Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
Event Log
Mary Stearns — Mobile homeowner in Pueblo Sereno Mobile Home Park in Sonoma, supporting the bill.
Mary Stearns — States strong support for the bill and identifies Pueblo Serena, Sonoma County.
Roger Johnson — Mobile homeowner advocate speaking in support of the bill.
Roger Johnson — Testified in opposition to AB 925 on behalf of mobile homeowners, seniors, veterans, the disabled, immigrants, and working families.
Kevin Goodell — Speaks on behalf of his parents and then on behalf of Sonoma G.S.O.S.O.I. Super Chapter in support of the bill.
Kevin Goodell — States he is a mobile home owner in Pueblo Serena in Sonoma and supports the bill.
Chris Weisaki — Chris Weisaki of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association testifies in opposition to AB 635. He thanks the author for restoring a sunset provision for the MRLPP, argues the program is underperforming and that fewer complaints may indicate park managers are complying with the law, and says AB 635 is unclear about HCD’s role in complaint review. He cites the history of AB 3066 and Governor Brown’s veto message, notes mandatory park manager training and a $7.7 million surplus, and suggests the $10 per lot fee should be suspended or reduced. He closes by urging a no vote on AB 635.
Jason Iger — Jason Iger, speaking on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance, opposes AB 635 and provides historical context for that opposition. He argues that language requiring good-faith efforts and severe-complaint standards was removed, that the program has underperformed, and that the $10 fee structure has resulted in an over $7 million surplus this year.
Mr. Sandh — Mr. Sandh responds to questions about the program’s performance and finances by saying the surplus alone does not support a conclusion that the program is underperforming. He argues that violations and complaints are still ongoing, so the program remains necessary, and that any reserve funds will be needed rather than being evidence of waste. He further explains that serious violations would have led to referrals, that deterrence and compliance are the goal, and that the Attorney General’s office would be well funded and equipped to handle enforcement.
Alex Lee — Recorded as voting aye.
Alex Lee — Votes aye on the consent calendar.
Alex Lee — Lee votes aye.
Alex Lee — Was identified as the next colleague to speak.
Alex Lee — Thanked the author and noted disappointment about the prior ballot cycle, while expressing confidence in the renewed coalition effort.
Alex Lee — Said housing is badly needed and noted that homeownership in his and Mr. Kalra's district requires very high income.
Alex Lee — Urged inclusion of a revolving loan fund and more emphasis on social housing and public sector development.
Alex Lee — Argued that housing investments can generate revenue and cautioned against relying only on bonds instead of the General Fund.
Alex Lee — Encouraged continued discussion of social housing and a revolving loan fund and thanked colleagues.
Alex Lee — Referenced as having raised the issue earlier.
Alex Lee — Referenced as having suggested other programs.
Alex Lee — Referenced as having suggested other programs.
Alex Lee — Voted aye.
Alex Lee — Alex Lee thanks the author for bringing the bill forward, expresses strong support, asks to be added as a co-author, and moves the bill. Shortly afterward, he is recorded as voting aye in the roll call.
Alex Lee — Alex Lee casts aye votes during the voting sequence, including an aye vote on AB 518.
AB893 — AB 893 is presented as Item 7. The author explains that the bill expands a ministerial approval process for mixed-income residential developments on commercially zoned parcels near university and college campuses, building on AB 2011 to encourage housing near campuses and address student housing needs. The author also accepts committee amendments that narrow the bill’s scope by limiting it to a half-mile zone, excluding private campuses, and lowering height limits in nonmetropolitan jurisdictions. Testimony in support follows, with witnesses and sponsors saying the bill will help communities grow while sustaining student populations, expand access to affordable units for students, faculty, and staff, and requesting an aye vote.
AB893 — Bill is called during the voting sequence.
AB893 — Called up as item number 7.
AB2011 — AB 2011 is referenced as the foundational framework that the current bill builds upon, with the discussion noting that the legislation follows the structure created by AB 2011 and relies on it as the basis for this proposal.
AB2011 — Referenced as the framework the current bill builds upon.
Kate Rogers — Introduced as co-chair of the Student Homes Coalition and begins testimony in support of AB 893.
Priy Kundu — Priy Kundu introduces themself as a fourth-year UC Berkeley student and board member of the UC Student Association, then continues by thanking Assembly Member Fong for his work on behalf of UC students and beginning to discuss their experience with housing in the Bay Area.
Plana Garvahan — Appears on behalf of California YIMBY in strong support.
Scott Governor — Speaks on behalf of the Construction Employers Association in support.
Robert Kohl — Identifies as a member of ACE and supports the bill.
Brady-Gurton — Speaks on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectfully opposed unless amended position.
AB925 — AB 925 is introduced as the Mobile Home Emergency Safety Act and presented as a response to wildfire and disaster risks affecting mobile home park residents. The author and supporters explain that the bill would strengthen emergency preparedness by requiring more comprehensive plans, clearer access and evacuation provisions, operable fire hydrants, gas shut-off and utility information, and related safety documentation. Supporters argue the bill is life-saving and provides the state with needed tools and resources to protect residents. Opponents then argue that the bill adds unnecessary and confusing requirements, does not improve emergency planning, and imposes an unjustified fee increase on mobile homeowners to fund the program. The discussion ends with the bill being advanced on a motion do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
AB925 — Bill is called during the voting sequence.
AB925 — Called up as item number 8; Gallagher is noted as not voting.
Ms. Addis — Was introduced as the next presenter for item 8, AB 925.
Kendall Jarvis — Kendall Jarvis of Legal Aid Sonoma is introduced and then identifies himself as the lead disaster relief attorney for Legal Aid of Sonoma County, stating his support for AB 925.
Annie Colichita — Annie Colichita is introduced as a representative of the Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League (GSMOL) and then speaks on behalf of GSMOL in support of AB 925.
Tim Porteus — States he is an owner and renter at Youngstown Mobile Home Park and asks for support.
Chris Waizaki — Introduced himself as representing the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and testified in opposition to AB 925 in the following remarks.
Chris Wysaki — Opposed AB 925, arguing it would make emergency preparedness plans more confusing and less useful.
AB2022 — Referenced as a nearly identical bill that was vetoed last year.
Jason Iker — Testified in opposition on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance.
Michelle Moning — HOA president at a mobile home park in Roseville; opposed any fee increase and asked for a no vote.
AB712 — AB 712 is introduced as a bill to strengthen enforcement of state housing laws by increasing penalties against public agencies that violate them. The author explains that the bill is intended to give housing laws real consequences, including attorney’s fees and costs for prevailing applicants, escalating fines for repeat violations, and an end to public agencies requiring applicants to indemnify them against lawsuits. Supporters argue the bill adds needed enforcement teeth, especially for small projects and applicants seeking to vindicate their rights. Opponents contend the bill is one-sided, broad in scope, and could expose public agencies and special districts to litigation and costs, particularly because of the indemnification and fine provisions. Committee discussion then focuses on clarifying the indemnification language, whether it targets the intended scenario, and whether prospective application would address concerns, with a member ultimately expressing agreement with the bill’s concept despite reservations.
AB712 — Called up for a vote; identified as Assembly Member Wicks's bill.
AB736 — Identified as one of Ms. Wicks's bills to be taken up next.