Senate Standing Committee on Housing

I think we have a quorum. No, no, not yet. All right, well, we're one short of quorum, so. Can't establish quorum yet. Ah, we do have a quorum. Okay, let's establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right, so we've now established a quorum, and we'll go with the. We have a number of Members here to present who have bills, but we'll go in the order that the measures are listed. So we'll start with item three, SB 1438. Senator Niello, so you can come to the. Whatever that's called. Podium. Yes, you can come to the podium. I did say that. Go ahead, Senator Niello.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here today to present SB 1438, a Bill which will provide clarity on how recovery housing can work in conjunction with housing first. In simpler terms, this is a Bill about providing self sufficiency options, which I believe is a key ingredient in helping people successfully get out of homelessness.

Specifically, SB 1438 will help ensure recovery residence models are eligible for funding by clarifying in state housing law that recovery housing is in fact, allowed under the state's first Housing First model. The language contained in this Bill is consistent with the guidance provided by the US Housing and Urban Development Agency, otherwise known as HUD. And it's my understanding that the language contained in SB 1438 was even collaborated on by some housing first advocates.

HUD's guidance for recovery housing or sober living environment options are to help people have effective housing and services for those with substance abuse disorders. This does not mean Housing First is not in play, but rather gives individuals a choice. Some individuals pursuing recovery from addiction want a choice for an abstinence free, focused residential or housing program where they can be supported by those who are also focused on recovery from addiction.

To be clear, this does not dismantle Housing First, because if a person chooses an abstinence focused or sober living program and relapses, the Bill dictates it cannot be an automatic cause for eviction or termination, returning them to the streets. Current funding for a program with an abstinence focus is typically limited to persons exiting incarceration, where a substance free environment is required to meet post release orders.

But there are many individuals who may voluntarily wish to choose to live in a drug free housing model and yet are not allowed to select this option. This is particularly difficult for parents who are denied this choice and are seeking a drug free home for family reunification purposes. This approach puts countless families at risk and potentially pushes children into foster home situations rather than staying with their parents while they seek treatment or are in early recovery after completing treatment for addiction.

The clarification of eligibility provided in SB 1438 will help recovery residences access this funding. The measure also includes valuable safeguards, including state oversight, and states that if a recovery residence participant no longer chooses to participate in drug free living, that person is not penalized or returned to homelessness. Expanding clarity on the option of programs that work to help people, and especially parents, become self sufficient by addressing their addiction issues, get them the services they need and set them on a path to stability.

Now, a point that I've mentioned a few times so far is self sufficiency. You see, in discussions that we've had about homelessness since I've been back here in the Legislature now for a year, I've rarely heard the term self sufficiency. I hear shelter, housing, supportive housing, but rarely self sufficiency. My experience with social service programs, dating back over 20 years when I was on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, is that the goal of social service programs is getting people to self sufficiency.

That is what our goal should be with homelessness, not a roof over their head, not supportive housing, though those are worthy and in fact, indeed necessary steps in a progression. But the progression must lead to self sufficiency, and self sufficiency is quite simply not possible. Not possible if a person is still dependent upon drugs or has untreated mental illness, we must be guided by encouraging and more liberally allowing the moving of unhoused addicts and mentally troubled people toward treatment.

This proposal is just one way to at least allow choice to those who need a distraction free option toward their desire to achieve self sufficiency. Today, the Bill sponsor is with me, Sherry Daley from California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, as well as Lori Newman, who runs recovery residences in the Merced area for women and children.

Thank you. Senator. Am I okay?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and Member Sherry Daley with California.

I don't think that mic's on.

I didn't think so.

Excuse me.

Yeah, better? Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable chair and Members. Sherry Daley with the California Consortium of Addiction programs and professionals representing over 20,000 addiction counselors, more than 100 treatment programs, 350 recovery residences, and thousands of people in recovery throughout our state.

Although I typically testify in Committee about the amazing benefits that my industry and profession bring to California and reducing the devastating effects of addiction in our state, I unfortunately find myself here this afternoon defending the work we do and the amazing contributions that people in recovery make in our state.

Given the somewhat incomplete analysis you have been provided and the disparaging comments made about recovery residents housing put forth by the opposition, I will use my time today to give you a more complete picture with which to assist you to make your decision. The analysis and opposition put forth that there is no standardization or oversight of recovery residences. This statement leaves out important facts.

There are national standards for this housing type, as evidenced by the best practices model for recovery housing that was just put out by SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. There are national standards supported by a robust field of knowledge that are used in dozens of states, including California, and the recent adoption of recovery housing in the American Society of Addiction Medicines ASAM criteria, fourth edition that was just published this winter for the first time, includes recovery housing.

These documents and published standards rely on decades of academic study. Simply put, if the nation's top doctors in addiction medicine have enshrined recovery housing in their continuum of care, this resource is obviously much more than homes with deplorable living conditions as advanced by the opposition. The analysis also points out that recovery residents are not regulated. This is true. They are not regulated because they are housing, just like the housing provided under the Housing First umbrella.

That is not to say that this housing type cannot meet standards or abide by contracts, just as other providers do. These homes have to abide by the exact same rules as current providers. Currently, people leaving incarceration environments are allowed to participate in recovering housing under the program. Obviously, the Interagency Council on Homeless already has means of ensuring that all of the rules are followed. Additionally, many counties have begun to use some of their very limited block funding to pay for recovery housing.

They've been able to create compliance to standards through contract obligations, thus proving that this resource can be adequately overseen by a funding entity. Finally, I would like to close with a brief comment on the effectiveness of recovery housing. There is so much evidence to support the the effectiveness of this housing type that Harvard University has a clearinghouse dedicated to it.

The Recovery Research Institute, partnered by Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, has compiled literally hundreds of research papers and findings on the efficacy of this housing. I could use the rest of the hearing to go through their findings.

There's five minutes total. Perhaps if you want to give your other, you should wrap up.

Yes, I will wrap up anyhow, the ASAM criteria is created by the most advanced doctors, experts in the world, and they have standardized this type of housing. Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and Members Lori Newman here as the Executive Director of Community Social Model Advocates, Inc. Which operates licensed and certified residential treatment facilities and recovery resident facilities for women and women with children in Merced county who are at risk or are homeless. The properties for both treatment and recovery residence programs were deeded and transferred to the nonprofit corporation from the Federal Health and Human Service act under title V. I have a 29 year career and experience working with risk.

With at risk are homeless women and women with children who have been experiencing a substance use disorder. I'm here today to give a voice to those who need drug free options for housing. The best testimony I can give to ensure the Members of this Committee have enough information to make an informed decision is to tell Ashley's story. Ashley's story is common amongst those who are recovering from a substance use disorder.

Ashley was admitted to my program with three distinct diagnosis, substance use alcohol severe, a mental health diagnosis, depression, anxiety, moderate to severe and late stage cirrhosis of the liver, amongst other issues. Ashley arrived at our facility homeless, without her children and suffering from current traumatic events. Ashley stayed in treatment for 120 days and graduated. Her mental health stabilized and she was regularly seeing her primary care doctor and specialist for her liver.

During the discharge planning process, we determined Ashley lacked any financial resources and we need housing assistance to not be homeless post discharge. Additionally, Ashley was referred to outpatient services to continue her treatment for substance use disorder and mental health.

Sorry, you have about 30 seconds.

Sadly within six months, Ashley relapsed and here was what she said when I asked what happened? Lori when I left here last time, I was fully invested in my recovery and staying sober. I understood that if I drank again, I might die and never see my children again. I had coping skills and I had developed a social support system of sober friends and sponsor. I was hopeful for my future and I thought I could reunite with my children.

Unfortunately, the housing program I went to did not require anyone to stay clean and sober. I was constantly surrounded by people who drank and used. I tried to stay sober and did for about 30 days.

You could wrap up.

But being around other people who used, staying sober became impossible. She came back into the program for a second treatment episode and is now residing in a recovery residence. Doing well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mental health is stable.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

All right.

Any other witnesses in support?

Any other witnesses in support? All right, so we'll have the witness in opposition and the primary witnesses in opposition. Again, there's five minutes total for that. And then we'll add the me toos. So if you're sharing between each other, just.

We did oppose this Bill as proposed to be amended in our letters, but it was actually amended differently than we anticipated, so I'll speak to that in my testimony here. The stated purpose that you've heard for this Bill is not what the Bill would do, and the true impacts are very harmful. This Bill would endanger California's fidelity to housing first, return formerly unhoused people to the streets, and threaten funding for existing houselessness programs.

If SB 1438 was passed, it would make it so that all housing programs for the formerly unhoused or unstably housed could evict someone for the use of alcohol or drugs. If children are housed in the same location, a person could be evicted even if they are following all lease conditions and are not disruptive. Opposite to the bill's stated purpose, the language encourages landlords to return formally on housed people who use drugs or alcohol to the street.

This could be a case of relapse, which is a normal part of recovery, or for recreational use by singling out households where children are present. This language also invites blatant housing discrimination against protected class, not to mention how traumatic and disruptive evictions are for children.

Further, the vagueness of the terms use of substances and in the same location or children are housed in the same location could be interpreted to allow landlords in these housing programs to evict any person who had one glass of wine in their home if the housing unit was receiving state funding and is in the same building or complex as a child, this is not what our state should be doing to resolve our houselessness crisis.

Even though it was raised to the author's office that the language I just described applied to all housing placements funded by the State Houseless Dollars and had broad implications, the amendments to the Bill did not clarify this or remove it, which leaves us deeply concerned about the bill's intent to move on to the amendments that added new language.

SB 1438 would allow counties to take 25% of their limited state provided houselessness funds away from existing successful housing first programs and give them to organizations and companies running recovery housing or sober housing who are not applying or not using the g eneral principles, all of them as stated as housing first. The pool of state funding available for houseless programs is finite, and in this budget year, we know it is not growing.

Allowing part of that fixed amount to be siphoned off would necessarily force existing best practice programs to close during an acute crisis. The opposition shared information about the efficacy of recovery housing. It's not a question of what is effective to resolve addiction is a question of these are houseless dollars. It's a question of what is effective and has the proven State of track record to resolve houselessness. So we urge you. No vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. So you have about two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members Gregory Kramer. On behalf of Disability Rights California, and regretful opposition to this Bill, we'd like to align our comments with those of ACLU, and we'd just like to add that housing first is the gold standard for getting people housed and staying housed in the state. This Legislature has demonstrated serious concern about our neighbors on the street who are using substances. And the data shows that categorically the most effective approaches to end houselessness in California are housing first programs.

It's not so much a question of whether there is a potential kind of recovery housing that could be good for someone to live in. It's that sober living and recovery housing just don't have the same demonstrable outcomes of getting and keeping people off of the streets. And the state has no experience or capacity in overseeing these outcomes. We must prioritize our scarce state homelessness, funding resources for true housing first models with a proven track record of ending homelessness.

And while there are other coalitions, including the Western Center in Law and Poverty and the National Alliance in Homelessness, in opposition, they just asked for me to share their opposition as well. So, in conclusion, we just urge you to provide a no vote for this Bill. And with a no vote, you can protect children and families from being evicted to the streets, reaffirm your commitment to housing first, and safeguard our existing and effective houselessness programs from being defunded. Thank you.

Thank you. So now if there are any others in opposition who want to come and add on as me, too. All right. Seeing none, we'll turn to the dais. Comments or questions by colleagues? Yes, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. You know, Senator, I wouldn't. I'm not here to argue with the importance of every kind of solution we can bring to the table to address what we're seeing on our streets. You and I have been very passionate in addressing a lot of these behavioral health needs, substance use disorders and so forth. I agree with what your sponsors have shared regarding the need to really have a lot of these centers open.

My concern, and I might be putting my sub three sub chair hat on, is regarding the, our oversight over a lot of all over the programs that we as a state bring funding to. And I want to share that we already struggle with the oversight of programs that already received some of our funding in an array of different things.

Right now, even in my district, we're having adult centers, places where individuals with developmental disabilities are being taken care of, being abused, and it's been going on for years, and we help fund those entities and it takes us a while to investigate to know what's going on. So my big, big concern with this Bill is our lack of oversight over it.

I understand that it's been certified under ASAM and everyone with expertise under it, but if we don't have oversight under it, I'm wary as to why we would provide funding to an entity and let them roam free, whether we have, even though we might have more good apples than bad apples. So with that, unfortunately, we'll not be able to vote yes on your Bill, given those concerns.

So I'm actually grateful for this Bill. And I'm grateful for this Bill because as we currently stand in the State of California, as we've invested in addressing homelessness, over $23 billion, the majority of the state and many of our residents within our state are concerned about the fact that the numbers have not actually decreased with regards to homelessness. And yes, homelessness is multifaceted. There's various regards to it.

But one of the concerns that we have is the fact that there's no accountability in the current program that we currently have. And because there's no accountability in requiring people to get self help in order to receive housing, we see a revolving door coming in and out of people having addiction problems coming in, leaving and coming back, affecting, impacting behavioral health as well.

Interestingly enough, I believe it was San Francisco, the City of San Francisco, that came in and said that they would be starting to look into, look into, or follow through with requiring assistance or self help when it comes to behavioral health and opioid addiction. I'm very sympathetic to the fact that we have a lot of individuals that need to have a supportive housing environment in which they can thrive and help build that resistance and be able to be healthy.

And I think the more resources and options that we have available for housing to meet the individual's needs, just like in education, not every child learns the same. We have to have different modalities in which we provide the educational content just the same. Human beings, we're all different. We learn differently, we self treat differently. I think it's important to have options for people that need that.

And it doesn't mean, I don't think that this Bill would necessarily create a threat to those programs that are actually effective in providing housing for individuals that need that sort of housing. But I think it would be great to have an additional model for those individuals that can't thrive in what we currently have.

And it's our duty as a state, if we're truly trying to address a crisis in our state, to provide as many options and choices for people to choose what's going to help them best in being successful in their self help journey. And I think with that in mind, I think that, you know, when it comes to providing options, this is the way to go. And another thing, when it comes to oversight, it is our job as Members in the Legislature to have oversight.

But this does have oversight. It has national oversight, maybe not state, but national. And it's something that we could address moving forward as part of the accommodation is okay, how do we create oversight if we wanted to statewide, in addition to what is already in place nationwide, nationally? So for those purposes, I'll be happy to support this Bill today. Thank you for bringing it forward, for bringing options and choices for people to carry on their journey on self help in housing.

I'll be happy to move the Bill.

And with that, if I'm not a co author, would love to, to be added as a co author. Thank you Senator.

Are you moving the Bill?

All right. Senator Cortese

Thank you Madam Chair, I'm certainly interested in hearing your comments before we conclude. If you're going to make some.

I will.

Thank you. First of all, I appreciate a couple things I would like to start off with, which is, first of all, the author's presentation over, you know, kind of a methodical presentation over a lot of pieces to this, I guess, for lack of a better word. I also have worked closely with some of the folks in support, mainly because of, you know 30-35 years of work legislatively in terms of volunteerism as well with the recovery community.

But there are parts of what's being presented here that are alarming to me, so much so that I don't feel like I could support the Bill in the shape that it's in right now, one of those being sort of the inherent default to segregation of folks who potentially are in recovery or are in recovery or are trying to stay in recovery, it is not something I view as a good thing, and it's not something I view as a good thing for society to be sort of separated by desire from.

I think some of the words that were used were to their own life of residency without distraction. People who are in recovery or trying to stay in recovery or having an issue with substance abuse or alcohol for a period of time, they're not a distraction. They're human beings who are entitled to live in a mainstream society with all the support they can get.

That said, where I agree with some of the basic pretense of the Bill here, and I'm sure others in the Housing Committee will disagree with me on this, is I don't think that housing first should be ever defined as cutting short opportunities along the continuum to move people along into the permanency that we're looking for in terms of housing and roof over their head. And I think that's been a problem in all the years that I've been working in the housing space.

So, in short, there's some things I like about what you're trying to do here, sincerely. But there's some things that trouble me so much, mostly from coming less from the housing first side and more from the side of not having unintended consequences when it comes to folks in recovery.

And I don't want to sit here because time is of the essence in a Committee hearing always, and give examples of some of the subjective things that I think might seep into this, the way it's structured right now in terms of people getting pushed out based on what ultimately would turn into a complaint driven process. This person is a distraction. This person's a threat to my child. This person walked into the building, you know, intoxicated.

Those are some of the things that I'm not sure how to measure them in a way that would cut short somebody's otherwise basic entitlement to housing and a roof over their head. That said, I'll stop there, Madam Chair, and I thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. So I will make my comment, and then I'll ask for Senator Niello to close. We have nothing in statute that prohibits a recovery facility from being sober only what we have in statute is housing first for programs that the state provides funding to.

And as we know, the state, while we are trying to put additional funding towards this problem of our unhoused people, we in no way, regardless of how much people think we have put forward to date, it is not even equivalent to what the need is. So we are not funding every facility, whether shelter, recovery, you name it. We are not funding all of them. And so. But we are.

But we have, through the adoption of housing first, made a policy that state funding will go towards those programs that embrace the housing first concept. And so in that respect, I feel the Bill is too broad. It undermines that, and it allows for eviction of even families with children or just, or a facility where there is children if somebody is not sober. So from that respect, it is too broad.

And I just wanted to make that clarification about there is nothing in statute that says a recovery housing facility in the State of California cannot require a sober living. It's just that the state, we would not provide that funding in terms of our housing first policy. So that is why I will be voting no on the Bill. And Senator Niello, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A few things. First of all, I am perfectly willing to further discuss issues that cause concern to see if the Bill can be amended to satisfy those concerns, such as oversight and the like. But I understand that there's nothing in the law that prevents this option. But practically, it is because the people that would choose this option and would need this option, they can't afford to pay for it.

And that means it would have to be a nonprofit program, totally privately funded, of which there are a few, such as the St. John's program locally here, which doesn't receive public funding for its fundamental program, but it has tremendous success and it requires sobriety. And it isn't only with regard to children. Now under housing. First, if there are children present and people are using or drinking, they're not going to be ejected because there are children there. And I'm not. Well, I don't approve of that.

I'm not here proposing that it is not only for parents attempting to keep their kids, it's for anyone that wants to pursue a clean lifestyle environment, get to self sufficiency, which they can't, as long as they're addicted, be in a program where they aren't provided the distraction of other people using amidst them.

Now, that point, distraction that was perceived by Senator Cortese to be somehow a segregation, and I guess you could call it that in the sense that people have chosen to be in an environment where they are attempting to recover, and the distraction of other people using in front of them is a negative influence on their attempt on their attempt to recover. I want to emphasize again that this is a choice. Senator Ochoa-Bogue used the term self help.

These are people that want to help themselves in a clean environment, to get clean. And sometimes that, as my witness testified, sometimes that's difficult, maybe even literally impossible, to recover from a severe addiction when you have somebody next to you either drinking or using at the same time. So I want to emphasize it's a choice. Now, in terms of homelessness generally, in the analysis, it was cited that housing first was adopted by the Bush Administration, and through 2016, nationally saw a 27% reduction in homelessness.

That's true, but it stopped at 2016 in California. Since 2016, homelessness has increased by about 90%. Increased. It would seem to me, with that kind of explosive increase, that we'd want to try perhaps some other things, or at least options to try other things. Because, again, I want to emphasize, at least in my opinion, the objective of homeless programs. The end goal, the focus, has to be self sufficiency.

And self sufficiency cannot happen if an individual continues to be addicted to drugs or has untreated mental illness, self sufficiency. So I respectfully request an aye vote.

All right, we have a motion. We'll do a roll call.

Roll Call

We'll put the Bill on call. It's two to five right now, but we will put it on call.

Thank you.

Okay. All right, we will now go to Senator McGuire. And this is item number one, SB 1187. Thank you so much.

All right, let's try this again. There we go. Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair. First and foremost, I just want to say thank you so much for your work. I want to say thank you to your Committee staff for their excellent analysis of the bill. Truly grateful, Madam Chair, and it's always good to see you. Thank you so much for allowing me to present. For many who have been on this Committee, this bill may sound familiar to each of you.

We've reintroduced SB 18 from last session because of the acute housing crisis that exists in Native American communities up and down the golden state. And let's be clear, this bill received bipartisan support because this is an issue that impacts every corner of California. We'd like to talk about some of the facts that face Native American communities. Here's what we know. Native Americans in California are disproportionately represented among the states homeless population and have higher rates of poverty, overcrowded and substandard homes.

That's compared to any other population here in the Golden State. The rate of tribal poverty is more than twice that in the rest of California's population. And what we know is homelessness among indigenous people is up to double that of the general population. And one third, one third of tribal residents live below the federal poverty rate.

And despite the clear need, the overwhelming majority of tribes are unable to access existing state housing programs because often these programs are too restrictive for tribes to be able to meet the threshold and compliance requirements or they are mismatched to the needs that exist on tribal land and in communities. Not to mention, many state housing programs conflict with tribal sovereignty. And even when there is one time dedicated money for tribes within these programs, it often actually goes unspent or significantly delayed in regards to disbursement.

Here is a statistic from the Housing and Community Development in 2019. In an effort to be able to address these issues, this Legislature adopted AB 1010 and it made tribes eligible for most of California housing programs. Even with that bill passing, out of the 109 tribes that proudly call California home, only 30, 30 have been awarded state funds. So let's be clear. We know that the current programs do not fit tribal needs.

SB 1187 would address these challenges by creating a new and separate housing program for tribes specific to tribal needs, which would be created in consultation with tribes and tribal leaders. This is very similar to what we already do for farmworker housing, where the Joe Cerna Farm Worker Housing Grant program is designated exclusively to address the housing need of agricultural workers here in the Golden State.

This bill is going to support the construction of new homes and the renovation of existing ones in tribal communities who have the greatest need. And simply put, 1187 is a housing program designed by tribes, for tribes, and would respectfully ask for an aye vote. And Madam Chair, I'm really grateful that we have Joseph James, one of the hardest working tribal leaders in the country, with us today, Chairman of the Yurok tribe, and Moriah McGill.

And I just want to say thank you so much to miss McGill for sticking with us and for all of her work. She is with the Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority and both have a few items to say, Madam Chair.

Great, thank you, whichever one wants to start. And we allow five minutes for the share.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Joseph James. I'm Chairman of the Yurok Tribe. I come from the village of Sregan, located on the lower Klamath River. I'm here to talk about the importance and support for SB 1187. I'm here to advocate which would create the first ever dedicated tribal housing grant program in California to address the homeless issues confronting our native communities. California has the largest and most diverse native population in the country with over 109 US federally recognized tribes.

Housing is a huge crisis for our people. As a tribal Chairman, as I mentioned, housing is a crisis for us. I am also leading with my fellow brother and sister out of California, our MMIP. This is all tied, intertwined with each other. You need housing when you go and find our murder missing people. Housing is a critical component of it. I just wanted to address that many tribes have long waiting lists for new homes.

Many families will never have access to a home given the current low level of funding for affordable housing on tribal land. As a result, thousands of tribal households are fated to live in overcrowded and standard housing. SB 1187 and fixes by contracts has been designed by tribes and driven by tribes for tribes. It will provide a flexible, comprehensive funding source.

It is a program that will address the state standards, actual collaboration with the tribes, and just housing and homeless in our communities, which include all people, native and non native people. Again, in closing, I'm here to support 1187. We have an opportunity here to have a tribal housing program to be driven by tribal people with our support and legislators. And again, we're doing a lot of great things here in the State of California. Here's one that could help us in real time to address the many issues that are facing Indian country here in California. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Moriah McGill and I work with Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority. We're a tribal designated housing entity that carries out housing and homelessness services on behalf of nine federally recognized tribes in Northern California. In my 10 years at Northern Circle, we've been successful in being awarded a home investment partnership program grant for $920,000 through the State of California.

It took five years to get a standard agreement and today we still have no houses built in four chronically homeless households who are still living in storage containers, in hotels and in their vehicles waiting for a house. That's at HCD. So we have, of the nine tribes that we represent, there's over 6,000 tribal members. And we have a housing shortage for low income families of 2,111 households. Just to build the housing alone, it'll cost $1.2 billion.

Now, if you've ever been to tribal lands, you'll know that we have limited space, limited access to resources such as infrastructure, and that $1.2 billion does not include acquisition of developable land, nor does it count those dollars necessary for water, sewer, and electricity. This 1187 means so much to us because we have tribal members living in storage containers. We have tribal members that have died on our waiting list. We have tribal members living in hotels, and they are this state's first homeless population. Let that sink in. This grant program is by tribes, for tribes, and it would really mean a lot to many, many people in this great state. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Let's see if there's any other witnesses in the room who want to add me-too.

Good afternoon. Alex Alanis on behalf of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake and the Kaweah Tribe, in support.

Good afternoon. Catherine Charles on behalf of Housing California in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Galen Dobbins for the California Coalition for Rural Housing in strong support.

Rachel Mueller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation in strong support. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair and Members. Chris Lindstrom with the California Tribal Business Alliance in strong support. Thank you.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Great. All right, let's see if there's any witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Let me bring it to the dais. Anyone have any comments or? Go ahead, Senator Padilla. We have a motion. Who said down here? Move it. Senator Seyarto. Okay, Seyarto's moved. Senator Padilla, go ahead.

Madam Chair, thanks. And Members, just to extend my gratitude to the pro tem for your obvious persistence in this space and getting us to a place where there could be a programmatic framework that would ensure a greater amount of state support for housing and sovereign places that are often overlooked. So I really appreciate the persistence, and looking at the history here, it's pretty obvious that's what it's taken. So I'm happy to be supportive.

Thank you so much, Senator.

Great. Any other comments? All right, Senator McGuire, would you like to close?

Again, Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity. Thank you, Senator Padilla. And would respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Great. So we do have that motion and we'll do a roll call. Motion is send to Appropriations. Pass to Appropriations Committee.

[Roll call]

Alright, we'll keep the Bill on call.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Got some apps, Members. Thank you all. Thank you. All right, so, Senator Archuleta, I know you're dying to do it, but Mr. Bradford is first and he's in the room. Apologies. You snuck in. Really? Go ahead, Senator Bradford. SB 1007, item two.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members, I'm here to present SB 1007. This bill is a recommendation from the California Reparations Task Force, a task force that I spent the last two years of my life on. And these are suggestions from the final report upon appropriations: provide financial aid and assistance to descendants of enslaved persons for the purpose of purchasing, owning, or maintaining a home.

This can be done through subsidizing mortgage payments, homeowners assistance insurance, I should say, and any other means to assist descendants with owning and maintaining a home. SB 1007 is about starting a long process of paying back a debt that's not only owed, that is promised and 160 years overdue to African Americans. It is the first step in closing a wealth and equity gap created by centuries of slavery and racial discriminatory policies.

Even after the abolishment of slavery, federal, state and local laws enabled racially discriminatory practices that segregated black Americans from the rest of society. Practices like redlining, discriminatory zoning, racially restrictive housing covenants, and even outright prohibitions. To this day, descendants of enslaved persons still feel the effects of these policies. There are many African American families who have descendants who have been here for over 160 years, who have never owned property in the state of California or anywhere in this country.

The Reparations Task Force final report documents that statewide, a typical black owned home is 22% less value than a white owned family's property. And we've seen just recently what happened in the Bay Area when we had an activity called whitewashing, where an African American at their home appraised at almost 50% less than their white neighbors until they removed any remnants of being an African American home and had a white person come in and act as if they were the homeowners.

And the appraisal went up by almost a half $1 million. So statewide, African Americans again make up 6% of the population, but 40% of the unhoused population. In major cities like Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Jose, there are gaps ranging between 20% to 57% between their rates of white homeownership compared to black homeownership. In these same cities, the value of the home is formerly red lined neighborhoods, compared to green lined neighborhoods have gaps ranging from 50% to 125% in pricing differences.

These large disparities, inequity, I should say, show in plain numbers the ongoing damage caused by racially discriminatory housing policies and a clear fix is needed. This bill is the beginning of that. I want to thank you for allowing me this testimony, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator Bradford. We're going to see if you have any main witnesses in support.

Yeah, I don't think we have witnesses.

Okay, so witnesses in support who want to just come up to the, and indicate your support, and then we'll see if there's any in opposition. Meanwhile, I'm going to hand the gavel to the Vice Chair while I go and present a bill in another Committee. But you go ahead.

Andrew Dawson from the California Housing Partnership in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Stephanie Roberson, on behalf of the Bay Area Regional Health and Equities Initiative, also known as Bar High. And the coalition is also supported by 12 other organizations that represent the coalition. Organizations for Reparations also in support. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Chris Larson, Coalition for Just an Equitable California, also on behalf of the American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento, American Redress Coalition of California, Bay Area, the Lineage Equity and Advancement Project out of LA, and the California Black Lineage Society, all in strong support.

Madam Chair, Members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support.

Hello. Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California Action in support.

Hello. Adam Briones, California Community Builders in strong support.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support of SB 1007? Seeing none. We'll now move on to any witnesses in opposition to SB 1007 here in room 1200. Seeing none. We'll bring you back to the dais. Senator Cortese.

Thank you. Just a comment, if I may, to the author. I just wanted to commend you for the, the portion of this bill that is getting beyond, beyond the indices of past harm, past the harm caused by slavery, as we in law school and other places learned, as the problem that we need to correct with whatever programs that we have available.

In looking at the ongoing redlining that's going on, I think that's a major shift here in public policy for the state of California that you've embedded, you know, in the intent behind the bill. And I just wanted to acknowledge you for that sort of try to do my part to help elevate what you're saying in your own testimony about the bill. Thank you. And I'll be supporting.

All right, Senator Padilla. Okay, we have a motion to move. Any other comments from our dias? See none. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the colleagues on this Committee and thank Senator Cortese for his comments. And as stated, I spent two years of my life on the Reparations Task Force, and the final report had 115 recommendations on how we could start curing the harms of slavery, the vestiges of slavery that still exists today. This was just one of 115 suggestions. But really, at the core what really needs to do.

As we all know, the promise of 40 acres in the mural really never materialized. But reparations has always been about land, and this helps individuals who have never owned property or who have owned property but have hit their property red lined or undervalued and hold onto this property. So I look forward to an aye vote on this measure. Thank you.

This is SB 1007 by Senator Bradford. The motion is do pass and refer the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] That's four to zero. We'll put it on call.

That's four to zero, and we'll leave that on call for you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Senator Archuleta.

Welcome. You'll be presenting SB 1465.

Good.

Please begin when you're ready.

Well, thank you, Members, and thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to first off by saying and accepting the amendments outlined in the Committee analysis and thank the Chair for her assistance in working with my office and going forward with this Bill. I really appreciate that. Her time and effort really paid off. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 1465, which allows any structure used for human habitation to be declared a substandard building, regardless of zoning or approved use of the building.

Senate Bill 1465 also makes changes to code enforcement procedures to extend tenant protections to buildings not zoned residential that are being used for housing. California State housing laws are some of the strongest in the nation, establishing criteria for health and safety protections through building standards to ensure decent, safe, and sanitary housing for all Californians. California is experiencing a housing shortage of significant proportions, particularly in the affordable housing sector.

Individuals and families unable to find affordable housing may resort to living in buildings that have not been zoned residential. Current law provides protections for residents that live in a dwelling that is not up to code and puts the resident or the public in harm's way. However, there's ambiguity in the law about whether these protections apply to buildings not residentially zoned, even if they are being inhabited by tenants.

Despite being rented as housing, many warehouses, factories, and even buildings that are not in residential zones and have been evaded by much-needed safety inspections and code enforcement. And that's the problem. They're evading the needed safety inspections and code enforcement. Tenants in these buildings are among the most disadvantaged renters in California. They do not control or may not even know the zoning in the building they reside in. Substandard conditions and their associated dangers for tenants do not cease to exist just because of their building zoning.

We need to empower local and state agencies to better deal with dilapidated commercial and industrial buildings being used as housing. This Bill has no opposition and truly is a nonpartisan tenant protection Bill. And with me today to testify are Faith Borges and Larry Brooks on behalf of the California Association for Code Enforcement. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta, and welcome. Please state your name and proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta, and thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Faith Borges with Act Em and I'm here today proudly representing the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers. I have with me here today Mister Brooks, who is a code enforcement officer, a KCO Board Member, and the current Director of Alameda County Healthy Homes Department, headquartered in Oakland, and previously managed code enforcement programs in Sacramento County and Yolo County. He's available to answer any technical questions.

I'm here to testify in support of SB 1465, which will allow existing inspections for code enforcement to be applied to any structure that's used for human habitation, regardless of the building's zoning or approved use. SB 1465 additionally applies habitability and landlord-tenant protections to these properties, ensuring that tenants have access to vital resources such as relocation assistance and retaliation protection for raising capability complaints.

Californians who have been driven into warehouses or sheds and other unpermitted residences by California's housing crisis are currently cut off from resources available to tenants in buildings properly zoned for housing. Thanks to the work of many of the legislators on this Committee and stakeholders in this room, California's inspections and tenant protection laws are among the strongest in the nation. And yet these protections still exclude many of the states most vulnerable tenants.

Tenants do not determine whether the building that they are living in is zoned and used properly. Californians should not be punished for resorting to living in makeshift, unapproved housing units due to the state's housing crisis. A lack of affordable housing is the crisis of a generation, and while there are many points that we can make on that at the macro scale, we'd like to take a moment to share the impact of the consequences of treating unsafe housing as a substitute for affordable housing.

This week, I spoke with a grieving mother who lost her daughter in the Ghost Ship Fire on December 2 in 2016. Out of respect for her privacy, we'll keep her identity anonymous. However, we have her permission to relay the following. My daughter was a vibrant soul who loved her community in Oakland. She was one of three dozen people who passed away in the preventable fire at the Ghost Ship Warehouse.

Following her death, I toured the dilapidated warehouse and saw the alarming conditions that people were living in. I cannot tell you how difficult it is to know that that is where my daughter died. I don't wish to attack any of the residents of the warehouse or anyone who finds themselves living in these heartbreaking conditions. But I do urge the Committee to support this legislation and other efforts to protect people who find themselves living in unsafe conditions, like those of the Ghost Ship Fire.

SB 1465 is about fairness for Californians who, through no fault of their own, have had to resort to living in buildings that have not been zoned residentially. Dangerous, substandard conditions exist regardless of zoning. The status quo hurts tenants and the surrounding communities, first by a lack of proper inspections and code enforcement, and again by not allowing tenants access to needed resources when unsafe conditions are identified.

Senate Bill 1465 empowers local governments to deal with dilapidated commercial and industrial buildings used as housing to prevent future tragedies like the Ghost Ship Fire, or, as noted in the Committee analysis, like the shooting in Half Moon Bay. For these reasons and more, we urge your Aye vote today.

Thank you very much, Faith. Sir? Please state your name and proceed when you're ready.

Yes, thank you. Honorable Committee Members. Larry Brooks, Director of Alameda County Healthy Homes Department, Member of the board of directors for the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, and I simply urge your Aye vote on this Bill. Help us to help others. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Brooks, do we have any witnesses in support of SB 1465 here in Room 1200?

Madam Chair and Members, Anthony Molina, on behalf of Andrew Mendoza from the California Building Officials, in support. Andrew is currently at jury duty today, so he asked me to give his testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of SB 1465? Seeing none. We'll turn to any witnesses in opposition to SB 1465. Seeing none. Do we have anyone here in the room in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions and comments? Senator Blakespear?

Yes, thank you. I very much appreciate you attempting to address the tragedy of the Ghost Ship Fire and the story of the mother and touring that. It's really heartbreaking to hear those stories and remember that tragedy, and it's really important that we do something about it. I think the thing that I'm preoccupied by and I'd just like to ask if you might address it.

Is that what this, what your Bill does is it allows that any structure that's being used as housing to be declared substandard, and then a series of things would start to unfold. And I'm concerned about people becoming homeless because, for example, in commercial and industrial areas, a number of buildings have kitchens and they have places for people to rest. And it's possible that people are living in those places, maybe not at density and scale, but just here and there.

And that there would be some, you know, they're doing that because they need housing and whatever their life circumstances are have resulted in them needing to stay in that environment and wanting to. And so I'm concerned about the neighbor turning in their neighbor because this is the type of code enforcement that you have a lot with accessory dwelling units. It's the neighbor turns it in, the person who doesn't like the parking or they don't like the noise or whatever.

And so then that person who's living there in that industrial commercial space ends up homeless because the landlord basically kicks them out and gets involved in this neighbor dispute. So I wonder if you could just address that. How are we preventing, instead of people living inside of these places that maybe they don't meet code because the ceiling's not high enough or, you know, things aren't up to code?

I mean, almost immediately things aren't up to code once they're built because the code is always being modified and changing. And we have all sorts of things that are related to energy efficiency and things that, you know, aren't really necessarily critical to health and safety. And it's better that someone's living inside in an apartment or a space than that they're living outside in a tent. So I just like to hear about how, you know, that's being addressed.

Well, thank you, Senator, for your comments. And I think we all have to understand everything we've heard today has to do with housing and helping people and so on. And what happens is we have to be proactive. So the perfect scenario would be that the city is notified that this building that has, you know, 30,000 sqft, I'm going to convert it into residential. That would be perfect.

So then the owner would maybe get the inspector and an architect and say, how do we subdivide this and give it adequate everything? Right? That would be the perfect scenario, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is people will either occupy the building or the homeowner or the building owner will allow people to come in and yes, that call should be made.

And maybe if some would have made that call, we wouldn't hear that story, if that's what I'm trying to prevent any tragedy from happening and to protect people and to make it equitable. Now, remember, these are not long-term housing that we're talking about. We're talking about temporary. We're talking about housing that, God willing, is around the corner. That will be happening because of substance abuse, mental abuse, whatever. And we're all trying to put them into these permanent housing.

So some of these things are just temporary. But in that location, you'll find that maybe things are off. So the code enforcement people will be able to come in and take care of some of these things that may be substantial to health and safety. And that's all it does.

It opens a door for the code enforcement officers to go in, work with the builder, homeowner, whoever it might be, the building owner, and try to make it as safe as possible for the term that it looks like the tenants will be there. Because they will be tenants and they do have rights and they should be treated with dignity. And if there's an issue, there's the other thing that assuming there's a problem in a quarter of the building.

Well, the three quarters are still workable, so they're going to continue to use that, but the building owner will take care of that one quarter that needs some renovation of some sort. So it's a win-win when we call to about tenant protection and being the human beings that we should be to try to protect everyone and just, just because they're in a dire straits, that doesn't mean we have to push them aside and ignore them.

I think we should step forward and do what we can to help them. And that's the spirit of the Bill.

Right. I appreciate the spirit of the Bill. I guess your answer, I didn't exactly hear that it was responsive to my question about homelessness prevention. I wonder if your sponsors might want to help address that. That's really. I understand there are lots of great things happening with the Bill, but my specific question is about this Bill driving more homelessness. Maybe that can be addressed.

Thank you for that good question. This Bill is specific to substandard housing, and we're not talking about, because there can be many reasons a building could be declared substandard. I think your concern is when you're talking about a red tag situation where people are being evicted from a building because it's so unsafe. And we went through a lengthy exercise with the Committee to make sure that that's not happening frequently.

In fact, most red tag buildings are for where there's a fire that's occurred, where obviously you cannot permit people to go back inside for structural reasons. Code enforcement is done with compliance-based emphasis. We just want, you know, if there's mold for the mold to be taken out, if there's bad wiring that's, you know, could cause a fire for that to be remedied. It's a lot of steps that would occur before you would see a red tag situation.

And, in fact, under current law, the concern is that if one of these unpermitted housing buildings is used, what happens is right now, the tenant would become homeless because they have no tenant protection, because the landlord could then say at that time, this is, this is not a housing situation. These tenant protections don't, you know, apply here.

Then that individual who was first, you know, harmed by being in an unsafe situation is now doubly harmed with no ability to be protected by any of the fantastic laws that we have in California. So this is actually hoping to step in, in that situation where there has been harm to the individual twice, and we're doing so for the benefit of the community.

We've been working very closely with our friends at the Apartment, Association with realtors to make sure that we're not inadvertently looping in good landlords who may not know that someone's in their building. And we've worked all of that. Our concerns have been. There's no concern there.

We're talking about a specific instance where a landlord is taking advantage of somebody knowing they're in unsafe conditions and that they can't report them because the only thing that could happen to that individual, if the situation is so bad, is that then they're homeless. So this Bill, in fact, would prevent the concern that you're speaking to.

And, Senator, may I add.

I appreciate that answer. Yeah, thank you.

I'm sorry.

I appreciate that answer. And I feel that was, that was responsive to my concern. So thank you.

Okay. Well, I just wanted to point out that the red tag, I didn't even mention that if the building is red tag, nobody should be in there, period. So this is just trying to make sure that we take care of as many people as we can. So I respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Do you have any. Senator Padilla?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, I appreciate the valuable discussion and the points raised by my esteemed colleague. And I would just say I think it's pretty clear that it's sort of an inverse way to extend protections both on tenancy that would not typically apply here, but also for hazards and nuisance and other things.

I think the author's intent here is addressing situations where folks who are in inappropriately zoned or substandard housing facilities, or, I use that term loosely, structures, I'll use that term, may in fact be in as equal or greater risk or hazard from a health and safety standpoint that they would be, were they completely unsheltered.

And in trying to get at those cases, also, I think it's important to think about the fact that in some of these scenarios, there is knowledge on the part of the property owner and there's exploitation involved based on the fact that they know that these protections don't extend to housing that's missed, that is being utilized, you know, structures that are being utilized for housing that are in fact not zoned as such. So I think I know where you're trying to go.

I would just encourage you, Senator, to try to continue to work to sharpen the language to draw that distinction. But I do support where you're trying to go. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? All right, I just have, I think for me it's just clarification. I'm supportive of the Bill, but I am... just clarification. I know that you folks were trying to address the problem with warehouses and factory spaces being used for residential purposes. When the code enforcement comes in, would that require the owners of the properties to, say, upgrade the buildings to a housing level of residence on that end?

What is the level of requirement or responsibility by the landlord, especially if they have people living in those warehouses or warehouses are, what's the other one?

Shipping containers or loosely defined structures is what the Bill applies to. And thank you for that good question as well. We were specific that there are several instances. You again, may have an instance that, originally other stakeholders were concerned, you may have someone trespassing on property and they didn't want to, you know, then have to rehab a building that they were never intending to be used as housing.

So we have clarification language within the Bill that code enforcement isn't moving forward with any enforcement, you know, including any updates if the landlord is declaring that that person shouldn't be there. There's usually an ability to, you know, follow a trail and say, this is actually a tenant, a lawful tenant, if you will, that's occupying the place. The question at hand specifically was about if there's.

So, whether or not the level of responsibility by the landlords if they own warehouses and or what's the other one? Sorry.

You restored my train of thought. I think I got you.

Factory spaces. So obviously not dwelling areas. So if people are found to be living in those areas, would the landlord be required to convert those areas into actual residential fit-caliber of buildings?

For purposes of the Bill dealing with substandard things. So things that are talking about, you know, rodent infestations or black mold or things that are unsafe, a sagging building. Again, compliance is the goal, to work with the landlord to be able to reach compliance to make sure that that building is safe.

But if it is, you know, completely unsafe, like we saw with the Ghost Ship Fire, where there were so many people living there that they were, you know, running extension cords through walls and drilling holes to try to, you know, get electricity somewhere. They're not proper lavatories or heating things of that nature. Buildings were never conceived that way. We would be trying to bring that into compliance.

So I guess, more clarity on that. If the buildings are zoned for, say, warehouses or factory spaces, they would be responsible for bringing that building up to code, to the standard of warehouses and factories, not necessarily to a residential level of standards of living.

If they wanted to use the building as housing, and Mr. Brooks can speak to this, my understanding is then we would be wanting to enforce housing standards and things like proper lavatories, heating, cooling, those things that we have in place for laws, for good reason for that. But most landlords are not wanting to rent out commercial spaces right now as housing.

The ones that are typically doing it are doing so in a fashion that's exploiting people who that's all that they can afford, and not providing any of those basic things that we require, again, like heating or making sure there's no infestations in order to live there. And I think to kind of speak to the point of the question, because code enforcement is largely complaint-based, oftentimes if somebody was living in a warehouse because that was what they could afford, they would not call code enforcement on themselves.

Most people, when they have a challenge that is substandard, talking to the premise of the Bill, you know, they plug in their outlets, and every time they do, there are sparks flying. Typically, a person reaches out to their landlord, that's the engagement that happens, the landlord engages with the tenant.

If a landlord is completely refusing to do to address something that the tenant has said, you know, is making them feel unsafe. So you're talking about usually pretty harsh living realities, then code enforcement is typically where we're called in at that time. Because the tenant has had no luck with the landlord addressing their safety concerns.

But if it was this type of a circumstance where someone knows this is what they can afford, there just isn't even the resources for code enforcement to be going around, you know, to every building. It's really in those circumstances where it's elevated, where someone feels that their safety, the safety of their children is at risk continuing to live there.

And I think the most important part, I think, that you just mentioned to highlight the difference is the fact that you are. This would require more responsibility if a building owner is knowingly leasing the space that is not deemed residential, to be responsible, to bring it up to code to that standard.

But if people are just, say, squatting in those buildings and the owner is not intending that to be used or leased, then they would just be required to put it up to code to the standards of the warehouse.

If there was a property owner who had someone who was squatting in their building, code enforcement wouldn't be involved at all. This Bill doesn't trigger, then that's a situation where you have an issue of trespassing. They would be engaging with law enforcement at that part, at that point. So they're different circumstances.

Very, very well. Thank you.

And I may add, Madam Chair, that the perfect scenario, and this is what we're trying to do as close to it as we can. The landlord, property owner, would be notified, and he would walk through the building with the inspector and with the understanding of public safety and sanitary condition conditions, because they're going to be temporary. So we don't expect them to remodel it, but just make it safe and sanitary and it conforms as much as possible within the law.

And if we can do that, we can keep the tenants safe until other agencies take over and move them.

Good, Bill.

Okay. And with that, I ask for your Aye vote.

Okay, so we have a motion. It's do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. We'll do a roll call.

[Rolll call] That's five to zero on call.

All right, the bill right now is five to zero. We'll keep it on call for our missing Members, and we will go to. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And we will go to item six, SB 1123. Senator Caballero.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 1123, which builds on work that I did last year to streamline the process for communities to build small scale, more affordable, infill homeownership projects. The high cost of housing construction and the regulatory delay has contributed to the state's affordability crisis because supply is just not keeping up with demand. This construction gridlock continues to drive up housing costs and drive down California's homeownership rates. And Madam Chair, you spoke eloquently about this in another Committee today.

We're all looking for solutions to be able to solve or at least reduce the affordability issue. This affordability crisis has become so extreme that homes now cost more than 8.5 times the average family's salary, versus only 2.5 times in the early 1970s. Just like housing affordability has driven home ownership rates down for communities of color, local planning rules have also created barriers to homeownership.

Many communities throughout the state have enacted policies that restrict denser development in single family neighborhoods, which prevents the construction of smaller starter homes working families can afford. The American Dream of home ownership is now out of reach for many California families, especially families of color. To address these issues, last year I introduced SB 684 to streamline the subdivision of parcels for construction of small scale homeownership projects of up to 10 units. Over the course of the fall, I heard.

And so that bill was passed and signed by the Governor. And over the course of the fall, I heard from a variety of stakeholders on the need to include a couple of important technical and clarifying changes. SB 1123 incorporates the feedback that I received in order to improve SB 684.

Specifically, this bill will clarify the definition of habitable square feet related to the housing size, allow housing units to be part of a tenancy in common, and clarify that when local government chooses to permit the construction of accessory dwelling units, they don't count towards the SB 684 project 10 unit cap. It's separate and apart from that. Additionally, SB 1123 reestablishes the subdivision and project streamlining benefits for small projects of 10 units or less on vacant parcel zone for single family residential development.

This bill had gone through all the policy committees went to Approps, and you know how things magically disappear in Approps. The ability to do this kind of construction on parcels zoned single family was eliminated, which was the whole purpose of the bill. Quite frankly, you can do it on higher density city zoned land. But this, the real purpose of this bill was for single family homes.

So I'm back to add that back in again and with me to testify in support of this bill is Francesc Martí with the California YIMBY and Adam Briones with California Community Builders.

Great. You have five minutes to share between you.

Thank you, Chair Skinner, distinguished Members of the Senate Housing Committee. My name is Francesc Martí and I'm the senior Director of strategy and government affairs at California YIMBY, a grassroots organization with over 80,000 members dedicated to ensuring that California is a place of abundant, secure, and affordable housing for all. Today, I stand before you to express our strong support for SB 1123 authored by Senator Caballero. SB 1123 builds on the progress made last year by SB 684.

It improves the streamlining of starter homes, and it extends it to vacant parcels in single family zones. This bill represents a step forward in our collective effort to combat California's severe housing shortage, which disproportionately impacts low income families and communities of color. In California, the dream of home ownership has become increasingly elusive. In 2020, the average home cost was 8.5 times a family's annual salary. That puts home ownership out of reach for many and exacerbates the racial wealth gap.

This bill addresses these challenges head on by facilitating the construction of smaller, more affordable homes in high opportunity neighborhoods. It's not just about building houses. It's about building communities, fostering diversity, and promoting economic mobility for all Californians. In addition to extending SB 684 streamlining to single family zone vacant lots, this bill adds clarity to make implementation more effective. For instance, it ensures that accessory dwelling units, ADUs, will not count against the maximum 10 unit count in the bill.

The tenancy in common buildings are eligible projects, and it also ensures that community land trust can make use of this bill. So on behalf of California YIMBY, I urge you to vote aye on SB 1123. Let's work together to create a California that welcomes everybody where every person has the chance to live in safe, affordable home in a thriving community. Thank you for your time and consideration. And I'm also joined here by my colleague Aaron Eckhouse. Should there be any questions about the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Adam Briones, and I'm CEO of California Community Builders, a nonprofit working to close the racial wealth gap, focusing on housing and home ownership. As an organization led by and serving people of color, I'm here today in strong support of SB 1123. California faces a housing affordability crisis that has slammed the door shut on home ownership for millions.

While SB 1123 and small lot homes will not fix our housing production crisis on its own, by building on SB 684 this bill will expedite more homes that are lower cost and more accessible to first time home buyers by enabling the production of single family homes and townhomes on lots that are smaller and less expensive. This is important because California's median lot size is about 8,000 square feet.

Research has found that land costs make up about 50% to 60% of the price of a home in places like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. The math driving SB 1123 is simple. A home that comes with less land will cost less. Many families want and can afford a large home with a large backyard. Those families have plenty of options in today's market, but far too many can't buy a home at all because affordable options don't exist.

Many families, and I would argue many more families of color, would love to buy a home with less land if that made the American dream of home ownership possible for them. SB 1123 does just that, making these types of homes much more common, giving diverse families a greater diversity of housing choices.

My organization is deeply invested in this topic because, while home ownership is the way in which most Americans build intergenerational wealth, only four in 10 black and Latino Californians own their own home, compared to six in 10 white Californians. We can do better. Home ownership is a broadly shared value in California, and this bill represents one important step in creating the important, admittedly technical, changes needed to produce lower cost for sale housing and making that shared value a reality.

There are no silver bullets when it comes to addressing California's housing and home ownership crisis, but SB 1123 creates an important tool for building more affordable homes and building wealth for everyday Californians. Thank you for your consideration, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see if there's any other witnesses in support. Any add ons?

Hello. Seamus Garrity with Lighthouse Public Affairs here for Habitat for Humanity California, SPUR, and Build Casa in support.

Great. Anyone else? All right, let's see if there's opposition. Oh, you're lucky today. All right, no opposition. Any comments or motion from the Committee here? I'm looking for a motion.

I'll make the motion.

Okay, I've got a motion from Senator Cortese. Seeing no hands. I will allow you to close, Senator Caballero.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Excellent. So let's do a roll call. And the motion is do pass to local government Committee.

[Roll Call] It's five to zero on call.

All right, the bill's got five to zero. We'll leave it on call. Maybe should we reopen the roll? There are some I wasn't on one bill and maybe Senator Caballero wasn't on a bill while we're waiting for Senator Umberg. So let's just, yeah, let's do that. Start from the top.

Yeah, perfect.

Roll Call

All right, we'll leave that Bill on call. It's six to zero at the moment.

Alright, that Bill will still leave on call.

Roll Call

Roll Call

All right, that vote right now is six to zero, but we are leaving it open. Yeah, I don't think we have anybody here. Okay.

All right, so we are waiting for an author. Senator Umberg. We're also waiting for a couple Members to return to be able to close out these votes.

I'll run them back to judiciary.

Okay, excellent. Great. You also want to brief recess to. No. If I do, they'll start to lean in then. True. Fair enough. Senator Umberg, we've just heard he'll be down in a minute. As soon as Senator Caballero gets up there, he will come down. Just let her go. She's on the Committee. She should have gone out that way. Senator Caballaro, you can go out this way since you're on Committee. Get straight to the Members elevator and go right to Judish.

I know.

Get there a lot faster. This way. Go through that hallway. You go through that hallway. Should be stopped by everybody.

What would help if I turn my mic on? Yes, we will let you present on SB.

Well, Senator Skinner, let me thank you for your patience.

Certainly not worried

Cubed for both here as well as in Senate Judiciary Committee. I want to thank you and your staff, in particular, Meiji Tabar, who I understand that this is her last hearing, that I'm wondering whether it was because of Homeowners Association bills that caused her to decide that she could find greener pastures. But thank you.

Thank you.

I'm here to present SB 900, which pertains to health and safety and complexes governed by homeowners associations and their boards. This Bill was generated by an event that actually happened in my district, where a very large condominium complex was without gas. Thus, they could not basically bathe or cook for 100 days or more. And there was this crazy situation where no one was responsible. So what this Bill does, it holds the Homeowners Association Board responsible. They've got to fix it within 30 days.

If not, they can be sued, and then if sued, then the entity filing the lawsuit is entitled to their attorney's fees. This is a difficult situation, and I'm well aware of the fact by suing the homeowner's board, in some sense, you're almost suing yourself. But if the board won't act and they're in a position of paralysis where people can't get, for example, hot water, they can't cook, somebody needs to do something, and if necessary, then the board need be replaced. I urge an aye vote for.

Great. Let's see if you have any witnesses in support.

I'm it. I'm the witnesses.

Okay, good. And you indicated your main witness in opposition? Is not here, but I'll see. oh, the main. There is a witness in opposition. Been waiting patiently. Go ahead.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Is this on? Yeah, my name is Tom Sur. I'm on the Legislative Committee, the Center for California Homeowner Association Law, which is a nonprofit 501 that protects the consumer and civil rights of Association Homeowners statewide. We are here to speak for homeowners, some of whom have tried recently to weigh in on the Bill, but report to us that their phone calls to various Senate offices have not been taken seriously. So we're here to speak on their behalf.

And on their behalf. We oppose the Bill because, number one, it imposes new, heavy costs on those who are least able to afford them. That is the individual homeowners. And it eliminates the homeowners ability to hold responsible the party responsible for the damage that is typically the utilities. In addition, homeowners would unlikely, would be unlikely to have access to any insurance to even protect themselves against this potentially huge new liability. That's the first point.

Second point, this is a huge gift to every utility in California by insulating these utilities from any form of responsibility, keeping in mind that the utility is the party with the most resources and the expertise to fix any problems with utility lines. Thirdly, the Bill extends an often abused taxing power of Homeowner Association boards known as the emergency assessment, and it expands it to a whole new class of situations. Quote, threats to health.

That's one of the main things that this Bill does, is it adds threats to health as a ground for imposing an emergency assessment. The Bill does not define that term. It does not indicate who determines that a threat to health exists. And keep in mind that emergency assessments, unlike all other assessments, are unlimited and there's no input from homeowners. Homeowners have no say about this. It can be imposed by the board alone. And we've seen this power abused in a number of situations throughout the state.

And finally, the Bill attempts to regulate public utilities where there's already a state agency, known as the California Public Utilities Commission, that writes and enforces a highly complex regulatory scheme for utility maintenance, replacement and liability.

You are sharing the time with your other key, and the total time is five minutes. And there's two minutes remaining.

Two minutes remaining. I'm done. On behalf of homeowners, we ask for no vote.

Chair Skinner and Members Jennifer Wada, on behalf of the California Association of Community Managers. They're the professional managers of common interest developments. We currently have an opposed, unless amended position on the Bill. We do have concerns about that 30 day timeline. We certainly agree that this situation shouldn't be repeated and there should be solutions in place. However, for example, on the 30 days, getting an emergency assessment alone requires notice to homeowners, and it requires a 30 day notice.

So we just think that there needs, and then in addition to that, there would need to be inspections made to even determine, you know, the most cost effective way to repair and replace. So we have concerns about that. We also have concerns about placing absolute liability on the Association in all circumstances, regardless of the facts of the case and regardless of the responsibilities of the utility. So for those reasons, we do have an opposed unless amended position on the Bill.

We also share concerns about the affordability at the time where homeowners are facing, you know, extreme increases everywhere. You all know about the insurance premium increases that homeowners and associations are facing. So we're looking for balance here. We want to thank the author and his staff for certainly being willing to have discussions as this Bill moves forward.

Great. All right. Any other witnesses in opposition? All right, so. But we've already. There were no witnesses in support. We've heard from our witnesses in opposition. Miss. Senator Wahab,

Okay. I understand, Senator Umberg, that you are considering some amendments potentially to address opposition's concerns. And the Bill, we don't have amends that we are involving in this Committee, but it does go to judicial next. That is the motion to move to Judish. So if you want to, I'm happy.

Thank you. I'll move the Bill.

To talk with Judiciary Chair about whatever. So. No, I don't want to make light. There are concerns, and I understand those concerns. I'm not sure that some of the comments pertain to this Bill. Utilities off the hook in one sense or another at all. It is this unique situation where you've got a breakdown and, you know, no one is responsible, and so the result is nothing happens. And as a policy, the State of California cannot be in a position where there's no, for example, gas.

The gas company is not responsible because they're only responsible up to the complexes, basically edge. And it's the Homeowners Association, the Management Association. Somebody's got to do something, and we simply say, I'm sorry, there's no fix. So, you poor people, you know, you got to gut it out at 24 hours fitness. So, anyway, urgent, aye vote.

Okay, great. So we have a motion, and it is do pass to judiciary, and we will take roll call. Roll call.

Roll Call

All right, so let me open the rule. Senator Wahab and Senator Umberg here, there's a couple bills for you also to add on to. So let's open the rule again.

[Roll Call] Did you want to grant him reconsideration?

Senator Niello wasn't able to ask for reconsideration because he wasn't in the room when we took the vote, so I will. Without objection. Reconsideration is granted. All right, so now let's go to the SB 1416 do pass is amended to judiciary.

[Roll Call]

Okay. All right. So you could send Senator Caballero down to add on to your vote, your Bill, and then I'll come back upstairs. Okay. All right, thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, so SB 900 passes, or it's. Yeah. Succeed. And it's. The vote was eight to zero. So with that, we have done all of our bills and appreciate staff, and we will now conclude the Housing Committee, adjourned.