Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Hi, everyone. Is there something going on today? Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We have 11 items on our agenda today. Two of those items are on consent. Each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition. Each main witness gets two minutes each. There is no phone testimony option for this hearing. All witness testimony 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 meeting. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its livestream on the Assembly website. Thank you for your patience and understanding. And with that, let's take roll.

Wicks? Here. Wicks, here. Patterson? Carrillo? Carrillo, here. Gabriel? Gabriel, here. Kalra? Kalra, here. Quirk-Silva? Quirk-Silva, here. Sanchez? Sanchez, here. Ward? Ward, here.

Great. We have a quorum, and I'd love to entertain a motion on the consent agenda. We have a motion and a second. A third.

Our consent items number two, SB 91. Do pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. Number four, SB 406, do pass. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Patterson? Carrillo? Carrillo, aye. Gabriel? Kalra? Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva? Quirk-Silva, aye. Sanchez? Consent items. Sanchez? Sanchez, aye. Ward? Ward, aye.

That is six to zero. It is out. But we will leave it open or we will let folks add on.

And with that, we will hear from first Senator Blakespear with file item eight, SB 482.

Thank you. It's very brief. I know you have a packed agenda, so thank you, Chair and colleagues. I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their work, and we will be taking all the proposed amendments, gladly. So, SB 482 requires HCD to offer capitalized operating subsidy reserved COSRs to special needs units funded through the Multifamily Housing Program.

Over the next decade, our state is projected to face a shortfall of 62,000 special needs units, otherwise known as Supportive Housing Units. These units provide vital wraparound services to unstably housed people with disabilities and complex health needs. Evidence shows that these units are effective at preventing recidivism into homelessness and improving health outcomes. There are numerous shovel ready special needs housing projects that have made it through the cumbersome land use, permitting, and CEQA processes that my colleagues, many of you, including the Chair, are working to reform.

But these projects do not have the financing to cover their operating costs, which is a prerequisite for receiving the bank financing to start construction. So this is why SB 482 is needed, so HCD can offer COSRs to help enable these housing projects to proceed with construction. So, with me in support is Andrew Dawson from the California Housing Partnership, and I invite him to just say a few quick words if it's okay with the Chair. If he says a few quick words.

Yes.

I'll try to make this brief. Andrew Dawson from the California Housing Partnership. I will add that HCD has already offered COSRs in programs, the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program and the No Place Like Home program. Those funds are running out of money, and so then we want to be able to use this tool in other ways and in the Multifamily Housing Program. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional primary witnesses?

No.

Okay. Additional folks in the room wish to express support? Is that on? Chris, can you turn that on?

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

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support.

Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks want to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. I think we have a motion and a second. Any other questions? Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate the brevity of the presentation. Thanks for working with my staff on the amendments. Happy to support the bill today. With that, please take the roll.

Motion do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Patterson? Carrillo? Carrillo, aye. Gabriel? Kalra? Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva? Quirk-Silva, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, aye. Ward? Ward, aye.

Six to zero. It's out. We'll let folks add on. Thank you. Next, I believe it's Senator Eggman, right? Yes.

The very kind Senator is allowing me to skip in line.

And, Senator Eggman, I believe you are presenting file item three, SB 267.

I am. I have a witness. Okay. They got in. Okay, thank you very much. It's busy out there. Madam Chair. Good morning, everybody. Today I'd like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments and thank them for their work on SB 267. This is a simple Bill I worked on last year. Basically, when we give out housing vouchers, we expect that people get them are going to have trouble. They've had trouble either. It could be veterans, could be mental health issues, could be all kinds of issues. But that voucher, once you get it, is golden. Except when you go to use it sometimes and they ask for a credit check. We might be surprised that people have bad credit when they're needing a housing voucher. That shouldn't surprise any of us, and it seems ridiculous that we have that as a criteria. So what we're saying is, we know that with the housing voucher, mostly 70% of your rent will already be paid. This is just that 30% proving that somebody can pay it. So this just says that instead of just getting a credit check, somebody can also they can be asked for a credit check, but they can also give other forms of verifiable ID or information that says to that landlord they can make that 30% and be able to use their voucher and rent a place. And with me here to testify is Jessica Quan from the San Joaquin County Housing Authority.

Good morning, and thank you for allowing me this opportunity to support SB 267. Also, thank you to Senator Eggman. I do appreciate you spearheading this Bill. My name is Jessica Kwan, and I am the Director of Occupancy and Housing compliance at the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin. In my 15 years of experience, the best tool that we have in our toolbox to support affordable housing is using the voucher program. The Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin has 5546 vouchers, and that includes our specialized programs. Unfortunately, there's a portion of those vouchers that go unused, and that is due to credit. Voucher holders are often unable to find a unit as the credit check comes back with little to no credit. Rental subsidy provided by the emphasis of the voucher program will value the credit score. The voucher provides income support to the household as an overall income. Since the relationship between income and credit are tethered, this allows the voucher to be an intervening mechanism in making a retrospective credit score less valuable. By considering the benefits of the voucher in lieu of credit, more affordable housing can be provided to families. For the rental assistance program to go unused is a tragedy. We will continue to work with Senator Eggman's office to use federal funding in support of affordable housing initiatives, and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Any other primary witnesses? Additional folks in the room wish to express support. Please name, organization, and position.

Taneicia Herring, on behalf of the California Hawaii NAACP, in strong support.

Madam Chair and members, Rand MArtin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its housing as a human rights division. In strong support. Thank you.

Hi Mari Castaldi on behalf of Housing California in support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw, here, on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, in support. Thank you.

Andrew Dawson. The California Housing Partnership. In support.

Good morning, chair Members Cynthia Castillo on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I want to thank the Senator for working with us. We have removed our opposition.

Great. Thank you. Primary witnesses in opposition. Do we have any?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we have removed our opposition and wish to sincerely thank the author and the sponsors and the author for her leadership on this type of issue. Thank you so much.

Great, hearing, yeah. Is there any way yeah. Okay. I think that mic needs to be turned up. If that's the thing, we can do that. I don't know. Okay, yes. Go ahead. No, no. You're okay.

With capital advocacy on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association. Respectfully opposed to this bill.

OK. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Senator. Yes, Mr. Kalra.

First of all, I'd like to move the Bill.

We have a motion, we have a second.

I appreciate the Senator for bringing this forward. I know there was a somewhat similar Bill that was not able to move forward. So I'm really grateful that you've continued on this journey. And I remember when the previous Bill that Member of Luz Rivas had authored at the time, my father and I are the proverbial mom and pop landlords and our first family home, my father started renting out Section Eight over three decades ago, before credit histories existed, and to this day still rents it out Section Eight. And I asked him because I have my opinions, but I'm pretty far left on the progressive spectrum. So let me ask my dad. He's been doing this for a while. I'm like, dad, but you need to have a credit history when you have session. He's like, there's no need for it because the government's already done all that check. And so as long as they're working or have some other form of income, That's all that matters. And so I just mentioned that because sometimes in this Committee in particular, we hear rhetoric about what mom and pop landlords are going through and what have you. And I think in real life, at the end of the day, there's a lot of different ways to ensure that all parties are taken care of and are held responsible. And so I think this Bill, I think, goes a long way in ensuring that families that need housing have the opportunity to secure it and kind of artificial barriers that we've put as government in the way can be removed. And so I would really appreciate being added as a co author, if that's okay with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember, Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Good morning and thank you. I want to thank the author as well. We've been here now for quite a handful of years where this has come up, but I think we need to normalize the conversation about who a Section Eight voucher holder is. I mean, there has been such a narrative for really decades, and it has really been ingrained into the fabric of many times, landlords. And we have done work on this. But it's becoming upon now the institutions to start to really look closer at who this person is, who not only has qualified for a voucher, but all the vetting behind attaining the voucher because it is not an easy thing to do for some people. They're on a list for well over a decade. Not only attaining the voucher is one thing, but also there's follow ups. There's a lot of transparency. And the saddest thing that we've seen over these years is that some of those vouchers go unused because the individuals cannot attain an apartment with those vouchers that are saying we will provide 70% subsidy. So my hope is, with this piece of legislation, those who represent institutions will start to really look closer at defining that. Because I know in Orange County, it's like finding a gold piece in the sidewalk because it's so difficult to find somebody who accept one even once they have one. So thank you for bringing this forward.

Great. Any other questions from Committee Members? And I think we need a second on the motion. A second by Ms. Carrillo. And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I think you've illustrated the reason for this Bill. Housing gives people humanity dignity. It's the right thing to do. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I'm happy to support the Bill today. I think vouchers are obviously an important part of our solution here. I know we leave a lot of federal money on the table because they're not used in the way that they need to be. So I appreciate this, and especially when vouchers provide a guaranteed payment that should offset the need for the credit check. So thank you. Kudos to the author. Happy to move the Bill. The motion is out of my Committee. It's do passed, as amended to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

Wicks, Wicks aye. Harrison. Carrillo, Carrillo aye. Gabriel. Kalra, Kalra aye. Quirk-Silva, Quirk-Silva aye. Sanchez, Sanchez not voting. Ward.

That's four to zero. And we'll leave it open. Thank you. We actually have Senator Wahab, I believe is next. I think there was some courtesy extended by Senator Wiener and Senator Durazo, I believe, to allow for yeah. Okay. The floor is yours. And I believe you are presenting file item nine, SB 55. Okay. No, I'm sorry. Yes, That's right. Yeah.

Chair and Members, I want to thank the sponsors and supporters of SB 555 for uniting around this shared vision for stable, affordable housing across the state. We need coordinated, purposeful action to invest in and build housing people need. Over 80% of low-income renters are rent burdened, meaning they pay over one third of their income towards rent. The leading cause of homelessness is inability to afford rent, leaving rent burden Californians the most vulnerable to becoming homeless.

To address the ongoing housing affordability and homeless crisis, the state needs to facilitate the development of more than 140,000 low-income, affordable units over the next eight years. We are far from meeting this need as deed restricted low-income affordable development remains below 20,000 units per year. SB 555 directs HCD to create a practical, data driven master plan that will outline specific state action for the acquisition, preservation, and production of stable, affordable housing.

With a goal of creating 1.2 million low-income, affordable homes over a 10 year period. Nothing in this bill will remove housing from the ownership market. Rather, it will increase the number of permanently affordable units available to lower income residents. With me I have two witnesses, Shanti Singh from Tenants Together and Janine Nkosi.

Good morning Chair Wicks, and Committee Members. It's an honor to be here today in support of SB 555, which is an essential part of solving California's housing crisis. Last month, I met housing leaders from around the world at the global affordable housing conference to learn about the innovative, visionary projects currently underway to address the housing and climate crisis. One of the spotlights was social housing. And recently, I traveled to Vienna, Austria, along with a few of your colleagues and leaders from across California to learn about Vienna's social housing system.

Why Vienna, and why social housing? Because today, Vienna is considered the most livable city in the entire world. But 100 years ago, they had the worst housing in all of Europe. And in some ways, Vienna was similar to California. The population at the time was 2 million, with an estimated 30,000 visible homeless residents and thousands more living in horrendous slum conditions. Today, Vienna's population is still just around 2 million, but they have virtually no homelessness. Most recent estimates of unroofed people is only in the hundreds.

I can't express to you what it was like to go and travel and get off of the plane and walk around and be in a city where virtually nobody was worried about their housing at all. A hundred years ago, Vienna had an empty treasury. They had tremendous unemployment, a major energy supply problem, food shortage, severe housing problems, and a major housing crisis. And even still, not everyone supported social housing. It was politically and socially contentious.

But courageous residents and leaders with a bold vision put Vienna on a pathway to solve their housing crisis. Today, they are a beacon of hope, with a proven track record of overcoming what must have seemed like an unsolvable crisis. There's many important things to know about Vienna's journey. One that is really important is the settlement movement that was supported, invested in, and institutionalized. Thousands of unhoused residents, formed settlements on the outskirts of the city.

They organized themselves into cooperatives associations, pulled their resources together, secured bank loans, received financial support from the government, formed nonprofit corporations, and they are still thriving today. The government incorporated the settlements into the planned urban development and established a municipal settlement office. They designated public land in various areas of the city, and created a public utility and building material corporation.

The list is endless in terms of what Vienna has done to transform their housing system into one where everybody has a permanently safe, affordable place to live. And SB 555 is going to help create a California social housing plan that will put California on a similar trajectory. Thank you so much. It's an honor to be here today and strongly support SB 555 and Senator Wahab.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Wicks and Members. My name is Shanti Singh. I am the Legislative Director at Tenants Together. We are a coalition of almost 60 tenant led-community organizations across the state, including tenant unions, legal aid providers, and community land trusts. Our membership and California communities of all kinds are increasingly looking to social housing as a necessary tool to end our housing shortage. We're proud to co sponsor 555 with a broad coalition of housing, environment, and labor groups across California.

Now, SB 555 accommodates an entire mixed income spectrum of cost burdened Californians from extremely low to moderate incomes. If you are facing difficulty in accessing the housing market, and if your opportunities to build wealth and stability are threatened by real estate speculation in any community, social housing needs to be a choice for you. SB 555 sets into motion an action plan for both social housing acquisition and production.

Whether because of expiring deed restrictions or speculation on naturally occurring affordable housing, we are losing housing options for cost burdened Californians faster than we can build them. We are overdue for a state level plan about new housing models, funding models, and the investments required to make these models possible. We're seeing pushes for social housing in Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, DC, Seattle, more U. S. Cities and states every week, almost.

Here at home, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities have recently passed initiatives to authorize and fund social housing, while new land trusts are forming in the Central Valley and Inland Empire. Californians are taking local initiative. They're taking matters into their own hands. But we need a state level coordination. We need state level action plan that is sensitive to local conditions, but identifies underutilized state resources like financing mechanisms and untapped public lands.

SB 555 would entrust HCD with the same expertise that they brought to bear during the housing element process, coordinating with local agencies, nonprofits, and tenants on the ground. It's flexible across a range of housing models that reflect the diverse needs of California communities, from public and nonprofit operated rental housing, to co-housing, limited equity housing cooperatives, land trusts, and permanently affordable ownership opportunities. We respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 555 to help move this critical conversation forward. Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. We will take MeToos, folks who want to express support. Please name, organization and position.

Archie Brumfield, disabled vet and part of ACCE Antioch. Strongly support.

Jonathan Pruitt from the California Environmental Justice Alliance in strong support of SB 555.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Joe Schykerynec, State Building Trades, in support.

Eddie Gums with ACCE and the Black Owned Beauty Supply Association. Strongly in support.

Are you guys coming to the...

For the record, I see support. Okay, thank you. Thank you, ACCE. We'll give this a second here. Name, organization and position, please.

My name is Elvia Vasquez. I'm with Sacramento ACT in support of 555. Thank you.

Thank you. And next, please. Step up. Yeah. Name, organization and position, please.

Sacramento ACT, Area Congregations Together. I'm Marjorie Beazer, and I'm here in support of 555. But I'm also a human being, so that also is why I'm here. Thank you.

Brian Sapp on behalf of Empower California Action in support. And also on behalf of Valley Water in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation In support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andres Ramos, on behalf of Public Advocates, as co-sponsors in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Cynthia Castillo on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, In support.

Darrell Alder II, Sac Act, and I am in support.

Sydney Alper with Sacramento ACT, in strong support. Housing is a human right.

Jason Zamarron from PICO California, in support.

Monserrath Sanchez, gen Z home owner and organizer with Faith in the Valley, in support of SB 555.

Zonnie Thompson, organizer with Faith in the Valley, representing the youth in San Joaquin and tenants in San Joaquin, in strong support.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong support. Thank you.

Lauren Rebrovich on behalf of Housing California in support.

Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in support thank you.

Robert Copeland, Member of ACCE. Strong support.

Jovanna Fajardo with ACCE Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment in support.

Eileen with ACCE and I'm in support.

Good morning. James Michael Paulo with AskMe California strong support.

Good morning. Matt Lege with SCIU in support.

Thank you. Any additional or sorry, any primary witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair and members of the committee. Jennifer Svec. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, Let me be clear, CAR does not oppose social housing. What we do have concerns with is a constant pressure that we're seeing on entry level market rate housing. One of the significant concerns that we have is we believe that social housing programs funded by the state really do need to focus on creating new housing to our supply and not shifting the deck chairs on a sinking ship of affordability. As we constantly see an increased cost pressure over the last decade increasing housing prices by more than double. We really do feel that this study and other measures of its nature really do need to focus on creating more units as opposed to converting single family one to four housing into deed restricted corporate ownership. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, Ms. Quirk-Silva?

Yes, I support the Bill and make a motion to move it, but I do want to say that under the social housing umbrella, we do had another bill in the Assembly and I was needing to be convinced a little bit more than I am with this particular bill, but mostly not on the concept of social housing. I mean, I think we need to be bold. We need to look at models in the past and we need to move the bar much further than we have. My concern has been when we put things on the state to do, because I have not always seen the state move as urgently as we need to. So some of our major infrastructure projects don't seem to get moving and on track. So that is my concern. But I certainly am not going to shrink from the idea of us being bolder, looking more towards the future and bottom line, housing people, it's absolutely unconscionable what we see in the streets every day, even surrounding this capitol. I went on a morning walk a few days ago and counted how many unhoused people we have just through the walk and we should all be ashamed of what we're seeing on the streets of California and also throughout the United States. So it is upon us to do more and to do it fast. With that, I support your Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any other questions from Members of the Committee? Okay. With that? Would you like to close?

I do appreciate it. I appreciate, Assembly Member, your comments as well. I also understand the opposition's concerns. This is a study Bill. This is to make sure that we are moving in the right direction, and we account for all possibilities to provide housing for those that need it. The outcome may be that the city has to do what we've been asking them to do, is to make streamlined efforts. It's also a focus on moderate low income or extremely low income, which this bill is primarily focused on. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Please support the bill today. I've been a supporter of social housing. I started the Select Committee on Social Housing a couple of years ago. So I would love to see the Bill move out of my Committee. With that, the motions do pass. The Assembly Committee on appropriations.

Wicks, Wicks aye. Patterson. Carrillo, Carrillo aye. Gabriel, Gabriel aye. Kalra, Kalra aye. Quirk-Silva, Quirk-Silva. I. Sanchez, Sanchez. no. Ward.

It's five to one that Bill is out, and we will let members add on. Thank you. Okay, I believe we have Senator Wiener next, and he's got three bills before us today. I think he's going to start with file item five, SB 423. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, colleagues. First, I want to thank the Committee for working with us on this Bill. And I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments as outlined in the analysis. Colleagues, Senate Bill 423 extends the sunset to 2036 on one of California's most successful housing laws, SB 35, which we passed, and some of you voted for it in 2017. It was the first Bill I ever introduced.

SB 35 and now SB 423 ministerial approves new homes in jurisdictions that are falling behind on their regional housing needs, allocation numbers. Colleagues, as we know, for decades, California has failed to build enough housing at all income levels for our growing population. Because of this, California currently ranks 49th out of 50 states in homes per capita. It's not surprising, it should surprise no one that housing is so expensive.

To help address the crisis, SB 35 provides a streamlined path for new homes and jurisdictions that are not meeting their fair share of new housing. The Turner Center has reported that through 2021, so just the first few years that the Bill was in effect, and not including last year, more than 18,000 new homes have been proposed under SB 35, with about three quarters of them already built. And about three quarters of those homes are affordable to very low or low income households.

SB 35 has significantly shortened project timelines by years, so projects that were taking years to be approved are now taking months to be approved. However, the Bill was designed to spur new homes at all income levels from folks who are formerly homeless up to privately produced market rate housing. Now that we have several years of experience, we are making, proposing adjustments to SB 35 through SB 423 to make sure that the law is as effective as possible.

I want to note that we have spent a lot of time on this Bill working with our partners and some critics in the House of Labor. I want to thank the very broad labor support that we have, including our co-sponsors, the Carpenters, as well as the Laborers Operating Engineers, I think as of today, SEIU, but I won't speak for them.

And I want to also thank the Building Trades who have been opposing the Bill for working with us as well, including the Building Trades Unions, IBW, Sheet Metal, Elevator Constructors, and Pipe Trades that have withdrawn their opposition to the Bill based on amendments that we made in the Senate to draw a distinction between over 85ft and under 85ft. And I do want to thank folks for working with us. So, colleagues, this is an important housing Bill.

I'm appreciative for your engagement, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify is Jay Bradshaw, Executive officer with the NorCal Carpenters Union and Marina Wiant, the Vice President of government affairs with the California Housing Consortium.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Marina Wiant with the California Housing Consortium. At its very core, SB 35 and SB 423 is about holding communities accountable to their housing plans and their housing goals. If a proposed project is consistent with the General plan and it meets objective design review standards, an affordable developer should have the assurance that the project will be able to move forward, to be approved and to construction. This is why SB 35 has been such an incredible tool for promoting affordable housing development.

Nearly 75% of the units, that Senator Wiener noted, are for low or very low income households. And it's a particularly powerful tool in communities with complex approval processes who are supportive of affordable housing and in communities of opportunity that are reluctant to meet their housing obligations. By extending SB 35 sunset date, SB 423 will ensure that affordable housing providers continue to have access to this streamlined process until 2035 and allow affordable housing developers to plan their pipeline beyond the next two years.

The past few years of implementation have also revealed several areas where it can be strengthened, and SB 423 applies those lessons learned to get more affordable housing built and to accelerate development of mixed income housing projects which have been less successful at using SB 35 process. SB 423 is critical to helping us close our tremendous affordability gap and ensure that lower income Californians have access to safe, stable, affordable places to call home in every community across the state.

And for these reasons, I urge your support today.

Good morning, Chair and Wicks and honorable Members. It's good to be here today. I am very proud to be able to speak in support of this union sponsored Bill. Our coalition that we've built that's in strong support is not only the statewide Carpenters, statewide Operating Engineers, statewide Laborers, also more coming our direction, including the NorCal District Council of Cement Masons and Plasterers. I point that out because these organizations are very strongly engaged in bringing solutions to the housing crisis that's already been talked about.

Over 2.5 million units needed at a minimum, over a million affordable needed. The construction workforce presently in California, over 50% need and would qualify for affordable housing. So that is also the majority of unionized construction workers in the State of California. A big part of the support for these Bills today, for SB 423, is the over 300,000 nonunion workers in the housing construction industry, only 10% currently of housing construction workers are organized into a union.

This Bill is inclusive and brings a platform to pull workers up to union standards. And with the strongest labor enforcement language in the country is an organizing opportunity never seen in our state. In an industry that is rife with labor law violations, we refer to it as a crime scene of production, unpaid wages, exploitation, a form of, quote, "human trafficking", where workers are moved if they have the guts to stand up for their rights, they're moved around the state. So that is not anecdotal.

That is based on our organizations out there in the homes, in the motels, and places where these workers are. So this brings a voice to those workers and again is an organizing opportunity unheard of. We desperately need housing. I know everyone talks about it. For the working class overall, whether you're in a union or not, it's the number one issue bringing social pressure, economic pressure to working families in our state.

It exacerbates and creates the transportation crisis as workers seek cheaper and cheaper rent move further and further away from the jobs, it has created the childcare unaffordability crisis and the social cost of construction workers, with the second highest suicide rates in the nation and the highest rates of addiction. It is up to all of us, and we ask for your strong support to bring solutions to that.

It starts with housing, but just as important, we have an opportunity to economically pull those workers up and into the union standard and give them a voice that will last for generations. So we ask for your strong support. We're honored to be here today. Stand for inclusion of all workers. Stand for an uplift of all workers. And we appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, additional folks in the room wish to express support. Please, name, organization and position.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers proud to be here today in support. Thank you.

Yarelie Magallon on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. James Thuerwachter on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers, in strong support. Thank you.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association, in support.

Chris Snyder, political director for the Operating Engineers Local Three. Thank you, chair, strong support. Glad to be here in solidarity with. You, operator, the carpenters and laborers.

John Zervas, northern Southern California District Council of Labors. Here in strong support thank you.

Good morning. Francisco Nunez with the Laborers Local 304, Alameda County, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Madam Chair, Committee Members. My name is Olivia Navarro with LiUNA Labors Local 270 and very strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Fernando Ambriz, President of Local 270 labor union, strong supporter.

Good morning. Gracia Casio Cranks, here on behalf of all home.

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

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

Hello, my name is Patricia Ramirez, NorCal Carpenters, and in support.

Cesar Sanchez, NorCal Carpenters union in strong support.

Bob Naylor, Field Stud and Company, Howard Amerson, Jr. and Orange County Philanthropist, in strong support.

Andrew Dawson. The California Housing Partnership in Support.

Susan Rodriguez Carpenters, Local 152, NorCal Carpenters Union in support.

Tamara Hayward, local 46, carpenters union in strong support.

April Atkins, local 22, San Francisco. Strong, strong support.

Samaja Williams, Carpenters 46, in support.

Morning, Chair and Members, David Azeveto with AERP California, on behalf of our 3.2 million Members in California, strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Brian Sapp, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of California, in support. The 200 Club, in support. United Way Greater LA in support. SPUR, California, in support. Civic Well, Sandhill and Buckeye Properties, also in support. Thank you.

Matt Lege with SCIU California with the amendment today we're moving to support. Thank you.

Mary Ellen Shay. California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies. Very strong support.

Alonzo Quintana Drywall Leathers local 68. I strongly support SB 423.

Richard Ferocity III, born. And raised, Sacramento, 919. I support SB 423.

Hello, and thanks for having me. My name is Kevin Martinez out at the Drywall Athletes Union, local 919, Sacramento, in strong support of SB 423.

Paul Yoder on behalf of the city and County of San Francisco and Maryland in support.

Voleck Taing Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support.

Good morning. Anthony Levice, a field rep of Local 2236 Carpenters out of Oakland, in strong support of 423. Thank you.

My name is Jose Gonzalez. I'm from Michigan, and I'm out of Santa Rosa, California. Local 751, the Carpenters. And I hope you support that 423, thank you very much.

Graciela Castillo-Krings again here on behalf of California YIMBY, in strong support.

My name is David Thomas, President of the Northern California District Council of labor. Strong support for 423. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Dario Salgado. I'm a laborer from local 270, and I'm in strong support of SB 423.

Hello, my name is Carlos Bedoya and I'm with the laborers Local 73, and I'm strong support of 423. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Rod Finley. I'm with Drywall Lathers 9109 live in Sacramento, and I'm in support

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Andrew Dodkins. I live in Sacramento, California. I'm a Member of Local 46, and I fully support this Bill. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Latrice Madeiris, local 22. San Francisco, and I'm in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Nasario Moreno. I local 9109 Sacramento.

Morning, madam. Chair and Committee. Ed Evans, NorCal Carpenter's Union Local 217, San Mateo County, in strong support of 423. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Juan Espinosa. I'm a Northern California Carpenters Local 217 Member in San Mateo County and I'm here in strong support of SB 423. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Dio Hernandez. I'm a Local 261 laborers union member and I'm in strong support.

Good morning, folks. My name is Alan Green. I'm a local laborers. Local 185 Member. I'm from Sacramento, and I strongly approve this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Scott Governar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, the largest union signatory building contractors in the state, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Chris Micheili, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good morning. My name is Alan Lupkeys. I'm with the Local 185, and I support.

Good morning, my name is Nicholas McLaun. I'm an apprentice with the Local 185 Laborers Union and I strongly support both bills. Thank you.

Hello I'm Leonard Basoko, Carpenter's Local 180, Vallejo, California. We support this Bill. Thank you.

Dan Watson, Carpenter's Local 1789, in support.

Good morning. My name is Harvey McCuen, I'm a member of Carpenters Local 713, and I strongly support 423.

Good morning, my name is Anthony Carroll from Carpenter's Local 22 in San Francisco and I'm in strong support.

My name is Seth Howard. I'm a Member of Carpenters Local 1789 and strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Fanbey Lampkins, member of Local 46, Carpenters, and I'm in strong support of SB 423.

Good morning. Doyle Radford Jr. Laborers Local 185 business manager. I'm here in support of 423. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jeff Stewart. I'm here to support the Bill. Local 185 from Folsom.

My name is Larry Stark. I'm a Laborer Local 185. I'm supporting the Bill.

Hi. My name is Joanne Price. I local. 185. I totally support this Bill. I absolutely could not buy the house that I grew up in, in California. Thank you.

My name is Antonio Guzman, and I highly support both bills. Thank you. Local 185.

My name is Joseph Hernandez. I'm from the 185 Union Club and I support both bills.

Morning, Council. My name is Victor Mabelli. I'm with the carpers union. I'm the President of Local 751 Santa Rosa. Thank you for your time, and please support this bill. Thank you.

My name is Jason Schweizer. I work for the 185 in Chico, and I support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Ron Roulette. I'm the political Director for the NorCal Carpenters Union. Chair, Vice Chair Members. Just to respect your time, I have 250 more carpenters, operators, laborers that would love to come in here and say that they want support for this Bill. I'm going to save you the time and just close it here. Thank you very much. Strong support, by the way.

Thank you. Great. With that, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Yeah, you've enough room? Okay, great. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members. Jason Ryan, League of California Cities it's always tough to come up and oppose one of Senator Weiner's bills when he has so much support. Kind of feels like he's showing off a little bit. But in all seriousness, we do have two primary concerns with the bill. We completely agree with Senator Wiener and his supporters that cities must honor their housing plans. They must live up to their design standards, their objective standards. They've literally written the rules for development in their community.

Can you just hold on 1 second? I want to see if they can close the door so we can hear you better. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, so we completely agree with Senator Wiener and his supporters that cities must honor their housing plans. They must live up to their Jeptis standards, their design standards. They've literally written the rules for developing their community. They absolutely need to follow that. There's no getting around that whatsoever. Unfortunately, there are two provisions in the Bill that create a bit of a loophole from our perspective to that theory. The first one's on page six. And I really appreciate Senator Wiener taking an amendment to try to tighten that up, not through his actions. It was another bill that passed it last year that broadened the SB 35 provisions to include sites that are outside of residential and mixed use areas. That's what 35 did. You must build housing in those areas. You've already planned for it. Of course you need to do it. But it was broadened to include commercial and retail. And through the cross reference that remains in the bill, it actually broadened it to parking areas now. So, unfortunately, as it's presently drafted, a 35 project could occur in areas that we never planned for. And I know That's not the intent, but that's the way it is. And we'd like that whole section just be taken out entirely. The second loophole that's being created in 423 is around state owned property or property that they lease. In the bill now, the Department of General Services and HCD can literally act as the city it says it in the bill. They can act as the city, so what does that mean? The Department gets to create the objective standards. They get to do the designer review, and let's just pretend that that's a good idea, at least from our perspective. We don't think it's a good idea. How could they literally do that? How could the Department of General Services act like a city and come up with the rules so the developers can do development? So with that, we respectfully request a no vote on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition to the Bill, please name organization and position.

Good morning, chair and Members, a bit of a tweeter position. Cynthia Castillo, on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Disability Rights California. We've submitted a letter of concern related to increasing affordability levels, alignment with housing elements, and AFFH obligations in the hopes of stopping displacement of low income communities. We look forward to further conversations with the author and sponsors and really appreciate that. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Gonzalez, in opposition on behalf of the following cities, and I apologize as I read this list. The cities of Thousand Oaks, Lakewood, Indian Wells, Fairfield, Rancho Cordova, Wildemar, Elk Grove, Rosemead, Simi Valley, Bellflower, Fontana, Glendora, Kerman, La Mirada, Norwalk, Palm Desert, Paramount, Redding, Whittier, Chino, Carson, Santa Clarita, and Jurupa Valley in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Kira Ross, on behalf of the Cities of Stockton, San Marcos, the Town of Truckee, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members. All opposed.

Good morning, Committee Members. The following organization submitted a letter dated June 21 in respectful opposition to SB 423, unless the Bill is amended to preserve language upholding the acapulability of the Coastal Act in the coastal zone. The following organizations are the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, the California Coastkeeper Alliance, the Environmental Center of San Diego, the Public Trust Alliance, the Resource Renewal Institute, the Surfrider Foundation, Ocean Conservation Research, Coast Environmental Rights Foundation, California Coastal Protection Network, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Orange County Coastkeeper, Smith River Alliance, Citizens Preserving Venice, friends, Artists, and Neighbors of El Corn Slo, Sierra Club, California Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Crenshaw Subway Coalition, bologna Wetlands Institute, Defend Bologna Wetlands, Coastal Lands Action Network, Azul, the River Project and The Center for Biological Diversity. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Sean Drake with the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission respectfully opposes SB 423 unless it is amended to maintain the applicability of the Coastal Act in the coastal zone. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Victoria Rodriguez, Ben Nielsen, mercksmer on behalf of the cities of Perris and Visalia. Respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the cities of Corona, Rancho Cucamonga, Eastvale, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Carlsbad in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee. Cornelius Burke with the California Building Industry Association. We are not opposed to this Bill. We have a support if amended position. We recommend that the entire labor provisions be removed from the Bill to make it more useful. But other than that, this is a great Bill. Thank you, Senator Wiener, for your leadership on housing production. And it's always great to streamline housing production in the great State of California. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. Carlin Shelby. On behalf of the cities of La Habra, Mission Bay, Goanna Park, Temecula, Pleasanton, Tracy, Turlock,Murietta and Palo Alto in opposition. Thank you.

Eric Turner, on behalf of the City of Downey and the town of Apple Valley, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We will bring it back to the Committee. We have Mr. Ward up first.

Thank you, ma'am, chair, I want to thank everybody for coming out on this Bill today. I wanted to start and thank Senator Wiener first for your leadership on SB 35. That was more earlier in your legislative tenure here. And I would state that it probably got a lot of the momentum going for the work that we need to do at the state level to be able to help support and expedite housing production in our state, and all of the same issues that you worked on through that Bill and sort of learning some of those lessons as well, applying those here to SB 423 are certainly to be commended. I also wanted to acknowledge that I think when we do this work and we think that it's going to be able to produce the intended outcomes, sometimes it does, sometimes it falls a little bit short. We got to get back on the horse and keep working out again. SB 35 has been a very strong success. We've been able to make a difference. I think independent review has been able to demonstrate a multitude of projects that have qualified for this. And so it's helping to be able to support that housing that we desperately need across all of our communities. So thank you for that. I also wanted to acknowledge some of the work that you're doing on these evolving labor standards. I think it's absolutely critical as we're thinking about some of our housing conversations that that is not cast aside, but that's really a fundamental part of the work that we are doing and making sure that appropriate, skilled and trained resources and requirements are built in. But fundamentally and above all else, that we are maintaining really respectful compensation opportunities, that we're looking across the multitude of benefits that workers deserve and that we're working across all of those that are involved in the housing industry to really try to uplift a lot of that. So thank you for trying to be able to do that as well through this Bill. I have concern about displacement issues. I didn't know if you wanted to talk about that. Maybe even some of your own experiences about SB 35, how displacement questions might have been resolved as these projects are being evolved in our community.

Sure. Absolutely. And I just want to note, for the record that the amendments that the Western Center is referring to would gut the Bill and make it unusable in a vast swath of circumstances. And I'm just a blunt person. I think it's important to be blunt. We're always happy to work with anyone, but their amendments would gut the Bill. In terms of displacement, I think we need to be crystal clear what drives displacement. I'm sorry, I'm having problems. That door is open.

Thank you.

I think we need to be crystal clear what drives displacement. It is our failure to build new homes that drives displacement, period. That is why what's driving displacement is that the average rent in parts of the state are, like $3,000 a month. $3,500 a month, because we rank 49 out of 50 states in homes per capita. And when you explode housing costs by creating a shortage because we've empowered opponents to stop everything, the wealthy people tend to win because they can pay more, and low income people get pushed out. That is what is driving displacement, not building new homes. Building new homes releases the pressure. And by the way, most of the homes built under SB 35 are below market rate homes. And so I also wanted to say that this SB 35 we pioneered back in 2017 in SB 35, the strongest antidisplacement protections in state law, which has been replicated in some other bills, that you cannot use SB 35 to demolish homes where anyone has lived recently. So this bill does not allow someone to buy an apartment building Ellis Act the tenants, and then demolish it to build a new SB 35 project that is excluded from this Bill. And I'm proud of those antidemolition restrictions, because to me, state housing law needs to be about adding new homes, not replacing the existing residents. So I fundamentally dispute that this Bill in any way drives displacement. That is false.

Thank you for that response. Shared values there, of course. And I think for all these reasons, and through the lens of the Housing Committee, very happy to support this Bill and to be able to move it forward today. I also sit on natural resources, and so I'm sensitive to some of the Coastal Act conversations there. On one hand, I think if we're looking at conversations statewide that are imposing ministerial review and reducing discretionary thresholds, I think that's carefully a good thing. Right? And that's what we're trying to do through some of these bills. And if we're doing it over here for a local jurisdiction, I think, on par, I think some of the very same standards need to apply as well for state level, in this case, a coastal development permit, a discretionary review within the Coastal Act, which of course was mandated by the voters. And the important work that we do there to be able to protect coastal resources, there are, I think, some bona fide areas of analysis that definitely need to be thought through. And so to any extent that those protections are reflected here, as we're thinking about wetlands, sensitive resources, issues that are vulnerable to sea level rise, all of those factors as well, and how anything might prohibit again the fundamental need for the Coastal Act, the ability to access the coast for all Californians. I acknowledge as well, having more people living closer to the coast is helpful to that goal. And so these are things that I'd love to be able to continue to work with you in your office on as we approach the next Committee.

Yeah, and I'm happy to actually respond to that just because we heard that laundry list. So in SB 35, we already exempt a number of environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands, and a number of others. Again, I'm not looking to fuel development in places like that. And that's been in the law from the beginning. In 2017, we gave a blanket exemption to the coastal zone. I don't want to say it's a mistake. That was the politics of the time. That is offensive to me to have a blanket exemption for the coastal zone. And we have not replicated that in other bills. That has not been replicated. And the reason is that the coastal zone, and I live in a coastal community, the coastal zone is much wider and wealthier than the rest of the state. And the idea that we would be applying state housing law inland to communities that are lower income and more likely to be communities of color, while we literally just exempt whiter wealthier coastal communities, is highly offensive to me. The Coastal Commission, we've been talking to them, and we are trying to find a compromise because this bill, to be clear, does not change the zoning. So it only applies if it's already zoned for X number of units, x height. It just says you have to follow your own rules. So this isn't a Bill that's going to say we're going to build some 50 story building like right on the ocean. That's not what the bill does. And so we are going to propose a compromise to the Coastal Commission. I have to say, I'm really disappointed that the Coastal Commission opposition immediately triggered that laundry list of environmental groups just knee jerk opposing. I have not heard of a single one of those environmental groups ever helping us pass environmentally sustainable infill housing legislation. If you care about protecting environmentally sensitive places, then you have a responsibility as an environmental organization to advocate for dense housing in places like San Francisco. Where were they when we were fighting on Stevenson Street to fill up a parking lot? In downtown San Francisco with 500 homes. That's how you protect environmentally sensitive habitat. But too many environmental organizations are AWOL when it comes to climate friendly housing policies. I'm being super blunt to organizations that I love and I'm aligned with. And so we want to work with the environmental community so that we are not putting pressure in environmentally sensitive areas. And we're going to propose a compromise to the Coastal Commission that I think is rock solid. And I'm happy to work with you on that, Assemblymember.

I would very much love to work on that, and I will just push back gently and acknowledge that I've been excited to work with some of those environmental communities and organizations as well. We have a Bill that was held in this Committee, Assembly Bill 78, which hopefully will resurrect and have a broader conversation in January, because I think it's important to sort of figure out if there is an area of negotiation that has mutual wins, because climate policy is housing policy, housing policy is climate policy. We're seeing that intersection of those two right now. I think that there's a lot more area for alignment. But on the coastal issue, I just wanted to continue to work with you on that because I don't want to disrespect that underfunded that it is, The Coastal Commission does have very responsible roles to make sure that development is consistent with the Coastal Act. I think that it can absolutely be consistent with the underlying zoning and the residential capacity that we need in many of those communities. And to the extent that we can use, I think, existing processes in a way that is harmonious with their mission and also achieves the development opportunities that we seek through this Bill, hopefully that there's something that a little more thought as this goes forward is able to achieve. And I'm happy to move the Bill today.

Thank you. Happy to work with you.

Thank you. Mr. Gabriel, did you yeah, I was.

Just going to move the Bill, but since Assembly Member Ward has done that, I will second it. Senator, I appreciate the bluntness and directness, appreciate the tenacity that you brought to this. This is an extremely important Bill, appreciate the work of the coalition behind it, and hopefully we're going to move it out today.

Thank you, Ms. Quirk-Silva.

And I'm going to concur with your remarks, Assembly Member Ward, that of course, we all love California's coast. Many of us vacation there. Many of us take our families there. It's definitely what brings in millions of visitors to California because some of our most iconic beaches in my area, Laguna Beach, Crystal Cove, we want to do everything we can to retain those incredible places and keep visitors coming. At that same idea, we also want to make sure that everybody does their fair share. And many of these resort areas on the coast of California need to hire hospitality workers to work in these resorts. So whether it's the smallest motel or the largest resort area, they are hiring. In fact, people who are working on sometimes minimum wage to do these jobs. And these people have to drive many times an hour or more because we know that they do not have the transportation systems to get into these resort areas. So we certainly exempting a wide area of our coast because it's the coast is not acceptable. And we will not be able to move out of this housing crisis unless everybody does their fair share and we do not exempt wide areas of the state. So whether it's a habitat or a mountain zone, we need to stop this. Everybody needs to do their fair share, and we certainly need to look at the employees going into the resort areas and look at how they're getting there and what is their quality living as they clean those hotels. But with that, I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Senator. Just to point out, I'm going to start with some of the concerns I think we've talked about and then I'll go over some other comments that I have. But I recently was on a City Council in Rockland, close to here, and my time on the City Council, we never denied a project. But because of the economics and the way that the city is built out, it's completely surrounded by other jurisdictions that are able to continue to sort of sprawl out. I am a little concerned that Rockland is going to have an issue despite its willingness to build housing in cities like that, meeting their RHNA goals, because it's going to be anti competitive to do a development there rather than a nearby adjacent city that can continue to sort of build out into green space, for example. So I do have that and we can talk more about that as this kind of goes through the process because I think there are cities that do have legitimately good faith desire to build housing and sometimes economic conditions or whatever cause it. The other thing is, I did have a meeting on Friday, or I don't know, maybe it was a couple of weeks ago, with a housing Advisory Committee that I have in my district that includes developers, it includes home builders, and it also includes property owners, entitlement people, and also labor as well. And I think there might be some limited utility in some of the suburban areas which just based on their feedback anyways, because of the cost, that could potentially be added. But I know that you've been walking a very fine line here and trying to get a resolution to this and I think having some of the labor standards in here is important. Going on to what I think is positive about this Bill is this isn't a positive comment about a group, but I am particularly bothered by the opposition from the Coastal Commission I did read their letter. We have communities all over the world that are building right up to the coast and we want to protect the environment. But when they're stopping local jurisdictions, this is actually the state coming in, a state agency coming in and telling a local jurisdiction on the coast that they can't do ADUs without parking requirements because, we got to have access to the beach or whatnot. And so it actually impeded a city's ability to meet their RHNA obligations. They were exerting doing everything they needed to do to meet their RHNA obligations and the Coastal Commission came in and opposed that. And I think that that's problematic because where all the people who came in here today to testify in support of this measure, I don't really think that the thought of sort of protecting coastal elite over people that working in the communities drives me crazy. And I think they need to be much more realistic with their opposition to even city level projects that are trying to comply with state law and making it more difficult for those cities to comply and actually exert local control. We want that. We want cities to do the right thing. And another thing that just came up yesterday, obviously, and I think where I kind of as a former City Council Member myself, get a little bit frustrated with the local control argument. And I do want to remark, by the way, state agencies right now can do their own entitlements on projects. So this Bill doesn't necessarily change that. In fact, in my city we have a state agency that has made it very clear they're doing their own entitlements on their project. But I do get another example just yesterday, it's like we're gifted these examples. We have a city that actually went through the entire entitlement process for a project. The city approved it, the staff, the Planning Commission approved it and then the City Council or Board of Supervisors opposed it because of shade on a recreational area in alleged. Well, try not to. I always allow the people if they want to name it, they can. But the prior example was another city that was somebody on this Committee. I didn't want to name that one either, but yeah, it was San Francisco. And I think to put in 10 units and the electeds themselves let down the process and I think that that's problematic and That's why we keep having legislation like this because as elected officials they're letting down the process. And I'm not saying just San Francisco, it's a lot of other cities that are doing that. And I would like cities to take their responsibility, take these things seriously. And so that way we don't need any more legislation like this. But with all of that said, I support this legislation because frankly, if something is an infill project and it fits what we're trying to do as a state, what the. State set its public policy to do, then I'm telling you, I don't want to sit in a City Council meeting for 6 hours with people telling me that I shouldn't approve a project and I have to approve it anyways, right, because of various existing state laws already. And that actually kind of cuts out that part of the process when these come in. But this doesn't take away the ability for people to get involved in the zoning process from the get go. And I encourage everybody to do that when cities are going through the RHNA process so they can opine right from the get go. But anyways, with that, I'm happy to support this measure. I appreciate the work you're doing on this area. I'm always suspect of losing local control, but I think it's been abused, unfortunately, in a lot of circumstances.

Thank you. And I will just say I issued a statement this morning condemning the San Francisco Board of Supervisors decision yesterday, which was atrocious and actually an example of and it's not just San Francisco when a city does that just a completely frivolous application of CEQA. That's why we need laws like this. So I appreciate that.

Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members? Okay, Mr. Wiener, actually, I had a couple of questions for you. And thank you, Mr. Patterson, for bringing up the San Francisco example. I too read the San Francisco Halts project that would replace single family house in Knob Hill with 10 homes, 10 townhomes. I think they cited shadows or something to that effect. And it's incredibly frustrating that that's one of many examples. And it's, I think the exact reason why we need this Bill to pass and others like this to ensure that our cities do what we need them to do, which is build housing. All of our communities need that. So I share that concern and I appreciate the comments from my colleagues. One of the things that's been flagged for me by the Committee is the fact that the reporting period is only every four years. And so we're not really engaging kind of regularly, and the implementation is longer than I think we'd hoped. So I would like to see more urgency around that. And I'm wondering if you would work with me moving forward to create that urgency and take a look at that and maybe potentially come up with some other amendments moving forward.

Yeah, I'm happy to commit to work with the Committee on those issues.

Okay, I appreciate that. And then one other just clarifying question I know we discussed you mentioned we had the conversation about the Coastal Commission and also the accompanying environmental community that stood in opposition to the Bill. Did you say that a lot of those environmental groups haven't even reached out to you about the bill?

I just want to stress again the list. I mean, these are some of the most organizations that I truly love and admire and it was so disappointing pointing when they just sort of piled on after the Coastal Commission voted to oppose the Bill. And no, we have not had conversations with those organizations. I think the first we what? Yeah, it was they submitted comments to the Commission directly, and then they have not come to us. Other than seeing that they're opposed, we're happy to engage with them. And like I said, I have no interest in having mega overdevelopment right along the coastline. I totally agree that we need coastline is really important. And That's why we are going to propose a compromise to the Coastal Commission that we think addresses a lot of their concerns, particularly around sea level rise and around we don't want housing built on unstable bluffs. I mean, that doesn't make sense for anyone. So we're going to propose, I think, a solid compromise. And my goal is to come to a resolution with the Coastal Commission.

I just want to express some frustration that the environmental community has not come to the table on this, and we all have to be part of the solution, and that includes the environmental community. And so I welcome them to the table. Happy to work with them. I know you are as well. I also want to recognize I know Mr. Ward is working on building a coalition as well, and so I appreciate your good work in that space. We want to bring more of the environmental community into the solution, because the way that we are going to actually solve our housing problem is to build more housing, particularly in infill. Right. And that's the most environmentally friendly way we can do that. And so we need them in this fight. We need actors who are not just saying no to everything. As I've said before, the days of saying no are gone. And so I welcome those that want to get on the train to leave towards solutions, to get on the train with us and partner with us so that we can solve this problem together. I will let you close, and then I have a couple following words as well.

Great. I think we've collectively closed, and so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I just want to really appreciate your work, Senator Wiener, in this space. I know this has been a long journey for you, and it's been great partnering with you. And I know there's been a lot of conversation on this and a lot of stakeholder engagement across the board. And I welcome the opposition and conversation. I think That's how we create better policy. And I appreciate the advocates and the unions and others who have fought to get to solution here. And I'm very happy to support this Bill and honored to be a principal co author today. And with that, the motions do pass, as amended, to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

Wicks, Wicks aye. Patterson, Patterson aye. Carrillo, Carrillo aye. Gabriel, Gabriel aye. Kalra, Kalra aye. Quirk Silva. Sanchez, Sanchez no. Ward, Ward aye.

That is six to one. That Bill is out. We will let folks add on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that was one of three. Senator Wiener, there should be a little less. Would you like to present SB Four next?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, thank you Madam Chair, colleagues presenting Senate Bill 4. And I first want to thank the Committee for working with us, and I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. SB 4, this is actually the third time that we're taking a run at this important Bill, and hopefully three times is a charm. This will allow religious institutions and nonprofit colleges to utilize excess land that they own to develop affordable housing and allow it under zoning and providing ministerial expedited approval.

We know that we have many, particularly churches, synagogues, mosques, colleges that have a lot of land and have more land than they need. You can think of a church that has a parking lot That's three times the size of what they need. And they want to build housing that's affordable, below market rate as part of their mission and so forth. But because of local restrictions, they are simply unable to do so.

And we hear over and over again, particularly from churches and synagogues, other institutions up and down the state, that they really want to do this, but it's not worth it for them to go through the process to change the zoning, go through the approval, and so they give up. This Bill will give them a path to be able to do that. This Bill, I believe, will be a game changer for affordable housing.

Based on analyses we've seen statewide, this will open up tens of thousands, tens and tens of thousands of acres of potential land for affordable housing, and it will effectively be dedicated for below market rate development. So that one of the challenges that affordable housing builders have, is having to compete with market rate developers for land. This will effectively release some of that tension. I'm really excited about this Bill. The massive faith based and housing coalition behind the Bill is incredibly inspiring.

I have authored few bills where I get more just energetic excitement from people who are just so happy that it's happening. And I'm proud to be authoring it. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today are Abram Diaz, the Policy Director with the Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, and Regina Banks, the Director of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy.

Great. Thank you. We have two minutes each. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you. Madam Chair, Master Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Abram Diaz, and I serve as the Policy Director for NPH. But today I'm speaking on behalf of all the affordable housing builders across the state. I've presented on numerous housing bills in this Committee, and typically, I'd start by rattling off a set of very familiar statistics. I would enumerate how many affordable housing units our state needs. I would talk about our exploding homeless population.

I would exemplify how hard it is to build affordable housing. But today, I don't think we need a repetition of the data that we're all familiar with. Our housing crisis is covered endlessly by the media, researched continuously by higher education institutions, and lived every day by all Californians. Instead, I'll present the story of the human impact a single unit of affordable housing had for one of our residents. And I hope folks who worry about these housing bills are listening. This resident's name is Brenda.

She's a single mother with four children living in Fremont, California. She had a stable family life until a sudden and difficult divorce left her and her four children without a home and without a source of income. They were forced to move in with her parents, but seven people in a one bedroom apartment was cramped and a strain on everybody. Despite securing a job at a local hospital, she could not afford the typical market rents in the South Bay.

But she was persistent and hopeful, as any mother or parent would be. And she applied for an affordable housing unit with MidPen Housing in Fremont and was lucky enough to get it. And now her children have a safe and stable house to grow up in, with on site services that are preparing her teenagers for college. And Brenda was able to start and complete job training. And she's completed a culinary school and earned her pastry chef credentials. This Bill in front of US.

This Bill in front of us, Senate Bill 4, has the potential to build over 300,000 affordable homes. By passing this Bill, we can uplift hundreds of thousands of Brendas across the state. So today, on behalf of affordable housing builders, labor groups, equity groups, and the hundreds of supportive faith organizations who need us and need you to help them care for California's most vulnerable, we're proud to support Senate Bill 4, and we ask for your support as well.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. My name is Regina Banks, and I serve as the Policy and Legislative Director for the Lutheran Office of Public Policy, California, where we lead a community of 400 congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on issues of public policy such as housing and environmental justice. I also serve as the board chair for Lutheran Social Services of Northern California, a nonprofit social service agency focused exclusively on services that prevent and end homelessness.

As a community, we are proud to support SB 4. We are people of faith who feel called by our God to serve our neighbors in need. For some time, congregations, individuals, social agencies and synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have called attention to the plight of homeless people. Many members have worked with other churches and groups to provide food, shelter and care to study the social causes of homelessness and to advocate for policies that respond to the housing crisis.

People in our congregations who are homeless and potentially homeless remind us of the urgency of the situation. And some of our congregations and institutions, blessed with an abundance of land, have attempted to house our neighbors, as we are called to do. We do this work in love, but often encounter unnecessary regulatory and local restrictions. Local laws are particularly onus in some places in the state.

Last year, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Chatsworth in Los Angeles County tried to convert nearly two acres of its land to affordable housing and were told by county officials that it would take upwards of three years for clearance. They became discouraged and rather than wait and struggle with their local government, moved forward with other ministries. And Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church just broke ground on affordable housing project on their campus after two and a half years of red tape.

That project will create new affordable homes for residents referred directly by the County of Santa Clara, an area of tremendous need. It was a protracted and frustrating journey for that congregation and council. A report from the UC Berkeley Tenor Center found that there are over 38,000 acres of land that are used for religious purposes that are potentially developable statewide, many in high opportunity areas like the ones we serve.

Communities of faith such as ours are longstanding community anchors and wish to lead in addressing our housing and homelessness crisis. We and our ecumenical partners see this as an extension of our mission and moral calling. We all collectively urge your strong support of Senate Bill 4.

Thank you. And with that, additional folks in the room wish to express support, name, organization and position, please.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members. Matt Cremins, on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members, James Thuerwachter, actor, on behalf of the California State Council of Labors, in strong support.

Good morning once again, Madam Chair and Committee Members, LIUNA Laborers Local 270. My name is Olivia Navarro, in very strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair David Shapira on behalf of California School Employees Association in strong support of SB 4.

Good morning. My name is Elliot Shapira. I'm 12 years old. I'm from Davis, California, and I support SB 4.

Yarelie Magallon, on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Thank you.

Chris Snyder, Operating Engineers Local Fleet Political Director in support, SB 4. Thank you.

Darrell Alder II Sac ACT in strong support.

Sydney Alper with Sacramento ACT in strong support.

Melanie Morelos on behalf of the Greenlining Institute in support.

Ethan ... on behalf of the City of Bakersfield, in support.

Good morning everybody. Francisco Nunez with LiUNA Laborers, local 304, Alameda County, in strong support. Thank you.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association Local Housing Finance Agency, strong support.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead, that's Howard Amundsen Jr., an Orange County philanthropist, in strong support and a big fan of this author.

Paul Yoder on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed in support.

Susan Rodriguez, local 152 NorCal Carpenters union in strong support.

April Atkins, Local 22, San Francisco in strong support.

Tamara Hayward carpenter with NorCal Carpenters in strong support.

Patricia Ramirez, Carpenters Local 405 NorCal Carpenters in strong support.

Morning. Cesar Sanchez, NorCal Carpenters union in strong support.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership in support.

David Azevedo, AARP California, in support.

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

Good morning, Graciela Castillo-Krings, here on behalf of All Home, a Silicon Valley Action Fund.

Good morning. Cornelious Burke with the California Building Industry Association. We have a support, if amended, on this yes in God's Backyard Bill, we request them to take the labor provisions out, but otherwise great Bill. Thank you.

Debra Carlton, with the California Apartment Association, in support.

Eugene Morris Carpenter's Local 152, representing Stanislaw, San Joaquin, Merced, Mariposa, Tuolumne, Calaveras and Amador and Contra Costa County, in strong support.

Bryan Sapp on behalf of Our Future Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity California, United Way Greater LA, SPUR, San Diego Housing Commission, CivicWell, Sandhills and Buckeye Properties also in support. Thank you.

Chris Martinez, Local 1599 Carpenters in Redding. Strong support.

Sean Reese Carpenters, local 1599, Redding, California. Strong support.

Kyle Sworns, field rep for Carpenters Local 351-8751 and 152, in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Mitchell Vince Aguera Carpenter's, Local 2236 out of Oakland, in strong support.

Carlos Valdez Carpenter's, Local 46, Sacramento, California. And I'm in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Christian Ortega, representing Carpenters Local 701 in Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings County. And we are in full support. Thank you.

My name is Jaime ... I'm from Local 505, Santa Cruz County, and I'm in strong support of SB 4. Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Juan Dominguez with the NorCal Carpenters Union, Local 701 out of Fresno, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Chris Moyer. I'm a proud and grateful Member of Pile Drivers, Local 34 and I reside in Brentwood, California. It's an honor to address this body and I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Thank you.

Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the City of Los Angeles and on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, in support.

Matt Lege on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Healthy Housing Foundation division in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Louis Brown, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies, California, in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY in strong support of SB 4. Thank you so much.

My name is Sylvia Vásquez with Congregations together in favor of SB 4.

Good morning. Patty Shaw, Sac ACT. And I am in support of SB 4.

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

Good morning, Carly, on behalf of All Home and the Cities of Berkeley and Half Moon Bay, in strong support. Thank you.

My name is Joshua Leper with Labor's Local 1130 in Modesto, California, and we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Morning. My name is Rosendo Lopez, Local 261, San Francisco. I support this Bill.

My name is Lanio Labelle. I'm here to support this bill. Can you please pass it? Thank you.

Jason Wood, with the Laborers Union, and we support SB 4.

Dan Graham, Drywall Lathers, Local 9109, here out of Sacramento, in strong support.

Corey Allbritton, Foundation for Fair Contracting. I'm in support of SB 4.

I'm Ramon Castillon out of Hayward, and I support this bill.

Cayetano Reynoso, Foundation for Fair Contracting. I'm in support of SB 4.

Mario Rodriguez out of Sacramento, support the bill.

Benjamin Lopez, Carpenters 1109, Visalia, in support.

Steve Harris, Carpenter's Local 751, in strong support.

Paul Guerrero, Carpenters Local 1109. Strong support.

Fernando Ambriz, Local 270 Laborers Union, strong supported.

Bryan Shields, Pile Drivers Local 34, Northern California in support.

Members, again, Ron Rowlett, Political Director, NorCal Carpenters Union. On behalf of the 300 and whatever's left over out there, we're going to go ahead and cut it off due to respect for your time. I did miss the Cement Masons and Plasters are also with us today in support, the Operators, Laborers, and the Carpenters. Thank you very much.

Jason Zamarron, on behalf of PICO California, in strong support.

Great. With that, we'll bring it back now. Primary witnesses in opposition. You can sit up here.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jonathan Pruitt. I'm with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, or CEJA. CEJA respectfully opposes SB 4 unless it is amended to include environmental justice safeguards and equitable public process requirements. This bill will expand current law to streamline housing development without sufficient protections to safeguard public health and displacement, especially for residents in disadvantaged communities.

And so we've actually appreciated our conversations with the author's office and the bill sponsors to address our concerns, and our alliance and members agree that affordable housing is key for the millions of folks in California, and appreciate the seriousness that the author and the Committee has done to take on this challenge. And at the same time, it's critical that the affordable housing is developed healthy and safe.

Without community residents valuable input and knowledge of the local area, affordable housing can and will be approved in areas with higher levels of pollution, perpetuating the cycle of environmental injustice. Therefore, we recommend that the bill be approved to require at least one community meeting or hearing, and require the notice of this community meeting be translated into local spoken languages for nearby residents.

We are also concerned that the SB 4 does not ensure the sufficient separation between housing projects and potentially polluting uses like industrial facilities, oil and gas drilling rigs, freeways and dry cleaners, which can lead to adverse health effects such as respiratory problems and sometimes cancer. So we recommend the bill to require distances between housing and harmful land uses to protect human health from air, water, and soil pollution.

As an example, in Los Angeles, the Archdiocese of LA has leased land to oil companies like the Allenco Drill site in University Park, causing significant harm to low-income communities of color living in close proximity to residential areas. Affordable housing, multifamily housing, and schools results in a wide range of health issues such as asthma, cancer, headaches and odors.

And so it's for this reasons we respectfully oppose SB 4 and urge the author to consider the remedies and solutions that will not significantly impact current and future residents health. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express opposition? Name, organization, position, please.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of San Marcos in opposition.

Tiffany Eng on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment and Physicians for Social Responsibility in Los Angeles. We are aligning our comments with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, or CEJA, and the amendment shared by Western Center on Law and Poverty and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Victoria Rodriguez, with Nielsen, Merksamer, on behalf of the City of Visalia in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalves on behalf of the cities of Thousand Oaks, Chino, Santa Clarita, and Jurupa Valley, all in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Liz Cootsona, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I always felt, regardless of what one's faith is or whether they have their own moral code outside of any organized faith, that in order to really put that faith in action, they need to step outside the four walls of the structure of the building of their house of faith and actually lift up the least amongst us.

And if there's an opportunity for them to build walls to house those that need shelter, that's, I think, an ideal way for places of worship and to be part of the solution. I already know, and I think this is the case probably in all of our jurisdictions, that so many of our churches, synagogues, mosques, you name it, are taking on the responsibility of feeding, and in some cases even housing temporarily, those that are struggling.

And so if we can help facilitate these same places of worship to actually build 100% affordable housing, I think it's long overdue, and I think we'll align so many of our faiths with their mission in a way that doesn't have too many barriers or obstacles.

My understanding is that this would still require the local process to be followed through in terms of the local planning process. In terms of, they would have to, of course, abide by the new framework that this legislation would provide, but it still would not take away a local process to allow for public input, which we know is probably the most rigorous type of public of input that we get, especially for those of us that came from local jurisdictions.

Certainly would hear through any process even if it was kind of a state structured process. And so I certainly respect and, as was previously mentioned, the previous bill, opposition and organization I've worked very closely with over the years. But I think that especially given the confines under which the legislation is written regarding having it in urbanized areas not located in environmentally sensitive areas or adjacent to industrial areas, not to allow for demolition of rental housing of currently existing rental housing.

I think that this legislation does go a long way in terms of ensuring that there's some sensitivity to where these types of developments could be placed. And so I'm comfortable with that and certainly encourage continued dialogue with opposition. But I think that some of the protections in place do take into account kind of sensitive receptors, takes into account industrial areas, environmental issues. But this issue is of such great import.

And I think to your point, Senator, on the previous item that you mentioned, infill housing is the most environmentally sound type of housing that we should allow for as long as that there is some ability for public input. And I think that in this case, with the local process still having to be followed through on that will provide, I think, a lot of public input, whether folks want to hear it or not.

I think that we've seen that at local jurisdictions, especially particularly the jurisdictions that are concerned or have opposition, but even those that don't, or larger cities, they're still going to have to go through a process that allows for plenty of public input. And so, for those reasons, I'll be supporting the bill, would like to be added on as a co-author and appreciate the continued work on this.

Thank you. If I just may...

Yes.

It is ministerial approval. There is a local design process, so there is an ability. I have a lot of respect for CEJA, and they came to us with different ideas. We did amend the bill. Some of the things that they requested, we've amended into the bill. Not everything. There are some changes they're requesting that we think are problematic. But we definitely seriously received or took serious consideration of their feedback.

Thanks for the clarification. Even with the local design process, that could still go through a Planning Commission or a City Council, for example. So whether it's kind of the size or impacts on the local, I think that all goes to design as well because I've certainly sat through hearings that are more ministerial in terms of kind of restraining the ability for what a city can or can't do. But even that process does allow for public input in terms of what impact it can have in the surrounding community.

Yeah, I would just add that that is completely correct. We have that process within the bill to allow the community to have some input. And even though there may be some folks have concerns, we also like to see a lot of folks have support for the project too. So it's a good opportunity to have that community conversation.

Mr. Gabriel.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Senator, I just want to compliment you on the bill. Have proud to have been a co-author when you first introduced it. For me, this bill is really a twofer. And I'll say know, I think it's an important recognition that if we're going to make progress on the tremendous housing and homelessness crisis in the state, we need everybody. Everybody has a role to play.

And I think we have seen our faith communities have been engaged in this work from the very beginning. I know that the largest food pantry in Los Angeles County is at the Prince of Peace Church in my Assembly District. And it's because the church very early on recognized that there were people, even in affluent parts of my district, that needed help, and they saw that as essential to their religious mission.

And I think this is giving a really productive way the faith community for higher education community to come in and be part of the solution and we desperately need everybody to be at the table and to be part of the solution.

I also want to pick up on what my colleague here said and, as the co-chair of the Jewish Caucus, this is a Jewish Caucus priority bill. For me, this is one of the most beautiful ways that we can enable our faith community to be part of the solution. And I certainly see this, the work that this bill would do with those who are struggling in our community from homelessness and lack of secure housing. This is the most beautiful expression of faith in its truest form.

And I know that that is true for people of different faiths and backgrounds, for people who may ascribe to a moral code outside of organized religion. But for me, it is just such a beautiful way for a lot of people who see helping those who are less fortunate as an essential tenant of their faith to really actualize that.

And I know, as you know, Senator, my synagogue has had conversations, we have a big parking lot, and we've talked about could we build senior affordable housing on top of that parking lot. That is where my kids go to preschool. And the idea that our low-income seniors, as we know from research, the most likely to become homeless, could be there could interact maybe folks who are a little lonely with kids at the preschool where my kids go.

I mean, it would just be such a beautiful thing that would work so beautifully for everybody involved on a lot of levels for the kids, for the seniors, for making sure that those folks don't become homelessness. So I think it's a beautiful bill. I want to commend you, I want to commend the advocates who've done really great work on here, and I really, really hope this gets signed into law, and with that, happy to move the bill.

Great. Any other... Mr. Patterson.

Yeah, I have some questions. First a comment. I think the last two bills have said to me that this is an invitation to the environmental community to get seriously involved in discussions on housing, so we can actually accomplish these goals, and there's not nitpicking at every single project everywhere. But I want to ask a question a little bit about exactly how this works around urbanized areas and urban sites. Because this isn't like a church, know, standalone by itself in El Dorado County or something.

This is where there's other development around it. And what types of development are required under this bill to be around it for them to take advantage of the provisions in SB 4.

Do you want to answer that?

Yeah, sure. So with the bill, we took a focus around urban and infill, as was described fairly well in the analysis of the Committee, with the hope that we can use these projects in these developed areas to help build out the housing in itself and have a lot of infrastructure in place for the communities that will be living there as well. So we do have those definitions in the bill.

We also allow for other kinds of projects, and we've had a lot of very productive conversations with what kind of densities we can have around rural, suburban areas as well. But we developed those definitions to ensure we can take advantage of a lot of the community and infrastructure already in place, trying to make it as seamless as possible for our faith communities to take advantage of this bill. Since this isn't exactly their area of expertise. We want to make sure it's simple and straightforward.

Yeah. Can you describe some of what the definition is in the bill? Of what an urban area means?

Of infill?

Of infill?

Of what?

Yes, exactly.

The definition of infill, and I think it's the same in this bill. Yeah. It has to be surrounded on three sides by already developed areas.

Is it any type of development or is it certain types of development within those three sides?

I think it's typically any kind of development. The idea is that, as you described it, a standalone church that's in the middle of a more isolated rural area with nothing around. It would not be eligible. But it doesn't have to be only residential around it. It could be commercial, it could be other churches, potentially. Not that that would probably happen, but you know.

Okay. Alright, thank you.

Any other questions? Do we have a motion? We do, a motion. We need a second. Second. Okay, great. Would you like to close, Mr. Wiener?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great, I appreciate your work in the space. I did the bill a couple of years ago now around the parking lot requirements. So yes, in God's backyard, I'm all on board for that. And with that, the motion's do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Patterson? Patterson, not voting. Carrillo? Carrillo, aye. Gabriel? Gabriel, aye. Kalra? Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva? Sanchez? Quirk-Silva, aye. Ward? Ward, aye.

Six to zero. And we will let... That's everyone. Six to zero. That is out. Okay, Senator Wiener, we have one more left.

Final bill...

We will be fast on it.

for you here.

Okay, SB 593. We have a motion and a second.

SB 593 is a bill that will allow San Francisco to use tax increment financing--only the city's funds, no school districts, et cetera funds--to finance the construction of 5,800 affordable homes to complete San Francisco's obligation to replace the affordable housing that the city demolished during the Redevelopment Era.

Colleagues...

And if you could just hold on one second. If we could shut the doors. Thank you.

This will allow San Francisco to build the 5,800 affordable homes that it's required to build under law because San Francisco, in the 50s through 70s during Redevelopment, demolished many homes in the Western Addition Fillmore area south of Market, just upending our city's Black community, Filipino community, Japanese American community, and we need to rebuild those homes because they were never rebuilt. This will allow San Francisco to do that, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With me today to testify is Mattie Scott from Freedom West Homes, also one of our best gun safety advocates, Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, the Chair of The Citizen Advisory Committee for Hunters Point Shipyard, and for technical questions, we have Thor Kaslofsky, the Executive Director of our redevelopment successor agency. Thank you.

Thank you. And each of you will have two minutes to present. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Scott Wiener. My name is Mattie Scott, and I'm the Freedom West resident and president of our board speaking to you today, representing thousands of Black, brown, and diverse families in my San Francisco community, and what was called Urban Renewal 50 years ago was actually Urban Removal. Many of us left and weren't able to come back.

I was able to come back and be able to establish my home in Freedom West where it was my first time for my family and I to purchase our home. I've been there for over 50 years with my children and raised them there and now I'm grandmother and great grandmother. Freedom West; what was Urban Renewal was Urban Removal. We are in an intensive care unit right now in San Francisco and SB 593 will help us to come out of the ICU and be on the road to recovery with affordable housing.

We lost so many businesses, watch our homes be picked up and moved to Pacific Heights, to rich neighborhoods, while many were displaced. This epidemic caused so much pain in my community and stress and even caused many lives to be lost. I lost my youngest son to gun violence and we continue to lose our kids to gun violence and other disparities due to not having affordable housing.

So I'm asking that you definitely pull through and vote for SB 593 so that we can heal our community again. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Wicks and Members of the Housing and Community Development Committee. My name is Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt. I represent various stakeholders, including the Bayview Hunters Point Community, the City and County of San Francisco, and various community organizations. I would like to thank Senator Wiener for presenting this bill for approval. SB 593 is a long awaited action to correct discrimination and injustice that has decimated African American lives in San Francisco. And the suffering continues to this day.

When I was a young girl in the Fillmore Western Addition area--and by the way, it was a very diverse community--I remember the Smiths, the Black couple who owned the dry cleaning establishment on Fillmore Street, the German deli, where my family bought hog head cheese, the Rexall drugstore at Fillmore and Geary, where my family purchased medicine from Ben, a Japanese pharmacist, the Yugoslavian bakery, where we ate pastries, Helen's Restaurant, where we purchased delicious Chinese food, New House Clothing, which specialized in big sizes for women, and Honorados, which featured oxtails, pig feet, frog legs, and rabbit--folks that folks of color could afford at that time.

And this is what we lost. In addition to that, gone were the kinship groups and the extended families. Gone were the biracial and multiethnic communities of residents who worked together to make life better for each other. Senator Wiener has, through this bill, helped to ease San Francisco's ongoing housing crisis.

Everyone in San Francisco stands to benefit from SB 593, especially low income workers, African Americans, and at risk families. Please say yes to SB 593. Let us rebuild our community. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for both of your testimonies--very much appreciated--and for sharing your story as well. With that, other folks--you're here for technical questions, right? Yeah. With that, if other folks would like to express support, please name, organization, and position.

Yeah. Madam Chair, thank you. Paul Yoder on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco. We are the sponsors of this bill. Just trying to right a wrong. Hope you can help us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of this distinguished Committee. My name is Bobby Sisk. I'm with Bethel AME Church, San Francisco. We're celebrating 171 years of being situated in San Francisco. We are the oldest African American church in San Francisco. Over 53 years ago, our church sponsored and built Freedom West Homes in response to the devastation of that community. We ask for your support on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Andres Ramirez on behalf of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California in support of the bill. Thank you.

Andrew Dawson from the California Housing Partnership in support.

Todd David on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Thank you. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks wish to express opposition? All right, we're bringing it back to Committee. Do we have a motion? We have a motion, I believe, right? And a second? Okay, great. And no questions? Okay. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Happy to support the bill today. The motions is 'do pass as amended.'

Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Patterson? Not voting. Patterson, not voting. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Gabriel? Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye. Sanchez? Not voting. Not voting. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.

Five to zero, and that bill is out.

Thank you.

And we'll let folks add on. And I see Senator Menjivar just walking.

Thanks for hanging out this morning.

Thanks for the marathon session, Senator Wiener. Come back anytime. You're always welcome here.

Item Number 11; Assembly Member Gabriel is an aye.

Six to zero on that bill. Okay. Sorry, Senator Durazo. Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours. Yeah, that's fine. She wants to present standing up. Please do.

Listen, I'm the youngest State Senator. I have the worst back ever, so don't feel so young. Good morning, Members and Madam Chair. I'm here to present to you SB 456. Pretty straightforward bill.

Currently, right now, youth organizations or entities that are looking to apply for funding to create shelter for youth are unable to for programs like Project Home Key. SB 456 is looking to remove that barrier for them to be able to apply directly to get funding should there be another round of a Home Key. Here in the State of California, we have one of the highest percentage of homeless youth who are unsheltered.

We have homeless youth who are in shelters, but we have 70.5% of our homeless youth who are unsheltered here in the State of California. Additionally, SB 456 is looking to clarify that former foster youth who fall off after being 18, who wish to come back between the ages of 18 - 21, do not need to go through the Coordinated Entry System. Once again, they can directly go in to get housing. Should there be housing available.

This would help combat the disproportionate number of young people experiencing homelessness, which we know that the high numbers are youth of color and LGBTQ, plus youth individuals. With that, I'd like to welcome out my witnesses in support of this to speak a little bit more, Madam Chair, if you'd let my witnesses to come up. Great. We have a motion in a second. Your witnesses. We have Kim Lewis from the California Coalition for Youth and Nicole Morales from Children Now. More Lewis. Good morning.

Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth, one of the sponsors of the Bill, along with the alliance for Children's Rights and Children Now. And just want to thank this Committee staff for working with us on the amendments for the Bill.

And just briefly, we believe it's critically important to increase housing availability to ensure that all who want to participate in extended foster care can take full advantage of the program and our unaccompanied homeless youth are safe and stably housed to prevent the heightened risk for them entering long term homelessness. We must stem the pipeline from youth homelessness to chronic homelessness.

Madam Chair I didn't say, but I will be taking the amendments.

And we believe the changes in this program will help ensure that we are designing housing that works best for our youth, to help really support them so that they can thrive and become successful adults. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hello, chair and Members of the Committee, in the interest of time, Nicole Morales with Children Now, proud to sponsor this Bill and ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you very much. Do we have additional folks in the room wish to express support? Name, organization and position, please?

Good morning. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association in support. Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support. Good morning. Tiffany Fan on behalf of California Court appointed Special Advocate Association, or Calcasa in support. Thank you. Primary witnesses in opposition. Any additional folks wish to express opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Now, we have a motion in a second.

Any questions with that? Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Committee Members. I appreciate you allowing me to do this. Short and quick with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And thanks for working with my staff. Happy to support the Bill today. With those amendments, the motions do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Human Services. Wicks aye. Wicks aye. Patterson. Patterson. Kalra Carrilo. Carrillo. Aye Gabriel. Gabriel. Aye Kalra. Kalra. Aye Quirk-SIlva. Quirk-Silva. Aye Sanchez. Sanchez. Aye Ward. Ward.

Aye eight to zero. That Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you, family Members. Thank you, Senator Gerazzo. Thank you for your patience and hanging with us for a couple of hours this morning. You are here to present file item 10, SB 567.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. SB 567. The California Homelessness Prevention Act will protect Low income renters from unjust evictions and unreasonable rent increases.

I want to start by thanking the Committee chair, Madam Chair and your staff for recommending an amendment regarding the ownership definition for the move in eviction provision. I accept that amendment. As you know, Members, and been talked about, I saw all morning that the homelessness crisis is impacting every community, with the number of people becoming unhoused. And of course, after they become unhoused, even dying on the streets, the percentage has grown enormously. But here's one very important fact.

An average of 160,000 households face court evictions annually. That means that an estimated 1.5 million Californians faced eviction during three years starting in 2018. These disturbing trends will continue to worsen if we do not proactively address issues besides housing production affordability, but also enforcement of existing protections. So SB 567 provides Californians housing stability and reduces the number of people on the brink of homelessness. We just can't let any more families get pushed out onto the street.

The 567 does two things address loopholes for existing tenant protections and provides enforcement of existing tenant protections. AB 481482, as you all remember, was monumental. And this Bill is making sure that the spirit of that law is honored and carried out. I worked extensively to address concerns and scale the Bill down while keeping its spirit to ensure enforcement of existing tenant protections without expanding the scope of 1482.

Having removed I removed the single family home, mobile homes, and the reduction of the rent camp. Those are no longer part of the Bill. So now SB 567 includes modifies provisions of the Tenant Protection Act related to no fault evictions for owner move in, withdrawal from the rental market, and substantial remodel to close loopholes that have become evident since the law became got into effect in 2019.

With me today are two witnesses Susie Dershowitz, Staff Attorney at Public Advocates and Anya Lawler to help answer any technical questions from the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Susie Dershowitz with Public Advocates. Our organization is one of the co sponsors of SB 567. Public Advocates is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination.

As you know, the adoption of the Tenant Protection Act in 2019 was a landmark moment for the tenants we work with, providing statewide protections for the first time from unfair arbitrary evictions and exorbitant rent increases. Unfortunately, the promise of the law was soon diminished as we heard stories from our Legal Services colleagues of landlords exploiting loopholes in the law to evict tenants and escape the law's protections.

SB 567 restores the promise of the Tenant Protection Act by closing loopholes in the law and holding bad actors accountable who willfully violate the law. The Bill adds reasonable guardrails to the law's existing provisions to ensure that when a landlord is alleging an intent to move in a relative, to rehabilitate the units, or to withdraw them from the rental market, that they are in fact doing one of those things. In addition, the Bill strengthens enforcement to deter unlawful behavior and provide tenants with meaningful remedies.

Thank you very much. With that, we'll hear folks in the room. Name, organization, position, please.

SB 567 is a Bill aimed at fulfilling the intent of the Tenant Protection Act alleviating our housing crisis by protecting tenants from displacement and preventing homelessness. For all these reasons, on behalf of the sponsors and more than 175 organizations in support, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning, or afternoon? I'm not sure. Anya Lawler with the California Royal Legal system. I know it's been a long morning, so I'll see my time. I think my colleague covered. It well, but I'm available to answer questions.

Jason Sambaron on behalf of PICO, California, in Strong, support. Giovanna Pajarda with Ace Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment in support Patricia Aguiar, Contra Costa, Ace, and strongly support Yereli Magellan on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

In support Brian Staff on behalf of the United Way Greater LA. In support. Power California actions in support. And our future of Los Angeles. Also in support. Thank you. Darryl Odor II on behalf of Sac Act, I support. Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in support.

Jonathan Brewer with the California Environmental Justice Alliance and we're in strongly support Luis Le Mon, Orange County Labor Federation. Strongly support Gerardo Lopez with resilience. Orange County strong support.

Nidia Soto with Building Healthy Communities, Salinas, California, and support B Essecos and Olga Reyna, Salinas, California. Building healthy communities. Strongly support Isabel Tahira, Salinas, California. Hard support. A no. Angela Spinoza from Sonyas, California. Incoming senior, Alice High School and I support.

Ma'am chair Members Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its housing as a human rights division. Thank you. Joe Shakaranik, State Building Trades and support.

Melanie Morales on behalf of the Green Light Institute in support Patty Shaw, Sac Act in very strong support. Nicole Wartelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership and support Sylvia Felice Shaw on behalf of the City of Santa Monica and the City of West Hollywood in. Support.

Edith Pastrano COLA Organization cosette Edith Pastrano with Ace in strong support. Thank you. Elvia Vasquez with Sacramento Act Congregations Together and strongly support SB 567. Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership in support.

Jesus Figueroa Castro with Ace to support SB 567. Thank you very much. Monica Madrid with Sacramento Ace and the California Democratic Party Renters Council in strong support. Buenos Diaz De Richmond, California. Estrella fabardela Cinco Seate. Her name is Sulman Avarrette from Richmond, in strong support. Hello. My name is Yolanda Flores. I'm from Richmond and I am also in support. I'm Andrea Green, Sacramento, California.

I'm an Ace Member and I am in strong support. Joe Lopez with Ace. I am a victim of this so called housing issue. I wish you would follow us in our lead. We can all make California work together.

Raul Vasquez, with Ace and a strong support. Her name is Blanca Retano with Ace, and she's here to support her. Ace for LA Cinco sea gracia name is Walter Sanchez with Ace. Also in support, David Sharples of the community group Ace, in support, archer Crumfield, retired Navy vet, and Vass, strong support, Eddie Gums with the black owned Beauty Supply and Ace and we support.

My name is Tashina Garrett, and I am with Ace, and on behalf of the other 17,000 Members of Ace across California, strong support, Nicole Arrington, disabled cancer patient, Ace Member, strongly in support of SB 567. Thank you. Devin Williams, community organizer, with Ace, Antioch, in strong, strong support. Thank you. Claudia Reynolds, with Ace. And I strongly support SB 567. This has gone on long enough. Hi, my name is Blanco Hata, and I'm in support of SB 567.

I'm a community organizer with Faith in the Valley. Dr. Janine Kosi, Director of Housing Justice Initiatives for Faith in the Valley, representing 80,000 families across five counties of the San Joaquin Valley in strong support. Just want to refer to it in.

A General hello, Montera Sanchez, organizer of Faith in the Valley in Fresno County, in strong support of SB 567. Zannie Thompson, community organizer, with Faith in the Valley in San Joaquin County, Stockton, specifically in strong support of SB 567. Hello. Giovanni Morales with Leadership Council in strong support of SB. 567 hey, I'm Robert Copeland, Member of Ace and associate homeowners organized Committee. Strong support. Thank you.

Eileen Tony, with Ace Sacramento, in strong. Support of SB 567. Thank you. Lauren Rebrovich with housing California. In support. Cynthia Castillo, on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty. You're a proud co sponsor of this measure. In strong support, hi Francisco Dueenyas, Executive Director of Housing Now, strong support 567. Shanti Singh on behalf of tenants together.

Thank you, primary witnesses in opposition.

16 Member orgs working every day to try to enforce the Tenant Protection Act. Strong support. Abram Diaz with the nonprofit Housing Association. Of Northern California in support. James Michael Paul on behalf of AFSME California. Strong support. Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California action. In strong support. Thank you. Matt Laje on behalf of SCLU California, in support.

Good afternoon. Good Madam Chair and Members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. First, let me tell you what we agree with. Owners should not cheat the law. Tenants should not be moved out of their units in violation of the existing law. AB 1482. Senate Bill 567, however, is not just about punishing the bad actors. We believe it dramatically changes the existing statute. AB 1482 was a proactive response to the state's longstanding housing crisis.

A balance was struck in negotiating 1482 to avoid exacerbating the housing crisis by devaluing rental property, disincentivizing construction of new housing, and at the same time, we didn't want to deter small rental property owners from deciding to enter the market or from exiting the market. So for owner move in, we don't object to the proof that an owner is going to move in or a minimum time that they must stay.

We object to the new definition of a person, or as the owner at least being 51% of the ownership. A new definition is not necessary. And there are different ways in which rental property owners hold housing. Primarily as a family trust. The Bill hurts that definition, and the Committee Members don't help us with that specific issue. For major rehab, when negotiating AB 1482, we work carefully on crafting a definition of substantial rehab and remodeling.

Senate Bill 567 proposes to modify that definition of substantial remodel so as to limit work only to that which you need or permit. This completely disregards the situations in which you need to clean up property because of water damage or mold. With the recent floods in the Central Valley, for example, many properties suffered major water and mold damage which required tenants to move out. You don't need a permit to fix that damage.

We have asked that the Bill be amended to make clear that there are other forms of proof that can be required. Leaving tenants in place when there's mold is just not a safe thing to do and finally, taking units off the market. And that's last, but certainly not least, Senate Bill 567 proposes amendments to the provisions of 1482, which allows a landlord to terminate a tenancy when the property will be withdrawn from the rental market.

For the very first time, we see a claim by the sponsors and the analysis that this withdrawal equates to using the provisions of the Ellis Act. That is absolutely not true. We would never have agreed to that, nor would the Legislature. They have rejected many times changes to the Ellis Act. Not one analysis prepared in connection with 1482, nor any amendments to 1482 thereafter, ever mentioned the withdrawal provisions as akin to those of the Ellis Act.

This is not a modest change to 1482 requires a 120 day notice. No other cause of action requires a 120 day notice. And it's logical for us to assume that tenants aren't going to pay the rent.

They do that already today, where you have these types of notices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Alameda, if an owner wishes to sell the property and remove it from the market so that the buyer has an option to rent or to live in it themselves, they should have the right to do so. And to be clear, we're talking about small properties, Victorians, for example, that are converted back.

In summary, as the Judicial Council recently reported to the Legislature, evictions are dramatically down, not even close to pre pandemic levels. Less than 0.0001% of our total population has ever faced eviction, and those tenants who did were evicted for non payment of rent or illegal or nuisance activity which harmed other tenants at the property. This is bad policy in changing 1482 and we respectfully request your no vote today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members, Kareem Driesy on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, here today in strong opposition to SB 567, which upends the legislative agreement reached on AB 1482. Since today is my late mother's birthday. She passed away a number of years ago due to serious illness, and I cared for her during the final years of her life.

I would be remiss if I did not I would be remiss if I did not start it with the following SB 567 makes it extremely difficult for small housing providers to move in and care for an elderly family Member. Here's how that provision of SB 567 works.

If a small housing provider moves their elderly mother into a unit to care for her and she passes away within 12 months, SB 567 forces that housing provider to reenter the rental housing business and to rent the unit to the prior tenant under the same terms and rental rate as before.

And while that housing provider is grieving paying for their mother's mother's funeral expenses and other expenses, SB 567 forces them to pay for that prior tenant's, moving expenses to relocate back to the unit, even if the prior tenant is currently located in another state or another country. These provisions are simply not workable as currently drafted.

Additionally, SB 567 requires that if a small housing provider wishes to withdraw their property from the rental market, they must record a notice with the county Recorder that includes information such as quote the dates applicable to the Constraints. Furthermore, the notice is required to be indexed in the grant or grantee index. This raises many questions, including who's going to be developing this standardized form? Is it the county recorders? Do the county recorders have the staff and financial resources necessary to do that?

Why is the notice indexed in the grantor grantee index? And lastly, we respectfully have no idea what quote the dates applicable to the constraints means, and neither will the senior couple attempting to file such a notice. But again, respectfully, that appears to be precisely the point. These provisions are not meant to ferret out this or that bad actor. Rather, it appears as though many of these provisions are purposefully drafted so as to render them unworkable for small housing providers.

For these and other reasons, we respectfully request a no vote on SB 567. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Other folks with should express opposition, please name, organization and position.

Dean Grafilo with capital advocacy on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association in opposition. Thank you. Indira Mcdonald on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, respectfully opposed. Natalie Bells on behalf of the California Business Roundtable in opposition.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Kalra,

I'd like to move the Bill and if I could be added on as co.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? 2nd by Ms. Carillo other questions, comments? Mr. Ward.

Some comments as well. I think arguably this might be one of our more serious bills that we're taking up here today as well. And I want to thank the author for working on this. Of course, it's important that history that was carefully negotiated to be able to start to work on how we're going to be able to provide some of these protections and working with property owners as well to be able to achieve the end in that Bill.

I said lessons have been learned over the times and to the extent that we have had inappropriate evictions or things that have not been consistent with some of that agreement as well, limited that it might be here or there. But that deserves to be addressed.

And to every extent as this Bill is moving forward, hearing some of the specific kind of substance that I think opposition has raised here today, I would encourage a good faith effort to be able to work on some of those wherever possible.

Line share of this, of course, is also coming down to the adjustment of that cap and working on what was 10% or in 10% or adjusted with the inflation factor is also put in and getting something that is maybe even a little bit more in range of what is the status of housing costs here today.

I'm sensitive and I try to be very fair minded about what we're talking about in terms of a property owner and a landlord and their right and ability to be able to make the math work out for them as well. Many of these individuals, though, have had long standing property holdings and they kind of knew what they were maybe when they acquired that in the 80s or 90s or even more and more recently.

And things have just gotten so out of whack here in California as well that we have to think a little bit more. We're almost compelled as a Legislature to think about using fiscal policy and I think that's an element here as well to be able to try to put a hold on that right because the consequence of not acting on that, we know what that's going to be.

More homelessness, more people suffering, more people having to move farther away from their jobs, all the things that are really demanded of us just try to rein back in as well. So it's not, I think, an easy thing. It's almost kind of a last resort measure that we're getting to.

But we're there, we probably got there yesterday and we really need to do sort of work on a way to sort of kind of keep a lid on the status of where things are at because workers salaries are just not caught up to where the rent is, we have to act more.

I appreciate the author and your leadership to work to be able to assist Members of the community and I don't disrespect the perspectives that our landholders and good landlords actually want to have acknowledge as well too. I do acknowledge that. So love to be able to see how this matures as it moves forward as well. But I want to thank you for taking this on this year.

I think the time is critical that we are helping stabilize the situation as we figure out broader solutions for more housing supply.

Yes, please, Jim. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say in our conversations most recently with some of the Members and with others, there are several areas in which we commit. I commit to continue the conversations with regards to the withdrawal from the rental market. Also there were the issue of the mold, family trust, and impact on small landlords. So I commit to continuing those conversations with you all, with the Committee.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Really very grateful to the Committee for all of their work. So there are some areas where we want to continue the conversation.

Other questions, Mr. Gabriel?

Yeah, I just wanted to thank you for that, Senator, as we had some opportunities to have a sidebar about this. Think that overall understand what you're trying to do. Very, very important from a homelessness prevention perspective. But also there are some details that need to be ironed out here and I think that the further conversation is optimistic to hear that those are going to happen and similar to what Assembly Member Ward said.

So with that, happy to support the Bill today, but looking forward to seeing you guys continue to have those conversations.

Thank you. Ms. Quirk-Silva, just concur with my colleagues and also appreciate your willingness to continue the conversation. You mentioned some of the issues as far as the trust and some of the other issues. So as you move forward, we'll just be continuing to look at it and hope we get to a place that we can make some modifications. Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Great, thank you. We'll appreciate your work on protecting people who rent. My parents still don't own a home and I mentioned here a bazillion times that my mom lives in an affordable unit right now. I found myself in 2010 ish being an unwilling landlord when we had to relocate for work. And so I had this rental property and we were well renting it out, but it was my primary residence. We didn't own another residence anywhere else.

We became renters where we were living and just how difficult it was to comply with the laws that already existed at the time over 10 years ago made me say, look, I'm selling this house and so fortunately, somebody lives there as a homeowner, but it's no longer available on the tenant market.

And I think what's happened over the last couple of years is we've become not only for I am very concerned about the small property owner, which it sounds like you're going to continue to work on that, but it's not just them in my community, it's big property owners. And I think the best way to make sure people can continue to rent properties, incentivizing people to want to come into the market and build more housing and build more housing that people can afford to live in.

So I do have concerns, obviously, about the chilling effect that this might have even on large landlords. But like I said, I'm sympathetic towards your cause. Obviously, I don't want people kicked out of houses in their homes and their livelihoods, and that really does resonate with me. But I'm concerned about the creation of additional housing and what this might do for that on the market. So just wanted to note that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the author and to all of the advocates that are here supporting the extension of tenant protections. I appreciate the conversation that we had earlier. I, too, I'm concerned about small mom and pop renters in our district that we share together.

Other questions, comments? Ms. Carillo

We have done a lot of work in this Committee as well as in Budget Committee to establish opportunities for first time home buyers with the thought of the importance of what it is to be able to own a home and create generational wealth for our families and communities that haven't traditionally have access. So we continue to make that investment in budget, a budget that we just passed and is headed to the governor's office.

Now, my concern is that on one side, we're saying homeownership is important and it's an opportunity for families to create generational wealth, and that requires partnership with several entities. Yet on the other side, we're also saying it's important to protect tenants. And I completely agree and understand that. I also want to make sure that for small mom and pop renters, like many in our district, that we are not creating additional hurdles for them to be able to, let's say they own a triplex or a fourplex.

Or a duplex, which is very common in places like Echo Park and Lincoln Heights. El Cereno and communities that we both represent, that we're not creating hurdles for them to be able to say, yes, I have tenants and I'm a good landlord, but I now have an elderly parent or an aging parent.

Or someone in my family that I need to take care of or that I hope to be able to move in into my property without creating those challenges that don't allow for someone to do that. We had a situation in my own family where we had to move in a family member who needed support.

Luckily, my parents were able to do that in the property that they own and that they bought way back in 1989 in City Terrace in East LA when that area had more violence, had gang violence. That area has changed quite a bit.

But I want to make sure that while the policy to protect tenants is critical and important, that we're not creating challenges in which a property owner is not able to move in a family Member, given the circumstances around ownership of a property that's more than a single residency home. And so I'm looking forward to continuing that conversation and figuring out what that could look like.

Because I do believe that while we talk about the importance of homeownership creating generational wealth while at the same time talking about tenant protections, we are not creating unintended consequences for small mom and pop property owners to be able to do as they would like on their property and to be able to ensure that they can move in family or that the opportunities within the family continue to exist. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? And I'll let you address that when you close.

Any other questions or comments from Members? Would you like to close? I don't know if there's any response that anybody wants to give to the family thing. Okay, great. Well, yes, these are tough issues that we have to grapple with. And I rely on not only my life experience and people in our districts, but also experts such as the Committee staff That's here and advocates.

I'm very, very grateful to the advocates who drove in from all over California to ask us to help them stay in their places, that they will not be evicted unfairly. And That's what this is all about, not changing the law. All of them, whether they're small or large landlords, right now they are covered by the law. There are no exceptions. So how we handle that, we will try to tackle that. But I think I know that there are other issues here that we can definitely address.

So we will absolutely my pledge to do our best. Thank you very much. Thank you for everyone's comments.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. And we'd had a chance to huddle and talk yesterday and talk this morning with a lot of Members on the Committee today. Appreciate your willingness to sit down with the opposition and continue to work through some of the flags that have been raised. Obviously, I'll be supporting the Bill today. I ran a similar Bill last year.

So I appreciate the work you're doing here. Also want to make myself available as needed to help in any of those conversations as well as our Committee consultant staff here who are well versed in it, because it'd be great to continue that dialogue, work through some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues. But I'm happy to keep moving the Bill forward today, hopefully so we can have further dialogue and just ask that you continue to have those conversations. And with that, the motions do pass, as amended to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

Wicks aye. Wicks aye. Patterson. Pearson. No. Carillo. Carillo. Aye Gabriel. Gabriel. Aye cholera. Kalra. Aye Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva. Sanchez. Sanchez. No Ward Aye.

That is six to two. That Bill is out. Thank you, Members appreciate thank you. We'll give it a second. So, last but not least, my Senator, Senator Nancy Skinner, will be presenting SB 440 we can just wait a second for the door to shut.

I know. I came here when Mr. Wiener was starting to present and all of the witnesses.

It's been a loud meeting today.

All right, thank you.

Thanks so much. Madam Chair and Members, pleased to present SB 440. I imagine while all of you were not necessarily here when the redevelopment agencies were dissolved and the various court cases and ballot measures and such, and obviously, this Bill is not here to relitigate any of that. But redevelopment was a tool that not all, but some local governments did use to help finance affordable housing. And the basic reality is, as I think all of us know, to build affordable housing, we need subsidies.

And that one of the ways that we try to do that is through our density bonus, through various ways that we give market rate developers incentives so that they add some affordable housing to their projects. But they are decent, they're good. We've gotten some affordable housing that way, but we're never going to get the amount of affordable housing we need through that mechanism alone. We need public subsidy for affordable housing.

And what this Bill does, and we've already done, the Legislature already has enabled two main regions in our state, Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, to create these regional housing finance authorities that would enable them to, in effect, raise funds in order to subsidize affordable housing. Now, what this Bill does is allow any region in our state to do that.

If the local governments in those areas choose to come together, they, of course, would have to form a JPA, a joint powers agreement, and follow all other existing laws. This doesn't suspend any local control or any local planning or any zoning, but they would then come together and decide that they want to cooperate together to build housing and to figure out how to finance it.

Now, the key reason they need the Bill is because in order for those entities to be able to do some kinds of financing measures, they need this authority. Now, this authority does not remove the already existing rules around, for example, what types of revenue measures need voter approval. So any revenue measure that needs voter approval still would require voter approval. So when I look at the opposition, for example, it's mostly concerned that there might be revenue measures that would affect their ability to build housing.

But those, of course, are obviously going to be hashed out in the local area. And if the voters do not approve such measures, they will not be approved. So I just wanted to put that out front directly. Now, interestingly, and my witness will speak to this, some of the areas now in the state that have most enthusiastically responded to my office in support of this Bill are rural areas, our areas like the Mammoth Lakes area and the Truckee and Tahoe area.

Because of their it is very difficult for them to the individual jurisdictions to be able to come up with any kind of subsidies for affordable housing. And they are facing a real serious workforce shortage. So, in sum, before I let my good experts speak, my witnesses, this Bill purely enables existing local governments who want to come together to create a regional Housing Finance Authority, to have the authority to pursue some revenue measures, again following all local rules and all other state laws.

And with that, I'd like to have Kristina Kind from Mountain Housing Council of Tahoe and Truckee Area and Marina Wyatt from the California Housing Consortium speak.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. My name is Kristina Kind. I am the program Director of the Mountain Housing Council, managed by the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation, which is a coalition that brings together 29 diverse stakeholders to tackle the unique, impressing housing challenges in the north Tahoe Truckee region.

I am testifying today in support of SB 440 on behalf of the Members of the Mountain Housing Council, which include the town of Truckee, counties of Placer and Nevada, the Truckee Tahoe Workforce Housing Agency, which is seeking to become a regional housing finance Authority, the Sierra Business Council and the Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation. This Bill solves four critical issues our region has been struggling with. As we formulate a regional housing finance Authority, it clarifies the government structure, its authorities, and its ability to bond.

And if amended, it would allow the regional housing finance authorities to set a local AMI eligibility threshold for financing projects at 150% of AMI in consultation with Housing and Community Development. Our community has been incredibly proactive to address our housing challenges, and this Bill will give our community and others like it the tools it needs to finance the housing our community desperately needs and to reduce barriers in our rural region bifurcated by three counties, one town and 17 special districts.

Thank you for your leadership, Senator Skinner, and for advancing this critical housing solution, and thanks for the opportunity to share our perspective today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marina Wyatt with the California Housing Consortium and proud to be a sponsor of the Bill. And I'll be real brief. I think Kristina really articulated why this is needed. Many regions already, they want to participate in housing. They want to try to find new, innovative ways to finance affordable housing. But there are some limitations to the existing JPA system and regional housing finance system that exists when the jurisdictions coming together have unequal powers.

And this really just gives them a tool for folks that want to come together and raise these innovative financing tools, who want to self tax, who are willing to bring things before the voters for approval to be able to do so. And for that, I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Additional folks in the room wish to express support. Name, organization and position, please.

Yes. Bryan Sapp with the San Diego Housing Commission in support. Also on behalf of CivicWell in support. And then also with the Habitat for Humanity California, in support, as promised with the Committee amendments that are coming out today. Thank you so much.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership in support.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association of Local Housing finance agencies. Very strong support because we see this as a speedy, targeted way for local agencies to come together to develop affordable housing.

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

Great. Any folks in opposition? Primary witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair, Bob Naylor, representing the Fieldstead and Company. I don't think I heard the author accept the Committee amendments.

I absolutely accept the Committee amendments. Apologies for not opening with that.

In that case, I withdraw our opposition which was based on the eminent domain issue. Thank you so much. Very good to work with your office.

Good morning, again, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jennifer Speck On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we do have an oppose unless amended position on the Bill. We've been in conversations with Marina as well as the author staff to see if we can find a path forward.

We do know that under SB 440, local governments can place these kinds of ballot measures currently on the ballot, similar to what we had argued with the BAHFA situation last year with SB 679.

But to be clear, we do have a fundamental concern with using housing to pay for housing construction, especially for corporate developers. Also, we have a concern with continuing the trend of converting single family one to four housing into corporate ownership, as opposed to allowing those for single family home ownership opportunities for generational wealth. Those are General concerns that we have.

But we are encouraged that eminent domain powers are removed from these local agencies, as well as there being an expansion to include homeownership opportunities being included in things that can be funded with it. We continue to have a concern that the agency is not limited to the number of taxes it can impose on property owners, and it can do so in a layered manner with an unending amount of taxes that they can levy on homeowners.

With that, I won't bore you with any additional comments that we have, but we will continue to dialogue with the author and with the sponsors and see what we can do to try to bridge a gap. But those are generally our concerns, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. Cornelious Burke with the California Building Industry Association, the home building industry. Our apologies. We don't have a letter on file. We're actually opposed unless amended.

We've been in active conversation with the author's office and the sponsors. We have a lot of concerns, but our top concern is the double taxation this Bill has in it. For example, if I were to submit an application to the City of Rockland for a project, I might be charged affordable housing fees, inclusionary fees, hypothetically, by the way, that's not the case. This new agency, let's say a Rockland Loomis Roseville affordable housing agency, will charge those same fees upon a builder.

So we're trying to work that out to make sure that this Bill does not impact production. As CAR noted, taxing housing to pay for new housing is bad public policy. We just want to work it out to make sure we're all rowing the boat in the right direction to solve our housing crisis. Thank you so much and thank the author and the sponsors for the active conversations. We're optimistic we get there.

Thank you. Any folks wish to express opposition, name, organization, position.

Natalie Boust, the California Business Roundtable in respectful opposition.

Thank you. We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions, Mr. Patterson?

Sorry, I'm trying not to talk on everything. I do, you know, adding. I'm curious how this is going to look on the floor right now. I think one question I have, though, is what's to stop housing, from two cities doing a JPA for this purpose under current law?

They can form a JPA. They just wouldn't have the authority to do any of the financing, which basically doesn't give them any ability to really pursue affordable housing.

And when you say financing, you mean levy taxes through...

Like a bonding measure, for example, and putting it on the ballot to, an individual city can but as we know, most of our jurisdictions are relatively small. And if you're a city of 40,000 to go and try to bond for affordable housing in your just one jurisdiction, neither would you be able to support a bond that would be adequate nor I mean, it's just so this kind of regional cooperation is just much more productive.

And the ultimate end would be, say, in a bonding example, a less burden on the per parcel end result. Plus, everybody affected would have the opportunity to vote on it, and if they didn't want to, they could vote it down.

Yeah. And I love the fact that people have the power to vote on taxes, but we have I was already outed as representing Rockland today, but we have the South Placer Transportation Planning Agency. I always got to remember that. But they are a JPA of various cities, and they do put bond measures on the ballot already.

I think the difference is, yes, they can. Now, the difference is, if they want to include a special district, for example, that doesn't have the same equal powers as the government, so, like in the mountain housing example, they have entities that don't share the same bonding powers individually. And so if they were to form a JPA, they would not be able to then collectively have those powers, because one of them might not have that individual power.

And that is where this really comes into play, is so that when there are entities who want to join together, who might not all just be cities, but be other local agencies who want to participate, they can all share those powers that are articulated in the Bill.

Okay. All right. I think it'll be interesting to watch this as this moves forward. I think right now, in its current form, I have some concerns, but we'll be paying attention, so thank you.

Any other questions? Do you have a motion? We do in a second. It was moved great with that. Would you like to close Senator?

I ask for your aye vote, and certainly apologies for not indicating originally that I was accepting the Committee's amendments, but also we'll continue to work with the opposition.

Thank you. With that and happy to support the Bill today. And the motion is?

Do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Local government. [Roll call vote]

Six to two. That Bill is out. Thank you. We will now go back through all of the bills for folks that need to add on. I think we have one more Bill to get out.

I believe it is Item Number Three: SB 267. The vote currently is four to zero with one Member not voting. Patterson? File Item Three: 267. Assembly Member Patterson is a no. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.

That bill is out. Six to zero. Sorry, six to one. Apologies.

Going back to consent item, if we may, Item Number Two: SB 91. 'Do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations,' and Item Number Four: SB 406, 'do pass.' Assembly Member Patterson? Yes. Patterson, yes. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel, aye.

Final vote: eight/zero.

Yes. Item Number Two and Number Four: SB 91 and SB 406. Item Number Three, we just did. Number Five. One is already--Item One, that's number--okay. One is fine. Six/zero. Item Number Five: SB 423. Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Final vote: seven/one.

Number Six, we are taking care of. That's not six/two. Item Number Seven has passed. Eight. Number Eight, that is SB 482. Assembly Member Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel, aye.

Final vote: eight/zero.

And Assembly--I'm sorry, Item Number Nine: SB 555. Assembly Member Patterson? No. Patterson, no. Assembly Member Ward? That's Senator Wahab's bill, SB 555. 521. So that will be--

Final vote: six/one. Sorry, six/two.

Number Ten, that's six/two, and Eleven, that's six/zero with two Members not voting.

Okay. We're adjourned.