Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Each main witness would get two minutes each. I welcome you to feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website. This will, of course, become part of our official record for the Bill. The hearing will be open for attendance at this hearing. The hearing room will be open this morning.

We are in room 447 at the state capitol. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. And I want to thank you for your patience and understanding with that and our four bills on agenda, we'll go down in file order for the first author here, and that would be file item two, SB 7. I want to welcome Senator Blakespear. And when you're comfortable and ready, you may begin presentation.

Thank you very much. I do not see my lead witness, but if he walks in, I'll invite him to come straight up here, if you don't mind. Chair, thank you. Well, good morning. Thank you, Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to present SB 7, which will make minor changes to the minimum standards for the regional housing needs allocation or arena development process. These changes are based on findings from the Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD's RHNA evaluation. California is facing an unprecedented housing shortage due to decades of underproduction.

According to HCD, California needs to build 1.2 million affordable homes over the next decade to meet its housing needs. The most extreme impact of this shortage has been the growth of homelessness in this state. Between 2010 and 2023, homelessness increased approximately 47%. Currently, 180,000 people are unhoused and in need of housing.

SB 7, among other things, will require councils of governments to specifically solicit participation from people with special housing needs, including people who are unhoused in the development of the RHNA methodology. Additionally, SB seven will simplify steps in the process and align the statute closer to how it is currently being applied.

Overall, these changes will strengthen the RHNA process and clarify statute. My witness is not appearing at this very moment, but the inner city law center was going to be here, Mahdi Manji, to speak in support. And with that, I welcome questions and urge your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll take much of her testimony as probably part of your points in your opening. Are there any other members of the public here in support of SB 7?

[Unintelligable]

Thank you. Seeing nobody else, is there any members of the public here in opposition, either for testimony or to state a position? Seeing none, are there any committee member comments on SB 7? Okay. With that, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

Thank you for bringing this bill. I appreciate your work in this space. When it says on the technical change, solicitation, representation from special needs, special housing needs, can you explain what that would look like?

Yes. So, as part of my role before being elected, I served as the chair of SANDAG, which was the COG that ran the RHNA process, and I was the chair, the chair of the subcommittee that ran RHNA for the 18 cities in the county. And one of the things that it was clear is that most of the public outreach that's being done is not to people who are experiencing homelessness. And so when we're.

If I can just evangelize a little bit about where I hope this goes, this is a very small and modest bill, but ideally, every city in the state is actually planning for their housing, their unhoused population, as part of the RHNA process, because right now, the RHNA process largely is just silent on homelessness.

And homelessness is the big, the most acute housing problem we have. And yet this massive planning process that involves the community in every way doesn't actually address homeless serving housing. So part of beginning that process is to say, let's reach out to our unhoused neighbors and have them involved in the process and talking about the types of housing that would be best, and having an evaluation and having them at the table, because right now, they're basically just not there at all. So this bill is very narrow and minor, but it's in line with also what HCD has requested as part of a process to simplify the RHNA process so that cities and COGs can get through it in a more streamlined way.

Thank you.

Thank you and welcome to our vice chair. Any questions or comments on SB 7?

Yes, thank you. And sorry for. Got my kids dropped off, and here I am. Have you interacted with any cities that have expressed concern or just curious? I see there doesn't seem to be any support or opposition. So I was looking for.

Yeah, I mean, I would say that there are many cities that feel reluctant to have to become engaged in homeless-serving housing planning. They would much rather leave that to the counties or to the big cities nearby to shoulder the burden of that. But when we talk about affordable housing, we always talk about the responsibility for every city to do its part.

And so when we have more than 400 cities and counties in this state and everybody doing its part for low-income housing, to me, that should be expanded to say everyone should do their part for homeless serving housing as well because homeless people are everywhere in the state. And so if we're really going to solve that, it has to be an obligation that sits somewhere. And right now, the state doesn't have land use authority. The obligation is not on counties, really, it's cities that do housing planning.

And so homeless-serving housing planning needs to start to involve the voices of homeless people experiencing homelessness and those who serve them in order to get that process rolling. So I would say that the reason there's no opposition or support is because this is just very modest. It could almost be considered technical cleanup because it streamlines certain things, but it also expands in this category that is very much needed.

And Assemblymember Patterson, as I was mentioning to your colleague, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, who asked this question, I served as on the COG that did the RHNA process for the County of San Diego and was aware of the outreach that was taking place. And the outreach did not involve the homeless community representatives in any way. So this expands it into that area as part of the methodology of developing RHNA.

And I obviously don't think that is a bad idea, but in terms of the city's ability to object or express concerns to these numbers, it seems your bill would do that. And sorry I missed the beginning of your presentation. So what's the thought process behind that?

So cities' ability to participate is already very robust, and they will still be able to object or to suggest changes to the methodology. I mean, each RHNA cycle, the methodology seems to change dramatically, as there seems to be a different understanding of how it is that we get cities to zone for all income levels.

So it used to be whatever your general plan said, or a city could then be incorporated into the RHNA process, and then there was really no obligation for some cities to build anything that was in the low-income category. Right now, we don't have any obligation for cities to participate in providing any type of homeless-serving residents at all. Homeless-serving housing. There literally is no obligation. So this doesn't change that.

As I said, this bill is quite minor in that it says that homeless populations need to be reached out to as part of the engagement process. So it is not an obligation. My hope is that eventually we do have one, because to me, that seems necessary to solve the problem, which I think is really important for us to be working on, but at this stage, this is merely the public engagement aspect.

And one question, one more question. I think, though I don't think I really, I'm good with all of that. I just, I do have some concern with prohibiting a city from filing an objection, though, and I don't.

I don't think that that's implicated in the bill at all. Is there something that says the city's prohibited from filing an objection? Because I don't understand this bill to touch that area at all.

Okay. Okay. Is there any? I'm reading the analysis, and that actually seems to be the first bullet in there that prohibits a city or county from filing an objection to the regional housing needs determination in regions in which HCD is required to act as the COG and distribute. Okay.

I think a lot of the changes that are in this bill are the technical changes that were requested by HCD as part of their streamlining effort. So simplifying the process, which was, had become very complex and also very hard to follow and for some cities, unclear what it was doing.

Okay. All right. I might lay off the bill today just to get some clarity around that bullet point. It seems like you're not intending for that to occur, although maybe you are. I'm always interested in the discussion and obviously, before it goes to the floor, but I think that particular point concerns me.

But it seems like that's not what you're trying to do. But I do. On a global perspective, having people reach out to cities and the COGs reach out to populations that actually need housing is not a bad thing for them to be doing. And I also don't see opposition from any cities. So that's an important indicator.

But this is kind of like the 11th hour in the legislative process, you know?

Well, and this bill was very much broader. It was originally an obligation for cities. So it's been very much narrowed now to just be an outreach bill, so, and to have some of these other cleanup things that were requested. So it has changed dramatically from when it was first introduced.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Senator, I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. We are operating as a subcommittee right now, and at the time we will be able to take a vote. I just wanted to, you know, express that, you know, all of while they could be technical or modest, all of our collective efforts on trying to make sure that we're improving upon the RHNA process and here for the RHND, I think are important. So I want to thank you for the bill. We'll be supporting it at that time, and I invite you to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for your time.

Next, we have Senator Umberg back to file item one, SB 900. And when you are comfortable and ready, you may begin presentation.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and in particular to Dori Ganetsos for your assistance and help on making this Bill a better Bill. Here's what this is about. In our area, in Orange, California, there was an incident that happened last year where the gas line broke. And what that did was it left 600 individuals in units without gas, which means that they had no gas to cook, they had no gas to heat, hot water, and thus, very difficult situation for over three months. And the reason that it lasted so long is because there was paralysis.

There was paralysis primarily in the homeowners association as to who had responsibility to address that situation. And that's what this Bill is about. Originally started as a district Bill, but I've now found out that this is not just an Orange County issue, that this is an issue that impacts those who live in HOAs throughout the state.

And what it does is it simply says that when there's an interruption in water or gas or one of the utilities, the HOA board has 10 days to start repairs. And if they don't, then. If they don't start repairs, then the management association should go out and must go out and solicit bids to actually make the repair. This Bill addresses that paralysis and motivates the homeowners association board to act swiftly. It also enables them to borrow money if they need to and provides for electronic voting in the event of this kind of interruption. With that, I aske for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We're going to pause this moment to establish quorum. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call].

Okay, we have a quorum. And is there any witnesses in support today?

I'm it.

You're it. You're a great witness. Any members of the public here in support of SB 900?

Morning, chair Members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And are there any Members of the public here in opposition for testimony or just to state a position?

Good morning, Senator.

Morning.

Thank you.

Thank you. You have up to two minutes.

Good morning, Chairman Ward and Members of the Committee, I'm Marjorie Murray, Center for California Homeowner Association Law. We've been wrestling with Senator Umberg's office for some time - I think that's a good description - over this Bill. And I know that this Committee hears many Bills about the production of housing, particularly the production of affordable housing.

Our concern is what happens to people after they get housing? Are they going to be able to keep it and maintain it? So we are viewing this Bill through the lens of housing finance and housing affordability, and we see this Bill as creating yet another obstacle to housing affordability, particularly for low, moderate income clients. These are our constituents, as are they the constituents of Habitat for Humanity and the Center for Cooperative Development, which are also both concerned about this Bill.

Our main concern has to do with the amendments taken recently to the Bill, which it's not just about repairing the utility lines that come into a common area now, the Bill is about putting onto homeowners the obligation to maintain the utility lines. And the way the Bill proposes doing that is by embedding that obligation into the Reserve Fund, which is done every three years by a homeowner association board.

Homeowners have absolutely no input into this process. They have no vote on the consequences of the reserve study. This Bill permits the association board, basically to pass a new class of assessments called a health or hazard emergency assessment. It has no dollar cap. Homeowners have no vote on it. It's basically giving the board a blank check.

Thank you. One sentence.

One sentence. We urge this Committee not to pass this Bill because of its impact on housing affordability, particularly for low, moderate income homeowners in associations. And I know you know that a third of the state lives in these places.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public here in opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll turn back to Committee Members for questions or comments. Mister Grayson.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Just for, even if it may be a bit repetitive, but just for the sake of everyone understanding, at what point does the responsibility of the utility end on a server or on a line? You know, whatever it's water, sewer. At what point does it become HOA and then at what point does it become the homeowners responsibility?

So if you can imagine a complex, we'll just use a square, for example. And there's a line of demarcation. Apparently that's a term of art. And that line of demarcation is a line at which point the homeowners association becomes responsible. And then there's another point where it comes into the unit, for example, where the individual homeowner is responsible, but outside that line of demarcation, the utility is responsible for all repairs. The challenge that was experienced in Orange County was where that break occurred within the homeowners association area. In other words, beyond the line of demarcation, the utilities actually were fairly helpful in remedying the situation. The problem was with the paralysis within the common area and the homeowners association, the homeowners association board.

So your Bill really is only covering the common area that belongs to the homeowners association. It doesn't, obviously doesn't put them in responsibility of taking care of utility side, and then you're not requiring them to take care of the homeowners, aside from the time that it enters into the unit.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Mister Kalra.

Thank you Mister Chair. Thank you Senator, for bringing this forward. And I appreciate that question, because that helped, I think, to clarify in terms of responsibilities, but I think in a situation like this, and we know utility companies usually act, respond very quickly, sometimes within hours, because they know that they're dealing with very important services that deal directly with habitability.

And I think in this kind of situation, there's no doubt that things can get bogged down with an hoa and with bureaucracy, what have you. But when it comes to issues like this that are critical to habitability, things have to move quickly. And the question in my mind is, who's in the weakest position, who's in the strongest position to be able to respond quickly?

The individual homeowner, particularly if it's regarding utilities that are outside of their four walls, and putting them in a position where they're out on utilities that are critical for their, you know, for their ability to be able to not just enjoy their place of residence, but, you know, survivability when it comes to electricity, heat, water, gases are essential. So I appreciate this Bill. I think it makes a lot of sense. I believe it will be coming to judiciary, so we'll have further opportunity to discuss it, but appreciate you bringing it forward.

Thank you.

Vice Chair.

Some people may have heard that I live in an HOA, but my HOA is probably a little different than what actually a lot of the HOAs in my district are. This way where the common areas don't even touch any individual units, because they're all single family homes. And so the common areas are mostly, you know, the facility itself. If the gas line goes down there or something like that, I don't, these are sort of just suggestions. Maybe you think about as the Bill moves on, is that I don't like giving the obligation.

If the gas line goes down, power goes out in our HOA facility, maybe it's not such an urgent need is the one that you're trying to address which actually does impact the people who live in units. Right. So maybe I would narrow it. Just a kind suggestion and narrow it to where it's actually impacting the residents homes themselves. Right.

But I think what you're trying to get at in giving the board more ability to finance and get to work on these repairs when they do impact the homes, that seems pretty important to do, and I think the boards would actually appreciate that themselves. I just think if my facility where I go play pickleball, loses their gas line, we might not need such a sense of urgency.

Thank you. I don't know that pickleball play was interrupted in this particular event or other events around the state. I appreciate the suggestion. The situation in Orange was that the gas line break impacted every unit within the complex.

Great. Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill forward. You know, as you had brought it to this Committee, I had thought that it was always just this way. I think we understood that when there's an issue within the responsibilities of a common interest development space, that was something that, you know, just naturally was, was already intended to be able to use the body to, and they were there for that purpose, to be able to solve that issue for the betterment of, you know, the entire association and all of its members, that not being the case in your experience in your home jurisdiction, I think, is going to be able to afford a helpful improvement.

And I am curious, I just wanted to beg the question from opposition's points because I'm not sure how the basis of concern here that there's going to be additional responsibilities on homeowners for costs that, you know, are going to challenge them for issues of affordability. I'm just not seeing that. And I'm wondering if you could expand a little bit on, on where you're seeing that this is going to be, unless it's, you know, the issues which are, again, necessary.

I think on its face that we require the annual inspection and maintenance for issues that are discovered on a three year basis. And that, again, is the responsibility of an HOA. And if that means that there's an assessment through that HOA, is that where we're going? You're articulating something as if there's going to be a direct impact through this Bill towards costs and affordability for these owners. But I just don't see that so directly.

Yes, and I can draw a straight line, which is we can look, if Senator Umberg doesn't mind, at that example where it was the homeowners who paid the repair bill. Homeowners were sent a bill for $4,800 a piece to pay for a $1 million repair bill, and they had to come up with the payment within 30 days.

Well, they couldn't afford it. These are working people, Hispanic working people. They didn't have the cash. Even with a payment plan, they couldn't afford it. So this is the kind of scenario that we are looking at. An unexpected emergency assessment levied on homeowners, working people who can't afford it. And the way the Bill makes this permanent is by putting this obligation into the reserve study. And it is homeowner assessments that pay, the Bill is very clear for the maintenance, repair and restoration of all utility lines. So that if there is a break, then it's going to be the Bill, the Bill is going to be sent to the homeowners, or they are going.

To the point of property. For example, if you have a single family home. Right. Everything on your side of the line is the responsibility of that property owner.

Yes, but we're talking in this particular instance, about 200 homeowners living in multiple buildings. Okay. Which have meters attached to each building. It's not one master meter.

Sure.

So the Bill is then sent to each of these 200 homeowners that couldn't afford to pay it. And it's the reserve study that is going to make this obligation permanent for every utility line. And I have to also point out, which is a feature of the Bill, that unless the declaration says otherwise, and then it lays out the obligations, however, most CC&Rs, most declarations actually do have these disclaimers.

They say things like, unless the utility company is responsible for repair and restoration, then the association takes on these additional obligations. And in this particular case, that's exactly what the CC&R said. There are utility easements, there are exceptions for those areas of the common area that are maintained by the utilities, but all of that was ignored. So.

Thank you for that. The alternative is that I think in the future, where there's clarification, not here, and there was ambiguity about who is paying for it. And certainly in the moment of an emergency, the cost to the individual property owners, as well as the collective HOA, could also potentially be far more significant than planning that out over time.

And again, we're, you know, again trying to align this where I think we always understood areas of responsibility lie, and figuring out how we clarify the law through this Bill to be able to plan for that and hopefully prevent that eventuality in the future for. So I'm sympathetic, strongly about making sure there's no unintended consequences and additional cost passed. But I think the alternative would be worse if we weren't providing this clarity. And for those reasons, I'm recommending a support for this Bill here today. Thank you, Senator. I invite you to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And thank you, Miss Murray. She's actually correct that there was tremendous hardship that was visited upon these homeowners. And I expect in other examples around the state. And you are correct also, Miss Murray was also correct that there was an assessment, which is unfortunate.

And that's why there's a reserve study portion of this Bill. Because there should have been a reserve. There should have been maintenance of those utility lines before this break. But the challenge, as you point out, Mister Chair, is once there's a break, if there's paralysis, these poor folks are without utilities forever.

That is a situation that is completely unacceptable. And so, thank you for your. Again, thank you for your help and your analysis. A shout out to my district office. Because when this event occurred, district office, as well as some of the city staff, stepped in, distributed hot plates, gave folks direction as to where they could find temporary showers, and provided overall assistance. I was quite proud of the district office and some of the community members that really stepped up to help. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. We need a motion. Mister Kalra. Seconded by Mister Lee. Please call the roll.

Action due passed and referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call].

That Bill will be out 7 to 0 as the current roll, we will hold it open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator. We're going to go back and entertain a motion on file. Item number two. Blakespear. By Mister Lee and seconded by Miss Reyes. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

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

That bill will be out, that's currently at six to one, will hold the roll open for absent Members. And we are moving forward to Senator Becker with his bill. Item number three, this is SB 721. All right, thank you very much. We're ready when you are.

Thank you. I want to thank the Committee and please be here to present SB 721, the student Housing Development Act. I want to thank by start by thanking the Committee staff. Thank you for your work and I will be accepting the Committee Amendments.

SB 721 will help incentivize the creation of more student housing by clarifying that jurisdictions can report eligible suite style student housing on their annual progress reports. The amendments clarified this would apply in the 7th arena cycle and that jurisdictions can receive up to 25% of credit in any RHNA income category for suite style student housing.

California is facing extreme student housing crisis as you all know, according to 2020 UCLA study, one in five community college students, one in 10 CSU students, and one in 20 UC students are experiencing homelessness. About 9400 students in the UC system alone were denied housing in 2022.

Currently, local jurisdictions and schools are not as encouraged to create more suite style housing, in part because jurisdictions cannot count this housing towards meeting RHNA.

We need to create development incentives for more student housing, by adding sweet style housing to the APR, local churches can use as a tool to meet their existing arena needs and provide housing for California's growing student population. And with that, I'd love to ask my witness say a few words. Rafa Sonnenfeld from Yimby Law Policy Director. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you and good morning, Members. My name is Rafa Sonnenfeld. I'm Policy Director at Yimby Law. The sponsors of this bill, SB 721, is necessary in providing the types of housing that California cities are in need of.

Student housing is a critical component of addressing California's housing crisis by not only increasingly local housing stock, but relieving student demand for other housing in the community. With the current student housing shortage, students are being pushed to find affordable housing outside of campus, in their vehicles, in single family homes, in unlivable conditions.

With a student population growing, we need to ensure that there is sufficient housing for students to prevent them from pushing out other community members as well. Suite style student housing serves as housing regardless of whether the student is a faculty member, staff person, or the resident is a staff, faculty member, staff person, or student.

Including suite style housing will not only help incentivize the construction of student housing but will also add clarity to the determination process in the 7th cycle. SB 721 will help California meet its housing challenges and support our student population throughout our state campuses, universities provide a public benefit and cities should encourage the development of more student housing.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in support?

Good morning, Erica Samantha with Stanford University in support.

Thank you. Seeing none others. Are there any members of the public hearing opposition through testimony or a statement of opposition? All right. Seeing none. Are there any Committee Member comments or questions? All right, Ms. Reyes.

I appreciate the statistics. At the very beginning, it's clear that our students need to have housing, and. I appreciate that you've brought this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, Senator, I want to thank you, sincerely, for working so hard with our Committee. You know, as I was wrestling with this, and we're trying to, you know, very responsibly think about how we calculate RHNA, how it's applied, what goes into it, and it's all always, you know, an evolving analysis and discussion.

I do think that this is something important to be inclusive, as we're thinking about what counts towards our annual productions, to what extent. You know, we're thinking about the responsibilities of a local jurisdiction.

After all, of the arena process is determined to make sure that it has workforce housing, low income housing, very low income housing for those at risk of homelessness and all the ability. And so, how does that intersect with students?

Well, right now that we don't have enough housing at all for the general population, students are otherwise taking up some of that general housing. Right. So I recognize fully that there is an interplay here between the availability, what is being produced, and who's using it.

And I think this strikes a very good balance, I think, between all of those, all the math that goes into this. And so I really appreciate you working so closely with us. I think that some of the amendments will ultimately be taken in the next Committee.

So I'll just note that for the record, but just deeply appreciate your interest in working with our Committee on the technical details of this, because I think that this will make it reasonable and logical. So, thank you. I invite you to close.

Appreciate the comments, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I'm looking for a motion. We have a motion by Reyes and aside, second by Mr. Cholera. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The action do pass to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]

That bill will be out six to zero at the moment. We'll hold it open for absent Members. Thank you. And we have one more author on file. We invite the Senator to come to room 447 so we can conclude our hearing.

I sent him a text.

Yes. Wonderful. We have a guest presenter for SB 1465, item number four. On behalf of Senator Archuleta, I invite you to begin your presentation.

Thank you. Chair Members. I'm presenting SB 1465 on behalf of Senator Archuleta, which allows any structure used for human habitation to be declared a substandard building, regardless of zoning or approved use of the building.

SB 1465 also makes changes to code enforcement procedures to extend tenant protections to buildings not zoned residential but used for housing.

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 put the residents or the public in harm's way. However, there is ambiguity in the law whether these protections apply to buildings that are not residentially zoned, even if they are being inhabited by tenants.

Despite being rented as housing, many warehouses, factories and buildings are not in residential zones and have evaded much needed safety inspections and code enforcement. Tenants in these buildings are among the most disadvantaged renters in California. They do not control may not even know the zoning of the building that they reside in.

Substandard conditions and their associated dangers for tenants do not cease to exist just because of their building zoning. This bill is no opposition and received unanimous bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote and Faith will be here and as our sponsor, representative.

Thank you. At this time, I also like to invite Members of the Committee here as we'll be taking votes shortly. With that, I'd like to hear witness in testimony.

Thank you, Senator Becker. Chair and Members, Faith Borges with Actum and I proudly represent the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers here today to testify in support as the sponsor of 1465, which will allow for existing inspections and code enforcement to be applied where structures are used for human habitation, regardless of the building's approved zoning.

SB 1465 additionally does apply habitability and landlord tenant protections to these properties, ensuring that tenants have access to vital resources such as relocation assistance and retaliation protections for raising habitability complaints.

Californians who have been driven to living in warehouses, sheds, or other unpermitted residences by California's housing crisis are currently cut off from resources available to tenants in buildings private properly zoned for housing.

Thanks to the work of many 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 state's most vulnerable tenants. Tenants do not determine whether the building they are living in is zoned and used properly.

Californians should not be punished for resorting to live in makeshift, unapproved housing due to the state's housing crisis. The crisis of our generation. SB 1465 is about fairness to 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 surrounding communities, first by a lack of proper inspections and code enforcement, and then again by not allowing tenants access to needed resources when unsafe conditions are identified.

This bill empowers local governments to deal with dilapidated and commercial and industrial buildings that have been used as housing to hopefully prevent future tragedies, such as the ghost ship fire or the farm worker shootings in Half Moon Bay that cast a light on the grim realities of these living conditions.

For these reasons and more, we do urge your aye vote today.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here in support? Just name and organization.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the California Building Officials in support.

Thank you. All right, see no others. Are there any members of the public here in opposition for testimony or a statement of opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll turn this back to any Committee Member questions or comments or a motion. Move by Ms. Reyes, second by Mr. Lee.

Senator, I do see your co-author, so thank you for the work on this bill. I think these are important and improvements to, you know, to the intent of what you're trying to do here. And we invite you to close.

Thank you. Yeah. I'm proud to be a co-author. And on behalf of Senator Archuleta, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call a roll action.

Due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Right now we are at 70. We'll hold that roll open for absent Members. Thank you. All right, I think we'll take two passes through the roll to get you all out of here. And we'll still invite a few Members back to Committee to add on, beginning with item number one, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

I current roll is at 8-0. Hold the roll open. Number two.

[Roll Call]

Seven. One will hold the roll open for absent Members. Item number three.

[Roll Call]

Current roll is eight to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. And item number four. Assemblymember Grayson. No add ons at the moment.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you all. We'll hold our Committee open for five minutes. Okay with that? I think all of our Members have attended today, so we will close the rolls and adjourn our meeting. Thank you very much.