Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Welcome. I want to make sure that everyone feels welcome coming to Senate Housing Committee. I want to highlight that Today we have two items on the consent calendar.

Those two items is file item number six, AB913 by Celeste Rodriguez, as well as file item number eight, AB15 29, which is the Housing and Community Development Committee's ombudsman, sorry, omnibus bill. And so those items are consent items for today.

We do not have quorum right now, so we are going to begin as a Subcommitee and we will move to Assemblymember Berner who will be presenting File item number one, AB87.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members watching from your offices. I introduced AB87 to clarify that density. Bonus law is for residential purposes. In my district. A project application was submitted that allowed the development to exceed the city's height limit. A proposed 238 foot tower adding 139 hotel rooms and only 10 affordable units.

The state's density bonus laws were intended to contribute to affordable housing, not to expand hotels. AB87 would ensure that the concessions gained. Through the construction of hotels cannot be used. The concessions gained through construction of residential units cannot be used on hotels. Concessions from density bonus laws should only. Should not be used for visitor serving purposes.

This is a Tasha B. Specials. I have no witnesses. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. This has an eye recommendation and we. When we are at full Committee capacity, we will ask for a motion. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Can we get support? Witnesses? None. Leading support? None. Can we get me two witnesses in support? State your name, your organization and whether or not you support Jonathan Clay.

Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the City of Encinitas, here in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Brady Garden, on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thanks.

Thank you. We're going to ask for lead opposition witnesses seeing none. We're going to move on to. #MeToo. Opposition witnesses seeing none. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you. At the appropriate time.

Thank you. Again.

We are in a Subcommitee capacity, so therefore we do not have the ability to ask for a motion or a vote. We're going to move on to File item number 5, AB 750 by Assemblymember Quirk Silva.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Today I present AB750, which enhances the implementation of AB362, a bill I authored by improving accountability, transparency and enforcement of health and safety standards across California's estimated 13,000 homeless shelters. Prior to AB 362.

California had no standardized health and safety regulations for homeless shelters, leading to widespread reports of unsafe and unsanitary conditions. A 2019 ACLU of Southern California report entitled This Place is Slowly Killing Me did detailed instances of overcrowding, neglect, abuse in dangerously unsanitary environments in shelters, particularly in Orange County.

In response, I authored my first bill in this space, AB362, to mandate that cities and counties investigate shelter violations and report substandard conditions to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. However, local compliance has been alarmingly low.

A recent Calmatters investigation found that only five of California's 58 counties and just four of the state's 478 cities have submitted reports as required by law Members. Basically, our counties and cities are ignoring the initial law that I moved forward. Serious violations, including rodent infestations, lack of hot water and hazardous conditions have been documented.

And yet critical incidents such as deaths, assaults and sexual abuse are often left unreported. All we have to do is walk around downtown and we see many people continuing to choose to live on the streets.

And sometimes if you actually stop and engage them and ask or even let them know that there is a shelter close by, they will often say they don't feel safe going to shelters, particularly women, and they actually refuse going. But with this bill, we have now moved forward with the bill we are bringing forward today.

And that bill is AB750STR. Strengthen state oversight enforcement by empowering shelter residents, which requires shelters to post signage about residents rights and reporting procedures as well as providing this information at intake. It also standardized reporting by establishing clear reporting requirements and deadlines as well as mandating reports even when no complaints are filed.

This would be your annual inspection. And with that we basically want to do better. We know we can. I know there have been several questions about how much would this cost and is this a burden on local governments or counties. And simply there are fire inspections. We know that annual buildings have fire inspections.

This is different because we are looking for things like plumbing. We are looking for other types of inspection. So yes, there would be a responsibility for the city. Most cities, some cities host no shelters, so this would not affect cities. Some cities host several. I know Los Angeles has many more.

But the county and the cities could go together to do these inspections. So with that, I ask for your.

I vote. Thank you. Do we have any lead support witnesses? Lead support. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Lead opposition? We are going to now go to MeToos both in support and opposition. State your Name your organization and whether you support or oppose.

Good afternoon. Marshall Arnwyn, on behalf of the ACLU California Action and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Divya Shiv with House in California. We appreciate the author for taking our amendments and we are in full support of this bill.

Good afternoon. Sharon Report with the Corporation for Supportive Housing in strong support.

Thank you. We're going to move on to Committee Members. All right. I will. Okay. When the time is ready. Right. So again, I just want to highlight to the public that we are starting as a Subcommitee. We do not have quorum yet, so we cannot move any bills. I do just want to highlight this Assemblymember.

I actually think that this bill is a really good bill and very much needed. I want to highlight just an experience I had this past Friday. Friday we have a building in the City of Santa Clara that's a relatively new building, largely marketed towards seniors. And a number of seniors have been emailing the. The mayor and.

And many of the council Members. No response. Inspectors went in. There was a little bit of a fire last year and still not resolved. We went in on Friday and they are literally living on the second floor. It's all studs. It's no Sheetrock, it's no. All the doorbells are kind of hanging, exposed wires, you name it.

And that is a affluent community in a building that is brand new. And there is very little oversight when we are talking about some of these communities, especially when we are talking about our homeless community and much more, these types of things.

The city manager and city attorney showed up when I called them on Friday and they said that they were disappointed in the fact that all of the second floor was completely overlooked. And I highlight that because that is a regular building that people pay rent to, that is our senior population in an affluent community.

And we are seeing these things happen over and over and over again. And when we talk about our homeless population, there's significant lack of empathy when we talk about policymaking and just the work that is needed to really support this community. And you use the word they choose to be homeless. And oftentimes I would disagree with that.

But yes, the women that face homelessness do not feel safe in congregate shelters. These types of shelters largely have 60 people, 30 people in one single room, both male and female, with varying levels of need, from substance abuse needs to much more.

And the fact that there is a lack of compliance, the fact that there is a lack of, you know, consideration because, hey, they don't have an advocacy group. So I really do Appreciate this bill and the Senator will move it when appropriate. So thank you so much for this.

We are going to move on to our next bill. Thank you. Would you like to close? Thank you. Thank you. All right, so we are going to move on to file item 2, AB239 by Assemblymember Herabedian.

Thank you Madam Chair, good afternoon. And good afternoon to Senator Durazo as well. Thank you. Thank you for all your work on this Bill. In the aftermath of a disaster, coordination is everything. And the faster that departments and agencies can align, the faster we can rebuild homes, restore infrastructure, and help families return.

As many of you know, I represent the area of the Eaton fire. And right now there's thousands of folks who have been displaced by the fires. And we are trying to streamline the process to rebuild as fast as we can so that folks can get back to their homes.

AB 239 creates a state led Disaster Housing Task Force, a coordinated effort between CalHCD, CalOES, FEMA ,and local governments to streamline and accelerate housing recovery for the impacted communities in Los Angeles.

This would affect the Palisades as well. This proposal follows FEMA's best practices and builds on proven models in states like Texas after Hurricane Harvey.

During the Assembly Housing and Community Development hearing, Assemblymember Patterson, who's been through his own fire, has shared with us that many of his folks, years later, who were impacted by the fires there are still living in trailers.

And he has been one to say that we do need more coordination and the state does have a role to play in trying to streamline everything after a disaster like the wildfires. And I think that's unacceptable and I think we can do more. This Bill would establish a formal task force with key local and state agency representation.

As I mentioned, it would critically appoint a state disaster housing coordinator to be a quarterback and actually move this forward. It would require quarterly legislative reporting for transparency, and it would take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

It's really just about bringing people home faster, and it ensures that we as a state are ready to act quickly and effectively. The Bill has no opposition, has received bipartisan support, and, Madam Chair, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have any lead witnesses in support? Do we have any lead opposition? Do we have lead witnesses or no? Okay. Do we have lead opposition? Okay. Now we're going to move on to me-toos, either in support or opposition. Please state your name and the organization you are with and whether you support or not.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross on behalf of the City of Pasadena and support.

Good afternoon. Elise Borth on behalf of the California Community Foundation and support.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Chris Wysocki with Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and support.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horowitz with the Los Angeles Unified School District. While we don't have a position on he Bill, we've spoken with the author's office and we are hoping that we can add both Los Angeles Unified and Pasadena Unified to the Bill. Schools have an important role to play around housing. Thank you.

All right, seeing no other comments, would we like Members of the Committee to to comment on this Bill? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I don't have any opposition against the Bill, but I am quite curious as to the need for the Bill because it is my understanding that we currently have a task force.

Right now we have an existing task force with Members such as the Chief Executive Office, CalOES, FEMA, CDSS, Department of Mental Health Emergency or Office of Emergency Management.

We have the Housing Community Development of California, LACDA, California Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the County of Los Angeles California, LA County Planning, American Red Cross, and I believe that's it that is currently addressing these issues for housing.

So I'm just kind of curious since we already have one that, you know, just met or basically had a meeting on May 14, 2025 or document summary that I have here with regards to that particular task force, why the need of for this particular Bill.

Appreciate the question, Senator, and appreciate all the work that the task force, as you laid out, is doing a few things. That task force is not codified. So that is really a, I would say an ad hoc task force and they are really focused on the immediate response, temporary housing solutions, trying to figure out what are the immediate needs of the community.

And I think that there's some differences between that task force and the state led housing task force, which I'll get into. But one main difference also is they are not trying to coordinate in any way. Federal funding, state funding, there is no centralized function.

And I think, you know, a big question for that task force, which I think this, this task force task force actually addresses is who's in charge? Who's the quarterback, who is the lead on that task force and who is the one ultimately making the decisions?

I don't think those questions can be answered there. And I do think that if you talk to anyone involved in the response, including FEMA, CalOES, HCD, there needs to be more coordination.

And I think right now there's a lot of good efforts that are happening, but they aren't centralized between the city and the county and the state and the Federal Government. And I think this brings everyone to the table. It helps in the long run. And this is going to be many, many years.

And so that task force, again, I think, is something that you'll see in the short term. There's a lot of cooks in that kitchen as well. You just probably named 12 or 14 entities that come in and out. I think arguably it's too many.

And so I think that this would be a more streamlined, effective and elegant solution that would help my constituents and the constituents in Palisades.

So when it comes to, through the chair, if I may. So with this particular Committee that you're trying to propose or task force, would it supersede this, or are you visualizing two different roles for both of these commissions moving forward?

I think it would supersede in the sense of that is an ad hoc committee that has been put together in the interim to answer some questions right now in terms of streamlining and planning. I think that they would happily transition to this task force - the County of Los Angeles is here in support.

I think that it would supersede it. But again, I don't think that they're necessarily mutually exclusi-, exclusive. So you could have this task force. If that county task force wanted to continue working in some capacity, I think that this task force could work with them.

But I think that all decisions that are currently being done with technical assistance, planning, trying to get funding, this would be the task force to oversee that.

Okay. So I just want to make sure that, as if, you know, the Bill continues to move forward, that there's no conflicting interest as far as decision making and that there is a defined role for each one as far as the decision making.

We're not coming back to the Legislature to say, hey, there is a actual conflict of what this Commission wants versus what this Commission or task force wants.

And we have direct guidance as to the roles that each one will play and when one will supersede the other. I think that's probably my biggest, the biggest concerns that I would have with...

No, I appreciate you sharing it. And I think that we are. We are on the same page. We don't want any conflicts. And again, I do. I do think the county is in support and wants to see this, which I think is. It speaks volumes to, to that point. So.

Okay, thank you very much.

Senator Durazo.

Quick question. I appreciate the Senator's questions. I think there was a really good issues to present. And is there authority that this task. Force would have to do anything? Because you mentioned decisions. To make decisions, you usually have the authority to carry them out.

So again, along the lines of what the Senator was raising, is there...how do you make sure it's really going to be efficient as far as making decisions about state disaster housing?

Again, I'll just build off. Fair question, Senator. I appreciate it. So let's be clear. This is not superseding any authority that the county or the city has on very fundamental planning issues or development issues. This is a resource to help coordinate things that are going to be critical over the next couple years.

Again, funding is a big one. How are they going to get state and federal funding to help with this rebuild? Two, I think on the technical assistance we want to be supplementing and helping the county and the City of LA get through this. We are not stepping in.

We're not taking over for the CEO or the County Supervisors. They're going to be the ones that are still kind of handling the day to day. This is overseeing that, providing as much assistance as possible. And third, this is something that will be done once the rebuild is done in a couple years. Right.

I think technically we built in a 2030 date that this would be in existence. Hopefully the rebuild is done by that. I think that unfortunately it might not be done by that, but this is coexist during the rebuild as a supplement to what is going on in the city and the county.

The authority question. The Bill would obviously give the authority to create the task force. If there, if there is anything that would be in conflict with city or county ordinances, those would supersede.

You know, this is not a, this is not a regulatory authority that would come in and oversee and overseed any authority of the county board or the City of Los Angeles or the Mayor. Right. This is really just something to help.

All right. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Chair. Just respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes.

I appreciate it. We still do not have quorum. We are waiting for other Members. So thank you for your time. Thank you. We are going to move on to File item number 4 AB 635 by Assemblymember Ahrens.

Assembly Member. Is this your first presentation in the Senate?

It is not.

I would so I just want no hazing. I want the public to know that he is an Assembly Member in my district. So I just wanted to see if you presented before.

And the Chair is the Senator in my district. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. In 2018, the state created the Mobile Home Park Residency Law Protection Program which mandates a $10 annual fee for each permitted mobile home space.

AB 635 requires that the Housing and Community Development to refer to the Attorney General to take up up to 25 of the most serious, harmful and economically significant alleged violations of the Mobile Home Park Residency law.

The Attorney General will have full discretion and authority to arbitrate, mediate, negotiate or pursue any available judicial remedies regarding violent violations of the MRL. We want to ensure protections for residents. Because of the housing market is continually rising, especially in Silicon Valley, mobile home parks are one of the most affordable options.

Joining me today are my witnesses, Roger Johnson of the Mobile Home Resident and Beverly Purcell, a mobile home resident as well.

All right. And I just want to be very clear, for each witness, you will have two minutes. You will be timed. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Beverly Purcell, on behalf of GSOL in strong support. Like me, most mobile home residents are seniors, veterans and immigrants. AB635 is limited and focused with a maximum of 25 the most severe MRL alleged violations in a year.

MRL violations often lead to eviction and confiscation of our homes, which for many of us is is our life savings. When we can't move our home because it's too costly or there is no place to move them, the park owner can start the abandonment process.

HCD does not have the authority to enforce BMRL but does have the authority to refer alleged MRL violations. Currently, HCD has limited capacity to oversee legal service providers. We need to ensure that the most severe MRL violations aren't overlooked or ignored.

In 2023, the State Auditor concluded the oversight of the Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Program must improve. This Bill ensures the Attorney General retains full discretion and authority to arbitrate, mediate, negotiate or prevent pursue all available judicial remedies.

Funds from the Mobile Home Dispute Resolution Fund, which is self funded by we the residents, will be made available to the Attorney General. We are doing our part to keep our homes. Please help us by supporting AB635. And thank you.

Thank you. And before you begin, we're going to pause, we're going to ask for roll call for attendance. And as we have quorum now.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have quorum I and I apologize, Assemblymember. I just want to get through this. Can I get a motion on consent? Senator Arreguin has moved it.

[Roll Call]

Consents on call. Can I get a move for File item number one?

File item one. AB87.

Okay, let's do it again.

File item one. AB87. Motion do pass to local government Senators [Roll Call]

All right, can I bills on call. Thank you. File item number two. Can I get a motion moved by Senator Arreguin?

File item 2. AB 239. Motion do pass to governmental organization. [ Roll Call]

And then that bill is on call. Can I get a motion for File item number 5? Moves by Senator Arreguin.

Motion do pass to judiciary. [Roll Call]

All right, that is on call. We will continue on with our presentation for the second witness in support of Assemblymember Ahrens bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Roger Johnson. I'm here representing thousands of mobile homeowners throughout California. We believe that AB365 will strengthen the current mobile home residency law program that. We, the mobile homeowners, pay for. I am here to answer any technical questions that there might be if I can.

And we strongly support AB365 and respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. We're going to move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we are going to move on to metoos both in support and opposition. Please state your name, your organization, whether you support or you oppose.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Madam Chair. Chris Wysocki with the Western Manufactured Housing Community Association. And we want to thank the author for all of his work on this bill. We really do appreciate it. However, we do still remain opposed. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Bert McCarthy and I am a homeowner at the Pueblo Serena manufactured home park in Sonoma. I'm also representing the nearly 1 million-member California Alliance for Retired Americans, and we support AB635.

Thank you again. Please state your name, your organization and whether you support or oppose.

Mark Abel, owner of a mobile home in the Seven Flags of Sonoma park in unincorporated Sonoma County. I'm in support of AB 635. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Susan Mills and I am the owner of a manufactured home. In Seven Flags in Sonoma County. I am strongly in support of AB635. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Diane Lumiere. I own a home at Pueblo Serena. Most mobile Home park in Sonoma, California. I strongly support AB 635 and thank you.

Hello, my name is Taras Lumiere. I'm an owner of a manufactured home in the Pueblo Serena manufactured home park in Sonoma, California, and I strongly support AB635. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Seeing no other #MeToos, can we move on to Committee Members? Would any Committee Member like to speak? Senator Seyarto, please.

So we tried to address a little. Bit of this bill or this issue. Before because there wound up to be. A bunch of surplus funds.

So basically what your bill is doing is taking the surplus funds now every year and giving it to the Attorney General to try to adjudicate on behalf of them because it hadn't been adjudicated before. That's how they wound up with $8 million in the bank account. $9 million. Nine. Now it's. It was eight last year.

I'm sorry. Yeah, it's. The HCD is to refer up to 25 of the most alleged egregious violations for the Attorney General to put good faith effort to pursue.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any comments? All right, I just want to. Again, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I will say in the City of Hayward alone, where I was a Council Member, we had nine mobile home parks.

And the frustration is you purchase the manufactured home or the mobile home, you still have to pay rent on the land, and it keeps going up.

And it's largely our senior community and our lowest income individuals in our area, our respective areas, we have a significant amount of concern when what happens when the land is potentially sold, what is the future of the mobile home tenants and much more.

And I do think that this type of oversight that we are seeing and the need of this bill is incredibly important. It's a five year pilot and I think that this is a good start. So I have an aye recommendation. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just say thank you for acknowledging we took a lot of heavy amendments to have this be sunset accession and with the given accepted amendments respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Durazo.

Motion do pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call]

I want to give her one minute just to double check. Okay. She's good. Thank you Assemblymember, that bill is on call.

Thank you Madam Chair.

All right, we are going to move on to File item number 3 AB255 by Assembly Member Haney. Fun fact. Assemblymember Haney is the chair of housing in the Assembly. Let's see what he brings.

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members. I want to first by thanking you and your staff staff for your work on this bill and accept the Committee's amendments. Those amendments remove I believe all the opposition from the bill who are now neutral on the bill.

In 2016, California passed housing first which ensured that all homelessness policy is focused on getting people into housing without any requirements for sobriety. Although California's version of Housing First is effective for many, there are many people who would choose and prefer an abstinence based approach.

In our state right now, we don't allow any state funding to be spent on drug free permanent recovery housing that emphasizes abstinence.

As a result, there is a lack of options that forces people to live in housing that isn't best suited for their individual sobriety journey and it can put them at a higher risk of overdose and falling back into home homelessness.

Frankly, many people know that in order for them to be successful, they have to be a part of a community who is holding them accountable and supporting them on their journey to sobriety.

Many people may go through short term treatment programs, find success three months, six months, nine months, and then find no permanent supportive housing options that allow them to continue that journey.

AB255 will ensure that California continues to focus on on effective responses to homelessness and options for people who want to be in drug free recovery housing by allowing up to 10% of state funding to go towards this type of housing.

This allows a community of people who are ready to be fully sober to have housing peer support and accountability. This bill will also ensure that individuals who relapse while living in recovery housing don't get evicted from their housing.

Instead, residents are supported with detoxification programs and intensive peer to peer support to continue their recovery while they are relocated to housing that is better suited for the sobriety journey. I want to say two other quick things. One is that this will actually align California's definition of housing first with that of the Federal Government.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama described recovery housing as fulfilling a unique and specific role with within a community's homelessness services. And according to HUD, Recovery housing is consistent with the Housing first philosophy provided the recovery housing is opt in which ours is and temporary relapse is treated with support and not automatic eviction.

I also want to say because we're in the Senate Housing Committee, Recovery Housing first was originally passed by Senator Mitchell, Holly Mitchell, who's now a supervisor in Los Angeles. She called me when this bill came out and initially I thought she might have some concerns.

She actually told me and wanted to correct the record that when she passed Housing first it was never intended to forbid or exclude these types of opportunities that are actually opt in by choice intensive support treatment programs.

It was really something that she was looking at at the time where people were being excluded from shelter and drug testing just to get in the doors. It shouldn't prevent folks who want to go into and choose to be into in effective proven treatment programs that are also permanent supportive housing.

With me to testify in support of the bill I have Emily Cohen, the Deputy Director of Communications and Legislative affairs at the San Francisco Department of homelessness, and Daniel McLennan who is a Drug Free Recovery Housing resident in Fresno.

Thank you and each of you will have two minutes each and you will be timed.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to share my experience. My name is Daniel McLennan. I'm an artist and an addict in recovery. Over a year ago I gave my testimony in Support of bill AB 2893.

The issues this bill aims to address affect me personally as well as the community I found myself living with and coming to know personally. After being placed in a harm reduction based permanent supportive housing unit.

My first speech, I made pointed accusations that these SROs were effectively open insane asylums with no orderlies, rampant drug use, violence and despair. After a year to process these traumas, this assessment was a bit of an overreach and says more about my personal experience than it does the program as a whole.

For myself, I was stuck, desperate to get clean, desperate to reclaim my life and my dignity that had been methodically stripped from me. With the knowledge of all that I had lost and the despair it brought, it felt impossible to achieve anything in the environment. At the permanent supportive housing facility.

The biggest problem was there weren't any kinds of supportive mechanisms I and so many others needed to thrive. My surroundings were suffocating for a person looking to be something more.

Despite my personal achievements in the face of demoralizing adversity, I was excelling technically, my work being nominated for an Emmy, numerous front page articles on newspapers from California to Finland, and critical praise of my work. But the supportive housing system became an inescapable prison. Despite my momentum of my successes.

The violence, the chaos, the egregious drug use made me witness the traumas. With no option but to endure, I had to make a hard choice. Despite my local popularity, promising career as a homegrown circle San Francisco artist, I, with grace sadness, was forced to leave my city just to find a sober living situation.

San Francisco's current system has created a forcing function for cultural decay where the totally hopeless stay while the hopeful and talented leave. The pass to sobriety and current supportive housing facility feels so insurmountable that most don't have the capacity to even entertain the possibility of living sober.

It is my ardent belief that if the state facilities as outlined in AB 255 were made available, many of the hopeless will find hope again. Thank you. Turn to sobriety. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee Members, My name is Emily Cohen with the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and I'm here to speak today in support of AB255 because this is a common sense reform that will allow communities throughout California to have more options, more tools in the toolbox as we work to address the dual challenge of homelessness and substance use disorder that are playing out in the streets of our community and in many of your communities.

This bill will allow us the option of opening the type of housing that is needed to really meet people where they're at. We say that a lot in the housing first world. We're going to meet people where they are. But if we only have one thing to offer them. We really can't do that.

And so by diversifying the type of housing we can offer people coming out of homelessness and honor their recovery and honor their commitment to their sobriety by embracing them in a housing program that will support that and is designed to intentionally support their recovery, we are going to do far more for them than we've been able to with a single approach to addressing homelessness.

This Bill is very common sense. It's very practical. It allows a small portion of state funding to be used for this purpose while maintaining. Maintaining the fundamentals of housing first, including opt in and of course, if somebody relapses, the focus on moving them to more appropriate housing rather than punishing them through eviction and creating more homelessness.

We also see this Bill as essential. Given the change in the drug crisis in San Francisco and throughout much of California. The influx of fentanyl in our community has been devastating. We have seen the overdose rates among people experiencing homelessness and people living in supportive housing go through the roof.

And so we really are looking to diversify what we have to offer people and to genuinely honor people's commitment to their own recovery through supportive housing.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Lead opposition? You will have two minutes each. Start the timer.

Good afternoon, Sharon. Report with Corporation for Supportive Housing. First, I want to thank Assemblymember Haney and his staff for working closely with us for several months to address our concerns. Thanks to Assembly Member Haney and the Committee chair and staff, we are able to move our position to neutral upon the acceptance of the Committee amendments.

We appreciate Assemblymember Haney's goal of offering people experiencing homelessness with choice and the dialogue that we've had with his staff. We did raise concerns with provisions of the bill that could have permitted evictions and returns to homelessness based on reasons unrelated to tenancy compliance with lease terms.

And this included a potential eviction for relapse, even though relapse is a very normal part of recovery. So with the amendments that Assemblymember Haney is taking, we believe AB255 can offer choice and paths to recovery while embracing proven evidence based models.

And again, we appreciate the dialogue with both Assemblymember Haney's staff and the Committee's work to strengthen the bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Divya Shiv with Housing California. I would also like to express our appreciation to Assemblymember Haney and the Committee chair and staff for working with us on AB255. Given the lack of evidence supporting recovery. Housing as an effective response to homelessness.

We agreed with the Committee chair that allowing counties to to send 25% of all state homelessness program dollars is too high for a model that has yet to prove itself as a response to homelessness. Even though evidence suggests recovery housing can be effective response to substance use.

As we share Assemblymember Haney's goal of allowing people choice in where they live and the recovery path they follow, while also ensuring grantees using state homelessness funding allow people to who exit homelessness for good.

We greatly appreciate Assemblymember Haney's willingness to work with the Senate Housing Committee to accept the Committee amendments to the current bill and align recovery housing with evidence based practices. With the Committee amendments, Housing California can move our position to neutral as well. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to make that very clear. Both the lead oppositions are actually in support of the bill. Just wanted to make that very clear to everybody. Everybody, can we move on to MeToo? In support or opposition? Please state your name, whether you support or oppose and the organization you are representing.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support of the bill and appreciate the author's continued work. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. Eileen Mariano on behalf of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, one of the bill's sponsors in support.

Dylan Elliott on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support.

Alex Torres with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area council represented over 320 employers. Proud SB, proud co-sponsor in support.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Shadow with Crew Strategies on behalf of Mayor Matt Mahan in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Erin Evans on behalf of Santa Clara County with the amendments, we're pleased to remove our opposition and thank the author, the Committee and the sponsors for working with us. Thanks.

Do we have any Members of the Committee who would like to ask a question? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I'd like to comment. First of all, I really do want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. It reminds me of a bill that Senator Niello had moved forward or had tried to carry through the Committee and a dieting Committee, but with the same intent.

The fact that we have to meet folks where they are and provide the type of housing that will actually support their recovery efforts wherever they are in that journey or wherever they choose to be with that journey.

So I was really disappointed, was very supportive of that measure back then and was very disappointed to see it die in Committee. But I'm grateful that you're able to bring this one forward and if possible, when and if possible love to be added as a co author to this bill as well.

We'd happy happy to add you as a co author and I will say Senator Niello is also now a co author of this bill. So I know he's also happy to see this move forward and appreciate his efforts and thank you.

It's greatly needed and I'm happy to move the measure when appropriate.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, I do just want to highlight the importance of this Bill. It's also very misunderstood when we are talking about sober living.

The author did address that he has agreed to the following amendments which bring homeless advocacy orgs to Neutral which is ensuring state funds overwhelmingly Fund data driven housing programs specifically the housing first model ensuring residents are not returned to the streets if they relapse and making sure that there's a balanced approach on a number of different guardrails from tenants to have a lease and comply with landlord tenant law as well as at the time of entering the housing and housing people experiencing homelessness would have to be offered a choice between an SRR which emphasizes sobriety and harm reduction and much more.

So I really just want to thank you for bringing a lot of nuance to this particular bill. A lot of the amendments that the Committee pushed forward was really just to strike a balance and make sure that all the orgs that would historically be in opposition go neutral.

We have a motion by Senator Ocho Bogue and I really just want to to offer you a minute to close and we can move forward.

Sure. And thank you so much again to to you Madam Chair and your staff and the thoughtful approach. As you said, this is about providing options.

You know, not closing the door on folks who want to have this type of opportunity, but also recognizing that we want to keep people inside and we do want to make sure that nobody loses their housing.

If you choose to go in an environment like this because you think it's right for you, but it ends up not being that we continue to make sure you have a place to live and this will help a lot of people get inside, stay inside, have housing, be in an appropriate place, be met where they are and also get that support they need if they do want to get off of drugs and get that appropriate environment and treatment and so appreciate the folks who spoke and who worked with us to get to neutral and their position as well.

And let's hope we get this into place and get a lot of people the help they need and with that respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Ochobo. Can we get a roll call?

[Roll call]

That bill's on call. We are waiting for one particular author for File item number 7 AB 1229 by Assembly Member Schultz. Do we have an ETA? Do we have an ETA on the absent Members? Thank you.

Where is it? Thank you.

If we can have Assembly Member Schultz arrive to room 112 in the Capitol. That is the final Bill we are waiting on.

Can we also get Members of the Committee?

He can give it to Strickland and let Strickland do it.

Then he can go looking for.

All right, so I just want to make sure that the Members feel comfortable with pulling file item 7, AB 1229 by Assemblymember Schultz and placing on the calendar for next week. Thank you. We're going to move forward with that. We're going to lift the call on all the bills, starting with consent for absent Members. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

So that that the consent calendar is on call. That was item one. Sorry. So that was File item one. We're going to start on consent.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's on call.

[Roll Call]

Have those on call. We're gonna move on to item number three.

[Roll Call]

We're going to move on to file item 4.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is on call. We're going to move on to File item number five. AB750,

[Roll Call]

All right. And File item number seven. AB 1229 is put to the next week's agenda. Just flagging that again. We are waiting for one more Member, but we appreciate everybody's patience and I want to make sure everyone voted for what? Give me one moment. We're double checking for you.

The Senate Housing Committee will be recessing until we have our Members present. Thank you.

All right, we're going to go ahead and lift calls. Start with the first and go through

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 11 to zero.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 10-0.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 11 to 0.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is at 11 to 0.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 8 to 2.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out 9-1. All right. And that'll be it. So with that, we'll go ahead and close the meeting. Meetings adjourned.

Thank you so much for running over.