Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

The hearing will be open for attendance of this hearing. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its stream on the Assembly's website. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and I apologize for being 9 minutes late. Okay, first we will hear from Mr. Grayson, right? Oh, sorry. Actually, we'll take roll call real quick.

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

Great. We have a quorum. And Mr. Grayson, would you like to present.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, good morning to you. And I am pleased to present AJR Three, which declares that the Legislature support a reduction to the threshold for tax-exempt bond financing and urge the passage of the Federal Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2023. The Tax Reform of 1986 established the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Aka LIHTC. This tax credit has become an extremely effective tool to help in affordable housing financing.

A majority of affordable housing is dependent on low-income housing tax credits, coupled with tax-exempt private activity bond financing. For more than 30 years, the Housing Tax Credit has been a model public-private partnership program, financing nearly 3.5 million apartments since 1986 and providing approximately 8 million disadvantaged families and individuals with homes that they can afford. However, the LIHTC requirements make it difficult for affordable housing tax credits to be used because of existing high financing threshold.

Lowering bond financing threshold from 50% could produce or preserve over a million additional affordable rental homes over the next 10 years and frees up 93 billion of private activity bond volume cap over 10 years, facilitating more affordable housing development. AJR Three will urge Congress to pass the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2023 in order to reduce the bond threshold from 50% to 25%. And with that and I'm not sure if she's here yet, but we are expecting we do have a comment or what? I do have a witness.

Okay.

And the witness is literally coming through.

The maybe we can at some point in time I don't want to take maybe questions from the Committee first. If there are any support, maybe other supporters. Okay, great. Yeah. Are there other supporters? Here we go.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership and strong support, this is the single biggest thing Congress can do to actually increase affordable housing production in California.

Marina White with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Great, thank you.

And I do want to state also, as part of the testimony, that California is under extreme pressure to be able to build affordable housing. As a matter of fact, we've been called on to build 100,000 units a year moving into the next decade, and history tells us that we've never even reached 20,000 a year. So our challenge that is before us right now is beyond precedent. And so with that, it's going to take more than just what the State of California can do.

It's actually going to require a partnership with our federal partners as well. So with that, we hope that the AJR will be the tool used to help move our feds in the right direction and lower it from 50% to 25%.

Great. Well, thank you. Should I give your witness? All right. Just to make sure. Any witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none. Anybody from the Committee?

Yeah. First, support the Bill and move the Bill. And as you know, I do have a partnering Bill in the same type of vein, which is allowing us to make sure we're using our funding, our limited funding, in the best possible way, particularly related to tax credits. Every single day we walk out of our homes, we see the lack of affordable housing, the lack of housing, any type of housing. And unless we make this a very intentional commitment, we're going to continue to lag behind.

So I support your Bill in making sure that we have every tool necessary to get building. There's your witness.

Thank you for those comments.

We have a new guest. Hello. Hi. Would you like to take the floor?

Sure. Thank you. Sorry. Assemblymember. State Treasurer Fiona Ma. Thank you, Assemblymember Grayson, for authoring this joint resolution. As you all know, we have a housing crisis. We have been doing our best to roll out the tax credits and the bonds as quickly as possible. We thank the Governor for allocating 500 million in state low-income housing tax credits every year that he has been in office.

That has made our bonds competitive because these state tax credits need to be matched with the bonds. And unfortunately, we run out of state tax credits. And being able to lower the bond requirement from 50% to 25% would allow more of these projects to move forward more quickly. So that is what this resolution is about. We've been working on it for the last four years. I'm an active member of the National Association of State Treasurers.

This has been a number one priority, and passing this joint resolution will put it back on members' radar that this is a priority for states like U.S. California, who is trying to best utilize all of the bonds and tax credits as possible, as many as we can. Great. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Anyone in the room wish to express support? We did that okay. Do we have it in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the room wish to express opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Patterson?

Oh, well, I'm looking forward to supporting it, and I'm glad we stalled so your very important witness can make it here on time. So thank you.

Anyone else wish to ask questions and do we have a motion and a second? Great. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Appreciate that. Mr. Grayson. This is a very smart, no cost policy. Tweak that should really be a no brainer. Appreciate your testimony as well. Always happy to support my colleague and his effort here to build more housing and to create smart policy here in California. So with that, happy to support the Bill. The motion is adopted as amended.

Wicks aye. Patterson aye. Carrillo. Gabriel. Kalra aye. Quirk-Silava aye. Sanchez aye. Ward aye. Six to zero.

That Bill is out, but we'll let folks add on it later if they'd like.

Thank you, madam.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Members.

Okay, next we have Mr. Allen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members. Let me just begin by accepting the Committee amendments. And I do want to thank and. We're on SB 469, right? Yes, this is SB 469.

So, as I'm sure many of you most of you know, all of you know, Article 34 of our Constitution was put in there in the mid-40s. It sought to limit the development affordable housing and serve as a it's ultimately served as a segregation tool by making it harder to build up public housing. So we're working in a bipartisan manner to actually get it repealed from the Constitution. That was our SCA 2 that passed at the end of session last year.

But one thing that's come up through the course of this discussion is that Article 34 has placed the state in this legal gray area that's actually continued to thwart our affordable housing goals. So the Article 34 says that it requires local voter approval for any, quote, low-rent housing project that is, quote, developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body.

Now, Article 34 was not intended to cover affordable housing that receives state funding, but is developed by private entities such as nonprofit affordable housing developers. But out of abundance of caution, the state has required applicants for some funding sources to demonstrate Article 34 compliance before developments can proceed. So this has led to a series of unnecessary costs and delays, uncertainty to the housing projects that we need. Article 34 did grant the Legislature the power to enact laws to implement it.

And it's a power that the Legislature has enacted a few times over the decades that have followed. We've been investing in programs administered by HCD, as you all know. And the Legislature has used its authorities under Article 34 to make it clear that affordable housing developers receipt of funds from some crucial programs like Home Key or the housing accelerator program portfolio discretion program, the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Program. We've clarified that they don't trigger Article 34 local election.

So this clarifies that a housing development that receives a loan or grant from HCD or a reservation of Low income housing credits from the State's Tax Credit Allocation Committee is not to be considered a Low rent housing project developed, constructed, or acquired by any law by any state public body under the Article 34. This Bill allows us to move forward with some of our housing goals with greater efficacy and equity and efficiency.

Here with me today, I've got Mark Stivers from the California Housing Partnership and Brian Augusta from California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Good morning, Chairman. Members. Brian Augusta with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, one of the co-sponsors of the measure. As the Senator laid out well, Article 34 has presented a number of hurdles, and this somewhat conservative interpretation has made it more difficult for affordable housing developers to access housing funding, particularly in rural areas where we often don't have blanket Article 34 authority from voters. So this measures the next logical extension of a policy that the Legislature has enacted over several years to exempt state housing funding from Article 34.

This makes it uniform across all programs, will help streamline the production of housing, make it easier and less expensive to access those funds, and help us build more housing in the state. So for those reasons, we would urge an aye vote.

And Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. And I just want to underscore that providing financing is not the same as developing housing. There are a number of precedents already in statute, and this follows those precedents.

And having administered state affordable housing programs, I can confirm that the amount of time and cost that goes into ensuring compliance when it's not necessary is pretty high. So thank you for your support.

Thank you. Any other folks in the room wish to express support? Please name, organization, and position.

Marina White with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Dante golden with the San Diego Housing Federation in strong support. Thank you.

Karen Lange on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support.

Tina Rosales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Mr. Ward. Thank you.

I want to thank Senator Allen for your leadership on SCA 2 and certainly look forward to working with you as we have that public conversation approaching next year. And I appreciate that you're bringing this forward as a legislative solution in the meantime that can be able to help do what we can do right now. To expand our authorities and spend the opportunities under existing law. So with that, I'm happy to move the Bill.

Great. We have a motion second and a second by Ms. Quirk-Silva. Any additional comments or questions from Committee Members? Would you like to close? No.

I appreciate your kind attention to this important issue and would appreciate your support. We had a very strong bipartisan 39 to zero vote in the Senate. I got to find out who that 40th person was.

Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Allen, for bringing this forward. I think it's very important. We have a lot of racist classes policies in California that we're trying to unwind, this being one of them. So I appreciate your steadfast commitment on that issue. I'd love to be added as a co author at the highest level that you'll have me, and happy to support the Bill today. And we have a motion in a second.

And with that, the motions do pass, as amended, to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Wicks aye. Patterson aye. Carrillo aye. Gabriel aye. Kalra. Quirk-Silva aye. Sanchez aye. Ward aye.

Thank you, Members. Thank you very much.

Six to zero. That Bill is out. We'll leave it open if folks want to add on. And with that now, we have Mr. Senator Becker. And you are presenting SB 341, I believe.

Yes. Good morning, and thank you. This Bill applies pro-housing incentives and housing element compliance thresholds only to state programs in which cities and counties, as opposed to private, affordable housing developers, are the primary applicants. Under current law, private developers are unfairly penalized when applying for state programs based on lack of a pro-housing designation, the jurisdiction in which they plan to build. In some cases, like the AHSC program, developers are ineligible to apply if the city or county does not have an approved housing element.

In other cases, like the qualifying Infill Program Project portion of the Infill Infrastructure Grant program, developers lose pro housing points and therefore are not competitive. So what this Bill does is it supports developers who are doing the right thing to build affordable housing in less housing friendly jurisdictions, where arguably, it is needed the most. With me here, I have Mark Stivers from the California Housing Partnership.

I have a question for Mr. Stivers or the author?

Mark Stivers from the California Housing Partnership. And we just want to reiterate that we want to make sure that developers are not penalized for doing affordable housing in cities that are less than friendly to housing. And we urge your support.

Thank you, Chairman. Any other additional witnesses wish to express support? I have a question.

Marina Wyatt with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

So can you give me an example of what this looks like, you don't have to mention a city unless you want to, but just how does this actually play out, whether it's city or county? And what would this look like?

Yeah, Julio, please. So, for example, the Legislature has provided a number of streamlining statutes, let's say SB 35 of a number of years ago right. Which says that housing that is consistent with the zoning must be approved by right under certain conditions.

So if a developer utilizes that statute, gets approval to build, even though the city may not be supportive of the project, they would then come to the state level for financing, and they would be ineligible for money under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program. They would be kind of disadvantaged in other programs, and as a result, that project would not go forward. And in essence, we would be supporting the anti-housing sentiments of the local government indirectly at the state level.

Okay, now that's a good explanation. So you're saying that with several of the recent pieces of legislation that some cities are choosing not to follow whichever piece of legislation it is, that this still gives the opportunity for those cities or actual developers to move forward with the project and get financing for it.

Correct. The developer would still be able to move a project forward in that situation. We are big fans of pro housing and big fans of housing owner compliance, but those types of connections would apply to programs where local governments for the applicants, not the developers themselves. Yeah.

So certain cities can earn these pro-housing designations. And this is saying even that city doesn't have that pro-housing designation. We don't want these affordable housing developers to be punished and not be able to get financing to build affordable housing where it's needed.

Got it. Move the Bill.

Great. We have a motion. A second. Any additional questions from my colleagues with that? Would you like to close?

Thanks for the question. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Wicks aye. Patterson aye. Carrillo. Gabriel aye. Kalra. Quirk-Silva aye. Sanchez aye. Ward aye.

Great. I'm happy to support the Bill today. Does it make sense to penalize developers who are trying to build multifamily housing, especially some in our most kind of exclusionary communities? So appreciate your work in the space. Happy to support it. The motions do pass to the Assembly Committee and Appropriations.

That is six to zero. It is out. We'll leave it. That is six to zero. It is out. We'll leave it.

Thank you. And with that, we have Mr. Haney is up next with ACA 10.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. ACA 10 will recognize that every Californian has a fundamental human right to adequate housing on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis. I know this is something that this Committee works on every day, and I want to thank you for your work to move forward critical legislation that will help us actualize this right. Codifying a fundamental right in our Constitution is something that is actually very well proven.

We've done it either in our Constitution statute or the Federal Constitution for contraception, for voting, abortion, water, marriage, education, privacy. We recognize that all of those rights are critical, as is the fundamental right to housing. Many of the other rights that we expect people to be able to actualize in their lives, including those listed, but also others like being able to access health care, education, safety, and security, cannot be possible unless people first have access to housing.

Under this constitutional amendment, state and local jurisdictions would be required to take steps to fully recognize adequate housing as a right and not a privilege only available to the few. Right now, housing unaffordability is the primary reason that California is at the epicenter of our nation's housing crisis. With the second highest average rent and the second highest poverty rate in the nation, we are 49th in housing per capita, millions of housing units.

Short of being able to meet the needs of our population, more than 40% of California households and nearly half of all black Californians are housing cost-burdened, meaning that they spend more on housing costs than they can afford, leaving little to invest in their families and their futures. We also have more Californians living on the street than anywhere else in the nation. The state is home to about 12% of the nation's population, but half of the unsheltered people in the country.

Subsidized housing vouchers are available to only one in four eligible households, and eligible low-income households can wait as long as an entire generation to obtain subsidized housing they can actually afford. It is the backdrop of this housing crisis in our state that exposes the need for a right to housing in our California Constitution. This Committee has passed critical bills, and this Legislature has as well to advance solutions to this crisis.

But it needs to be interpreted and enforced and held accountable in the context of an acknowledgment that housing is a right. A right to housing doesn't require the state or local governments to provide housing to every person, nor does it allow people to automatically demand free housing from the government. Instead, it requires the state to adopt legislative, budgetary and administrative measures to provide adequate housing within available resources and gives the courts the tools to enforce such policies.

If a local government, a city, passes a law that restricts multifamily housing, and one of the laws that you all passed is brought into court to enforce whether that was legal or not, it should be done within the context of the people of California recognizing and elevating that housing is a human right and any decisions made by government should be given appropriate accountability and scrutiny therein.

If this passes, California voters will have the opportunity to vote to add this right to the state's constitution, which will elevate our commitment to solving the housing crisis, hold governments accountable on behalf of our citizens, and provide scrutiny to something that without us actualizing, we cannot accomplish the other critical, essential rights that Californians deserve.

With me to testify in support of ACA 10 are Ms. Peggy Pleasant, a mother with seven grandchildren and three great grandchildren who worked all her life since the age of 17 but ended up becoming homeless, who will be sharing her story? Carlos Marquez from ACLU, California and also Kath Rogers from ACL Action, who's able to answer any technical questions. There are over 100 organizations that have signed on to this ACA and they're represented today.

Thank you. And each witness will have 2 minutes. Thank you.

My name is Ms. Peggy Pleasant and I'm from Los Angeles, California. It's an honor to be here before this Committee, but I'd like to tell you my story. In 2008, I was furloughed from my job, subsequently being terminated because I couldn't find work. I've lived on the streets with my daughter, sleeping in my car until it was repossessed. We would go to the local Ralph's Market to shower or clean to come back, and she would go to school and I would go looking for employment.

Subsequently, like I said, my car was repossessed. So I sent her to live with her father and it would take me four years to get her back. I ended up in the Los Angeles Skid Row area, my first housing there, or temporary housing there. I was there for 19 days, and because I was 15 minutes late to an appointment with the social worker that was hearing my case, I was kicked out of my housing.

She referred me to another place where I subsequently was able to get medical coverage or medical care. But most of all, I lost my hope. When you're homeless, you lose housing, whatever. You lose family Members, but you lose your hope. And when you lose your hope, that makes you an inadequate person. It makes you feel that there is nothing you can do to make your situation better. I've been one of the fortunate ones. I subsequently was able to get in affordable housing.

I was able to get doctors that would help me with my mental health and my anxiety. Right now, I'm sorry, but I'm starting to have an anxiety attack before you. But I was able to get what I needed because of housing. I was able to get a Doctor to help me with my physical and mental health, but I was also able to get my child back. And when you have an opportunity, you lose your children.

Some of my friends, they've lost their children and they were adopted out. I was fortunate. My daughter was 16 when we separated and I was able to get her back along with my grandson. That came along with her as a package, I have to say. But that was a blessing for me. ACA is what we need. ACA 10 is what we need. Housing is a right. It's not a privilege. Because you have money, it's a right.

It may not be the best place you can go, but most of my friends who still live on the street, they're living in tents. Like I said, I was one of the fortunate ones. I was able to get into the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles in the Skid Row area, and it took me four years to get my daughter back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony.

Thank you very much for your powerful testimony. Ms. Peggy. Good morning. Carlos Marquez, Executive Director of ACLU California Action. Representing over 100,000 Members and three ACLU affiliates in California, we join more than 100 organizations in proudly supporting ACA 10, which, as you heard from both proponents, establishes a fundamental right in the Constitution to housing. Adequate housing is a basic human right. But right now, for far too many Californians, adequate housing is out of reach. Including Black Californians in particular.

We're at such a tipping point that if homelessness continues to grow at its current rate, there will be over half a million California residents homeless by 2050. And just to put that into perspective, that's the size of the existing population of the City of Sacramento. In order to tackle this crisis, we need solutions that are as bold as they are achievable. We believe ACA 10 strikes this balance.

It manages to both establish a right to housing bold while also granting flexibility, and the time for the Legislature to codify that right in statute. Achievable and if given the opportunity by the Legislature, would have the chance at being further reinforced by a public mandate to act. ACA 10 would create a shared obligation between governments to enforce a set of obligations. And they're as follows respect the right of housing means that government itself cannot violate the right.

Protect means the government must ensure third parties do not violate the right and fulfill means the government must progressively pass policies and budgetary allocations to ensure that the right is achievable. Now, we also want to reinforce that this doesn't mean that everyone will be given a single family home overnight. Adequate means housing that is affordable, healthy, habitable, and offers security of tenure that's close to jobs, schools and infrastructure. In this way, ACA 10 actually bolsters our state's existing housing first policy.

And 66% of Californians support a right to housing. And with that, we urge your aye vote for ACA 10. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in the room wish to express support, please line up name, organization and position.

Brian Sep on behalf of United Way Greater LA in support.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wildcat Consulting, representing Abundant Housing, Los Angeles in support.

Patricia Guiller Contra Costa Ace in support.

My name is Kelly Lloyd and I represent ACE and I'm in support.

Archie Brownford, United States Navy, retired. I am strongly in support of veterans.

Good morning. Maddie Ribble with the Children's Partnership in support and several organizations have asked us to share their name, if I may. Housing Now, Human Rights Watch, National Homelessness Law Center, Human Impact Partners Legal Aid of Sonoma County, San Bernardino free them all project, Amiga Break the Cycle project, Cope Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement, Friends Committee on Legislation of California Dreyer Law Firm, Friends Without Homes Monument, Impact housing is a human right a division of AIDS Health Foundation, Evolve California and lastly National Association of Social Workers California chapter thank you.

Hello, Doug Hopper with ACE in support. Thank you.

Good morning to Sheena Garrett, ACE, Antioch. I'm for it.

Eddie Guns with ACE in Antioch. And I support and also with the Black-owned Beauty Supply Association in support.

Good morning. Jason Yancey, New Economics for Women and I support.

Good morning. Tammy Dillard Moorjoy State worker. Yes, I used to have a tin.

Good morning, my name is Lakeisha and I'm with ACCE and I support.

Good morning, Kijani Edwards ACCE Oakland and I am in support.

Amy Schur, campaign Director with ACCE. Yes on ACA 10.

(Spanish)

Her name is Blanca Retano. She is a Member of ACCE in Richmond and she is here in support of ACA 10. Hi, everyone. My name is Edith Pastrano, community organizer, lead organizer in Contra Costa ACCE from Richmond as well, and also in support of ACA 10.

Good morning, I'm Yolanda Flores from the organization of ACCE, also from Richmond and I am in support.

(Spanish)

Her name is Wilma Navarette from Richmond, also with ACCE. And she supports ACA 10.

Giovanna Pahardo with ACCE, also in support.

Ari Breakstone with Golden State opportunity, firm support.

Duke Cooney with ACLU Cal action on behalf of Disability Rights Coalition in support. Thank you.

(Spanish)

His name is Walter Sanchez, also with Ace, also in full support.

Raul Vasquez, organizer with ACCE and strong support.

Miller Saltzman, on behalf of Power, CA action and strong support of ACA 10. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members Dante Golden, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Federation, in strong support. Thank you.

Stephen Ramos, on behalf of Public Advocates, in support.

Madam Chair and Members Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as Housing as a Human Right Division in strong support, thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Reinvestment Coalition, the National Housing Law Project and the Public Interest Law Project. In support.

Good morning, chair and Members Tina Rosales, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud co sponsors in support. And also on behalf of Leadership Council. In support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sigifredo Torres, Golden State Opportunity and Barrio Action from Los Angeles. And we support.

Good morning. Emily Up from Golden State Opportunity and Barrio Action from Los Angeles and we support.

Good morning, everyone. Janet Hernandez with Dreams for Change, San Diego, in support of ACA 10.

Good morning, everyone. Melvin Willis with Richmond ACCE Contra Costa, and also speaking as an individual Member of the Richmond City Council District One. And I'm in strong support.

Hello, good morning. Teresa Smith with Dreams for Change in San Diego and we're in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Anya Svanoe with ACCE in support.

Good morning, everyone. Shaleeka Powell with End Poverty in California, in strong support of ACA 10.

Greg Kaufmann End Poverty in California. Huge support. Greetings everyone.

Akil Bell with a Golden State Opportunity, Black Women for Wellness, and we're in full support.

Good morning. Thank you. Amina Merritt, Staff Attorney, Housing and Economic Rights Advocates and Member of the Sacramento Area Black Caucus and the Allen Chapel Ama Church in Del Paso. In support.

(Spanish)

His name is Jose Flores, with ACCE and also in support.

Hi, my name is Robert Copeland, Member of Sacramento chapter of ACCE and Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee. Strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we will bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Ward.

Thank you. I want to thank the author and the sponsors for bringing this measure forward. We've seen cities across our state start to tackle this very same question and really set the bar clearly about what our priorities are. And I think that's what they would achieve by enshrining this in the Constitution as well. It's a goal that we all share, certainly a goal that we work towards through the policy that we work on, through the budget that we pass, that we've prioritized and we've increased.

I want to make sure if and as this moves forward, that we are really clear and careful on the language. I want to just kind of vet maybe a few observations and kind of see how this might actually play out. Should this be adopted by the voters in a part of the Constitution? What could some of the consequences be for state and local government? It says here that it's a shared responsibility, but that's vague, right?

How do state and local governments are they going to point fingers at each other right when the rubber meets the road? And whose responsibility is it? What proportion of it is shared? Something to maybe kind of think about because I just wouldn't want something to implement. What I don't want is something to implement that actually isn't going to make a difference out there in the community and actually build the housing.

And so to be a little bit more clear and direct about what our expectations are, and I think it's been through the background and through conversations on this proposal, we've heard that this is goal setting, a very important goal, and that we would be working to implement this to all extents feasible. And then if the resources weren't available or something right.

What I would like to see is I actually would like to see funding attached to this, something like we did with the Bring California Home Act last session with AB 71. So that we are putting a little bit more behind that. The ACA right now uses the language that it would be our shared responsibility to be able to facilitate and support housing resources, to use the maximum available resources that gets into a budget deliberation. Right?

The maximum available resources this year is somewhere, give or take around $300 billion. Take away our other constitutional requirements under Prop 98 and other areas, things might be a little bit more limited, but then we're also trading off with some of our other budget priorities. Are we going to be able to Fund additional health care support? Are we going to be able to Fund transit? Are we going to be able to Fund these other things that also the state needs to be able to work on.

And this is the part of the Constitution as it's written, would that hamstring the Legislature from trying to sort of adjust those priorities year over year as things elevate or sort of fall in their priority level.

So just some open ended things that I would invite the author to really and the sponsors to continue to work on to make sure that this is both purposeful, that we are actually able to implement the goals and the vision that are here, and that we're not sending to the voters something that is a good goal but might not actually make a difference in the long run. We're working on making that difference through our budget and our policy work right now, and we're holding cities accountable.

I want to, again, commend the Attorney General for their work on using existing state mandated documents and holding them accountable to meet the goals of those documents. Right. And they are responding, they're stepping up, they're doing better planning and they're doing their best. So I guess I just wonder if you have some kind of open ended thoughts about how this might implement and how it could be real.

Sure. Well, I will give my thoughts on some of those questions, which I think are very important in some of the questions that I had initially when I worked with the sponsors and we decided to bring this forward and then I'll turn it over to Ms. Rogers as well for some of the technical aspects of that.

One is, I think if we do believe that this is a fundamental right, codifying it in our Constitution and giving the opportunity for citizens to do that is the strongest possible way that we can communicate that and elevate it as a priority and extend that elevation to elected officials at every level. Again, I recognize it is very different, but we just this past year did this as it related to abortion and contraception.

Some of what that means in practice is up to interpretation by the courts and by legislatures and local governments in terms of how they interact with that as a proactive and positive right. But it also, as you said, it has real consequences and will have real consequences for both accountability and scrutiny around decisions that governments make, whether that's local government or state government.

So if there is a right to housing and citizens have codified that in our constitution, when the Attorney General brings enforcement actions as it relates to laws that we've already passed, it adds a heightened level of power that come from a codified right within our Constitution that doesn't exist now and could even lead to accountability actions by the Attorney General or others that relate specifically to whether local governments or state government is moving forward, actualizing this right.

Again, a lot of that would need to be interpreted by the courts in terms of what is possible and what would rise to the level of violating this right. The other thing would be it adds a level of scrutiny.

So if a government of any level were to pass a law that really egregiously violated this right, for example, if they banned affordable housing within their area or multifamily housing or completely made it impossible to build new housing, this would be elevated in that consideration of whether that violated other laws or even this right itself. So I think some of it will be through a larger interaction of the courts and the Legislature.

But what this does is it elevates it as a priority and also adds a level of scrutiny and accountability on behalf of Citizens for actions that government takes.

Definitely see that benefit there. Ms. Rogers, good to see you didn't know if you had any additional technical support.

Yeah, and it's a great question, and one that all of our co sponsors have thought a lot about when choosing the language. And every term within the ACA was chosen based on a rich body of human rights law. And so every single term in the Bill is well defined and largely constitutional amendments are broadly worded so that we don't hamstring the Legislature. There's flexibility in terms of how to enforce it. And we have a number of rights.

These are the most important values we hold, and this is a codification of those values. And so by enshrining the human right to housing in our Constitution, it's essentially codifying the value that the human right to housing is worthy of legal protection. It also lights a fire under the state and local government to actualize that right. But there's not one way to do that. And all of the terms this is both a positive right and a negative right.

Negative rights are what the government cannot do, and a positive right is what the government must do. And so the term respect in there is well defined in international human rights law, and basically, the government itself cannot violate the right. So blocking affordable housing at the local level would be an example of that. In the human rights context, forced eviction without due process would be the most egregious violation of the human right to housing.

Things like that would be an example of how the government itself could violate the right. The protect and fulfill are a positive right, and that's the government must protect our right to housing from third parties. So corporate real estate interests or corporate landlords from exploitative practices there. So the government can protect our right by, for example, passing renter protections, right to counsel and eviction proceedings, things like that. But again, there's flexibility in how the government does that.

So at the state and the local level, the government can choose the methods it prefers to meet its own community needs. In terms of the fulfill prong, that's where the rubber meets the road. In terms of the affirmative budgetary allocations and policies that the government implements to fulfill the right. And again, there's a lot of options. They can be market based options. They can also be serious investments in affordable housing, which is what I think our sponsors feel that we need.

Also, again, renter protections and social housing. So there's any suite of policy choices that the Legislature chooses. Our intention is for this to be primarily implemented through the Legislature. So the power to create laws remains exactly where it is. This is policy making and regulatory framework. There is, of course, where there's a right, there is an enforcement mechanism, of course, but that only comes into play if the right is violated. And so, again, it's both a positive and a negative right.

And so the government has an obligation to fulfill the right and show how they're doing that. The progressive realization is also well defined that recognizes the right will not be fulfilled overnight. It's progressive. We know that we don't have currently all of the resources to adequately house everyone tomorrow, but the government does have to show a plan and be held accountable to that plan to get there. And with that, there's a lot more I could say on that. But I do want to open it up to our.

Really clear responses, and I think that actually helps to give me even more assurance about the goals and the intent of this, which are laudable and important. As, again, if and as this moves forward, I'm recognizing when the Governor vetoed a similar Bill a couple of years ago, he had sort of back at the envelope pegged that we would need about $10 billion annually to really fully catch up with our disinvestment in housing. And I agree with that.

We know a report from the Corporation of Supportive Housing issued last December pegged it at about $8 billion a year for the next 12 years to be able to make up that deficit that we need for supportive housing services. So the money is needed.

And as you're moving forward on something that is going to require two thirds of a vote of both houses either way, without jeopardizing the goals of this as written right now, is there a way to further improve upon our housing outcomes through this vehicle as well? Invite you to consider that as if and as this moves forward. Happy to move the measure today, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ward. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Gabriel? And Mr. Gabriel wants to go, and then we'll do Mr. Patterson.

So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the author and trying to navigate this here because I don't want to be the skunk at the garden party, particularly because of my admiration for the author, who I think has been an incredible champion on this and such an important voice on housing and also the respect for all the organizations that are supporting Know. Of course, housing is a fundamental right and frankly, the status quo is shameful.

And I don't think there's a single person at this dais that wouldn't say that the status quo right now that we have in the State of California is absolutely unacceptable. And the way that you are trying to elevate that. And I particularly want to compliment you for identifying that housing, the lack of housing, is at the root of so many of the challenges we face here in the State of California.

And that has been impressed upon me in the few short years that I've spent here in the Legislature. As we look at all these public policy challenges, so many of them inevitably trace their way back to our housing crisis. So by elevating this, by focus on it, by really shining a light on and elevating the fact that this is a fundamental human right, I think is really laudable. The major, major Harper I'm having right now is around the enforcement and implementation of this.

And I think it is maybe consistent with what some of Assembly Member Ward said. My best guess as an attorney about how this works itself out is that it takes all resource allocation decisions away from the Legislature and ultimately puts them in the hands of the courts.

And I could imagine a scenario, and I was just thinking about it last night and today, day one, after this is passed, if it's passed, somebody will bring a lawsuit challenging CEQA, and they will say it is uncontroverted that CEQA increases the cost to build housing. I think there's a lot of evidence of that. The Legislature has made a policy choice there, but the voters have made a different policy choice, which is that housing comes first, and you can invalidate CQUI.

I'd imagine the same thing is true of labor standards, right? A lot of us in this room want to support the workers who build that housing, but there are folks who could come in and say, well, that has made housing more expensive. And so we as judges, unelected judges, are going to decide that we're going to strike down all of California's labor standards. I could imagine the same thing even with Prop 98 funding. Somebody might say, well, the voters passed Proposition 98 a while back.

They've subsequently passed this. They're telling us the voters are the ultimate decision makers here. This is a fundamental constitutional right. We as judges are deciding that Proposition 98 is going to go from 40% to 20% and decide that that 20 additional 20% should be put into housing. You could make a case to invalidate funding for UC, for CSU.

We could imagine a situation in which we approve a contract for state workers to increase their pay, and somebody could immediately bring a lawsuit and say, well, that's a policy choice the Legislature has made. But the voters have said that housing is a fundamental right. And so we as a court are going to invalidate that increase in funding for a contract for state workers, clean energy investment, funding for nonprofit legal services, health care, protecting our undocumented communities.

Because of the language of this, I see a basis for any person in the State of California to challenge any law, any resource allocation decision made by the Legislature and frankly, any decision by a local government. You could imagine a situation where a local government decides that it's going to zone something for single family housing or market rate housing and somebody could come and say, no, we need more affordable housing. And so does that then become subject to litigation?

Does this foreclose any possibility of single payer health care? Because the voters have said in the state constitution that housing is paramount and all of the resources have to go there. I'll tell you, part of what is driving my anxiety here is sort of randomly in law school, I took a class where we did a look at the South African constitution and they put an affirmative right. We didn't call it a positive right. We call it an affirmative right to housing in the South African constitution.

And it ended up becoming a disaster. It was an unmitigated disaster and by all accounts tremendously exacerbated South Africa's housing crisis because courts, unelected judges who aren't able to consider all of the various policy trade offs that we as legislators have to make, made decisions, know, courts receive information in very different ways. There's limitations on who can participate in the public process in a very different way, made decisions that dramatically exacerbated the housing crisis in South Africa.

And so even though it was tremendously well intentioned as this is, and I know where all of you are coming from, and I couldn't support the intent of this any more. I mean, it is a beautiful and important thing. But as I read this, an attorney, you know, progressively achieve well, how quickly is that? A judge in Orange County and a judge in San Francisco might disagree very strongly on that. Appropriate resources, what does that mean to be appropriate?

Any Member of the public could come forward and say the Legislature allocated X for housing and they allocated Y for education. X is not appropriate. And so we're going to sue the Legislature or any local government because those are not appropriate. Shared. Shared is a very vague term. What responsibility? So I would love to see this go in a direction of a tool that we could use when there are recalcitrant local governments because that is absolutely an issue and we have seen that.

And I applaud the work that the Governor and the Attorney General have done in that space to go after those folks. But I'm having tremendous heartburn right now because I think what this fundamentally does is makes every resource allocation decision, every budget that we pass, every law that we pass, where we consider trade offs, every decision that every local government passes in the State of California subject to litigation and subject to judicial review. So I'd love your thoughts on the enforcement piece of it.

Again, incredible enthusiasm and support for what you're trying to accomplish. Tremendous heartburn for how this is currently drafted.

Well, let me, first of all, thank you for all of that and appreciate your frankness on the concerns around it. And I have tremendous respect for you as well. I will say that what you just laid out is a straw man if there ever was one, as it relates to this.

There is a very long track record and history of fundamental rights being recognized in our constitution, in the US. Constitution, and in the state constitution, either in our courts or explicitly, and none of those have been interpreted in a way that wipes away everything else or any other consideration or any authority for the Legislature.

The courts will balance our decisions within our responsibility, within the context of the people of California recognizing this as a fundamental right, and have to do a balancing around it on what is possible and which aspects of our decisions or local decisions rise to the level within other laws we've passed of violating this right. This was a similar argument, I think, that we heard some of a slippery slope around as it related to the right to access to abortion or contraception.

Some of this will be interpreted by the courts, but there's always a balancing and it allows for additional scrutiny and accountability, nothing more, that allow us to hold ourselves accountable to meeting this right. So I've never seen in any right that's been recognized either federally or in the state constitution for it to crowd out every single other decision that the Legislature or a local government makes.

Courts always have an element of balancing and they understand very well how to manage our codification of a right within decisions that we make as a Legislature or as a local government.

Sure, yeah. And I think these are great questions and I think we certainly welcome your thought partnership. And I know you've been a leader in terms of constitutional litigation at the Supreme Court level and at many different levels. And as you are aware in your practice, courts routinely weigh competing value sets. One example would be the right to property, which is also enshrined in our constitution right.

And so this would be saying that this is at least as important to us as the right to property and landowners we see, for example, in eviction proceedings, we do have the right to property. We also have the right to due process. Those two values are in conflict with one another right. And so we have to balance those. And that's what courts routinely do in terms of and as Assembly Member Haney said, reasonableness is sort of baked into that equation.

I have never seen a case where our courts would intervene in the ways that the South African courts have. I think about a case called groot boom in South Africa where the court actually there was a dismantling of an unhoused kind of shanty encampment, and the court had the police go in the middle of the night to actually rebuild that encampment. I've never seen our courts do that. It's a completely different legal system.

And I would point to other models around the world, like, for example, the Finnish model in Finland. There's a strong right to housing enshrined in the constitution, and that government has been successful at effectively ending and eradicating homelessness. And that was because it was paired with significant investments in housing first strategies. So a right in and of itself is not going to solve our housing crisis. As you know, rights stand for broad principles, and they're the most important principles we hold dear in our state.

But they need to be paired with investments. They need to be paired with statutory frameworks, regulatory frameworks. This is just the basis upon which we do all of that work. And in terms of the language, all of it is defined, like I said, in human rights law, and you mentioned the maximum of available resources. And that does not by any stretch, require us to bankrupt our economy, go into debt, or disinvest in other necessary resources.

Human rights frameworks recognize that all of our human rights are interconnected, whether that's the right to health, the right to education. And so what I would foresee is if there are governments that are refusing investments at all, that's I think, where the court would intervene and say, okay, county, you've invested 0.1% of your discretionary budget in affordable housing here. That's not the maximum available resources, but maximum available resources. Those are terms of art.

They're well defined in international human rights law, and they do not require unreasonable outcomes.

Madam Chairman. Yeah. I want to thank you. I guess just a thought provoking conversation in the spirit of all that, I guess, as you all know, and you know, Assembly Member, from your excellent legal education, the overwhelming majority of our constitutional rights are protections. They're things that the government cannot do to us. They are not affirmative constitutional obligations that impose upon the government the responsibility to do something. The government cannot violate your fourth amendment rights. The government cannot violate your due process rights.

There are limitations on what the government can do to you. They are not requirements of what the government must do. And so, again, because of that, I think where we get into and I think you're conceding this point is that ultimately it's going to be judges that have to make these decisions. I mean, I just you know, what what I'm struggling with is if we put, you know, we have these conversations in the budget, we have to make really tough choices, right?

We have to choose how much money do we want to put into housing and homelessness? And how much money do we want to put into health care for undocumented folks? That's a tough choice. Those are both important priorities. Those are both things that are worthy and deserving of resources. And we sit here and we have a lot of hearings and we take testimony from the public and we have public conversations among ourselves and private conversations among ourselves, and we ultimately settle on some amount.

There's nothing in the state constitution that I'm aware of that says that there's a requirement to provide health care for undocumented folks if we pass this. There's a requirement in the state constitution up to the maximum of available resources to provide money and housing for me. It's very clear that somebody could challenge funding for healthcare for undocumented folks by saying, the voters have spoken. They put in the constitution, priority number one is housing, and therefore any funding for healthcare for undocumented folks is unconstitutional.

And then ultimately that's going to be some I don't know how that's going to work. A judge in Orange County might say, well, my interpretation of a maximum available resources is X, and a judge in San Francisco might say it's Y. And ultimately, I don't know what does the California Supreme Court then ultimately make the final budgetary determination there? If I'm wrong in I mean, I'd invite you to use that analogy of healthcare for undocumented folks in a housing man.

How do you see that playing out? Again, maybe there's a way to write in some deference to the Legislature in here because I understand what you're trying to do. You got to push folks when they're not doing the right thing. We need to be pushed. Local governments need to be pushed.

I'm actually much more interested in because I think we do have some really recalcitrant jurisdictions, but I just don't see as a judge sitting here I mean, if I was a judge looking at this case, the voters have spoken. This is enshrined in our state constitution. Healthcare for undocumented folks is not. My hands are tied. There's nothing I can do. I have to overrule the Legislature and reallocate those resources. So I think these are all things that require incredibly delicate balancing.

The question is who's best positioned to do the balancing, the Legislature or an unelected judiciary? And I think from where I sit, both from public participation in the process means and also from balancing all of the incredibly challenging, difficult trade offs here. That's why people elect representatives and send them to Sacramento and to Washington, is to make those really complicated trade offs. So if you want to speak to that challenge but again, I don't see how we could ever fund healthcare for undocumented folks under this.

This well. So a few things around that. One is we're clear that this isn't just about funding. There's a lot of ways that we can meet this right in terms of how we're changing zoning laws, how we're making it possible for housing to be built. And nothing in this requires the government to build all of the housing or provide free housing for anyone. So it's about having a plan to be able to actualize this right in reasonable amount of time within reasonable resources.

It doesn't say that housing is more important than other recognized rights or more important than other recognized priorities of the Legislature. It says that housing is a human right, which I know in your comments you also started out acknowledging, and so this is acknowledging that housing is a human right because we believe that and we want our elected officials to understand that and our courts to understand that accordingly and analyze it with that in mind.

I would also say I'm not aware of any times when the courts forced the Legislature to reallocate funding away from one thing into another thing in a massive way. So I don't think that's generally the way that the courts in the state Supreme Court or California Supreme Court would interpret that, forcing money away from undocumented health care, I'm not aware of anything like that.

So I don't think that's generally the way that they analyze the question of rights, they balance it within the responsibility of the legislative and Executive branch, provide appropriate levels of scrutiny, ask for the Legislature and others to put forward plans to help to meet that right and judge it in the context of citizens codifying accordingly.

And I urge you to take a look at some of the decisions of Judge Carter and others who know the City of Los Angeles has to come into courtrooms and justify some of their budgetary. So there are examples of that really in recent history in Southern California. I think what I would encourage here, again, and let me take a big step back, what you all are trying to do here is God's work. It is beautiful and holy and important.

And I don't think there's a single person in this room who can't say that housing isn't a fundamental human right. And I applaud you because you have been such an important voice in this conversation. You have talked about that on your journey to Sacramento, you've talked about it here. And you are in a lot of ways a profit pushing us to do better, and we need to do a lot better.

And so the work that you're doing to push us all to do better is really important. But I think this could really benefit from some additional language that made it clear when and how judicial review would happen. When a court could overrule a budget of the Legislature, when the court could overrule a local lane use decision, by the way, I'd probably be comfortable with courts overruling a lot of local lane use decisions from some of these cities out there that just are part of the problem.

But there's got to be some more direction in here because I think right now and again, I love the references to international human rights law. I think there's a lot of judges in the State of California that say maybe that's like a third tier persuasive authority I'm going to look at. But I've got to look at other things here.

So I'm not actually sure that these terms are as well defined and are going to be as well universally understood by judges as you think they're so I would encourage you. As this moves forward, I think it could really benefit personally, my own personal opinion offered out of respect and love could really benefit for some thinking about how do we shape this and structure this so that it can be what we all want it to be.

A tool to hold recalcitrant folks accountable, a tool to push us to do harder, but not one that is going to say that every environmental regulation, every labor standard, every contract, every resource allocation decision is subject to judicial review because I can see that happening and I think that'd be a disaster.

May I ask a follow up? Just wanting to understand a little bit.

Madam, it's fine if I can't.

I want to keep the conversation moving forward if that's okay. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kind of entertaining. It would be fun to see a moot with the Judiciary Committee. Exactly. Haney and Gabriel, it's cool to see and look. I think concerns from our colleagues are well founded. They're coming from a place of love, no doubt about it. I do think that the slippery slopes are getting really slippery because the reality is that as mentioned, there is a constitutional right to property ownership and what have you.

And yet we still have environmental regulations and we still have other types of mechanisms to be imposed upon property owners even though that's a fundamental right because it's balanced with other aspects of living in a society, other aspects of public policy that may not even be rights but still can override a fundamental. That and knowing Senator Haney, I know he'll take all the comments to heart in terms of if there can be language that can in terms of delegating legislative authority, what have you.

I think those are reasonable things to continue to look into and figure out. But this is the first hearing we're having on this. And so ultimately you think about the fact that whether housing is a foundational or should be a foundational, right?

And when we're living in the fourth largest economy in the world and we can't provide a basic right of housing to folks year after year after year, it seems like we're falling more and more behind, oftentimes because of the fact that local jurisdictions either don't see the issue of housing as a crisis or maybe don't see it impacting them. And so we'll just push that issue off to other jurisdictions, other areas, as long as it doesn't bother them and folks in their jurisdiction.

Being in San Jose, we see it in Santa Clara County all the time with these smaller jurisdictions, some of whom have even said, whose mayors have said, we're going to build a wall around our city and make San Jose pay for it. That's the kind of rhetoric we're hearing from folks that are refusing to build any kind of housing.

And so if this not only can level set us in terms of our compassion in a foundational sense, but on top of that, push some jurisdictions to say, look, this is something that you can't just ignore, but it's actually a right that you need to account for.

And if it can help in terms of streamlining help, in terms of help our Attorney General when our Attorney General is challenging the jurisdictions for doing nothing on housing, I think that's what excites me about the opportunity of this legislation. And I know, knowing the author and the sponsors, that they'll be continued to work on it.

In terms of some of the issues raised, I think judicial discretion interpretation is an issue with everything we pass in the Legislature understanding that not everything we pass is a right. But that being said, we always have to subject ourselves to what the possibilities are of what a judge could do or what a Supreme Court could do. But ultimately, I think it falls on us to make the determination as to how serious of an issue this is.

I know all of us up here, regardless of how we feel about this particular measure, know how serious of an issue our housing crisis is. So I'm happy to support it, like to be added on as a co author, and happy to help work on some of the issues that have been raised today as well. And we'll move the Bill.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I concur with my colleagues here, although there's varying points of view, and I think that it's a privilege to be here and see these really smart minds debate some of these issues because all too often, whether it's local government or state, we're just moving policies forward. And here we have been indulged with some time to really hear each other out in a respectful manner.

So, number one, I'm really happy to be part of this conversation, but I think one of the things that is different is there have been other attempts on this particular piece of legislation or this goal.

And one of the things I think that I'm hearing my colleagues is saying is, and I too, support this is we want to make sure that if it gets all the way to the Governor, that it is not only signed, but the next part of legislation is how do we implement it? How can we move forward with the goal? And the goal is to create housing for as many people as possible. I'll just switch on to my education hat as a teacher for 30 years.

We have goals in the classroom every year. And those goals are every student will read by third grade or every student will master certain concepts or standards. And those are the goals. And we always have to be clear about the goals and how to attain them. And yet we know that we don't always achieve that, but yet we have to be bold and we have to be intentional about the goals we set. There's three basic needs for humans. You all know them. What are they?

Food, water, and shelter. And when we are falling short by thousands of units a year, then we have to be intentional and clear about it. And our Constitution is a place to place this goal. It doesn't mean we're going to get there rapidly. We have seen that we are just making slow, and I wouldn't even say steady progress. We are barely building, and we have to do better.

So this may be a multigenerational goal that some of us won't even have the opportunity to see come to fruition because of our age. But the point is that housing Californians should not be a partisan issue. And by the way, it isn't partisan. Homelessness affects Democrats, Republicans, Latinos. Every culture out there. And it's a goal that we should simply enshrine in our Constitution. And by the way, it's an ACA. So our voters will be voting on this with that.

I support this, but would ask you to listen to our colleagues here because I know there is some tightening up of language that may make it a little bit more feasible for other people to support.

Ms. Carillo, and then Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and really appreciate the conversation around the policy this morning in budget sub four, when we've been discussing issues related to homeownership, first time buyer programs, all the investments in housing and homelessness. One piece of conversation that we have had, and I think it's not in particular to the ACA now, but I think a larger conversation just simply on land is foreign investment. And who's buying land in California? Who's buying homes in California?

The Californians can't actually buy anymore, and these homes remain vacant across the state. I have found it really interesting to dive deeper into the issue in terms of when foreign investment comes into our state and they're buying homes, they're not buying homes, they're buying land.

And they're buying land in California, which is making it more and more, much harder for families across our state to be able to purchase, have the California dream of home ownership, or even have an opportunity to have affordable housing and affordable rent. That's a larger conversation that some of us have been thinking about and what that looks like when you go to another country, when you go to Mexico and you go to the coastal areas in Mexico.

Mexico has passed policies that says only Mexican citizens can buy coastal property so that foreign investors don't come in and buy all the beautiful beachside property along the coast of Mexico. I share that as an example because, again, it is becoming harder and harder to be a homeowner in the State of California because of the massive foreign investment that we have on purchasing land.

That is part of a larger conversation on housing that we should probably at some point think about and consider as we look to making housing a human right in the state. So just wanted to put that out there as just something for us to think about long term. But I also wanted to say just thank you to all the advocates that have come up and a special recognition.

And thank you to Barrio Action from my district in El Cereno for coming up all the way from Los Angeles to come up here and advocate in Sacramento. And I really appreciate the young woman who was doing the interpretation for the Spanish speakers as well. We are doing a lot of work in our state budget as well to ensure that we have access to interpretation and translation so that the people's house continues to be a place where everyone feels welcomed.

So thank you much as gracias alas personasa Del pueblo parapoza Las familia. So I just want to thank all the advocates for doing the work necessary and for ensuring that all the voices of the people of the state are included. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the author.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you. I appreciate the work that my friend and colleague from San Francisco works on when it comes to housing. He has a problem in his district and we have a problem statewide. And you're trying to address it. And I know you're working on this on all sorts of fronts. A lot of what we do in this Committee is we try to loosen some of the screws that the state and local government put on people being able to attain housing in this state.

I'm not a lawyer, unlike so many of my colleagues up her; I'm a policymaker. And I think people who've been watching this Committee can attest to the fact that I'm very supportive of Democratic and Republican efforts alike to promote policies that get to the result of us having more housing. Sometimes internally, within my own caucus, we joke a little bit about me voting on some of the measures.

But to figure out how this would play out in the courts, I want to use some examples of what has already been said in various articles, including in this Committee. And one of the things you said was something the courts and the Legislature will figure out. I mean, that statement alone kind of scares me about where this is going.

In an article about this Bill, it said the constitutional amendment would require the government to regulate this was actually an opinion piece by somebody that works with the Governor, would require the government to regulate third party profiteers, which could mean rent control and a right to counsel in eviction proceedings.

I think the thing is, we can make debate whether or not any of those policies are good or bad, but that determination will eventually be made by the courts that we have to have rent control in a particular city because rents are so expensive there, or whatever it may be. And then another statement was made, but it would require the government to raise as many resources as possible for housing without undermining the long term viability of the economy.

I'm not sure where that actually says that in this Bill that there's any concern about the viability of the economy. I know you're concerned about that, of course, but the support statement for this, that doesn't say that in the Bill. So what concerns me overall is that the language doesn't really say anything. And I understand that the statement that you made was that every word is well defined human rights law and international law.

And I don't think we've really considered those in this body on a regular basis what that means to things in our courts. Applying international law more broadly than maybe is already done. So I just want to say, in conclusion, that I do take my role as a policymaker very seriously in making sure that people have access to housing. I think the state, over time, we're fixing it, and local governments haven't done a great job at doing that, which I think has contributed to homelessness.

But I am really scared about how many judges do we have in California. Maybe one of the lawyers know a lot, but I'm worried about one of them or two of them or 10 of them or 20 of them making public policy across the board. I actually appreciated the arguments that you made and my colleague on the Committee made about we do have competing interests and competing rights in our Constitution and within statute.

And it doesn't mean that I actually hadn't considered that point by making it a fundamental point or a fundamental right. Doesn't mean everything else goes out. I actually appreciated that argument, but I'm still concerned about the hundreds of judges we have in California having different ideas about what this you know, Mr. Gabriel highlighted some of those concerns, and obviously, if you want to respond to this, you can. It's more just a tirade from me. I appreciate your work, but I'm trying to justify why I'm going to vote no on this.

Why don't I let you respond in your close? Okay.

I think we've actually heard from everyone on the committee, right? Okay. And, oh, Ms. Sanders, did you want to add? Okay. And we have a motion in a second, correct? Yes. Okay. So with that, Mr. Haney, would you like to close and try to address some of that?

Sure.

I appreciate all of the comments and feedback and ideas, and certainly we'll take all that. I do want to say that especially appreciate some of the ways in which we could potentially clarify this further and some of the potential unintended consequences and way that we can really dig in a bit more on the language. And I want to thank Ms. Pleasant and everyone who came here today and all of the supporters.

I do want to say that the concept of codifying a right, whether that's in the US. Constitution, our state constitution, is something that is actually very familiar to our courts. They know how to consider that within policy making, we have a right to property, as has been said, that has not led to broad policy making from the courts as it relates to property. They know how to interpret that and they would take a similar approach as it relates to housing.

I do think, as we've all said, right now, our state is failing to actualize this right at every level. The level of homelessness, the level of lack of building to meet the needs. This is about ensuring that the citizens of California can put a measure for accountability so that we can actually deliver. This is them expressing their voice and holding us accountable to move this forward. And that would be something that, again, courts are very well in understanding how to interpret a right like that.

So with that, really appreciate the opportunity, Madam Chair, and your staff, to bring this forward. We know we have more work to do both on this and in our state to really make sure that everyone in our state has access to housing. And with that, respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Mr. Haney. And I want to thank our colleagues for the robust conversation. I didn't go to law school either. But I felt like I just got. A glimpse into it. I also want to thank Ms. Peggy Pleasant for your testimony. Centering this conversation around your lived experience, I think, is critical because I think often we can sit up here in Sacramento and be detached from the realities of the work that we're doing. And your voice, I think, centers the conversation for us in a really important way. So thank you for being here and for testifying. I also want to thank all the activists that came up from around the state.

I heard a lot of folks from Richmond, my district, so appreciate your all's testimony and your continued commitment to this issue. I know that that commitment comes from lived experience for many of you. So thank you for being here in Sacramento today. I also want to thank the author for his continued advocacy push tenacity drive on housing. He's been a great partner since he's been elected here in the Legislature to continue to hold us accountable and hold our feet to the fire.

So your voice, Mr. Haney, is critical with this, and I do agree with the ambitious goals that we're trying to set forth here. As anyone knows, the work that I've been doing since I've been here, it's about ensuring that we build the housing that we need. I know that California has one of the worst housing problems in the nation.

I know that we have a majority of our folks experiencing housing insecurity and worried about how they're going to pay rent and making trade offs around. Do I buy my medication this month or pay my rent? I know that we have a majority of Californians that are one $700 emergency away from experiencing homelessness. I know that we have the lowest homeownership rates in the nation.

I know that we have these challenges and the status quo is not acceptable, which is why I've been dogged as the chair of the Committee, to do everything we can, along with my colleagues here on this Committee, to ensure that we're doing the streamlining work and creating a better policy environment so that we can build the housing that we need. I also know that a lot of that, or some of that rather, is out of the control of the government.

When we have high interest rates, when we have supply chain issues, when we have some of these challenges, we can do everything we can, but some of it's beyond our control. But we have to do everything we can as government to ensure that the experience that you had is not replicated. And that is what I know. Our mission is our collective mission.

I would ask the author to work with Mr. Gabriel on some of the concerns that he raised, because I think that he's raising valid concerns. And I think the trick for us always in the legislative process is to do the big things that we want to do without creating some of the negative, unintended consequences, and we have to be mindful of that. So that is my ask, and I know Mr. Haney will commit to that because he's a strong author.

So I look forward to those conversations and thinking through some of the remedies, maybe of some of the concerns that were raised. I also share a major concern about the lack of funding for affordable housing in California. It is problematic. We are running out of funds in many of our programs. I know our Chair of Budget Sub Four here shares this concern. They say your budget are your values. And in California, if you look at our budget, we don't have considerable ongoing funding for affordable housing.

We have to fight for it every single year. And so that is an issue that I care a lot about. And so ensuring that if we put something like this forward. We're thinking about the funding that goes with it so that we can get the housing that we need. And I have a bond that will hopefully be on the ballot just to put a little plug in for that $10 billion for affordable housing. With all of that, I'm going to support the measure moving forward today.

And should it move forward, which I believe that it will, ask that you carry on with the conversations that we're having and address some of those concerns. I do think it's laudable to have these types of ambitious goals and to hold ourselves accountable. And with that, the motion is to be adopted and re referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Patterson? No. Patterson, no. Carillo? Aye. Carillo, aye. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.

That Bill is out six to two.

Thank you.

Senator Padilla. This is what happens in the Housing Committee and the Assembly. Yeah.

Brings back the law student in me.

It was really moot.

Court. I love it.

Exactly. Do you want to give us 1 second?

Yes, ma'am.

Absolutely.

I'm fine. Hey, how are you? Good to see you.

You got it?

Okay. With that, Senator Padilla, you are presenting SB 713. The floor is finally yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. It's certainly an honor to be among you this morning and a fantastic conversation. It's my honor to present SB 713. A little bit simpler than your last conversation.

It simply codifies in statute consistent with existing judicial review and a technical memorandum provided by the Department with respect to the state's Density Bonus Law, that development standards definition in the statute should include standards that are identified as not being allowed to have the effect of precluding the application of the Density Bonus Law, or precluding the development of affordable housing will include local ordinances that are put in place through popular plebiscite.

In other words, voter initiatives in the local level will be included specifically and articulated in statute as being part of development standards that cannot contravene the bonus law or the policy intent behind it, so this simply clarifies that in statute, on its face, it's always better to have the plain meaning of the statute clear. It's consistent with the technical memorandum, and with me today is Dante Golden with the San Diego Housing Federation, and I thank the Committee.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Dante Golden. Our organization represents the affordable housing sector in San Diego County, as well as 75 organizational members across the state. We are a proud sponsor of SB 713. This bill is a common sense statutory update to state Density Bonus Law that clarifies that a local government may not apply any development standard that precludes a project seeking a density bonus, even if that standard is adopted by the electorate through a local initiative or referendum power.

This legislation is consistent with laws governing state preemption, provides greater certainty to developers considering projects utilizing the state incentive program, and is why the coalition supporting this bill is made up of affordable housing members, mark rate developers, and pro-housing advocates.

Furthermore, the precarious capital stacks that affordable housing developers have to construct to finance a project, coupled with the delays, ambiguity, and confusion that currently exists in law when there is a conflict between a voter-approved initiative and state Density Bonus Law only goes to drive up costs for our members and could lead to a loss of funding from any one of our capital funding sources.

Without SB 713, proposed developments will likely not move forward due to the lack of clarity in the law, so we are a proud sponsor, and I hope you will vote this through.

Thank you. Additional folks want to register support for the bill?

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support, and with that, I think I hit every bill today.

Good job. Good job, Mark.

Madam Chair and Members, Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy on behalf of California Life Sciences, here in support of the bill. Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Members. Patrick Bouteller on behalf of IQHQ in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional witnesses in the room in opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion by Mr. Gabriel, a second by Mr. Kalra, and Mr. Patterson.

Yeah, I just want to say a quick statement. You know, we've passed a lot of legislation here and over the years that say, you know, 'hey, we're clarifying this' because what I've saw on the local government level is despite laws that are overwhelming in favor in some areas of the development community, whether it's Density Bonus or whatnot, oftentimes developers are still concerned with using said laws and they'll go through the discretionary review anyways.

Or--I almost feel like we need something that says, if we're clarifying something that says, 'no, cities shall allow this to be the case' because if we're going to pass laws to give this certain flexibility to them, they ought to use it. So that's just a general statement on this, but in terms, I like this, I hope people take advantage of it, and looking forward to supporting it.

Thank you. Any other questions? And you can address that in your close if you'd like, and if you'd like to close.

Just briefly, Madam Chair, I would just say, as was articulated by my lead witness, that a lack of ambiguity helps with reducing incremental costs, delays, and opportunities for litigation and thus reduces the things that can get in the way in the actual production of affordable housing, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Happy to support the bill today. I'm a big supporter of density bonus. I know it's been an effective tool. Also want to ensure that we're removing as many barriers as we can to building the housing that we need, so I'm happy to support the bill today, would love to be added on as a coauthor as well, and with that, the motion is 'do pass to the Assembly Committee on Local Government.'

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

That bill is out seven to zero.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Members. Thank you all.

And we will do add ons now?

Yes, please.

Okay.

AJR 3. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel, aye. That is eight to zero.

That's out eight to zero.

Item Number Three: SB 341. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye.

Eight to zero.

Item Number Four: SB 469. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye.

Eight to zero.

And Item Number Five, we're all done.

Great, and we are meeting adjourned. Good job, team.