Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Okay. Hi, everyone. How do you chair a committee again? Okay. Welcome to our first Assembly Housing Committee, Housing and Community Development Committee hearing of this session, and we're going to start as a subcommittee, and we will get a quorum when we can. And I appreciate my colleague's timeliness for being here. I also want to welcome our new Vice Chair, Mr. Joe Patterson. We're excited to have you here. And also, Assemblymember Ash Kalra is out sick today, so Assemblymember Carillo will be substituting in.

So, we have 18 items on our agenda today. AB 671 has been pulled and will be heard on April 12. And we have three items on consent. There is no phone testimony option for this hearing. All witnesses testifying will be in person. Please feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website. This will become part of the official record of the bill. The hearing room will be open for attendance of this hearing.

Any members of the public attending the hearing are encouraged to wear a mask at all times while in the building. All are encouraged to watch the hearings from live stream on the Assembly's website. Thank you for your patience and understanding. And let's see, who do we have up first? Sorry, where am I at? Oh, we will go first with Ms. Addis, which is number two, AB 318. And also, yes, AB 637 was pulled.

Protection program, a program which this Committee previously voted on and passed twice. By extending the sunset, we are following the original intent of the law to fully evaluate the success of this program, of which many of you previously voted on. And if we don't support this bill today, we will allow a much needed program to expire, which I know that none of us want to do.

So the inception of AB 318 is that in 2018, the state established the Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Program, a five year pilot program to coordinate the resolution of complaints from homeowners. The program is funded by residents across the state who pay just $10 for this additional protection. However, the program is set to expire in 2024, so there's quite a need for extension. First, despite the act requiring the program to operate for five years, it's only actually operated for two years.

And that's because prior to evaluation, the program was not statutorily permitted to accept complaints until July 2020, and HCD did not start referring complaints to the legal service providers until June 2021. Additionally, there is an issue of remaining funds from the existing $10 fee that mobile home residents have already paid, so there's close to $10 million have been collected and over $3 million in total expenditures. So there's quite a bit of money still left in this program.

With the program solvent, we want to do everything we can to protect and preserve this type of housing, which is primarily for seniors, for working families, for veterans, for people with disabilities, and for people with fixed incomes. And extending this program for three years is going to allow these protections to continue. You may hear a number of arguments from the opposition, and I'd just like to address those briefly. Possibly our opposition will say that the program has been unsuccessful, but that is not the case.

As mentioned earlier, HCD has only had about two years to evaluate the program, and even in that short time frame, there have been 3500 allegations filed with HCD, and residents truly want this program. They've proven that with their $10 contributions generating nearly $10 million into the program. Less than a week ago, after completion of HCD's required report, an audit was requested to examine the program. And although we all support this legislative oversight, it's come very late in the process.

So even the Joint Legislative Audit Committee reiterated the ongoing need for the program and the desire to see it continue. So we have a couple of witnesses here, and I'd like to turn it over to them to state their case as well and their support.

Thank you. And you each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Roger Johnson. I'm with GSMOL in support of the bill. The Mobile Home Residency Law Protection program helps seniors, veterans, and immigrant families with modest income resolve violations of state law. These violations include evictions from our homes, park owners taking residents electricity to power park equipment, unauthorized fees for water and utilities, elder abuse, housing discrimination, and more.

We want to thank the Committee for amendments that would extend the program to ensure that mobile home residents receive the full effect of the initial five year pilot program as we worked with the Housing Department to continue making improvements. This June will mark two years of the first violation being referred to nonprofit legal service providers. To fund the program, we self imposed an annual $10 space fee that we pay for. We pulled our low and fixed incomes together to the benefit of everyone.

This year, HCD issued a comprehensive report which shows the program is both working and solvent. We look forward to resolving more state violations through this program, and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Actually, we will establish a quorum because we have enough members now, too.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. Bruce-

Sorry, can you just give us one second. Sorry.

[Roll call]

Great. Okay. You may continue.

My apologies. Madam Chair, members of the Committee. Bruce Stanton, Legal Counsel for GSMOL, here in strong support of the bill and the continuation of the program. And here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now hear from additional support? Sorry, additional support. It's been a year, since last year since I've chaired a Committee, so we'll hear from folks in the room. Additional support and just name, organization and position, please.

Yes, good morning. My name is Michelle Moning. I am a mobile home owner in Roseville and I am in very strong support of this program.

Good morning. My name is Lynn McKim. I'm a mobile home owner in Citrus Heights and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Good morning. My name is Beverly Purcell. I'm a mobile home owner in Orangevale. Please support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we will now go to witnesses in opposition, and you each will have two minutes, and you can come take a seat up here.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Chris Wysocki with Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, and we respectfully oppose this bill. The MRLPP has been collecting an annual $10 per space fee from park owners and residents to fund this program. According to HCD, the MRLPP has collected over $11.2 million and spent just under $4 million to date, leaving a non-general fund surplus in the account of nearly $7.3 million.

As the authors stated, last week, JLAC passed an audit request on a 13 to zero vote, and that audit should be finished by the end of the year. It doesn't make sense to give a three year extension to a program that's currently under audit, especially when in another bill later today, you're going to hear about a one year extension of the MPM program and that audit has already been completed. Given the audit is underway, WMA believes the three year extension is just too long.

What happens if the audit comes back and says the program isn't needed? Under this bill, the program would continue collecting fees of $10 a year per space for another three years and keep racking up a surplus. We believe a one year extension is appropriate to let the State Auditor do its job. The Legislature can revisit the program next year after the audit is completed. WMA frankly believes the program is broken. The author stated that over 3500 complaints have been received.

But I will note that 95% of the anticipated complaints that were expected under AB 3066 haven't come to fruition. That's a 5% completion rate.

If you could wrap up.

For these reasons and those cited in our letter, thank you very much. We respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Jason Ikerd with Edelstein Gilbert Robson & Smith, on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. So I think one thing that we can start with is actually what we agree on, which is CNPA, in the original bill, had an Opposed Unless Amended position. We actually worked through that by the end of the year.

We were neutral on it because it was important to us that there be sufficient program protections in place to make sure that park owners had the ability to resolve complaints going into it. Once we achieved that, we were able to remove our opposition because there was potential merit to having a program like this. But unfortunately, we would actually say that the program has been unsuccessful, and it's because of the reason that Mr. Wysocki just cited. It has been significantly underutilized.

They have not had the level of complaints that they expected and of what they expected, I believe the number is 77, that ultimately legal services were able to provide counsel and advice to residents on. But the other thing we agree on is that that alone does not mean that the program should be scrapped today.

I think what we're down to quibbling over is exactly how much time we need for this audit and for the Legislature to really consider its effects and what needs to be done on this program, if anything. We agree that it was important to have an independent third party, the Auditor, actually dig into this program, make recommendations, and we also agree and appreciate what your staff wrote in the analysis, which is a more robust evaluation of the program as necessary.

The only thing we're down to is the belief that one year is sufficient amount of time to let that audit come through, to give the Legislature time to weigh HCD's recommendations as well, and for us to all engage on next steps. We don't think that it's necessary to have a three year extension for that. So, unfortunately, we remain with an Opposed Unless Amended position. If the bill was amended to do a one year extension, we would happily be able to remove our opposition.

Thank you. And additional folks in the audience want to voice opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions. Mr. Patterson? Oh, comments? Sure.

Thank you. Well, I do appreciate the Committee's amendments to bring it to three years. I kind of am leaning towards one year extension. I've seen these JLAC audits. Obviously, everybody recognizes the importance of JLAC audits and what they can uncover with agencies. And if there was a one year extension, it gives us next year the opportunity to make changes, if any are needed. So I, too, would be willing to support this with one year.

My concern is, having worked on a different side of things, where an audit has come out and said there are needed significant changes and allowed the program to continue ongoing as is, it sort of removes the incentive to make changes to the law that are needed to make it an effective program. Because I agree. I think we want this to be effective. I think there's unanimous support for that.

So I would be willing to support this with a one year extension and also would be willing to work with you next year as well if the audit uncovers any issues as well. So that's my personal position.

Thank you. Mr. Carrillo.

I will actually ask a question for the witnesses in support. Does one year seem unreasonable in order for this to happen?

So you're asking me, sir?

If you could speak into a mic, too, that'd be great.

Thank you. My opinion, one year is definitely not enough time. The amount of meetings we would have to have to make change, the amount of time that change would need to take place to go through legal channels suspends the program on and on and on. And one of the big things is simply that we've gone through three years worth of COVID, everybody's been staying in their house.

So it's almost like the program did not have a chance to come to fruition in any way, shape or form. People weren't filing complaints because they weren't going out of their house. We really feel that now that we are out amongst everyone else, that certainly more of the program will be utilized. We've already been in touch with HCD. We're not convinced that they disagree with that. And everything that's brand new, that's a pilot, certainly requires change.

Ms. Sanchez.

I'm seeing the MRLPP has been operating for several years, but it seems like the money is not being spent. Why is there a huge surplus accumulating, given that only 28 cases have been resolved by a legal services provider?

Yeah, I'm not really privy to the mechanics in terms of the finances, but I think to sort of piggyback on what Roger just said, the program had a delayed start to ramp up to begin with, and then we've had a lot of conditions that have occurred that have prevented, I think, as much utilization as we otherwise would have expected. I know that personally because I'm an attorney specializing in mobile home law, and I'm dealing with issues all around the State of California, a lot of people have become dependent upon this program, even as a deterrent effect, frankly, which is a metric we can't even measure.

In terms of the money. I think the idea was we were going to accumulate a lot of funds at the beginning to staff the program and create the fund for its utilization, probably expecting that funds weren't going to be utilized immediately. So, I mean, I see the surplus as a good thing right now so that it's there when it's going to be needed.

And I'm seeing an uptick, actually in the last six to 12 months now in terms of lease issues and management issues and all kinds of issues around the state. I'm fully expecting that the program will be utilized much more heavily going forward.

Thank you. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

On the bill, on page one, it says the summary permanently extends the mobile home. Is that correct?

The Committee amendments are a three year extension.

And we're taking all Committee amendments to three years. We originally did want to extend it permanently, but worked with Committee staff, who was very helpful and took the three years.

Any other questions? Mr. Patterson.

Yeah, it's a little bit tricky. I am going to support this mostly because anything we can do to keep people in their mobile homes, I think is extremely important. But if the audit does come back with recommendations that are glaring, I certainly think that we need to look at that carefully, as I take the audits of California very seriously. So I will be supporting it. But it is a tricky time with the current audit to be asking for this.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Sir, what if the audit comes back and it finds deficiencies in the program? Why should the Legislature continue to authorize this program as is for two additional years?

Well, I don't know how long the audit is going to take. I'm not sure what the findings are going to be, and I'm not sure what sort of discussions and what length of time we would need to digest the audit and react to the audit and discuss with HCD and the local legal providers how changes might be made.

My concern is that with only one year, we're going to be right back here before the audit may even be finished or fully, as I say, digested and contemplated and reviewed, and we're going to be right back here again next year if it's only one year. I would believe that even though we extend it for three years, that doesn't prevent us from reacting to the audit and revising the program and working our way through the program logically and carefully, according to what the audit might say.

I think this entire body here is saying that they don't want the program to go away. So I don't think if it takes a long time, that there would be any dissatisfaction on extending it again. But for the opponents of the bill, if there are issues found, I assume you'd be willing to work on another extension.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. The Auditor was very clear. This audit is going to take about five months. That means it's going to be done by the end of the year. We can come back, you as a Legislature can come back next year and decide whether or not to adopt the JLAC audit recommendations, or you can deal with it at that time. A three year extension, if the audit comes back and says that there's sufficient deficiencies in the program and there's a need for adjustment, that's a big problem. So what happens with a three year extension?

The fees keep $10 a space per year, and no programmatic changes are going to be made for the next three years. So let JLAC and the Auditor do its job. A one year extension is appropriate.

And Mr. Patterson, thank you. So, just briefly, I think one example of why that's so appropriate is the discussion that was just had over the surplus in this fund.

There's a lot of ways to look at that surplus, but the Auditor may actually go in and find that perhaps the program is overfunded, meaning that perhaps that the fees that are being paid to support it are too high. That's one potential reason why there's such a significant surplus. So, again, rather than setting the residents and park owners who are paying into that program up to continue paying an overly high rate for three years, potentially, let's let that five month audit play out.

Let's extend the program for one more year, and then let's all debate the merits of the audit recommendations and the way the program should be structured going forward in a bill next year.

Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members?

No questions. I just like to make a motion to move to be unless amended.

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Sure. I would just say that in my own district and the surrounding districts, that we have witnessed unique challenges from mobile home residents in the face of the floods that are happening. And I think our collective goal is to keep people in their homes to give them a process for bringing issues forward. And I think that even the opposition would like to do that. And I hope that we can work on that together.

So I'm here to ask for your aye vote. And again, state that we've accepted all Committee amendments.

Thank you. And just in closing, I agree, Covid times are a bit of a black hole. And that has impacted understanding of programs across the board, because it was obviously a pretty unique time. I do think we don't have enough data at this point, less than two years. And I know that HTD has many recommendations that need to be discussed.

And, in fact, they recommend a two year extension and then a shift to a completely permanent program. And so I think what's on the table for us to vote today is a three year extension, which I believe strikes the right balance. That gives us more time that we need to really analyze the program. And obviously, while the audit continues, and I'll also just say, as someone who, I grew up in a mobile home and I grew up in a mobile home park.

And while it is not glamorous housing, it was housing security for my family that enabled me to go on and do great things and go from working class to middle class. And so I'm a supporter of the program. And I appreciate the author bringing this Bill forward and your advocacy on this issue. And with that, I would recommend an aye vote. And we have a motion which is due pass, as amended, to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll call]

Yeah, we're going to leave that open. Thank you. Oh, and we also need to vote on the rules. We need a motion for that. Great, we have a motion and a second.

[Roll call]

Okay. And those we'll hold open, or we'll close out. They're passed.

Next, we are going to hear from Mr. Grayson. And Mr. Grayson, you are presenting AB 434. Great. Begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members. AB 434 seeks to provide greater accountability for local governments by authorizing the Department of Housing and Community Development, aka HCD, to notify a city, county or the Attorney General when the local entity fails to comply with state housing statutes California has a massive and growing housing production and affordability gap. Six of the nation's most expensive large metropolitan rental markets are located right here in this state.

According to the Roadmap Home 2030, California needs to build 1.2 million new affordable homes, 120,000 per year, to meet the needs of low income families over the next 10 years. Yet California has never produced more than 20,000 new affordable rental homes in any year. As the legislature has continued to respond to the state's shortage of housing, there have been a number of new statutes passed in recent years that have been meant to facilitate the building of new housing stock and prevent the delay of project approval.

Many of these statutes have given HCD the clear authority to report violations to the AG for enforcement. However, there have been some housing statutes where HCD and the AG's role in enforcement has been unclear. Among these have been SB 6 and SB 9, as well as bills governing the siding of accessory dwelling units, ADUs and junior ADUs.

Without clear authority to enforce these laws, there is the possibility that even if an entity is found to be in violation of these much needed housing laws, HCD may be unable to bring in the AG for enforcement action. AB 434 will harmonize the enforcement of these important housing policies by clarifying the roles of HCD and the AG in enforcing what is already current law.

Specifically, AB 434 clarifies existing statute and adds to the list of housing laws covered by Government Code Section 65585, for which HCD can report violations to the Attorney General. This will ensure that the AG and HCD have adequate enforcement authority commensurate with other state housing laws, and that local governments may be held accountable to the law. Ultimately, this will reduce the cost of housing development and facilitate meeting California's housing needs.

AB 434 is supported by the Bay Area Council, the California Housing Partnership, as well as California Apartment Association. I do have with me witness supporting this measure, Alex Torres from Bay Area Council.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Hi, Madam Chair, Alex Torres, Director of State Government Relations for the Bay Area Council. I want to thank Mr. Grayson for his leadership on this very important measure. On behalf of our 330 employer members, we strongly believe housing is critical to economic vitality and growth, not only for our region, but for the entire state writ large. This legislature has passed critical legislation to encourage housing production to address our well documented crisis. As Mr. Grayson said, enforcement is a pretty critical part of that.

The Legislature passed AB 72 in 2017 to streamline enforcement of housing law by creating this pathway for the experts at HCD to recommend to DOJ that action be taken against an intransigent local government. This bill adds these important new laws to that AB 72 list of laws that HCD may help with. Mr. Grayson mentioned the ADU law.

The Bay Area Council has been really big in that area to help encourage homeowners to provide resources and opportunities to encourage ADU production as a critical part of addressing our housing crisis. SB 330, Housing Crisis Act SB 330, the Housing Crisis act is another code section added to this, as well as SB 9 and SB 6. So simply put, AB 434 helps improve that accountability, make sure that local governments support California's need for affordable housing.

For these reasons, Barrett Council and a good coalition of stakeholders, very proud to support this bill. I urge your, aye vote here today.

Thank you very much. And additional folks want to testify in support, name, organization and position.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Abram Diaz with the Nonprofit Housing Association, Northern California, in support.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Bryan Sapp with Lighthouse Public Affairs for Our Client Spur, in support.

Thank you. And witnesses in opposition. Any primary witnesses? Anyone else in the room wish to register opposition? Okay, we will bring it back to committee for questions. Mr. Carrillo.

There was a motion to pass the bill as amended. I'll second that. But I have something to say to the author. Thank you for bringing this in front of the committee. It is needed. I know of jurisdictions that make every effort to not comply with ADU law. I believe that this will send the message that jurisdictions have to comply with ADU law as it is and with any amendments for future ADU laws. Thank you for doing that.

Like I said, this will enhance the possibility of those that want to grow their general wealth, their generational wealth, by having an ADU law where their kids or grandparents can live or even rent it so that they can get additional income to make their mortgage payment. This will really be very beneficial for all of those that want to take advantage of the ADU law and to provide housing that is needed in the state. Thank you for bringing that. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member.

Mr. Quirk-Silva.

I second the motion. And I, too, support this. We've sat here, in my experience, this is my fifth term, talking about homelessness, talking about our housing crisis. And every year we do this and we pass laws and bills, and every year we see local jurisdictions saying, don't tell us what to do. Stay out of mandating things that local governments should be doing. And that's the key should be doing.

And yet many are avoiding the responsibility, fighting the responsibility, suing the state or moving forward with litigation, like in Huntington Beach. And the problem is that it simply pushes the housing responsibility to cities who will step up. And what it does, it takes some of the most impoverished, dense cities and pushes them to have to build where other cities say no.

We've seen excuse after excuse from everything from flower habitats to coyote habitat, I think, or was it the wild mountain, mountain to now the new thing is historic preservation. So any code word to say we're not going to do our responsibility. And what I've said repeatedly is cities should have the responsibility according to their population. So I have a 1 mile city, La Palma. They should do minimal for their city. Buena Park should do more because they have more population.

But there should be no city that avoids building because, of course, what that does is it pushes it on to another city. And I'm tired of hearing stop telling us what to do. And then the next phrase is, but the state's not giving us resources to do it. You can't have it both ways. Local cities are responsible for building in their cities.

And local cities, many, many times it is the council members who say no pushing off the project, adding more dollars to the project, and eventually delaying or not building at all. So I am a bulldog when it comes to building, because, bottom line, I am tired of seeing encampments. I am tired of seeing people die on our streets. In Orange County, one of the wealthiest counties of our state, we see close to 45 people die a month. This is unconscionable. So I fully support this.

I do not like enforcing and mandating, but if local districts are not going to do their job, then this is where we step in. So if you don't like the state coming in and saying, move forward with adus, move forward with housing, then do your job.

Thank you, Ms. Quirk-Silva. Any additional comments? Mr. Patterson?

Yeah, thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this to us. And I have high regard for the Bay Area Council and generally speaking, and also totally agree with basically everything you just said. I'm in 100% support of getting ADUs and enforcing the laws around that. I served as mayor recently and was on a city council until last year, and I saw the barriers internally that we had in our city to get it done.

And it took leadership of the council to get ADUs, and now they're literally begging to get ADUs built in our community. We have cities all over the state that are non compliant with housing laws, and they have unapproved housing elements. And one city in particular that I can think of hasn't had a compliant housing element for over two years. And we have another Southern California city, which I won't name, that very clearly made a decision to be non compliant.

And the attorney general, as you know, subsequently is taking action. But so I'm definitely supportive of sending a mean note to these cities that they have to get their act together. But I will tell you, the one thing I'm concerned about in this, and I think it might be enough to make me not support this bill. And I want to be supportive of the bill, is that I feel like the enforcement of housing laws right now is selective.

And because I can name a half dozen cities right now that are intentionally non compliant, and I've seen action on maybe two cities right now, one very publicly. And that really concerns me that if we're going to give the power of the attorney general to enforce these laws selectively, that really gives me a lot of concerns about how that's being done and where it's being chosen to be done. I'm sort of on the fence on this, but I do support 100% where you're going with this.

I'm concerned with the enforcement when there actually has to be enforcement. If you want to respond to that, please do.

Sure. I would just briefly say not to comment on DOJ and the attorney general's willingness or selection in choosing where to enforce this is just, I think, expanding their menu of opportunities to actually enforce in updating those code sections. So I just want to be clear. Right.

This is existing law, and some of these provisions and the code sections added to this ABC 72 list are relatively new additions. So I think, if anything, it may encourage them to be less selective and enforce more broadly across the board.

And I think we face that challenge with DA and the enforcement of laws where they choose to charge here, but then they don't charge there.

The beautiful thing is we increased from 6 year terms, term limits to 12 years here, which empowers you as a member coming in to be able to have the ability to provide oversight, to make sure that enforcement is being done on a more broad basis and not a selective basis.

And Mr. Ward.

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think one thing I agree, and I wanted to build on some of our Quirk-Silva's comments as well. Totally in alignment there. But what it does do, and I want to express that I'm grateful for the housing accountability unit and the work that we have done to put a little teeth into our policies, which have to date, not been actually enforceable.

Good policies on paper, not good for any of us if it actually doesn't do the job that we're asking those policies to, the outcomes that we're asking for those policies. And I think what your bill does highlight then, is we should be thinking about going forward the work that we are doing on production bills, that maybe we need to answer this question within those bills as well.

So you don't have to do this two step process where you're coming back afterwards to add to the scope of responsibilities. This might have to become the new normal. But thank you for connecting these dots and happy to take these lessons forward on some of our future work, too.

Any other questions? Would you like to close?

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to all the members of the committee for your passionate comments. I really greatly appreciate the support and through the chair, especially to Vice Chair, for making a great case to vote aye on the bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Grayson. I also just want to add, I want to thank Mr. Grayson. He and I worked on a lot of housing policy together. And thank you for keeping the enforcement flames alive. We know that having HCD and the AG enforce our housing laws is making a huge difference. And I also want to just comment. I know HCD sends out hundreds of letters.

Not everything makes the press, but there's a lot of enforcement going on across the board, technical assistance and other things, and we want to make sure we're empowering them to do so. I also want to align my comments with Ms. Quirk-Silva. We can sit here and make laws all day long, but if they're not getting enforced the right way, and if our cities aren't stepping up and taking responsibility, then we need to make sure that enforcement is happening. So I appreciate this bill.

Obviously, adding ADU's SB 6 and SB 9 to the list feels like it just makes absolute sense. So, with that, I recommend an ayw vote. And the motion is do passed to the assembly committee on local government.

[Roll Call] It's out and people can add on.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it's out and people, Ms. Sanchez will probably add on. Thanks.

I want to do the consent agenda now. Do we have a motion by Mr. Gabriel? In a second, Ms. Carrillo.

So the three bills on consent 426, Jackson, do pass to the assembly committee on appropriations. 578, Berman, do pass to the assembly committee on appropriations. 1386, Gabriel, do pass to the assembly committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is out and we will move on now to Mr. Lee. And you are presenting AB 604 I believe.

Yes. Okay. Well thank you, Chair, Members. I'm presenting AB 604 today. Currently, AB 1061, the bill that we passed last year and was signed into law, prohibits mobile home park management from charging tenants for their sub-metered water service beyond charges paid by management directly to the water service provider and a reasonable administrative fee. AB 604 clarifies the scope of AB 1061 from last year to explicitly include all mobile home residents as we intended.

These protections include capping each resident's water service charges to only their proportional share, plus reasonable admin fees. Without these protections, mobile home parks with separate water submeters on each lot can charge residents an additional cost to the amount of water they use each month without explanation. These charges may include nebulous services such as customer charges or service charges that far exceed the charges billed to the park by the serving water utility.

AB 1061 from last year simply clarifies the intent of the Legislature that no mobile home resident be overcharged for basic water services. My witnesses today that I have is, i'll introduce is Beverly Purcell from GSMOL and to answer questions only is Bruce Stanton, the legal counsel for GSMOL. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Each have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Beverly Purcell and I am here on behalf of GSMOL in support of the bill. It was only two years ago that mobile home residents were before you on this very issue. You agreed with us that mobile home residents should pay for the water we consume and that we should pay our prorata share of service charges that water companies bill the park owners.

You also agreed that what isn't fair is when water is submetered and park owners mark up the price of our water and make an unfair profit. But after Assemblymember Lee's legislation was passed two years ago, many park owners continue to make up their own fees and charges. The Legislature has protected consumers in under other sub-metered water circumstances from these very same excessive charges and the Legislature voted to protect mobile home consumers in a similar way.

AB 604 will clarify for some park owners that the Legislature meant what it said and that park owners have to obey the law. We respectfully ask for your consideration and thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, again, Bruce Stanton, legal counsel for GSMOL here on behalf of the board of directors of GSMOL, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional folks in the audience want to express support. Just name, organization and position, please.

Morning. Roger Johnson. Citrus Heights, California. GSMOL member in support.

Yes. Michelle Moning from a mobile home park in Roseville and in definite support. Thank you.

Lynn McKim, Citrus Heights. Absolutely in support.

Gary Kenny, Citrus Heights. Support.

Thank you. Primary witnesses in opposition.

Good morning again, Madam Chair Members. Chris Wysocki with WMA. If AB 604 passes, it'll simply discourage mobile home park residents to save water, as currently drafted . In 2021, when 1061 was passed and signed to law, it did not include mobile home parks served by water agencies under CPUC jurisdiction. AB 604 would usurp CPUC authority and have the legislature pass a law to tell water experts how to build mobile home park residents.

We have several reasons for our opposition of this bill, and many of them are found in our letter. But let me just kind of cut to the chase. AB 1061 allowed park owners to move to a pro-rata billing system that charges each resident in the mobile home park an equal amount of the total volume of water being supplied to homes, excluding common areas. An amendment that we offered to comply with CPUC regulations was rejected under 1061, and that's why we're still opposed to AB 604.

We think a better solution would be to get mobile home parks out of the water business altogether. AB 1639 was introduced by Assemblyman Josh Hoover and it would allow us to get out of the water business entirely. This would encourage water conservation, and that's one of the reasons that we're opposed to this bill. The other thing that I want to mention is there's a lot of misconceptions out there about mobile home park owners profiting off of water. We don't do that.

We don't want to do that. That's why we want out of the water business altogether. The other thing that's mentioned is that SB 7, which was the premise of AB 1061, charged $4.75 per sub-meter for reading fees. That was passed in 2017 and allowed for inflation adjustments. That's not under consideration here. Apartment buildings actually go up, so a master meter comes in.

If you could wrap up.

For these reasons and others stated in our letter, we appreciate a no vote.

Thank you. Additional folks in opposition in the audience. Okay, we will bring it back to committee members. Any questions for the author? Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Ms. Carrillo, a second by Mr. Gabriel. Would you like to close?

I would like to first say that, yes, we would like to live in a world where mobile home park owners are not profiting off of water, and that's why we're seeking to clarify the bill and make sure that practice doesn't exist in reality. So if that is the case, then there should be no problem in it. So respectfully, ask your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And I'm pleased to support the bill today, park residents with sub-metered water should have the same billing protections across the board, regardless of who owns the water they are paying for. So happy to support the bill. And the motion is do pass to the Assembly Committee and appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, but we'll leave it open. No, we're not leaving open. People can add on. I'm a little rusty today, you guys. Okay, let's see. We have. Mr. Conley, I believe you are next. And Mr. Conley, I believe you are presenting AB 3119.

That's correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, members. I want to start by thanking the committee for their work on this bill. We are happy to accept the committee's amendment to extend the sunset date of the mobile home park maintenance program to January 1, 2025 or by a year to allow more time for the legislature to consider policy changes and improvements to the program. Thank you.

I'd like to note that without the incredible work of committee staff, this important program was set to expire next year, which would have ended the ability for the state to perform health and safety inspections on mobile home parks. I look forward to continuing to work with the committee and stakeholders over the next year to identify ways to improve this program.

With that, I'm pleased to specifically report on AB 319, which requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, to adopt strengthened conflict of interest policies for mobile home park inspectors. In 2020, the California State Auditor published the results of their investigation into HCD and their mobile home park inspection program.

The audit found that HCD had, quote, not taken adequate steps to determine whether inspectors have potential conflicts of interest related to the parks they are responsible for inspecting, and it had not reported certain complaints of inspector misconduct, end quote. The audit noted that two inspectors reported owning property adjacent to mobile home parks and that two inspectors own property and had ties to construction businesses in the general vicinity of their assigned areas.

Based on the auditor's recommendations, AB 319 requires HCD to identify any potential conflicts of interest with inspectors relating to real property to ensure that inspectors do not have financial investments in parks they are responsible for supervising. I think we can all agree that inspectors will perform their duties better if they do not have a financial interest in the very properties they are assigned to review. Lastly, AB 319 requires HCD to establish better policies to document complaints against inspectors and the steps taken to address those complaints.

In combination, these policy changes will ensure that mobile home park residents are being supervised and inspected by individuals who are not ethically compromised. With me to testify and support is Chris Wysocki with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association. We're giving Chris an opportunity to be for something this morning, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Chris Wysocki, WMA. Again, and it's a pleasure to support a bill in this committee. So, basically, 319 will improve transparency. We think that's a good thing for HCD inspectors. You all file statements of economic interests on your own behalf. We think that this bill just makes sense by ensuring park inspectors are required to report financial interests in the parks they're inspecting, their findings will be less likely to be challenged.

There are over 4700 mobile home parks in the state, but there are only 51 inspectors. A typical park inspection can take two to three days if they do it right. And as far as I know, HCD is still having a hard time finding qualified inspectors to hire. Everyone on this committee understands that a sunset is put in place for a reason. We just think the one-year extension is probably too little, given the fact that you just gave a three-year extension to another bill.

But AB 319 is a good faith effort to improve transparency. And we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the audience who want to express support? Primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the room want to add on to opposition? Okay, we'll take it back to the committee. Okay. Do we have a motion? Oh, we do. We already have a motion. I think in a second, right. You just want to do something. Okay, you can be the third to express. Would you like to close?

Yes. Again, thank you for your consideration. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And the motion is due pass as amended, to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out. Thank you. Mr. Ting, you are up next. And I believe you are presenting AB 976.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just, again, thank you and the Committee for their work with the legislation. Been proud to really champion ADUs up and down the state. We've seen quite a big boom in ADUs. What could make it even bigger is if we remove the owner occupancy requirement for ADU construction. Currently, you have to be occupying the single family home where you want to build an ADU. So this would remove that sunset. We believe this will help really spur even more ADU development.

The bill has no opposition. I'm proud to have Jordan Carbajal from California YIMBY here to testify.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jordan Panana Carbajal, legislative advocate for California YIMBY, and we are a proud sponsor here to speak in support of AB 976. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making California a place to live, work, and raise a family for all Californians. Accessory Dwelling Units, ADUs, are homes that are built on existing property to expand the supply of housing.

While ADUs can be built in both single and multifamily neighborhoods, they cannot be sold as separate units, meaning they are most often used as low cost rentals, playing a key role in increasing the affordable supply in the neighborhoods across California. Not only do ADUs offer affordable homes for tenants, but they also create stability for homeowners. For many, the rental income can serve as an important source of financial security, in many cases providing stability for low income or elderly homeowners.

According to research from UC Berkeley Terner Center, ADUs produce more affordable homes, typically occupied by low income families and individuals. AB 976 is a straightforward solution. By permanently extending the existing law, which eliminates homeowner occupancy provisions, this measure ensures that these new units will continue to remain affordable for both the renters and the homeowners. ADUs are a proven tool to address California's housing shortage, and we should do all we can to ensure their continued success. We believe this measure strikes the right balance.

As for these reasons, we respectfully request your support for AB 976. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the audience who want to express support? Name, organization and position.

Bryan Sapp, on behalf of our clients SPUR, in support.

Thank you. Great. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional opposition in the room? We'll bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion by Ms. Quirk-Silva. A second by Mr. Gabriel. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Again, I really appreciate this bill, and I think one of the bright spots in the State of California has been ADUs in the last handful of years, and many of us on this Committee have seen the evolution from even five years ago.

But with that, we still know that there have been barriers put forth every time we make a law. It seems that there's another way to get around the law. We actually called our local cities to find out, in my district, how many ADUs had been built since 2017. And we definitely saw an increase, but it wasn't hundreds of increases, and some of them were because financing, other reasons. But this bill, I think, will go a long way to continue to encourage building of ADUs.

And bottom line is, when somebody owns a property, they really should have the flexibility to make those decisions on their own property. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional comments or questions?

I also want to thank the author for bringing this. Again, I can say what Ms. Quirk-Silva said, it's another way to accelerate housing production, something that we really need in the state. Thank you for bringing this up.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you. If the opportunity presents itself, I'd actually like to co author this bill. You know, I think know on the Republican side of things, we talk a lot about property rights and things like that, and it drives me nuts that cities would be opposed to people using their properties that are zoned residential for a residential purpose. And the whole point of ADUs was to get renters a place to live. And so I'm glad to support this measure. Would love to be added as a co-author, if you'll have me. Thank you.

Again, thank you. Happy to add you as a co-author. I know to my colleague from Fullerton, we're still working on the financing piece. That's something that we are still working on through our budget process. But again, appreciate the support for the bill today and just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Ting. Very appreciative of your work in this space and championing ADUs. We know that, as Ms. Quirk-Silva said, they've been certainly a bright spot, I think, in our housing policy. We also know that owner occupancy requirements can be impediments to the success and frankly, can be exclusionary and elitist. So I'm excited to support the bill. And with that, the motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ting. And with that, we will. Ms. Irvin's not here. We will go to Mr. Holden.

And Mr. Holden, I believe you are presenting AB 323.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to present Assembly Bill 323. So many homes in California are prohibitively expensive for our lowest income families and residents. In an effort to promote home ownership opportunities for low and moderate income Californians, the state has established pathways through affordable housing policies like the density bonus and local inclusionary zoning programs. However, these pathways can be redirected away from residents they were intended to assist to instead benefit private investors.

Currently, developers may petition a local government to change a unit designation from owner occupancy to rental occupancy, even if qualified residents have applied to buy the home. The practical effect being that the state's affordable housing programs end up subsidizing investors instead of providing homeownership opportunities for those that would otherwise be unable to afford it. This exact scenario happened in Southern California in 2020, 2 homes in Encinitas built using density bonus programs were redesigned or redesignated by the city from homeowner occupancy to rental occupancy at the request of the developer.

The developer then sold the homes to a private investor, even though over 80 very low income families had applied to buy the homes. After learning that they were passed over for an investor, these families were just devastated because a home for them is security, a nest egg for the future, and an opportunity to build generational wealth.

So please join me in protecting these homeownership pathways instead of preserving just another backdoor for investors to line their pockets. Here with me to testify and support is Jennifer Speck with the California Association of Realtors.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Jennifer Speck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we are delighted to work in partnership with the Member on this issue, and I'm respectfully here to answer any questions that you have.

Great. Additional folks want to express support in the room. We caught you off guard.

Again, Brian Chaplin. On behalf of our client, Spur and support.

Thank you. Primary witnesses in opposition. Okay, we will bring it back to Committee.

Like to make a motion to move the Bill. I'd also like to thank the author for bringing this. Homeownership is so important. Homeownership is what affects neighborhoods and having developers convince cities to do this procedure is completely unfair. So I want to thank you for bringing that. And I'd like to ask if you consider me to be a co author of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson.

I do want to say, know this isn't public record or anything, but my mom lives in - Yeah, just between us - an affordable housing unit. And I think they're obviously important. But I do have a small concern with people being able to buy it, the prohibition from people being able to buy it for the purposes of renting down the road. But that said, I'm going to support this Bill because I think it's in the right direction. It helps. So obviously, I want to help the renters as well, and I'm sure you're looking at solutions for that as well. Thank you.

Any other questions? We have a motion and a second with that. Would you like to close?

Yes. I think know I'm just sitting here listening to all of the important bills that are coming for this Committee, and you're dealing with, really, the finger on the pulse of what makes, hopefully California great again, creating opportunities for people to have a roof over their head, to be able to afford to be able to live in their communities that they grew up in.

You know, I see this really as an equity issue as well, because a few years ago, I had a Bill that was signed by the Governor that looked to address the issue of appraisals that were undervaluing certain communities in terms of what they were owed for or what other homes in the neighborhood were getting. They were getting their properties devalued. So it's equity.

This is an opportunity where equity is being taken away from individuals who are qualified but aren't getting an opportunity to step in and experience the home ownership at a level that they can afford, using our policies to create that. So I appreciate this Committee's support. I appreciate the chair's recommendation, and I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. And as you noted, making California great again in the way that we define that based on inclusion, through it with a lens of equity, justice, and fairness, which is, I'm excited to support this Bill today, and I want to thank the author for this work. We know that there's no better way to help lower income families than to build and maintain wealth through homeownership.

And for so many families, that is an opportunity not afforded to them, particularly our communities of color, who are disproportionately impacted. I know this Bill helps close some glaring loopholes in the law that have denied homeownership opportunities to these households. So with that, I'm happy to support the Bill. The motions do pass to the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary.

[Roll Call].

That Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will hear from Mr. Gabriel now, who I believe is presenting AB 529 and AB 1053. Thank you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I'm going to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking you, as always, for your thoughtful feedback and assistance on the bill. Thank you. AB 529 will encourage adoption of policies that allow for further utilization of adaptive reuse housing development. As we know here, we have a crippling housing shortage in the State of California. Thanks also to Covid and work from home, we have a lot of opportunities to facilitate the conversion and redevelopment of commercial properties.

This is something that's going to advance our housing goals, our climate goals, our infill development goals, our goals in promoting economic growth. And with a lot of companies utilizing remote work and the need and having less need for physical office space, we face a real opportunity here to advance a lot of our goals at the same time.

So this is a bill that will help incentivize the development of underused commercial land into affordable housing and facilitate increased utilization of this important tool for addressing our housing shortage. With me today to testify in person is Abram Diaz, Policy Director for the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California and my former Legislative Director respectfully request an aye horn.

I was going to say the band is back together here.

It really is. And I'm happy to be a support act here. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm pleased to testify alongside Assembly Gabriel in support of AB 529 at MPH, the organization I'm representing, we represent around 700 or so affordable housing builders, advocates and community leaders in the affordable housing space. As this legislature well knows, the Covid-19 pandemic changed the workplace practices and needs of our economy. And as more businesses shift to remote and hybrid work models, the need for office space is reduced.

As housing builders, where we see empty storefronts and vacant buildings and possibly blight, we envision homes and communities. The key is creating the right incentives and partnerships to make commercial to residential conversions feasible. AB 529 will help us do that. Through the adaptive reuse additions to HCD's pro housing designation, we will give local governments a financial incentive to support conversions. And with the reexamining of building standards for conversions, we can cut red tape, reduce costs, and still protect public health and safety.

This is a smart and practical bill offering the rare carrot approach in state housing policy, and we urge your support.

Thank you. Any additional folks want to express support in the audience?

Madam Chair and Members Rand Martin here. On behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its healthy Housing Foundation and a major practitioner of adaptive reuse in the City of Los Angeles, we strongly support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal, legend of advocate for California, YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Bryan Sapp. On behalf of SPUR, in support.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Great. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the audience wish to express opposition? Okay, we will bring it back to the committee. Any questions, comments? Did we have a motion? Yes, we did. Okay. Would you like to close? Sorry, Mr. Ward, did you want to say something?

I just want to thank you. It's something. I noticed that we needed to maybe have a more holistic view when we're looking at our building code and working with the State Commission as well on this. But this is, I know, a carve out for adaptive reuse that can be very helpful to just create basic standards for how we streamline these and just make it a lot easier for development to be able to follow. So thank you for focusing in on that.

Love to co author, if you'll have me, and want to keep working on this issue as it pertains to simplifying our code. Thank you.

Great. And with that, would you like to close?

Yeah, just say, thank you, Mr. Ward. We'd be delighted to have you, as always. And since we're talking about Mr. Diaz, I'll just note for the record that he is about to get married to David Chu's former Legislative Director. So this is really a housing Committee love story. So with that, I would ask for your aye vote.

Housing nerds across the state just got excited. Okay, well, thank you, housing advocates. I mean, I put myself in the housing nerd category anyways. There's a lot of interest in trying to make adaptive reuse easier for developers and cities. And I know this bill is an innovative approach to make sure our building standards are not overly burdensome for the conversion of existing buildings to housing.

I want to thank the author for taking the Committee amendments and working with us on that and appreciate your work in this space. And with that, the motion is due. Pass as amended, to the assembly Committee on Local Government. Happy to support it today.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you and congratulations.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Good luck at the wedding. And next, Mr. Gabriel, you will present 1053.

So thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. And again, I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments and again, thanking you for your thoughtful feedback and assistance. I'm pleased today to present AB 1053, which will lower financial barriers for the construction of affordable housing. In particular, this Bill would allow developers to access HCD loan funds during construction, thereby decreasing costs and incentivizing the construction of affordable housing.

One of the ways in which HCD currently incentivizes development is by providing deferred loans at interest rates below those offered by private financial institutions. These loans, however, are only available once construction of new units has been completed, thereby requiring developers to attain more expensive private loans during the construction process because of increased interest expenses. For some projects, this additional cost can be the difference between development that pencils out and one that doesn't. AB 1053 will help to lower cost and increase congestion of affordable housing.

With me today to testify in support is Mark Stivers, Director of legislative and regulatory advocacy for the California Housing Partnership, and Veronica Beaty, Director of policy and research for the California Coalition for Rural Housing. Thank you, and would respectfully request an I vote thank you.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. My colleagues work on the financing for about 200 different affordable housing developments per year. They are intimately involved with sort of what the costs are, and at the average amount of HCD loan of $11 million. This represents a savings of $1 million. If you were to have a project with a maximum HCD loan of $35 million, this represents a savings of $2.8 million. And that's each development. You multiply that by each development that HD Fund all the developments hed funds in a year. And each year this really adds up.

And every dollar of savings is one that HD could put into an additional development and we can create more affordable homes. I will also just note that almost all local government lenders put their money in during construction. HD is really the one that waits until permanent financing. So this has been done in all other areas. We can do it, and we are just looking for your support. Thank you very much.

And I'm Veronica Beatty on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing. We're a statewide coalition that represents community based, nonprofit and public developers, including the largest self help housing producer in the US. We strongly support AB 1053. Our urban areas often receive most of our focus when we talk about the affordable housing crisis.

But rural areas face many of the same challenges with fewer resources because rural areas are less likely to have local sources of funding available for affordable housing, developers looking to create affordable homes are more reliant on state funding programs. Rural housing markets also face a lack of affordable, multifamily capital. We have fewer lenders operating in rural markets, and many projects face significant obstacles as they pursue sufficient debt financing for development, particularly for smaller properties like we see in rural communities.

And since development doesn't usually occur at scale in rural areas, construction costs are often higher. So given that our rural communities have very limited housing resources, saving money on construction interest expenses is particularly important. By allowing developers to receive HCD funds during the construction period, AB 1053 will help us extend the limited state resources to create more affordable homes for California's Low income families. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Additional folks in the audience like to express support.

Abram Diaz with MPH in support of the Bill.

Mimi Khalili with representing EH housing on behalf of AG Global Solutions.

Good morning, Madam. Chair Members Andres Ramirez, on behalf of All Home in support.

Good morning. Chris Lee, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in support.

Good morning, chair Members. Jennifer Armenta on behalf of the California Housing Consortium, in support of this Bill.

Great. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in the room in opposition with that? We'll bring it back to Committee. Mr. Carrillo.

This is yet another mechanism to remove barriers from building affordable housing. As the witness said, rural areas are ones that are in a big disadvantage. And for some of us that represent those areas, we see that day in and day out, some developers present interest in building this affordable homeless, but because of the funding mechanisms, that is nearly impossible. So thank you for bringing that. Appreciate that. That will actually be very helpful to those rural areas.

And again, for some of those that represent those areas, it'll be very beneficial for our districts. And I'll be honored if you consider me to be a co author of the Bill.

Yeah, I think right now there's nothing that prohibits them doing. And as you heard Mr. Stivers testify, they're actually an outlier. Right. A lot of local governments across California are doing this. This is a way to make it clear to them that it's permissible and to have them do that because we're missing such an opportunity. And really, what caught my eye on this. As you can see in the analysis, for each additional funding source, it increases the cost of unit by $6,400.

Thank you. Thank you. We'd be delighted to have you.

Mr. Patterson.

Just a question. Why can't HCD do this automatic on their own? Is the statute prohibited or we just want to make it really clear to them?

Great. In my community one of my last votes on the City Council was approving a 200 unit complex in my neighborhood, actually 100% affordable, but we went basically 10 years without having a single unit built in the City of Rockland. And a lot of reason is because of something else, which I'll rant about later. But financing played a big role in that.

We are getting nothing for that other than higher prices that are disadvantaging us, slowing down a lot of more additional red tape and bureaucracy. So we think this is an important step forward, and I really hope that we can get this Bill signed into law and HD will start doing this because it would really allow for the construction of a lot more units of affordable housing.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I'll just say thank you to. Under the chair's leadership, this Committee has worked a lot on how do we streamline the financing. Affordable hearing, affordable housing. There's a lot of barriers and a lot of red tape that just make no sense, and they're slowing us down. And this is an urgent policy goal. And so, thanks to leadership of our chair and advocates in this space, we're trying to do as much as we can to speed things up. So I appreciate your support.

And I think HCD has shown some ability to be out in front on some issues that are much more difficult policy issues than this one that I think they should have been out in front of. It's just a financing piece. So I'm glad we're making the law clear. Unfortunately, we had to make it clear, but I'm happy to support this Bill. Thanks. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I'll just say thank you to.

Anything else? And do we have a motion? Motion by Ms. Quirk-Silva, a second by Mr. Carillo. With that, would you like to close?

Respectfully request and I vote well.

I'm pleased to support this Bill. I appreciate your advocacy. And with that, the motion is do passed as amended, to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Aye.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. And with that, Ms. Irwin, I believe you are presenting AB 531.

That is correct. Good morning. Afternoon. I have no idea what time it is. I am pleased to present AB 531 today. In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 41 to fund multifamily affordable housing for veterans, creating the Veteran Housing and Homeless Program known as VHHP.

The Proposition allowed for $600 million in bonds to be issued over six rounds of funding. VHHP has resulted in nearly 6000 units. However, nearly all this funding has been depleted from this highly successful program. With the historic budget surpluses, legislature and the Governor included 100 million lifeline to VHHP in last year's budget to provide two additional years of funding. However, the future of VHHP and addressing veterans homelessness will require consistent and long-term funding.

AB 531 addresses this by enacting the Veteran Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond act. This bill will authorize the issuance of bonds to provide additional funding for the construction of affordable, multifamily housing with supportive services for veterans. There are over 10,000 homeless veterans in California and even more experiencing homeless insecurity and struggling to make ends meet in the transition. We must continue to support VHHP so these veterans can find the housing they need.

With me to testify and support is Charles Wright, representing the California Association of Veterans Service Agencies.

Madam Chair, members, Charles Wright, representing the California Association of Veterans Services Agencies, also known as CAVSA. We're the sponsors of this bill. CAVSA is in strong support of Assembly Bill 531 that would place the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2024 on the March 2024 statewide ballot. AB 531, if passed by the legislature and the voters, will extend the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Program with the issuance of $600 million in general obligation bonds.

Last year, the state budget included $100 million augmentation to the VHHP program to keep this program afloat. The Veterans Housing and Homelessness Program Fund has been used to produce over 88 affordable housing developments, producing roughly 5665 units for veterans and non-veterans since 2014. The funding for these projects has been and will continue to be geographically targeted to encourage the development of veteran housing in regions with high concentrations of California's most vulnerable veterans.

The Veterans Housing and Homelessness Program has shown to be an effective and efficient system for the construction of veterans housing, and the passage of this bond is essential to keep this good work going forward. Therefore, CAVSA is in strong support of AB 51. Thank you, Madam Chair and members.

Thank you. Additional folks like to register support.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership. We're very much in support of the bill and a new bond. We do just suggest to the author at some point that you consider having the funds run through the multifamily housing program as a set aside for veterans with very strict threshold requirements similar to the current program that will reduce complication in the system and be a bit more efficient for the developers to get the units built and reduce costs, so thank you.

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

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of Housing California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions from members?

Motion to move the bill?

We have a motion to move the bill. And a second. Okay, Mr. Ward.

I want to thank the author for her leadership on this issue. I know we've got a lot of revenue questions that might present itself before the legislature. Really happy to be able to move this forward. Certainly serving our veterans and focusing housing solutions for there is something that's going to be a priority for us and look forward to seeing this on the floor. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions? Comments? Mr. Carrillo.

I just want to thank the author, for bringing this up. There's some local jurisdictions that are going through a lot of red tape to get financing for veteran housing. In the City of Palmdale, there is a 57-unit project, single-family, for veteran housing, but they keep running out of money because of the additional cost of construction building materials going up. And I just want to thank you for doing that. And again, like to know if you could consider me as co-author in the bill.

Thank you. Great. And with that, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Great. Well, I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I'm pleased to support it. I know the VHH program has been instrumental in producing housing for our homeless veterans. I also want to note that I also have a bill to place a housing bond on next year's ballot. And so I'd love to coordinate with you and see if we can conspire together on that.

So with that, I'm pleased to support the bill. The motions do pass to the Assembly Committee on Military and Veteran Affairs.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you, Ms. Irwin. And with that next, we will have Mr. Bryan presenting AB 745.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members, or good morning still. I'm back to present AB 745. Some of you may remember a version of this bill that passed out of this committee, passed out of the floor, and passed on through the Senate last year, it ran into non-policy problems and some things that we wanted to fine-tune this year, and so we held it ourselves and we added some key components, including uplifting the needs of formerly incarcerated women. Homelessness and incarceration have become inextricably linked.

Formally incarcerated individuals are 10 times more likely to be unhoused. In California, 70% of people experiencing homelessness have had some sort of history of interaction with the criminal legal system. In fact, CDCR's own data says that one in five people, when they are released, go immediately to the streets, and that number grows every subsequent year. If we want to truly address homelessness, we have to truly address the unhoused conditions that people coming home from incarceration face at a higher degree than all other people.

California doesn't have the adequate infrastructure in place to meet the complex needs of people who are coming home from incarceration. What this bill proposes is a culturally competent statewide pilot that would allow for us to do in reach before folks are released, but also to set up permanent supportive housing for folks immediately upon being released. What we've added this year additionally includes some key components around women.

Women who are previously incarcerated are affected by this harmful cycle at a rate that's far and way higher than all other women. Without viable housing options and supportive services, women on parole who are victims of domestic violence often return to abusive households, putting their livelihoods at risk even further by providing support for programs that focus on housing stability and including the workforce development component that's in this bill for previously incarcerated people. AB 745 is a critical step towards making sure this harmful cycle ends and less people end up on our streets. With me to testify is Saun Hough, the partnership manager with Californians for Safety and Justice, and Zeke Sandoval, the public policy manager with PATH. I'll turn it over to them.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee. I am Saun Hough, California partnerships manager, also honored to speak on behalf of RePAC, the Re-Entry Providers Association of California. I'm also someone with lived experience, so I'm also appearing on behalf of the tens of thousands of men and women returning to our communities with unstable housing and living with the risk of homelessness without these permanent solutions

Every day in California, thousands of people are released with no place to live, with an additional 30,000 expected to be released annually over the next three to four years, which jeopardizes their own stability, health, safety, and well-being, as well as those of our community. Ensuring people have stable and secure housing to return home to is key to their successful reentry and reintegration.

As the state experiences savings from the closure of two state prisons, we believe that ramping up investments in housing for returning citizens can help reduce recidivism, address our homelessness crisis, and particularly the racial disparities in who experiences homelessness, and result in long-term cost savings to the state. We cannot continue to position formerly incarcerated community members for failure instead of supporting their success. There's a few things we know. We know that people on parole are seven times more likely to recidivate when homeless than when housed.

We know that evidence-based housing decreases recidivism rates by 60% when compared to other control groups. We know that formerly incarcerated people are 27 times more likely to be unstablely housed or homeless than others. In fact, California data has estimated that one-third to one-half of all people on parole in San Francisco and Los Angeles are experiencing homelessness at any point. As well as the data our Assemblymember just presented on the one in five people parole across the state.

We also know how difficult family reunification can be, as well as the unique challenges that women face when trying to successfully reintegrate into their communities after incarceration. The severe shortage of affordable housing in California coupled with discrimination in the rental market on the basis of criminal conviction makes it extremely challenging for people with criminal conviction histories to find affordable housing.

AB 745 supports the successful reentry and reintegration of California's living with old criminal records by providing permanent housing solutions and supports family reunification services and workforce development programming that provides a pathway to livable wage jobs. I'll conclude with saying that about 10 years ago, 11 years ago, I was receiving temporary housing support. I received a call on Tuesday that told me on Friday my funding would end and I would have to have somewhere else to go.

I am a native of Muskegon, Michigan, so I had very little family support here in California and had no permanent housing solution supports to fall back on. Thankfully, I had a friend of mine who was willing to make the adjustments he had to make, which included giving back a program that he was a part of because it did not allow for someone on parole to live with him to continue to have that support. And that was my only means and the only thing by the grace of God, that kept me from being homeless in Los Angeles. AB 745 would provide greater supports and keep men and women like me from having to make those types of decisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair members. My name is Zeke Sandoval. I'm the public policy manager for PATH. PATH is one of the largest and most impactful nonprofit homeless service providers and affordable housing developers in California. In addition to our many other services, PATH runs a re-entry program in San Diego that serves as a model for what AB 745 can accomplish across the state. Our program in San Diego works in partnership with both the county sheriff's office and the county public defender.

County staff refer individuals to PATH who are at risk of exiting into homelessness well ahead of their release day. In most cases, these individuals have serious behavioral health challenges and extensive involvement with the justice system, cycling in and out of homelessness and incarceration without ever having the opportunity to chart a different course. One recent participant, for example, had been imprisoned for a year and a half before even being sentenced.

Another kept visiting his family's former home after release, not realizing they were no longer there and getting rearrested for trespassing. Californians like these need programs that will see them through their journey to permanent housing beyond the existing transitional and temporary resources. Once we receive a referral, our staff go into the jail to conduct targeted, trauma-informed engagement. We assess an individual's needs, identify their unique barriers to housing and sustainable income, and formulate a plan for success together.

Then we're there to pick them up whenever they're released, whether it's during the workday or at 3:00 a.m. to get them a temporary room like a motel and start the process of finding them a new home. It takes a lot to rebuild our participants' trust in themselves and the system, but with proper support, it is eminently possible.

Since we began in 2019, we've helped over 160 individuals in San Diego County stay in a safe place after the release, receive supportive services like mental health or addiction support, and obtain permanent housing. So far, half of those individuals are already sustaining themselves in permanent housing without any of our subsidies, and almost three-quarters of our recipients haven't been booked into jail for any reason since their enrollment. Our participants are getting the help they need in a way that's safer for them and the surrounding community than incarceration.

And thanks to the hard work of our frontline staff, we recently expanded our partnership with San Diego County to also offer tailored services for veterans and for a more general population with fewer health and legal challenges. By the county's own estimate, our program is more than 20% cheaper than what it would have cost to rearrest and incarcerate those participants. Re-entry programs don't just lower the human cost of incarceration, but the financial cost as well. We can say with confidence, AB 745 will help tens of thousands of Californians get the help they need to make good on a second chance. We're so grateful for Assemblymember Bryan's hard work on this bill and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of Housing California, in support.

Thank you.

Andres Ramirez, on behalf of All Home, in support.

Thank you. Additional or primary witnesses in opposition. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. We have a motion to move the bill, a second. And Mr. Patterson.

Well, thank you. I've really been looking forward to the moment to be on committee that Mr. Bryan, Assemblymember Bryan brings a bill. So thank you for that. And congratulations by the way. I want to start off with some issues that I have just on policy in general. The first one we've talked about, I, and I've talked about it a lot, but I have an issue with the aggressiveness that the state is moving forward with early release, particularly new CDCR regulations that give good time credits pretty much automatically upon entry into prison.

I also have concerns with housing first policies in general, and this is why. There's actually a center here in Sacramento that is women and children, and they have a policy that you have to be sober to go into this facility. And they've made the decision that they don't want people drinking and using substance abuse around their children. Right?

And so because of that, they don't qualify for a lot of state programs, despite the fact that they have a 77% success rate of getting people into permanent housing. And so I think as a committee and as a Legislature, we have to really think about that overarching policy. And I understand the purpose of it, but I have a lot of concerns with that. All of those things that I mentioned are good reasons to oppose this bill, but I am actually going to support it.

And this is why. The reality is not only with early releases, and there were 25,000 people released during COVID. The reality is people are coming out of prison, and we have to make sure that people are set on the right foot and that there's no going back to prison and additional victims aren't created as a result of people not being successful once they're let out of prison.

And I think it's really important, I think it's beneficial to society if we reduce the recidivism rate, but actually the crime rate in addition to that. Finally, like I said, the reality is people are going to be getting out of prison. I mean, that's the vast majority of people in prison are going to get out, and there has to be a mechanism to ensure their success. I think everybody benefits from that. And so I'm going to support this bill.

But I ask that we continue conversations as a Legislature on the housing first policies because I want to see successful programs also able to receive state funding and things like that. And also, I don't think it really does service to people who are coming out of prison, going to a place where they have to accept folks that do have substance use disorders and things like that. That might not be a great environment, but I really appreciate the route you're going, and I'm looking forward to supporting the bill.

Any other questions? Yeah, we have a motion in a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Bryan?

Sure. I was deeply concerned, Madam Chair, when you left and gave the gavel to Mr. Patrick, so I'm relieved to see that you made it back, and I appreciate those comments. I mean, we have a number of things that are impacting our unhoused crisis. With people who are formerly incarcerated, a lot of federal dollars come with the kind of strings that don't allow you to live with your loved one just because of your past conviction for the kind of conviction it was, even though you've served your time and even though that is your family that you're going to live with. And so there are a lot of hurdles that we've got to undo, both at the federal level and at the state level.

We know that we need more housing in general and how hard it is to be housed, even if you have a good income. I literally have a brand new lease that I'm signing today with my fiance after we were passed over six different times. And I'm a Legislator and she's an attorney. Right? So for people coming home from incarceration, you can imagine just how difficult it is to find housing and to stay housed.

If we are going to truly solve our homelessness crisis, we've got to start lifting people from the bottom, and that includes people who are coming home from incarceration. It's also, even if you are not for housing first policies, you may be for fiscally responsible policies. It costs nearly $40,000 a year to help somebody who's been chronically homeless. It costs less than $30,000 a year to house somebody who's coming home from incarceration right after they've been released. This is good governance. It's smart governance. It's an intersectional approach to solving homelessness. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I'm pleased to support the bill today. I think one of the most important elements of successful re-entry is having housing security. If you don't have that, we know what happens, right? So I appreciate your leadership on this, and I support this just out of a place of compassion. But even if you don't have compassion, it makes economic sense. It makes sense in terms of ending cycles of violence and crime and all the other things associated with it. So I'm pleased to support the bill. I'd love to be added as a co-author, if you'd have me. And the motions do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out.

Thank you.

And next we will have Ms. Carillo. You are presenting AB 1215, I believe.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee staff for working diligently with my team on this issue, as well as, the work on the Committee analysis. This morning, I am proud to present AB 1215, the Pet Assistance with Support or PAWS Act. AB 1215 would re-establish the PAS program to administer and award grants to homeless and domestic violence shelters.

Additionally, this bill will provide food and basic veterinarian services for pets and allow a pathway for permanent housing placement. Individuals experiencing homelessness or domestic violence often are denied shelter if they don't surrender their pets. Studies show that pets provide comfort and help with trauma and abuse. When pets are surrendered, less than 15% are reunited, furthering depression and anxiety. Around 10% of unhoused Californians own a pet, a beloved source of dignity, self responsibility, safety, and comfort at a time when they may need it the most.

Conversely, when a shelter cannot accommodate an unhoused individual's pet, that individual is far more likely to refuse an offer to shelter and remain outside than they are to surrender their pet. Los Angeles, for instance, studies found that nearly half of pet owners experiencing homelessness were turned away from shelters after refusing to surrender their pet. Interest in extending shelter services to accommodate pets is growing. More shelters are understanding the importance of the human-animal bond and are working to accommodate pets.

The work of AB 1215 is a worthy use of resources and will create excellent opportunities to build intercommunity partnerships to better serve California's unhoused communities and their pets. Here with me to testify is Jenny Berg, with the California State Director of State Affairs for the Humane Society of the United States, and Tiffany Shirley, the senior Director of Metro LA Programs for People Assisting the Homeless, otherwise known as PATH. And I respectfully request, and aye vote.

Thank you. You may begin.

Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Tiffany Shirley. I'm the Senior Director for Metro LA Programs at PATH. PATH is one of California's largest and most impactful nonprofit homeless service providers and affordable housing developers. We're proud to be here today as a co sponsor of the PAWS Act and thankful to our other co sponsors at the Humane Society and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. Homelessness is a traumatic experience for the folks that we serve out in the field, any source of comfort and safety is in short supply.

Like me, a lot of us in this room, many of us are pet owners, and we find companionship through our pets. Street outreach teams, like the ones we operate at PATH, succeed when our approach recognizes someone's trauma and offers resources that meet the person's individual needs. For pet owners, that almost always means a place to stay where they can keep their animal companion.

Pet owners experiencing homelessness generally won't accept a shelter arrangement that forces them to surrender one of the only living beings that give them unconditional support. We always look for ways to make our shelters feel more welcoming and accommodating pets is a big part of that. I've seen pets bring our residents out of severe depressive episodes and help deescalate conflicts and panic attacks. Of course, as any pet owner knows, pets cost money.

Our operating budgets are stretched thin as it is, and that's why the one time pet assistant grant is so helpful for our residents and for our staff. In my role, I oversee several sites where we've made great use of the pet assistance funds. At our shelter for single adults in Assemblymember Carrillo's district, for example, we've purchased collars, leashes, flea and tick medicine, and other important items for any pet owner.

We've also been able to cover veterinary services so that everyone in the shelter, human and animal, stays healthy. I want to close with a story about one of our residents in LA named Cruz. He was kicked out of his home at 17, got his RV stolen, and ended up in a tent. The only thing that kept him going was the safety and love he got from his dog, Toby.

But because so few shelters could accept Toby, Cruz waited on the streets for three years, so long, in fact, that Toby developed a severe ear infection and was close to being put down. Fortunately, a spot opened up at one of our shelters and we were able to bring Cruz indoors and get Toby to the vet to get him the treatment that he needed. Now Cruz and Toby are both happy and healthy, working with our staff to find a permanent home where they can both thrive.

The PAWS Act would help more shelters operate like ours, so folks like Cruz and Toby don't have to wait years on our streets for help. It's a smart investment and let's make the most of our shelter and outreach programs. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jenny Berg and I'm the California State Director for the Humane Society of the United States.

I am proud to work alongside Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority and People Assisting the Homeless and especially Assemblymember Carrillo to co sponsor AB 1215. To help address California's ongoing housing and homeless crisis we need comprehensive and inclusive solutions, which includes making accommodations for pets. An overwhelming majority of Americans consider their pets to be part of their family, and for people in an abusive relationship or experiencing homelessness, that bond can be especially strong.

Continuum of care programs and nonprofits serving these populations have learned that people will forego or avoid shelter because they don't accept their pets. For many, the path to safe shelter starts with their companion animals. In cases of domestic violence, victims will delay leaving in fear of their pet safety. Providers see this firsthand. They know there's a need, but unfortunately, all too often, financial constraints limit their ability to welcome pets. AB 1215 will help address this gap by reestablishing the Pet Assistance and Support Program.

This program has empowered grant recipients to boost support for those they serve provide much needed services that typical grant and contract dollars don't always cover. The PATH program has provided a level of care and support that has built immeasurable rapport with people who have been traumatized and failed repeatedly by our systems. Leaders from our co sponsors organization Path, which you just heard about, stated, this vital program provides a level of care that many have not experienced. This has been priceless and keeps owners with their pets.

Thank you for your consideration of this legislation and we urge an aye vote on AB 1215.

Thank you. Additional folks in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the San Diego Humane Society, in support.

Charles Wright, on behalf of pallet shelter, in support.

Nikolaus Sackett, on behalf of social compassion. And legislation, in support.

Thank you. And witnesses in opposition. Anyone else in opposition? Great. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Ward,

Thank you. I want to thank the author and sponsors for bringing forward this Bill. I know one thing that I'd seen in my days in local government was that direct experience in a lot of narrative that people are inappropriately having to choose between their most precious love, being their best friend, and receiving shelter, or go a step further, actually receiving housing.

And so it's something that I appreciate that we're working on a grant program, something more incentive basis, will work out the fiscal, of course, in a future Committee. But I would love to be able to tackle a little bit more broadly in our time here, the barrier itself, that these shouldn't actually be on the books, that we need to look at both shelter and housing opportunities as pet friendly opportunities. So that's not an inappropriate choice that needs to be made.

I'm happy to move the Bill, if not already, and support it today. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Gabriel.

Yeah, I will second the motion. And I just want to echo the comments of our colleague and appreciate, the author was really excited when I saw this Bill. And you've been such a leader on both homelessness and on animal welfare. So it's very natural that you would be the author of this Bill and just want to encourage everyone to vote for this.

This is such an important piece of the puzzles we're thinking about solving homelessness and think this is, hopefully this is something that's going to move forward, and we'll figure out the resources part of it at a later date. But this is really important policy, and happy to support it today.

Thank you. Mrs. Quirk-Silva.

I also support, and we'll jump on the Ben Wegman as far as comments, but I will tell you that as we interface up here in Sacramento, many of us walk. And so we do see the same individuals who are in encampments around the capitals, or I do. And I know one of the gentlemen that I've interfaced with, he actually has a dog, pretty tough looking dog, but I see how gentle he is with the dog and how that dog really does stand by his side.

He often has the dog outside of the tent, and he is very receptive to people interacting, but the dog is not, because that's his best friend. But I do think the very essence of us limiting barriers for people to get off the streets is just so important as we're seeing these rainy, rainy days, looking at the temperatures outside, and we still see people not going into shelters, we know there's good reasons for that. So I appreciate it. Thank you to the author.

Thank you. Anyone else would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the Members for the comments. Really important, critical Bill not only for our unhoused communities, but also for domestic violence survivors who may not be as easily able to leave their home if they're unable to bring their most beloved companion, their animal, with them. And so we tested this through budget before as a pilot project. It's been incredibly successful. And so in terms of why try to recreate the wheel, we know what works.

And this is an important part of solving that piece, to get folks off the street and most urgently, to make sure that people are safe. So, respectfully request and Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And I recall last year when Senator Herzberg brought this forth, it was like probably one of the most popular bills discussed in our Committee, widespread support for it. So I want to thank you, your continued leadership in this. And I think, as Mr. Gabriel said, it's sort of the nexus of the work that you've done. I think this is kind of a perfect Bill for you. I know as Lulu's mom, Lulu would be very proud of the work that you're doing here.

And I also want to say, on a more serious note, this seems like a little thing, but for those that have this bond with their pet and those who are experiencing homelessness, many of whom are survivors of domestic violence, it's actually incredibly important. And again, removing the barriers, I think, is really important. So I'm proud to support the Bill today as the motion is do pass as amended, to the Assembly Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out, and I'm going to go next. But before we do that, we're going to go back to the Ms. Addis's Bill to vote to get anyone who was left off.

That motion is do pass as amended and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Yes, and Mr. Brian's Bill, too.

AB 745 do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations? [Roll Call]

Go and I'm going to pass the gavel to Mr. Patterson. We'll just do all the add ons real quick.

AB 319 Connolly, due pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. AB 323 Holden, due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call]. The consent calendar. [Roll call]. AB 434 Grayson, due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll call] AB 529 Gabriel, due pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll call].

AB 531 Irwin, due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. [Roll call]. AB 604 Lee, due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. AB 976 Ting, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll call]. AB 1053 Gabriel, due pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

Oh, sorry, one more.

AB 1215 Wendy Carrillo, due pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

I know. Voted for too many bills today. All right, well, we'll commence with me figuring out what we're doing, Madam Chair.

I have a feeling you'll do just fine, Mr. Patterson. Okay, so we are talking about AB 1319, which enacts targeted modifications to state law governing the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, also known as BAHFA. BAHFA was created by AB 1487 in 2019, authored by Mr. David Shu, the previous chair of this illustrious committee, which I was a proud co-author of. It was created to help the Bay Area take a regional perspective to a regional problem, which is housing affordability.

Since BAHFA was created, it has hired an executive director and staff, developed a business plan, received $20 million from state to implement pilot programs, begun preparations for a ballot measure to raise funds to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing. BAHFA is governed by MTC and ABAG, who are the sponsors of this bill.

In getting BAHFA up and running, they and partners in the affordable housing community noticed that there was a handful of places where the law lacked some clarity, made implementation challenges, or didn't reflect recent evolution in best practices such as the homelessness prevention techniques we learned during the pandemic. This bill includes the modifications necessary to address the existing issues so that BAHFA can best fulfill its mission to help ensure housing affordability for lower-income residents of the Bay Area.

Here with me to talk about this bill is Julie Snyder, a principal legislative advocate for MTC and ABAG.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. We are very pleased to be co-sponsors on this bill, along with Enterprise Community Partners and the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. MTC and ABAG are the nine-county Bay Area planning and funding agencies for transportation and housing. We're deeply invested in increasing housing affordability for a number of reasons, including achieving the climate change goals and our sustainable community strategies, maximizing the effectiveness of our transportation investments and of course, improving access to opportunity for all Bay Area residents.

As Assemblymember Wicks outlined, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority is our affiliated entity, and we are preparing to place a multibillion-dollar bond measure on the November 2024 ballot. If passed, 80% of the funding will actually flow to our localities and 20% will stay at BAHFA for innovative, regionwide solutions to maximize the impact of this funding. AB 1319 makes a series of minor modifications as well as important clarifications about BAHFA's authority. I won't go into specifics, but I'm happy, of course, to answer any questions.

We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there any other supporters from the floor?

Andres Ramirez, on behalf of All Home in support.

Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners in support.

Brian Sapp on behalf of SPUR, in support.

Abram Diaz on behalf of MPH, in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Any opponents to this legislation? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from my terrific colleagues here? All right, there's a motion and a second. Any comments? No comments.

Would you like, moved again. There we go.

I appreciate the double motion, Mr. Gabriel. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Well, that's quick. Well, the motion was due pass to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out.

Thank you.

Now, I'll gladly give this.

Okay. Last we have Mr. Ward, I know you have two bills, I believe, right, in front of us.

One we had delayed. We pulled one for a future hearing.

Got it. Okay, great. So you'll be presenting AB 84. AB 84, great. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. This Bill is a property tax relief, and it is designed as follows. We know that under existing law. The welfare exemption is intended to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing by abating basic property tax payments. However, when the affordable housing developer purchases the land subject to recorded covenants, most county assessors will not approve the welfare exemption back to the date of acquisition. Instead, it will only be approved dating back to the start of construction.

This is time, and we all know in development, time is money. We know that these properties are going to be set aside for affordable housing development. So this Bill essentially seeks to be able to apply that and direct that back to the date of acquisition. It sees to improve the implementation to the welfare exemption so that developers can maximize these savings and specifically does four things: allows them to claim the exemption starting when the property is deed restricted for affordable housing.

It defers those property tax payments while an application is pending, so developers don't have to float those payments for one or two years only to be reimbursed. When the application is improved, it expands to all affordable housing and extends an existing rule related to tenants whose income increase after initial occupancy. And fourth, it provides parity to development finance with 501 C three bonds.

It's important to note that the added and unnecessary costs of developments incurred today are ultimately borne by public entities in the form of additional housing subsidy per home, which would decrease the number of homes that we can finance with our limited resources. I want to thank the California Assessors Association for their continued dialogue on this Bill. We're going to continue to meet and discuss some of the specific amendments to make this more workable, but I'd like to present my witnesses today in support of the Bill.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership Corporation, and Regina Evans, the Chief of Staff for state Controller Malia Cohen, and I respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Regina Evans with the office of State Controller Malia Cohen. Controller Cohen is pleased to co sponsor AB 84, which will reduce the costs of affordable housing construction by improving the implementation of the welfare property tax exemption.

As California's chief fiscal officer and a board Member of both the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, Controller Cohen is acutely aware of the challenges surrounding the financing of affordable housing. Reducing affordable housing development costs is critical to making use of state housing resources and maximizing production so that we can tackle the housing and homelessness crisis. The California Constitution exempts nonprofit owned affordable rental housing from paying property taxes.

However, in controller Cohen's previous capacity as chair of the California State Board of Equalization. She convened a series of hearings related to using the property tax exemption and abatements to facilitate affordable housing development in California. At these hearings, we heard numerous comments on the need to more effectively implement the welfare tax exemption. It was emphasized that most county assessors do not approve the welfare exemption back to the date the property is deed restricted for affordable housing instead only at the start of construction.

Additionally, owners who apply for the exemption must pay taxes upfront and seek reimbursement after approval, requiring them to borrow and float thousands of dollars in tax payments for as long as three years, and in many instances, these payments are paid by government. AB 84 will address the inefficiencies, reducing the cost of developing affordable housing.

Specifically, this Bill will ensure that nonprofit rental housing can access the welfare property tax exemption from the date the property is restricted for affordable housing without the need to float unnecessary tax payments while the application is under review. And of course, those dollars would be available to make many of those construction projects pencil out. Finally, Controller Cohen thanks the California Assessors Association for working with her and the author to work out their concerns.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

And Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership back once again to support reducing the cost of developing affordable housing. And I too, am here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Additional folks in the room who want to express support

Mimi Khalili, on behalf.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein. On behalf of Housing California in support.

Abram Diaz with NPH, in support.

Andres Ramirez, on behalf of All Home in support.

Jennifer Armenta on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in support.

Brian Sapp on behalf of Spur in support. And also on behalf of United Way greater LA in support.

Julie Snyder on behalf of MTCA Bag, in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and honorable Members of the Committee. Rob Gross Clauser, on behalf of the California Assessors Association. Thankfully here not in opposition, but did want to publicly state that we really appreciate the author and the sponsors for their continued outreach and communication that they've had with us. It goes back to this fall, and so we're confident that we can address the concerns moving forward and actually encourage the Committee to pass the Bill out today. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Great. We'll bring it back to the Committee motion in a second. Any questions? Comments? Great. Okay with that? The motion is due to pass, sorry. Let me let you close.

Thank you. Madam Chair, respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, and I'm pleased to be supporting the Bill today and appreciate your leadership. With that, the motions due pass to the Assembly revenue and tax Committee. [Roll Call] That bill's out, and we don't have any other additional. Great. We are adjourned. Good job, team. It. We're, like, in a bit of.