have resolved it than sending it to collections. Once you see someone that's been paying regularly, just not paying once you made that switch, all it took for us for the HOA to say, hey, wait a second. We see x number of folks didn't pay when we made the switch. It's kind of common sense. Why don't we reach out to those folks and say, hey.
We noticed you didn't make it. Did you realize we changed the payment system Mhmm. Instead of sending in collections and we wouldn't be here today?
Speaker 34
Right? And so I think the burden is and and that's what happens. Ultimately, we are worried about cost of living. We are worried about the residents. This affects the residents' ability to keep up with their bills, affects their credit scores, their credit history.
So, anyway, I think there's lot of emotions that come up with HOA sometimes. I really do respect those that take the that volunteer to be on HOAs. It is thankless. I recognize that. But I think that, you know, certainly look forward to continued conversations, but I can understand why those frustrations have led to us being here today.
And the burden should not be placed on the resident when such a significant changes how you're actually making your payments occur.
Speaker 1
Well said. Alright. The bill was moved and seconded. I think it was already. Yes.
You may close. You can split your time or
Speaker 66
Yeah. No. Thank you. I just wanted to add, you know, to the affordability issue. Our our late fees were $1,500, and we did, in fact, file a request for reconsideration, and it was denied saying that they had bills to pay.
And fortunately, that we can't we could come up with the $1,500 all at once, but what happens to those residents that are living paycheck to paycheck and all of a sudden have to come up with $1,500 just to be back to normal? And then on top of that, you know, trying to start all over again. But I won't belabor the point just with with that. I I appreciate the conversation, but if you can come up with a different way of notifying email doesn't work in our community, the mail's been stolen. And if we can come up with an alternative, but I think it is not unreasonable to require a certified mail.
I think both the resident and the association would be protected and that we don't have any dispute. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote. And
Speaker 67
I I I would echo everything that the assembly member said, and I'm shocked actually that the collection agencies are not in opposition to this bill because I shudder to think about the thousands and thousands of Californians suffering through this right now that just pay the bill because the alternatives are so much
Speaker 67
And it's, it's an injustice. So with that, respectfully ask for your right vote.
Speaker 1
Well, I appreciate both of you. It is a rare moment when we have a joint authors that are also both witnesses. And if there are two members of the state assembly out of 80, maybe more, that this has happened to just in the recent months or the last year. It is probably surely happening to many, many Californians. Mhmm.
And most Californians, for better or worse, don't have the ability to write a bill to fix the problem, and the two of you do. And so we're grateful that you have brought forward a solution here that will help to address this challenge. I know you will continue to work about how to work on the the concerns raised by the opposition. But I think, as you said, it is ridiculous that you can be charged these types of fees when clearly neither one of you, one, did anything wrong that you knew of Mhmm. Nor were appropriately notified in any way.
That's a real issue, and it does affect affordability, cost of living, and access to housing. Some folks may have these fees stacked up so much that they actually end up, you know, losing their home. I mean, that's the the kind of situation that we're dealing with here, and and certainly, it it affects people in their lives and their ability to to pay for other things for their families. So we appreciate your leadership and continued work on this and and very proud to to support this bill and proud to be your colleagues and to see you address a real issue that's affected you and that affects many people in our state. We have a motion and a second, and we will take a vote.
Speaker 30
Motion is to pass to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Harrison?
Abi Laffarias? Yes. Abi Laffarias? Aye. Calozza?
Garcia? Calra?
Speaker 1
Alright. I don't see other authors from outside of the committee, so I will offer Wicks. Miss Wicks? Alright. Item number five, a b eighteen fifteen.
Speaker 41
Thank you, mister chair. I almost called you mister speaker. I was mister chair. That's I'm in the housing committee.
Speaker 41
Thank you, mister chair and members for letting me present a b eighteen fifteen today. This is the bill that I'm doing on figuring out how we can jump start more factory built housing in California. As discussed in the earlier bill, I've been leading a select committee on housing construction innovation with the goal of supporting more innovative models to build housing, to bring down the cost of housing for our working class families across the state of California. Factory built housing offers a lot of promise and also a lot of challenge. And our goal is not to get rid of stick built housing at all.
Speaker 18
That's how we build the vast vast majority of housing, but to also augment and provide other alternatives, ideally ones that are cheaper, so that our working class families can afford housing. So this bill essentially a b eighteen fifteen prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing or enforcing building standards that exceed the state minimum building standards on a factory built housing project. Again, with the idea of ensuring that we can actually realize the benefits of factory built housing by not having all these additional reach codes. California has 540 local jurisdictions that can impose unique sets of building standards that exceed the statewide code. So we're trying to create uniformity because it's really important for these factories.
Speaker 41
The way that they're successful is economies of scale and so they need consistency. And when you have reach codes that require bespoke projects to be built, you can't actually realize the benefit of this type of production. So we wanna be able to realize the benefit of this kind of production. This bill creates this, the standardization that factories need to be successful by clarifying and and reinforcing the state's existing building standards framework, ensuring it is applied consistently to factory built housing projects, and opening up another path forward for the state to meet our ambitious housing goals. This is part of our yes and all of the above strategy of housing.
With me here to testify are Marina Espinoza from the California Housing Consortium and and Ali Zaperman from the, Housing Action Coalition, and Michelle Boyd from the Turner Center is here to help answer questions.
Speaker 19
Good morning, mister chair and committee members. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium. CHC has been exploring opportunities to reduce the cost of construction, and that's why we're in strong support of a b eighteen fifteen. This bill facilitates the use of factory built housing by creating certainty and clarifying that only statewide code requirements apply to factory built projects. As the committee analysis notes, research shows that factory built housing is a promising strategy to address the housing shortage by improving productivity and reducing construction risk, particularly when supported by standardized regulations and stable demand pipelines.
Speaker 42
Factory based production depends on standardized designs and repeatability to achieve economies of of scale, which is what this bill seeks to accomplish. This is good for housing production and also can help lead to a steady pipeline demand, which supports the workforce and local economies. Industrialized construction methods have the potential to improve job quality and worker retention by offering factory environments that are safe and predictable, creating consistent year out year round employment in both rural and urban areas. Growing this industry in California could lead to economic growth while also reducing the housing housing costs by producing more units. I urge you to support this bill today.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Ali Saiferman, the advocacy and policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition. The Housing Action Coalition is a statewide pro housing nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all levels of affordability. Our members include developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners who help build housing across California. The legislature has made tremendous progress over the last decade removing regulatory barriers that made it hard to approve and permit housing, but there is a frontier that remains largely untouched, the cost of construction itself.
Speaker 65
Factory built housing is one of the most promising tools we have to bring those costs down, and a b eighteen fifteen takes the direct aim at one of the biggest structural barriers preventing it from scaling. The data on cost and timeline savings is real. According to the Turner Center of Housing Innovation, off-site construction reliably cuts construction timelines by 10 to 30% with some estimates reaching closer to 50%. Turner's director testified before assemblywoman Wick's select committee that factory built housing has the potential to reduce hard costs, labor, materials, and equipment by 10 to 25% under the right conditions. Those are real real dollars in a state where construction costs are one of the primary drivers of housing unaffordability.
Speaker 15
But those savings only materialize when factories can operate at scale, and scale requires standardization. That's where local design standards become a fundamental barrier. When over 500 local jurisdictions can layer their own design requirements on top of state minimums, a factory can't develop and replicate consistent product designs across markets. Every unique exterior finish requirement, every local aesthetic review, every jurisdiction specific specification means a factory has to retool, reengineer, and seek new approvals. When projects are approved one at a time varying local and local rules and designs, it's nearly impossible to build the steady pipeline a factory needs to operate efficiently and competitively.
AB eighteen fifteen solves this by establishing a clear statewide standard and prohibiting local jurisdictions from imposing design and building standards above state minimums on factory built projects. This bill gives manufacturers what they need to invest, replicate, and grow. It doesn't lower quality standards. State standards remain fully enforced. It simply removes the layer of local variation that makes industrialized construction economically unviable.
AB eighteen fifteen creates a streamlined regulatory environment that lets factory built housing actually work at scale. HACS member have members have told us firsthand that design standards fragmentation is one of the most concrete obstacles to adopting off-site construction methods. This bill gives the industry a real path forward. We urge an I vote and thank assembly member Wicks for her continued leadership.
Speaker 26
of California Yimby in support. Ali Fermini, Degasus of Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur
Speaker 25
Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters in strong support.
Speaker 16
JT Hirschmack, nonprofit housing association in Northern California in support.
Speaker 26
Mister chair and members, Megan Murray with the Weidman Group on behalf
Speaker 40
Good afternoon. Sean Depekian on behalf of Elevate California and the California Downtown Association in support.
Speaker 49
Mister chair and members Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. We have any up witnesses in opposition? Seeing anyone anyone here at all in opposition? Not seeing anyone. We'll bring it back to the committee.
We have a motion and a second, and and there are also amendments. Are you taking the amendments?
Speaker 1
Yes. They were think it was a drafting error. Small that clar specify the 15% thresh threshold applies to each building in the project.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you for your leadership. We've had a number of bills I know that have come as a result of your work on the select committee on housing construction innovation and appreciate that work. And I appreciate this bill, and we have a motion and a second. We'll take a vote.
Speaker 30
Motion is to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
Speaker 30
Harrison, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Abila Farias, aye. Caloza?
Garcia? Aye. Garcia? Aye. Cholera?
Aye. Cholera, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
Porksuba? Aye. Porksuba aye. Ta aye. Tanguipa?
Wiggs? Aye. Wiggs? Wilson?
Speaker 1
K. 90. We have mister Garcia positioned there as a as an author, so we'll let you go. I guess we we also so these three people need to get there. We need these three here.
Lee and me are beyond that. Go
Speaker 6
for it. Thank you, mister chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present this legislation. My bill, a b twenty one thirty nine, is a district bill that proposes a targeted amendment to the surplus land act, creating a practical pathway needed to bring a professional soccer team to the Inland Empire. The Inland Empire is one of the fastest growing regions in California and notably the largest metropolitan area in the nation without a major professional sports team.
Speaker 11
This proposal represents a significant opportunity for economic development, regional identity, and community investment, not just for the Inland Empire, but the entire state of California. Recently, last week, I noted in local government that I had the opportunity to visit mister Carrillo's district with others from the Latino Caucus delegation, and I true was truly inspired by the work done there by the AV Alta Football Club and really the sense of community pride and ownership that the team has brought to that region, the the Antelope Valley. And there's no reason why that why why we shouldn't bring that same excitement, ownership, and economic activity to the Inland Empire. The Surplus Land Act does play a critical role in addressing California's housing shortage by prioritizing surplus land for housing development. But while it is important and well intentioned law, there are rare instances where it can unintentionally limit transformative economic opportunities, this being one of them, as seen with the city of Ontario and the Ontario Sports Empire Project.
Speaker 6
We recognize and appreciate local government committees' concerns and thoughtful engagement on this issue and thank the chair for his willingness to continue to explore paths forward. So I am mindful of the concerns raised in the committee's analysis. However, I truly believe that this project represents a unique opportunity that not only delivers significant public benefit to both the Inland Empire and the state of California, but also has the potential to generate resources that can ultimately support the development of additional affordable housing. I accepted the committee amendments out of local government and remain committed to working collaboratively to ensure this bill both achieves its intended purpose and upholds upholds the core integrity of the surplus land act. And so I'll finish my remarks by emphasizing that this project represents a very unique opportunity with the potential to provide generational benefits to my community.
This effort also directly advances the Inland Empire Cox's goal of securing its fair share of state investment and carry significant potential to drive community development and economic activity in California's fastest region. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do you have witnesses? No. No witnesses. Anyone here in support?
No. Anyone here in opposition? Opposition witnesses? Just brief No. Just Just briefly.
Speaker 16
JT Herchbeck, Nonprofit Housing Association Northern California. We had opposed this bill. We appreciate the, taking the amends in the last committee and just, as the bill works through the process, we'd love to be part of the conversation. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Anya Lawler on behalf of the public interest law project. Align our comments with JT.
Speaker 20
Natalie Spiedak with Housing California. We don't have an official position on the bill yet, but aligning my comments with my two colleagues before me. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Andres Ramos with public advocates. Likewise, aligning your comments with NPH. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, assembly member, for bringing this forward. I I do think that, you know, we accept that just a general caution that we we we certainly need to make sure exemptions from the surplus land act are rare, you know, because the worry and I've I've said this in prior efforts is
Speaker 34
they're always district bills for the most because we're bringing them on behalf of particular projects. But I I think as we've heard from the opposition or or previous opposition, comfortable with some of the amends amendments you made. I know that you're you're a very strong advocate for affordable housing, and so it gives me great comfort that you'll be the one kind of overseeing the the legislation and seeing how it gets implemented. And I and I do think the project, you referred to, is something that could be incredibly exciting for your region. So I'll certainly be supporting this today.
Speaker 19
Thank you, chair. Really appreciate the the intent of this bill. That as a former housing practitioner, practitioner, I think it just sets really bad precedent, especially when most cities, like this city and this region struggle with Rina numbers. So, unfortunately, I won't be able to support this bill in its current form.
Speaker 7
Oh, okay. Well, that's good because I'm hoping the next MLS team's in Sacramento. So I just wanted to make sure of that. But, you know, just I support exemptions. I I I think there are a lot of issues with surplus land act.
I know my colleagues don't necessarily feel the same way, but, you know, I think limited limited exemptions to spark economic development, you know, is a good thing to consider. So I look forward to supporting it today.
Speaker 6
And nothing additional to add. Mister chair, members, thank you. I appreciate the support, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. And, I think I would agree that we do this on very rare occasions and wanna do it in a in a thoughtful way and, where there's an opportunity like this, but also, appreciate the, amendments that were taken that will ensure there will be some sort of financial contribution to affordable housing development in Ontario. I know that something you would agree, is very important as well, and Absolutely. Appreciate you balancing, those, this opportunity with the need to invest in affordable housing in the area that I think we would agree, needs more of it.
So we can have a motion and second. We take a vote.
Speaker 30
Haney, aye. Harrison? Aye. Harrison, aye. Avila Farias?
No. Avila Farias, no. Colosa? Garcia?
Speaker 30
Garcia, Cholera? Aye. Colra, aye. Lee? Aye.
Lee, aye. Corksilva? I've seen. Ta?
Speaker 1
Six to one. We'll keep that open. Alright. Thank you, mister. And a few things.
We we have fifteen more minutes in this room, and then we're gonna need to to have a very brief recess and then go over across the hall to 01:27 after I get out of this room at 12:30. So but we have a few more bills and also we have, I think, three or so members who are not on the committee who we still need to come and have present. But in the meantime, yes, we will take mister Lee's bill, which is mister chair. We will, I think, at the end.
Speaker 53
I'm gonna I'm going to do, a b nineteen ninety seven first, which is A b further on the, ours earlier on the on the, file.
Speaker 53
Yep. Okay. Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. First, I'm accepting the amendment suggested by the committee on page six of the analysis. I wanna thank the chair and committee staff for work on this bill.
This bill will reduce from sixty days down to thirty days the period of time a lead agency has to approve or deny an affordable housing project's environmental impact report, EIR, from when the lead agency certifies the EIR. The faster timeline only applies to projects that are 90% affordable to very low or extremely low income households and requires the projects project applicants have provided written notice to the agency's specifics about the project's financing. The bill also requires the Department of Housing and Community Development in consultation with the governor's land use and climate innovation to establish a working group to make recommendations about expediting housing development. The working group must include representatives of the government, housing developers, and housing advocates. Together, these provisions provide real acceleration in affordable housing projects while also looking to the future for new ideas about encouraging housing production in the state.
With me in support today is Rand Martin, a representative of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Speaker 49
Thank you. Mister chair and members, Rand Martin here on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation. Since 2018, AHF has been engaged in developing affordable housing for low income Californians based on the fact that many of their patients were having difficulty maintaining their treatment regimens because they were couch surfing, living in their cars, living on the streets. And so we began developing projects across the city of Los Angeles. Currently, there are 15 projects operating providing affordable housing to people who are extremely low income.
Speaker 9
We have a lot of experience based on those 15 projects with the city of Los Angeles and getting permits approved in a timely fashion. Notwithstanding the fact that this legislature and the governor have done a lot in the last few years to move things along, things are still moving slowly. And we are still experiencing three, four, and sometimes five years from the time we submit an application to when we actually get that application and can turn a shovel, let alone get into the point where we can actually permit occupancy. I just wanna point out one I wanna read one quote, if I may, from a report came out from the Rand Corporation just a few months ago in which they said the biggest thing driving up California apartment costs, time. It takes twice as long to gain project approvals, and the construction timeline is one and a half times longer in comparison to other states.
Speaker 49
That means the land costs must be carried for longer, equipment and labor are on job sites longer, and that loans are taken out for a longer term and so on. We think that this modest bill really focused on housing development can speed that along a bit more than we have so far. We would really appreciate your support this this this afternoon. Yes. This afternoon.
Thank you.
Speaker 7
Great. Thank you. Are there any other individuals in support of this measure? Please name, affiliation, and position, please.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, chairmember Steven Senzer with Brownstein on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing and Support.
Speaker 7
Great. Are there any, primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Alright. Seeing none, any, comments from my colleagues? Well, you're you're back.
Speaker 30
Motion to pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Harrison?
Aye. Harrison, aye. Avi Laffarias? Abstaining. Colosa?
Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Cholera? I.
Cholera, Lee?
Speaker 1
Yes. Thank you, vice chair and members. AB2128 will protect tenants in public and federally subsidized housing from losing their homes due to work requirements or arbitrary time limits. This bill is a direct response to proposed federal changes that would allow housing providers to require tenants to work up to forty hours a week or lose their housing assistance after as little as two years. At a time when California is already facing a severe housing shortage shortage and record homelessness, these policies would move us in the wrong direction.
For decades, federal housing assistance has been based on need, not on whether someone can meet rigid work mandates or arbitrary deadlines. These proposed changes upend the foundation and put more than 1,000,000 Californians who rely on HUD assistance at risk of losing their homes, work requirements, and time limits don't improve economic outcomes, and they don't get people into stable housing. Instead, they create unnecessary barriers that can push families out of stable housing. Even though the policies that the federal government are being framed as optional, housing providers will face pressure to adopt them, putting vulnerable Californians at greater risk of eviction and homelessness. AB twenty one twenty eight will ensure that does not happen in California.
It will simply prohibit public housing authorities and HUD subsidized housing providers from imposing these harmful work harmful requirements, keeping assistance focused on housing stability and need. At a time when only one in four eligible households receives federal housing assistance, we should not be creating new barriers for those who already have it. With me in support today is Leila Girous Girousut Sutan Sutan with the National Housing Law Project.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and committee members. My name is Leila Giti Sattani and I'm an attorney with the National Housing Law Project, a proud sponsor of AB twenty one twenty eight. Communities thrive when everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home. HUD housing programs are a critical source of stable and accessible housing for low income families.
Over a million Californians utilize federal rental assistance to afford housing, the majority of whom are seniors, children, and people with disabilities. Without state intervention, HUD's harmful proposal would put many of these people at risk of losing their housing and exacerbate homelessness statewide. Work requirements and time limits do not help struggling families and, in fact, undermine self sufficiency efforts. The data show that such policies and publicly funded safety net programs do not improve outcomes for recipients. In fact, they generally do the opposite.
Speaker 12
Subjecting recipients of HUD housing assistance to harsh work requirements and strict time limits will not lift families out of poverty or allow them to to afford market rate rent. In California, renters need to earn nearly three times the state minimum wage to afford the average rent. The majority of adults in federally assisted housing who can work already do work but have little control over their hours or their wages. These policies would expose seasonal workers, on call workers, and those whose employers deliberately limit hours to constant risk of losing their housing. Cutting off housing assistance based on arbitrary thresholds is cruel, rendering a family homeless to make room for another family does nothing to respond to the affordable housing shortage in California.
Speaker 10
We need more affordable housing, not policies that put the blame on some of the most low income and vulnerable among us. While the federal rule will be optional, we expect HUD to exert significant pressure on housing authorities to opt in. This bill insulates them from that pressure. Passing a b twenty one twenty eight is urgent. HUD's proposed rule will likely go into effect to this year, so California must pass this legislation now to protect HUD assisted families and avoid increasing homelessness statewide.
I respectfully request an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Great. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Name, affiliation, and position, please.
Speaker 8
Anya Lallor on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project in support.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Are there any, primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, anyone opposed to this measure? Alright. Seeing none, we'll bring it to my colleagues.
Speaker 7
We had a motion and a second. Any any comments, questions? Alright. Seeing none, suppose you could close.
Speaker 30
Motion do pass. Haynie? Aye. Any aye? Patterson?
No. Harrison, no. Abi Laffarias? Aye. Abi Laffarias, aye.
Colosa? Garcia? Aye. Garcia, Calra?
Speaker 1
Alright. Okay. We are going to take a recess and we are gonna reconvene in Room 127 in about five minutes.
Speaker 55
Mister chair, I I appreciate you tearing me out. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Yeah. We're good with we're good with all the community events here that
Speaker 60
good. Good. Yeah. I appreciate you working with the city with our mayor on this. Absolutely.
Speaker 45
Did I see a 100? Over a 100. Yeah. Over a 100. Think over, like, I wanna say we've heard one fifty to one twenty, but don't know exactly.
But over a 100 is Yeah. And I know a
Speaker 45
our members right now are very worried about, obviously, what happened with Renata,
Speaker 60
I did. Of course, I think the most one of the most important aspects of the bill for the city. And, you know, hopefully, it stays that stays in place. I think it's also important, though, of course, just confirming that you can use overlay zones if that's something Yeah.
Speaker 60
Yeah. PR legal our city attorney reviewed this. The mayor has been involved with it. Cool. He's on board, but as it's drafted.
I think it's important because there's a lot
Speaker 60
it's just to not have, like, some protection while you're going through the correction period and fights lawsuits and really, I think it over penalizes these cities when they've acted in good faith and abided by the law and followed state direction, which I know you're aware of, and that's why you sponsored this.
Speaker 60
first and second. Okay. Yeah. That'd be great. Okay.
I know I get two minutes, but I don't know.
Speaker 55
or less know how they're gonna vote Yeah. Before the presentation here.
Speaker 61
And I'll introduce you right at the start. So after this, are you just gonna go to the airport and kinda wait until Hey, if you're gonna Go to lunch or something like that. Yeah. Well, I guess after lunch. Yeah.
Speaker 1
We are reconvening here at the housing and development committee. Welcome back everyone to the coldest room in the capital. I'm sure it'll warm up. We are going to move to item seven 27AB2741, Murasuji.
Speaker 55
Thank you very much, mister chair. I I really appreciate get you listening to my discussions about this bill, and I would like to thank you and your committee staff for all the time that they've spent on this this bill. I will be accepting the amendments in sections one and two of the bill relating to overlays, but with the chair's approval, not the amendments in section three and four relating to the builder's remedy. Across California, cities are working in good faith to comply with state housing law by submitting their housing elements to HCD for review and certification. However, a recent court decision has created significant uncertainty around the use of residential overlay zoning, putting previously certified housing elements at risk of legal challenge and exposure to the builder's remedy.
Speaker 69
This bill, a b set twenty seven forty one, provides much needed clarity by affirming the lawful use of residential overlays. Overlay zoning remains an important tool expanding housing opportunity while respecting existing property rights and giving flexibility to local governments. AB twenty seven forty one also ensures that cities that acted in good faith and received the state certification from HCD are not penalized despite, you know, trying to comply in good faith. Today, a city can do everything right, work with the state, follow the guidance, and receive the certification and still face immediate exposure to builders remedies builders remedy projects if a court later disagrees. That means there is no opportunity for cities to fix the problem, only the penalty even when they're trying to comply in good faith.
Speaker 55
AB twenty seven forty one fixes that by providing cities who have had their housing elements originally approved by a city but subsequently overturned by a court a reasonable two hundred seventy day grace period to fix the problem and to submit a new housing element. This creates the fair distinction between cities that, again, you know, trying to do everything right, trying to comply in good faith, and that and those that are willfully flouting the law. At a time when California is facing a housing crisis, we should be rewarding compliance, not punishing it, and providing clarity in the law, not uncertainty. This bill provides those clarifications and, you know, fixes attempts to fix this problem of not unfairly punishing cities that are trying to comply in good faith. They're trying to do the right thing while still holding all jurisdictions accountable.
With me to testify in support of this bill, representing the League of California Cities, Brady Gurton, and, representing, from my, assembly district, the city of Redondo Beach, Mark Wiener.
Speaker 45
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I know we've been spending all morning together. Good to, be here, and we're nice in a nice close knit network. But wanted to first appreciate all the work with the committee that we've had conversations on and the assembly members.
Speaker 14
Calcities did support us submitted support if amended position only because we think a longer conversation needs to happen, and we think this is a good first step. And I'm gonna explain to you why this bill by as a member of Marisucci, it'd be 2741 is a great first step. The reality is is that in the sixth regional housing needs allocation cycle, the sixth arena cycle, ACV allowed hundreds of local governments to use residential overlay zones to meet their arena obligations and certified their housing elements. Due to the new commune decision, cities are now tasked with potentially losing their housing element certification as we have seen in Redondo Beach, and our cities are rightly concerned about the elevated litigation risk. Through no fault of the city zone, their housing elements listening to state guidance, which the legislature has been made a priority in terms of having HCD come up with decisions and and and regulations around housing elements.
Speaker 45
And we listened to that. And as a result of a court having a disagreement, we have, our cities are now at risk for constant litigation, is gonna slow down development for both developers and, the housing needs that we are all trying to address in California. Given the proposal does allow time to correct the violation prior to those penalties starting. And the goal of that is to give cities time to incorporate changes that they need to do and respond accordingly prior to these penalties. Now the important use of overlays is also an important tool that I know we need to have longer conversations of for the future cycle future cycles because they provide flexibility to developers, and they're more they're important tools for local governments to balance economic development and smart residential go growth to promote walkable infill development as we have seen has been a priority to legislature for the last several years.
Zoning overlays help balance the needs of economic development and smart residential growth and provides flexibility so local governments can provide certainty to developers to have long term opportunities for development within their community. And we know we we have had conversations as the analysis reflects of some of the opposition groups. We look forward to conversations about that. And today, we are asking for a support on b twenty seven forty one and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 60
Yeah. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. I first wanna thank our assembly member, Maritucci, and staff for working on this bill. I wanna thank you for considering it. I represent the city of Redondo Beach as their community development director.
I'm here with our one of our council members, Brad Waller, who's here representing the city as well. And we're an example of a city that would be affected by this bill that's before you. In fact, we're part of the genesis of it. So we work closely with state HCD and got our housing element certified in 2022. At state HCD's direction, we did include overlay zones within our housing element, and they've actually been successful.
Right now, we have a application in to build a 167 units on one of those overlay zones. We were sued for compliance with our housing elements. The trial court said our housing element did comply with state law, and appeals court determined that it did not because of the use of overlay zones. So we really think it's important that we that be expressly allowed under state law that you can use overlay and mixed use zones. I do wanna note that in Redondo Beach, 80% of our land is zone residential already, and maintaining, some amount of industrial commercials important to other policies we have in our general plan about jobs, housing balance, and fiscal sustainability.
So we feel strongly about the overlay zones, and they are working. And I do wanna speak to a provision of the bill that addresses the grace period for cities that are determined noncompliant by a court decision. We feel this is important as well. We're an example of a city that worked in good faith with HED, took their direction. Now because of this lawsuit, this determination, we are exposed to builders remedy.
We've just received three applications so far, some of which are concerning in terms of the fit with our community. So I think by having this grace period, it rewards cities that have gone through the process and followed the law for making a good faith effort. By having a go having the housing element decertified immediately, it really invites law suits and it's gonna create atmosphere for legal challenge and just challenges working with cities through these matters. So we're strongly in favor of including the grace period and the overlay zones that are proposed in this bill. And with that, thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 42
Good afternoon. Tracy Rine Ruralkein, representative of California. With a support if amended, we would like to see a a larger conversation moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 60
Afternoon. Mark Neuberger, California State Association and Counties. We're also supportive of amended and support the amendments outlined by RCRC.
Speaker 1
Alright. Bring up the primary witnesses in opposition. We're gonna need to make some room for them here. So we're gonna ask the the supportive witnesses to to take a step back for a moment, maybe sit in those chairs behind you and make some room for these. Oh, just okay.
No. Never mind. You're fine. Actually, we just have one one witness in opposition.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon, mister chair members. Anya Lawler here on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project in the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in an opposing less amended position. I will say we do strongly support the notion that jurisdictions that followed HCD's guidance to adopt their housing element in good faith should have time to remedy any deficiencies that are subsequently identified by a court or even jurisdictions that aren't sued but find themselves in the same situation. We think that makes a lot of sense. We don't necessarily think the language in the bill on that point totally works, but happy to work on that moving forward.
But from our position, the jurisdictions that are impacted by a new commune should have to fix the zoning deficiencies. We feel really strongly about that, and that is because our organizations have spent the last six housing element cycles doing advocacy around housing elements and tightening sites requirements to make sure that we ultimately end up with sites that are attractive to developers and that can actually accommodate affordable housing in particular. Because so many jurisdictions over the years have been very skilled at blocking affordable housing development by avoiding allowing multifamily housing, which is why we have housing on that law in the first place. Right? It's a fair housing law that is designed to ensure that cities are breaking down patterns of segregation exclusion and making sure that low income people can live in every single community in the state.
So it it is through our experience that we have run bills over the years to tighten sites requirements to make sure we're getting real sites, and that's exactly why the law reads now that, rezone program sites must meet a minimum density standard. Two appellate courts now have said that the plain language of the law makes that clear. So it's frustrating that jurisdictions even find themselves in this situation. But we do think that we shouldn't just give cities in this position a pass and let the zoning stand. We think they should go back and fix it to create minimum density standards to meet their rezone obligations.
Happy to have a longer conversation with folks about the role of overlays because I understand that they do work out sometimes, but often they're just a dodge and they're hiding fake sites that are never gonna develop and that's a problem. So, appreciate the conversation on the bill. No objection to it moving forward, but looking forward to future conversations.
Speaker 1
Great. Another we have another witness. No. Other folks who are here in opposition. We have a witness.
Speaker 15
Ali Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, with respectful opposed, position. We really appreciate the intent of this bill, but I wanted to provide a clarification on, the housing element process. So for some context, I work on housing elements all across the state. We've sued a number of cities based on their housing elements at my nonprofit, based off of their site suitability. When sites are evaluated, they're evaluated on a basis of substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is not determined by HCD. It's actually, determined and deferred to, the courts. And so eliminating this, this, like, process of, having a, housing element overturned by the courts is a clear, like, hole in the bill that we, should work to address. And then, additionally, it works to, undermine the builder's remedy, which has been put to in place to, help us meet our housing goals, in cities that aren't good actors. And so we're hoping to find solutions there as well.
Speaker 43
Good afternoon, chair and members. Andres Ramos with public advocates. I may oppose unless amended for the reasons stated by miss Lawler. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association. We apologize for getting our letter into the portal a little bit later. We have been having productive conversations with the author's office early on in the process. We look forward to working on section three and four, which are particularly challenging for us as it relates to the builder's remedy, and look forward to those conversations. Thank you.
Speaker 18
And Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California Yenby, echoing the same comments as CBAA. We have particular concerns on sections three
Speaker 69
I I came into this, committee with a, you know, eye with a men's recommendation, and you noted that you took a portion of the amends, and I had read through and liked the amends. And so I wondered if you can give, greater explanation on why, not taking the amends related to section three and four.
Speaker 55
Yes. So, that's with the the chair's support. I can't speak for the chair, but it's my understanding that that the the chair has agreed with our basic argument that that cities shouldn't be punished for trying to comply in good faith. You know, I that is the the the nature of section three and four that that remains in place in terms of the, you know, of of or not accepting the amendments to that. That is to continue to allow the two hundred seventy day grace period.
And, again, you know, the the the point of this bill is to let is to give cities a chance to fix the problem. You know? The cities submit the housing element. It was approved by HCD and then subsequently overturned by the court. You know, I I would respectfully disagree with the the opposition's argument that it's creating a hole in enforcement, you know, because no.
I mean, they the court decision has has basically thrown out the housing element, and it's requiring the cities to go back to the drawing board and and come back with a new housing element and and to seek the certification from ACD with the new housing element. So to that extent, you know, absolutely, the the court enforcement process still works, but we just the sections three and four, the sections that were not with the chair's approval and not accepting is to give cities a chance to fix the problem.
Speaker 1
And Yeah. Sure. Yes. Absolutely. This is an unusual situation because we did ask for a set of amendments, and it was support if amended with those, and and a portion of those amendments are being accepted and and and others not.
My view on it after discussions with the author is that for sections three and four, there should be more conversation there. As we heard, there are a number of folks here who have concerns about what is in section three and four right now, and our expectation is that those conversations will continue. I think this issue of a jurisdiction that had the approval of HCD in good faith, believed they were doing the right thing, and then is told by a court that they have not, they should have some time or some consideration of that before all of the different aspects of the builder's remedy and such immediately goes into place. I don't know if the two hundred and seventy days is right. I don't know if we should limit that further in terms of what exactly, you know, put some further guardrails around it, but my view is that those conversations should continue.
What I don't what is in the bill fully right now is section three and four, I don't think is where it can end up. And and I do reserve the right to bring this back to committee as it moves forward if it doesn't get to a place that that we're happy with. So that that was the thinking as to what to allow him to reject the the amendments in three and four and and continue it to move forward. But this this conversation will continue, and and and we'll bring this back committee if it to committee if it doesn't get to the place, that we need it to be.
Speaker 69
Well, thank you for that. Thank you for that explanation. I'll line my comments with I, you know, appreciated the amends as they were and understood that there still needs to be work. And so, I'll support the bill today, but reserve the right to, one, not on the floor if it makes it there without coming back to us, and and and looking at it afresh if it does come back to us. Thank you to the author.
Miss
Speaker 11
Wigsaw. I'm gonna concur with my colleague right here. I am concerned about not you not taking the amendments three and four. And I know fundamentally, there is some not major, but many disagreements on housing elements. But we have to always go back to why are we in this place in California regarding, not just HCD, but cities, that haven't moved forward.
And it's always the carrot and the stick, which is I don't think any of us come to Sacramento. Many of us served on local government before. I know my colleague did. I did. And we didn't, get elected at local government and then come to the state and said, we're gonna really put it to cities.
But what we've seen that has happened in the last ten to fifteen years has been an explosion of homelessness. And when we go back to why are we in this crisis, there's been we could go all day long on a housing conference if we wanted to on the reasons, and we still might not agree. But but what we can clearly say is because we haven't been building the affordable housing units. And there have been, excellent actors in this space, meaning cities who are doing their job and actually, in many cases, doing more than their share. And then there's, local jurisdictions that have not.
And there's every reason, that is given to us about why they can't. But what it does is then it pushes the issue of building these units onto someone else. And this is why HCD is growing. It's why you've seen more and more laws in this space. And it's actually why you see these court cases.
But I don't think any of us want to see these resolutions as far as, what your housing element is, how much you're building, how much you're not go to court. It's kind of the last thing we wanna see. It's not a friendly way for the state and local jurisdictions, to work together, but we can't have the bad actors just not doing anything. Mhmm. So that is my concern.
Mhmm. And as was stated, I will support it today. We all say in this in the committees right now, we're in the second I believe this is or I'm not sure if it's the first committee you're in. But it's the first or second committee. There's a long way to go in this process.
And we do sincerely hope that there can be work so that when they get it gets to the floor, that that there can be support. Sure. So you know what we're talking about. Absolutely.
Speaker 55
And and miss Kurksova, I I I would, you know, completely agree with what you're saying that, you know, we are facing this affordable housing crisis because, you know, not every city has been complying in good faith with the the mandate from the state to build more housing, to increase the overall state housing supply. This bill is about the good actors. This bill is about helping the good actors comply to do the right thing And to give them a break if a court throws out their housing element, let them fix the problem. Let them rezone, do whatever they need to do to get the ACD approval to build the housing that we're talking about.
Speaker 11
have any other members that wanna weigh in on this bill? Alright. Then we'd, offer a closing.
Speaker 55
Thank you. I, yeah. I think everything's been said. I I really appreciate the chair listening, hearing me out, you know, to I I think he as he stated, understands the intent of the bill to let the good actor cities be part of the solution rather than being penalized for trying to comply in good faith. So with that, I respectfully ask for your high vote.
Speaker 30
The motion is to pass as amended to the assembly committee and local government. Haynie?
Speaker 11
just handed to me. Sorry. Do we have a motion to move forward? Second? Second.
Motion and a second. And now Ready to go. Uh-huh.
Speaker 30
Again, the motion is to pass as amended to the assembly committee and local government. Haney, Patterson, Abi Lafarius Aye. Abi Lafarius, aye. Colosa, Garcia, Colra, Lee
Speaker 11
Alright. We will bring that back when the other members come. Thank you. Next are we doing? Oh, I'm sorry.
Next, we are gonna hear from, assembly member Ward, AB 2525.
Speaker 71
Well, thank you, madam chair. And members, I'm gonna be exceptionally brief. I'm sure you all have done some homework on this, very simple and narrow district bill. We know the surplus lands act serves a very important housing resource and statewide purpose. It's but sometimes it's procedural requirements may not be feasible where housing is actually legally prohibited like Mission Bay Park in San Diego.
So we're here to present a b twenty five twenty five which would expedite the rehabilitation and modernization of facilities within Mission Bay Park in the city of San Diego by this narrow exemption for lands which are legally dedicated as parkland and restricted to commercial, recreational maritime and visitors serving, commercial uses as specified in both the bill, a state deed, and our city charter. AB twenty five twenty five provides us narrow and appropriate exemption for Mission Bay Park, allowing the city to continue managing these lands in accordance with its charter, long standing public trust obligations, and the strict conditions outlined in the bill. I have with me to present in support Moira Top on behalf of the city of San Diego.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chair and members. I'm Moira Top here on behalf of San Diego, Meritag Gloria, and the city of San Diego. We are the sponsors of the measure. The Mission Bay Park is truly the crown jewel for, the city. If you've been to this, to the city, I'm sure you've been to Mission Park.
Speaker 58
It's a place where San Diegans, Californians, and people from, honestly, all over the world come to enjoy bike paths and walking paths and harbor, and you can kayak. It it is truly a a beautiful, location, so beautiful, that the city, or the people of San Diego in 1964, passed an initiative to really dedicate this parkland, in perpetuity. It does have a prohibition against residential development. The San Diego, I think, has been held up as a true model for the state, as a city that, promotes affordable housing. It's often used as an example for state legislation for all the work that we're doing in San Diego.
Speaker 8
But the the surplus land act does present an issue specific to this, to the Mission Bay Park. We have used the surplus land act multiple times. We're very proud of the fact that we have about 4,000 units coming online, in the in a, one of the largest if the largest affordable housing project, on the West Coast coming soon. It'll be in tie not just planned for, but we'll we'll we're moving towards entitlement soon. So we don't come to the legislature asking for an exemption from the state lands or surplus land act lightly.
We do it because, we believe in housing, but we believe in house bill building housing in the right spot. So, we do think this is an important measure. It is very narrow. It is very targeted. We've worked with the with the staff.
We appreciate your staff, coming to some amendments. We'd like to continue to work and fine tune those amendments as we move along, but we do appreciate the the effort, and ask for your I vote today.
Speaker 11
All right. Thank you. We appreciate that. Do we have any other supporters? Any supporters in the audience here?
All right. Then we are going to go ahead and bring up opposition. I'm like, where is everything?
Speaker 16
We'll be brief from this mic. JT Herchbeck, nonprofit housing association in Northern California. We want to thank the author and the sponsor for their commitment to affordable housing and for conversations we've had and for taking the committee amendments. We know that you're interested in continuing the conversation on the last committee, so we look forward to being part of that conversation as well.
Speaker 33
Brian Augusta with Public Interest Law Project. Appreciate the conversation so far. Echo the comments of NPH on where we're headed next. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Natalie Spivak with Housing California. We don't have an official position on the bill yet, but wanna echo the comments of my two colleagues before me and look forward to continuing to work on the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Andres Ramos with Public Advocates aligning my comments with, Brian and JT. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Alright. Seeing no others, let's bring it to the committee. Motion to move. Second. Comments here?
Speaker 31
Thank you, senate member, and and we had a bill earlier as well, today, regarding, an exemption from the surplus land act. So just my common kind of refrain of I I know they have to come up here now that they're all they're always district bills, just a a caution, for us generally to, to have those exemptions. That being said, I do appreciate the the amendments, the tailoring of it through the last committee as demonstrated by some of the opposition indicating appreciation for that kind of tailoring. I think that kind of collaborative conversation and and movement allows for these exemptions to, but be much more palatable. And so and I trust your work.
Speaker 34
I trust the work of of mayor Gloria. And so I just hope those con conversations continue, and and we'll be supporting the bill.
Speaker 11
Any other comments from members? Alright. And we are going to take it to a vote.
Speaker 33
Just wanna thank the committee staff again for their very thoughtful conversations because I I just, you know, sort of be very kind of plain English here. We're talking about wetlands, tidelands, former state deeded lands to the city of San Diego that were never intended for residential development yet for the modernization improvement of many facilities that many Californians do enjoy. The surplus land act has become a very narrow and specific barrier. This bill
Speaker 71
keep those wonderful visitor serving facilities, Californians, and and locals alike available for for the public. And I wanted to wish a happy administrative professional's day to Despina. With that, I
Speaker 30
You. Sure. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Motion to pass the assembly committee in appropriations.
Haney, Harrison, Avila Farias?
Speaker 30
Avi Laffarias, no. Colosa, Garcia? Cholera? Aye. Cholera, aye.
Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Corksilva? Corksilva, aye.
Ta? Ta aye. Thank you, Pa. Thank you, Pa. Wiggs.
Wilson. Wilson, aye. Thank you. 456.
Speaker 11
Yes. We are going to have a b twenty two fifty two by assembly member Lee.
Speaker 53
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Yes. This bill, with the approval of the chair, is for presentation only, so we will not be taking a vote today. But I do believe this is an important conversations we should which we should be having about single stair multifamily buildings. Just to set the scene, three years ago, I authored a b eight three five, which passed and required the state fire marshal's office to convene a working group to research and then produce a report on standards necessary for the building code to allow multiunit buildings above three stories that have a single stairway.
That report, unfortunately, came out a little late. It came out in March 2026, but it came out with some recommendations, sort of. In short, the rec reports said that the code standard should be changed to allow singles single stair building and buildings up to four stories. That is one story above the current allowed allowed limit. But it also noted, and I think it is quite, apparent, it also noted that fire departments were near unanimous against any height above three stories that is current law.
In addition, the report said that consideration of five to six story single stair buildings required further study. So that we passed that bill in 2023. The study finally came out March 2026. While we were studying this bill and the work group was, deliberating about this, many other states and jurisdictions and one city in California has jumped ahead of us already. At the same time when we were studying in this work group, so was Minnesota.
The Minnesota report came out in December 2025. This report looked at buildings up to eight stories and came to the conclusion that if automatic fire sprinklers were operating with 96% efficacy and there were smoke detectors in com common areas, then those buildings had the same or less fire risk as dual stairway buildings. But to be fair, that report also indicated that firefighting tactics would need to be further researched. So I've introduced this bill, a b twenty two fifty two, which tasks HCD develop and make recommendations to code commission standards for up to six story single stair buildings. I expect HCD would recommend limitations on the units per floor, limits on how many square feet maximum per floor, sprinkler sprinklers, detectors, specific fire ratings for construction.
That is what the bill requires HCD to do. We have seen time and time again across studies that these buildings can be safe. It comes down to modern fire suppression technology and the bravery of modern fire departments. We're not talking about six story tenement buildings from the Victorian era in New York. We're talking about modern buildings built past 2026.
And I also wanna acknowledge that since working on this bill for three years, understand the hesitation from fire departments and fire chiefs, and I understand that there is risk inherent in multifamily buildings. There's always risk inherent when we build larger, when we build when we build denser. But what this bill unlocks is for us to have dense infill buildings that are on the small neighborhood scale that we love in Central Europe or in Amsterdam, that we love in Japan, but are completely illegal in California today. The reality is if we want to have narrow buildings on small lots, a single stair is not just a matter of costing. It has an architectural ability to unlock small lots to be multifamily.
Like Culver City, which was the only city that got to do the single stair code change right before we did the building code moratorium freeze, by the way, which we had negotiated as a committee to make sure that the the code freeze was inclusive of single stair building should we come to something out of the report. They limited it to six stories in height, four stories per floor. Now not every city is like Culver City, but not every city is like Seattle or New York City as well. But what we're trying to do in this bill is allow it get HCD to have statewide common standards safe common standards in the building code so that more jurisdictions can build these small neighborhood scale multifamily buildings. AB twenty two fifty two also authorizes local governments to pursue single stair local standards so that the state would set the minimum levels of safety required, which include all the limitations and protections I mentioned, and local governments could pursue standards that are more stringent if they so choose.
Single stair buildings are intended to reduce construction costs and especially on lots that are skinny or odd shaped, and this is code a code standard that has been has been and is being adopted around the country. Seattle, New York City, as I mentioned, but also Texas, Montana, Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland, and Minnesota are studying this. So the reality is, as we talk about also in several different contexts about prefab housing or modular housing, this is also kind of in a nerdy world of architect architecture unlocking new products of housing. At the end of the day, it will be up to local communities and developers themselves should they choose to go create these things. And I understand and totally respect the concerns that local jurisdictions and fire departments have raised about this.
And just to note that, you know, these are new practices for California, and certainly everything comes with new changes, new pros and cons, but we need to be thinking about how to unlock more opportunities for small, infill dense multifamily housing, and I believe this is one of those things. So while we have studied this for the last three years, we debate this. The reality is blue and red states alike are are surpassing us in this regard. And if California with our large cities can't do it, then I don't know why Colorado and Montana can do it faster than us. So I know today is only for discussion because I do think this is a really important issue to be discussing today.
But with me today, to further elaborate on this is San Jose city council member Anthony Tordillas who represents Downtown San Jose and Ali Zapperman with Housing Action Coalition.
Speaker 39
Good afternoon, chair Haney and committee members. My name is Anthony Tordios, and I serve as the downtown council member for California's third largest city, San Jose. And my residents feel the burden of our housing shortage every single day. Nearly half of our renters are rent burdened, including 63% of our lower income households. Yet three years into our arena cycle, the city's on track to meet only 36% of our housing target, not because we are opposed to new development, but because high construction costs have rendered most projects infeasible.
A recent study in San Jose found that multifamily residential projects would need to lower construction costs by between 1230% in order to reach market feasibility, and that is simply not a problem that cities can solve on our own. But legalizing taller single staircase buildings could significantly close the gap, decreasing construction costs by as much as 13% and unlocking infill development on smaller urban lots. That's why last fall, an overwhelming majority of my council colleagues voted to support single stair reform. We recognize that these reforms cannot come at the expense of safety. And while the fire marshal's report did not compare the safety of modern single stair and two stair buildings, other studies have.
Speaker 60
As was referenced, a 2025 Minnesota study found that six story single stair buildings can actually be safer than two stair buildings. That finding is backed up by empirical data. An analysis of twelve years of fire safety data spanning over 4,000 single stair buildings in New City and Seattle found that they are every bit as safe as two stair equivalents. And what's more, a 2024 Pew study, found that modern apartment buildings have a fire death rate six times lower than older apartment buildings and single family homes, meaning that reforms that enable the redevelopment of older properties will help to increase the safety of our built environment, not decrease it. This reform, as was mentioned, has significant momentum.
Speaker 39
Since California commissioned that fire marshal study, 10 states have legalized taller single stair buildings. There's also been significant interest in the state of California. Locally, Culver City and Santa Monica have both moved forward with reforms, and San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose have all taken steps to support single stair reform. If these buildings can work in New York and Seattle and Texas and Colorado and a dozen other states and cities and countries all over Europe and Asia, they can work in California. I know that we won't be voting on this today, but I urge the committee to move this bill forward in the future as an evidence backed tool to address housing affordability crisis.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon, chair and committee members. I'm Ali Saperman, advocacy and policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition. The Housing Action Coalition is a statewide pro housing nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all levels of affordability. Our members include developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners who build housing across California. AB twenty two fifty two is the direct successor to AB eight thirty five, which the legislature passed in 2023 to study single stair buildings.
The state fire marshal completed that study for recommendations up to four stories. The groundwork has been laid, and this bill acts on it. This bill isn't simply a code fix. It's a housing production tool. Double stair requirements effectively set as a floor on building floor plates that rolls out a significant share of California's urban infill parcels.
Single stair unlocks these sites. It also reduces construction costs, allows for larger and more varied unit sizes, including more bedrooms, and produces buildings that are simply better designed. Units on all sides, natural light, and ventilation throughout. No dark internal corridors. It's the kind of housing more Californians want to live in.
We've heard concerns from the fire marshal, and we take them very seriously, But the evident points in the other direction. Single stair buildings designed as point access blocks with limited occupancy and essential pressurized stairwell surrounded by exterior facing units actually reduce evacuation risk. The leading cause of fire fatalities is not the fire itself. It's smoke inhalation. And it's long double loaded corridors, not stairwells, where smoke accumulates and kills.
Single stair buildings eliminate that choke point entirely. On the six story question, the fire marshal's four story recommendation is a foundation, not a ceiling. New York and Seattle have permitted six story stick single stair buildings for several decades with strong safety records. The mitigations that make those buildings safe safe are well understood and available here. Culver City already moved to permit six stories before the a b one thirty code freeze.
This bill gives every local jurisdiction that same pathway. The internal the International Code Council met this week and adopted four story standards, provides additional precedent for our bill. We can utilize the four story standards and recommendations as a floor with additional mitigations to continue to ensure safety. At the end of the day, the mitigations will not be created in a vacuum. This bill will be executed in consultation with the fire marshal.
A b twenty two fifty two is evidence based, urgently needed, and long in the making. As sponsors, we urge this bill to move forward, and we're committed to supporting this innovate innovative housing type in a way that is safe for both residents and first responders. And we, welcome questions.
Speaker 50
Good afternoon, chair members. Steven Senzler with Brown stein here on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support, and I was also asked to express support from Streets For All. Thank you.
Speaker 60
Good afternoon. My name is Han Kang, and I'm with the city of San Jose. And we actually support this bill in concept and look forward to working with the author and other legislators and stakeholders on this bill and future efforts.
Speaker 36
Good afternoon, chair and, committee members. I'm Steve Valver. I'm currently representing Cal Chiefs and the Fire District Association in California. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. We would, very strongly oppose, this bill in the way that it's shaped as of right now.
We know that, for good reason, that anything over 30 feet does now require aerial access from what we call a ladder truck. This is why that that limit is at 30 feet tall with three stories. Every agency up and down California does carry a ground ladder that we can access and be able to have that last resort second inch effort to be able to pull somebody from one of those apartment buildings. In my experience of almost thirty years in the fire service, I've been to one too many fires even in a two story apartment complex where that single stairwell became compromised and now seeing residents leaping from a second story window down to the ground just trying to survive. A single point failure when it comes to a single stairwell is no matter what, we cannot eliminate some of the human behaviors that causes that fire to occur in the first place.
Speaker 48
We can't engineer our way out of it. We can't design around that. There's always gonna be an element that we have to try to protect and build upon and be able to be ready to respond to in that nature. Therefore, we would strongly oppose this bill from moving forward for any type of vote. Thank you.
Mister chair and committee, Brian Rice. I'm the president of the California Professional Firefighters. I represent over 38,000 firefighters in the state of California that serve in over a 187 of our communities. I'm here today in respectful opposition of a b two two five two due to our concerns regarding resident safety and firefighter safety. The building code currently allows single staircase and single exit up to three stories, and this proposal would direct the building standards commission to increase the code to allow up to six stories in height.
When a building has a single staircase and a single exit, that significantly increases the risk by removing critical redundancy of a second exit and a staircase. In my fire service career, I've had the fortune to help people to safety during fires and the misfortune of attempting to save a resident who didn't make it. Fire scenes are chaotic. And when when something like a single exit fails, the outcome will be deadly. I was recently speaking with retired fire chief Jeff Johnson.
He's the Western Fire Chiefs Association president. He shared with me an example of a fire in a single staircase, single exit building that was three stories and had an exit failure. Picture community, a suburban community, Could be Solano County, could be Sacramento County, just your typical community. On 01/29/1996, in the early morning hours, an 11 year old arsonist set a fire in a single stairway single exit stairway of a three story Oakwood Apartments in Washington County, Oregon. This is any community that y'all represent.
According to chief Johnson, because the fire obstructed the exits, residents were forced to jump or succumb to the fire. Units from Tualatin Valley Fire Rescue arrived to a chaotic scene, which eventually yielded eight fire deaths, five were children, and 14 additional ambulance transports for either burn or trauma received from the jump. The Oakwood apartment fire was most deadly in Oregon history that year, and according to chief chief Johnson, the single exit was undoubtedly the contributing factor to the deaths and the injuries. It's not in the community's interest to reduce egress. I don't share this with you to scare any of you.
And probably outside of my colleagues in uniform, I'm the only one in this room that has had to pull a citizen and citizens from a fire, and dead. And I will agree with most citizens succumb to the smoke, and and sprinklers help control that. But there are factors to this when you go over three stories. You're at risk right now. When you go over three to six, the one thing you are not considering is human behavior.
And residents prop open doors no matter how many times we inspect the building. Unless you have somebody on scene for fire watch to monitor that on a continuing basis, you have no guarantees that those systems are going to work. And lastly, the only real community in California that is prepared to deal with a density like this is the city and county of San Francisco. Los Angeles City right now is short 60 fire stations and 4,000 firefighters.
Speaker 48
very communities that we're talking about being advantaged with this type of construction are the very communities that are not prepared. They are the urban, the infill, the infill. They do not have the staffing. They do not have the truck companies. And before we get into this, you really need to consider a staffing source for the fire departments of California, which would include if you're a special district or city or county, that you would increase the property tax revenue ratio to those fire departments so they can properly staff in perpetuity and protect their communities.
You can't have this kind of a code change without funding the fire department to protect it. And I'm here to tell you that all the modern campfire fire suppression systems, all those things are at peace. The thing that saves the community of firefighters and men and women that respond when the unexpected happen, and
Speaker 48
happen. For this reason, California firefighters were adamantly opposed to this code change.
Speaker 22
Lance Ray, Kasunas Fire District, serving the communities of Elk Grove and Galt strongly opposed.
Speaker 8
Amy Nygren, fire marshal for the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, opposed.
Speaker 1
Anyone else here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. Alright. Colleagues, miss Wilson.
Speaker 1
I appreciate, we are very much aligned in terms of housing and the need to address the housing crisis that we have in the state and to give our cities and the tools and resources to build housing. And I also appreciate the fact that, well before this was noticed, you came and talked to me about the bill and put it on my radar to see, what concerns I could have that I had, if any. And some of the things we talked about at that time was, one thing that struck me is not so much about the bill itself, but just the impact of since it's infill, what it's next door to, that there might be suppression, great things around the building that is being built, but a lot of times in our infill, you're being built next to something that doesn't have those types of things, especially when I think about, some of my downtowns in Solano County. They're next to some old buildings. We've had several fires a few times where it wasn't the it was a fire in one place, but it quickly spread to the next place just because of the problems within that building.
Speaker 69
And so that was something I was considering. I'm glad that it's a presentation versus a voting because I think it gives us an opportunity to have this discussion and really think through what should be actually introduced because we you you brought this before as, eventually a study bill got turned into a study bill, and there was a report that came back. May not have liked what came back in it, but there there was, it looks like, because I had a chance to read the analysis and go and read the report, that it seemed thoughtful. Seemed like a lot of voices were at the table, and they came back with four, stories. And I know it's only one more than you than what's currently allowable, but there wasn't this thought of putting in the bill of starting with four, and and seeing what and see what could do that.
And so I just wondered why not take the recommendation of the study and start there versus going having HDD all the way go all the way to six.
Speaker 53
Yeah. I I appreciate that. And, yes, the study did come out with a, I would say, tepid support for a four story, although it is in there. I wanted to follow the the guidance and the kind of common practice you see with many other states. As noted by one of my witnesses today, the International Building Code.
The International Building Code came out with today with four stories as well and really intended you know, this is first committee process, so we would kinda go and talk about what are other considerations and changes. I wanna start at six because that was kind of starting to practice in American places, but I was always very open to doing four or, you know, whatever the mix is. But I thought at least opening offer, we should try to aim a little higher and with our standards, especially because Culver City in California is six stories, four units per floor already. And their that's their center in California. So I try to have some uniformity in that sense, but it was always my intention to be open to all sorts of dialogue.
And I do, appreciate the CPF and also the, the fire chiefs have always been we've been in communication on this issue, especially through your excellent staff up here. And, you know, it's no secret that I've worked on this issue, and I always appreciate that it's no secret that I understood where you all were at on some issues. But I I do know there's still concerns with even the four story aspect of it too. So
Speaker 69
Thank you. And then one question for opposition, and then I'll be done. I first of all, appreciate the work that you all do. You keep us safe. You you answer the call on people's absolute words of day, not just as it relates to fires, but medical issues as well.
And so, thank you for being an amazing, member of our community and part of our, you know, public safety aspect. So thank you for that. One of the things that was brought to my attention and and and wondering if you can explain a little bit more is, not just the funding of the personnel. And most of our as you noted as a part of testimony, most of our fire departments are underfunded, have vacant positions that can't be filled, things of that nature. But was as it relates to the difference beyond four was this ladder truck.
Because it's not that you only use the stairwell to get to folks. You have ladders on your truck and the capacity of most California states as it relates to beyond the 4th Story. Can you elaborate on that? Yes. I'll be done with my question.
Speaker 27
Many fire departments have aerial ladder trucks. And if you look at a city like San Francisco who really residential buildings in the cities, unless you get out to the avenues and some of the other areas, it's it's usually three floor, three stories or more. And ladder trucks are a secondary means of egress. The thing to consider is that San Francisco has a density, and so they if you go to the fire chief, he's gonna tell you, I I need at least a dozen more ladder trucks, but we're surviving now. Most departments and the thing that concerns me for a Culver City is they're not set up to have the ladder truck protection that they that they need.
Speaker 48
The city, may have one. They're gonna rely on the city of Los Angeles and the county of Los Angeles to provide that. That is a it's a service that, generally speaking, for every four to five fire stations, you'll find a ladder truck that services that area. They have a bigger response area. They take longer to respond.
They have a very different job. I was a rescue and a ladder captain or a truck captain, and the primary portion of our job is rescue. And I would tell every member of this committee, if I'm coming up a ladder and I'm gonna have at least two firefighters behind me to pull you out of a building, one or two of us are gonna have to get into the building to lift you out onto a ladder to have the firefighter waiting for you to come down. It's a two to three person operation. It's time consuming.
It is a method of last resort. And I I want the committee to understand that when we're talking about positioning and putting ladder and truck companies in service to do physical rescue, you are in a position of last resort, whether your single staircase is compromised to go out or a multiple. And if you have a multiple and two are compromised, that that's horrible. And I've been in those situations. Fortunately, we've been able to handle the demand, but a ladder truck is not the preferred way to remove a citizen, and it takes time.
And, you know, truly, San Francisco, a city like San Francisco or Los Angeles, they run task forces where they'll have four to six members on a truck company. Most of the suburban areas where I work and probably Culver City have four. And and I am telling you, if you have a three story building and you have three people that need to be rescued, it's not gonna take four. It's gonna take 12 because you're gonna be up and down and up and down. The discussion here is so much bigger, and I understand the concept, I actually really do appreciate it.
But you have to talk about funding the service to support that style of living density. You we can't bet on the come that everything is going to be fine. That risks the community that you're trying to build and that you're trying to enhance. And so I'm not stumping for fire department staffing or funding, but you've got to consider this when you do this. New York's New York I've got a I mean, I have an an example here.
Single exit multiple tragedies across, New York, Honolulu, and Quebec in these very types of buildings. In the last ten years, they've had several multi fatality fires. The Honolulu one involved a firefighter. Yes. Building construction is getting better and better and better, but guess what?
Human beings are the ones that live in it, and we sometimes can do some very dangerous and and negligent things that require firefighters. And the other one that we didn't talk about, fire inspectors. In order to have a building that is fire safe with dampeners, fire safe doors, sprinklers, fire detection systems, you have to have fire investigate inspectors, people that are trained to do inspections. You don't just do those once. In a building like that, it's a minimum of once a year.
You've gotta test those simp those systems, and you have to certify those systems. We're talking about a workload that is incredible. The community has to rise to meet that, and fire departments today, we are taxed. I left the line as a fire captain in 2008, and
Speaker 48
this fits across any city in California, it's twice as bitty and twice as violent. If we're going to go down this road, we have got to look at a funding and a staffing mechanism that provides for safe staffing and firefighter staffing in these communities. It has to happen. And I'm sorry. It was a long answer for a short question.
Speaker 44
Yeah. I do. I I also I actually wanna thank the author and also the opposition as well coming to speak about this bill. You know, I I wasn't able to connect with you yesterday, but I know how much you care about this. And and I I do think about, you know, what can we do to modernize that if we see that there are other municipalities and places around the entire United States that can do this?
Speaker 7
You know, where do we get to that point? And I do believe that the study itself kinda concluded some things, but maybe there are areas where we could talk about it in the future. But I echo the same thing that the opposition has right now that we're we're trying to put the solution for housing before the services to protect it are in place. And I think that we've seen that where one of the big things that I work with with the Fresno County Fire, Protection District is, you know, we have a lot of these large scale solar farms. We don't have the type of apparatus to put out issues if we have electrical or battery fires.
Speaker 44
We've seen that issue when it comes to those types of car accidents. We've seen I I mean, I think about the LA Wildfires too and the electrification of the fleet standards that we have. There is an entire fleet that was left dead that they weren't even able to service the water tenders. They had to reach out to Metropolitan Irrigation District to turn the water back on. So sometimes it just seems like where I think we definitely can get to a point where we can have, six story or maybe that type if we have the protection services available.
I've worked on the procurement for a ladder truck in Fresno County where we actually partnered with the local casino because there was no way we could afford this 807 foot ladder truck, ladder 72, at over $2,000,000 because the local fire protection district said there's no way. We can't pay for that. We're barely trying to do a $2.18 to afford what we can right now. And so I think the point that we really just need to get to is making sure that we can get the firefighters in our operations to where places like New York and Seattle. They have all the trucks in place.
They have everything else. Then they can make sure that they can take let's get to six, you know, story buildings. Let's get to that point in addition. And I do also I I agree with the author that with some of the new building material that we have right now, with some of the new firefighting capabilities that we have right now, new studies, you know, there are things that we're gonna be able to do in the future. And as long as we put, some of the safety precautions first prior to the building, that's where I'd like to be.
So with to the author, what I wanna make sure that I'm committed to you is I think there's a way we can find, this solution to have this type of housing in partnership with the, firefighters to where you have all of the personnel modernization and also when our local municipalities can just afford even staffing these trucks. You know, maybe we can get to that point first. So thank you, and thank
Speaker 34
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you for allowing assembly to present on this. I know how hard he's worked on this, how important it is to him. I think it's an important conversation to have. And I think that there's very little daylight between myself and Assembly Lee on the the majority of issues. I think this is one area where I don't know if the risk reward balances out in favor of continuing to march down this compared to all the other issues that you're working on and collectively we've been working on, including the package of streamlining bills that we were very successfully able to pass last year.
And and I've supported 95 of the bills that have come through for streamlining and higher density and overriding local control when it's necessary because we do need the housing. There's no doubt about it. But one of the aspects of this, which is important because you do want local jurisdictions to have control, but there's also an issue with that because oftentimes developers and other interests have more political influence than our firefighters. And I've seen that happen time and again, and I've seen the the cries from from fire departments be overwritten in the interest of budgetary issues or in the balance of things, their voices get ignored. I just saw it a few months ago in San Jose.
Med thirty, the drug oversight program established to support paramedics, was defunded. And I don't I can go further back. When I was on the city council 2008, 2016, time and again, the fire chief or the firefighters would show up and say, hey. We can't do this. It's gonna put us at risk.
And I think that's relevant because the average ratio for firefighters, fire departments is 1.54 to 1.81 per thousand nationally. In LA, the largest and most populous city in the West Coast is 0.9. San Jose, which is, many people don't know, the largest by size and most populous city in the West Coast, North Los Angeles, it's point six per thousand. And so I mentioned that, and there's only nine fire trucks in the entire 180 square miles, the ones with the ladders, in the entire 180 square miles of San Jose. So I I mentioned that because those are relevant issues to consider because that didn't happen by accident.
It happened because firefighters were ignored. Fire chiefs were ignored. When when I was in the council, they were saying we wanna change the the the goals or the objectives of fire departments from limiting fires to the boom of origin to structure of origin. That has a dramatic impact on saving lives or, you know, they they shut down the trucks and what have you. Right now, you know, I I think that we we have to recognize that, you know, Seattle has, I I believe, one over double, like, 1.7 or more per thousand, and New York also has a much higher ratio.
And so I get and I and I've I'm on that bandwagon wagon oftentimes understandably to try to be the first out there, but we have staffing issues in our state. And in fact, the Bay Area and LA in particular have far reduced staffing levels. I think San Francisco is probably the only exception, and it is higher density. That's another factor to consider. But that would be an issue where a local jurisdiction could make that decision, and I understand that.
I just think that, you know, I think time and again in in San Jose for certain, the needs of the the the the cries from the fire department, have been ignored. And I've seen staffing levels are lower now than they were, a decade and a half ago, and and that's unacceptable. And so I'm gonna have to listen to the to the the our fire our firefighters. And as a general statement on that, I think that there are you know, as we continue to analyze this, I think there's a lot of other things that we can focus on that don't have our because there's no alternative motive for for fire to say, hey. We don't think we should be doing this.
You know, they're just there to protect our communities. It's not like they're gonna get more money out of it because we say no to this. Right? The the staffing issues are issues that are an important issue to look at in in a point in time, but it's it's as we heard, know, that's not what they're here arguing about. They're just talking about the safety issues.
And so I I do appreciate your continued work on this. I I supported the study because I think it was important to have that study done, and I think it's important to have that conversation. I look forward to more conversation on it. But until we get our fire staffing levels up, especially in these spread out suburban, like, big cities like San Jose that are very spread out, and increase the number of trucks available, I I think it'll be very challenging, I think, for us to, again, the risk reward of of looking to to do an extra floor or maybe two floors versus other things we can do to increase density, I've I have and will continue to fully support.
Speaker 41
Thank you. I wanna thank the author for bringing forward the conversation and hearing from the supporters and the opponents of the bill. I'd love to figure out a way we can get there on this because I do think this is an important way we can make projects actually pencil, particularly because you see in seven states we've already passed this legislation. And obviously, the the examples of Seattle and New York and other places as well that are that are doing this. And seemingly the data that the Pew Research and I'm sorry I missed the presentation.
I've been running around like a crazy person all day. But so I don't know if this is already discussed, but the the Pew Research Center data showing that the fire fatality rates in modern single stair four to six story buildings were similar to other residential buildings over a twelve year period. So maybe taking a deeper dive into that data. I just would love to find a way that we can figure out how to move forward with this. I am glad that you did presentation only today because I think it's a a topic worth considering.
Always happy to hear from from our folks in the fire about their concerns, and would love to keep working on this with you to see if we can land this, in in further years as we move forward.
Speaker 1
Members, I don't see any. Mister Lee, this may be your opportunity to close.
Speaker 34
Okay. Well, I I know well, thank you, mister Cherigan, for allowing me to present the bill today. As my joint author, somewhere at Wickes, talked about, she was citing the Pew report that talked about that this report was the first ever analysis of 347 fires involving four hundred and sixty eight deaths over a twelve year period in New York City, and it demonstrated that fire fatality rates were no higher in four to six story single stair buildings than in any other types of residential buildings in New York City. We have a lot of great data out there talking about that these buildings are just as safe or just as risk inherent, we could phrase another way, as any other residential product out there. But the reality is as we have, in this body, moved so assertively on streamlining laws, on legalizing different housing products, we are now getting into the phase of especially with my joint author, Somer Wix, we're moving into the architectural world, like prefab housing, single stair, and also in the financing world.
Speaker 53
This is the next phase that we will go into, and there will be new risks and new concerns that pop up as we go along the way, and I always acknowledge that. And I also acknowledge that it's like, don't I don't think a single member, including myself, would ever dispute that we need to grow the infrastructure to support our cities. Our cities, should we all be as lucky as San Francisco, are all growing and densifying and changing. And if we are to appropriately budget for that change, we also need to have safe staffing ratios and safe fire departments that actually do it. Asha's right.
In many regards, my home city of San Jose is quite behind on a lot of things. Right? It is very true. But I think for the purposes of today's conversation and because today is a housing bill, I'm focused on the architectural change. And, you know, I would be in a heartbeat supporting the safe staffing ratios for all cities should that be the case.
Right? But today is our architecture, and it's it's about legalizing a different type of housing product. And if we want to allow for dense, walk, infill buildings that are gentle, not every apartment building has to be a massive 300 unit building. Those are the ones where you need multiple egresses, multiple places for sure. But if you want something that is comfortable on the scale of what we go vacation going, Japan, Korea, or, Amsterdam or other places that you see these buildings out there, those are the kind of buildings that even in modern day today in San Jose, just outside of downtown, you have those small Victorian lots that as we continue to change and upgrade as naturally cities grow, we will also need to grow the allowable types of buildings we use, but we also need to grow our ladder crews and grow our staffing ratios.
So I never I don't dispute anything that you're saying. It is true. But I don't think that we can't grow together at the same time where we allow more products and also work on the issue of funding and staffing our fire departments. So, again, I just wanna put a lot of respect to opposition. You know, it's been a long issue that has been in the works for a while, and I totally understand everything you're saying, and every I respect the arguments against it.
I just disrespectfully, I just think we can do two things at once rather than waiting for one than the other. So I really appreciate the opportunity to present today and talk about this issue. You know, this is an issue we continue to should work on because as we look to unlock more affordable housing options, this is a way to produce more affordable apartments or condos for people without having to be massive thousand foot building that, like, similar works to work on. Those are clearing giant commercial spaces. There's not a million of those all over California.
There's more and more small lots that can be developed. So, mister chair, I really appreciate that, and that will be my close. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Thank you so much, to the author for your hard work and and diligence and and continued relentless leadership on this. I I think what you've heard from the committee today is that it is an issue that we do think we should continue to talk about, and it's one that I think you as you've identified, is is a factor in some of the opportunities we have in housing development in the state, particularly when you look at what is happening in other other states and other countries. And at the same time, equally, that we have a responsibility to the health and safety of of of all of our residents and those who are tasked and given the expertise and the experience and the knowledge to know how to protect their their health and safety really need to be at the table from the beginning and and and working closely with them on any solutions that we have on this. And in particular, when we had a study that came came forward looking at really, I think that I would say, what that study says is a starting point to see what we can do from that, if there's any any areas of agreement within that.
Speaker 1
So I appreciate your continued work on this. I know you all you all continue to work on as well, and I appreciate the the firefighters, fire chiefs, all of the folks who came who've been working also really hard on this in support of it and both the joint authors. And so I'm sure we will be having further conversation about this in the future, and I appreciate this conversation today. There won't be a vote on this now, so we will move to our next item. Thank you.
Speaker 62
Thank you, mister chair. Noting that we have a motion in a second, I will do my best to be brief. I wanna start by thanking the chair and committee for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments. More than 13,000,000 Californians live in common interest developments, commonly known as homeowners associations or HOAs.
Speaker 72
Last year, as, part of a budget trailer, the legislature capped HOA fines at a $100. This cap has unintentionally weakened an HOA's ability to address serious violations that threaten community safety and stability, including fire hazards, harassment harassment of staff and residents, short term rental violations, unauthorized construction. And what we've seen is that in the absence of meaningful fine authority, associations are being forced to pursue a resolution in the courts and their litigation, which ends up being incredibly expensive and ends up being expensive for all of the residents of the community. So this bill actually came to me, from a constituent who was very frustrated because, their HOA was having to assess considerable charges to all of the, community residents to fund litigation efforts, that they are claiming as a result of of, these caps. So we wanna make sure that instead of using a sledgehammer, we use we're using a scalpel.
And with the committee amendments, the bill will establish a public process to determine a reasonable approach to allow HOAs to meaningfully enforce serious health and safety violations without penalizing honest and trivial mistakes. So with that, I'm pleased to be joined by Brad Bacum from the Manor of Community Management and Ross Myers, the president of the Lake Greenhaven Association.
Speaker 72
My yes. My witnesses have also noted that we have a motion in a second. So we'll keep our comments very brief, and they will be here to answer questions, but So
Speaker 46
my name is my name is Brad Bacum, and thank you very much, for having us at the time that we do today. Just briefly speaking about the impact that this has had, on myself as a community manager, managing many portfolio associations across the Bay Area, Sacramento, etcetera. We often run into issues with our boards, board members, etcetera, where we have the need to enforce the fiduciary duties of a board member as outlined in the governing documents. So one of my communities has 216 condominium homes, all individual separate units. Each unit owner is their own single family owner, and they can rent that out if they desire to lease, say, use, or tenants, etcetera, for housing concerns.
Speaker 73
The community enjoys common amenities, pool, spa, areas that are spacious and enough for people to enjoy. The community is served by a volunteer board of directors as is customary, comprised of elected owners from the association. And the community has a higher than normal percentage of owners in this application that tend to rent or lease their home in the community, which makes enforcement issues concerning, specifically for health and safety, fire, etcetera. So recently in a fine hearing at this community, the challenging issue under the current guidelines is that it limits to a $100. It doesn't allow for carve outs for severity, health and safety, fire, repeat offenders, or frequency.
So a fine hearing was held with the owner. The owner had received multiple notices in writing and also certified mail that there were debris, wood, tools, equipment tools, and all kinds of items being stored on their balcony, which creates a health and safety issue. And from there, at the fine hearing, the owner stated that the owner had certified that the balcony was clear. The lieutenant had cleared the balcony of all debris, wood materials, fire combustibles, and tools. A board member who lives in the community who was on the hearing with us actually stepped outside on her balcony and looked down at this located balcony beneath her and saw that none of the work the owners had been asserting had been completed at the time of the fine hearing.
So it causes a a situation where, sadly, the $100 limit without these necessary carve outs, they'll just pay it rather than comply with and then be bound by the governing documents, which are rules to benefit everybody that lives in the association for everyone's benefit. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 59
Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Ross Meyer. I'm the president of the Lake Greenhaven Association. Lake Greenhaven is approximately 59 acres of lake and about 19,000 lineal feet of bulkhead.
Speaker 45
For those people from Sacramento, you know that prior to it being Lake Greenhaven, it was actually a clay pit which, the bricks that built the capital came from. Make a real brief two safety concerns that we mainly deal because our focus is really about lake quality and the integrity of the bulkhead. So lake quality, we get significant algae blooms. A lot of those algae blooms come from debris that comes from the members, that algae which creates a health concern for the HOA. The lake also runs into the Sacramento storm drain system, so we try to mitigate algae blooms as much as possible.
Speaker 59
Bulkhead safety, anytime, members have obstructions that are impacting the integrity of our bulkhead. It makes it a safety concern. Our HOA has over 200 single family homes, two apartment complexes, two senior living environments, and a condominium association. So we always focus on maintaining a, you know, a bulkhead that's secure and a safe lake that doesn't have algae blooms and,
Speaker 45
Mister chair and members of the committee, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Committee Associations Institute, California Letters Ag Ashland Committee. We're sponsors and very much in support.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Jasmine Vai on behalf of California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Tom Freely with the California Association of Community Managers here in support of
Speaker 1
Alright. Do we have any, opposition witnesses? Do we have anybody here at all who's in opposition? Not seeing them. We'll bring it back to the committee.
We already have a motion and a second. Miss Wilson?
Speaker 69
And I know our vice chair talks about HOAs a lot. I just wanted to thank you for doing this. In this in the spirit of we do a lot of things, and we sometimes do a lot of things quickly. But how it gets implemented matters. The impact that it has downstream once the bill is enacted, it matters.
And so thank you for looking at this and and responding to a constituent who said, hey. What you guys did didn't quite work for me and coming back to the table, and I always appreciate when my colleagues do things like that. So thank you.
Speaker 7
Yes. This is, one of my favorite issue areas. I because I like look. I like where you're going with the bill. I think, you know, the limit I live in an HOA.
I think the limitations of gross and especially unsafe issues. You know, they need to be addressed. One concern I have, and I hope we can, maybe clarify, is, you know, there's been some dispute about whether HOAs have the authority to, regulate what occurs on a public right of way. And there's a lot of language in this bill that talks about sidewalks and impeding traffic. And the reason why I bring this up is because if I get another letter from my HOA about my son's basketball hoop, I am going to move it to the street.
But but it it seems like kinda like a nominal issue, but I just think fundamentally, HOA should not be regulating what occurs on the public right away. I think a city can choose to give some enforcement authority to an HOA, which I think would be acceptable. But is it the intent of this bill to because it it's very specifically says the placement of toys, games, or sports equipment in a common area or on another owner's property when not in use resulting in tripping hazards or the obstruction of traffic. And I think that's kind of rough.
Speaker 72
And and with so with the committee amendments, we're actually going through a public process that will actually define
Speaker 7
So So that's what you're struck from it, though? Yes. That's actually being struck.
Speaker 7
So So I gotta trust some regulators to come up with the authority of look. I'm I'm I'll I'll survive with that. Can I ask your witnesses a question on that? Or is it your belief that you ought to be able to regulate what occurs on a public right away?
Speaker 59
I would say for us, we don't regulate what goes on on the public right away. Obviously, in the city of Sacramento, it does have rules about how long your basketball hoop could be on. Correct.
Speaker 59
Those are city rules. And so what we will do as an HOA is defer those to the city.
Speaker 72
Excellent. Thank you. I only recently learned that the vice chair was passionate
Speaker 1
partnership and the HOA. Much, have you? No. You're naming the housing committee. There's been a lot of HOA talk today.
Alright. I don't see any other comments. You may close.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And I appreciate your your work on this. I appreciate you working with us and accepting the amendments and narrowing it and limiting it and and also dealing with a with a with a real issue and challenge that folks are experiencing. And we will take a vote.
Speaker 30
Yes. The motion is to pass to the assembly committee and judiciary. Aheny?
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Those are alright. We're gonna go through everything.
And then who we missing? Mister Garcia?
Speaker 68
Starting with the cons starting with with the the consent calendar, Item number six, a b nineteen twenty six, do pass to the assembly committee and appropriation. Item eight, a b two zero four four, do pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. Item 15, a b twenty one seventy four, do pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations. Item 18, a b twenty two sixty four, do pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations. Item 19 a b twenty three twenty do pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations.
Speaker 30
Item 20 a b twenty three twenty nine do pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. Item 25 a b twenty five eighty one to pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. And item 26 a b twenty six ninety two do pass to the assembly committee and judiciary. We need a motion and a second, please. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Haney I. Harrison? Aye. Harrison I. Abilafarias?
Wicks? Aye. Wicks aye. Wilson. Wilson aye.
Two zero. Aye. Item number one a b seventeen twenty five to pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations. We need to move the vote.
Speaker 30
Abi Lavarias, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia?
Colora? Aye. Colora, aye. Lee?
Speaker 30
Wiggs, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Six seven eight.
Item, number two, a b seventeen thirty two to pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations. So moved. Second.
Speaker 30
Harrison, aye. Abilafarias? Aye. Abilafarias, aye. Calhosa?
Aye. Calhosa, aye. Garcia? Calhara? Aye.
Lee? Aye. Lee aye. Parksuba? Perksilva I.
Ta? Ta I. Tanki pa? Wiggs? Aye.
Wiggs I. Wilson? Aye. Wilson I. Ten two zero.
Item number three, a b seventeen forty. We have a motion absent members, ascended member Abilafarrias. Abilafarrias, aye. Garcia? Ta?
Aye. Ta aye. Tankipa? Wiggs? Aye.
Wiggs, Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Ten two zero. Item number four, a b seventeen seventy one to pass as amended to the assembly committee and appropriations.
We need
Speaker 30
Ta aye. Tanki Park. Wiggs? Aye. Wiggs, Wilson?
Aye. Wilson, I. 1020. Item number five, a b eighteen fifteen. Absent members, assembly member Kalosa.
Assembly member Kalosa, I. Assembly member thank you. Yeah. We are an item of course. Let me go ahead to assembly member Wilson.
Assembly member Wilson and item number 51815. Aye. Assembly member Wilson, aye. And when you're ready, sir. This is item number 5.
Aye. Correct. Aye. And that is 1220. Item, number six was an consent.
Item number seven, absent members. Assembly member Kalosa?
Speaker 30
Senator Kalosa, aye. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Wiggs? Aye.
Wiggs, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Alright.
Aye. Assembly member Avila Farias for a B1997, aye. 1234579101121.
Speaker 30
this time, number 9. No. Okay. We're not Garcia. Item number nine twenty ninety four, assembly member her obedience bill.
I can can come back to you, Sarah. Oh, you said I. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. Assembly member Garcia, I.
Assembly member Ta, this is, item number 92094. Assembly member Ta, no. Assembly member Ta, no. Wiggs? Aye.
Wiggs, I. Wilson?
Speaker 30
Wilson, aye. That will be 923. Assembly, item number 10, AB2110, do pass to the assembly committee in appropriations. Second. Haney?
Haney I. Patterson I. Harrison I. Abilafarias I. Abilafarias I.
Caloza I. Ta I. Tanguipa? Aye. Tanguipa I.
Wiggs?
Speaker 30
Wilson I. 12/20. Item, 11AB2128, Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye.
Ta? No. Cangepa?
Speaker 30
Wiggs, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. 923.
Item number 122139, Colosa. Colosa, I. Tankipa.
Speaker 30
No. Assembly worker Sears 2139. Thank you, Pam. I. Weeks?
Naburi. Naburi? Wilson? I. Wilson?
9. 91. Item number 13AB2146. Patterson? Patterson, I.
Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, I. Garcia? Garcia, I.
Lee? Aye. Lee, Not boring? No. No.
Wiggs? I. Wiggs, I. Wilson? I.
Wilson, 10 two one. This one member not boring. Item number 14, assembly member Paris person. This is 2166. Assemblymember Parisian I, Garcia I.
Garcia I, Colosa I. Colosa I, Quirk Silva. Quirk Silva, aye. Ta? Ta aye.
Tancapa?
Speaker 30
Wilson, aye. 1120. Item number 162185. We need a motion to approve. Thank you.
And this is to pass to the assembly committee on appropriations. Haney?
Speaker 30
Harrison, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Colosa?
Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia? Aye. Colara, Lee?
Aye. Lee, aye. Quarksilva? Aye. Quarksilva, aye.
Ta, aye. Tangupa? Aye. Thank you, pye. Wiggs?
Aye. Wiggs, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.
1220. 7 item 17 was for presentation. 18. Alright. Now we're down to item 21AB2415.
Harrison?
Speaker 30
Harrison, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Garcia?
Aye. Garcia, aye. Thank you, I. Thank you, sir. Wilson?
Speaker 30
Patterson, I. Calosa? Colosa I. Garcia? Aye.
Garcia I. Wiggs? Aye. Not voting. 123456910 to one with one member not voting.
Item 24, a b 2579. Senate member Garcia? Garcia, aye. Senate member Tengepa? Aye.
Tengepa, aye. That will be twelve two zero. 25 was consent. 26, consent. On item 27, a b twenty seven forty one.
Haney?
Speaker 30
Harrison, I. Colosa? Correct. Not Not boring. Garcia.
Garcia I. Colera? Some member Colera not here. Wiggs? I.
Wiggs I. Wilson?
Speaker 30
Wilson I. 223456789920 with one member, Nat Cory. Item number, 28AB2748, to pass to the assembly committee and appropriations. We need the motion. And a second, please.
Speaker 30
Thank you. Haney? Haney I, Harrison? Aye. Harrison I.
Avila Farias? Avila Farias I. Calosa? Calosa I, Garcia? Aye.
Garcia I, cholera, Lee? Natpori? Corksilva? Aye. Corksilva I.
Correct. 2748. Assembly member Ta, I assembly member Tankipa? Not boring. Wiggs?
I. Wiggs, Wilson?
Speaker 30
Wilson, not boring. 12345678. Correct. 820 with two not boring. And one last item.
This is, item 29, SP417. Assembly member Garcia? Aye. Aye. Assembly member Ta, this is the last item s p
Speaker 30
Correct. No. Okay. It's a no. Alright.
Assembly member assembly member Tai is a no. Yeah. Yes. Assembly member Dankepa? No.
Assembly member Wilson? Aye.
Speaker 1
Have, Garcia in time twenty seven, four or five years of chance going in
Speaker 30
the consent calendar, assembly member Garcia, assembly member Tanquifa, aye. I see aye. Assembly member Garcia, an item number one. I. And assembly member, Tankipa, no.
So we have 923 on that. As item number two, assembly member Garcia? Aye. Assemblymember Tankipa? Aye.
12 to zero on that. Assembly member Garcia on item number three a B1740? Aye. Assemblymember Tangipa? Aye.
That's 1220. Item number 41771, Garcia. Aye. Garcia I. Tenkipa?
Aye. Tenkipa I. 1220. Number five is okay. Consent okay.
I think that is it. Let me double check. Yes. I believe you have, unless you have something different, I have you done as Mhmm. Having more.
Believe so. Yes, sir.
Speaker 30
Is there anything, sir, that you think you're missing? Oh, that he turned out to be a presentation only. Oh, yes. He did accept.
Speaker 30
Yes. 1997 will be item number seven. Let me double check on that. Yes. He did accept the amendments.
Sir, one one one moment.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.