Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good afternoon, folks. Senate Committee on Housing will begin in 30 seconds. Welcome. So the Senate Committee on Housing is officially underway. I do want to state that we do not have quorum yet, so we're going to begin as a Subcommitee. I want to highlight that we have a number of bills on consent and I will go through that.

We have surprise surprise Bill File number number 5, SB2 627 by Senator Mcguire, file item number 9, SB802 by Senator Ashby, file item number 10 by Senator Rubio, SB814, and then file item number 13, SB772 by Senator Cabaldin. And so I just want to highlight that those are on consent. We are going to start with Bill number one, SB 457 by Senator Becker whenever he is ready.

Thank you, chair and Committee Members for the opportunity to present SB 457. This is a focused and we believe important Bill to clarify and strengthen California's housing laws. And I will say I'm presenting this Bill as someone who's co authored the housing bond, has carried bills many, most years with affordable housing developers supports affordable housing whenever possible.

We always say this is a simple Bill. In this case, I really do believe that this is a simple Bill. It does two things. It says, number one, if a city adopts a housing element and HCD takes its time but ultimately approves the exact same housing element, then that loophole can't be exploited.

And second, it says that it can't be a one page provisional application rather than more substantial application. And I know, I just want to say in advance, I know there'll be criticism saying these cities were late with their housing elements.

I just want to point out, for example, Saratoga, a small community I represent, got its housing element and on time in 2022, went through multiple rounds in some cases with different HCD reviewers each time HCD taking three months in between before finally certifying several years later that community has 22 builders remedy projects for a very small community.

22. When I told one of my colleagues from Southern California they could not believe that number. And today I want to focus on why real world examples like the Willow Sunset project in Menlo park show why SB457 is urgently needed.

As you know, California's housing element law requires cities and counties to plan for the housing needs of residents of all income levels. The Housing Accountability act is a critical tool. Holds local agencies accountable to their plans by limiting their ability to deny housing projects without clear objective reasons.

Current law has ambiguities around when A housing application is considered deemed complete and what it means for local jurisdiction to have a substantially compliant housing element. And these uncertainties can delay housing production, create litigation risks, making it harder to achieve our goals.

This Bill simplifies the point at which a housing element is considered substantially compliant by tying it directly to the date of local adoption, subject to later confirmation, as I said, of by HCD or a court.

This Bill also updates definition to mean a fully complete application, improving transparency, ensuring the local decisions are based on a full accurate record. And they will say, we're willing to continue discussions on how the HCD and how we define what is complete. But this Bill is urgently needed.

We are now seeing project like one currently proposed in Menlo park that exploits state housing laws under the guise of affordability, but really fail to deliver meaningful public benefit. The prose development exemplifies the challenges posed by the misuse of the builder's remedy provision. This is 80 Willow park in Menlo Park.

This project plans to construct three towers with the tallest reaching 37 stories, which could make it the tallest building in the Bay Area outside of San Francisco.

Development packs in over 350,000 square feet of office space, a 130 room hotel, nearly 40,000 square feet of retail space, and et cetera, et cetera, raising serious concerns at all kinds of levels.

And you know, while the project says it includes will include 20% affordable units, I just do want to note, and I think it's a longer discussion for another day, that these are designated for households earning 80 to 120% of area mean income.

That means starting for folks who make $148,000 in San Mateo county, much more than a salary that a Legislature makes. For example. And I hear from mayors in the district that these are the hardest units to rent. They're actually often at or above market rates.

So a market rate room that has say a month or two of rent without any restriction is a better deal. And also these below market rents units don't have the current 10% rent cap. So if AMI goes up more than 10%, the rent goes up more than 10%. So it's one of those reasons those are the hardest to rent out.

Of course, this inclusion of substantial office space we mentioned the hotel and it underscores the need for this measures like SB457 to ensure that the builder's remedy is utilized in good faith to promote genuinely affordable housing rather than exploited for large scale development that may not serve the community's best interests.

Builders remedy was intended as a 12 last resort to push through urgently needed equitable housing. And I'll note that I think going forward cities will all be much clearer about the builders remedy about the process. If you look back 234 years ago, it was much more of a gray area.

So to say that this Bill would create a gray area, I think the whole thing was really a gray area at the time and we can meet to ensure that the bills are. Many productions are used by good faith actors, not those who use technicalities to to bypass community standards without minimal benefits.

So that's exactly why this Bill includes language to protect existing projects but also prevent future abuses. We feel it's a balance and giving applicant cities and the courts a clearer standard, reducing unnecessary delays and disputes and help ensure the projects can move forward when they comply with state and local housing laws.

I'll turn it over to my two witnesses who kind of represent different pieces of this debate and look forward to more questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And I want to be very clear to each of the witnesses, please state your name, who you represent and then you will have two minutes and you will be timed.

Good afternoon Chair Wahab and Members of the Committee. I'm Jessica Wohlander with Green Foothills here in strong support of SB 457. Green Foothills has worked for over 60 years to protect local nature and farmland. We fully support building more housing, especially affordable housing. But where and how we build matters.

The Builders Remedy was meant as a last resort tool to push non compliant cities and counties not to allow sprawl and environmentally sensitive infrastructure port rural areas.

Yet in Santa Clara County alone, developers have filed over 40 builders remedy applications for nearly 7,500 homes on farmland, flood plains and wildfire prone hillsides disconnected from transit, emergency services and basic infrastructure. Most of these applications are preliminary filings that provide little to no information on infrastructure, environmental risks or public impacts. This isn't responsible planning, it's opportunism.

These projects increase wildfire and flood risk, fragment wildlife habitat, worsen climate emissions and undercut California's climate and housing goals. SB457 offers a balanced targeted fix. It requires a complete application, not a placeholder, to invoke the builder's remedy. It also protects cities, cities that have adopted housing elements and are later found compliant from speculative filings during administrative review.

On behalf of Green Foothills and the communities and ecosystems we advocate for, I urge your aye vote. Let's support housing policy that truly works for people, for nature and for California's future. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. I'm Ray Mueller, Supervisor for San Mateo County, 3rd District, speaking today in strong support of SB 47. Cities in San Mateo county have worked in earnest to meet California's Housing's goals.

They have undertaken major rezonings, environmental reviews and broad community engagement to deliver housing elements that meet our obligations under state law and have done so in good faith. Despite this, our cities have been bolderable to a punitive builders remedy that is prone to HTC HCD administrative delay. The 80 Willow project in Menlo Park is a clear example.

After Menlo park adopted its housing element and submitted it to HCD for certification, a developer rushed to file a preliminary application invoking the builder's remedy.

Despite the city having met its obligation, the project proposed three towers up to 37 stories tall, more office space than housing, and a scale completely disconnected from the community's infrastructure and planning goals, overwhelming our safety infrastructure. It's not affordable housing. It's a speculative mega project exploiting a procedural gap.

This type of project can happen in any city or town. And the next time it does, residents of those cities will certainly ask, how did we allow that to happen? The builder's rubber knee was designed as a tool of last result for jurisdictions that refuse to plan, not those that do.

But today that tool is being used as a first strike, as a threat, as a wedged up and good faith plan planning with placeholder applications that sidestep transparency and community engagement. With reforms like SB47, jurisdictions that have done the hard work to comply with state law face a paradox.

They can be overwhelmed by poorly conceived projects that undermine sustainability, public safety and long term community resilience. This not only jeopardizes thoughtful planning, but erodes public trust, making it harder to achieve the very housing goals we all share and eating up valuable city capacity to actually build affordable housing. SB47 strikes the right balance.

It preserves the builder's remedy where necessary when jurisdictions fail to comply. Thank you.

All right, we are going to move on to lead opposition.

You guys can stay here.

Yes. Okay. And each of you will have two minutes. Please again state your name and whoever you guys are representing.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Member Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Here in unfortunate opposition. Our opposition day is solely focused on our concern that the Bill before you undoes some very critical key provisions of two important pro housing pieces of legislation that just went into effect. 1125 of this year.

Those being AB 1893 by Senator Buffy Wicks, as well as 1886 by Senator Alvarez.

Last year, this Legislature and the Governor made a very clear statement by the passage and signing of those bills that we were going to put an end to the practice of local government self certification of housing elements and ensure that the builder's remedy continued to be a viable path when out of compliance.

In the current structure of this Bill, we believe it would create a pathway to avoid the consequences that come with not meeting the deadline for getting your housing element approved.

And there are other bills in the Legislature right now, one being AB650, that take what we think is a more reasonable approach to allow for more time for certification and not create the problems that are associated that this Bill brings.

So we do not think in any way, shape or form that a local government should be able to predate housing element approval. We think that is a bridge too far and that is too much control for anyone to have. Being able to fully control the rules of the game, we do not think should be allowed.

So local governments right now can avoid being out of compliance and subject to builder's remedy by simply starting the process earlier. So we would urge a no vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Anya Lawler, on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, also in opposition. As my colleague said, we just passed AB 1886 last year. That created a very bright line for when a housing element is in compliance.

And I will note that Even prior to 1886, we have long argued that what was in 1886 was the law. We have never supported local governments adopting a housing element and then sending it into HCD for review. That creates inherent ambiguity. HCD might find that housing element to be out of compliance.

And then what happens to everything that happened in between? It doesn't make sense. It's too chaotic. And we think the bright line in 1886, which again we thought was always the law, HCD thought was always the law, is the right way to go.

And I will note it's no secret to most of you here that we're not particular fans of the builders remedy. So I have some sympathy for the concerns about the builder's remedy project, but agree that the solutions to that is to get the housing element to HCD in ample time for them to review it.

I will note that HCD has never not met a review deadline. They review housing elements in the time period allowed. So knowing that timeline and getting them in on time is the way to avoid the builder's remedy. And with that we would respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Do we have any me toos either in support or opposition. Please come to the mic. State your name, your organization and whether you support or oppose.

Hello, Seamus Garrity from Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, San Diego Housing Commission, SPUR and California Yimby in strong opposition.

Katherine Charles on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with the San Mateo City County Association of Governments in support.

Nadia Nayak, resident of Palo Alto and strong support. Kelly Traver, Palo Alto. I am in strong support.

John Selling, Palo Alto. I'm also in strong support.

Margaret Spack from Menlo park and I strongly support.

Paola Machocha, I'm a resident of Melopark and a strong support.

Brad Sylvester, Atherton and I strongly support.

Ellen McNeil, Menlo park and I strongly.

Support Linda Swan, Member of the town Council of Los Altos Hills and I strongly support it.

Amy Fujishige Boggs representing Menlo Forward, a group of more than 1,000 citizens concerned about 80 Willow Road in strong support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Carly Shelby. On behalf of the cities of Chino Hills, Placentia, Tustin, La Habra and Santa Barbara in support. Thank you.

Joanne Goldberg, Menlo Forward support.

Neil McNeil, Menlo Park. I strongly support.

Virginia Chang Karali, Vice President of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. I'm very concerned about the community safety. I am very in support of this. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair, Senators, I speak in two capacities. Ed Lauing the Mayor of Palo Alto, our City Council voted specifically just a.

Me too or a yes.

Thank you. And the second capacity is as the board Member and Member of the legislative action Committee of the Cities Association of Santa Clara County. The legislative action Committee couple weeks ago voted with all 15 cities in favor and in support. Thank you.

All right, we're going to move on to Members of the Committee and and I do just want to highlight we. We have a number of bills we started late and we have competing committees at the same time. So let's knep our comments and questions short. Senator Cabaldon, thank you.

Thanks Madam Chair and first I want to thank the author for the very extensive conversations that I know we've had.

I know you've been working this Bill very hard on behalf of the district and I'm not one of those that thinks that our success in housing is how many Builders remedies, Builders Remedy projects got the green light this year. To me the number of Builders Remedy projects is inversely related to our success on our housing agenda.

The builder's Remedy cannot be the main way in which projects happen. And it is intentionally supposed to be something that's so awful that people will do what we want them to do, the cities and counties in particular will do what we want them to do, and just awful enough.

And it is, you know, as I think you've described from some of the projects in your districts, and we've had the same challenge in mind in communities. In my district, the proposals that are brought forward sometimes in preliminary applications are almost intentionally so overdone to declare this, everybody will hate this.

Why don't, hint, hint City Council, Board of Supervisors, why don't we work together on something in between while we have this big hammer over you long term? That's not the right policy.

And so I think the builder's remedy has been effective as a very, very blunt policy tool to force recalcitrant cities and counties to do better and to fail less in their obligation to produce more housing and to produce more affordable housing in particular. So I think it is serving a purpose. But I think you're also raising an important issue about the timing.

I'm not comfortable with the retroactivity provisions of the Bill, although I think, you know, I'm supportive of local control, which also means I don't want to come back here after the fact on each development kerfuffle that happens in every community and try to undo them from, from the past.

So that part gives me some Heartburn, especially given the legislative history here about, you know, how recent these changes were made. So I think the, you know, the efforts to try to line up the, the deadlines I'm, I'm conceptually supportive of.

But for me, the retroactivity is a step too far in, in terms of looking back at specific development projects. We know of a few I know the consultant has identified in analysis, not all of which are in, in the good Senators district.

And I don't want to open up that can of worms, but I do think that the basic concept of making sure that when a city's doing something within the, within the timeline that we, that we've, that we've allocated, that they're not, they're not unduly punished with and I understand what the CRLA comments as well, that, you know, the, that they have, if they just would turn their project in earlier, but if that's the case, we should just make the deadline 90 days earlier and not create a system where you got to be in the know to figure out that if you want to avoid this kind of nuclear outcome, that you should do something different than what the law specifically tells you in terms of your deadline.

So I think you're on the right track. But unfortunately for me, the retroactivity is a, is a, is, is a problem for the, for the, this Committee and the Legislature not becoming the City Council in this, in the sky.

Thank you. We're going to move on to Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would certainly associate some of my comments with Senator Cabald and I had a chance to talk to the author, to communicate with the author a little bit.

My biggest concern is, I call it the pipeline issue, but that's old language that comes from years ago, serving on sales D City Council and chairing this county cities Association back in the day. The timing of start and stop, when an application is ripe for something like this and when it's not is exquisite.

You know, in land use, for a lot of reasons, you get kind of a rush, the gate thing when you don't do it right on the one hand, you get unintended consequences like retroactivity if you don't do it right on the other hand. And I'm not saying you're, you're trying to do anything not right.

Senator Becker, you know, as the author, because I, I do believe there's an issue here and I represented a lot of the West Valley cities just before this last reapportionment that you represent now.

And I, I was held with my feet to the fire at council meetings at some of those cities because of, you know, what they felt were unintended consequences. Certainly those cities had tools in their toolbox to anticipate and I think incorrect General plans and even zoning to avoid some of this.

And certainly the best self help is to get your housing element, you know, done and submitted on time. So how to rectify that, I don't, I didn't have a solution in the last 24 hours to offer the Committee or the chair.

So I'm kind of in a position of, you know, feeling that I have to abstain on, on the vote so that I don't, you know, push something down, push something through the process further that ends up creating an unintended consequence.

You're a great author and a very persuasive one here and I know people are going to want to have a sentiment toward, you know, deferring to your leadership on this. And I don't suspect it's impossible for you to correct the issue I just brought up.

It's not corrected right now, so it presents a little bit of a dilemma. You can take that as a question if you want, but obviously a comment as well.

One of the first things I did.

Senator Alvarez said, at least when the first things dose talked to Senator Alvarez, at least at the time, he did not see an issue with it. We believe this is aligned with AB 1886 because if HCD does not approve the housing element, then it would still be considered out of compliance.

So I think it's just really clear, important to say what this Bill does not do. It does not change in any way the already allocated arena quotas. It does not reward bad actors who are not compliant, and it does not eliminate the builder's remedy. So I just think those are important points.

And even Assemblymember Wick's Bill, which, which limited the builder's remedy going forward, these, these, these projects would not qualify. The Menlo park project would not qualify under her Bill if it was going forward.

And I think, you know, that was an attempt even by, you know, I think someone who is very pro housing, someone Wicks to say, like those things are way out of bounds. Right. So I don't see why we wouldn't go back. I agree. I mean, we're not.

We certainly want to create a sense where in the Legislature, as you say, the City Council in the sky, where we're frequently going back and overriding things that happened in the past. I just think that this is a unique case where it was number one, very clear. The RHNA quotas were much more stringent this cycle.

I will say Menlo Park. And you can clarify because I went through all my cities. I don't think any city was four or four in terms of their very low, low, moderate and market rate. But I believe Menlo Park actually was at least.

And going forward, none of them will be, of course, because it's impossible to achieve the low and very low quotas we've given out without subsidies that are not coming from Sacramento, unfortunately.

But I think Menlo park was two of the four or three of the four in the last cycle and have considered had a very strong housing focus on the. On the council. And that's where, you know, still this most egregious thing happens. So again, I understand the concern about retroactivity.

I understand we don't want to often go back and make these kind of changes. I just think in this case, and it's not like these things have been built, right. If they've been built already, but it's a whole different story. Right.

The point is they're either still, you know, substantial work has not been committed to these projects, which also represents, in many cases they were really, you know, preliminary applications. So a Couple of comments. And I think, you know, and I respect your, you know, you're very, you know a lot about housing, Senator Cortesian and I.

But I do appreciate you representing some of these communities and that Santa Clara County has come on board now because they're facing this. I think it's over 7,000 units proposed in areas that they would never ordinarily wanted. Wanted, you know, wanted to build.

And so I know it's a tough balance, but, you know, we hope to be able to keep moving this forward and continue to work on some of these issues.

Through the chair. I know I don't want to overextend the discussion, but I just want to be clear and I won't mention names, but, you know, some of our offices have been approached by folks who are so zealous to, and understandably so, because of the type of advocacy they do, conservation and such, that they literally lobbied this Bill as a Bill that will go back and essentially terminate applications that would otherwise go forward by the dozens, by the dozens.

In one case, we were told 40, you know, 40 projects would be stopped in their tracks that would otherwise keep going. That's what I think. When you're hearing retroactivity up here, it's not because we're projecting that or reading that into the analysis or anything like that. We're actually getting lobbied that that's how this Bill will work.

And so it's. It's creating that tension. I just wanted you to know that it's understandable, like I said, why people would have that kind of urgency coming forward, but it actually kind of undermines, you know, some of the healthier arguments about what we'd like to see as well. Just wanted you to know. Thank you.

So we're going to move on to Senator Grayson quickly.

I will align my comments with my colleagues on the Committee here. And just to also reiterate that this is not builder's remedy, is not a tool to promote housing or used to try to reach numbers of housing.

It really is a tool in the toolbox to motivate a behavior from local governments, you know, or an action on local governments to be able to get housing elements in on a timely manner, whatever the case may be.

I do have a question, and that is according to your Bill, and this is just for clarification, according to your Bill, when would a housing element be deemed compliant?

So if the City Council approves it and then say 306090 days later, HCD approves it, the exact same element, then the approval will be considered when the City Council approved it. So City Council approves it. If HCD approves that exact same element, then it's considered.

So it's not, it's not deemed compliant just because the City Council. No, no, no, no, no. Only if. No, that's the point here, and I want to be really clear on that. No, only, you know, if, if it's a bad actor, if it's deemed incompliant. Yeah. Not, you know, not in compliance, then those projects would go forward. So only if. Only if HCD approves that exact same element.

So what is the motive for the City Council to deem it compliant?

Well, if they, if the City Council doesn't deem it compliant, then it's. It's never compliant. So all this is saying if a City Council goes through all that hard work, Deems a compliance hcd, weeks or months later, Deems the exact same, that exact same element compliant, then that loophole can't be exploited.

So is that so, in other words, it's a bit benign then, what you're saying. In other words, no action is stopped and no action is taken either way. Just because a City Council Deems something compliant, it doesn't mean that something cannot continue to move forward. Yeah. If HCD goes forward and says, hey.

That Bill, not hcd, because that hasn't happened yet. I'm talking about the point that the Council Deems it compliant at that point, does that stop anything from happening?

Well, again, I guess it does bifurcate it in a sense. Right. So that in that time, someone could put in an application and then if HCD says, hey, that housing element wasn't compliant, then that application, if it's ultimately deemed complete, would go forward.

But if HCD says, hey, you know what, that was a good housing element, then you don't get to exploit that. 3060 or 90 days that HCD took. It just goes back to the date when the City Council deemed that.

Would you happen to know, just by data, and I'm not trying to be contentious, just by data, would you happen to know how many housing elements were deemed compliant? The first up on the first round to hcd?

Well, this doesn't apply just the first round. In many cases, this might be the second round or third round. So, but the point is saying, yeah, even if this is the fourth round, okay, you know, everything beforehand was not compliant. Okay.

But when they deem it compliant on the fourth round and HCD then says that was compliant, then that, just that Small loophole

it kind of makes the compliance retroactive back to when the council.

Approves it, but only. Only the one that HD ultimately approved. That's the point. It's not like the previous three years goes out the window.

That helps me understand a little bit better. Okay. With that and a few other issues that I have today, I really think you're onto something. I agree with my colleagues. I think you're really onto something. There's some provisions within the Bill that make it either problematic or very challenging.

And so for that, I won't be able to support it today. But I do think there is something here that we need to have a serious conversation about as we move forward to try to deal with the conflicts that come with builders remedy.

Thank you. I just want to highlight a couple of items for just the public. Number one, to all of your residents that came. Thank you. It's very much needed for local residents to actually have a voice in this particular building.

I will also say that your Senator does advocate very significantly for his district, hence why he is carrying this Bill. I do want to highlight just a couple of procedural things. We are not at quorum. We're missing a couple of Members. So we have not called roll. We cannot establish a vote, a motion, or anything like that.

So I just want to be very transparent with you all. But you gu have heard some of the Senator's commentary. I think that I've had conversations with the Senator. And Senator, I just want to be very clear with you. You are not accepting the amendments, correct? Correct. All right.

And I think some of the concerns that some of the colleagues have raised are my similar concerns. And I want to be very clear. I do try to support local control because it is about local communities. I don't believe I supported the builder's remedy to begin with, especially with a. I prioritize affordable housing.

I think affordable housing is a priority, in my opinion. But I do have concerns. There are a number of different cities that have obviously adopted this. The analysis notes that several jurisdictions adopted a compliant housing element more than one year late. So we're not talking about four months, six months, things like that.

We're talking more than a year. And I think that that raises a lot of concerns for us just because of other cities that have complied and the process that takes a long time. I'm just going to be very Frank with you.

So I think that all of us are committed to working with the author in the future to kind of address some of the concerns that are coming up in these cities. But I just wanted to highlight that. Senator, I'd love for you to close and then we can move on to the next Bill.

Well, thank you. I do. I think the four of you have very nuanced approach to housing, which I do appreciate. I'll just say a couple of things quickly in close. I think these residents are here because you know, we're saying this shouldn't have happened, right? This Menlo park.

Like no one would say, like this is a really great idea. We have our fire board Member Virginia Chancarelli, who spoke I spoke to the fire chief recently about that. I mean that intersection was already complete gridlock in many cases, you know, without this project.

You know, I mentioned about 1886, you know, spoke to Senator Alvarez and I do believe that this is something we should go back and correct. And I don't think it, you know, then indicates that we're going to just keep doing this over and over. I think this is a unique situation. I respectfully ask your aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you all. Thank you for all of us, all of you guys who have joined us as well. We're going to move on to another session. Senator Becker Bill. Senator is going to present final item number two, SB 606. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair Wahab and Committee Members for this opportunity to present SB606. This Bill would require cities and counties and continuum of care programs to proactively plant an unsheltered homelessness in their jurisdiction. I know you have a lot of bills. I'll keep it short.

I think we've heard over and over in caucus and really across the state that they want us to address unsheltered homelessness. And I now can say confidently after looking at what number of cities are doing that, we can do that for the first time. I'm really positive we can.

And unsheltered homelessness, which is by far the most humane, most inhumane excuse me, part of homelessness where people are dying on the streets, being assaulted on our streets in large numbers. And it's really a California problem. I didn't realize that initially. It's a California problem of our unsheltered. Sorry. Of our homeless population, 78% is unsheltered nationally.

That's 20%. New York, for example, is 5%. So this is really a California issue and we need a California solution. And what this Bill will do, as we will hear, is it sets up a process that make sure that that that cities and really regions that bring smaller cities in as well, plan for functional zero.

Have you declared a shelter Crisis. Have you adopted Appendix P building codes? Have you done the streamlining that is allowed to you under 1395, a Bill that we worked together to pass unanimously, unanimously in the Legislature last year. But unfortunately, many cities still aren't taking advantage of because the housing departments are just too conservative, shall we say?

And they just, you know, their. Their job is to avoid any risk at all, whatsoever possible. So they're not taking advantage of what we've put in place as a Legislature for them to act quickly with high quality units that we know we can build to. To end the unsheltered homelessness crisis while we continue to build permanent housing. With that, I have two wonderful witnesses here today.

Thank you. Each of you guys will have two minutes. Please state your name and obviously your testimony.

Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Funk. I'm the CEO of Dignity Moves, a nonprofit focused on ending unsheltered homelessness. And the key word here is unsheltered. Understanding that unsheltered is just one component of a much bigger and more complex housing crisis.

But it's the part that's got the most voter outrage, does the most devastation to the people, and it's the. The part that's solvable. Our state's top priority needs to remain permanent housing.

But it's time to give regions explicit permission and an unambiguous directive that we do not want our streets to be the dangerous and devastating waiting room that they are by requiring local municipalities to assess what it would take to end unsheltered homelessness.

All of a sudden, there's a finish line, because I think the biggest problem holding us back is people don't think it's possible. But once you've defined a problem, now you have a goal that the cities and the counties, and quite frankly, philanthropy, and everybody can rally toward, and that creates optimism, which is the single biggest thing missing.

Functional zero is a technical term that essentially just means a municipality has a sufficient supply of places for people to go, so no one needs to resort to sleeping on the streets. I'm sure you're aware that both San Francisco and San Jose have embarked on incredibly bold initiatives to do just this.

It's time for all regions to do the part and for the state to encourage them and give clear direction and tools to do so. Thank you. I respectfully request your aye vote for 606.

Hello. Hello. My name is Samaj. I'm here to support SB606. Thank you for taking the time to hear my story. Today. I stand here today not only as a concerned citizen, but as a passionate advocate for the thousands of people facing the same struggles as me.

I come from a loving family and a good background, but I had troubles just like anyone else. When I admitted that I couldn't figure out my troubles on my own due to lack of resources. I sought help by dialing two in one.

And I found first step Communities, the Grove as a new step to a new journey as a human being. The first steps to getting my life on track is having basic necessities like a shower, clean clothes and having a space to think without the world watching and judging me.

Funding programs like the Grove gives people facing homelessness a mental break and hope. Having someone to help guide me like case managers who provide me with helpful resources like work, search and resume building assistance, linkage to mental health services and ultimately permanent housing.

With the help of this program, I have opportunities at my feet that I can now pursue. I am an overcomer, not a statistic. I have my own cabin where inside I can find peace and an opportunity to think about the next steps in my life. I have a hot meal provided to me three times a day.

I have somewhere to shower daily, clean clothes on my back, wi fi I can use to look for school and work. I have transportations to interviews and appointments. And there's always someone I can reach out to when I need a listening ear.

Me and countless others have these resources because of places like first step communities who will put me in a rapid rehousing program which will pay for my first month and my deposit and provide me with subsidized rent for one year to get me started.

Going from staying in my car to an amazing opportunity like this lets me know that there's hope for others for all individuals facing these challenging times. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses. Seeing no lead opposition witnesses. We're going to move on to metoos both in support and opposition. Please state your name, your organization and whether you oppose or support.

Katherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council, proud co sponsor and support.

Anybody else? All right, moving on to Committee Members seeing no commentary. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes, I do want to clarify that I am committed to making technical amendments to clarify this Bill will be implemented around 7 of the H. HAPP grant program. I'm grateful to our witnesses who have been here in each step of the journey with us.

I look forward to working with you to be able to really show and actually end unsheltered homelessness in the next few years. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Thank you again, folks. We do not have quorum yet, so we are not able to vote on the Bill. So thank you guys for your time. We're going to move on to our next Bill. FIle item number three, SB 484 by Senator Laird and Senator Richardson. We will take you next.

Yes, I know you've been waiting a while. I know it's riveting conversation. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and Committee Members, I'm here to present Senate Bill 484 and I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the chair and the staff for working on them.

Senate Bill 44 addresses coastal housing in the last couple of years, there have been bills that would break open the Coastal Act for the purpose of housing, and this Bill attempts to address that concern by trying to prioritize housing within the Coastal Act.

Looking at the Committee Members here, I only see one who has a coastal county in his district, and I don't think he even has the portion that's the coast. So I feel obligated to say to all of you that when the Coastal Act was adopted, it required local coastal plans for any jurisdiction on the coast.

And once they're approved by the Coastal Commission, the local jurisdiction is the planning agency with the option of appeal to the Coastal Commission. When I was first elected to the Assembly, the City of Carmel had never had a local coastal plan.

They had gone decades without it, and the Coastal Commission was serving as the Planning Commission for the City of Carmel and accepting all the appeals until finally the the Coastal Commission said enough. We're doing a year's moratorium and forced the City of Carmel to have a local coastal plan.

We still have areas that don't have local coastal plans. There are 11 of them, 70 or 80 in the state. So this Bill creates a pilot program for three of those 11 areas that don't have a local coastal plan and ask the Coastal Commission to identify infill areas that are good candidates for 100% affordable housing.

Considering the low risk of sea level rise, impacts to habitats, coastal resources and other factors, there are concerns that this Bill empowers two agencies to be involved here. And as a result, we took the amendments that really deal with requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development consultation to ensure considerations to affirmatively further fair housing.

Because of not everybody working with the Coastal Act, there seems to be confusion about some of the planning. The Coastal Commission already is the development Authority. Most Developments already require a coastal development permit. What this does is this would remove the Coastal Commission in those instances where that is established. Nothing in this Bill circumvents local control.

It would actually leave the local government as the sole permitting authority for the 100% affordable housing projects in the identified areas. This balances environmental protection and housing needs within the Coastal Act. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. We're going to first establish quorum. Can we get a roll call, please?

[Roll Call]

All right, we have officially established quorum. Do we have lead witnesses in support? Seeing none. Do we have lead witnesses in opposition? In support or opposition? Okay, just. We're in lead opposition. You will be timed at 2 minutes.

Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Members, Brady Guertin. On behalf of the League of California Cities, in a respectful oppose unless amended position, I did want to clarify a couple things.

We are supportive of the idea and appreciate the work that the Committee did in making sure that HCD has consultation with. With the Coastal Commission on the approval. So appreciate all the hard work on that.

We are also supportive of what the intent of the author is trying to do to get the Coastal Commission to provide an exclusion for infill areas in the coastal zone. We are very supportive of that opportunity for that to be a pilot project. We are concerned and we continue to be concerned.

And we've had really good conversations with the author's office about a couple things. We just want to ensure. As the Senator pointed out, his goal is to ensure that there is local control to account for these areas.

And to do that, we want to ensure that the pilot programs would be for areas that follow General plan and local zoning requirements. We don't feel like the Bill does that clearly.

And the only reason we think that that's really important is because the state has emphasized the importance of housing elements and establishing General plans and zoning regulations to promote housing in California.

When we go through that process, we have to detail exactly why and how these sites are viable for development, to ensure that we have infrastructure, services and opportunities, that these parcels that are being planned are going to have what's available for community Members to have a good quality of life and the services they need to have safe and healthy housing.

That said, the only additional amendment we would ensure would be an application that it would comply with local General plan and zoning requirements.

We think that we're getting closer, but we think that specifying that in the law would be super helpful for us to move to it because we are supportive of the intent of what the author's office is trying to do. And we'll look forward to those continued conversations with the author's office and the sponsors that moves forward. And I'm happy to answer any questions and thank you for the time today.

Thank you. Do we have any me toos in support or oppose? Please state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Thank you. Madam Chair Jennifer Fearing here today in support of SB 484 on behalf of the Surfrider foundation as well as the California Coastal Project Protection Network and the. Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. Thank you.

Katherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Kirsten Bladh on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Question for the, for the opposition. So if a jurisdiction, if it were. Just simply adopt a local coastal plan, wouldn't it resolve all of those conflicts. That you're concerned about?

So the, the goal of the Bill is to look at areas that don't have LCPs. LCPs are optional for coastal cities. They don't have to do that. Some of our cities defer to the Coastal Commission for permitting authority for local reasons of interest when they do their housing elements.

You can have certified housing element but not necessarily an LCP updated and LCP is only for it. So yeah. As currently drafted. How the Bill from my understanding is if they were to adopt an ocp then they wouldn't qualify for the infill areas. So we obviously encourage our cities to do that.

But for some of them we want to ensure for the cities that don't do that that the permitting authority is still that it complies with General plan and zoning requirements and don't feel like the Bill gets there just yet.

Is this Bill like a lifeguards remedy then to assure that more housing gets. Built in those areas and encourage them. To to implement a local coastal plan? Or maybe that's really for the author.

Actually if somebody implemented a local coastal plan, they would step out of being eligible for this Bill. And we believe that the question is already answered by the fact that a city or county has an underlying General plan already. They don't have a local coastal plan.

And this just applies to those and this just within it prioritizes 100% affordable housing. And this gives the locals the right to process it. With the Coastal Commission getting out of the way, I actually think where we are, where they want us to be.

If we have to reword it to make that clear, I'm willing to do it.

Thank you. So I'd like the Senator to close. Before you close, you. You have accepted all the amendments from the Committee, correct? Yes, I said that at the beginning. I just want to make sure. Please close.

Appreciate the debate. I respectfully asked for an aye vote. This is a chance to do housing within the coastal zone.

Can we get a motion? Senator Cabaldon moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

All right, and then that. It's four to three. That bill's on call. Four to zero. Sorry. Could I get a courtesy motion on file item one? Yes. Senator Cortese moves file item one. Can we get a roll call on that motion?

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call as well. Can I also get a motion on file item number two moved by Senator Grayson?

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. We're going to move on to consent again. This is File item number 5, 9, 10, and 13. Senator Grayson has moved the bills.

[Roll Call]

And those bills are on call. Consent 40 so far. We're going to move on to our very patient Senator Richardson. File item number 8. SB748. She also has props for the public. If you have your witnesses, would they like to join? Thank you.

Not often I'm given the compliment of being called patient. That's great. All righty. First of all, good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of this Committee. First, I'd like to start off by thanking the chair and in particular the Committee staff. Staff who've diligently work with us, I think about six months on this Bill.

It feels like, but have always been available to answer questions and try to get us in a direction that meets the vision of this Committee. So I want to certainly thank the chair and the Committee staff for working with me in my office on this very important measure, SB748, which is the Encampment Resolution Funding Program recreational vehicles.

Second, I would like to start off by saying that I accept the Committee amendments which will help us to sharpen the scope and to maximize the benefits of this Bill. So let's get started into the background. Homelessness may be defined as an individual or a family that lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime permanent residence.

A man, a woman or a child that sleeps on the street, in front of a store or in a recreational vehicle. RV for more than 14 days is considered to be experiencing homelessness. Members In January of 2024, the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development reported 187,084 people experiencing homelessness are experiencing homelessness and that a significant portion of these individuals are living in RVs more specific to California, in Los Angeles, as of 2020, people living in vehicles make up almost half of the city's unsheltered population experiencing homelessness.

In Oakland, our neighbor here, as of February 2022, an estimate of 1,031 people were living in cars and vans and another 907 were sleeping in RVs altogether representing more than half, 58% of Oakland's unsheltered population.

Now, before I continue, I want to refer to this photo here and what I want to make sure that we're clear of and I have a picture for the Members of the public. I'm not talking about one RV or one RV that happens to be parked for a couple days a week.

People, their family getting ready to go camping. This is the situation that I'm seeing in my district and in many districts throughout California. RVs taking entire blocks, not half a block, not one block, but multiple blocks. And what happens here that we were gracious in not showing you the pictures?

People come out of the RVs in the morning. They dress, they shower, they attempt to cook. There's all sorts of attempts of living that is attempted to do through an rv. You can see some of them have operational windows, which is why the law refers to recreational vehicle as being affixed when a person.

This is not considered fixed fixed. You'll also see that some of the tires. I mean this is not an operational mode intended for people to live for a long period of time. So one of the impacts is just the people Unhoused who are living in an rv. Frankly, they're not getting our best from California.

Everyone's entitled to be able to have safe homes. And you can see the exposure that individuals have to anyone who can walk up, who can yell horrible things, who can attempt to steal their property. There's many issues, unfortunately, that the unhoused face living in RVs, which is why it's typically not a safe environment.

Now let's talk about for the residents in this situation. I went to take a picture and was almost attacked by two dogs. Oftentimes people, I have a dog. Oftentimes people have dogs who are also in an unhoused situation. So what that means is a person who's attempting to walk walk your kids to school.

They can't walk their kids to school by this because of all the things that are seen. And then finally, what I want to point out is from an economic perspective, imagine trying to sell your home and you live a block after this.

Anyone who's driving to come to your neighborhood to consider buying your home is not going to buy your home. Or if they do, they're not going to buy it at a value that a person deserves. So there's multiple reasons why we need to make sure that people who are utilizing RVs have other options to gain gainful employment.

So let's talk a little bit about that. Due to the support needed for the unhoused mentioned earlier, existing law established the Encampment Resolution Fund program specifically to provide competitive grants to local jurisdictions to support homeless encampment resolutions and rehousing efforts.

What this Bill is about is to say that these funds were intended to help people to remove from encampments and to get interim and permanent housing. And based upon the data that I shared with you earlier, more than half of the people are now not just living on the street.

They're utilizing options of RVs as those types of encampments. A few of the ERF goals are as follows. Assist local jurisdictions in ensuring the safety and wellness of people experiencing homelessness in encampments and provide grants to resolve critical encampment concerns and transition individuals into safe and stable housing.

Often, RV or street encampments do not provide adequate shelter, as I just shared with you, from inclement weather, safety from uninvited strangers, or those who intend to cause harm and inadequate sanitation to avoid disease and infections. For these reasons, encampments have captured the concerns of us all.

In 2024, a recent Supreme Court ruling, City of Grant Pass versus Johnson. The justices ruled that cities or Local jurisdictions have the legal authority to clear homeless encampments. Governor Newsom then followed the Supreme Court decision by issuing an Executive order requiring state agencies to create policies such as this Bill, that would address encampments, including their removal.

So SB748 enables jurisdictions through the safe parking sites, the tool that they have available to use to help them to not only work with the encampment, but to balance the needs of those who are homeless and unhoused. So what does SB748 do? It's designed to assist those local jurisdictions with acquiring additional locations for temporary housing.

They're still able to have their RV housing is allowed and to extend the safe parking site hours as well, to give you a few examples. And I'm almost ready to close. Yes, ma'am.

As some of you may know, LA County operates 124 hours, seven days a week RV interim housing site at Expo with 24 hour security and resident monitors. This site also provides wraparound services including housing navigation and access to permanent housing to incentivize RV residents to move into permanent housing.

So again, the example I gave you is saying the person has their rv, it's just providing them with much more services.

In terms of Safe parking sites, LA County operates four sites which include access to park a vehicle in a safe parking lot with on site security, restrooms, referrals and linkages to community resources, and access to case management, financial assistance and benefit connection. These are noteworthy programs that are assisted that are assisting our unhoused constituents.

And SB 748 not only seeks to strengthen these programs, but to expand them to help those in most need. The Bill also calls for accountability, which I will not read that paragraph in the effort of saving time.

Finally, as mentioned in the individuals who've expressed concern, this is in no way taking someone's personal belongings, medication, any of that. It's to provide them a safe place to keep their belongings and to get help. Which is something that I commend this Committee for your efforts. With that, I'd like to turn to my two witnesses.

Here I have Christopher Wysocki, he's with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, and Carla Shelby with the City of Compton.

And before we begin, I just want to say that many of the Members on this Committee have multiple other committees and Bill presentations. As it's one of our final weeks, I'm going to hand over the gavel to Senator Cortese. I do just want to thank you again for your patience.

I also want to thank you specifically for the evolution of this Bill. You know, my goal as housing chair is never to be punitive towards those that are in need and those that are more vulnerable, like the individuals that you have referenced, and to be able to find, provide more resources for those that can have more safe shelter, which I think this Bill does.

And so I really, again, appreciate your time. I'm going to hand it over. Thank you.

Witnesses, you may proceed whatever order you like. You'll have a couple minutes each. I'll let you know if you're going over. Thank you.

Great. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, Carly Shelby here on behalf of the City of Compton to express strong support for Senate Bill 748 by Senator Richardson. In recent years, Compton, like many urban communities across California, has seen a growing number of individuals and families seeking shelter and recreational vehicles parked throughout our neighborhoods.

This is not a result of choice, but rather of economic necessity, a reflection of severe affordable housing shortage affecting working people, seniors and families. These individuals often have no other safe staple options available. At the same time, the increasing concentration of RVs in certain areas has created serious challenges for the broader community.

This includes public health concerns, environmental sanitation issues, safety hazards, and impacts on neighborhood access and livability that have become more and more common. These are not easy problems to solve and they cannot be solved through enforcement or displacement alone. Senate Bill 748 offers a humane, workable solution by expanding the Encampment Resolution Fund Program.

This Bill would allow cities to create and expand safe parking sites, extend their hours and and acquire new properties, all with the goal of providing stability and connecting individuals to long term housing, not just displacing them for local governments. Senate Bill 748 delivers critical benefits. This includes it gives a practical, service oriented tool to address RV encampments.

It reduces reliance on costly, reactive enforcement, it helps deescalate tensions in neighborhoods by offering designated managed spaces, and it ensures that public resources are spent helping people transition off the streets, not simply moving the problem elsewhere. The Bill recognizes that homelessness requires real housing solutions and provides local governments the flexibility and support to act compassionately and effectively. On behalf of the City of Compton, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members Chris Wysocki with WMA and we want to thank the author for introducing and authoring SB748. When this Bill was brought to our attention, we immediately jumped on it because a lot of our mobile home parks that we represent are in mixed use, industrial residential areas. And what we were seeing is in.

Many of our parks, these RV encampments were right outside the gates of the mobile home parks. And this presents a number of challenges for the residents in the community because they have to walk to school, walk to work, they have to drive through what can be often a very dangerous situation.

Because a lot of times in these RV encampments, unfortunately, there is illicit activity, there is drug use, there is prostitution, there's Some just unbearable and horrible conditions that exist on the street to which no human should be subject to. The people that live in these RVs need help. And we firmly believe that.

And we believe that by allowing for the enhancement of the homeless encampment on RV RV parking, safe RV parking, you can rehouse these individuals and provide the wraparound services that are needed to give them the help that they deserve. And they can also protect their own personal property.

Because one of the things that we've seen is that a lot of these RVs are in disrepair and it's very difficult to move them, but they are subject to vandalism, theft, crime and other incidents that may impact the public safety of the people that live there. So we view this as a very positive step.

We are very empathetic to the people that live in these circumstances. And we appreciate the author and her commitment to creating safe environments for not only mobile home park residents, but also other residents. So thank you.

Senator, we thank you for your testimony. Opposition witnesses. Do we have opposition witnesses on the Bill? Seeing none. We'll ask if there's any support or opposition testimony. You can come up to the microphone and express your support or opposition with your name and any affiliation. And that's the extent of that testimony. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Benjamin Henderson. I'm with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and we oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Katherine Charles, on behalf of Housing California moving from opposed to neutral with the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members. Aaron Evans on behalf of Santa Clara County. And we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll come back to the Committee at this time. Any questions or comments?

Yeah, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thanks to the author for bringing the Bill forward and including in its original form. I think it's easy. It's easy from here or from, from an office building to second guess how encampment resolution really works on the ground with real people in real circumstances and all their complexities.

And it's not the same in Vallejo as it is in Davis. It's not the same in Yountville as it is in West Sacramento. And so I know your efforts to try to broaden the full tool set are. I appreciate them. I do have a question about the amendment. I want to be sure. So the in.

And the analysis indicates the amendment is to, at least as I understand it, remove the language that was. That's in the. In the current Bill that would expand the scope to include the removal the towing, all those elements.

I just Want to be sure, though, it's not, because I know there's strong views on this, that we're not putting any more language in the reverse. We're not. We're not saying that they cannot be. We're just leaving the statute the way that it is and then adding this language about safe parking and other options.

Okay, so we are. Obviously, this encampment resolution program has been a major topic in Budget Subcommitee 4 because it's still relatively new, and we're trying to assess its effectiveness.

And so I think one of the challenges we often face with these is that while we're still doing them, we start to narrow and narrow and narrow and narrow, and then we're like, hey, hey, Compton, why aren't you getting it done? And we keep changing the rules and making it harder and harder and harder.

So I know you're trying to just get the problem solved and work with communities that are trying to do the same.

So I'm okay with the amendments, but I also, I want to encourage you and offer my help and support to keep working on this as well, both through the legislative process and through the budget process as we take up the funding for the encampment resolution over the coming weeks. So thanks so much to the author

Very briefly, the two primary amendments that I can highlight. For that reason, the author has agreed to remove the ability for ERF funds to be utilized for towing cars and RVs and the code enforcement of cars and RV parking, that is punitive measures that could increase street homelessness and instead allow ERF funds to assist with financing safe parking sites for cars and RVs for people experiencing homelessness.

This can include financing for acquisition and so on. And then the other one is, the author has agreed to change that, the report to be sent to the relevant fiscal policy committees to include Senate budget and so on. So. Yes, sir. And I have accepted them. Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you. Anything else, Senator? All right. Thank you for those clarifications. I'm going to be supporting the Bill. I think the amendments are important. I understand there's a mix of support and opposition here, but we're early in this process, and I think the author is a good author that'll keep working on things with the opposition.

I see her nodding her head about that. And, you know, the issue, coming from a big urban area myself, has not been about should we be relocating and should we be doing wraparound services, but where and where are the resources for all that? And that's kind of what's causing the problem in the first place.

So the idea of safe parking is something I'm a big fan of and hopefully we get there. Yes, sir. Would you like to close?

I'd like to close with respectfully asking for your motion to pass this Bill and for your aye vote.

All right.

Thank you.

Yes. All right. I move the Bill. All right. Do pass. As amended. All right.

[Roll Call]

2-0. And we'll keep it on call. Members have been coming in and out. They'll be back.

Thank you for your time and look forward to working with you all.

All right, thank you. I see Senator Limon is here on file, item 4, SB507. I am pinch hitting as or designated hitter or something like that. Senator.

I like it. Doing a great job.

You're the one that needs to do a great job here, but I'm sure you will, right? Thank you. Thank you. We'll take the compliment.

This is SB507, SB 502nd.

Thank you.

So thank you, Chair and colleagues. I'd like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments. SB507 creates an opportunity for local governments to engage with willing tribal partners to meet their regional housing needs. SB507 allows local governments to engage through a partnership which includes tribal land into the RHNA process.

These voluntary partnerships can serve to create opportunities for tribes promoting tribal self determination and enhancing their ability to provide government services such as public safety and health care into their communities. Today we have here. It was going to be Sam Cohen, but I think Jack's gonna do it instead. And Jean Hurst on behalf of Santa Barbara County to testify in support of those.

Thank you. You may proceed. And you'll have a couple minutes each.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. James Jack here on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians who is sponsoring this Bill and especially grateful to Senator Limon for carrying it. The relationship between California tribes and their neighboring local governments has historically faced many challenges. And SB507 really provides a new era.

Of opportunity for partnership between tribes, cities and counties. And these partnerships will support the state meeting its goal of desperately needed affordable housing. As the analysis notes, there are tribes. In the state like Chumash, that want to help develop new housing to meet local needs. But as of today, housing on sovereign.

Tribal land is not statutorily authorized to. Count towards a local entity's RHNA. Assessment. And in this case our local entity is Santa Barbara County. SB507 solves this problem and really provides, I think, two critical benefits to both tribes and locals. A local government will have an important new pathway to meet their RHNA goals and balance.

This really can create an economic growth opportunity for tribes promoting tribal self determination. And enhancing tribes ability to provide government services like public safety and health care in their communities. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. And we're pleased to be here in support of Senator Lamone's SP507.

As you are probably all aware, the county and our surrounding coastal communities have had considerable challenges in meeting arena requirements, particularly in the very low, low and moderate income housing categories. Not only will SB507 assist us in meeting our RHNA requirements, but it will do so while encouraging partnership with our local tribal communities.

We appreciate the leadership of Senator Limone and the Santa Ines Band of Chumash Indians in bringing this important measure today and respectfully request your aye vote.

All right, thank you for your testimony. Do we have any lead opposition testimony? I've seen none come forward. We'll ask anyone who wishes to express a position, who is in the Committee room to come forward at this time to the microphone. Support or opposition? See? Nope. Okay. Yes. Okay. Take your time. Take your time. This is name affiliation, if any, in support or opposition.

Nick Gonzalez, a resident of Santa Barbara county, in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward. We'll come back to the Committee, Committee Members, any questions or comments.

And so with respect to the amendments about the jurisdiction being contiguous to or wholly contain the tribal lands that are. I'm curious about it. Maybe I don't have a request, but just to think about it. So I'm just the largest, well, the only tribe in my county. But in my district, it sits in Yolo County.

It's maybe a little. It's a bit remote from the City of Woodland, but when we do RHNA in the region, we do our very best to assign all of the housing to the cities, not to the county.

There's a huge amount of the workforce that commutes back and forth to, you know, 25 minutes to the tribal lands, not just the casino, but the. For an advertisement, Takahilla olive oil and many other things.

And so it begs the question to me whether or not it might be appropriate something other than exactly contiguous, because the county itself doesn't have arena obligation and the principal beneficiary is getting is or the. Are the. Are the families who are currently living or homeless in Woodland, not in the county, who might be able to have.

Have housing that allows them to stay part of Woodland, Little League, part of the church, part of, you know, be on the planning Commission or whatever, and also live closer to work. So I don't have an answer to it, but I just as there's the amendment language is in front of us.

Just to keep thinking about as you go forward, whether there might be conditions that you could imagine where contiguous may not be exactly the right measure given the location of where tribal lands are often in relationship to RHNA jurisdictions.

Thank you. And certainly open to thinking about that and working, I think, with the Committee to try to conceptualize what that could look like. Like. Yeah.

All right. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We can entertain a motion. Moved by Dazzo. We'll take the roll now.

[Roll Call]

All right, it's three to zero. We'll keep it on call for Members. Thank you very much. Okay. Don't believe we have another author. So, Senator Durazo, would you like to present item 11?

Yes, thank you.

Take your. Senator Durazo is moving down to the witness table. This is item 11, SB21, and you can begin whenever you like.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB21 amends the Housing Crisis act of 2019 to allow up to 25% reduction in units when converting deed restricted affordable housing single room occupancy buildings, SRO buildings better known as into larger units with affordable rents, private amenities and supportive service spaces.

SB21 updates eligibility at the Department of Housing and Community Development to deem SRO tenants homeless, quote, unquote, for relocation purposes, waiving referral and homeless documentation requirements. This will help tenants relocate to other supportive housing with ease. We have tenant protections in the Bill, including right of first refusal to return rent, guardrails and a replacement housing plan.

I'm grateful for the expertise of tenant advocates and look forward to suggest adding suggested technical changes as authors amendments in Senate appropriations. SRO buildings are a critical housing resource in my district and throughout California. Many of these buildings are aging and increasingly unsustainable to operate. Lacking private bathrooms, kitchenettes and supportive service space.

These Properties struggle with high vacancy rates, low rents, and insufficient revenue to Fund maintenance or upgrades. SB21 preserves the role of SROs in providing the stability of a home while enabling their long term viability in our communities. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this Bill before you.

My witnesses today are Tiffany Spring and Holly Benson, President and CEO of Abode Communities.

Welcome to the witnesses. You can go in whichever order you like and you'll have a couple minutes each.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Chair and good afternoon, Members. My name is Tiffany Spring and I'm with SCANPH, which is the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing. In early 2023, a long standing nonprofit developer in Los Angeles, the Skid Row Housing Trust, announced that it could no longer sustain operations at their 29 building portfolio.

Scampf stepped in to find a path forward for the most distressed properties. These buildings were mostly SROs. These are permanent homes that have just that one room. The kitchens and bathrooms are provided in a shared configuration, kind of like a dorm or a hostel. These buildings were upside down.

They're expensive to operate, they don't bring in much rent, and they have really high turnover and vacancies. This isn't unique to the trust. Nonprofits across the state are struggling to keep SROs afloat. Of 40 buildings owned by a group of nonprofits statewide, only two are positive cash flowing.

The rest are losing money, forcing organizations to divert resources just to keep the lights on. We need to act out now to prevent more failures like the trust. A clear solution emerged. Allow owners to redevelop these buildings to make them more livable and more appealing. Adding kitchens and bathrooms while keeping them permanently affordable.

But current state law makes it nearly impossible to do that if it means reducing the number of units even slightly. So that's what Sb21 fixes. I am a housing advocate. I never thought that I would be here advocating for reducing units. But I saw firsthand what happened when the Skid Row Housing Trust collapsed.

The City of Los Angeles spent nearly $40 million just temporarily operating those buildings. And that's money that could have been spent to build more housing. So we wrote this Bill with that in mind and tenant advocates at the table. It only applies to SROs. It requires new affordability covenants.

It ensures thoughtful planning for residents during and after construction. And it puts safeguards in place so it isn't abused. So we respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Great. Thank you. My name is Holly Benson. I am the President and CEO of Abode Communities, a nonprofit affordable housing developer. In Southern California. SB21 is a path to preservation. It enables Abode communities to move forward with an innovative modernization plan that will preserve and improve 106 deeply affordable homes at the historic Mary Andrew Clarks residence.

Ensuring these homes are available for the next generation of Angelinas in need. This is a once in a generation opportunity. With this legislation we have a chance to convert outdated SRO units into dignified studio apartments with private kitchens and bathrooms.

Creating long term housing stability and better living conditions for extremely low income residents, many of whom are formerly homeless. Abode Communities is a proven steward of affordable housing. We have successfully operated the Clark for over 30 years and we are 57 years young. Our goal is not to walk away.

It's to reinvest and preserve this irreplaceable housing asset. With SB21 we can do just that. Without it, we would unfortunately be forced to sell the building putting these homes and residents at risk. This opportunity will transform the resident experience. This plan is not just about physical upgrades. It's about improving lives.

Residents will no longer have to share bathrooms and kitchens. Half of the units will benefit from new rental vouchers and and for the first time will offer on site supportive services that help residents thrive. The project is near shovel ready. We've already secured $25 million in state investment funding from the HCD's PRP program and 53 rental vouchers.

We're currently applying for tax credits and expect to begin construction by early 2026. But we can't do it without this Bill. This offers a smarter approach to affordable housing. Rather than continuing to patch up an outdated model, SB21 lets us build for the future.

We can reduce long term operating costs, improve resident outcomes and protect a critical piece of LA's affordable housing landscape. So in closing, SB21 gives us the tools to preserve 106 high quality, deeply affordable homes at the Mary Andrews Clark residence for decades to come.

All right, thank you for your testimony. We're going to move now to any opposition witnesses. Are there lead opposition witnesses on this Bill? Seeing none. We will call for anyone who wishes to express a support or opposition position at the microphone. Please come forward.

Senator Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Katherine Charles on behalf of Housing California in support.

Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in support.

All right, thank you all back to the Committee at this time. Senator Cabaldon, anything?

I just, I think this is extremely, well, well thought out, elegant, well balanced Bill and I would like to move.

It we have an offer of a motion. We'll take that up after the close. If there's no other comments here, I. I do want to make a quick comment. It's really just to the quality of your witnesses.

I mean, we appreciate all witnesses here, but we've had some experience, especially with Abode in the San Jose area, which actually performed one of the greatest, actually.

A different Abode.

Different Abode, yes.

We just like to make things confusing. We partner with them. They are a different organization. We're just as good.

If you're just as good, I'll put up the challenge to you. We had an experiment with social impact funding. We used to call it social impact bonds, but it's really a pay for success program. And the abode in our area said if you give us a chance to house 112 homeless.

I don't know why the number was 112. I never really got the answer to that question. You won't have to pay us if they're not still housed after 90 days. And we received funding from. From Google, from other tech companies, from the county itself, from foundations and philanthropy because people were so excited about that offer.

And I've always wondered ever since why there's not more programs like that to try to tap into the different sectors. But thank you for what you're doing in this particular case, and I'll let the author close at this time.

Well, I too, want to thank the witnesses, Tiffany and Holly, for what you do every day and for being so innovative. Thank you on behalf of Californians, and I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion? All right, Senator Cabal moves the Bill, and we'll call for a roll call vote at this time.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

All right, five to zero. We'll keep it on call.

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

I was going to ask, actually, Senator, do you mind lifting the calls on the bills?

All right. Given that we have some Members who weren't here earlier, we'll lift the call on the bills that have been voted on. And. And the consent calendar, I believe. Is that correct? Yeah. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that on call.

[Roll Call]

Keep the Bill on call. Does that conclude the call? Thank you. All right, we'll have another author in five minutes, so we'll just kind of informally recess here until the author gets here.

If you're curious left for those that are wondering, invite Senator Stern to come Forward on Item 6, SB 655. You may begin your presentation whenever you're ready, Senator. And I'm pinch hitting as the sure.

So okay. Thank you Mr. Pinch Hitting Chair. Apologies Members for all the delay here. Just got out of the other Committee. This Bill, SB655, would require housing community development to identify and promote the adoption of passive and active strategies to achieve a maximum safe indoor air temperature of 82 degrees Fahrenheit in new residential dwelling units.

We know that heat is the unit unsaid and often silent killer in this state. We talk a lot about wildfires, other catastrophic events, but heat waves are increasing in frequency, duration, intensity across the country.

Department of Public Health, which we believe doesn't even have a fully accurate system for anticipating or for analyzing heat Deaths, reported that 395 excess deaths in California happened during a 10 day heat wave in September of 2022 alone.

Because there's little to no extreme heat countermeasures that address living conditions within residences, Californians are often enduring heat waves at dangerous temperatures in their own homes, at risk of free heat related illnesses and death.

If you can picture, you know, an elderly couple living in an apartment building, maybe with a swamp cooler, maybe not, who don't want to go to that cooling center, especially if they have to ride public transportation or otherwise get to that center. It just doesn't work. So they stay home and often suffer as a result.

AB 209 in 2022 required HCD to develop policy recommendations designed to ensure residential dwelling units can maintain a recommended maximum indoor safe indoor air temperature. And these recommendations really are at the heart of this report.

The HCD recommend the state should aim for a General maximum safe indoor air temperature of 82 degrees Fahrenheit, which for if you can think about it, still very hot.

This room feels maybe, I don't know, we're probably in the low 70s right now, if you can imagine, sitting in a room at 82 degrees and that being called safe is even there, not very excessive. So in order to achieve those maximum safe indoor temperatures, this Bill looks at new dwelling units.

But we know there's still a lot of work to be done on existing units as well and how to manage that ongoing issue for everyone living in hot zones around the state, we are determined to tackle through this legislation and beyond. So I'll turn to my witness in support now.

Jovana Morales Tilden, who's with Leadership Council of Justice and Accountability and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Hi everyone. Again, my name is Jovana Morales. I am the Housing and Land Use Policy Manager with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We work with communities all across the San Joaquin and the East Coachella Valley.

For years, community Members have been advocating for policy solutions that will help them stay safe during extreme heat weather events. Most live in older substandard housing with absolutely no cooling mechanisms and the few that do have some sort of AC do not turn it on during extreme heat weather events due to exorbitant energy costs.

We have been working with partners on this issue since 2022 with AB 2597 which would have mand maximum indoor air temperature for all residential dwellings, which in turn ended up being a budget trailer Bill.

AB 209 and that mandated HCD to hold meetings with various stakeholders and build policy recommendations both for the maximum indoor air temperature and policies to ensure that the temperature can be maintained. Currently, California has a minimum indoor temperature standard to protect people from the cold.

Yet there are no complementary mechanisms designed to provide broad protections from danger dangerous indoor heat. This gap in our programs and policies puts the most vulnerable Californians at serious risk for illness and death from extreme heat. Extreme heat is an increasingly deadly threat from climate change and a public health crisis.

As temperatures rise and heat waves become longer and more intense, deaths in California could rise up to 11,300 a year by 2050.

SB655 is a step in the right direction by prompting codification of HCD's policy recommendations that aim to create community extreme he resilience by affirming that future California residences will be equipped with cooling conscious measures that can maintain the maximum safe indoor temperature. The state also affirms its overall commitment to safe and of habitable homes. We are especially supportive of SB655 intent.

Oh, thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses seeing none. We're going to move on to me toos both in support and opposition. Please state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Madam Chair Members Brandon Wong on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition in support.

Santiago with California Environmental voters in support.

Thank you. Seeing now other speakers, Members of the Committee seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Heat is the silent killer and we spend a lot of time on other emergencies, but we feel that this one deserves your attention. I think this Bill is a good first step in that direction, but not the last step. So respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do I have a Motion. Seeing Senator Padilla has moved the Bill, can we get a roll call?

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Can we make sure that we're calling absent Members of the Committee as well as presenters? So while we're all here, let's lift the roll. We're going to start with consent items.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's still on call. We're going to move on to File item number one, SB457 by Becker.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That bill's still on call. We're gonna move on to File item number two. SB606.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. File item number three, SB484 by Senator Laird.

[Roll Call]

We're going to Skip file item 6. We just did that. We're going to move on to File Item number eight.

[Roll Call]

Six. All right, we're going to move on. That's on call still. We're going to move on to File item number 11, SB21 by Senator Durazo.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call again. If we can circle back and get our Members here with Senator Gonzalez, Caballero and Arreguin and Seyrato, please .

All right, we're going to move on to File item number seven. Senator Allen, SB 715. Senator, you know, speed rounds. Okay, thank you.

Obviously, everyone here knows about the wildfires that we dealt with. Been so costly. We are unfortunately expecting housing markets to become increasingly unaffordable because of both the loss of stock, but also insurance premiums, and. And we're seeing all sorts of impacts.

So the insurance Commissioner approved a special assessment of $1.0 billion to be levied on Member insurance companies to help shore up all the challenges faced by the Fair Plan and the rest of the system.

The cost has the potential to be passed on to policyholders, which would amplify the crises of insurance availability and affordability that folks are already facing.

The last time the state approved additional funds for the Fair Plan was back in 1993 after an earlier fire in Altadena and also the old Topanga fire, some of the very same areas that burned just this last year. So, you know, there is a challenge here where there's a lengthy process for those affected to attempt to rebuild.

There's the inaccessibility of adequate insurance. This, of course, has been raising questions about the appropriateness of reallocating REHNA to jurisdictions with the continuing risk of losing homes to wildfires, as well as the need to plan for additional housing in nearby jurisdictions that absorb displaced households.

So this Bill ensures that units lost during a declared disaster will not automatically be placed on the jurisdiction that lost the units, and instead, it requires those units to be allocated proportionally across the region based on the allocation methodology developed by the COG and HCD that considers climate, population growth and housing needs. With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses? Seeing none. Lead opposition. None. Me, too. State your name, your org, and whether you support or oppose.

Yeah. Madam Chair, Member Sylvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, we were opposed and we are now neutral. Thank you.

Thank you. And, Senator, you agree with all the amendments, right? You've taken them. Thank you. Committee Members. No comments. Senator, would you like to close? Thank you. Move the Bill by Senator Cabaldon. Let's get a roll call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Yeah. Even. Even ...

It is SB 715. Yes. Okay. All right, thank you, guys. We have one more Bill. Senator Ericin, File item number 12.sb489. Let's lift. For the most part, all of us have voted for Senator Seyarto. Let's just go down through it. Let's start with consent.

[Roll Call]

All right, Consent still on call. We're going to move on to File item number one. SB457, motion do pass.

[Roll Call]

All right, all of those bills are still on call. Again, we are waiting. Yes, if we can do number eight.

[Roll Call]

All right, we're going to start with Senator Arreguin. File item number 12, SB489. We're going to do a speed, speed round. Senator.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair Members, for the opportunity to present SB 789, which requires public agencies to have a role in approvals for housing developments, to post post approval requirements online and will include ministerial projects in some additional places in the permit streamlining act.

SB489 is at its heart a good government transparency Bill that helps ensure California's housing development processes are accessible, predictable and efficient and just fast forwarding.

You know, the PSA was really intended to try to cut red tape and to streamline the housing approval process in California and really to bring clarity, transparency and timelines to the permit process by requiring agencies to define application requirements and act within reasonable time frame.

But the laws that kept pace with the realities of housing development in California. So SB 489 seeks to fix that simply requires all public agencies involved in housing development to publish online the information necessary for housing for a housing application to be deemed complete.

The Bill also includes a separate but related provision requiring LAFCO's local agency formation commissions to publish their application information online while respecting the preference not to be incorporated in the Permit Streamlining Act. This is a simple but impactful step towards trying to streamline and improve housing production in California and at the appropriate time. Respectfully, as your.

I vote we have a witness, Silvio Ferrari from the California Building Industry Association.

Thank you. You're going to be timed. Madam Chair. Members Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association here is proud sponsors and based on your request, Madam Chair, I will just say happy to answer any questions.

This is really about transparency and making sure that we have access to all the things to deem a project complete. Complete. So happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Opposition witnesses. All right, me toos in support or opposition support? Okay.

Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public affairs here in support on behalf of Council of Infill Builders SPUR, Abundant Housing La, Circulate San Diego and Cal YIMBY all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we're going to move on to Committee Members seeing Senator Seyarto.

Make a clarification because in local gov I voted against this Bill but it was error. I had meant to lay off the Bill until I was a little more comfortable with all of the aspects of it. And so I'm actually supporting your Bill today. So that's why the about face once we've not laid off, we're stuck.

Thank you. Would you like to close? Thank you. Can I get a motion? Senator Durazo moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

I thank you. That bill's on call. We are waiting for Senator Caballero but we are going to lift the call for absent Members. We're going to wait till Caballero joins us. Okay, so here it is. We're going to lift consent. First let's lift the call for absent Members.

[Roll Call]

All right. We're going to grant that Bill reconsideration. Ayes one, Noes two that Bill fails. But again, consideration is Reconsideration is granted. We're going to move on to file item number two.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 11 to 0. We are officially adjourned. Thank you, everybody.