Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

And given that we are short of a quorum right now, we are going to begin as a Subcommitee. Each Bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition. Each main witness gets up to two minutes each. Please feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website. This will become part of our official record of the Bill. This hearing room will be open for attendance of this hearing this morning. We are in room 437 at the Capitol.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website, and I want to thank you all for your patience and understanding with that. We have our first Bill. Senator Wahab here to present item number one. That is SB 1357. When you are comfortable, you may begin presentation.

Thank you. I put money on you guys. All right. I also want to say your script was really good. I'm going to copy it, but. All right. Chair colleagues and Members of the public, SB 1356. 1357. Sorry.

Requires the Housing Authority of Alameda County, also known as HACCA, to increase transparency regarding their programming and improve the function of their website for consumers. In 2023, ABC owned television stations analyzed data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which found households waiting years for housing assistance.

It was noted that Alameda County has insufficient or unreliable wait list time data, end quote. Additionally, HACCA's website, in comparison to other county level housing authorities, does not present the information they do have in an easy to navigate manner, nor does the website have any data or metrics on Haka's programs.

Finally, we have an open dialogue with HACCA to ensure they are able to comply with the reporting requirements. So we've been in conversation with them, and SB 1357 simply requires HACCA to evaluate their website for consumer usability and develop an annual report of data and metrics that speak to the programs offered by HACCA.

Hopefully trying to ensure that this we focus on data transparency, accessibility and good governance. But in the future, if there are more needs that we can actually identify them, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses in support of this Bill? None today. Are there any Members of the public here in support of SB 1357? Okay, see none. Any primary oppositions and witnesses wishing to give testimony and see none. Any Members of the public wishing to provide an opposition remark.

All right, bringing back to the Committee, is there any Member comment? Okay, seeing none. Senator Walhab, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Of course, we all want to be effective and efficient with our local housing agencies and the responsibilities that they have.

The transparency measures are critical, especially when it comes to housing choice vouchers, as limited as they are, wait times are difficult. And I know a lot of our housing authorities are compressed with a lot of challenges.

And my only question is, is there something that you see as unique to the County of Alameda and their housing authority that really requires a special attention through this Bill? I see this, actually as something that might be a little bit more systemic across a lot of housing authorities.

So I didn't want to see if you wanted to elaborate a little further on the special need here.

Definitely. So I represent two counties, the County of Santa Clara County and the County of Alameda. And both of them operate very differently from a socioeconomic standpoint. They're also very different. Santa Clara County is obviously a little bit more affluent.

And their programming, for example, they have every single housing program that they have funnels into one particular agency. It's very clear to the public what is available. Data is online. It's very transparent. They also really serve the needs of their incredibly diverse population. Does not matter what language you speak or anything like that.

They also have in person communication and much more, because not everybody is online and so forth. Alameda County, and I'm a resident of Alameda County, has been extremely poor in their housing operations as a whole. So every single program has their own unique website.

Nobody knows exactly what is the umbrella package of, when we're talking about housing, what are all the little prongs underneath it. There is a lack of transparency and data in regards to, okay, how many units are available total? How many units are vacant? How many units are about to come online?

How long is the average that you have to wait? In fact, those individuals that are waiting to seek housing and are on the housing waiting list will get.

The way that people have been operating is they will get on a housing waiting list in a different county to then get approved and then try to move over their voucher in Alameda.

So they are trying to find ways to circumvent the system, but that is because the system is incredibly poor, especially communities like mine that are largely Afghan immigrant poor. They have been on these waiting lists for years and years. The HAKA headquarters is actually stationed in my City of Hayward.

And when you go there, there's nobody there, right? They have a sign on the door, and I've personally seen this. So housing is incredibly important to me. If there's a lack of transparency, lack of accountability, we are not able to even improve it.

And I will say that the board that makes up HAKA, my personal opinion, also, they are Members of different cities in the county. Half of them, I'm gonna say even majority of them, are not renters, are not lower income, and do not understand the needs of the population that we are trying to actually serve through HAKA.

So I think that board governance needs to be more transparent. I think that, you know, data and funding needs to be transparent. And accountability is incredibly important. So they've passed a bond measure, and yet we don't see the money going out to the people.

So I think that there's a lot of problems, but I'm going to stick to this particular Bill for the time being.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate, you know, the education about the special nature here for that. With that, I. We believe we have a quorum. So I'm going to ask Madam Secretary to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We have a quorum with that this enjoys a do pass recommendation. The motion by Miss Reyes and second by Mister Grayson secretary, please call the roll action.

Do pass. To the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Have 6 votes that Bill is out. We will hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. This time we will call any Senator on our agenda today wishing to present. We have an opening. Happy to entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Second by Mister Grayson, second by Miss Reyes. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number 4. Item number 4, SB 1408, do pass to consent. Item number 5, SB 1190. Do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Item number 6, SB 1443. Do pass to the Committee on Human Services. [Roll Call]

Consent Calendar is out. 6. 0. will hold the roll open for absent Members.

Later.

You're doing your best.

[Indistinct chatter].

Thank you. Next, we'll move to Item Number Two by Mr. Senator Wiener. This is SB 1037. When you are comfortable, you may begin to present your bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I'm here today to present SB 1037, which is sponsored by the Attorney General. The Legislature, as you are keenly aware, have taken significant steps in recent years to spur housing production in California, including requiring cities to zone for more new homes under their--under our revamped approach to the housing element, as well as a number of--a series of laws to streamline and expedite permit approvals.

Together, these laws are extremely impactful. Although many cities are earnestly working to comply with state housing law--I want to be clear: this is not about demonizing cities; a large majority of cities are absolutely trying hard to follow the law and are working with the state to come into compliance and are acting in extremely good faith--there is a minority of cities that are not.

There are cities that are basically refusing to adopt a compliant housing element, and there are cities that refuse to issue permits for housing projects that they are mandated under state law to issue that they have no discretionary to deny. The Governor and the Attorney General have really prioritized housing enforcement.

Unfortunately, there's a major gap in housing enforcement law, and specifically, that is if a city in absolute bad faith refuses to follow state housing law, and it gets to the extreme point that the Attorney General files a lawsuit--which doesn't happen that often, these are extreme cases--and then it goes all the way through the litigation, not resolving it in the middle of litigation, all the way through to the point where a judge issues a formal court judgment against that city--so these are--we're talking extreme cases--and the city has acted arbitrarily, forced a lawsuit, and went all the way to judgment, today, that city still has multiple months after the entry of judgment to come into compliance and avoid any penalties whatsoever.

That is absolutely absurd, and what this bill will do is that if you get to that extreme point of a lawsuit and entry of judgment against the city, it will require assessment of penalties. There is a range of penalties, between ten and 50,000 dollars a month, so the court can look at the facts. In addition, these fees will be held in trust for that city to build affordable housing. It's not just going into the General Fund. And I want to be clear: this is not about good faith, honest mistakes by cities. That's never going to result in a lawsuit.

And if it happens to, the city would have ample opportunity to come into compliance and correct things during the litigation. This is about the extreme cases. There need to be consequences for not following state law and when you're doing so in bad faith, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today is Jana Saniford, who is a legislative advocate for the Attorney General, and then Francesc Martí, Senior Director of Strategy and Government Affairs for California YIMBY.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm Jana Staniford, a legislative advocate in the Office of the Attorney General. I have with me Alex Fisch, who's available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. On behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, I want to start by thanking Senator Wiener for authoring this important bill, which we're proud to sponsor.

As you know, California is facing a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis. The Legislature has passed strong laws in recent years to address this crisis, including over a dozen ministerial approval laws, but those laws will only move the needle to address the housing crisis if they're followed.

Attorney General Rob Bonta has made enforcement of housing laws a top priority and has taken action against some of the most egregious violators, but remedies available under existing law are not effectively deterring local governments from violating these laws in the first place.

Despite the ministerial approval laws on the books, several cities have been reluctant to process qualifying applications ministerially, instead imposing local requirements and other creative policies and practices that deviate from the clear, objective standards that the Legislature has established. This frustrates the purpose of the ministerial approval laws, which is to streamline approvals and build housing quickly. And while local governments are tasked with planning to meet the housing needs of their communities, there are nearly 190 jurisdictions currently out of compliance with Housing Element Law. This noncompliance consumes public resources.

The Attorney General could do more to advance other important state housing priorities if every jurisdiction complied promptly with a simple black and white deadline. To address these rampant compliance issues, local governments must be deterred from violating the law. Effective monetary penalties will serve as a deterrent and will strengthen the state's hand when the Attorney General warns local governments that they're out of compliance.

And for local governments that refuse to comply, who shirk their responsibilities to meet their fair share of regional and statewide housing needs, SB 1037 would allow the Attorney General to hold them quickly to account. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Chair Ward, Distinguished Members of the Assembly Housing Committee, my name is Francesc Martí, and I represent California YIMBY, an organization dedicated to ensuring abundant, secure, and affordable housing for all Californians. I'm here to express our strong support for SB 1037, authored by Senator Wiener, which aims to strengthen the enforcement of California's critical housing laws. Our housing laws, passed by the Legislature in recent years, are essential tools in addressing our state's severe housing shortage and affordability crisis.

These laws are designed to streamline housing production and ensure that local governments are doing their part to meet the housing needs of their communities. When cities and counties fail to comply with these laws, they undermine the intent of the legislation and slow down much-needed housing construction.

Noncompliance with housing laws not only obstructs potential housing projects, but also perpetuates inequality in housing access and affordability. Or in other words, it deepens the crisis rather than alleviating it. About 200 jurisdictions are currently out of compliance, as we just heard, with Housing Element Law impeding the state's overall ability to meet these critical housing needs.

SB 1037 addresses these compliance issues by allowing the Attorney General to seek effective monetary penalties for violations, serving as a strong deterrent, and seriously encouraging local governments to take their housing responsibilities seriously. At California YIMBY, we envision a future where every Californian has access to safe, affordable, and abundant housing.

And to achieve this goal, we need local governments to fulfill their obligations and follow the law. You know, it's pretty important to keep in mind that compliance with state housing laws is not optional, but it is a requirement for building thriving, inclusive communities. By supporting SB 1037, we can send a clear message that adherence to housing laws is essential for creating the communities we all deserve. On behalf of California YIMBY, I urge you to vote aye on SB 1037. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here in support of SB 1037?

Meghan Rose with LeadingAge California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Ahmamson Jr., an Orange County philanthropist, in support.

Thank you.

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

Morning. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of SPUR, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition wishing to provide testimony? Come on up.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition to the bill. Wanted to direct the committee to where our main concerns come from, which is in Section 2B of the bill. Given that it says that any land use or permitting decisions are arbitrary, capricious, and lacking in evidentiary support makes sense, but the back half of the bill says that these decisions that are contrary to established public policy, procedurally unfair, or unlawful.

Now that language is super vague and open for interpretation. I don't know what 'procedurally unfair' means. So our concern is with that language, that there's no ability to cure the violation. It's going to set up a cycle of continuous litigation between cities and developers, and we are concerned that this is not going to address the affordable housing crisis.

Now Cal Cites has offered amendments to the author's office and has appreciated the conversations about those that address these concerns, but that is where it remains because overly punitive fines to cities and local governments are not going to address the housing crisis. It's just going to continue us--create a continuous cycle of litigation, and we don't want that.

And we are concerned that it would, because of the vagueness of the language, it would impact our cities, that--we agree the ones that are acting in good faith should not be punished, and the ones that are blatantly disregarded the law should face the full consequences of that realm. We're not here to defend those actions. So I think that second half of that section that I pointed out is where our main concerns lie, and we're hopeful to work through that process in the next committee should this get through and through the rest of the process. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for that. Any other members of the public here in opposition? Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the Cities of Carlsbad, Corona, Merced, and Rancho Palos Verdes, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the Town of Truckee and the City of San Marco, in respectful opposition, echoing the comments of the League of Cities.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cassandra Mar, on behalf of the City of Downey and the Town of Apple Valley, in respectful opposition.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, members of the dais. Assembly Member Grayson.

Thank you, Chair Ward, and thank you to the author for the bill. I know it's very vitally important for HCD and AG to be able to have the tools to enforce law, to enforce state law, and thank you to the testimony of League of Cities for bringing out a very important aspect as far as the ability to cure, the right to cure. So, from the author, would you be so kind as to address is there cover for--in the bill for jurisdictions that are trying to get it right?

Yeah, I'm sorry. With all due respect to the League of Cities, that is just not a meritorious argument. Under--the way this process works, cities will have years to cure. They'll have, like many, many opportunities because this is how it plays out.

If you are adopting a deficient housing element, it's not like you submit a deficient housing element and the Attorney General runs into court the next day. You're going to get notification from HCD saying, 'hey, here's feedback on your housing element.' And that's going to go back and forth and back and forth.

And then if it gets to the point where it goes to the Attorney General, that's going to probably be a year later, the Attorney General will probably then send you a letter saying, 'hey, you're violating the law,' and then even if you do get sued--which, again, we don't see these lawsuits that often--it's like the extreme outliers when they actually file a lawsuit probably several years into the process. As we know, during litigation, you have every opportunity to resolve it. Say, I'm going to come into compliance. Let's have a settlement agreement.

And in a case where a city refuses to issue a ministerial permit, say, under SB 423 or SB 2011, just unlawfully does that, they will again, they will get a letter saying, 'this is not a compliance, please issue the permit.' They'll have every opportunity to correct course. So to suggest that this is going to just like, people are going to, like, inadvertently get a fine, there are many, many safe harbors to correct the problem and avoid these fines.

May I follow up, Chair? To the League of Cities, in a worst-case scenario, how long would it take a city to correct course? In your estimation?

Well, I think it depends on the city, so I don't have an actual date for it. I mean, my understanding is, you know, most of the cities are acting in good faith. There's obviously some bad actors that we've seen in the media. So I don't know what timeline is. I can look into that and see what it is. I would assume, you know, given the back and forth with HCD, a lot of our cities go through that process to comply with Housing Element Law and ministerial approval.

You know, I think part of it is just the aspects of like, you know, new state laws every year and trying to learn and get up to speed for it. And, you know, I don't think they're gonna--I think if they're informed, they're, they're gonna do their best to do that, you know, so I think that's where the concern is, but we don't want us to go through the process with the procedurally unfair because that could vary by, you know, who's, you know, challenging that.

And to the AG's Office, how many lawsuits have been filed up to date, like maybe in the last decade or five years?

I can speak to the last handful of years, probably five. For ministerial approvals, I can think of one, and for Housing Elements, I can think of one that's active litigation, and four, I believe, that have--that were comp--that resulted in a compromise.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to thank the Senator for this bill. I did receive a letter of opposition from one of my cities, the City of Colton, but I appreciate that you are looking to those who, as you say, are attempting to comply in good faith, or who face substantial undue hardships. I think that takes care of the cities that really are making the effort and just simply can't comply in the time limit, in that time limit that's provided to them.

I also appreciate the fact that the money is held in a trust so that the city can then build affordable housing using the very funds that were, that were taken from them for not complying initially. So with that, I would move the bill.

Thank you. Moved by Ms. Reyes; second by Mr. Lee. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva.

Thank you. I want to appreciate the author for bringing this forward. Of course, this is one of the last resorts that we want to see, and the numbers bear with maybe five cases and where the AG is involved. Noting the opposition, I too, have one city: Fullerton, where I live.

This is opposition, but I also see other cities who have been very much fighting the idea of building. We see the City of Huntington Beach here and others. This is a compounded effect when we believe it's only the local jurisdiction's city's purview of how they choose to maneuver with their housing elements, but it also makes it part of a regional issue because of one or two or three or four or five cities within a region don't permit and start to build. It impacts the other cities that are.

And that in many ways is the goal is to tie things up in litigation, to stall and delay, and do anything but move forward permitting for housing. So it is not just the one city who says we're not going to do this, or the back and forthing for sometimes years, it's the idea that is a deliberate type of maneuver to stall and delay, and we have seen this too often, and what happens is the cities that then move forward with building many times see the other impacts while other cities kind of stay out of the argument.

I again appreciate the idea that if a city goes all the way and there are penalties incurred, that they would go to a housing fund, but with that, it really doesn't make us feel in a position that we're again slapping local governments, if you want to say it that way, but this is a very small part of the local governments that are in this category, because again, we know that most local governments are trying to do what they can as fast as they can, and I appreciate that, and I, of course, support this.

Thank you, Ms. Quirk-Silva. Vice Chair Patterson.

Great, thank you. This is one of those bills where I came in thinking one thing and actually listen to what people are saying before I make up my mind. So I have a, you know, I'm 100 percent against, you know, cities acting in bad faith when they do, and I think there should be consequences to that as well.

And I've always said, you know, if all cities did was allow housing in areas where housing is intended, you know, and didn't allow the ministerial housing to actually happen, didn't slow down projects that were zoned for high-density or even single family, and just allowed it to happen, if all California did, including some CEQA relief on where there's already zoned housing, allowing the housing to happen without tying that up, if all we did, we'd probably solve the housing crisis tomorrow, if that's all we did.

But we also read in the newspaper regularly about a lot of cities that are bad actors, and I'm not sure if consequences are giving equitably to, you know, cities that are bad actors. And that's a concern that I have is discretion with the Attorney General, whether it's this one or future attorney general. But can you describe again the way you see the process working out? It's so basically, city doesn't allow ministerial just--because you did describe it, but I want to hear one more time.

Sure, and just one thing I want to note in terms of CEQA, the ministry approval laws, which--and you've supported them, and I appreciate that--remove these projects from CEQA entirely. And so for--we've had some situations where there will be a ministerial approval law, a project clearly qualifies for that permit.

And again, most cities are absolutely working earnestly to comply with law and to grant that permit, but there are some cities who will either just refuse to issue it, they'll make up a totally bogus reason why they don't have to issue it, or they will slow play it and put up illegal obstructions to try to slow play it.

And when that happens, I mean, of course the developer can always file a lawsuit, but the Attorney General--and there are situations where it will probably start with HCD sending a letter in saying, 'we believe that you are acting illegally, please come into compliance,' and that'll consume a period of time, and by the time the Attorney General gets involved, the Attorney General is typically only going to get involved because of resource constraints in the most extreme cases, not in a minor case.

It might be months and months or maybe a year later, who knows--that the Attorney General sends a letter saying, 'you are violating the law, please cease and desist and come into compliance.' And then by the time you get to a lawsuit being filed, a lot has happened procedurally, from HCD, from the Attorney General trying to get them to comply, and then once you have a lawsuit, we all know that the courts are not always the fastest moving.

It's a deliberative process, and you've had many opportunities during litigation to come into a settlement and resolve it. So it's like--and meanwhile, that developer who's just trying to build housing, that typically complies with the zoning, they have a state law, and now you're a year or two later--I'm sorry, there should be a consequence for doing that when you're acting like that. And I can't think of any other scenario.

Can you imagine someone who's dumping raw sewage into a lake and whatever agency comes to them and says, 'please stop doing that,' and they don't stop doing it, and you tell them again, 'please stop doing it,' they don't stop doing it, and so finally you sue them and you win, and then they're like, 'okay, now we'll come into compliance,' and then there's no penalties. It makes no sense, and yet that's what we've been tolerating here.

Is this only when the case is won?

Yes, it is only after it's gone all the way through litigation through a trial or a motion and a formal final judgment has been entered by the judge against the city. That's the only thing that would trigger one of these penalties.

Okay, thank you. Just one more comment. You mentioned that there are 190 city or 190 jurisdictions out of compliance. Is that what you mentioned?

I think it's 183 as of this morning.

Okay, maybe it'll be 182 by the time we get done with this, but I will say just generally that is kind of what concerns me. I know in my own jurisdictions who are trying to make good faith efforts--and as you know, you get these letters back from HCD that say you need to change some ordinance because we believe that it does XYZ, and it's not really relevant to this bill, so I won't hash on that too much.

But the range of out of compliance is very large, you know, and I always am very concerned generally with supporting legislation that gives the AG more authority out of these out-of-compliance cities because it's huge. You could maybe miss your deadline and you're just debating over this HCD letter you get, right? But this is something where a court has entered a judgment.

The court has entered a judgment, so it's way--I'm also, I'm more of a glass-half-full guy, and so what I'm gonna say is we just profoundly changed RHNA and housing profoundly over the last decade, and we are now in the very first cycle under that new, very different regime.

And more than 60 percent of cities are in compliance. So of course I want it to be 100 percent, but most cities are in compliance, and of that 183, a whole bunch of them are trying earnestly, they're not going to get sued. So I think we're getting there. It's a difficult, awkward transition now, but I think it's actually going reasonably well under the circumstances, and 183 and a tiny number of lawsuits. Tiny.

Well, I'm a half-empty kind of guy, so--

We're like a--we're the--that's why we like each other, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you. No other members wishing to speak? Senator, I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I know the evolution of this has been something over time. I want to appreciate our Attorney General for his leadership and the staff work that goes behind that as well, to try to make sure that our laws are enforced through that learning process, understanding that we don't have the enforcement tools necessary to really work on.

Just as you had stated, just a really, really small percent of jurisdictions that don't feel the need to comply, and it's not so much compliant with state law. It is. That's a fact, but it's really trying to do your fair share, trying to do the same part that other cities are trying to stretch and be able to do their fair share and their same part, and that's all we're asking everybody to do, and so to be able to have that additional tool through this experience to be able to do that.

I did want to beg the question though, through opposition, because you really highlighted on certain language as well, and looking at Section 2B, I'm confused. What was--what is objectionable about the language that is used here because these seem to be terms that are subjective by definition, but those are exactly the same terms that are argued in court whether or not an action is unfair or illegal. What is it about these terms that is insufficient to be able to meet?

Yeah. So I think the first section about arbitrary, capricious, and lacking evidentiary support is a common legal standard. From my understanding, the established to contrary public policy: procedurally unfair, unlawful, I think, has some definition there, but I think the concern is with those--what does established to contrary public policy mean? What does procedurally unfair mean?

Is it the process? What does that look like? So, I think that's where the concern is, and we're concerned it's going to open the floodgates to some litigation, and I know that's not the intent of the author's office, but we're concerned with that from an on-the-ground perspective.

Okay, just to put a pin in this, Senator, I'd like you to--

You'd like to respond?

Attorney General's Office?

Sure. Absolutely. This is--that language is intended to mirror the standard of a 1085 writ. So there's case law--you know, essentially if we win, then we've--then that the penalty is established because these are brought by 1085 writ. So the courts are very familiar with what these terms mean, and it's not an, you know, an exacting standard in the sense that one particular word in this is going to dramatically change the application of the penalty.

Yeah. And because this isn't Judiciary Committee 1085, where it's a writ of mandate for anyone who doesn't--

Sorry. Yes. Thank you.

I appreciate that precedent. I think it's helpful to put a pin in it. As this continues to move forward, if there's ongoing dialogue that helps to perfect any, you know, definition here, I think that's always helpful, but it's clear to me what the intent is and what the achievement could be through this bill. Senator, I invite you to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Action: do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call].

We are at five to one. That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for absent members.

Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I see the next author in the room who's available to present on our file order is Senator Durazzo. So we will take up item number seven. This is SB 1500. And Senator, when you are comfortable and ready, you may begin your presentation.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee, let me start by thanking the Committee chair very much and your staff for working with us. I am accepting the Committee amendments 1 and 2 outlined on pages 5 and 6 of the analysis.

And I agree to the concept in amendment three with the understanding that we will continue to work with the chair and Committee staff to insert inoperability language as the Bill continues to move through the process.

I'm really here at the request of Mayor Karen Bass and the City of Los Angeles, who you all know has been singularly focused on homelessness, SB 150 is another tool for the locals to address the unhoused crisis. The cost of housing has become such a tremendous burden, especially if you are Low and extremely Low income households.

To help provide housing opportunities for Low income individuals, cities like Los Angeles provide voucher programs to incentivize developers to house such Low income prospective tenants who may not have the immediately have the economic means to secure housing.

In 2023, the US Department of Housing granted waivers to the city and County of LA for greater flexibility to move unhoused people into temporary housing.

Despite having these critical resources, housing providers have expressed that the risk with the current housing voucher system and the rules with the current housing voucher system and rules, if these providers house families based on representation representations, once they have proper documentation, they may later find discrepancies such as income ineligibility and risk financial penalties, then the vouchers go unused.

I'm sorry, was SB 1500 addresses this issue by providing these vouchers more flexibility to developers and operators, with prospective tenants being housed with HUD waivers. With me to testify and support and answer questions, I have Kevin Keller, interim deputy mayor of housing for LA. Mayor Karen Bass.

Thank you. Motion and second testimony up to two minutes each. Perfect.

Thank you very much chair and Members, my name is Kevin Keller. I am the Interim Deputy Mayor of Housing for Los Angeles, for Mayor Bass, and pleasure to be here. Thank you. As part of Mayor Bass housing first approach to homelessness, the city has taken every effort to cut through bureaucratic red tape, swiftly bringing unhoused angelenos indoors.

Months ago, people experiencing homelessness were forced to fill out 30 plus pages of questionnaires, proof of income and ID prior to being placed in housing, all difficult challenges for those living on the streets.

In an effort to speed this process, the City of LA successfully appealed last year to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, securing several waivers for the city and County of Los Angeles.

The waivers provided the flexibility to speed up the temporary to permanent housing placement process by allowing individuals experiencing homelessness to self certify essential information such as income, Social Security number, date of birth, and disability status.

These waivers represented the removal of a major barrier, but since then, we have learned that new roadblocks do exist at the state level that hamper the use of these waivers, and that's what this spells about the City of LA has 36,000 choice vouchers representing 68 total household Members.

When housing providers accept these vouchers, they commit to meeting certain income eligibility requirements in their funding application. If a housing provider uses the self certification waiver allowed by the Federal Government, they currently risk facing multiple financial and reputational penalties if they discover minor discrepancies between self reported data and the ultimate documentation.

One example would be a person experiencing homelessness who is believed to have an income at or below 30% area median income, but is later found to be even a dollar over that 30% AMI level.

TCAC does notify the IR's if an individual experiencing homelessness does not have income verified within 60 days or has an income verified above an established limit as a result.

Unfortunately, we have not seen housing developers and operators fully utilize these waivers out of a fear of penalties from HCD and TCAC if they place people experiencing homelessness into an income restricted unit and later learn that the individual income is above the limit.

SB 1500 would create a statutory guideline for HCD and TCAC to count a tenant at 30% AMI when a tenant gets a third party income verification above 30% AMI but below 50% AMI and was placed into an income housing restricted unit using HUD waiver authority.

This count would only be for purposes of qualifying a tenant for the income restricted unit, and SB 1500 would provide a 24 month cure period to allow any issues to be resolved for the use of the HUD waiver. With that wanted to speak strongly in support.

We look forward to ongoing conversations with the Committee as the Bill moves through the process and very supportive on behalf of the mayor for an I vote on SPF 1500. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Quintana. If you want to make any remarks on behalf of the City of Los Angeles.

Just really Freddie Quintana, Senior Director of State Affairs to Mayor Karen Bass, available for questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses or Members of the public here in support of this item you see none. I have no registered opposition. Any Members of the public wishing to provide testimony or register opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll turn it back to the dais. Any questions from Members? And did we have a motion?

Motion. And a second. And a second. Thank you, Senator. I want to thank you for bringing this forward.

I want to thank Mayor Bass as well, for her leadership, trying to set an example for all of us about taking the crisis seriously and looking at unlocking options that are barriers to us, to being able to get the hard work done.

She has really shown that leadership, and we recognize that we've got the need to be able to align, I think, some of our state laws as well, to be able to allow you to do just that very same work.

That said, I appreciate your willingness to be able to continue to work as we're sort of giving a little bit back from the state.

You know, we're grateful, and maybe we'll learn some lessons as well about HUD zone processes through this, that this waiver might actually be able to demonstrate some data that we deserve some improvements on their end, but so long for consistency's purposes that a waiver may not be in effect.

We want to make sure that we're aligned with what the state is doing through this Bill as well. I appreciate your willingness to be able to continue to work on the technical detail that will make sure that we get that right and don't inadvertently cause a further issue for you. With that, I invite you to close.

Thank you all. Thank you for your hard work, chair. And urgent an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The action do pass is amended to the Committee on Military and Veterans affairs. [Roll Call]

Right now that is out. 5 to 0. We'll hold the roll open per absent Members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we are awaiting authors.

Thank you. I see next on the order is Senator Skinner. When you are ready and comfortable, you may come to the presentation table and present item three. This will be SB 1211.

Thank you, Chair Ward and Members, I don't need to remind us that California has a serious shortage in that supply of housing. And that, of course, shortage of supply has contributed to the very high cost of housing. ADUs are one of our housing success stories. They are relatively affordable to construct.

They are a very good use of infill housing because they're primarily put in locations where there's already residential uses, and so there's already housing stock and such. So they're an efficient use of residential land in our housing stock. Now, our current law.

So, as I think all of you know, over the years, we have taken state action to make it easier for ADUs in different, you know, all up and down the state. And one of the actions that we took a couple years ago was to recognize that there are multifamily properties where an ADU can be appropriate.

So I think most of us think about ADUs mostly on the single family land or, you know, in the property owners who has a single family home, that they would add an ADU, say, as a conversion to a garage or something in the backyard.

But in fact, many of our multi family properties have, whenever they were designed, they had lots of additional space that they didn't cover with housing that is underutilized. And so there's an opportunity to utilize that space with ADUs.

And so there was a law that allowed for ADU conversions in multifamily properties within the existing building envelope, and that law restricted detached ADU. So, in other words, ones that were not a conversion within the building envelope to only two. So that. So you could have 1000 unit multifamily property or a 500 unit multifamily property.

And yet our law now restricted you to only two detached, regardless of how much space you might have. So my Bill 1211 provides additional flexibility where adus can be cited on multifamily properties and lifts that number to up to eight detached adus as long as the number does not exceed double the amount of existing.

So, in other words, if you only had a four unit multifamily property, you wouldn't be able to add eight. So let me have my witnesses in support. We have Louis Morante from the Casita coalition. Casita coalition is. I would recommend that anyone who is interested in ADU go onto their website.

They have great information about everything to do with ADUs, but we have Lewis here, he's a founding board Member of that coalition. And we have Esme Lopez from Unidos US,California State Director. Go ahead.

Thank you, Senator. Folks, can also, policymakers can join the Casita Coalition for the Low price of $25 too, if that's my name is Louis Morante. I represent the Casita Coalition. As a board Member, I should say we're proud to sponsor this Bill and support it.

And my employer, the Bay Area Council, also supports this Bill, but I'm providing comments on behalf of the Casita Coalition today. The Casita Coalition is a four year old statewide nonprofit dedicated to creating a more equitable, inclusive and sustainable California by restoring housing choice and operating opportunity to renters and buyers through gentle infill like ADUs.

We're pleased to support Senator Skinner's SB 1211 today, which will allow greater flexibility in where the multifamily ADUs are already allowed under state law, where they can be located so that we can get more middle income homes on a variety of properties with varying site conditions.

I'm happy to answer any technical questions about the Bill and defer most of my comments to next witness. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, I'm Esmeralda Lopez and I'm the California State advocacy Director for Unidos U.S. We're the nation's largest Latino civil rights advocacy organization, and in addition to an office in Los Angeles and staff in Sacramento, we have an affiliate, a network of 69 community based organizations throughout the State of California.

I've been advocating for issues impacting Latinos for 14 years, and I'm here today in support of SB 1211 because it will provide more flexibility for ADU configuration on underutilized multifamily sites, adding to the state's housing supply. It is essential for California's economy that Latinos in California have access to affordable housing.

Latinos make up 40% of the state's population, and in our report, building California's Future Latino home ownership, Unidos found that between 2010 and 2021, Latinos accounted for 75.6% of the California's population growth.

We also found that Latinos make up 30% of the state's total households, and since 2010, the Latino community has added 82% of new net households in the state. In a recently published survey. We published it just yesterday on the economic security of Latinos.

We found that 54% of California Latinos surveyed were concerned about being able to make their rent or mortgage payment next month. This is in line with a poll that we conducted in December of last year in which we found that Latino voters in California listed housing as one housing cost as one of their top concerns.

SB 1211 provides builders more flexibility to build ADUs on underutilized multifamily parcels, creating an opportunity to gently increase density and add to California's housing supply.

10 seconds.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter and I respectfully request your vote in support of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Are there any Members of the public here in support of SB 1211?

Mister Chair Members, I'm Jim Finnegan representing AARP and we are definitely in support of the Bill. Thank you. Because it increases affordable housing.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Chair Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal, legislative advocate for California UB here in strong support as a proud co sponsor of the Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bob Naylor for Field Study and Company in support. Thank you.

Katherine Charles, on behalf of Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Member, Sosia Madanat, here on behalf of California Community Builders in support.

Thank you. Mary Ellen Shea, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies in support.

Mister Chair, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse public affairs here. On behalf of Spur, Build, Casa and Eden housing in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition wishing to provide any testimony?

Good morning, Chairman, Members again, Brady Girton, on behalf of the League of California Cities and respectful opposition. Apologies. We weren't able to get a letter in. Missed it with all the bills coming from the Assembly side or the Senate side. So our apologies. We have informed the author's office of our concerns.

Big concern, just the ministerial approval process. We understand adus have been very successful. They've been very hopeful.

But we are concerned that extending it to up to eight detached units and multifamily complexes ministerially to without discretion or review about it is concerning for the fact that the development was not meant to account for that many units understand that there's very good intentions with ADUs.

We support the development of ADUs in our community, but are concerned that the ability of local governments to not review for the community services needed, the limits on parking that we've seen that are already required by ADU law. We're concerned that we increase residence. We won't have the services that are beneficial to the existing residents.

So look forward to working with the author's office. And again, apologies on the delayed opposition on this one. Thank you.

No problem. Thank you for your testimony today. Is there any other Members of the public here in opposition wishing to be on record okay. Seeing none, we'll turn it back to Member comments on the dais. Vice Chair Patterson.

Great, thank you. Question. So in, I'm just thinking of a multifamily, like, high density project, an apartment complex, for example. This is applicable to those as well, I assume?

Yes.

Okay. So in my city, you know, the. So all the ADU laws would apply in terms, I assume, in terms of connection fees.

And yes, this doesn't eliminate any of those.

Okay. Right. You know, I'm just thinking about thinking this through a little bit where there's a high density project, and I think for the most part, it might not be, you know, great business in some areas where the apartment owners are, you know, eliminating all their parking for ADUs. Right.

Probably might get hard, be hard to get tenants at some point if they did that on all the parking spots. But there's a special district in my city that charges $15,000 per unit. Whether you're a 1000 square foot apartment or 100,000 square foot mansion, I hope to live in one day.

And it's the same connection fee no matter what it is. But it does kind of raise a little bit of just.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in terms of how apartment owners and managers will do this, because if they're doing, let's say, 20 units on a lot or something like that, you know, that is a significant potential impact, you know, to the connections that they're going to, whether that's a sewer system or something like that.

So now I would say obviously consistent, you know, existing law is single family. I mean, every house in a neighborhood could put up, you know, an ADU, and we obviously don't charge those fees. And I think that's a good policy. So I don't know if you have any response to that.

It would just be kind of interesting to see how this rolls out on the apartment side. But sure.

Yeah, so I. The Bill originally would have allowed for more detached ADUs than what you have before you. Now we're really talking. There are no changes, no more than eight that would be ministerial. If the owner wanted to do more, of course they can go to the local government.

And the reason I was open and wanted to do more is because in this case, as you pointed out, if I'm the owner of the property and it's a multifamily and let's say it's a rental, I still want to have my business successful.

And if my removing of certain amenities is going to cause people not to rent my units, I mean, that I'm not going to cut off my noes to spite my face. Right? And nobody's forcing anyone to do these. These are purely. It's. It's allowing for.

If an owner sees, wow, you know, I've got this totally underutilized space that I could offer some housing units to, and it would. It will be attractive. I'll be able to rent it, or if it's a condo project, you know, condom, minimize it.

I can have a home ownership opportunity, but I'm not going to do that if it affects my ability to have my business operate. And I had the good fortune to go on a tour a couple weeks ago in my area, not just my district, but on a number of multifamily owners. And some of them were.

So one of the projects I looked at, it was a small. It was not a huge development company that owned many, many. It was an effect family business. They owned two multifamily properties. But they showed me where they had converted, some within the building envelope, where they had done some conversions to create ADUs.

And then what they would, if they could, if the law were changed, what spots on the property they would convert, and they were very clear. They're like, no. No way. We would never take up all the parking, because that's part of the amenity that makes our facility attractive. So we just would do it here, here and there.

So, anyway, it was a very interesting thing, and you know that the owner is always looking at their bottom line. So, anyway, back to the main point is this only allows ministerially up to eight, not more. Anything beyond that. Detached. Eight detached. Anything beyond that would have to go through the local government process.

Thank you. Any other Members wishing to comment? Do we have a motion by Miss Quirk-Silva? In a second by Mister Grayson. Senator, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I recognize that as much as the Legislature has been working on streamlining ADU policies that are now responsible for about one in five new home starts.

So we're trying to be able to work on a model that we know is working in practice, and recognizing that as this is implementing and as the years are going forward, your own observations are, I think, consistent with other kind of new barriers that we are seeing out in the landscape right now that deserve a little relax and to be able to produce something that we know is working in practice.

So I want to thank you for your continued leadership on that and invite you to close.

Thank you. Good discussion. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Madam Secretary, please call the roll action.

Do pass to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]

We are at 6 to 1. That Bill will be out, and I'm going to hold the roll open for absent Members. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And next I see Senator Caballero is here, who has two bills before this Committee. I'll invite you to choose which you'd like to present first, and when you're ready, begin presentation.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. I'll start with file number eight, SB 37. So thank you for the opportunity to present SB 37, which will create a program to provide housing subsidies to senior adults and adults with disabilities who are experienced or at risk of experiencing homelessness.

Californians on a fixed income find it difficult to afford the rapidly rising rent increases. Many of these Californians have spent their entire lives working at Low wage jobs where they earn a very small pension, if at all, or they depend on Social Security benefits that are clearly inadequate to cover rising rents.

As a result, these adults face housing and insecurity, and are one emergency away from disaster for extremely Low income renters. Roughly eight out of 10 spend 50% of their income on rent. People with disabilities comprise about 46% of those experiencing homelessness, and African American households are more than five times as likely to experience homelessness when compared to the General population.

The SACB just came out with a report within the past few days that talked about the inequity among different ethnic groups and African Americans fare very poorly and Native Americans fare even worse. So it's a crisis situation, and quite frankly, how we treat our seniors is a really good example of how kind of the care that we have in our society for getting old. And it's one of the reasons that this really tugs at my heart.

Basically, if we do nothing, the senior adult homeless population is expected to triple between 2017 and 201830 leaving vulnerable seniors on the street. I mean, it's hard enough to see people on the street, but then to see as many seniors as we have, it's really, really untenable.

There are targeted programs such as Home Safe program and homelessness, and disability advocacy program, which really play an important role in housing seniors, including the adult protective service clients that are eligible for SSI payments. However, no comprehensive state program exists that provides housing subsidy for older and disabled adults who are on fixed income income.

Meanwhile, the housing choice vouchers and other federally subsidized housing programs often take years for applicants to end up on the list. And in the meantime, we continue to see the homeless senior population rise. SB 37 will provide a rental subsidy targeted to these adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

And it would establish a special unit within the Department of Housing and Community Development to offer competitive grants to nonprofits, continuum of cares, and other organizations with the resources, expertise, and cultural competencies to provide assistance to seniors. So, really important opportunity. It's really based on a recommendation by a coalition that has been looking at senior homelessness.

With me today to testify is Megan Rose from Leadingage California, and Wallace Richardson, a person with lived experience and on the CSH lived experience policy advisory board.

Thank you. Whoever would like to go first?

Yes. Good morning. I am Wallace Richardson, and I am from Silver Lake, and I'm 71 years old, and I've been housed for 12 years now. My lived experience is I was 57 years old when I became homeless. My life was primarily taking care of my mom, working, cleaning, taking her to her Doctor's appointments. My mom passed away.

I was alone, and rent was due, $1,800. And I didn't have the money and didn't know what to do. I didn't want to be evicted, so I thought I would move into my truck. It was possible to move into housing through various agencies, Department of Public Social Services, gateway, homeless healthcare, and path. After moving into permanent supportive housing, I gained peace of mind. I felt safe. I felt part of the community again. I felt more stable. I feel very hopeful for the future.

I am here today speaking because I want to urge you to support Senate Bill 37 for rental subsidies for older adults and people with disabilities and housing stability with an affordable place to live. I was able to sleep in a bed, use a rent, use a restroom, cook my meals, thrive, and not just survive.

I am able to go to school, work, set goals. The lessons I learned from being homeless are I have a choice about my life. There is a direct relationship between the thoughts I think and the experiences I experience. I close again, I just want to restate that. I am asking you to support Senate Bill 37.

Good morning. My name is Megan Rose. I'm with Leadingage California. Leadingage California represents over 800 nonprofits across the state that serve older adults in various capacities, including over 400 providers of affordable housing for older adults. As you've heard, older adults are becoming unhoused in record numbers. Wallace's story is far too common.

One of the leading causes of older adults becoming unhoused is that they were a caretaker to an aging parent who passed away and left them without housing. The main reason that older adults are becoming unhoused is just due to simple income inequality.

We have seen in California that our costs, our housing costs and costs of living have increased far beyond the amount that our fixed incomes have increased. On average, it takes two years from the time of becoming unhoused before an older adult starts accessing services.

And this is compounded by the fact that many older adults who suffer very common medical issues such as incontinence, are being turned away from shelters. This is leading to us creating more and more older adults who are chronically homeless, who are becoming high utilizers of our healthcare system, and whose functional health status is an age much higher than their own age.

California's master plan for aging calls out housing and homelessness as a key initiative, and multiple state committees, including the MPA Impact Committee and the Disability and Aging Community Living Advisory Committee, have identified targeted rental subsidies, such as that identified in SB 37, as the top need for older Californians.

We urge you to support this Bill, which would turn the tide on the growing population of older adult homelessness by creating a three year rent stabilization pilot in up to five counties.

The Bill has been fine tuned over three years of work by a coalition of housing and homeless services providers and experts, and includes safeguards to ensure that the funds go to those who need it most.

It also requires the state to work with the local phasor to move subsidy recipients into long term HUD subsidies, such as vouchers or project based subsidies. Thank you for your leadership in this space, and we respectfully request your.

I vote thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support on SB 37?

Thank you. Vanessa Cajina on behalf of CalPACE, the statewide association of programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly, here in support.

Thank you, Mister Chair, Members. I'm Jim Finnegan representing AARP, as most of our 3.2 million California members are seniors or disabled, so this Bill provides affordable housing for those people. Thank you.

Thank you to Chair Members. Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of United way of greater Los Angeles, the San Diego Housing Commission, if I may Wallace thank you. That was awesome testimony and very much appreciate it and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the counties of Fresno, Madera, the city and County of San Francisco, and the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Yasmin Pellet, on behalf of Justice and Aging , a co-sponsor of the measure and strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Patricia Chadwick from the California Alliance of Retired Americans and living in Sacramento. I strongly support this.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation, in support, thank you.

Thank you.

And Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. Kathryn Charles, on behalf of Housing California and support, thank you.

Josh Gauger. On behalf of the California Community Living Network and the County Welfare Directors Association in support, thank you.

Good morning. Jared Moss, on behalf of City of Long Beach support, good morning.

Elizabeth Funk, on behalf of Degree Moves and support, thank you.

Robert Copeland, member of Cara and CA, four SSI Coalition, strong support. Thank you.

Cindy Young, Vice President of California Alliance for Retired Americans in strong support.

Thank you. We have no registered opposition on file. Is there anybody in opposition wishing to provide testimony or a statement of position? Okay, seeing none, we'll turn to Member comments, some Member Quirk-Silva.

I want to not only move the Bill, but show strong support for this Bill. This year. On our side, Assemblymember Rick Zbur and myself have been working on some similar ideas, but it's really on the idea of prevention related to homelessness.

And we've seen all too often quite a lot of funding going into homeless shelters, going into housing, and we haven't always seen the results we have wanted to see. And going back to this third idea, if you want to say pillar, which is prevention.

So whether it's a subsidy, whether it's housing assistance, we know all too often there are very limited resources related to vouchers and so forth. So this type of legislation really could move the needle to keep people housed once they become homeless.

We already know that it is incredibly difficult to move them out of that area they are, once they get an eviction, all of these things. So not only do I support it, would act, asked to be an author or with you on a joint or principal, whatever, but very happy to see this legislation. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember and okay, see no other. Okay, we have a second by Miss Reyes. No other Members comments. Mister Grayson.

I also want to thank the author for this much needed legislation Bill and would be honored to be added on.

Thank you. See no other. Ms. Reyes.

I'd love to be a co author also, but we know that and I missed the testimony. I'm sorry. But seniors, that's the group that's experiencing homelessness at a greater rate than any other group, and we absolutely owe it to them and those with disabilities to do more.

And I think making, being very intentional about it, as you are doing here, I think is an important step talks about our values as California. When we're saying these are two groups that we're saying we're going to protect, they absolutely deserve our protection. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now seeing no Members wishing to further address. Senator, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward, as you've done in the past, to be able to support and highlight and address the needs for aging Californians. We recognize that they are a growing part of our homeless population.

And I think to your opening statement, I agree strongly that it is a travesty and speaks very clearly on us where our values are and what we should be prioritizing with the work, the public work that we do. So I want to thank you for prioritizing this program as well. I think it will add value, and I invite you to close.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. And I appreciate all the comments. And let me just say that I agree with Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. I think at some point we need to put together a group that looks at all of our housing funds to figure out which are the ones that are actually where we have proof that they work and which are the ones we need to sweep into a different category and put them to work.

This is a new category of spending, and we're trying to stay away from that this year, particularly with the budget. But what all of our research shows is that when you make the investment on prevention, you save it on the other end with the reduction in hospitalizations, medical services, the money that we're spending on shelters that really aren't. It's not where people want to live. And so I would respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

Action do pass to the Committee on Aging and Long Term Care. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out 7-0 will hold the roll open for absent Members. I know Senator Caballero has one more Bill to present at this time. I'd like to also ask the staff of Senator Becker to encourage him to come to our room as he will be presenting our last Bill. Senator, with that you have item number eight.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SB 1123. Frist, let me thank the Committee for their work on the amendments. And I'll be accepting the Committee amendments, SB 1123 bills upon work that I did last year.

And frankly, it was a Bill that the speaker ran and did not finish, and the Bill would streamline the process for communities to build small scale, more affordable infill home ownership projects. So I want to emphasize the infill because there's been some concerns that we're going to go out onto to vacant land outside of communities.

And that's not the intention at all. The high cost of housing construction and the regulatory delays has contributed to our lack of affordability. And because supply simply has not kept pace with demand, this construction gridlock continues to drive up housing costs and drive down home ownership rates.

The affordability crisis has become so extreme that homes now cost more than 8.5 times the average family salary. But 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 families, especially families of color.

To address these issues, last year I authored SB 684 to streamline the subdivision of parcels for the construction of small scale homeownership projects of up to 10 units in infill parcels. And the reason I'm so passionate about this is my first home. When I purchased it was a zero lot line constructed home.

This is when I was working for Sierra La, and I thought I was making tons of money because I had graduated from law school with no money, right? And I was earning $13,500 a year at CRLA.

But I could afford a home because it was a small lot size home and the developer had an incentive to get people in his home so he could move on and do more. Over the course of the fall, I heard from a variety of stakeholders.

So we got SB 684, but with some significant limitations at the last minute. The two year Bill a couple years ago and over the course of last fall, I heard from a variety of stakeholders on the need to include important technical and clarifying changes.

So we incorporated them into this Bill and they clarified the definition of habitable square feet. They 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 project 10 unit cap.

And that was real important, especially when you see Senator Skinner coming with adus. That doesn't count towards the 10 unit cap on these small lot sizes. Additionally, SB 1123 reestablishes the subdivision and project, streamlining benefits for small projects of 10 units or less on vacant parcels zoned for single family residential development.

That was always the purpose of the Bill. So I'm committed to unlocking opportunities to build smaller homes on small lots to increase homeownership projects in single family neighborhoods which have a history of excluding Low income and communities of color.

But to ensure the appropriate guardrails are in place, I've included that a local government may impose the same height standards on the project so that it doesn't look strange in the neighborhood.

And I would also like to thank the Committee for the work with me on amendments to provide additional guardrails, including a more detailed definition of what constitutes a vacant single-family parcel that would be eligible for streamlined subdivisions. These guardrails will unlock have the potential to unlock new development opportunities, but ensure they're consistent with the surrounding communities. With me to testify in support of the Bill is Esme Lopez with UnidosUS and Francesc Marti with California YIMBY.

Thank you. You have up to two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Esmeralda Lopez. I'm the California State Director for UnidosUS, and as I mentioned before, I've been advocating on issues impacting Latinos for over 14 years, and Unidos US has an affiliate network of 69 community-based organizations. What I didn't mention before is that our affiliates invest more than 1.9 billion in the state and employ more than 17,000 staff to provide direct services to 2.6 million Californians annually.

And I'm here today in support of 1123 because it expedites the building of starter homes by enabling production of varied ownership models such as single family homes, townhomes, or cottage courts, vacant lots that are smaller and less expensive.

Unidos US has had a long time commitment to helping mortgage ready Latinos create a pathway to home ownership, and we do this because our research has shown that it's an important and critical tool to reducing the racial and ethnic wealth gap for Latinos and creating financial stability.

However, our research has also shown that California's extreme housing shortage has put homeownership out of reach of many. In our report, titled building California's Future Latino Home Ownership, Unidos us found that there are 1.9 million mortgage ready Latinos in California that are aged 18 to 45. The homeownership rate, however, is 5% lower for Latinos in California than it is for the nation.

And a new Unidos US study that we published just yesterday on the economics security of Latinos has found that 61% of those Latinos that were surveyed in California thought that home prices were the main reason that they had not bought a home.

That is in part because California has some of the most unaffordable markets in the country for Latinos. According to the National Association for Hispanics Real Estate Professionals, seven of the top 10 most unaffordable markets for Latinos are in California.

And given the demographic trends and economic status of Latino the Latino community in California, it will have an increasing influence in the economic conditions of the state. The math driving SB 1123 is simple. A home that costs, that comes with less land will cost less, and I respectfully request your vote in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you Chair Ward and distinguished Members of the Assembly Housing Committee. My name is Francesc Marti and I represent California YIMBY, an organization together dedicated to ensuring abundant, secure, and affordable housing for all Californians. I stand before you today to express a strong support of SB 1123.

Authored by Senator Caballero, SB 1123 builds on the progress made by SB 684, extending its applicability to vacant parcels and single family zones. Access to affordable home ownership, especially in high opportunity neighborhoods, has generational impacts, and the lack of such opportunities perpetuates the legacy of discriminatory housing policies and continues to segregate neighborhoods by race and class.

As Esmeralda Lopez just alluded to, California's severe housing shortage disproportionately impacts low-income families and communities of color. In 2020, the average cost of a home was 8.5 times a family's annual salary, with African American and Latino homeownership rates significantly lower than those of white Californians.

SB 1123 addresses these challenges by facilitating the construction of smaller, more affordable homes in high opportunity neighborhoods. This Bill is about building communities, fostering diversity, and promoting economic mobility for all Californians.

The changes proposed in SB 1123 will make small homes faster, easier, and less expensive to build increasing affordable home ownership opportunities for families that have been left behind and left out of the California dream. 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 a chance to live in a safe, affordable home in a thriving community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in support of SB 1123?

Mister Chairman, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here on behalf of United Way of Greater Los Angeles, SPUR, Fieldstead & Company, and also on behalf of one more BuildCasa. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members of the Committee, Sosin Maddenat. I've been asked to give a Me Too for California Community Builders, the Central Valley Urban Institute, and LISC San Diego, all proud co sponsors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning again, Chair and Members. Kathryn Charles, on behalf of Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, in support.

Thank you very much. I see no registered opposition on file, but are there any members of the public here wishing to give opposition testimony or state a position of opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn it back to Committee Members on the dais. Any motion, Mister Patterson? Sorry.

Thanks. Although I think we did have a motion. Yeah. Well, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. This one probably going to get me in trouble in my jurisdiction. We have a lot of these, I mean, we're going from basically, you know, undeveloped to now suburban interface. And so we have a lot of these pockets where we have still acre and a half, five acre, 10 acre parcels that are intended for 10,000 minimum square foot lots and things like that.

And actually, when I was leaving, the City Council had a, had a kind of an issue with a similar law that passed a few years ago that. But I understand what you're trying to do if it was sort of limited to cities that aren't, because my county that I live in is a pro housing county, and I think that they've shown that they can sort of get these things and approve them because this applies to everybody, correct?

Yes.

So it does concern me, unfortunately, but I think it's not a bad idea for people who aren't making progress and aren't doing what they need to do. So anyway, I just wanted to express that. So thanks.

Appreciate, appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. See, no other Members wishing to make comments. Senator, I want to thank you for this work building on SB 684, which I was proud to support last year, and lessons learned through that process as well. I think you're trying to really close some of the gaps that were discovered. You had to get progress forward, and we're grateful for that. And here you're sort of revisiting this issue to make sure that we're finishing the job. And all of the deep thought that you've put into the technical language here and everything, I think, is something that's going to make this both productive, but also workable for the existing framework. With that, I invite you to close.

Thank you very much Mister Chair. The challenge we have, and I do appreciate. Assemblymember Patterson, the concern you have is that, and I've been a huge supporter of the realtors and the builders, but the houses get bigger and bigger, and the reason is because there's a market for it, people are traveling further and further in order to find the house of their dreams, and one that they can afford.

The problem is that in many communities, building those big homes does nothing for the residents that live in that community, because they can't afford it. In my district, and in the two Senate districts that I've represented, people are traveling further and further, and the houses are getting bigger and bigger. And if you look at the square footage, it's gone from around 2000 square feet a number of years ago to now, it's the 3500 square feet. And every year it's like 10ft bigger. But that progression over time means they become less and less affordable. So this is one of the anecdotes to that. It's just.

It's not huge, it'll make a small difference, but it gets people in the first home they've ever purchased, and it provides the opportunity for long term wealth for the family. And if they can afford to move up, they will, and they'll sell it, and someone else will have a chance to get their foot in the door as well. So these are really critical, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Action due passed as amended to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call].

That Bill is out. Seven to one, with one Member not voting. Thank you very much, Senator.

Thank you.

And our last item will be item number 10. This is SB 1395 by Senator Becker. And when you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mister chair. I try not to lean on the glass in the. In the Assembly rooms. Very hard not to. Thank you. I'm here to present SB 1395 Bill that we believe will save lives by bridging the gap between unsheltered and finding permanent housing. We all know that California has a large homeless population.

What people sometimes don't know is that 67% of our homeless Californians are unsheltered. Nationally, that's 20%. New York City, that's 5%. And you know, every night in our capitals, I walk home to where I stay here, you know, where I see people suffering on sidewalks, sleeping in doorways.

In the past 10 years, there's been a 238% increase, according to the Journal of Health affairs, in mortality rates for homeless communities due to exposure and lack of access to care. We know it's getting increasingly less healthy and increasingly more dangerous to sleep on the streets.

That's why I'm proud to author this Bill, the Interim Housing Act, which will fill a missing rung on the ladder from unsheltered homelessness to permanent housing. We believe this Bill will empower local governments who want to invest in interim housing and put a roof over the heads of our unhoused neighbors quickly, safely, and at scale.

What it does, specifically three things, cuts the red tape for local governments and empowers them to build interim housing by expediting approvals through CEQA. A second simplifies the process for streamlined zoning, thus reducing construction time and costs. A third builds on current law, both the Shelter Crisis Act, Liberia navigation centers.

I know many here were involved in those by expanding, extending their ability to streamline projects beyond 2026. Lastly, it makes funding available for interim supportive housing as a necessary component in our strategy to combat homelessness. By doing so, this will let us quickly and inexpensively construct modular, non congregant units on underutilized land at Low cost.

With me today, I have Adrian covert from the area council and Elizabeth Funk from digging moves.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you, chair Ward and the Members of the Committee for hearing from us today. I'm Adrian Covert with the Bay Area Council. California today provides fewer than four shelter beds for every 10 homeless residents.

This is the second lowest ratio of beds to homeless residents in the United States, and it's far below the national average of about eight beds for every 10 homeless residents. And this chronic shortage of shelter options directly contributes to 68% of Californians sleeping outdoors without access to the shelter and sanitation that the Senator was mentioning.

And the proliferation of unsheltered homelessness needlessly costs thousands of lives each year to the elements, to accidents, and to criminal violence.

The longer a homeless resident is warehoused beneath our overpasses or on our sidewalks or in our parks, the more trauma they endure and the more likely they are to develop a substance use or a psychiatric use disorder that will make resolving their homelessness even more expensive and difficult.

SB 1395 will help address this crisis by empowering cities with more tools and less red tape to quickly build the high quality, scalable, non congregate interim housing solutions needed to bring people indoors quickly and with dignity and bring stability to their lives.

SB 1395 extends and removes the sunset provisions on several existing laws to expedite shelter construction, clarifies that certain contracts to manage these projects are exempt from CEQA, and it clarifies for local jurisdictions that interim housing projects are an eligible project for state homeless programs. With that, I respectfully request your. Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to address you.

This is Elizabeth Funk from Dignity Moves, and I'm honored to be here today to voice support for the Interim Housing act, because the Interim Housing act represents a pivotal moment in our state's opportunity to struggle with this crisis of bringing people indoors, off of the streets who are suffering needlessly.

My organization, Dignity Moves, is focused on ending unsheltered homelessness, specifically, which, unfortunately, is largely a unique California issue with half of the nation's unsheltered people residing in our streets.

While unsheltered homelessness is only one component of a much more complex issue, it's the most visible, it's most inhumane, and it is disproportionately underinvested in in California. Interim housing has recently emerged as a new tool for addressing unsheltered homelessness that is cost effective and can be done fast and therefore can be done at scale.

Our systems have traditionally underinvested in shelter over the last decade because shelter doesn't work. It gets you out of the elements, but it is not conducive to a place where people can start to rebuild their lives and overcome their life issues that have brought them to this place.

It's distinct from shelter in the traditional sense, in that people have their own private room with separate sleeping quarters where they can be stable for many months. This leads to a mindset where intensive supportive services have a better chance of efficacy.

SB 1395 provides the critical tools that enable cities to deploy this new tool with certainty, urgency, and expeditiously so that unsheltered homelessness can be treated as the crisis that it deserves.

By confirming and extending the existing laws and streamlining that are essential to rapid deployment of interim housing, you're paving the way for this promising new model to expand rapidly. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other Members of the public here in support of SB 1395?

Rebecca Marcus, in support, representing leading age California.

Thank you.

Michael Gunning, Lighthouse public affairs here on behalf of Spur Valley Water District and the San Diego Housing Commission in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Solish here on behalf of city and County of San Francisco Mayor Lyndon Breed and also here on behalf of the City of Goleta, both in support. Thank you.

Hello. Steven A Stenzler with Brownstein. On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and Housing California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Amelia Zimani with the California Travel Association in support.

Thank you.

Christina Gallagher on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you. I have no registered opposition on file. Are there any Members of the public here wishing to state a position of opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Members on the dais. Assemblymember Reyes.

Thank you. This is another great idea by trying to deal with homelessness. I did have one question. We're using CEQA exemptions, and I know you're a great protector of the environment. What is to prohibit those who are using the CEQA exemption to build these shelters from then converting them to something other than of shelter?

Thank you. The CEQA exemptions specifically only apply when the unit is a Shelter Crisis Act or Low Barrier Navigation Center Unit. The exemptions do not expand to whatever else someone would want to convert the unit into.

Thank you.

Thank you. And there's a motion in a second by Mister Lee. Any other Member comments? Seeing none. Senator, I want to thank you for continuing to be supportive of this.

As we look at, you know, our existing tools that we're looking at, including potential exemptions to CEQA, makes all the sense of the world to work on some of our Low Barrier Navigation Centers that are critical to a pipeline to be able to resolve homelessness and want to thank you for this Bill. I invite you to close.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you. Appreciate the testimony, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Action do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

Bill is out, nine to zero. Thank you, Senator Becker. And with that, we'll go back on file for absent Members beginning with our consent calendar. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

Calendar is out, nine to zero. Back to file.

Item number one, SB 1357. Cholera. Cholera I Lee Lee I Sanchez aye.

Sanchez aye that Bill is out, nine to zero.

[Roll Call]

Is out, eight to one. Item number three.

[Roll Call]

Is out, eight to one. Item number seven.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out nine to zero. And with that because I learned my lesson last time. Are there any vote changes to entertain? Seeing? None. We are adjourned.