Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Senate Committee on Housing will begin in 30 seconds.

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the Senate Housing Committee. I want to make a couple of announcements. First and foremost, File item number three, AB650 by Assemblymember Pappin is on consent, as well as File item number eight, AB 1131 by Assemblymember Tom it is on consent.

AB 1275, which is file item number 12 by Assemblymember El Wari is on consent. Those three items will be on consent. We do not have a quorum yet. We are going to begin as a Subcommitee and I do want to highlight that we are going to just set some ground rules.

Number one is that we don't make amendments on the dais that were not discussed beforehand, first and foremost, because it is through the Committee as well as the author and it has to be analyzed and I want to make that very clear. Number two is that we do time the witnesses, both in support and opposition.

The lead witnesses will get each two minutes at a time. The me toos. Please state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose. And other than that, we are going to begin with final item number one, AB6 by Assemblymember Ward, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and senators, I'm pleased to present today AB 6 which would have HCD establish a working group to explore allowing missing middle housing developments between three and ten units in size to be built under the requirements of the California Residential Code as opposed to the current California Building Code.

The shift from the CBC to residential code for small housing projects is a change that's already seen positive for results across the United States and is estimated to reduce construction costs as much as 30%.

With the development and construction costs at an all-time high, we need to look for efficiencies and cost savings and recognize that better affordability might require more flexibility and innovation right in our own building codes. With me today to testify in support is Meea Kang with the Council of Infill Developers - Infill Builders and Colleagues.

I know that this bill previously has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. When the time is right and a vote can be established, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Mia Kong and I've been an affordable housing developer in California for more than 25 years and I'm a founding Board Member of the Council of Infill Builders, one of the proud co-sponsors of AB 6. We're very proud to be here today with a Assemblymember Ward.

AB 6 is a data driven collaborative approach to unlocking one of California's most untapped housing resources, small infill sites. It's about legalizing what we want. Small communities, small scale homes like triplexes and fourplexes in the very neighborhoods already zoned for more housing. Despite incredible efforts to rezone land, we still see many of these sites remain under built.

Not because of community opposition, but because of the cost and the complexity. Right now, it's easier and far more profitable to build a 10-bedroom single family house, like say in Tahoe, than a modest four bedroom or four-unit rental building. And applying it to small infill projects often make it challenging because of the third building -

- excuse me, the third unit triggers a California building code which was designed for large commercial buildings and applying it to small infill sites, modular construction sites make it often infeasible. AB6 takes a common first step.

It directs HCD to convene a working group of experts from building officials to fire safety accessible advocates to study how three to 10 homes could safely be permitted under simpler, more flexible California residential building code. Just like we did with ADUs, this bill creates a path forward to legalize and encourage the kind of homes we desperately need.

By lowering regular hurdles, lowering costs, AB 6 will unlock the potential of small infill sites and give property owners and mom and pop builders an incentive to act, to invest to build and create more attainable housing. These will be small scale homes in existing communities near jobs, transits and schools. We really urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We're going to ask for me-too's both in support and opposition. Please state your name, your organization and whether you support or oppose.

Of Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate San Diego, Fieldsend Associates, and SPUR, all in support.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium, in support.

Stephanie Jimenez, with Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Paul Shafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing; here in support.

Scott Governor, Construction Employers Association, in support.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Jordan Prana Carvajad, on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We do not have quorum yet so we can't have a motion yet, but we will bring it forward. But if we have any members who have questions? Seeing none. Thank you.

Okay. I just want to thank the office. Moving this measure forward.

Just want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. I think in California, everything that we do to incentivize and streamline and speed up our housing construction on various levels, I think it's incredibly important. So, I'm grateful for this bill and happy to support it and move it when the time is appropriate.

Thank you. I'll write that down. All right, we're going to move on to file item number two. He did it. File item number two is AB 610 by Assemblymember Alvarez.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come before your Committee this afternoon and want to thank Mr. Brady and the Committee staff for all their work on this Bill and helping us analyze it and bring it before for you today.

Assembly Bill 610 strengthens compliance with housing elements laws by requiring cities and counties to disclose planned housing restrictions up front when they are doing their housing elements to prevent them from adding new constraints for only a period of three years after the state approves their housing element, unless they have previously disclosed what those constraints might be.

The Bill is part of the Fast Track Housing Bill Package, an initiative to address California's housing crisis. I'm sure you've heard some bills already and will continue to do so. California, as you know, is in the middle of a housing crisis. I won't go into the details. I'm sure this Committee has heard it time and time again.

This Bill is really focused on creating certainty, trying to create more certainty, which we hear is one of the biggest barriers to construction, the certainty that locals may add new requirements, or what we refer to as new constraints, as the housing element, over the course of the eight years in most typical cities.

Five years in other smaller cities and counties. When constraints get added, that creates uncertainty to those who are looking to build housing and therefore makes it more challenging. So, that's what this bill's focus is about.

It increases transparency by requiring cities to disclose any new or more stringent housing constraints in their local housing plans. It prevents local governments from adding new barriers like limiting density, increasing fees, or restricting affordable housing incentives for three years after their housing element is certified, unless they meet strict conditions.

This pause, this period of time, gives state and local governments time to actually implement the housing plans that they approved and that they had hearings on and that they voted on at the local level without backtracking through creation of new red tape.

So, to speak on the Bill, I'd like to ask Vanessa Chavez, who is Director of Legislative Affairs with the Building Industry Association.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association, here as a proud co-sponsor of AB 610. AB 610 seeks to provide housing providers with more certainty that will allow them to better understand their costs associated through the development process. As our state Legislature continues to search for dynamic solutions to meet the housing needs of Californians, it is vitally important that local jurisdictions are transparent with the requirements associated with developing in their community.

AB 610 is simply another tool to help us address our state's housing needs. This measure simply seeks to bolster the housing element process to ensure that the millions of dollars committed to this process carry weight and meaning and most importantly, that housing actually gets built. Thank you and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Chair and Members, Michael Lane...a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The premise of this Bill is simple and straightforward. After receiving a certified housing element, jurisdiction should immediately focus on one undertaking any required rezonings, implementation of housing programs committed to in the housing element process, and removing any existing governmental constraints identified in the housing element certification process before adopting new governmental constraints not contemplated during HCD's review of the element.

We respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition?

Chair and Members, Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in a respectful opposed unless amended position. I just wanted to commend the Committee's amendments. They're definitely a step in the right direction.

We do remain concerned about several aspects of the Bill, but we'll look forward to those continued conversations with Assemblymember Alvarez and the committees going forward.

But I did want to highlight the three major—the two major—concerns we still are concerned about is the idea of trying to guess what type of governmental constraints with turnovers at city councils and mayors, even in the three year phases, as has been limited compared to eight years, which we appreciate. Still very concerning that we would have to do that and it could add some complexity to the housing element process.

The other major concern is the impact—the ability—to accept new fees for three years after certification. The reality is a lot of the times, the Legislature has some new unfunded mandates that we have to respond to locally and it can be very challenging us to do that.

So, we would prefer an idea of trying to look at a disclosure or notification. We feel like the process is already very transparent and it's not necessary for the housing element process, but we'll look forward to continuing to address that. But that's where our concerns lie today. So, thank you for the time. Happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Chris Lee, here on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, also with an opposed unless amended position. Really do share the concerns that were just outlined by the League of Cities, but want to put a finer point on a couple of them.

With the respect to the analysis of the potential future constraints, agree with the concern that it's frankly impossible to bind what future city councils, what Future Board of Supervisors, will do. So, we sort of question the need for that analysis, given the extensive requirements already to analyze governmental constraints to housing production and where practical and feasible to remove those constraints in the housing element.

If the Legislature wanted to pass bills that said, hey, we're not going to touch this issue again for three years, it might be helpful for advocates in many cases. But unfortunately, you're unable to bind future legislatures, just as the way the Board of Supervisors is unable to bind future boards. So, really question the need for that.

Definitely appreciate the amendments from the Committee. They go a long way in addressing our other concerns, particularly removing the affordability requirements and then, really focusing the Bill on disclosure because as of several years ago, the Department of Housing and Community Development has very clear authority to revoke the certification of housing elements.

So, if a future Board of Supervisors goes off and does something that's very detrimental to housing production, they already have the authority to remove certification. So, we really question the new upfront requirements. But appreciate the amendments today and look forward to continuing to work to refine the Bill.

Thank you. And we're going to ask for me toos, both in support and opposition.

Good afternoon. Tracey Ryan, Royal County Representatives of California, also with an opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Tommy Mitling, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, in strong support.

Jacob Brint, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support.

Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project. We currently have an opposed unless amended, but very much appreciate all the Committee amendments. We'll review those and hopefully we'll be able to remove our opposition.

Good afternoon. Jessica Sankis, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Hi there. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Stephanie Jimenez with Housing Action Coalition as a sponsor, in support.

Fernando Trujillo, on behalf of Public Advocates. We oppose unless amended.

Scott Govenar, Construction Employers Association, in support.

Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing, here in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California Yimby, in support. Thank you so much.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus, with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and also here today on behalf of Bob Naylor, for Howard Amundsen Jr., and Fieldset and Associates, in support.

Hi. Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Housing Trust Silicon Valley, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we're going to move on to Committee Members. I want to make sure that we have—the Assembly Member has accepted the Committee amendments which strikes the affordability aspect of this Bill. Anything else? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

And I would love to follow you actually. I just trust your comments. So, a couple of questions. So, I'm actually torn with this particular Bill just because I see the intent and I actually appreciate the intent, but I do have concerns with what the opposition stated with regards to not making any changes.

So, it's like a double-edged sword because when you have so many varying factors coming into construction, it makes it very difficult to build. But by the same token, we have a Legislature that, you know, puts and imposes mandates on local jurisdictions in housing, in construction, in various areas that impact the ability to build. So, that's where I'm coming.

And I don't know if we implement this Bill, not just at the local level, but then go to the Legislature, say you're not doing anything in this area for the next three years so that there could be some parity as to, you know, when we ask jurisdictions to impose and implement and the costs that go with it to what local jurisdictions have to then navigate according to what the state is mandating.

So, this is where I'm conflicted because I like the fact and I know, you know, our company does construction and I know that they're trying to build something right now, their shop, and it's coming back and forth, back and forth. Three years they haven't been able to break ground. Three years they haven't been able to break ground.

And they're submitting everything that they requested, but they come back and there's new requirements, new requirements, new requirements. And so, that's why I'm a little bit—I'm conflicted. I really, really am conflicted with this Bill because there is merit behind it, but I'm not sure how to accommodate everything else that goes around it.

So, with that, I might be abstaining on the Bill today, but perhaps Senator Cabaldon might sway me one way or another with his input and feedback. So, love to hear what he has to say.

Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and first let me—I want to thank the Chair and the staff for the amendments. They do, they do go a long way here. And I don't think it can help Senator Ochoa Bogh, because I agree in general terms. So, I am going to vote for the Bill today in the Housing Committee with my housing hat on.

I'm not sure where local government next—that I would vote for it in local government, for these reasons. So, I hope we'll continue to work through them because it is the case—it's very tempting to isolate just this one policy area and say everything else should bend its knee to our housing work. And it should.

But that's not how the rest of the world sees themselves. So, the water quality people have their own set of stuff, and air quality people have their own set of stuff. And although we might prioritize housing, number one, they don't.

And so, if you're the City of Yucaipa or the City of Hayward and you get a notice that you have to rebuild your sewer plant, and that starts right now, or you have—and you have to raise your sewer impact fee and the monthly fee in order to accomplish that.

You're not creating constraint to block housing, but it must be done. And actually, you legally must apply to everybody. Otherwise, the U.S. Supreme Court says that you don't have the appropriate nexus, that you can't pick and choose favorites. And so, you must absolutely apply it to these other actions.

And so, this question around fees, I know it's very tempting to think of fees as they exist only for the purpose of local governments trying to stop housing and let's admit, there are some local governments that do do that, but that's not the case for most places most of the time.

And so, I'm just, I'm concerned about that aspect of it that when you have an externally mandated, either judicially or more often from a regional Water Board or an Air Board or some other agency that requires the fee increase. And often, we do the same in our legislation.

We say, don't worry, there's a—this will cost cities in California $30 million, but we're not paying for it because they have the power to impose fees. That's in almost every one of the bills that we see in this, in this Committee and in local government.

Then, to say to the city, but no, you can't, you know, have to have a three year, a three year holding out period. So, I do—I share the concerns of the cities and the county as Senator Ochoa Bogh. I'm going to vote for it today.

But I do hope you continue to, to negotiate and to work with them and hopefully resolve some of these issues as it moves to the next stage.

Thank you. And I just want to highlight the concerns that we have. Typically, you know, one of my biggest priorities is affordability and so, you know, making sure that cities who want to create more affordable housing have the ability to, but with the fees, I do just want to highlight that this Bill will allow a city or county to implement a covered potential or actual government constraint.

So, if, for example, there is a sewage issue or something else that comes up that was not included in the constraints analysis disclosure statement, the city or county can submit a copy of the policy to HCD within 30 days of the adoption or the effective date of the policy and potentially be able to work that out and increase their fees.

So, I just want to say that there was a lot of balancing act and I think in local gov that this would potentially be discussed even further. And I'm sure that the Assembly Member will, you know, work out some amendment there. So, I really do appreciate your time, Senator—I mean Assemblymember. Would you like to close?

I would, Madam Chair, and thank you. And just in response because I hear the comments from the Senators and I want to make sure that they understand that I, I do hear them.

I will tell you when this first started, it, again, focused on the certainty that those of us have served at the local level heard so much from those who want to build housing needs to exist. We don't want the back and forth over the course of three years and that was the intent.

We have had multiple amendments through every single Committee, including this one. And quite honestly, you know, a little surprised that there's still the opposition because there's language now including what the Chair just pointed out at this time.

And thanks to the work of the Committee we had this language, but other language that in section—just want to make sure I'm referring you to the right one—Section 3 A and B specifically talk about if there are measures required by the state or the Federal Government that there's, you know, evidence presented towards that, that the measure is no more stringent than required to comply with state law. They would be allowed to adopt that constraint.

They actually would be allowed to adopt any constraint so long as they analyze at the beginning of the housing element process or with the approval of the housing element that those constraints may be adopted.

So, if a local city or county, to be quite honest, wanted to, and I, I hope this is not the practice that they take if this Bill is successful, you could analyze and say we may institute any number of these things and list them all and if that's identified at the beginning, then you actually can take that action at any time during the three year process.

I hope I'm making that clear that what I'm trying to say is anything can be implemented as long as you identify it. And if you're not identifying those things as you're going through the process of your housing element, then what work are you doing on your housing element to plan for the next several years?

That's the whole point—is to create some sort of plan. And if you got all these new things that you throw into this plan that you spent years to approve, again, those of us who served on local government, you go through housing element process. There's a lot of testimony, a lot of meetings that occur.

And if you haven't done that work ahead of time, then you shouldn't just be throwing something out in the middle of a housing element that's already been approved to then change direction. That's the intent of the Bill. It's trying to create certainty.

It has been a difficult balancing act, as the Chair stated, again to the, to the amendment that she just mentioned that this Committee and staff appreciate the work came to. Those are still avenues that are open, I am sure. I'm always willing and every along the process of taking all amendments.

I'm surprised that we're still at a point where there's opposition, given all of the openings that exist now in this Bill on how to address the issues that the opposition has brought forward. For that reason, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do not have quorum yet so we cannot take a motion. We appreciate your time. We're going to move on to file item number four. We're skipping number three. Number three was on consent. So, file item number four, AB 670 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Today I present AB 670 which strengthens housing stability for low-income renters and promotes affordable housing preservation. Many low-income renters in California live in market rate housing, including older multifamily buildings that remain affordable without subsidies. Just make a little note here.

I have a few family members that own these smaller units and have kept them and kept the same renters for many, many years because not only they are good renters, but they are very much invested in keeping these rents low by choice.

However, private equity firms and corporate investors increasingly target these properties, raising rents, displacing long term tenants or demolishing them to build high-cost housing. The loss of these naturally occurring affordable homes, NOAA, worsens California's housing crisis AB 670 allows local governments to count investments in preserving NOAA towards their housing element and annual progress reports.

This bill also strengthens accountability by requiring jurisdictions to report all housing demolitions in their APRs regardless of the reason and demonstrate compliance with replacement housing and relocation assistance requirements.

With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any questions is Anya Lawler, Policy Advocate with the Public Interest Advocates, and Amy Snyder, Principal Legislative Advocate for Housing and Local Government with Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, both sponsors of AB 670.

You will each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Julie Snyder with MTC and ABAG. AB 670 has two primary goals. First, it creates an incentive for cities and counties to preserve so called naturally occurring affordable housing. These are apartments that are affordable to lower income households, usually by virtue of being older, having fewer amenities, et cetera.

Their preservation involves purchase by a mission driven organization that attaches a deed restriction to maintain affordability and prevent residents' displacement. And this is obviously especially valuable in areas with rising rents.

The tool is effective for both moderate and large apartment complexes and as well as the preservation of affordable duplexes and fourplexes in neighborhoods that don't have those larger apartment complexes. The second piece of AB 670 improves the state's data collection and your ability to track compliance with existing housing laws.

It will generate statewide data on demolitions, relocation assistance and replacement housing construction. This will allow you to measure the implementation and effectiveness of these existing laws and tweak them where warranted. We respectfully request your aye vote on this. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Anya Lawler with the Public Interest Law Project. Just here to answer any technical questions from Senator Cabaldon or anyone else.

Thank you. Can we move on to opposition lead witnesses. Seeing none. Can we move on to me-too's both in support and opposition. Again, state your name, your org, and whether you support or oppose.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Karen Lange, on behalf of the City and County Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, in support.

Natalie Spivak, with Housing California, in support.

Graciela Krings on behalf of Enterprise Community Partners, another co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thanks.

Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of the Mountain View Community Land Trust, in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission, in support.

Thank You. We're going to move on to committee members. Seeing no commentary. Assemblymember, I do just want to say I really do appreciate the fact that you are trying to prioritize affordability. That is a big key of the conversation that is, in my opinion, largely missing in this building.

So, I really do support all the work you're doing. I would like to ask if you would like to close.

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we do not have quorum. Still, I believe we are asking sergeants to round up our members so we can get started. We're going to move on to file item number five, AB 712, by Assemblymember Wicks. You're ready.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me to present AB712. I'd first like to thank the Committee, Committee staff for their work and the chair for drafting clarifying amendments. I accept all the proposed amendments.

I'm so sorry I'm going to interrupt. I'd like to just establish quorum, if you don't mind. Secretary, if you don't mind. If we can do a roll call real quick.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have established quorum. I'm. Before you start, I'm going to do this, too. Can we get a motion for consent? Moved by Senator Grayson. Can we get a roll call?

[Roll Call]

Consents on a call. Can we get an motion by Assembly? I mean, Senator Ochoa Bogh. On file item number one.

[Roll Call]

Can we get a motion on File item number two, AB610, by Alvarez. Senator Grayson has moved.

[Roll Call]

All right. And that bill's on call. If we can get a motion on File item number four. AB670 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That bill's on call. Assemblymember Wicks, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 712. I'd first like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work with us draftifying. Draftifying. I just made that word up. Drafting clarifying amendments and I accept all the proposed amendments.

The purpose of AB712 was to help ensure public agencies comply with state housing law. It would do so by increasing penalties against public agencies that violate state housing laws. As this Committee knows, in recent years the state has passed numerous statutes to make housing permitting easier and more predictable in an effort to address our ongoing housing crisis.

This effort continues this year with the Fast Track housing package, which includes this Bill. But for these laws to be effective, they have to be easy to enforce and have real consequences when they are broken. Unfortunately, most state housing law, with the notable exception of the Housing Accountability act, are difficult to enforce right now.

These laws largely rely on housing developers to sue agencies that break the law, something that developers are highly hesitant to do because they need to maintain long term relationships with these agencies. And even when developers win their case, they do not collect attorney's fees, which means that most violations go unpunished.

Some public agencies have gone so far as to requiring developers to identify them from the very lawsuit that developers bring against them when those agencies break housing law and even require developers to pay for the legal fees incurred by the public agency to defend the laws they have broken.

Because these factors deter developers from suing to enforce their rights, repeated violations of housing law occurs, which further impedes the ability for developers to build the housing that California so desperately needs.

AB712 would address this problem by increasing penalties against public agencies that break housing law by applying the same requirements that exist in the Housing Accountability act to other housing laws. The HAA imposes minimum fines of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project.

AB 712 would impose the same fine unless the project consists of four units or fewer, in which case a minimum fine of $50,000 per violation would be imposed. In line with HAA, AB 712 would provide the project applicant with attorney's fees and costs when they prevail in court.

It would also subject the public agency to fines in a court case where there had been previously warnings by the Attorney General or HCD that their action was in violation of the law. These fines could be increased in instances where the court had previously found that the public agency had broken the same law.

AB 712 would also end the practice of public agencies asking housing development applicants to indemnify the local government against the lawsuit when that agency violates the applicant's rights. We have worked with the League of Cities and the special districts and feel that the amendments we are taking today can address their concerns.

And of course, my door is always open for conversation. I also want to be clear that this is not just about local agencies.

State agencies also need to be on the hook to comply with law because only if everyone is abiding by the law will we be able to build the housing we need to bring down the rents and sale prices and make housing affordable for everyone.

And I also want to note the vast majority of our cities are trying to do the right thing and I think trying to comply with a lot of complicated law we keep throwing at them every single year. And so this is not to penalize them.

It's for this really, for the cities that are trying to avoid implementing state law, that's. That's what this remedy would provide. With me here in support today to speak is Kareem D.C. senior VP of Legislative affairs for, for CBIA. And we also have technical assistance here from Nick Camerado from CBIA as well.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Karim Driesy. On behalf of the California building industry, Proud Sponsor of AB712, this Committee has done excellent work to advance proposals that would help alleviate the state's housing crisis.

Unfortunately, enforcement of these housing laws continues to be an issue with local non compliance negatively impacting the construction of new housing and in turn harming California families in need of shelter. By strengthening the enforcement of these laws, AB712 encourages compliance and will ultimately lead to more housing being built for California's families.

We are grateful to the Committee for their proposed amendments which further refine the Bill in order to ensure that we have the best Bill possible. This Bill has received bipartisan support and we are grateful for your consideration here. Here today, we respectfully request an aye vote on AB 712. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do you have any comments? No. All right, we're going to move on to lead opposition.

You each will have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association. As we stated in our letter, we have concerns about the breadth of the measure and whether or not it's appropriate to include special districts in it, given that we're not land use authorities.

And with that, we look forward to seeing the amendments in print and sharing our thoughts with the author and stakeholders. And I want to thank the author and the sponsors for having an open door policy during this process.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairmembers. Brady Girton, on behalf of the League of California Cities. We do have an opposal unless amended, but do appreciate the amendments and we'll look forward to reviewing them. We definitely think it's a step in the right direction.

So appreciate the open door policy that the author has had as well as the work of this Committee and the staff to address our concerns. And we'll look forward to seeing them in print and hopefully moving to neutral on the Bill. So thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to MeToos both in support and opposition.

Madam Chair. Scott, go have the Construction Employers Association and support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Tommy Mitling on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and strong support.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Holly for Me Day Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of SPUR and Abundant Housing LA in support. And on behalf of Robert Naylor on behalf of Howard Ahmanson Jr. And Fieldstead and Associates in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jordan Prana Carvajar on behalf of California Yimby in support.

Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Housing Trust Silicon Valley in support.

Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support.

Thank you. We're going to move on to Committee comments by Senator Cabaldin.

Thank you. Madam Chair, excuse me. I have a question for the author and it's not about any of the issues the opponents have raised, I don't think. And maybe you can help walk me through this.

So, and just as an intro, I'm walking into this issue having gone through the whole California Voting Rights act change that occurred over the last decade. And I'm raising this one because in some sense it was a similar approach, which was let's, we need. We want to nudge.

We want to change the litigation balance in hopes of getting local governments to be more responsive.

And I think you could argue we might have overdone it a little bit because every Single local government was told by their attorneys during the CVRA process, look, we're probably okay, you know, my analysis as your city attorney is we're 80% okay here, but the 20%, if we lose and we're up against, you know, these, these attorneys and we're going to pay attorneys fees and penalties and all of that, it will bankrupt the City of Dixon or the City of Sussun City, these smaller jurisdictions.

And so we can't even, we can't even fight. Now, whether you think the outcome ultimately, I personally supported the district election, so it's fine. You know, the policy outcome is. Right. But that's not really. Nobody ever voted on any of that. And so I'm curious here, like, how we've arrived at the.

This place in particular, to assure that. I just want to be sure that for the City of Dickson or Suisun City or Orinda or whatever, that don't have the huge bank and Lennar says to them, hey, we think you might be violating the Housing Accountability act on this one, this one relatively minor provision.

We think we got you. We're coming at you and you go in closed session and the city attorney says to you, we are definitely in the right. We are not violating it, but I have to advise you, we have a 2% chance of losing. And if we lose, we're bankrupt.

And therefore my recommendation is we settle and we agree to do whatever Lenore asked. Can you help me work through this?

Not to bankrupt cities or alter the balance of giving developers more power than cities in this dynamic that you just laid out. A couple things, I think, and obviously would love my witnesses to also respond.

I think a lot of the developers actually want a good working relationship with the city because they want to do projects in their city over and over again. Right. And so that's, I think, the balancing act.

And a lot of them, I think, don't want to actually sue because it's sort of biting the hand that feeds you, so to speak.

So I think that's one of the things we're trying to figure out is like, how do you have an enforcement mechanism that isn't just the Governor or the HCD or, you know, the AG's task force. Right.

We see those bigger cases of the Woodlawn situation with the mountain lions and Huntington Beach and these sort of like higher profile cases that are brought on by, you know, the Governor or the ag. But how is these smaller? How are these smaller projects?

How do they have recourse when a city is really trying not to comply so that's what we're trying to get at. A couple things I think that the amendments we're taking will help towards that end. We're essentially putting in a 60 day right to cure. And there's.

With the written notification that the AG or HCD provides to the local agency has to identify the specific statute that the local agency is purportedly violating.

So there's knowledge and then a 60 day right to cure to help try to rectify if there is a problem, to give a little bit of a grace period so that we can hopefully just avoid the lawsuit. I mean, none of us want the lawsuits. We want to be able to build the housing. So that's.

I think those amendments will help address exactly the point that you're raising. But I'm happy to, if the chair would entertain it, hear from my witnesses as well. Sure.

Well, only if the question you don't think is already answered. But I'm happy to add to it. The point that was mentioned about the right to cure, I think is one important step here. I would say I want to emphasize the fact that we're not looking to file lawsuits.

There are a number of ways in which a city might want to take retaliatory conduct if you file a lawsuit, whether it's not just flat out denying a project, but dragging their feet in proceeding with the project. Litigation also takes a lot of time, multiple years.

During that time, there's no recovery of the cost to carry for the project, the interest on it. So we're not looking for that. We don't make money off of the attorney's fees. The attorneys make money off of the attorney's fees. They also get attorney's fees only if they win. And on the fees, the penalties that go into.

They go into a Fund that funds affordable housing. It's not something that goes to the applicant. So that's where. And I think it's probably fair to say that the local government, to the extent that it has regional housing needs a determination, has to perhaps can use that to benefit themselves to meet those obligations.

Okay, I think that's helpful because with cvra it was the same thing. Like the civil rights community never intended to go and sue 470 cities. And in the end, it was like three attorneys who got on a shtick. And then all the city attorneys realized they all started making this argument.

So suddenly 470 cities without any state or local vote changed their entire form of government. It was that powerful without. And I think in only three of the suits was there ever a civil rights organization involved. So I'm not worried about the developers for exactly the reasons you said it is that it becomes an industry.

But the fact that the penalties are not available to be cashed out essentially is helpful in that regard. So appreciate the response. Thanks.

Senator Ochoba, appreciate the comments and the question. So a couple of questions. Has there been any conversations with regards to the concern with the special district? Because I also thought that that might be a concern as far as what they express.

And then the other thing that I wanted to address was will you be including an explicit definition of which laws are considered housing reform laws with regard to the special districts?

You know, they're included in the definition of public agencies that are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. You know, the Legislature has long recognized special districts, like other public agencies, that they must be subject to housing reform laws. So this is just part and parcel with how we've always done it.

Happy to continue having conversations with them, but it's they have always been defined in this way. So we've treated them the same way we have in other instances. And sorry, what was the second question again?

And will you be including explicit, explicit definition on which laws are considered housing reform laws?

Got it. That's a great question. I'd love to ask my witnesses if they. If the chair doesn't mind.

So when we introduced the Bill, it did have a more explicit list and a previous Committee, I think, asked us to remove it. And in part because we're going to see as every new law is passed, you're going to have to update this list.

And rather than give an express list, we think the criteria is there sufficient to cover those laws. I think initially it was also including but not limited to that list of laws. But I don't know that we have. I feel like we're kind of constrained by the process that we've been through.

But and I was just reminded, I think Assembly Housing took the list out.

Really. I'm just trying to figure out how much easier it becomes if you do have them or you don't have it.

Yeah, we in the Committee, we can entertain it if the chair is interested because we are not taking amendments necessarily.

You could always revisit that. I believe that this is a do pass to judiciary number one. But I also want to give a chance for Senator Cortese to have any questions he'd like to ask.

It is double before Senator Ochoa Bogue asked her question. And it's really more of a comment on my part, not a question.

But I was Looking around for the definition of housing reform law, and I'm supportive of the Bill, but I worry when you read this, as an attorney and as a real estate developer myself, that the definition lacks enumeration. It sounds like you maybe had that in there before.

It might be a little tragic at some point if it was taken out.

But it means any law or regulation or provision of any law or regulation that establishes or facilitates rights, safeguards, streamlined benefits, time limitations or other protections for the benefit of applicants for housing development projects or restricts, prescribes, prohibits or otherwise imposes any procedural substantive limitation on a public agency for the benefit of a housing development project.

My belief is in full understanding, you have full credibility on the idea that developers don't want to sue cities.

But I think you're going to end up, unless this language is tightened up eventually with at a minimum, a bunch of declaratory relief actions where developers are coming in saying, we think that a reform statute has been violated, basically that we, you know, in a city coming along saying, we think not.

And hey, we don't want to, you know, get into a two year trial, but we're all going to head down to court and at least ask the judge to let us know whether or not, you know, this is one of the statutes that the Legislature was talking about when they created this definition.

It just as when I was practicing a lot of transactional law with other attorneys, there was sometimes a little bit of a sick joke with language like that that was basically something along the lines of this is the kind of language that's going to keep everybody in the legal profession working because of that ambiguity.

So it's just a concern. I'm supportive of the Bill. I'm supportive of where it's going. Hopefully everybody figures it out, as you know, as the support witnesses indicated. But it is something that I believe will have to be tightened up at some point. Thank you.

And I just want to appreciate all the commentary here. I just want to go over the amendments to also clarify what they are. One, we are requiring that written notification from the AG or HCD to identify the specific statute or a local agency is violating.

As many of you guys know who work with local cities, sometimes they are unaware of what they are violating just because, as the assemblymember stated, the laws are getting more and more complex and some of the smaller cities do not have the technical information at the ready.

The other amendment is that if, and this is something that is very important, that if there is a violation that, that it's a requirement that in order for a violation by local agency to be subject to enhanced penalties specified in this particular Bill, an applicant must provide a local agency 60 days notice prior to filing a lawsuit associated with violation identified in the letter filed by HCD or the AG if the 60 days timeframe will exceed the statute of limitations for bringing an action and specify the statute of limitations told until roughly the 60 day time frame expires.

So it does give a relative time to cure. And we also ensure that we are specifying that a local agency may still be subject to enhanced penalties for repeat violations. So bad actors, if you will, that occurred in a prior planning period until the local agency adopts a compliant housing element for the new planning period.

And I believe there's another one that just removes some of the intent language related to applicants rights. So I do believe that we address some of the concerns that were here and if the Assembly Member would like to comment on any of these and she has taken all the amendments.

Yes. Thank you. And thank you for your work and your Committee's work on this. And I think that has raised some of the questions that were raised. I think with regard to your comment. Senator Cortese, I think it's an incredibly valid point. We don't want to have kind of unintended consequences here.

You know, if the Committee would be interested working with Senate housing in the coming weeks and Assembly Housing as well since they had removed the list, we could maybe potentially tighten up the language if all parties agree and or you know, direct HCD to come up with some sort of guidance or something to figure out how to kind of tighten up some of those concerns.

I think that would be good and I'm open to that in conversation. But I just want to make sure that we are focused on what is is at hand and in front of us. Senator Padilla, thank you.

Madam Chair. Just briefly sort of mostly asked and answered by my colleague Senator Cortese with respect to the scope and definition, but maybe not in this Bill. Appreciate it. I'm support of the Bill.

Maybe not in this particular legislation, but as you look forward to maybe some cleanup, maybe also a thought could be given to looking at the claim standard itself to avoid some of those unintended consequences.

And we don't just have a whole new industry that we're encouraging without providing the balance to provide enough, you know, pause for any competent counsel to advise their client in advance, which is the policy purpose of the Bill. Yeah. Thank you Madam Chair.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, Assemblymember, would you like to close Just really appreciate the conversation from everyone here in the Senate. Love being in Senate housing and would respectfully ask for an aye vote with the continued commitment to keep working on the issues that were raised. Thank you.

Do we have a motion? Senator Cabaldin moves the Bill. Can we get a roll call vote on that motion?

Do pass. As amended to Judiciary. Senators Wahab.

Wahab. Aye. Sierra Tobalgin. Cabalgin. Aye. Caballero Cortese. Cortese I. Durazzo Gonzalez. Grayson. Grayson I. Ochobog. Ochobog I. Badia. Badia I.

Aye.

That bill's on call. Thank you, assemblymember, we're going to move on to file item number six. AB893 by Assemblymember Fong. Assemblymember, whenever you want to begin.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments. And thank you so much to the Chair and your staff for your working with us on this bill.

Assembly Bill 893 expands the ministerial approval process for residential mixed-income developments on commercially zoned properties near campus universities and creates eligibility for affordable units using this process for students, faculty, and staff. As the Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, I'm acutely aware of how our state's housing crisis has affected our students and faculty.

An acceptable number of students are homeless and housing insecure. 8% of UC students, 11% of CSU students, and 24% of our community college students. Housing security reduces completion rates and jeopardizes the power and promise of higher education to transform lives in our communities. We must do more to address this crisis.

AB893 builds upon Assembly Bill 2011, authored by Assemblymember Wicks, to encourage development at our universities and college campuses, maintaining the same affordability requirements and improving upon AB2011 to ensure 100% affordable developers have an easier path to break ground.

It also extends affordability to our faculty and staff, allowing them to stay within our communities instead of enduring long commutes, by explicitly defining eligibility for affordable units. It also addresses barriers for students facing and accessing affordable units due to outdated rules that haven't kept up with the changing demographic of today's college student.

Finally, Assembly Bill 893 helps streamline the eligibility by allowing students to demonstrate their financial need with certain financial aid documents. And here to testify and support is Ruth Sosa Martinez with Power California and Reemo Hooper with the University of California Student Association. Kay Rogers with the Student Homes Coalition is also here for any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Each witness will have two minutes.

Good afternoon Chair Wahab and Members. My name is Remo Hooper and I'm with the UC Student Association, a proud co sponsor of AB893 alongside the student Homes Coalition. We strongly believe this bill will reduce barriers to creating affordable student housing, especially in mixed use developments on campuses across the state.

As a student at UC Santa Barbara, our state's housing crisis is very personal to me. Students like myself are forced to choose between substandard living conditions or incurring mountains of debt just to put a roof over our heads. And that's when we're lucky.

Housing options are incredibly limited and the most affordable units are rented first, leaving students without connections paying the highest rent. Most student housing operates via lottery system where an unlucky draw comes with a real and concerning risk of homelessness.

This will likely be my situation when I return to campus this fall as I have yet to find housing that I can afford. Depending on Facebook Marketplace or other third party resources leaves many students in dire need of housing that we might not ever receive. The issues don't stop at finding housing.

This past year, my cramped one bedroom apartment cost me and my roommate over 1,000 dollars per month. I worked three jobs over the summer to cover the security deposit and both July and June rents totaling 3,000 dollars, all due within 30 days.

At the same time, I had to move out of my previous residence, loading my belongings into my car where I slept until the next lease started. Still, with all the sacrifice, I had to take out loans in order to cover the unsustainable cost of living, dominated by housing costs.

Experiences like these are far too common and only growing. AB893 streamlines the construction of more affordable housing for low income students and faculty, finally making meaningful progress to provide release to our most vulnerable communities on the front lines of the housing crisis.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members. My name is Ruth Sosa Martinez. I serve as the policy strategist with Power California Action. We're proud co sponsors of AB893, and I'm here today on behalf of the 18,000 young people we organize across the state.

While community college, CSU and UC student enrollment has continued to grow, local land use policies and permitting processes have remained stagnant. California is facing one of the worst housing crises in its history, leading to a severe shortage in off campus housing options for students.

During my senior year of college in 2019, I depended almost entirely on Cal Grant and on two part time jobs. With no family nearby, I struggled to find housing near my campus and I spent the first month of the academic year, living out of motels and Airbnbs, commuting over an hour just to make it to class.

I was focused on surviving instead of focusing on my academics. And it really saddens me that six years later the students that I work with are still struggling academically because they can't count on a stable place to live near their campus.

AB893 provides a streamlined path for campuses to develop housing to sustain growing populations while providing a pathway for students to access deed restricted units at the lower income level.

The bill contains robust affordability provisions by design ensuring that any project using this process expands access to housing for low income and homeless students and staff by setting aside either 13% of units for very low income, extremely low income, and homeless students, or 15% for lower income students and staff.

AB893 is a smart balance solution that enables more student housing development while enter while centering equity and speed. It gives our colleges and local jurisdictions a real tool to meet the scale of the crisis. On behalf of students and young Californians across the state, I urge your aye vote on AB893. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses.

Good afternoon Chair and members. Busy day as always in Senate housing, but honored to be here. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities just wanted to first appreciate the changes that have been made throughout the process.

We appreciate the narrowing of the location of ministerial approval, but Cal Cities does remain opposed to the bill given the concerns about ignoring state mandated housing elements that have been certified and approved that comes up with development standards. This bill also provides one size fits all zoning regulations as well as height limits and setback requirements.

We're very concerned about that considering our cities go through the process to do that. We also understand the student housing crisis is really important to address. Our cities are working diligently to do that, but we don't think that the approach of ignoring local zoning and general plan, or doing ministerial process is the best solution to do that, so we do remain concerned.

So we do remain concerned about that process, given that our local governments have to do that. The other thing we acknowledge that student housing, if it was student housing alone, we would not receive RHNA credits.

I believe the intent is not to do that, but we are concerned that that could be some implication and how to make sure and ensure that student housing is going to student housing. So that's where we're at today. But we appreciate those continued conversations and the intent of the sponsors of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other lead opposition, we're going to go to MeToo's. Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Hello everyone, Kate Rodgers, co-chair of the Student Homes Coalition, proud sponsor. Also available to answer any technical questions today.

Scott Govenar, Construction Employers Association, here in support.

My name is Lucia Hermoso. I'm here on behalf of the UC Student Association. As a current UC Santa Barbara student, I am in support of this bill.

Stephanie Jimenez with Housing Action Coalition in support.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon. Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support, thank you.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, and Buckeye Properties in support.

Good afternoon. Anabel Urbina with the CSU Chancellor's office in support.

Good afternoon. Kira Ross, on behalf of the city of San Marcos, in opposition.

My name is Edardo Maldonado, representing the University of California in support.

Good afternoon. Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing, here in support.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you so much.

My name is Joey Guo. I'm a UC student and I'm in support.

Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to committee members. Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, as I'm former legislative VP of the UC Student Association a year or two ago, so I'm supportive of the bill. I think this one. There's a story out in the Atlantic this week about how land use regulations in other states are having the same effect that our regulations have had on housing production.

And one of the key points in that story is that one predictor of highly restrictive anti-affordability land use restrictions in other states has been, if you want to see a warning sign, it's the number of college students. As the number of college students go up, the more restrictive land use policies get enacted.

And we know that's true here too. That communities, and I'll say I'll just pick San Marcos, pick on them because they were here in opposition. I was here when San Marcos was selected to be the, to host the whatever, whatever number of CSU campus it was.

And San Marcos demanded that we that they have a campus who's going to promote economic development. Well, part of that deal is that you provide adequate housing and support and other services for the students that you are hosting. And so that makes sense. I represent UC, I represent Davis, which has often had this problem.

They, I talked to the mayor and to the county supervisor for Davis. They're both supportive of the bill. They understand that the decades of lack of investment in housing and the restrictive land use rules has created an egregious affordability crisis and equity crisis in their communities. And so I think this is an important step forward. It's well balanced.

The geographic radius that's been drawn here is appropriate, and it matches the substantial state and public investment that the rest of California and the regions make in these communities by investing in these universities. And it is the obligation, the responsibility of those communities, then to also be partners in facilitating housing. And the bill does that.

So I'm intending to support it today. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Madam Senator and colleagues, this bill will help address the student crisis, student housing crisis, and to be clear, also the units bill, using 893 sign, will all be counted towards arena numbers as well. Because occupancy is not solely limited to students, it's enjoyed wide support from a number of the higher education segments.

I'm grateful to the Lieutenant Governor as well. Students, labor, affordable housing developers, and more. I've certainly asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Cortese moves the bill.

Motion do pass as amended to local government. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. We're going to move on to final item number seven, AB906 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez. Floor is yours, whenever you want to begin.

Whenever you want to begin, I'll get started as my witnesses make their way to the front. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. To Senators. I'm here to present AB906, which strengthens and clarifies California's affirmatively furthering fair housing, or also known as AFFH law, in local housing elements.

Thank you to the Committee for your thoughtful work on this Bill. AB 906 builds on six years of AFFH implementation and addresses ongoing issues on how jurisdictions plan for fair and equitable housing opportunities. While the Federal Fair housing Act of 1968 set the foundations, its enforcement has been inconsistent.

California respond with AB 686 and AB 1304 to uphold AFFH principles at the state level. AB 906 continues its progress by tackling key problems such as inequitable analysis of displacement, disinvestment and exclusive exclusion, limited affordable housing on high opportunity areas and over reliance on ADUs.

The Bill makes targeted improvements by requiring meaningful distribution of affordable housing in higher income areas, triggering rezoning.

Its fair housing goals aren't met even if REHNA is strengthening early fair housing analysis and community engagement and expanding analysis to include access to educational, employment and transportation opportunities, as well as access to healthy environment and among other considerations, AB 906 ensures fair housing efforts are equity driven, transparent and informed by community voices.

As federal protections are once again under threat, California must continue to lead AB906 ensures our AFFH law remains strong, enforceable and impactful. It provides clear guidance for the upcoming housing element cycle and gives HCD the tools to hold plans accountable.

This afternoon primary witnesses and support Natalie Spivak on behalf of Housing California and Anya Lawler for technical assistance if needed. Take it away.

Thank you Assemblymember and good afternoon Chair and Members. My name is Natalie Spivak and I'm a Senior Policy Advocate at Housing California and a proud co sponsor of AB906.

California's AFFH law is a national model that responded to the first Trump administration's rollback of federal AFFH regulations by enshrining an even stronger version of these requirements in state law. This solidified California's commitment to addressing the harms of redlining and other policies and actions that fueled segregation and left low income communities disinvested in the affh.

Duty falls to all public agencies, but for local governments, the housing element is where much of the work plays out. While we saw a lot of good work in six cycle housing elements, we also saw places where the outcomes weren't what we envisioned.

In particular, we saw too many cities leave patterns of segregation intact by not making enough lower income RHNA sites available in exclusionary higher income areas that offer access to opportunity.

AB 906 addresses this by requiring HCD to create an online tool that local governments can use as they build their inventory of housing sites to ensure that they're distributing sites across the jurisdiction in a way that promotes housing integration.

This way, local governments can have a clear target and adjust as necessary before they submit a draft to hcd and HCD can do its analysis in a more standardized way. I also want to lift up that AFFH isn't just about addressing segregation. It also requires actions to address disinvestment and displacement.

However, a recent report from one of our co sponsors, Public Advocates, found that housing elements were inconsistent in how they identified fair housing issues and solutions. To address this, AB906 moves up the timeline for completing the Fair Housing Analysis. So the analysis meaningfully informs the development of policy solutions.

It also clarifies which factors jurisdictions must consider in their analysis and strengthens the existing requirement to engage with impacted community Members. Housing California Thanks Assemblymember Gonzalez for authoring this important legislation, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we get lead opposition.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful oppose unless amended. First, wanted to appreciate we've had really great dialogue with the author's office and the committee and look forward to continuing to work towards our goals.

Our concerns remain with the new changes that local governments would have to plan for sites beyond their arena, when looking at the rezoning. If the intent is to affirmatively further fair housing, which we agree with, we think it's really important. We think it would make sense for them to do it before rather before certification rather than after.

So we do worry about that. Also, some of the workload increases in terms of the data we'll have to collect, although important, can be very, very challenging locally. But that said, we also think that the bill has steps in the right direction with having more standardized reporting and HCD providing more guidance.

We think that's really important for a lot of our cities. But we do still remain opposed unless amended given these concerns. And we'll look forward to continuing those conversations and appreciate all the work that's been done already and look forward to continuing the conversations on the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Chris Lee on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. We don't have an opposition position. We've expressed some concerns, particularly with the tool that would be required to be developed by HCD under this. We had initially proposed a solution to our concerns which would be weighting that tool based on the population of areas.

The way the tool is set up now is its acreage of land based on the income of the people that live there. And so if you're in a sparsely populated unincorporated area, there's likely going to be misalignment of the areas where there's high income and the more urbanized areas where there's actually infrastructure available to accommodate housing development.

So we thought that weighting based on the population would be a workable solution. It's our understanding that the sponsors didn't want to do that because the paper that this tool is based on is primarily driven by that analysis of land.

And in that report, unincorporated areas weren't considered and areas that were unlikely to be developable were carved out of the tool. And so we've proposed an alternative solution which would be carving out the land in the unincorporated area that's resources that doesn't have water and sewer and things like that.

So we actually have a useful tool that gives counties more certainty that their sites inventories are going to meet the affirmatively furthering fair housing standard. So again Just concerns because we do think there's some positive work that could happen on this to improve clarity, but we really want to address this and get it right.

We have some time to get it right because the first housing elements for the seventh cycle in the urban counties don't start until 2029. So really want to continue working on this language. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. We're going to move on to me toos. Both in support, opposition. Seeing none. Oh, we got to move faster guys. Come on.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Housing Action Coalition in support.

Holly Fraumeni with Lighthouse Public Affairs on a behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support.

Tony Anderson, the Association of Regional Center Agencies, representing people with developmental disabilities in support.

Fernando Trujillo on behalf of Public Advocates in strong support.

Good afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Belmont in a respectful oppose unless amended position, echoing the league's concerns. Thank you.

All right, we're going to move on to committee members. Seeing no comments. Would you like to close?

Yes. First of all, thank you all for being here for your work on this issue. Look for me, I represent area of Boyle Heights. We are the epicenter of affordable housing. While wealthier areas resist change, it's modern day redlining. And so we're trying to expand that not just in Los Angeles, but across the state.

AB 906 delivers on the promise that your zip code should not determine your future. You can't build justice on zoning lines that divide, only on foundations that include. Fair housing is not charity, it's justice. And with that I ask for your I vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Padilla. All right. Padilla has moved the bill. It's do pass to approps. Can we get a roll call?

[roll call]

All right, that bill is on call. We are going to skip file item number eight as it's on consent. We're going to move on to file item number 9, AB 1154 by Assembly Member Carillo. Assemblymember, whenever you would like to begin.

Thank you, madam chair and committee members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1154. First, I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments. And thank you for the work on the chair and the committee for the work on their bill.

AB 1154 works to create parity between small ADUs, which are a maximum of 500 square feet, and JADUs by eliminating owner occupancy requirements for small ADUs. Specifically, this bill will remove the owner occupancy requirement for JADUs with their own bathroom, which will allow property owners to rent out both the main residence and the JADU.

Over the years, the Legislature has made strides in expanding ADU and JADU law to create a more streamlined and enforceable process to building these units. This increases access to affordable housing in the state and provides Californians with an incentive to maximize their property's potential while building these units.

These units provide homeowners with the opportunity to generate rental income, house multi generational families, and provide more rental options that are enforceable and within an established neighborhood. In my own experience, I built an ADU on my property and my daughter was able to live in that ADU when she came back from college.

However, there is a lack of clarity between what regulations apply to small ADUs and JDUs due to an overlap in similarities between the two in law. This creates confusion and limits homeowners from building these units on their property.

Current requirements for owner occupancy for JADUs limit opportunities for homeowners to create rental units, leading to a lack of investment and availability for affordable housing. Joining me today in support answering technical questions is Sosan Madanat with UnidosUS.

Good Afternoon, chair and members. My name is Sosan Madanat, here today on behalf of UnidosUS, the nation's largest Latino civil rights advocacy organization.

In addition to an LA office and staff in Sacramento, Unidos has a network of 76 affiliate community based organizations throughout California, which invest more than 1.9 billion and employ more than 17,000 staff to provide direct services to approximately 2.6 Californians.

Since 2010, Latinos have added a total of 672,810 net new households in California, accounting for 82% of new households and growth in the state. Given demographic shifts, homeownership growth will primarily come from these Latino households. Unidos has long been committed to helping increase the generational wealth of Latinos and creating financial stability.

In an Unidos report titled Building California's Future, we found that incomes are not keeping up and growing at the same rate as home price appreciation and that entry level homes such as condos or townhomes are among the most under built, while accessory dwelling units have increased by 80,000 units between 2016 and 2022 to meet the growing demand, ADUs provide low income homeowners the opportunity to build generational wealth, increase property value, and create additional income if owners rent out their ADU or the primary dwelling.

In California, Latinos represent 40% of the state's population, but the report found that Latino homeownership rate is almost 20% lower than the non-hispanic white homeownership rate in the state. AB 1154 creates parity in the ADU and JADU laws by removing owner occupancy requirements.

This allows communities of color and lower income homeowners to build and rent out JADUs, helping them build intergenerational wealth health without requiring that they live on site. We appreciate the assembly member's leadership on this issue and his commitment to expanding opportunities for California's Latino population.

We thank you for your consideration on this important policy and ask for your support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Max Dubler. I'm a Policy Analyst at California YIMBY. So A recent UC Berkeley analysis of zoning statewide found that most California Cities Reserve about 3/4 to 90% of their residential land for single family homes, and about 95% of California's residential land overall is zoned for single family homes.

This zoning is increasingly at odds with how Californians actually live. Our households have fewer people than they used to. Married couples with children were 40% of all households in 1970, but only 19% in 2015.

Well, 1 and 2 person households have grown from 46 to 62% of all households, but the square footage of new single family homes has almost doubled since the 1970s. Simultaneously, the proportion of Americans living in multi generational households has risen from 13% in 1970 to more than 20% in 2016.

With multi generational living even more prevalent in our communities of color. California's nation leading ADU reforms have helped homeowners resolve this housing mismatch by giving them much needed flexibility to adapt their homes to fit their needs.

These reforms have produced tens of thousands of homes, with ADUs growing from less than 1% of new construction in 2016 to 1/5 of new homes today. ADUs blend into existing neighborhoods, adding housing without disrupting their look and feel.

Small Junior ADUs have been a key part of this success, giving homeowners an inexpensive way to create an independent unit from existing floor space in their home so that grandparents, adult children, and caregivers can live close by without giving up their privacy and dignity.

AB 1154 will help us keep up our momentum on these units by giving homeowners additional flexibility to add junior ADUs while empowering local governments to ensure that they are used for long term housing use. We respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses. Lead opposition. Seeing none. Me toos. State your name, your org, and whether you support or oppose.

Good afternoon. Genesis Gonzalez has a. Oh, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis as a proud co sponsor in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities. We did have an oppose unless amended, but with the new amendments, we'll be moving to neutral. So I wanted to appreciate this committee and the author's office for working with us on those. Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spur, and Fieldstead and Associates in support.

All right, we're gonna move on to committee members. Seeing. Seyarto. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you for the amendment. That worked. Thank you.

All right, so we have a motion as well, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. This bill will assist in resolving the confusion on ADU and JADU regulations, make it easier for California to have access to affordable housing. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Okay. And. And I just want to make sure you have agreed to take the amendments, right?

I have, yes.

And the amendment is to remove the language from the bill that eliminates parking requirements for adus that are smaller than 500 square feet.

That is correct.

Okay. I do just want to flag for everybody. I do care about parking. It is important in a lot of communities. So thank you. All right, we have a motion by Senator Cortese. Can we get a roll call?

Motion do pass as amended to local government.

[roll call]

Thank you. That bill is on call. We're gonna move on to file item number 10, which is again, Assemblymember Carrillo, AB 1276.

Thank you again, madam chair and committee members, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1276. AB 1276 is part of the fast tracking housing package, a bipartisan effort to address California's unprecedented housing crisis, a crisis that has left too many people without a home, struggling to pay rent and unable to achieve homeownership.

This bill builds on the prominent success of SB 330 in 2019 by ensuring that once a housing project begins, the entitlement process. It isn't subject to certain regulatory changes except for essential updates related to health and safety concerns or to mitigate significant CEQA environmental impacts. Let me be clear. Developers cannot ignore state requirements under this bill.

AB 1276 also applies the same reasonable person standard that is under existing law for local agencies to state and regional agencies to ensure housing decisions are based on clear objective criteria rather than discretionary delays. This bill also clarifies that policies and standards under SB 330 include building material and permit requirements.

As a former city planner myself, I've seen firsthand how bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistent regulations stall projects for years, driving up costs and making housing unattainable. A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive step to build multifamily housing, largely because of how long approval timelines are.

Projects in California take over 22 months longer to finish than in Texas, for example, which this creates increases the cost of these projects.

If we don't fix our permitting system, we will continue to lose housing investment to other states, which offer a more predictable and efficient approval process. A strong, reliable housing supply is critical to keeping workers in California, supporting local businesses, and fueling economic growth. Without enough housing, employers face hiring challenges. Commutes become longer and more costly.

AB 1276 addresses these challenges head on by increasing transparency, providing certainty, and ensuring fair, timely project approvals. With me to testify in support today, Steve Cruz with the California Building Industry Association.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I'm joined by Nick Camarado, our general counsel.

As stated, AB 1276 builds on one of the most important housing reforms California has enacted in recent years, SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. SB 330 brought much needed clarity to how housing projects are evaluated by local governments.

By establishing clear rules of the road, it gave developers predictability by locking in the rules and standards that applied to a project at the time a police preliminary application is submitted. And just as importantly, it clarified how those rules would be interpreted by applying a reasonable person standard to prevent arbitrary denials.

As stated by the Assembly Member, SB 330 also included strong common sense safeguards, including exceptions for legitimate health and safety concerns and significant environmental impacts under CEQA. However, SB 330 only addressed local government, and as the select Committee on Permitting Reform emphasized in its 2025 final report, this leaves a massive gap.

In California, housing projects often require approval from a dozen or more state and regional agencies, each with their own permitting authority rules and interpretations. The same problems SB 330 solved at the local level, shifting standards and subjective interpretations, are now manifesting at the state and regional level and are undermining the effectiveness of SB 330 itself. That's where AB 1276 comes in.

It expands two key pillars of SB 330. First, just as SB 330 locked in local rules and standards at the time of application, AB 1276 extends those protections to state and regional level. AB 1276 also ensures that that when state and local regional agencies assess whether a project is consistent with adopted plan, they must follow the same objective standards.

I'll wrap up by emphasizing that AB 1276 is a practical evidence based extension of a policy we know works under SB 330 and has the potential to have a profound effect in improving the housing permit process overall. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote.

Nick Camarano on behalf of the California Building Industry only to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Perfect. Lead opposition please. All right, me toos.

Thank you, chair and senators. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association. We are a concerns. So I didn't know where, where to land there.

Either yes or no, or like, still working through amendments.

Yeah, thank you. We just have concerns with the relationship between state and federal regulatory bodies or agencies where we would vest, you know, a project but still have more mandates come down on us later. And so we're still in talks with the author. Thank you for the open door policy. Thank you.

Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Spur, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity California, the San Diego Housing Commission, and for Robert Naylor on behalf of Howard Ahmanson Jr. and the Fieldstead and Associates.

Tommy Mitling on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in strong support.

Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support. Thank you.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Leslie Rodriguez on behalf of Housing Trust Silicon Valley in support.

Madam Chair, members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajar on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much.

Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing here in support.

Thank you, committee members. Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So first of all, I love this concept and it's a righteous one, which is that the state should do what it tells the local agencies to do. I'm hoping you or the chair can help me understand how it works mechanically, though, because the- the existing rules apply within the envelope of a local permitting process.

So I walk into the City of Hesperia and I have a project and I do all the stuff I need to vest and then I invested. It's all in that same pocket universe. It's just me and Hesperia, basically. But here, this would apply to this to state agencies and it's very broad.

So it applies to basically all state agencies that there are in every possible form and to any rules, regulations, determinations and other requirements adopted by those agencies.

And so if I walk in and I vest with the City of Hesperia today, but I don't build for, say, I don't know, four years, not unusual, or three years in that intervening three years, the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Board adopts some new stormwater requirements and the PUC adopts a new rule about at grade crossings for whatever airline goes through his varia, through my project or what have you.

So a series of state agencies are doing these things, and then as those things are happening, as the do do me, the developer then say to the Puc, hey, maybe you didn't know I got vested back with Hesperia in, in June of 2025. Sorry, but I have a get out of jail free card.

Hey, Regional Water Board, your stuff doesn't apply. I don't. Because there's no mechanism for Hesperia to notify these agents, you know, all, all state agencies, they wouldn't know that there's a set of actors that are no longer subject to their regulatory power for those, for these, for this period. And then under what legal authority?

Because we're not, we're not notwithstanding the water quality laws, we're not waiving. There's nothing in the Bill that that suspends or waives or over or overcomes all the other statutes. So just mechanically, maybe you could help me understand how this would actually work from term in terms of vesting for purposes of state agencies.

Well, first I want to thank you for becoming familiar with my district in my district. Thank you for that. I think that's part of the intent of this legislation, as I stated in my comments, except if there is health and safety concerns or if there is additional CEQA requirements.

But as you know, we're also in the legislation working on CEQA. Look at, see how we can eliminate that red tape so that developments can proceed related to housing.

In the example you're citing, if it's three to four years and the project owner already obtained entitlements and if there is an oversight on state agency, I believe that's what you stated, that they don't address that concern, then the project can continue without having to go back to the entitlement process or addressing those local, those state agencies.

But I'm going to ask the support here if they can answer that question too.

Sure, I could start and then if. Need to pass on to Mr. Camera, but I think the first part of your question is not there's not a limited time clock for the applicant. That you have two and a half. Years from the point in which the new rules may apply, you get a

coverage of about two and a half. Years for affordable housing. It's three and a half years. And with respect to your other questions. On notification, I want to let Nick maybe respond to that.

So it begins with under existing permit Streamlining act, these state agencies, all public agencies, have to put together the detailed criteria of what goes into an application.

Our assumption was that one of those things would be you are going to put in there at what date did you submit your preliminary application, because that's going to be important for them to know because I only have two and a half years or if it's an affordable housing project, I only have three and a half years to begin construction.

Otherwise the vesting goes away and I start all over again. These are agencies that have some approval authority over the project and have been involved in the CEQA process. And this really is something that probably doesn't happen for the most part until after the CEQA process has been concluded. So they're going to be active in that.

I'm hesitant to say this without consulting anyone here, but the notification is something that I think we would be open to where we would send a copy of it, of the preliminary application to a state agency. I don't know that it's open to a discussion on when the appropriate time is to do that.

Do we want to send it too early before they're considering it, or do we want to provide that to them at the time that they are actively working on the rules that are in effect and processing an application? I realize that the chair is not going to allow us to change the talk about amendments here, but.

Yeah, and we shouldn't because I think that. So that's helpful.

But I think the notification kind of highlights this bigger issue of really, can the City of Hesperia vest rights, you know, vest permit, sort of regulatory, suspend any new regulation or anything like that for all state agencies for two and a half or three and a half years. Like is that, is that even legally possible?

The way the bill is drafted, it claims to do so, but without amending the water quality law and everything else, does it really do that and enumerating what those agencies are? The bill says. The bill just says all public agencies.

So the analysis does a good job of highlighting a couple of examples, but it's all public agencies, not just those that are subject to that are involved in the permitting piece. We had this discussion, I think, in our last hearing as well.

So the notification only it matters because if you cannot actually then vest, what happens when the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Board has to allocate its total maximum daily load for the whatever river is flowing through Hesperia and it has to account for all of the users in creating a budget for, let's say, arsenic discharges?

And this project is one of a thousand, but it is one of a thousand. And so the, the Regional Water Board is preparing a budget for arsenic and it's allocating it. It has to allocate it to everybody in the in the region.

And so I'm just, it doesn't, I'm not understanding legally how this bill could tell every state agency that you cannot regulate for two and a half years or three and a half years in a way that applies to this project unless it's health and safety.

Or in order to comply with CEQA.

But many of these projects, as of last night will no longer be subject to CEQA.

Fair enough. The background law of the Permit Streamlining act says that when they, when a state agency receives an application, they have to review it under their existing rules and regulations. And when they do that, they can only ask for information or criteria or mitigation that is already required at that time.

So it's more in the background law of the Permit Streamlining Act.

That's what made us think this wasn't that big of a leap because we think we can solve this problem if it's a question of notice to simply send a copy when we file our preliminary application to the appropriate agency and just say, we want you to know that this is the date we've submitted this preliminary application.

We can advise them of what this bill would require of them. And that's not that different than the way they operate today.

Yeah, but I think one difference, I won't belabor the point anymore, but the, that the regional water. Let's just pick the regional Water Board again. The regional water board in the first instance is receiving the application from the project for whatever permit it needs. And at that point the Permit Streamlining act applies to them.

But in this case, they would not be receiving the application. The application may not even be ready for the regional water board. It would be an application submitted to the City of Hesperia. And so that, that is, that is not a trivial difference because.

No, no, no information is being filed with the regional water board that would be part of their application to note whether it was a problem or what have you. So I think there is some work to be done in this. I think we have one more hearing after. Not this committee.

But I mean, this bill's going local government. Yeah. So there is an opportunity to work this year. But this, it's a very serious question about the, whether this actually legally can work in the way that you're describing. I hope it can. I'm not trying to derail it.

I'm trying to rail it because I very strongly believe the state agencies should be just as accountable and timely and predictable as the local agencies. But I'm not convinced that the bill in its current form accomplishes what you're trying to do.

I'll be happy to continue the work once it gets to local government and make sure that we check in with you. Do you know those are your concerns?

So I want to make it clear that this particular bill will be going to local gov. Obviously you have heard concerns both from one of the MeToo commentators as well as the senator. Let's tighten up that language. And we also have the chair of local gov.

Our committee staff will also be in conversation with local gov for the things that are relevant to local gov. So with that, do we have any other comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

I would just ask that you vote high on this deal and we'll continue to work once we get to center local government.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on this? Okay. Senator Cabaldon moves this bill. Can we get a roll call?

Motion do pass to local government. [roll call]

Alright, that bill's on call. Thank you. I want to highlight a couple of things. If resurgents can call the senators that are members to come so we can wrap it up. And then can we also have Assemblymember Haney join us so he can also present?

But we will move on to final item number 11, AB 1229 by Assembly Member Schultz. Assembly Member, you have the floor.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Pleasure to be with you all today. And I apologize for not being able to be with you last week. I am pleased to present today AB 1229, which would restructure the existing adult reentry grant program to ensure that participants maintain permanent housing.

And before I go any further, of my entire legislative package, this is a Bill that I care deeply about and I'm excited about because it deals with housing, but it also deals with public safety, and it looks at one of the root causes for unsafe communities.

And I'll try to explain that more in the course of my comments. We all know that housing assistance is critical for marginalized populations, especially for people that are exiting the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. These individuals face significant barriers to obtaining housing, such as the stigma of incarceration and restrictive criminal record screening policies.

Though the data tells the whole story, people on parole in California are 17 times more likely to experience homelessness than Californians overall. And individuals who have been incarcerated and are experiencing homelessness are seven times more likely to be rearrested than those who are housed.

Quite simply, if they exit prison and do not have connection to stable housing, the data indicates that they are more likely to reoffend, which leads to less safe communities in all of our districts.

Now California's existing Adult Reentry Grant Program has provided rental assistance and reentry services for this population since its inception in 2018 as proposed by AB 1229.

By moving Administration of the program to HCD, we believe that the program can focus the funding more intentionally on those at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and in doing so, we will reduce their risk for reoffending in our communities.

Through utilizing existing dollars, we believe we can connect more formerly incarcerated individuals to healthcare programs and other essential services acting as local hubs for housing and support coordination.

Moving the program to HCD would also leverage HCD's rental assistance expertise and allow integration of funds to support operating costs for housing for supportive housing units developed through homekey plus and Housing Trust Fund Dollars.

I'll also note that successful programs across the country, including in the State of Ohio, have demonstrated people with incarceration histories can become stably housed and avoid reoffending when they have access to longer term rental subsidies and the services they need to build a solid foundation for the remainder of their lives.

By ensuring stable housing and support, we can do all of the above. We can transform lives, we can reduce homelessness and we can create safer, more compassionate communities for our constituents.

Joining me today is Natalie Spivak with Housing California and Lewis Brown with the Corporation for Supportive Housing, sponsors of our Bill who will provide testimony in support thereof.

Thank you. You guys will each have two minutes.

Thank you Assembly Member and good afternoon again Chair and Members Natalie Spievak with Housing California. Homelessness among people who are formerly incarcerated is a growing issue in California. As of February 2025, 15% of people on parole were unhoused.

In addition, a survey of unhoused individuals found that 38% of people fell into homelessness upon discharge from an institutional setting, about half of whom fell into homelessness upon release from incarceration.

AB 1229 draws upon the successes of evidence based programs to refine the existing Adult Reentry Grant program, which funds rental assistance and warm handoff reentry services for people who were incarcerated. This restructuring involves four components.

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

Second is using rental assistance primarily for permanent rather than interim housing. Third is that based on successful programs in other states, the Adult Reentry Grant Program will make grants to regional administrators to help grantees coordinate and integrate reentry services with other supportive services like CalAim's Justice Involved Initiative and other behavioral health services.

Finally, restructuring will invest a greater share of funds toward rental assistance and dedicate these rental subsidies to individuals who are at risk of homelessness or already experiencing homelessness. Restructuring the Adult Reentry Grant Program will allow roughly one third of California's parole population experiencing homelessness to exit housing and reduce the likelihood of future arrests.

We greatly appreciate Assembly Member Schultz for authoring this Bill and receiving respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sorry Good afternoon. Chair Wahab and Members of the Committee, Lewis Brown Jr. On behalf of the Corporation for Supportive Housing, as Assembly Member Schultz stated and my colleague from housing California stated, AB 1229 is informed by lessons learned from successful reentry housing programs across the country.

These programs demonstrate that when you pair housing subsidies with supportive services that people need, we can reduce recidivism and reduce homelessness and make our communities safer.

For example, Returning Home Ohio, which is a program that is focused on assisting people who were incarcerated in Ohio State Prison, refers people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness to supportive housing where they receive housing subsidies but also intensive coordinated services tailored to their individual needs.

These services include mental health treatment, employment support, case management, among others. Critically, RHO is managed by a non profit organization that sub grants funds to community based organizations and service providers and works closely with them to optimize the program. To be transparent, my organization from the Corporation for Supportive Housing manages RHO in Ohio.

An Urban Institute study found that participants in Rho were 61% less likely to reoffend than a comparison group that received the usual response of transitional housing and shelter. They were also 41% more likely to access services and also more likely to continue to access those services.

90% retain their housing and the most recent annual Data show that only 5% recidivate. Similarly, programs in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Denver and New York all provide long term housing subsidies with intensive housing support and reentry services coordinated by an administrator and all show low rates of recidivism re offense and high rates of stability housing.

Thank you.

For those reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. And don't worry, we have an aye reco. So I, I first just wanted to ask if we have any lead opposition. No. Can we get some me toos up here? Nice and quick? Yes. Yep.

Good afternoon again. Karen Lang. On behalf of the city and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support.

Stephanie Jimenez with Housing Action Coalition support.

Lang Le on behalf of AJ SoCal in strong support.

Tessa D'Arcangelew-Ampersand with Smart Justice California in strong support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Maxwell Drawdy, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you, Members. Would you guys like to comment on any of this? Senator Ochoa Bogue.

It won't be long. Questions. So I sat in Public Safety for several years. It was eye opening. I sat in Public safety, I sat in education. And it's interesting how everything is kind of interrelated in many subject areas.

So on the housing part of it, one of the things that I was very, it was eye opening is the fact that, you know, we had a lot of former incarcerated folks that were leaving the system, but they didn't have the resources to be able to go right into, you know, whether it's housing, whether it was like a little bank account.

That's why I'm so, I'm so supportive of the idea of having our folks who are incarcerated have the ability to work and be able to save some money so that when they leave the system, they have something in their, in their pocketbooks, especially for those that, that serve long sentences. I think that's important.

Just leaving them with no opportunity to make money while they're incarcerated. And quite frankly, as my husband says, he goes, I'd rather have them working than, you know, watching movies and working out, because I don't even get the time to work out and look good.

So that's why I'm a proponent of people to be able to work while they're incarcerated and make that money and be able to come out now.

But the question I had for this particular Bill, because I'm all about supportive services after they get in there, to be able to get into and be able to start again new in their life. Everybody deserves a second chance when they're working in good faith and goodwill.

But the concern I have, and I'm not sure if you folks have had a conversation as to what this will look like moving forward. But so I'm going to read it how I have it stated here. But while making sure that the people aren't being released from jail and sent to the streets is a humane.

While making sure that people aren't just being released from jail and sent to the streets is a humane thing to do, the problem is that this Bill does not have a final end date for that support. Has there been any conversations with that, what that would look like?

Because it says here it allows for a formally incarcerated individual to continuously receive state benefits even after ending parole, so long as they continue to need assistance from the program and could facilitate long term dependency.

That's my biggest concerns overall when it comes to any safety net in our society and our culture, because I'm going to give you a little example and the mindset that I come in with as parents, right? We have our kids, I was a Montessori mom, meaning that we facilitated, we model what they should be doing.

And once they're able to do it on their own, we allow them to do it. So as parents, we don't do what they can do on their own. So Independence, foster that Independence.

When it comes to safety, social programs, safety net programs, I'm all about having a safety net where you give people basically the ability to kind of have a little, what did they call it, a jumping, like a trampoline. Like you let them jump and then you let them go.

I'm nervous about systems that don't have end dates that says, okay, we're going to give you this. I mean, I know it varies how long people are able to get, you know, housing based on, you know, how long does it take for them to go back to school, get some training on service and all that matters.

I know that varies with everybody. However, there has to be time frames and timelines in which you say, you know, you're 12 years old, honey, you know you're going to be able to do this. You're 16 years old, you're going to be able to drive, get your permit.

There has to be milestones in place, otherwise it becomes dependent. And there's no reason for you to leave the nest if you don't have parameters in system. So has there been any conversations to what that will look like in this place?

Because that's what's holding me back from supporting something like this, is having those parameters where you go, okay, time to leave the nest, darling, and go on your own. And I don't see that here.

I'll just quickly say, Senator, thank you very much for the thoughtful question. I think it's a very fair question. I'd like to first start with Mr. Brown, who has firsthand experience with what they've done in Ohio. And then I'll add a little bit of commentary at the end there.

Yes, thank you, Senator, for the question and for the opportunity to respond to it. First, I'd just like to say why we don't have a time limit on it. So that's really sort of based in evidence from supportive housing programs that involve both, that involve people who aren't formerly incarcerated and that involve people who are formerly incarcerated.

The research shows, and those programs show that when you place arbitrary time limits on people's ability to remain housed, it's not as effective as when you leave it open ended.

People who are formerly incarcerated do have long term challenges with gaining employment, sustaining employment, as well as with accessing housing because of criminal record screening policies, both in employment and housing.

So it's important to be able to give people an opportunity to be able to cycle in and out of homelessness, which is a natural part of the process for sort of regaining their stability as they are re entering their communities. Having said that, the Bill does include a moving on process.

So the Returning Home Ohio program has a moving on process under which the program administrators check in with the individuals. They have specific metrics that determine when someone is able to and ready to move on from the program.

And so the idea is to be able to set people up to move on out of the program away from assistance. And so we know in that program no one stays on the program for longer than two years. And so that's what we anticipate. This Bill does include the moving on process and we anticipate a similar result.

The only thing I would just quickly add, Senator, is that the impetus from the Bill comes from the fact that our existing program, by the way, this Bill does not appropriate any new money. This is still based on the $37 million annually. The system is failing. The program isn't working.

You saw it on page five of your analysis. When 27.1% of people participating in the program are getting connected to housing and the vast majority of people participating are falling into homelessness and reoffending in our communities. We have to look at not only who's administering the grant program, we have to look at the framework of the itself.

And the framework currently does include these arbitrary timelines and cutoffs that are not leading to successful outcomes. So we are spending exorbitant amounts of money and not really solving the problem. And that's what this Bill aims to adjust.

So just for clarity, so I heard you on the first part with regards to having difficulties for formerly incarcerated folks for housing, for work, because I, I saw what was happening there.

And for the record, I know that in Public Safety we actually saw Senator Durazo's Bill, as a matter of fact, that actually expunged records in order for people not to, not, all transparency, I did not support that Bill because I do believe that if you're employing someone, you should have full transparency.

And if they don't trust you enough to know, you know, your, your background and so forth, I don't know I'm about trust and transparency, you know, and if they're not, if your employer is not willing to accept you with that pass, then maybe it's not the right employer for you.

But there are folks like my father in law who does hire formerly incarcerated folks because he believes everybody deserves a second chance, especially if you've served your time. So that's my father in law. Right. He's the right person. That would be for someone like, you know, somebody that's formerly incarcerated. So full transparency.

So what you're saying, basically what I'm understanding is that. Well, first of all, in California, right after, I believe it's three years, Senator Durazo, when you, your records are expunged and you're no longer... Yeah. If you don't commit another crime, obviously, yes, your, your records are expunged in the state.

So having said that, and in context of that, which no longer holds you back from actually being employed, you're saying that within this Bill, it's subject to, what was it called that says two years?

Well, there's not an explicit two year maximum.

But what I was saying, in the Returning Home Ohio program on which this AB 1229 is based, there is a process called a moving on process, which is really just a set of metrics that the program administrators look at to assess on a regular basis whether or not someone is able to exit the program.

And in that program, no one has stayed on the program for longer than two years. So the moving on process is helping people. The moving on process, along with the success of the program is helping people to move out of the program within a two year time frame.

And so our expectation would be we would see something similar in California because the Bill does include moving on process, again, a set of metrics that the grantees will use to assess whether or not people are able to move on out of the program so that somebody else can come in and make use of the resources.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have any other Members? Seeing none. Senator Durazo?

Yes, thank you. As I understand that this is really. It's moving from the BSCC to the housing community development. So what is so special about that move and that change that's going to make a difference?

For the sake of time, I'll defer to my technical experts.

Yes. So obviously the program was founded in part on the realization that housing is critical to successful reentry. Up until now, the way the grant has been administered, the program has been administered, there's been a pretty heavy focus on the reentry services component.

And we believe that's in part because the Board of State and Community Corrections doesn't have a deep expertise in rental assistance and housing based programs. HCD does. Right? HCD administers HAP. There are other programs that have a rental assistance component.

And we believe that ACD will be able to bring that expertise to the program to provide their expertise, their technical assistance to grantees to help them fine tune and optimize the rental assistance portions of the grant.

I would also say HCD recently launched a reentry housing pilot project in combination with the Department of Corrections, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. And that program is designed to rehab and build reentry housing.

And we do believe that by bringing the adult Reentry grant program under ACD's oversight, there will be opportunities to explore how the two programs can work together to enhance public safety.

Thank you. I do want to highlight and I appreciate the Chair of Public Safety bringing this forward, just as final comments. The adult reentry grant program was created in 2018, receives roughly 37 million for, you know, providing short term rental assistance.

Many of us, and I was former Chair of Public Safety, we took a look at how programs are done abroad, specifically Norway. And this Bill requires CDCR to establish a process to engage prisoners at least 210 days prior to release to assess their risk of homelessness upon discharge.

There has been a huge effort when we are talking about our homeless population. One, it's a lot of aged out foster youth who also make up the prison population significantly and really just connecting them to the programs before they enter homelessness again and trying to prevent that.