Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

There we go. I'm getting used to this. That one. Okay. All right. We're gonna get started soon. If you are a Member of this Committee and you are watching the TV or your staff is, if you would please come down to the Committee room or up to the Committee room, we are going to get started soon, give you that opportunity. All right. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing today.

We don't yet have a quorum, so we are going to begin as a Subcommitee. We have 12 items on our agenda today and three items on the consent calendar. Those are items 57 and 10, AB 480 AB 726 and AB 1154 to facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time that we have.

Each Bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each main witness will get two minutes. Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website which will become the official record of the Bill.

We will not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. This morning, we are in room 437. Come on down. And the hearing room is open for in person attendance of this hearing. All are encouraged to watch this hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. All right, we are going to get started with the. The man who even beat me here, who was first here, so he definitely deserves the opportunity to go first. And again, we are. We do not yet have a quorum and we are starting as a Subcommitee. So we are going to begin with item number three, AB249. Welcome, Mr. Ramos.

Thank you.

These are alarming numbers. We must begin to remove any obstacles that are...

These are alarming numbers. We must begin to remove any obstacles that are preventing our homeless youth from accessing critical services they need, to uplift themselves.

So, continuums of care are meant to help communities prior to—prioritizing—those in dire need of help.

Yet, we have noticed that youth have consistently been disadvantaged, due to a common issue in the different specifical—specifics—in the methodology that is being addressed. Their time is experiencing homelessness, based on this data flaw. This means that chronically homeless individuals are being compared against youth who may recently be struggling with homelessness.

This flaw in the system has continuously been a problem contributing to the homeless youth to homeless adult pipeline. In order to effectively address youth homelessness, we must ensure homeless youth and at-risk youth have access to preventative services, as early as possible.

Yeah, I think, the yellow button, if you keep your hand off, it would work good, yeah. With all due respect, Mr. Chair.

This Bill will provide a developmentally appropriate fix to the gaps in services, who are currently noticing in the continuum of care, with the aim to reduce the overall number of people experiencing homelessness in a thoughtful and equitable manner.

With me today to provide expert testimony is Sherilyn Adams, Executive Director of Larkin Street Youth Services, and Kim Lewis, Legislative Advocate for the California Coalition for Youth. And I did read at a slower pace to give them time to get here.

Take, take, take your time. Your witnesses may begin.

Good morning. I'm Sherilyn Adams, CEO, Larkin Street Youth Services, and Board Member of California Coalition for Youth. Thank you for your time this morning—sorry—and thanks for reading slowly while I made my way to the Capitol. I really just want to speak for a minute about why we are pushing—or asking for—this legislation and this Bill.

So, as noted in earlier comments, young people experiencing homelessness have an entirely different sort of set of experiences, challenges, and traumas that they are contending with, as they are trying to exit homelessness, or access coordinated entry.

So, coordinated entry is basically a way that we get—we prioritize—who might be most vulnerable and therefore in need of permanent supportive housing or other housing solutions that, you know, are intensive and designed for the most—for most—for folks with the most challenges to get into and stay into housing.

For young people, so, the coordinated entry system looks at vulnerability mostly by length of time homeless, or the amount of times that you have been homeless. So young people, simply by definition of the fact that they've been on the planet a whole lot less, that's not the best way to assess.

So, when we want to look at a vulnerability and assessment of young people, we want to look at things that make them vulnerable.

Things like being 18, things like being newly on the street and at risk for trafficking, things like having your first experience at 22 or having maybe had two or three years of homelessness by the age of 22, but that's not 10 or 15, that somebody at 50 or 60 might have.

So, it's important that the tool, the assessment that is used, for young people is reflective of the experiences of young people. In San Francisco, what we did was, we added two questions to the adult tool, to the adult assessment tool: Have you ever traded sex or drugs for a place to stay, or have you ever been in the foster care system?

Not—as somebody said to me, a young person—it gets real personal, real fast. Not likely to surface all of the information we need.

So, this Bill is about establishing best practices and making sure that in each jurisdiction in our state—where we are having coordinated entry assessments—that they are youth-specific, they are sensitive to the needs of young people, and they don't re-traumatize young people. It is not asking for a separate system.

It is not asking for, you know, an entirely new way.

It's asking for the tool, and the way in which we offer services and assessment to young people, to again be reflective of who young people are, their stage in development, and that we're going to get the best information to get them on the right path, for the housing solution that will work best for them. Thanks.

Thank you. Before we go to the next witness, if we can please establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Great, thank you. Apologize.

No worries. Good morning. Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth, and we are focused on preventing, addressing, and ending youth homelessness. I did want to point out some of the research does show that 50% of the chronically homeless adults had their first episode of homelessness when they were young people.

And so, we are really trying to address things as far upstream as possible, so we can really make the biggest impact on addressing homelessness in the long run.

And I think the Legislature has really recognized the uniqueness of our young people who are experiencing homelessness, through set asides in things called HEAP, which is the predecessor program to our now HHAP, the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program, and even specifically called out in round—starting in round three—that this was an allowable use of the dollars that communities were getting for their homelessness prevention work.

And so, we really want to ensure that we've got some minimum standards, to ensure that our young people don't just age up on the streets, or end up in jails, or end up dead on the streets. And so, we're really trying to address this for our young people who are extremely vulnerable.

And as Sherilyn noted, it does not need to be a separate system. It can be incorporated into what you're existing doing. And there are a ton of best practices, a lot of free resources and tools out there, for communities to be able to work this into their programs. And we just respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you for that. Are there other folks who are here in support of this Bill?

You might just come up and state your name and affiliation and your position.

Elle Grant, California Alliance of Child and Family Services and support.

Great, thank you. All right, is there any opposition to this bill? No opposition. Witnesses? Is there anyone who is in opposition or somewhere in between? Not seeing anyone. I will open it up to the Committee. We have a motion and a second. No questions or comments. I really want to thank the author and the witnesses.

You know, youth homelessness is in our state, continues to be a huge crisis and challenge.

I know that there are folks here who do work in San Francisco and we really have to better understand this population, what their needs are, who they are, how to make sure they're built into the system of coordinated entry and shelter and housing in a more thoughtful way.

What we design for adults may not and does not exactly translate to what is right for kids. So I really appreciate your leadership here. I would love to be added as a co author. And we have a motion in a second, but I will allow you, Mr. Ramos, to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your willingness. To be added on as a co author. It's a chance to continue to be proactive the homeless situation and putting A. Focus on the homeless youth in the State of California. It's time that we get resources to. Them and actually start to address the.

Homeless youth in the State of California. I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Take a roll call vote.

Motion do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Human Services. [Roll Call]

7- 0. And we will keep that open for absent Members. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. All right, we will now bring up Mr. Harabidian. He has AB239 and AB 1206. Welcome, Mr. Harbidian. Thank you for your deference to Mr. Ramos.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. First of all, Mr. Chair, congratulations on becoming chair and working in this important Committee on such important issues. I would just like to first start by thanking the chair and the Committee staff for the amendments. I will be accepting them.

The wildfires that struck my district are part of a troubling pattern that we're seeing across California. An increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters that are devastating and deeply traumatic for our communities. Research shows that these events will become more common.

AB239 establishes a state led disaster housing task force which is a coordinated effort between the California Department of HCD, OES, FEMA and local governments to really streamline rebuilding and housing in specific areas that are affected by disasters. Sorry. AB239 does four things.

Establishes a task force with representation from HCD, OES, FEMA, and local governments. Appoints a state disaster housing coordinator to oversee funding and distribution and technical assistance. Requires quarterly reporting to the Legislature and takes immediate effect as an urgency statute.

Sorry, let me be clear this this Bill is really just about bringing people home faster and letting them rebuild. It's about ensuring when disaster strikes, we can move quickly, decisively, and compassionately. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Here with me today in support of the Bill is Seamus Garrity on behalf of Abundant Housing LA. Welcome.

Good morning, is this is on? Good morning, Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. My name is Seamus Garrity and I'm here today on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles. A grassroots down deposit dedicated... Is this on? [Yes.]

...to solving Southern California's housing crisis by advocating for more housing at all levels of affordability.

Our Members are everyday Angelenos, renters, homeowners, workers, students, who are deeply invested in making our communities more affordable, more livable, and more resilient. Our vision is a Los Angeles County where every resident, regardless of income, can find an affordable home that meets their needs in the neighborhood of their choice.

Today I'm speaking in strong support of AB239 because the need is urgent. The recent Eaton fire devastated our region. Over 18,000 homes and structures were lost and entire communities were leveled. Recovery is not just about rebuilding structures; It's about restoring stability, security and dignity to the lives that were upended. That's why we need to- that's why we need coordinated action.

AB239 is a critical step toward making that happen. The Bill creates a state led disaster housing task force that brings together key partners; the California Department of Housing and Community Development, FEMA, the California Office of Emergency Services, and local housing authorities.

This structure ensures that all levels of government are in lockstep, working toward a shared goal of getting people housed again quickly and effectively. The Bill also calls for the appointment of a state disaster housing coordinator, a central figure responsible for overseeing funding distribution, providing technical assistance and aligning efforts across jurisdictions.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the task force will submit quarterly reports to the Legislature from 2026 to 2030 detailing progress, challenges, funding use and recommendations for future planning. This level of oversight is not just good governance, it's essential for public trust. This task force gives us our best shot at at ensuring rebuilding efforts are streamlined, cost effective, and community centered.

It gives us the structure we need to bring people back home, not years from now, but as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and your commitment to addressing this urgent need. I respectfully urge your support for AB239.

Thank you so much. Other folks who are here in support welcome.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California. Our local affiliates, especially in Southern California, have too much experience in helping with rebuilds of disasters, whether it's hurricanes, tornadoes in Missouri, or the fires throughout the State of California; many in your districts in the past. So we're looking forward to hopefully being Members of the local task force and urge your support of this Bill.

Good morning. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Pasadena and strong support the we think this would be really helpful in terms of the coordination of efforts going on.

Thank you.

Morning Mr. Chair. Chris Wysocki with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and we align with the support of the Bill and thank the author for introducing a common sense measure.

Good morning Mr. Chair Members. Adam Keigwin on behalf of The California Charter Schools Association in support, thank you.

Thank you. I don't believe there's opposition but is there anyone who is here in opposition to the Bill? Not seeing anyone... Open it up to the Committee. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Assembly Members for bringing this forward and again, all the work that you've been doing in the aftermath of the tragedies and the tragedy in La, the multiple tragedies, and this is a very thoughtful piece of legislation. I like the idea of regular report backs to the Legislature.

I know that there has been and will continue to be requests for further resources for the LA area, something that I certainly support; and I think that it'll be good to get report backs on kind of how the rebuilding process is going because I think you know, what happened in LA affects all of us in the state certainly.

And I think I especially like the Committee amendment requiring this kind of central database on the HCD's website because unfortunately this is not the last time a city is probably going to have to go through this and I think it's about time we have that consolidation and that one kind of portal where resources can be made available; frankly especially for smaller towns that if this happens to in the future that don't necessarily have the wherewithal to put something like this together but will have access, quickly, to ways that they can rebuild and to whatever extent they might have to.

But that being said, I certainly support it and appreciate your efforts and there's already a motion on the table and so happy to vote for it.

We have... Did you make a motion? Oh, okay. Alright. We have a motion and a second. Sure, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you. I just wanted to, I think obviously having some kind of coordinated effort when we're talking about, you know, billions of dollars spent by state taxpayers, think it's really important to do.

You know, I just saw some report, I don't know if there's any truth to it, about the lack of permits that have been issued in LA County, and kind of embarrassing to be honest, but, you know, maybe this can help with that.

I do want to say, you know, parts of, right outside my district, and I've said this before, you know, continue to have struggles rebuilding when their entire communities have been devastated by wildfires. I know that another member of this panel, the same thing, you know, still struggling through recovery.

And so I hope we can see this as a model, so when other communities experience this, unfortunately, or maybe it can even be used as a model to help those communities that burned down years ago also get some attention and rebuild as well.

And so maybe this like state, I still have, for example, I saw constituents living in trailers from a fire that burned years ago. So, so I support this because I, you know, it's the right thing to do and I wish it came a lot sooner.

So I commend you for bringing the Bill now and wish you were around several years ago to help some of our other constituents. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And certainly appreciate the leadership, as has been said, on all of the the efforts that you've taken to support those who've been impacted. And this is about being better coordinated. It's about information sharing. It's about acting with urgency.

And I believe I'm already a co author of it, so I don't need to ask for that. And thank you again for your leadership and all the folks you've worked with on it. With that, let's go and ahead and take a roll call vote.

Motion is two passes amended.

I didn't give you an opportunity to close.

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

Motion two passes amended to the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management.

Haney? aye. Haney aye. Patterson? Patterson aye. Avila Farias. Coloza? Coloza aye. Gallagher? Gallagher aye. Kalra? Kalra aye. Lee. Quirk-Silva? Quirk-Silva aye. Ta? Ta aye. Wicks. Wilson.

All right, 7-0, that bill is out. Thank you. Oh sorry. Of course you have another bill. Item 11 AB 1206.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments, thanking the Committee staff for all the work on this bill. Lack of housing remains one of California's most pressing challenges. It is especially true in Altadena where residents are trying to rebuild quickly in the wake of the Eden Fire.

Places like Kalamazoo, Michigan and Bryan, Texas have addressed the need for faster housing development by adopting pre approved plans for both single family and small multi family housing. Bless you.

Residents can select their housing plan from a list of plans that have already been approved by local government, thus reducing permitting timelines, lowering development costs and increasing housing supply. AB 1206 brings this proven concept to California by empowering local agencies to establish pre approval programs for single family homes and smaller multifamily projects defined in the bill.

These would be any development between 2 and 10 units. These types of projects are easier to manage at the local level and are essential for meeting housing goals in many communities. And importantly, the bill preserves local control. It does not impose any specific design requirements or overriding zoning laws.

Instead, it requires jurisdictions to create a pathway for pre approving plans which they can shape to reflect their own standard topography and safety considerations.

Ministerial approval under this bill is only triggered when the plan has already been vetted by the local agency and the lot meets the conditions such as soil type, zoning and design standards for which the plan was originally approved. This ensures safety, consistency and quality.

AB 1206 is one practical, flexible tool in the larger toolbox we need to address our housing crisis. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote Here with me today is Holly Fraumeni De Jesus on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.

Again, Holly Fraumeni De Jesus on behalf of Habitat affiliates that are providing affordable homeownership opportunities in 42 counties throughout the State of California. And we strongly support this bill. We, as many of you know, use every tool in our shed and this will become a new tool that hopefully every affiliate can use in every county.

We're uniquely positioned because we provide. We're a homeowner, a builder, a developer, a mortgage lender, and a community developer in many cases. And we do the actual architectural designs. And as the analysis properly writes, if you check out the list of the delays, the delays of this initial phase can be lengthy. Architecture.

Architectural design can be costly and it is our hope that even our Habitat homes and in some of our regions the homes are very similar. They're very simple, they're small, they're entry level, and sometimes they're condos and sometimes they're townhouses and Most are under 10 units.

So we're hoping that even for Habitat, our designs could become part of those pre planned catalogs throughout the state.

So not just a Habitat affiliate might not be building them, but another family that owns a lot and just can't afford the architectural design could actually use our plans and build a Habitat home for themselves with or without our assistance. So for these reasons and most importantly, local control is retained.

Just to reiterate what our author said, local control is retained. The cities will work with other architects and developers like Habitat to create this catalog. And I hope it's lengthy.

I hope that a city like Placer and Auburn and the and those counties will actually have preapproved Craftsman style wraparound porches and those designs that again very expensive to have an architect design but those could be pre approved turnkey and then you can just go straight to permit approvals.

So again we hope for your support on this bill and we hope that it can help build many, many entry level homes and faster in every county in the state. Thank you.

Thank you.

Fantastic. And no, no other witnesses. Folks who are here in support of this bill. Not seeing anyone at the moment. Is there anyone opposed to this bill? We have. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning Chairmembers Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful opposed unless amended position. Just wanted to thank the Committee analysis and the amendments. We, we think those are a step in the right direction narrowing it. But we are still concerned for a couple things.

I think the extension to the July to adopt that preapproval. When the ADU Bill was passed in 2023 cities had around two years to accomplish that pre approval program. So maybe something similar of extending the timeline would be helpful.

The other thing I'll flag is you know as, as the Committee analysis does a good job of talking about is one of the challenges across jurisdictions. The zoning can be different, the planning could be different, the land could be different. And I think this bill is trying to address that.

So we appreciate those changes but do still have concerns with that because it can vary significantly. The other thing I'll flag is from what we've heard from our planning staff over regarding the ADU pre approval program is the demand hasn't yet been there. Now maybe it's because the law was just passed.

So not as many cities have fully implemented that process at the local level. But it hasn't been as mark. The market's been kind of driving the design to be kind of standard or not standard and kind of personalized. So. So just flagging that.

But I do think that the idea of trying to streamline it is a good idea. But we want to make sure that it addresses a lot of the local differences that we have within communities and across cities. And we'll look forward to continuing those conversations.

We've had good conversations with the authors and sponsors already and we'll look forward to working with them as that continues. So thank you.

Great. Thank you. Other folks who are here in opposition to this bill don't think there is anyone. We'll open it up to the Committee. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Make a motion to move this bill and do appreciate the comments by the opposition. But even though the ADU bill statewide was in 2023, there were already cities like Encinitas I believe that were already had plans that were shelf ready that individuals could come and look through and choose.

So why is this particularly important and should not be? Business as usual is obviously the word of this session is the Los Angeles fires.

But it isn't just those fires from this in Los Angeles as been mentioned, there's been fires up and down the state and unless we start to operate with urgency and get projects moved, we'll be talking about this in five or 10 years.

So some of the things that we like to do or we have done, whether it's working with individual architects, all of these other things we need to build homes now. And this is an important step.

And as far as the public using these type of plans, one of the glimmers in the state is if we've had any under housing has been the adus and we know that people want to get those done, they want to get them built and they have used maybe not with the 2023, but they were already using them before.

And I fully believe this will be something that whether it's because of fires or just a regular individual, this is a faster way to get it done. So I support this and move it forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Ta.

Yeah, I really appreciate the author for introducing this bill. I think that this bill go to help all of us to streamline the process. And you know for years we, you know we always advocate for being more. Home for housing rights. So this bill is about affordability. So I strongly support this bill. Thank.

Mr. Patterson

Sorry I had to step out. I got a call from the sheriff and I didn't know if I had a warrant out for my arrest or something.

So question does this apply to like could a Developer do this for multiple single family residences in a community, you know, so if a builder wanted to come in and do like, I mean, in my community, we're still master planning, you know. Right. So hundreds of houses all at once or. Sure.

So if it was hundreds of houses all at once in the same, in the same development project. No, I mean this is really limited to any project, up to 10 units.

Now, if a individual owner wanted to buy 15 individual lots and develop those independently and go through the process as independent projects, technically those would just be single projects that would have, in a normal circumstance, their own plans, you know, their own design.

So they could utilize the, the pre approved catalog of designs that the city would have adopted at that time.

Yeah, you know, I joking. I was driving out of my neighborhood one time and I stopped at a red light and I saw this one new development where like every house was white and looked exactly the same.

And that's kind of what I unfortunately envisioned when I saw this bill was like, that was what my city will look like, you know, and I saw it. But you're saying this is limited, even on single family, to 10 units or less, although they could buy multiple lots. Explain that process.

I'm trying to get to like, yes, or at least not a no.

So example, example A would be you as an investor, just to kind of play this out, buys 15 individual lots that have no geographic tie. Right. They're all over the city. In that circumstance, if you wanted to use the pre approved designs for each of those lots individually, you could do that.

And in your city, what we're hoping every city does is approve many different designs, many different shapes and sizes that actually make it to where the city probably just adheres to a lot of the same designs that they already have.

And you could go in and have, you know, a few of those designs picked out for each of those different sites and then figure out, okay, maybe there's 15 different ones or maybe there's five and you're just kind of scattering them through the, through the city. You could do that.

However, in the example B, if you were developing a contiguous lot that was a couple acres and you wanted to put 30 homes there, 30 units, you could not use this under this language of the bill.

Now I think that there's good reason to allow in that circumstance preapproval, but I think because of the size and the scope and the contiguous nature of the development, this wouldn't apply.

Yeah. So in my district and then outside my district, let's say the City of Folsom which is close to here. You know, they're building like, you know, literally thousands of houses every year. And one developer might own contiguous 500 acres that will be subdivided into 5,000 lots. Let's say this would not apply to that.

It would not apply.

It would not apply because this is, this is a. I'm sorry. Oh, this would not apply. And Committee staff is, you know, feel free to weigh in. But here's why it wouldn't apply. With a project of that size and scope, this calls for a 30 day approval.

I mean this calls for a really quick process where an individual homeowner or someone who's developing a few units can really have a clear set of rules, doesn't get caught up in ministerial spiderwebs that, you know, aren't clear and makes unnecessarily, you know, delay to projects that should be getting off the ground.

If you are, if you're developing something to the scale of what you're describing, I think 30 days for staff, for the community just doesn't make sense.

And can I, do you have any response to opposition? I assume you're here in opposition.

Yeah, no, you know, I think to the Members point, you know, I think one of the other thing challenges, right, is although the program could be helpful in streamlining it, I think that 30 day timeline can be very challenging for these really complex projects. And you know, deeming that approved could be challenging.

But I will say the other thing the, that I forgot to mention in testimony was, you know, one of the things we're challenged with, challenged with at the local level is implementing a lot of laws. And you know, we need resources to do that.

And though a pre approval program may be effective, we also have to make sure that we have those resources locally.

I know we can collect permit fees still on these pre approved plans, but it's something that we're getting a lot of requirements and stuff that's being pushed onto planning staff and trying to figure out how to balance that. But that's kind of where we're coming from on this one. That is just so different.

And you know, if it meets local zoning design standards, I think that there's reason for that to be accounted for and should do that. And obviously the locals have the ability to approve or disapprove. But I think where we're coming from is it's so different based off the project. So I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, what I would say is, you know, your permit fees can account for the actual costs that this might cost. You know, and it's something to keep in mind, by the way. But I'm kind of. I would like to see, you know, the amendments and you know, obviously these.

I didn't fully understand them coming into this hearing because, you know, you got a lot of bills and I didn't develop the amendments, but I like where they're going.

I think if we get some more clarity that, you know, this isn't really intended for master plan communities, I think is, you know, that sounds like your intent, you know, and if we need more clarity in the bill, I have to go back and check.

And if you're kind of like committed that that's not the intent of the bill, I'd be inclined to support it today.

It's not only the intent, not the intent of the bill. The clear language of the bill would not allow for it. So I don't think that there is any ambiguity there. And this does not address master plan communities in any way, shape or form.

Okay. And one last comment. When I was on the Rockland City Council before, which was prior to 2023, we did develop a program to create sort of preset ADU units for a lot of reasons. And there's a lot of reasons to do it that I think actually benefit cities. One is you get the product you actually want.

So 80 uses, a lot of flexibility. Could include like garage conversions and things like that, which I think a lot of communities would shy away from. So. Or a lot of neighbors would get calls on that, trust me.

But we created this to try to incentivize people to do what we actually wanted to be built in our community. We developed these plans so they can pick from something easily save money rather than do the garage conversion.

So I think that's the benefit of something like this if it's limited to really small projects like 10 units or less and things like that. So I'll be supporting it today and make sure all my ducks are in a row when it comes to the floor. Thanks.

Thank you. You got him. Mr. Gallagher.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we actually utilize this in paradise. We passed some legislation in 22 to allow for pre approved plans on the re. On the rebuild there. And I think the real goal here is actually it's not like these are automatically approved. It's about the plans. Right.

Like, so it saves costs on really like engineering. Yeah, you know, that kind of. So choose from that rather than having to go maybe pay an engineer to. To do plans.

Correct, Correct. That's exactly right.

So it wouldn't necessarily like it doesn't mean that that project is going to get fully approved. There's still review of that and they obviously have to meet the, the all the standards that are set out in those pre approved plans. Is that correct and is that your understanding as well like that?

Yeah, yeah. It would have to meet the standards that the local agency has adopted. That's as it's currently drafted. I think it's just challenging with some of these bigger projects, but I think narrowing with the multifamily to 10 units is a step in the right direction.

But I think as long as it meets those standards and is a way that locals can have the ability to control that, which I think this Bill does, you know, I think that's definitely a step in the right direction.

Okay. And then yeah, I mean I, I do share the concern though about like especially smaller jurisdictions, rural jurisdictions may not have like the staff to really put all this stuff together and, and are kind of in tight, they're tight with what they have already.

So I don't know if that's something maybe we could possibly deal with in budget in terms of like trying to get some of those maybe disadvantaged jurisdictions some additional funding so that they could actually do this because that is, this will now be a mandate on them if they do it.

And you know, it's, you know, for a lot of. I hear that complaint a lot. So it's something I think maybe we could talk about as we move forward or.

Yeah, no, it's a good point and point well taken and I think it's a little counterintuitive but the way I view it is we're actually hopefully saving these local jurisdictions costs and headaches and time because a lot of the work that would have been done on an individual project would have otherwise been done on the front end and pre approving these designs and the engineering and the architecture.

And so I would just push back on one of the opposition points which is this will make it harder for local jurisdictions. Coming from local government, having served on a local City Council in a very, you know, tight budgeted city.

I wish we had this when I was on the City Council and I wish it wasn't bespoke projects on every R1 project that came through. Bespoke's great uniqueness is great but frankly if you look around most communities there's a lot of similarities.

You know, there's a lot of similarities and if we didn't have to start from square one on each project, I think it's going to save staff time. I Think it's going to be better for planning departments and hopefully save money. But to your point, we will explore all these, you know, externalities of this bill.

I was just thinking as you were saying, that could HCD or maybe some, some group even like provide jurisdictions with like kind of already pre approved plans that they templates that they could maybe just adopt rather than having to go through and develop those themselves.

Absolutely. I mean I think in. I think Committee staff and the chair have already, you know, provided some good examples of that. And I think that this is obviously the more collaboration with other jurisdictions the state. I think that. I think it only makes it stronger and more efficient.

Yeah, no, I mean I think it's a good idea and like I said, we utilized it in paradise and it was really helpful to people that were recovering to be able to say, okay, I can select one of the pre approved plans, move forward with my project. And I.

And I remember thinking at the time, hey, we should be expanding this, doing, doing more of this. So yeah, appreciate you bringing the bill for.

Great, thank. Thanks again to the author. You know, this will bring standardization, consistency. This has been a theme where we need to make it easier and faster to get housing approved. It does obviously have the role of local agency to define what that looks like for that community.

And thank you for working with the Committee staff on those amendments to address some of those concerns about what might be much larger projects. It's single family home up to 10 units.

I think this is entirely reasonable to have those available and would love to be added as a co author and you can have an opportunity to close. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, would love an Aye vote.

Thank you. Great. Have a roll call vote.

Motion do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government. [Roll Call]

Great. 9-0. Bill's out and we'll keep it open for absent Members. Thank you, Mr. Harabedian. Next we will bring up Ms. McKinnor. Item number one. AB 57. Thank you so much for your patience and for being here. I'll turn it over to you when you're ready.

Good morning Members of the Committee.

I am here to present AB 57, a Bill that addresses systemic inequities of home ownership by reserving a portion of funds in the California's Home Purchase Assistance Program for the descendants of formerly enslaved people. The legacy of slavery and systemic racism has created significant disparities in home ownership, with descendants of formerly enslaved people lagging behind white households by 30 percentage points.

Discriminatory practices such as redlining and racial covenants have long excluded these communities from home ownership, contributing to a wealth gap. AB 57 addresses these inequities by ensuring that descendants of formerly enslaved people are specifically included in California's Home Purchase Assistance Program.

This Bill provides housing assistance and is a crucial step in addressing the ongoing impact of slavery and systemic racism on homeownership. This Bill is not only about fairness and justice, but also about strengthening California's economy, creating a more equitable future, and creating increasing home ownership opportunities for all.

With me today to testify in support for this Bill is Taneicia Herring, representing the California Hawaii State Conference NAACP.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Taneicia Herring and I have the pleasure of serving as the State Conferences Government Relations Specialists.

AB 57 has our overwhelming support as it aims to address historical disparities in home ownership by allocating at least 10% of California's Home Purchase Assistance Program Funds to applicants who are descendants of formerly enslaved people.

By specifically allocating funds to descendants of formerly enslaved individuals, AB 57 acknowledges and seeks to rectify the systemic barriers that have historically prevented said descendants from accessing homeownership opportunities. California has an opportunity to lead in repairing past wrongs by implementing policies that advance equity. AB 57 is a direct response to the calls for justice and unfairness for economic opportunity.

Home ownership is a key driver of wealth accumulation. This Bill facilitates economic empowerment, contributing to closing the wealth gap and increased home ownership translate into more local investment, higher tax revenues, and economic benefits for neighborhoods.

This Bill is a step towards reparative justice, recognizing the lasting impacts of slavery, segregation, and discriminatory housing policies that have hindered homeownership for generations. Direct homeownership assistance is a tangible and meaningful way to begin addressing these harms. Opponents may argue that offering targeted assistance is unfair, claiming that all home buyers should be treated equally.

However, this argument ignores the fact that past housing policies were intentionally designed to exclude the families of descendants of formerly enslaved people from homeownership opportunities. Policies like redlining, restrictive covenants, and discriminatory lending were not about equality. They were ensured that true equality were never an option to begin with.

The deep disparities in homeownership today are direct results of those policies. The historical denial of equality, in addition to its residual effects, have led to today's call for equity. AB 57 is the direct and corrective response to that call. And I ask for your aye vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other folks who are here in support of this Bill? Great. Just name, affiliation and position.

Brandon Greene, Western Center on Law & Poverty, in support of the Bill. I'm also authorized to give a "Me too", on behalf of Bar High, thank you.

Hi, Eric Paredes, on behalf of the California Faculty Association, standing in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Theodore Patton. I support the Bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you. So anyone here in opposition to the Bill?

Morning, Chairman Haney, Honorable Members of this Committee, My name is Andrew Quinio and I'm an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. Pacific Legal Foundation is the nation's leading public interest law foundation that advocates for equality and opportunity for all, individual liberty, and opposes government overreach and abuse.

PLF is here to discuss what is likely the unconstitutional allocation of home purchase assistance funds on the basis of race that AB 57 enacts. As you know, the government cannot treat individuals differently on the basis of race. When the government disadvantages or even advantages individuals on the basis of race or ethnicity,

That is looked upon with extreme suspicion, and rightly so because the government has a very poor track record of treating individuals differently on the basis of race, ethnicity, and color. Under the 14th Amendment, the treatment of individuals based on race and ethnicity is only permitted under extremely limited circumstances.

AB 57, as you heard, allocates at least 10% of Home Purchase Assistance Funds for individuals who are applicants who meet home loan requirements under the program and are descendants of formerly enslaved persons. However, AB 57 doesn't specifically define what a descendant is and who counts as a descendant.

AB 57, however, is grounded in the recommendations of the California Reparations Task Force. The Task Force recommended that the community of eligibility for reparations should be defined as follows.

An individual being a black descendant of a shadow enslaved person or a descendant of a free black person living in the United States prior to the end of the 19th century. That definition of eligibility is not race neutral.

To the extent that AB 57 adopts that definition, then AB 57 would be treating individuals differently on the basis of of race in violation of the Constitution. Overall, AB 57 raises another concern regarding how government treats its citizens. The government must treat individuals as individuals.

Assumptions about individual circumstances, including present injuries based on who one's ancestors are, betrays our treatment as individuals. Certainly, AB 57 is rightly concerned with providing justice for the badges and incidents of slavery and discriminatory policies stemming from discriminatory housing. But again, our system is a system of individual justice.

Individual justice cannot come about if we are not treated as individuals and instead are treated merely as continuations of who our ancestors are or as broad embodiments of racial categories. So consider the following opportunities to align AB 57 with the Constitution and our system of justice.

AB 57 should be amended so it doesn't set aside funds for applicants based on race, ethnicity, or lineage. Instead, it should set those aside for individuals, certainly ethnicities and lineages, who have actually personally suffered discrimination in housing as a result of government practices.

So if AB 57 wants to repair discrimination in housing, it should assist those that have actually suffered discrimination in housing as currently drafted. Whether one has actually suffered from discriminatory practices is not a criteria for having those funds set aside.

And given California's strong history, opposing discrimination from being admitted as a free state, to upholding Prop 209's prohibitions against racial discrimination and preferences, using race to solve the housing crisis is not the California way. I thank you for your time and I ask that you oppose AB 57.

Thank you. Are there other folks who are here in opposition to the Bill? Not seeing any. Open it up to the Committee. We've got a motion. Mr. Kalra and then Ms. Avila Farias.

Thank you Mr. Chair and happy to second the motion and support this Bill. I know that there will be a more robust conversation on the constitutional aspects of this in Judiciary Committee, so I might reserve some of that conversation for that purpose.

But as to the underlying purpose of the legislation to assist those that have been victimized by our government to have the again, you're talking about a set aside an existing program to ensure that some of those that were specifically disadvantage where the government have an opportunity for homeownership.

We know that that's been one of the key ways that wealth generation has been created amongst Californians over generations that specific groups have been denied. And look, I can't think of a more egregious example of government overreach and abuse than slavery. And slavery wasn't race neutral.

However, that being said, not every black person is a descendant of African slavery as it existed in this country. And so the reality is that and I know there are other processes and legislation going forward as recommended by the reparations commission to determine who would qualify.

But the underlying kind of sentiment here and policy reasoning behind this is to ensure that we are making up for the harms that the government created over many generations. Easy to speak of individual freedom and being free from government overreach when your ancestors weren't impacted by government overreach and abuse.

I look forward to the continued conversation certainly in Judiciary Committee. If this passes today, I certainly am going to vote for it. Encourage all of our colleagues to do the same to continue this very important conversation.

Thank you so much. Excuse me, I would like to address what the with with the gentleman next to me said. Two things, we are going to take the amendments recommended by the Committee. We I know that we had a reparations task force, but we are also creating an agency that is going to set the criteria for the descendants of U.S. slaves.

And the descendants of U.S. slave may not even look like me because I have a grandson that pretty much looks doesn't look like me. He looks like me, but his skin is very light and so he's a mixed kid. So he's also a descendant of slaves. So all of us, it won't be just black people.

I don't think that's going to be dark colored black people that are going to be rewarded as a descendant of U.S. slaves. So the issue of that they'll all look like black people. I think that's going to be false. But I just wanted to address that and to also say that I'm going to take the amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Avila Farias.

Thank you so much Chair, and I'm very excited to hear your Bill. I have a few questions. Number one, were you able to connect with the California Housing Finance Agency board or the Executive Director on this Bill?

Mainly because that is a board that I came off from in my previous life and we spent the board and myself are very committed to building black wealth in California. And you know, it should be a national model as well.

And I really feel that this Bill really fits into the Black Wealth Homeownership Program that was established by CalFHA. And just to give you a snippet of it, so the homeownership has been the most effective way for Americans to build wealth, which can be passed down from generation to generation.

It also stabilizes communities and provides access to education and access to employment opportunities. However, not all Americans have had the equal opportunity to build wealth through homeownership. Historical discrimination through exclusionary housing policies and practices, plus dwindling supply of housing and a variety of factors that have limited black families from purchasing homes.

I share that with the Committee because that really is the umbrella and the crux of what we are trying to fix through housing policies, fix through economic funding mechanisms.

And so if you are open to a friendly amendment, because I would love for us to build on the Black Wealth Program that we created as a board at the California Housing Finance Agency to fulfill those goals.

And you know, we are they're funded by tax credits and so trying to figure out an allocation and already a crunch tracks credit market.

But I do think we should have a visit and I'm happy to facilitate that so that we can strengthen the Bill to comply not only with health fair housing, but to build on the momentum of the Black Wealth Homeownership Program that has already been embodied by the board.

And I know this Bill will be embraced by the board. So I'd love to help you work through that if you are amenable to that. But I'm very supportive it because I do feel that the Black Ownership Initiative under the Black Wealth Program would fit under there and be an initial Bill for this program.

Thank you so much for your offer and I'd love to talk to you further about that. But this is, if we just say that it's a black wealth program, then we're looking at Prop 209. So we're really, really looking at this as the descendants of U.S. slaves and the descendants of U.S. slaves are not all black colored.

And so we have to go back and really look at that. But I'd also like to work with you to see how we can maybe work together on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson.

I think this is where I get in trouble, you know.

You know, last year I think I might have been one of the first Republicans to support a Bill in this Committee that Senator Bradford had that essentially would have compensated people who had their homes taken from them under market value based on their race.

So, in not my lifetime, but, but maybe in my parents lifetime, we've had actual examples of where the government has come in and taken wealth from people and they're still recovering from that and not been fairly compensated. And I think that's, that's, anytime somebody's not compensated for their property, when the government takes their property is gross.

But also in this area in particular, I don't represent Sacramento, but I represent the Sacramento portions of this greater region where during the world wars people of Japanese descent were taken out of their homes and lost their property and lost everything. And at some point there ought to be compensation for that as well.

I know people who've been victimized by that today, and that was maybe not, I mean, that was based on nationality very direct from the government. Again, in, in a time that people that I know remember, I think the, the. I think it's very smart to talk about descendants of slaves rather than the color of skin.

I think that, that is a, I've noticed that in the dialogue as we've gone through this year in the Legislature. I'm not sure it's quite well defined on how that would be. I know there's other legislation that would do that on how that's determined and I think. I think it's something.

I really enjoyed the debate, by the way, in Committee between you and Assemblymember Jackson. It was just Interesting sitting there. Although I wish I wasn't sitting there because it was a very Committee meeting higher ed. Good God, don't ever put me on that Committee. Mr. Speaker.

But it was a very interesting debate, and so I really like these conversations. I think this is a good year to have them. I think this Bill. I do have some concerns with Prop. I'm still interested in the debate, is what I'm saying.

I have some concerns regarding Prop 209 and the vote, you know, the public has made recently. But I am interested in the conversation going forward. I think if the Bill can also. I think about 6% of California's population is black. Is that correct? Or identifies as African American. So this isn't, like, out of the realm.

This isn't, like, crazy. You know, I think that if all of this money was going to, you know, wealthy white people, that would be a problem. So I think it's sort of. It's a fair debate to have, and I think we should continue to have it.

I don't think we're quite dialed in there yet for me to support it, but I'd like to continue this conversation. It's been informative for me, and I'm sure there'll be a lot more politics and policy discussions on all these bills moving forward. But thanks for bringing it today, and I look forward to more of this debate.

Well, thank you so much. This is a part of the California Legislative Black Caucuses Reparation Package. And if there was a Bill that would make my API brothers and sisters whole, I would be right there.

I am also always the first one to step up to make my Latino brothers and sisters whole, my women whole, my LGBTQ people whole. Whenever there's a chance and there's inequity, I'm always the first one to speak up. As you all know, I do have quite a big mouth. And so. And when you talk about the,

It's not that it's interesting that the descendants of U.S. slaves don't all look black. It's like I said, I'm gonna bring my beautiful little grandson around and show you how he looks. And I've seen him. You've seen him. He's quite handsome. And he. You know, people wouldn't necessarily know that he was black, and so.

But he is still a U.S. Descendant of slavery. And so that's where, that you can't always see it is my point. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Mckinnor, do you want to close, or was that your close? Either way.

That was my close, and I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. We have a motion and a second. And thank you again for working with the Committee, and for your leadership on this critical issue and for your solidarity and consistency as well. And I'm very happy and proud to support this Bill. If we can go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Motion is do Passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Haney?

Haney, Aye. Patterson? Not voting. Avila farias? Avila Farias, Aye. Caloza? Caloza, aye. Gallagher? Kalra? Kalra, aye. Lee? Lee, aye. Quirk-Silva? Quirk-Silva, aye. Ta? Ta, not voting. Wicks? Wilson? Four. Five. Six to zero, sir.

Aye.

Six to zero. We'll keep that open for absent Members. Thank you. We'll invite up Ms. Pellerin, and before we hand it over to her, if we could take a vote on the consent calendar, please. Please move. Second. Moved and seconded.

[Roll Call]

All right. 8 - 0, and we'll keep that open for absent Members. Thank you for your patience. Ms. Pellerin, AB 282. Item Number 4.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 282. Historically, housing choice voucher holders, formerly Section 8, have had difficulty finding a unit in the private rental market. This includes blatant refusal from some landlords to rent units to tenants with a voucher.

In 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 2—I'm sorry, 329—by Senator Mitchell to redefine "Source of Income" to include housing subsidy payments. As a result, it is unlawful for the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against any person because of their source of income.

This was drafted in acknowledgment that voucher recipients face discrimination and stereotyping based on their "Source of Income." Although SB 329 was an important step in combating housing discrimination and expanding housing opportunities for families with a voucher, the law, as currently written, inadvertently prohibits any preference based on source of income.

Therefore, while it is now prohibited to discriminate against households with rental assistance, it is also prohibited to establish a preference that will benefit households with rental assistance.

AB 282 will allow housing providers to establish a preference for voucher holders—households—by explicitly stating that the prioritization of applicants for tenancy, who qualify for or participate in rental housing assistance programs, does not constitute discrimination based on source of income.

And with me to testify is Suzi Merriam from the—Development Director of the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County, and Jessica Quan, Director of Occupancy and Housing Compliance, the Housing Authority in the County of San Joaquin, to testify in support of the Bill.

Great. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Suzi Merriam. Is this on? Yes. Okay, Suzi Merriam, and I am here to express strong support for AB 282. AB 282 is a critical bill that will expand housing opportunities for participants in rental assistance programs and strengthen affordable housing communities.

Many households rely on housing choice vouchers—or that rely on housing choice vouchers—struggle to find a place to live, because private landlords are often hesitant to accept them. AB 282 would allow mission-driven housing providers, including nonprofits and public housing authorities, to establish a preference for rental assistance participants when selecting tenants.

This would create more housing opportunities for voucher holders, while helping housing authorities maximize federal funding and improve program utilization. This Bill also offers vital support to the affordable housing industry. High quality affordable housing developments often face financial instability because operating costs exceed rental revenue. Many rely on project-based vouchers to close this gap.

But with these vouchers in short supply, projects are at risk. Allowing housing providers to utilize and prioritize voucher holders would improve the financial stability of many struggling affordable housing communities. By addressing the needs of both low-income renters and affordable housing providers, AB 282 will create a stronger, more sustainable housing market.

I respectfully urge your vote in support of AB 282. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jessica Quan. I am the Director of Occupancy and Housing Compliance for the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin. As an administrator of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, with 17 years of experience, I have witnessed the most vulnerable households struggle to utilize their voucher—households struggling to utilize their voucher and secure affordable housing.

By establishing a preference for households participating in rental assistance programs, it can provide opportunities for households who would otherwise become homeless for not being able to utilize the voucher assistance. Only about 5.3% of households in California are voucher holders. Nationally, it's closer to 1.7%.

AB 282 would increase the availability of housing opportunities and streamline accessibility for affordable housing for low-income individuals and families, who are disproportionately persons of color, persons with disability, and other vulnerable populations. So therefore, I'm strongly in support of AB 282.

Great, thank you. Are there other folks who are here in support of this Bill?

Hi.

Good morning. Anya Lawler on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, the Public Interest Law Project and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Good morning. Justin Llata for California Housing Partnership in support.

Good morning. Divya Shiv at Housing California in support.

Good morning. Sharon Rapport on behalf of Corporation for Supportive Housing in support.

Great, thank you all. Is there anyone here in opposition to this bill? Not seeing anyone? Anybody want to make an opposition comment at all? I do not see anyone. There you go. Open it up to the Committee. Mr. Lee.

I think this is a very good common sense build approach, especially as we want to prioritize our public dollars for public housing. I think it makes a lot of sense. I would love to be at as a co-author if you would have me. And I would like to make a motion for the bill.

Thank you. Thank you.

Alright, moved and seconded. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I want to appreciate the author for bringing this important bill forward. You know, a lot of work has been done in this area, but we still see this resistance and it's real.

When individuals are finally in many cases after a 10 year wait, able to secure a housing voucher than to have to pound the streets and many times have a big fat no, we don't accept these. It feels like you, you receive the golden ticket that cannot be cashed in anywhere.

And I say that because I know there are actually third parties out there like United Way who are trying to work with and encourage owners of properties to accept these and to reduce the stigma that these have had maybe in the past, but that continue to be carried on.

And I really think that once we change that narrative that we will see more doors open. So I, I'd also like to be added as a-co author.

Will do. Thank you.

Ms. Avila Farias.

Hello. I think this is a great bill and you know, we just as housing practitioners, we just have to keep steering the ship in direction of good public policy.

You know, the dismantling of the Housing and Urban Development funding for project based Section 8 and HVC program, when we lost the funding for, you know, damages to units, it really hindered the program to operate in the marketplace.

And so there's a lot of advocacy out there that needs to still be done on that front to restore funding that was taken away and make this program a lot more robust in the housing authority boards of administering these federal programs.

But I think the bill is solid, you know, supporting individuals struggling in the fair market market trying to use their vouchers out there. So thank you for bringing this forward.

Great we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you so much to the author. I know that we've all heard from our constituents on this issue of how hard it is to be able to get one of these vouchers. And then when you get the voucher, you we can't actually find a place that will accept it.

And there are folks who want to actually make it available and even provide some additional access to these folks. We have to expand opportunities for people who have these vouchers to actually be able to use them. They are an important way to ensure people have access to housing.

I would also love to be added as a co-author and appreciate you and your leadership. And with that we will open it up for a roll call vote.

Motion do pass to the Assembly Committee and Judiciary. [ROLL CALL]

Six.

Six to one. We will keep that open for absent members. And thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

All right. We will now call item number 12, AB 1229. Mr. Schultz. I saw just walk in. Good timing. Welcome back to Committee. Yeah, maybe this won't be a little quicker. Begin when you are ready.

All right, Mr. Chair. Ready whenever you and the Committee are. All right. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be back before all of you presenting Assembly Bill 1229 this morning. AB 1229, if approved, would restructure the existing adult reentry grant program to ensure that participants can maintain permanent housing.

Now, housing assistance is critical for marginalized populations, especially people that have been released from California State prisons. Many of these individuals, as we all know, face significant barriers to obtaining housing, such as the stigma of incarceration and restrictive criminal record screening policies. Now, here's some facts that are rightfully startling.

People on parole in California are 17 times more likely to experience homelessness than Californians overall. And individuals who have been incarcerated and are experiencing homelessness are seven times more likely to to be rearrested than those who have been housed. California's existing adult reentry Grant program has provided rental assistance and reentry services for this population.

But the program needs significant changes as only about 27% of program participants have been connected to housing. And if we want to get real about reducing our recidivism rate, we have to talk about housing.

Successful programs across the country have demonstrated that people with incarceration histories can become stably housed and avoid reoffending when they have access to longer term rental subsidies and the services that they need to build a solid foundation for the remainder of their lives.

These successes rely on implementation of evidence based practices administered by housing agencies and that's why AB 1229 aims to restructure the existing Adult Reentry Grant program by moving Administration of the program to the Housing and Community Development Department where true housing specialists can provide better oversight and technical assistance for these individuals.

This will make the program more effective in serving the most vulnerable among us so that they do not fall into homelessness or the recidivism pipeline. And by ensuring stable housing and support, we can transform lives, reduce homelessness and create a safer, more compassionate California for everyone who calls the state home.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to our technical experts. Joining me today is Divya Shiv with Housing California and Sharon Rapport with the Corporation for Supportive Housing, both of whom are sponsors of the Bill.

Thank you Assemblymember. Good morning Assembly Members and Chair Haney. My name is Divya Shiv and I'm the senior policy Advocate of Homelessness policy at Housing California, a statewide nonprofit organization focused on the production and preservation of affordable housing and on ending homelessness.

Homelessness among people who are formerly incarcerated in prison is a growing issue and the prison to homelessness pipeline in California is unfortunately, all too real. Every year, thousands of people are released from prisons in California who face barriers to finding housing and who struggle to avoid falling into homelessness.

In fact, as of November 2024, 15% of people on parole were unhoused, many of whom experienced unsheltered homelessness. Many more people who are under post release community supervision supervised by counties also experience homelessness. Yet our current state efforts to make sure people leaving prison have access to housing and other supports necessary for successful reentry are inadequate.

AB 1229, as Assemblymember Schultz stated, draws upon the successes of evidence based programs in other states to restructure the existing Adult Reentry Grant Program which funds rental assistance and warm handoff reentry services for people who are incarcerated in prison.

This restructuring involves moving the program from the Board of State and Community Corrections Department to the Housing and Community Development Department to embed HCD's deep understanding of housing and rental assistance within the program and to provide grantees with technical assistance from housing specialists who understand the ins and outs of rental assistance.

This program and restructuring also involves using rental assistance primarily for permanent, rather interim housing based on and the restructuring involves making grants to regional administrators who are community based organizations, counties, or continuums of care based on successful programs in other states who can help grantees coordinate and integrate reentry services with other supportive services.

Implementing regional administrators who sub grant the adult reentry grant funds to community based organizations will just increase the holistic array of services offered to participants. For example, these regional administrators can connect participants to health services like CalAims, Justice Involved Initiative, and other behavioral health services.

Finally, restructuring will invest a greater share of funds toward rental assistance and dedicate these rental subsidies to individuals who are at risk of homelessness or already experiencing homelessness. We can take steps to address the homelessness crisis among the poor population without new, additional ongoing funding.

In fact, restructuring the adult reentry grant program will maintain its existing ongoing funding while allowing roughly one third of California's parole population who are experiencing homelessness to exit to housing and reduce the likelihood of future arrests. Thank you and I'll pass it to Sharon Rapport.

Good morning Chair Haney and Members. My name is Sharon Rapport. I'm with the Corporation for Supportive Housing. Highly successful reentry housing programs help people exit homelessness for good and also significantly lower risk of rearrest.

One example of a program that we could use as an example of a model program is the Returning Home Ohio program, which helps formerly incarcerated individuals who've been to prison stay housed and avoid recidivating. Returning Home Ohio refers people experiencing or at risk of homelessness to supportive housing where they receive intensive services with housing subsidies.

The program connects people to mental health and substance use treatment, offers employment services and benefits advocacy, and provides intensive case management. The Urban Institute released a study of the RHO program, comparing the results of participants with a comparison group who received the usual response of shelter or transitional housing.

After one year in the program, RHO participants were 61% less likely to recidivate than the comparison group, they were 41% more likely to access mental health and substance use treatment, and they were almost three times as likely to continue that treatment for the long term. Over 90% retained housing stability and over 90% participated in services voluntarily.

Similarly, programs in Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Denver, and New York all provide long term housing subsidies with coordinated intensive housing support and reentry services that offer opportunities to stabilize in housing, all with low rates of re offense. And Los Angeles County as one example has a recidivism rate of 2.4% at its highest level.

These programs typically have administrators who coordinate healthcare, employment services and data reporting programs offer permanent housing which allows other services to be successful. Because when people are still experiencing home homelessness or even at our risk of returning to homelessness, they cannot successfully re enter their communities.

For these reasons, we commend Assemblymember Schultz for authoring this Bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there other folks who are here in support of this Bill? Just your name, your affiliation and your position.

Brandon Greene, Western Center on Law and Poverty and support. Thank you.

Justin Llata, California Housing Partnership and Support

Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California Action and support.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support

Yes, my name is Theodore Patton. I am a formerly unhoused individual who knows a lot of people who will benefit from this program and I support it. Thank you

Tim Heaven lived experience with the incarceration homelessness. Strong support for this.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. My name is Lewis Brown Jr. On behalf of the following organizations, I'd like to offer Support Path LA Smart Justice, California, California Public Defenders Association, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Transitions Clinic Network Vera, California and Initiate Justice.

Good morning. Jessica Tien in support. Good morning. Lauren Turner in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Gloria Johnson from Hawthorne, California. And I could say that I really support this Bill not just because I had family Members who went in as teens and exited as adults and they have no sense of where to go and they be offended just to go back to jail just to have a roof over their head. So I strongly support this. Thank you.

Hello. Cheryl Winter from San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you all for being here. Are there, is there anyone here in opposition to this Bill? I do not, I think so a little less controversial than this one. Let me open it up to the Committee. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. This is one of the types of legislations that really intersects with two areas that I've been spending more and more time on. Of course housing, but of course course obviously incarceration.

And I know that the chair and myself have had the opportunity to visit Norway, look at other models, many different reentry programs here in California.

And they really are life changing when we can go from incarceration to a safety net, whether it's a re entry program, whether it's some type of assistance and for too long we kept that space from happening and many, many individuals reoffended as was mentioned but didn't have opportunity to know.

I mean I have spent a lot of time in the Last three years, really working. To learn more about this space, read the book by Susan Burton. In Fullerton, we have Project Rebound, which in fact is a program where incarcerated can go directly into.

There's now a home in Fullerton, and many of the individuals who've moved into those helms are now getting masters and working within the programs. So there's a lot of light when we invest here.

And again, like with the Section 8 vouchers or even this, there will be the individuals out there that constantly use the rhetoric of why invest here? And yet let's have stronger laws to put people in prison again, never thinking about what happens when they're released.

So this is a full program that not only do we need it, and the dollars can be much more effective when we have people with expertise that are programming these dollars and housing. HCD comes under my Budget Committee. So this is what we've been talking about all yesterday, but without going on too long.

One of the things with the housing agency is we know these vulnerable populations, whether it's youth or foster, formerly incarcerated, have the most difficult time finding any type of housing. So I'm excited about this. Would like to be added on as a joint author.

There you go. Ms. Caloza.

Thank you to Chair Haney. Thank you to Assemblymember Schultz for bringing this Bill forward. You know, as somebody who is also very passionate about both housing and making sure that we continue to make meaningful reforms to our criminal justice system, this is a Bill that I also strongly support.

It's a program that I know, unfortunately, people in my family who have been through the system, both homelessness and the criminal justice system would benefit from. So I would also like to co author. I had more to say, but now I'm getting emotional. So. But thank you. And thank you to the coalition that you've brought together to put this forward.

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Another excellent Bill from some Member Schultz. I think it's a lot of common sense and I think it's in alignment with the efforts of the Administration and realigning our housing agencies. So I like to be added as a co author too, if you'll have me. I can be whatever level co author you want, but it's just I want to support you.

I believe in sharing. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Kalra would also like to be added as a co author and you may close.

I just humbly ask for your aye vote. And I will just add because we may discuss this on the floor hopefully soon. If you want a safer California. And I think we all do.

I think this is one of the most impactful bills that we could do to actually deliver that can't lock away the problem, but we can help people leaving our state prisons connect to housing and avoid recidivism.

Absolutely. Also would love to be a co author and we will open this up for a roll call vote. zero, do we have a motion? And second Lee Kalra.

[Roll Call]

All right 7-0. We'll leave that open for absent Members. Thank you so much.

Thank you everybody.

All right. Now we will move on to the Quirk Silva part of the program. The Quirk Silva show items 68 and 9, AB 670, AB 750 and AB 1061.

All right. My bills are not as exciting as some of the ones that I wanted to be joint author, but they're important nonetheless. All right, so we are going to start with AB670 and good morning Members. I want to thank the Committee consultant for working with my staff and we accept, accept the Committee amendments.

Today I'm presenting AB 670 which threatens housing stability for low income renters and promotes affordable housing preservation. Most low income renters in California live in market rate housing, including older multifamily buildings that remain affordable without subsidies.

However, private equity firms and corporate investors increasingly target these properties, raising rents, displacing long term tenants or demolishing them to build high cost housing. The loss of these naturally occurring affordable homes worsens California's housing crisis. Or we could say Noah, another acronym from our Committee.

Nonprofit affordable housing providers occasionally acquire and preserve naturally occurring affordable housing housing properties as permanently affordable housing using limited local programs such as the Bay Area Housing Finance Authorities Housing Preservation Pilot program and the United to House LA Initiative. However, the state provides little funding for these efforts.

Local governments also face disincentives because housing element law primarily rewards new housing construction rather than the protection of existing affordable units. Current law requires the replacement of certain demolished affordable housing units and mandates relocation assistance for displaced tenants.

Unfortunately, reporting requirements remain vague, making it difficult to track how many affordable homes developers demolish or whether jurisdictions comply with replacement and relocation requirements. AB 670 allows local governments to count investments in preserving NOHA toward their housing element and annual progress reports.

So I want to say that again because we do hear sometimes from local governments that they're not getting credit and there has been various moves to get credit for certain types of housing. So this would allow them to to count investments and preserving NOAH towards their housing element.

This bill also strengthens accountability by requiring jurisdictions to report all housing demolitions in their APRs, regardless of the reason, and demonstrate compliance with replacement housing and relocation assistance requirements. With me today to provide testimony and support and answer any questions, we have Anya Lawler, the policy advocate with Public Interest Advocates, and Emil Liano.

How do I say that? On Stancio, senior Program Officer with Enterprise Community, both who are sponsors.

Good morning, Chamber. Good morning, Chair Haney and Members of the—Good morning, Chair Haney and Members of the Committee. My name is Amiel Leaño Atanacio, and I'm here on behalf of Enterprise, as one of the co-sponsors of AB 670.

Enterprise Community Partners is a national nonprofit affordable housing organization working towards increasing the supply of affordable housing, advancing racial equity, and building resilience and upward mobility.

Unsubsidized Affordable Housing, otherwise known as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing, or NOAH, is a core component of California's affordable housing stock, offering rents that are affordable to low-income households, often due to a combination of reasons, such as location, building conditions, and other factors.

These properties comprise nearly 60% of all affordable homes in the state, according to research by the California Housing Partnership. However, CHP also estimates that nearly 220,000 unsubsidized homes—unsubsidized affordable homes—are at risk of losing their affordability in the—in the near term—putting thousands of residents at risk of being displaced.

The acquisition and preservation of Unsubsidized Affordable Housing is a proven successful model to prevent displacement and homelessness. Mission-driven nonprofit organizations have acquired thousands of these units, making necessary improvements to building conditions and habitability standards, and putting deed restrictions on these homes to make them permanently affordable, allowing existing residents to remain in their communities.

Allowing jurisdictions to claim credit for the acquisition of these types of homes, and preserving them as deed-restricted affordable housing, would incentivize local governments to support and fund these types of activities, helping stabilize many low-income families. We respectfully request your "Aye" vote, and we thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Anya Lawler, here on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, another co-sponsor of this Bill. In addition to the provisions that my colleague from Enterprise just discussed, AB 670 will also require more robust reporting of housing demolitions in the annual progress reports that jurisdictions submit every year.

These APRs are supposed to show how every city and county is moving forward towards meeting their housing goals, and to know how far they're moving forward, you also have to be able to subtract out everything that was demolished.

Right now, we don't have good information on demolitions, and we know that they happen pretty frequently, so we really think that those should be reported on.

In addition, since 2019 for housing projects, and since 2023 for non-housing projects, state law has required local governments, as a condition of approving a project that will demolish existing housing or be built on a site where housing was demolished in the last five years, impose replacement housing requirements, so there can be no net loss.

And if those units were occupied by a lower-income person, they have to be replaced by a deed restricted low-income unit, and also, low-income people being displaced must get relocation assistance, usually about 42 months of rent differential. However, we're seeing very uneven enforcement of these provisions.

Some jurisdictions, like Los Angeles and Oakland, for example, have ordinances that are robust and ensure that these provisions are complied with. Other jurisdictions are not complying at all. We suspect in some cases it's simply because they don't know these requirements exist. It's really important that housing gets replaced when it gets demolished.

Logistics facilities, which are sprouting up all over the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, often take out hundreds of housing units at a time. That doesn't make a lot of sense, unless they get replaced and rebuilt somewhere else.

So, we think that by requiring reporting, we will get more robust compliance and also just have a better picture overall of what's going on. And so, we respectfully ask your "Aye" vote.

Fantastic. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of this Bill? Name and affiliation please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Member. Julie Snyder with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. It's a mouthful. We are proud co-sponsors of this. Our elected officials on our board are really excited about the RHNA credit provision, and thanks to you and your staff for your work on the Bill.

Justin Llata, California Housing Partnership, support.

Good morning. Divya Shiv at Housing California, in support of this Bill.

Good morning. Gracia Castillo Cranks here, on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network. Thank you.

Great. Is there anyone here in opposition to this Bill? Not seeing anyone. We will open up to the Committee. Ms.—we have a motion and a second. Ms. Caloza.

Well, I was going to move the Bill, Assembly Member Kalra. I know, this is like, I have to be quick on this Committee, but no, I just wanted to thank the Bill author. Thank you to Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, the coalition for bringing this forward.

It's something that, when you said it out loud, I was, I can't believe we weren't doing this prior, and so, there's a lot of missed opportunities for how we continue to be more thoughtful in our housing policies. So, um, I will third this Bill. But thank you to, again, the bill author on this and the coalition.

Great. All right. Give you the opportunity to close.

Would appreciate your support.

Great, and I would also love to be added as a co-author. I think this is hugely important. We talk a lot about production, and we need to continue to push production, but preservation is critical, and this comes a lot—up a lot.

I know, across the state, and hear a lot about it in San Francisco, as we move to have more affordable housing production, we also sometimes are losing some of the homes that either are affordable or could be made to be affordable, and that should be something that we support and incentivize, as well. And so, with that, we will open it up for roll call vote.

[Roll Call]

All right, 8 - 0. And we'll keep that open for absent Members. We will continue on with the Quirk-Silva show.

All right. I am going to be presenting Members AB 750. And this is focusing on our homeless shelters. But I do want to back up a little bit and kind of give a little narrative. I was elected in 2004. Yes, 2004.

Before we had all the social media and when, in fact, my father actually made wooden signs for me, that's how far back I go. And in 2004-2012, when I sat on the Fullerton City Council, we were not talking about housing and homelessness, and we were talking about development.

That would usually bring out the biggest crowd that we would have. And usually it was against the development at that point and still can be. But from 2012, when I actually became an Assembly Member, to now, we have seen, of course, an explosion in homelessness.

So when we look at the context of how long not only our local governments, but our state has really been focusing on homelessness, we're really about a decade in.

And when we look at all of the agencies that are focused on this, from HCD, the different departments, we know that we've had some hits and we've had some misses. One of the ways that local jurisdictions were encouraged and sometimes really pushed to help with the homeless individuals was to create homeless shelters.

And with that, we found that what we thought a good amount of years ago would be a very temporary experience, maybe three to six months for many have turned into a year, two years, even longer, because of exactly what we talk about on a regular basis in this Committee, which is the lack of permanent supportive housing so that those individuals experiencing homelessness have nowhere to move for.

And before this Bill, I presented AB362, which was a Bill to focus on improving what was happening at shelters at that time. Because of an ACLU report that came out that talked about some of the conditions.

Unfortunately, as we know, when we are legislators and we move legislation through and it gets signed, we don't often or don't always have the bandwidth to follow it up ourselves to find out is it being implemented, how is it working, and in fact is there compliance?

And what we found because of a recent CalMatters investigation is that that previous Bill, AB 362, which asked cities and counties to report about conditions in shelters, the compliance was that only five of California's 58 counties, five of California's 58 counties and just four of the state's 478 cities submitted reports that were required by law.

So this is shocking. I mean, one of the things that I really don't like about being a Legislator is the report cards. We get report cards for this or that. None of us like report cards.

In this case, this report card would be, I don't know if there's a grade lower than an F, but it would be like an F minus, minus, minus so bad. And it's a law. So what are we going to do about it? We are presenting AB750 to strengthen the state oversight and enforcement.

And by the way, the funds for these shelters are coming from state dollars. So this Bill would do three things. It would be empowering shelter residents to have signage to know where they could report.

It would standardize the reporting and show clear reporting requirements and deadlines and then strengthen obviously the accountability as we saw an F minus minus minus.

And with me today we have Rachel Bhagwat, the legislative advocate for the ACLU Cal Action, and Catherine Moore, an advocate in Orange County who lived in one of the shelters and will be speaking to us.

Good morning. Chair Haney and Assembly Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Catherine Moore, homeless advocate with lived experience. I come before you as someone who has endured the very conditions AB 750 seeks to change. Six years ago, I sought refuge in a shelter, thinking I was safe.

Instead, I found fear. There was no oversight, no accountability, no way to report abuse. Security guards and staff sexually harassed me and other women. And when we spoke up, we weren't just ignored, we were punished, threatened with the eviction for demanding dignity. The harm wasn't just in the people. It was in the conditions we had to endure.

The shelter was filthy. The cleaning supplies were locked away. Staff had no obligation to clean on a daily basis. Illness spread like wildfire. Stomach viruses, respiratory infections from person to person. This isn't just my story. This is happening in shelters across the state. Excuse me. Sorry. Without accountability, abuse thrives.

AB750 clearly guarantees that it gives clear rights for our shelter residents. A transparent oversight process. Annual inspections that enforce health and safety standards. Public shelters that receive funding must have basic standards. These are our most vulnerable people that we are talking about. I urge your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Haney and Members. My name is Rachel Bhagwat and I'm a legislative advocate at ACLU California Action. I'm here today in support of AB 750 in 2021. ACLU is proud to support AB 362 by the Assembly Member which mandated that cities and counties enforce new health and safety standards for shelters.

But recently, a recent CalMatters investigation that the Assembly Member mentioned showed that this oversight is failing. And Californians are living in shelters that have dangerous conditions, including rodent infestations, lack of hot water and other hazards. The ACLU of Southern California had documented similar shelter conditions in 2019 which led to the previous legislation.

These conditions harmed some of our most vulnerable community Members. And shockingly, the Calmatters investigation found that California shelters are more deadly than jail because the state lacks sufficient permanent supportive housing to meet the need. Residents and shelters are often stuck there for the long term.

So it's inhumane to leave them trapped in unhealthy conditions with no alternative except the streets. The ACLU supports AB750's requirements that shelters post signage and provide materials informing shelter residents of their right to file complaints about violations. It's important because inspections are triggered by shelter resident complaints.

And our own investigations and the CalMatters report reveal that shelter staff don't always inform residents of those rights and even violate their rights by, for example, stealing from them.

We also support the increased accountability that AB 750 creates by establishing clear reporting requirements and deadlines, annual inspections of all shelters and penalties for non compliance with state reporting requirements. AB750 will help ensure that Californians with the greatest needs are treated with the dignity and care that we all deserve. So I urge your aye vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are the other folks who are here in support of this Bill? Name and affiliation, please.

Good morning, Sharon Rapport with Corporation for Supportive Housing and Support.

Good morning again. My name is Theodore Patton. I support.

Good morning. My name is Divya Shiv with Housing California. We are taking a support if amended. Position if the Bill includes amendments clarifying. When Cities and counties should conduct inspections. We have been working with the author's. Office about this amendment, these amendments, and. Are very happy that these amendments are. Going to be included in the Bill. And we thank the author's office for this Bill.

Lauren Turner, and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to this Bill? Not seeing anyone. Let me open it up to the Committee. Mr. Patterson. Great. Thank you.

Speaking of report cards, one of your sponsors of the Bill gave me 9% on their report card recently. But I always vote with what's right. So I read the opposition to this Bill and I think I was kind of concerned about it in the sense of it stated that inspections should occur every year for all structures.

And I can tell you from having served on a local government, that doesn't happen any, anywhere in the state, in any city, in any county. But if we were to prioritize resources for our building officials and our fire inspectors, they should be at facilities like this.

In fact, I think the residents of the communities that they represent would appreciate that the shelters in their community, where we often, as local officials would probably often get complaints, particularly when they're nearby residents, of maybe certain things happening. And whether they're unfounded or not, you know, or with or justified is a different topic.

But I think residents would actually appreciate going in to make sure that the facilities in their neighborhoods actually are safe for the people living there, because then people can actually stay there and get the services they want and the services they need. And so I think this is a good Bill and, you know, I'm.

I'm happy to support it today. And I think if you were to ask my City Council Members, I bet you they would support it as well.

It's great to see the Vice Chair improving on his grades. I don't know if this one will be counted. No. Well. Well, no, you're doing the right thing. That's what matters, because I also support the Bill. So I do think this Bill is a move in the right direction.

And I get the resource aspect of local jurisdictions, but I don't think it's that much to ask for that they ensure that these congregate shelters are of a basic quality and standard that any of us with should expect. If someone's unhoused, they still deserve the dignity that we all deserve.

And with this recent trend of cities looking at potential incarceration of folks that refuse offers a shelter, there's a reason why some of our unhoused brothers and sisters refuse shelter and refuse, especially congregate shelter because they've been in those facilities and they feel safer out on the streets than they do in some of these facilities.

And that's a shame and that falls on all of us. And so I think this gives an opportunity for us to ensure that these facilities are of a basic standard and hopefully well beyond that and well above that.

We already know that many of our unhoused community doesn't feel, even if they were empowered to know that they can file complaints and what have you, they have the ability to do it, don't feel empowered to do it.

And so I think by requiring regular inspections, I think it'll, as our Vice Chair indicated, increase the trust of the community, of the neighborhoods as well as the residents. So I think it's a win, win, win all around. And I look forward to hearing this Bill.

I think it'll be referred to judiciary, but I just wanted, in terms of this Committee's jurisdiction, make it very clear that this is good for our housing goals and respect for our in house community.

Thank you. All right, you may close.

Yes, just following up, one of the areas that I have spent time on is interfacing in my own community with individuals who are unhoused. And I live in Fullerton and we do host a shelter in Fullerton, also in Buen park next door and in Placentia, all in North Orange County. And some cities are doing more than others.

We've already established that. But when I have interface and what I mean by that is walking downtown, which is where, you know, just like when we walk around up here in Sacramento, you could walk right past an individual and not interface.

But I have on many occasions and every time, whether it was a older gentleman or a woman, and I've said, did you know that there's a shelter, right. In essence, you know, a few miles from here, every single time they have said, I don't want to go into a shelter and have given specific reasons.

And one gentleman, particularly probably closer to 70, moving bags, like he was literally moving one wagon to one spot, going to another spot, getting another wagon, moving it. So had about three wagons of items. And he said, and he said, I can't go into that shelter because I'm not from Fullerton.

So even with shelters there's other barriers and we've heard about this, whether it's pets or partners. So we have made attempts to reduce those barriers. But just the fact that people, some homeless individuals, feel safer outside on the streets and in a shelter certainly means there's work to do. And with That I ask for your support.

Thank you so much. And thank you for your continued leadership on this and for following up to make sure that the implementation was actually there and really appreciate the witnesses who are here and everyone who's come together for this.

As you said, there is huge need for more shelter space just like there is for more housing if we're going to address homelessness. And I think, I know a lot of the cities are focused on building more shelter space.

We have to make sure that these shelters are not only livable, but that they're safe, that they're healthy, that they're providing the type of living environment that we should expect to be able to serve the needs of the people there. And I also want to say this is also critical for the employees of those shelters as well.

This is also about their living conditions, the living conditions and their working conditions. And this is hugely important for both of those things. So I would love to be at it as a co author as well. And we will open this up for a roll call vote. Oh, sorry. We have a motion in a second.

Motion by Wilson, second by Caloza. We're not allowing Caloza motions today, sir. Motion by Caloza, second by Wilson.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we have one more bill. This is our last bill. So if you are watching and you're one of the Members who has some bills to vote on or their staff, please come down now and we will move to your Last bill, item 9, AB 1061.

Thank you Members. My third bill for today and before I begin, I do want to. Before I present AB 1061, I want to just say plainly I love historical buildings and neighborhoods. My daughter lives in a historical home. 1920s. This summer I went to the Balheim Castle in London. So yes, I honor those.

But this bill is not about demolishing that. And I'd like to thank the Committee consultant for working with us on this bill. And in an ongoing effort to work for the California Preservation Foundation, we have taken the amendments in this Committee. Basically, AB 1061 ensures the California Home act applies in historic districts while protecting historic structures.

California faces a severe housing shortage, especially for middle income and small multi unit family housing near jobs and transits. Restrictive zoning has made it illegal to build these types of homes in over 70% of the state, driving displacement and forcing Californians into severe rent burdens.

The California Home act, known as Senate Bill SB9, legalized and streamlined the development of duplexes and small scale lot splits across California, including in historically exclusionary single family neighborhoods. Small urban lot splits and additional duplexes add density and lower cost homes in existing neighborhoods, increasing housing supply affordability.

However, SB9's exclusion of historic districts has created a loophole that opponents of new housing exploit to block development.

I'm going to pause here there because that's kind of the gist of this bill is of course we respect with all due consideration historic properties, but when it's used to block new housing or density, then we're not using it for the purpose.

So with me today we have Daniel Friedman, partner with Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, who is a practicing attorney who works with conservation issues, and Max Dubler, policy manager for California YIMBY, who are the sponsors of this bill.

Great. Good to see you.

Nice to see you as well. Good, Good morning. My name is Daniel Friedman. I'm a land use attorney and partner at the law offices of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. I'm also the co chair of our firm's housing strategy litigation group and also an adjunct at UCLA.

Thank you Chair Haney, Assemblymember Quirk Silva, Members of the Committee, for having me here today as a witness to discuss how his historic preservation is being used throughout the state to delay housing developments, increase costs on home builders and undermine state housing laws intended to expedite housing.

In my capacity as a land use attorney, for better or for worse, I have become an expert on historic preservation laws and in particular how historic preservation laws are used to undermine housing.

To date, I would estimate I have personally handled no less than 100 historic preservation related cases and I have had to work with home builders to go through unimaginable situations, some which involve building near historic resources and some which do involve the demolition of projects.

In particular that involve the demolition of a dilapidated gas station that was problematic, a burger stand, Irish pubs. We've had issues with demolishing even red tag buildings that were not livable. There's nothing off limits from the reach of historic preservation.

I've also represented community groups in various fights to rebuff district nominations which target both upscale residential neighborhoods and track communities alike generally. Again, intended to stop housing, including SB9. On rare occasions, I've used historic preservation as a weapon to kill projects. Historic preservation is one of the easiest tools to stop housing with regulatory layers.

While the regulatory layers can be complex, the broader reason for this problem is simple. Historic preservation was originally intended to protect architecturally and culturally significant resources. And in fact, the first qualification is supposed to be that it's significant.

But over the years, everyone has realized that there is no real standard for what significant means and courts are not equipped to vet significance. So historic preservation bodies and elected officials have really had no objective tools for determining significance.

So now significance is rarely considered as a substantive requirement and is in fact even left off of this hearing staff report. Without significance, the only standard is existence. Meaning the question becomes did the resource exist in the past and does the resource exist today? As you can imagine, this is a problem.

And it permits small interest groups to use historic preservations to exclude entire exclude entire communities from state housing laws like SB9 while also subjecting communities to even stricter laws that make new developments remodels simple permits, more complex and expensive.

With that, I'll, I have more to say, but I will wrap up because I know I'm going a little long. I want to thank you for having me here today to address the body on this significant issue. And I do think this bill is intended to move the state in the right direction. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Max Dublin, a policy manager at California YIMBY. I'm just here to answer technical questions on what the bill does.

Great. Other folks who are here in support of the bill. Name and affiliation.

Seamus Garrity from Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of SPUR and Abundant Housing Los Angeles and strong support.

Great. Anyone here in opposition to this bill?

Good morning again Chair and Committee Members Brady Gurdon on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition to the bill. Just wanted to thank the sponsors and author for meeting with us. We've been having very productive conversations and understand what they're coming from.

But I did want to flag a couple things expressing why we're concerned with this. So three years ago, as we all know, SB9 became law.

Cal City's worked diligently with the with Senator Adkins to negotiate good faith in good faith on protecting our historic districts and got those exemptions in and three years later we are looking at removing those. So what our concern is for a variety of reasons.

So the housing element process requires us to account for governmental constraints in historic districts. We have to account for that locally to balance the need of housing but also growth in the community.

What with that in mind, what our planners are trying to do is provide that balance of maintaining the historic nature of the community while also promoting housing.

And we also encourage that are encouraged by the case study reported showing that the San Mateo City Council had pushed back on some of these preservation efforts on the historic district thing and want to acknowledge that a lot of our cities are working in good faith and actively putting on that.

The big point with the housing element process is this is a very robust public engagement and we come up with the standards that are beneficial for all and find a way of what's best for the community.

And when we go to ministerial, it does away with all that hard work that it takes and time and commitment that it takes to do that. That said, we are in respectful opposition to the Bill. We'll look forward to continuing those conversations.

I did want to say that the amendments are a step in the right direction, but as of right now, we are still opposed to the Bill as reported and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who's here in opposition to the bill? Seeing anyone? Mr. Lee.

Lee, I just want to thank. The author for bringing this another great bill to the Committee. And I want to thank you for thinking about how to make sure that. Historic preservation isn't tombstoning places in the city, but making sure that they're vibrant historical parts of it.

I do think it's a very reasonable idea that we can preserve the historic structure and architecture while also adding more life around it. Because I mean, all of our districts have historic buildings and historic sites, but they don't all need to be segmented and put into a city museum and turning their whole downtowns into museums.

So I really do believe in this Bill. I would like to be added as. A co author as well, if you'll have me. And I would like to move the Bill. Thank you.

We have a motion And a second. Mr.

Patterson, question you mentioned in your testimony about issues developing in historic or just whatever historic might mean in a community. So are you telling me in your view that's not defined what a historic district is or.

Well, one of the nice things about this Bill is that in this instance it does define it. And that's actually one of the important steps that's being taken here. In a lot of other instances when we have to deal with what is or is not a historic resource, it is not clearly defined.

There are several layers of what could be potentially a historic resource. Sometimes it's listed, sometimes it isn't. And if you would like to know all the different layers of when that occurs, I'm happy to help educate this Committee or your office because it's a major problem statewide.

Yeah, yeah. I think, you know, I mean, I do think nobody's more incentivized to revitalize historic districts, which are often downtowns, but not always, obviously. I've lived in Sacramento for a long time. It's much more broad than that. But. But maybe they create their own problems, you know, fixing that a bit.

But, you know, you go to a lot of cities and you just see, like, why can't anything ever happen here? And maybe there's. There's a solution to that. But you say this Bill defines what a historic district is, which would seem to be landmark.

And I think that that in and of itself could potentially be a Bill by itself. So we can negotiate as a state. Where do we want to, what kind of things do we want to mandate on local governments for those types of districts?

Maybe, maybe splitting, because it was part of the negotiations a few years ago that historic districts were going to be excluded very, very specifically. And so if we're going back on that, I think that's a worthy discussion.