Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

All right, we are going to get started. Welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing. We have eight items on our agenda. SB 802 Ashby. Item number eight was pulled from hearing today by the author. Four items are on consent. Those items are SB 484 Laird, SB 489 Ahern, SB 686 Reyes, and SB 724 Richardson.

To facilitate the goals of the hearing, we will have each Bill with two main witnesses in support and opposition and they will each get two minutes. Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website. This will become a part of the official record of the Bill.

We will not permit any conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's proceedings. This morning we are in room 437 in the Capitol. The hearing room is open to be in attendance for in person attendance.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly website and thank you for your patience and understanding. I believe we will still start as a Subcommitee but we will call our first item because we have an author who's here and we'll take that opportunity. So we will welcome up Senator Stern. Item number four, SB655. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I want to thank the Chair for their work on this bill. I want to also accept the Committee amendments. Appreciate their work on this. Members, please welcome. SB655 aims to unify relevant state efforts around the goal of finding average Californians some refuge from extreme heat.

We talk a lot about fires, floods, but heat is actually the leading weather related death weather related cause of death in the United States. And they're increasing in frequency, duration and intensity across the country. This bill will establish a state policy that all residential dwelling units shall be able to maintain a safe maximum indoor temperature.

California Department of Public Health recently reported that during the September 22nd heat wave alone there were 400 excess heat deaths. And because there's little to no extreme heat countermeasures that address living conditions within residents, Californians are enduring heat waves at dangerous temperatures in their own homes and are at risk of heat related illnesses and deaths.

AB 209 required back in 2022 required HCD to develop policy recommendations. And from those recommendations we're bringing you this Bill here today. There is no unifying policy at this point statewide to leverage existing and emerging measures to ensure Californians are safe from heat related illness and death in their own residences.

So to synthesize agencies, existing and future efforts, this bill will promote healthy homes throughout the state and prompt state agencies to consider the goal of of the state that all residential dwelling units can maintain that safe indoor temperature when they're developing, revising, implementing relevant programs and policies.

And I want to thank my witnesses key folks here in support Giovanna Morales Tilgren, who's with the Housing and Land Use Policy Manager for Leadership Council Action, as well as Natalie Delgado, the Policy Associate on behalf of Central California Environmental Justice Network respectively. Asprey I vote.

Hi everyone. Like Senator said, my name is Giovanna Morales and I am the Housing and Land Use Policy Manager with Leadership Council Action. We work with communities all across the San Joaquin Valley and Eastern Coachella Valley. For years, community Members have been advocating for policy solutions that will help them stay safe during extreme heat weather events.

Most live in older homes, many in substandard housing with no cooling mechanisms and the few that do have some sort of AC do not turn it on during extreme heat weather events due to exorbitant energy costs.

We have been working with partners on this issue since 2021, first with AB 2597 and then with AB 209 which mandated HCD to hold meetings with various stakeholders and build policy recommendations to address extreme heat in homes.

This Bill is the next logical step to move us closer to ensuring that Californians can be safe from extreme heat in their homes. Currently, California has a minimum indoor temperature standard to protect people from the cold, yet there is no complimentary mechanisms designed to provide broad prot from dangerous indoor heat.

This gap in our programs and policies puts the most vulnerable Californians at risk from illness and death from extreme heat. Extreme heat is an increasingly deadly threat from climate change and a public health crisis. As temperature rise and heat waves become longer and more intense, deaths in California could rise to 11,300 a year by 2050.

We have been dealing with longer heat waves this year alone with temperatures hitting well above 103 degrees in the Central Val and 109 degrees in the East Coachella Valley and low income communities of color are disproportionately impacted.

SB655 will ensure that California lays the groundwork for critical state agencies to consider a maximum indoor temperature when revising, adopting or establishing policies, programs, regulations and criteria, including grant criteria that are relevant to achieving the state policy. This will create opportunities for the state to truly address the impacts of extreme heat. Thank you.

Hi, Good morning. My name is Natalie Delgado and I'm a Policy associate with the Central California Environmental Justice Network. Our mission is to uplift low income communities of color in the San Joaquin Valley by ensuring access to clean air, water, land and food sovereignty.

And for the last 20 years, we've worked with residents who live in the counties of Kern, Fresno and Tulare and who experience some of the hottest temperatures in the State of California, Specifically in Five points in Fresno County.

Many residents work in the fields during extreme heat and return to hot houses because they lack air conditioning or other mechanisms to mitigate the heat. Despite working tirelessly under the hot sun, their bodies can't even catch a break and rest when they get home. These conditions put these residents at risk of heat illness and heat stroke.

Also in the community of Cantuit Creek, also in Fresno county, some residents have swamp coolers, but those are increasingly ineffective as heat becomes more extreme and more intense. They lose their cooling capacity as temperatures rise over 95 degrees. And what's more, they draw pollution inside homes.

Last year, one resident shared that she had her swamp cooler running while pesticides were applied outside of her house. The swamp coolers may cool down an environment to some extent. In certain conditions, they offer no filtration of particles or toxics. And running the swamp cooler, even exposure to pesticides.

We support SB655 because it protects the well being and health of our most vulnerable residents and rural communities. And we need to work together toward ensuring that all Californians can be safe from heat in their homes right now. Thank you.

Thank you so much to both of the witnesses. Are there other folks who are here in support of this Bill? You please come up and say your name, your position and your affiliation. Thank you. Good morning. Marcus. On behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Sakira Moscow on behalf of Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Also asked to register support for Pod Air and the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Juliette Lazard with Tratton Price Consulting on behalf of Climate Resolve.

Good morning. Scott Cox with the Building Decarbonization Coalition in support.

Good morning Chair and Members. Brian Augusta, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Housing Now in support. Also asked to note the support of the Natural Resources Defense Council Movement Legal and Green New Deal Coalition.

Good morning. My name is Esther Ramirez. I'm from Cantua Creek and I support this bill.

Thank you so much. Is. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? If you'd please come up. Not seeing any. Are there any. Is there anybody in the hearing room here in opposition at all? Not seeing anyone. Fantastic. All right, I will bring it back to the Committee. We don't yet have a quorum yet, But I will.

Mr. Patterson.

Great. Thank you. I know this bill's a little different than from when it left the Senate. Where in the Senate I think it defined 82 degrees, I believe seems like the spirit is pretty much the same, but it doesn't have a number tied to it.

And I just wanted to see what your line of thinking was on that.

We're trying to give some flexibility to the state agencies as they implement regulations. And this really isn't designed to be a mandate as much as as I think our coalition wants to to have that codification right now in state laws. Do I of for existing and new buildings.

Those really just designed to set some policy around that recent report. And you know, should, should science change or studies evolve, you know we're going to be. We want to leave some flexibility as we implement those policies. It also, it, you know, there is some regional differential in terms of heat impact.

So, you know, it may also depend on region. But I would turn to my witnesses if they had any further insight.

No, I think you're correct. Is right now I think we the, the purpose of this Bill is mostly to lay a groundwork and leave that flexibility. And as the Senator pointed out, I mean regents are really different. I mean some don't need as much cooling mechanisms as others do. There might be different types.

So I think going back and allowing state agencies to really look at that.

Yeah. Okay. Well, I, you know, I think the way it left the Senate. I understand what you're, what you're trying to do. I think I actually, I kind of. I like what your response somewhat. I guess the concern I have. I'm leaning towards supporting the bill.

I think the concern I have is is without a threshold, some kind of limit I. Or some kind of maximum, I am a little worried about what that could mean and especially to our grid.

I happen to be on the utilities Vice Chair utilities as well, which will be meaning and know you have things in that area as well worried about what it could mean to our grid. For example, if a state agency said hey, it's got to be 78 degrees or something like that, you know.

So I grew up without air conditioning and in a different community where like 82 degrees is different than 82 degrees where I'm from. Now in Rockland, if we had 82 degrees in Rockland during the summer, that would be amazing. But we never do. It's like 105 or something. So.

I get the regional approach, but I do have some concerns with the impact on our grid. If the, with all due respect to your witnesses, if the advocacy groups come in and say, hey, it should be 78 degrees for example, because that is, could be a lot during those peak hours and feel free to respond to that.

But I'm leaning towards supporting this bill.

Thanks. I would just say you're right to have those concerns about the grid. I mean, right now heat is, you know, especially when there's heat and fire at the same exact time. That's. Those are the moments when we get into blackout territory where the capacity does get strained, transmission lines get strained.

You know, we see it in my own backyard. Like I, I grew up near the beach at the privilege of doing that. Now that I'm a renter and I'm living inland, you know, it hits like 110. It hit 121 actually near my place. And I got two little babies now.

So, you know, even for me it's like even 82 sounds. I don't know, I don't know, impossible when I'm trying to put a two year old to sleep. Like, I just don't know how to do that.

But as much as I would like to sort of set some number, clearly in law we think safety is sort of the key metric here.

So yeah, I think it's a good piece of feedback and perhaps in terms of state agencies that we call, because the Committee amendments actually do a good job of trying to make us be specific about exactly which state agencies are doing these considerations.

I know the CEC is doing sort of integrating that heat into their, their joint planning models right now. So they deliver us a report every year on sort of what new capacity do we have to add to the grid if everyone turns on their AC all at the same time in heat domes that say last a month.

Right. Like can we make it? But I'm open to sort of drilling down on that a little more and giving some parameters so that we don't sort of inadvertently back our way into an energy crisis. Although I hate to say it, but I think we're there.

Like, I actually think we do need to get serious about it and you know, that's why we're working on how to share power during peak periods. Other states that maybe aren't in the heat wave and things like that. But take your point and I'll work on it. So thank you. Yeah.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Thank you. And you know, we do a lot of these kind of statement statements of we all have the right to housing, we all have the right to clean water, safe schools, safe. And you know, those are important values to state formally. And so I do support this. It says to all dwellings.

And again, I'm just kind of being a little bit out there. If we're going to do all. Are we also including when we talk about dwellings, prisons and if not, is that something we could look at? Because I visited several prisons in the last year in California in the summer.

And speaking of heat, we're talking about 110 degrees in a cell with two people. That is extremely. And this has been brought up in public safety numerous times. When are we going to look at that? So it's just something to add in that kind of ties in.

But you know, I know it's not part of the Bill here, but it would be something to consider and think about. As we know we have thousands of people in these very closed spaces. No ventilation, of course, no windows. So it might be something. But I do I move the Bill.

I appreciate that.

Can we establish quorum real quick before we.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have a quorum. Ms. Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward and attempting to try to solve this particular issue. As we know, we have the minimum threshold and it's identified by a number because of the impacts where we know clearly it's unsafe for most people at a certain temperature below.

And then now dealing with the climate crisis where we're seeing rising temperatures, so much so that even Alaska now has its own notification system that they never really had to have that there is a maximum.

What concerns me is the fact that it's not identified and I know that's been amended out and I do think that it lends to the argument of it being broad and vague and what will individual regions do and those types of things. And it is more about being safe, not at convenience.

For instance, I feel safe even though it's a convenience. At 72, no more than 72, I have a very short range between being cold and hot, which is weird because I'm a daughter of the Central Valley. And so once I've gotten from the Central Valley to the north, my tolerance has dropped really low.

However, when I get on the phone with my sister who lives in Phoenix, Arizona, I am not about. I cannot complain at all about it being a hot day. She refuses it. She stops me right away and she was like, excuse me. And she tells me what the temperature is. Right.

But I do think when we don't have a number in, it precludes me. So I'm going to be supporting this Bill today. And I think that from an incremental approach, just putting in the word safe is sufficient.

But I hope that during the rest of your time here, so not necessarily in this Bill, that you begin to identify what that number.

I know the report said 82, but to have it without some level of guardrails around that I do think exposes the different types of dwelling units who are in charge of that, like landlords and others to what could be some burdensome regulation. And so I think that's something that the Legislature should continue.

Could consider when we're approving something so vague, if it gets to the governor's desk, that we should at some point do some cleanup and really think about what that means regionally or put some additional guardrails on what you can use whatever number the region comes up with for. Thank you. Yeah.

All right. Not seeing any other questions or comments. I'll give the opportunity to close.

Thank you. And I too, like you, Samuel Wilson, have that. I'm a wimp when it comes to heat. This is lovely here in Committee here today. We had Senate Judiciary till late into the night last night and they killed off the AC at 8. I don't know why. DGS is listening. Please come in.

And the guy, the guy came in with the heat gun just to check on it. And it was just, I don't know, it's one of those interesting moments where you're like real time kind of living through it. And we have it so good.

I have the luxury of having air conditioning in my house, being able to keep my kids cool. And when I was taking care of my in laws at the end of their lives, like if you have babies, if you have older folks living with you, you know that it can be life or death.

This is first chapter in what I hope is a longer term mission that you all can help me with, especially coming from such diverse regions.

I mean, even in the Bay Area where everyone just assumes it's all good and it's cool and you don't need good insulation and you don't need an AC unit that works because just open the window. But things are changing and we can't just assume that it's going to be fine in the north anymore.

So this is A statewide issue. I would ask for all of your help in that. And I don't think we're just going to get there through mandates and regulations alone too.

That's one of the reasons why we didn't want to, as this first policy establishment step, want to drill too deep down into numbers or too deep into a mandate. Because I don't think we're only going to regulate our way to this.

Extreme heat got short end of the stick when it came to our climate bond and it remains an outstanding obligation. I think we got to deliver on through all of our climate programs, including our greenhouse gas reduction Fund.

So if we can prime the pump with some meaningful assistance, especially out there in the landlord tenant arena and really get things going and find some programs, there's Cool LA down in LA that you know as soon as those discounted units come up, they're off the shelf quick and they're gone. There is the demand.

So I think we can meet it. I hope this is a good first step and sort of just level setting that safety in our dwelling units around heat should be a policy of the State of California. But I appreciate the points made by all the Members, including my friend from Orange County, about those in a carceral setting.

And with that I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your leadership and for your sponsors and everyone who has worked on this important issue. I think as you've heard, this Committee is interested in this and interested in continuing to work with you on this.

You know, the realities of extreme heat are only going to get more intense and going to likely be the way in which our residents most experience climate change and the idea that they can simply retreat into their homes and be safe is not the case and certainly unfortunately will be less and less the case for many people.

So we have to make sure that we take this a whole government approach looking at all of the ways in which we can affect that. And I appreciate the thoughtful way that you've done that.

I know that if you would have set a particular degree then you would have maybe gotten some feedback or criticism for that, as I'm sure. And not setting it also creates some level of questioning.

But I know that there will continue to be a lot of work on this issue and appreciate your leadership and would love to be added to as a co author to this Bill. And with that we need a motion and a second.

The motion, I think we didn't get it before we had quorum, so we need a motion and a second. We need a motion by Ms. Quirk-Silva and seconded by Mr. Lee. And it's due pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Oh. Why don't we take a vote on the consent calendar? Moved and seconded.

All right, consent calendar. Item 1, SB 484, do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Item 2, SB 489, do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Item 5, SB 686, do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. And item number 6, SB 724, do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right. 8-0. We'll keep that open for other folks to vote. All right. We are now awaiting authors. This might be an unfortunate theme today. We only have three.

It's. All right. Welcome. Thank you. Appreciate you stepping over here and we'll move right along. We'll call up item number three, SB634. Senator Perez, welcome.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 634, the unhoused service Providers Protection act, will prohibit local and state government entities from adopting an ordinance or enforcing an existing ordinance that prohibits a person or organization from providing basic survival services or resources to an unhoused person on any given night.

The state's unhoused count is at least 187,000 Californians. I'm authoring SB634 because the unhoused crime crisis requires a sustained humanitarian response that includes backing proven efforts that provide housing, essential service and financial support for the unhoused.

The Legislature has adopted this position by proposing funding continuation for existing unhoused existence programs, including the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant Program. Despite these state commitments, there are local governments pursuing ordinances to persecute and neutralize unhoused providers with threats of applying fines and jail time simply for providing humanitarian aid.

The most recent and glaring example of these draconian efforts include the Fremont City Council adopting an ordinance earlier this year that included language to make providing aid to people aiding and abetting. That language had to be pulled back due to significant public outcry.

Another previous example includes a group of volunteers in the City of El Cajon actually being arrested and charged with misdemeanors for providing food and clothing to unhoused people in 2023.

A church based nonprofit in Santa Ana, Micahsway, also faced penalties and criminal prosecution from the city because it was providing aid to the unhoused out of the church's research center. This case is especially unique because it even caught the attention of the Federal Government, whom offered aid in response due to egregious nature.

In addition to these actions, some government officials have also publicly suggested even more alarming and dangerous ideas, including encouraging unhoused individuals to harm themselves by taking fentanyl as a means of addressing the crisis. These statements and actions reflect a disturbing growing trend of dehumanizing unhoused Californians and service providers.

Instead of recognizing existing resources to aid and house people in need where they are, some are treating this crisis as a problem to be pushed elsewhere, out of sight and out of mind.

This is setting a troubling trend of local government ordinances seeking to apply punitive fines and jail time towards people for doing the right thing and providing humanitarian aid.

The adoption of ordinances applying punitive fines and jail time towards unhoused service providers will not help the in house crisis but exacerbate it by severing critical connections between unhoused people and service providers, the very safety net that helps people transition out of homelessness.

Blocking service providers from providing life saving aid deepens extreme poverty and causes devastating harm including losing touch with case managers, family and friends, missing work and losing needed income, missing critical health care component appointments, losing personal property and financial penalties that can increase debt, damage credit and result in bench warrants that result in additional jail time.

Our continued response to the unhoused crisis must strike a balanced humanitarian approach to assist unhoused people while also promoting clean and safe communities. SB 634 helps realign that necessary balance.

SB 634 reaffirms California's commitment to addressing the unhoused crisis through a common sense and humanitarian based approach by protecting people who are providing assistance for basic survival to those that house and not punishing them for their humanitarian service. This bill does not otherwise inhibit on the ability and responsibility of local governments to provide for public health and safety.

With me to testify and support and help provide technical support are Alex Visotzky, Senior California Policy Fellow for National alliance to End Homelessness, as well as Shawn Pleasants, Co-Chair of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority's Lived Experience Advisory Board. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Begin. Hi. First of all, I want to say thank you for letting me speak to you today on this very important bill, SB 634. I'm a resident of Los Angeles who spent over 10 years living on the streets. These were very difficult times for me.

Not that anyone is, but I certainly was not prepared for what lay in front of me. A loss of my business and the devastation of losing my mother to cancer had me living in my Ford Explorer. Nearly a year went by before I could admit that I was homeless.

I spent the majority of that time unsheltered and on the street. I had to learn how to survive quickly. I learned that the most important things were the basic needs of life, food, water, clothes, shelter from the elements, hygiene, safety and hope.

I almost never had all these things at once, and you'll notice that medical care and mental health didn't even make the list.

While I learned to deal with other people who were experiencing homelessness and the hate from those who were housed, I never quite figured out how to make peace with the sweeps and citations for sleeping on the street. These things were always a setback. During a sweep, police would arrive with Sanitation in tow, they usually arrive without notice.

They would try to dispose of as much of your possessions as possible without offering any services at all. I once had the misfortune of being at a public library trying to fill out papers for an outreach agency.

Upon my return to my spot, I could see nothing but a clear street ahead where my tent and belongings used to be. I became nauseous and ran as fast as I could, only to see just a few scraps of my things left behind. No matter which way I looked, there was nothing for the first time.

I woke up the next morning with nothing from my entire life. All my important papers, my ID, my clothes, my food, my tent, my blanket and jacket, my pictures of my deceased mother, my recycling, my mementos from childhood and college, and my trust in the system were all gone. I was crushed and lost.

Everything that had helped me define who I was had been erased. After several months, I still had not recovered from this. Fortunately, during this time, local outreach groups brought food, water, a tent, and some hope. If it were not for them, I would not be able to be here today to speak with you.

During those years, I was cited for sleeping on the sidewalk. I had no way to pay it, and it grew to a $900 fine and a warrant, which landed me in jail for three days. Of course, I returned to nothing. That same citation nearly cost me my housing.

Once I finally got off the street, the apartment manager said it came up in my background check and that if I didn't have it removed, I would be evicted. I had to use the services of Inner City law and others in order to get it removed and the fee waived.

I had come pretty close to losing my housing, something that I'd worked so hard to achieve. The thought of getting criminal or civil charges for simply seeking the basic needs of life appalls me nearly as much as the thought of those who helped us being punished. It was services, not criminalization, that ended my homelessness.

Services brought me success with housing, sobriety, medical and mental health, and a means to be independent. As an advocate for the unhoused, I serve and chair many boards and councils. I do consulting work, public speaking, and have had appearances on media outlets such as CNN, PBS NewsHour, the Los Angeles Times, KTLA Spectrum News, KCRW, and many others.

Thank you for letting me share some of my experiences so that you can make better informed decisions.

Good morning, Committee Members and Mr. Chair. My name is Alex Vysotsky with the national alliance to End Homelessness. Our organization has spent decades tracking the Data, the research, the best practices on how to address homelessness. The research consistently tells us that criminalization not only fails to address homelessness, it makes it harder to solve.

As Mr. Pleasants noted, every time someone loses essential doctrine documents, gains a criminal record, loses touch with the case manager, it prolongs their homelessness.

A recent study looked at folks who had received fines and tickets while homeless versus those who had not and found that the fines and tickets resulted in people's episode of homelessness being prolonged by nearly two years, even when controlling for other factors.

Simply put, the influx of criminalizing ordinances that we're seeing since the grants passed decision at the Supreme Court is prolonging our crisis. We do know what works to end homelessness. It's the supportive services that meet people where they're at that move people quickly off the street and on a pathway to housing.

We've seen the fruits of this in California. California has invested in services and housing and nearly 73,000 people have moved into permanent housing over the last two years thanks to the HAPP and ERF programs. That's a big reason why over that Spanish homelessness rose eight times faster outside of California than it did within the state.

Despite knowing that it's the services and housing that works and not the criminalization we're seeing. Some of our most obstructionist jurisdictions go so far as to criminalize even the delivery of services. And we believe that strategy is really to try and push homelessness onto their neighbors by criminalizing the very act of providing assistance.

Every jurisdiction needs to be part of the solution. And allowing California's rich network of community based providers to do their job is part of that. These providers, day in and day out focus is on reaching people wherever they may be so they can get them the services they need and get them on a pathway to housing.

They should not be fearful that simply doing their jobs or doing that work that in many cases is funded by the state will result in a fine or a misdemeanor charge. Thank you so much for your attention.

Yes, there is. Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership and support.

Thank you. And thank you both for being here. Are there other folks who are here in the hearing room who want to give support to the bill?

Thank you. Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability Rights California. We're a co sponsor. If I may convey support from additional groups, All Home, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Compass Family Services, Drug Policy Alliance PATH and the Steinberg Institute. Thank you.

Divya Shiv with Housing California and strong support.

Brittany Barsay with ACLU, Cal Action. Strong support.

Vishwaku Vishishta with Inner City Law Center. We're also a co-sponsor. And strong support.

Robert Copeland from Docked by Disability rights group here in Sacramento. And strong support.

Excuse me. Alicia Dean from Sacramento Area Congregations together in strong support.

Yadi Yance with Oakland Privacy and Support.

Hi, I'm Cherie Dimmerling with the NCW as well as the Fair Housing Council. In strong support.

Great. Thank you all. Are there primary opposition witnesses who are here? Not seeing any. Are there any, anybody here to express your opposition to the Bill?

Mr. Chair and Members. Coby Pizzotti on behalf of the Cities of Beaumont, Corona, and Thousand Oaks in opposition. Thanks.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County in respectful opposition.

Thank you. All right, I'll bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion. Mr. Lee, and then Ms. Quirk-Silva.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Senator for working on this bill. As you cited in your opening testimony, I want to thank your witnesses, of course, for also sharing your experience how devastating it really is. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward.

As you know, my city in Fremont was one of the first to exploit Grants Pass when they first created an ordinance that would've criminalize humanitarian aid for people who are assisting people sleeping on the streets, whether it be food, blankets. And this was right around Christmas, you know, right around winter time too.

And it received so much community backlash that the city council had to repeal most of that ordinance. But I'm glad that we're having this bill so that less city councils out there think about criminalizing the humanitarian aid. Now, of course, you and I both wanted the original bill, which would have, you know, prohibited sweeps and inhumanitarian evictions of people sleeping on the streets. But I think this is a really good start to make sure that we are not criminalizing those people who help other people in the streets.

And I'm very proud to, of course, support it. I would like to be added as a joint author, if possible, so that we can also go back to our own Committees and say this is what we learned from Fremont's example and we should not learn from the rest of the state. So thank you so much for bringing this forward, and I second the bill.

Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Thank you to the author. I'm so proud of your leadership in this space. As a freshman Senator Legislator, I'm really pleased to see the work you're doing. There's so much to say and so much not to say. It's just shocking and demoralizing that we would have such cruelty being put forward by some of our cities, including the Orange County Board of Supervisors. In the arguments in opposition from the City of Corona... Permission to read?

Yeah.

The City of Corona has worked hard to develop a system that connects people to shelter, services, and housing to end homelessness. By the way, they do not have a shelter in Corona. To end homelessness, not support programs that perpetuate homelessness, such as community based faith organizations serving meals in parks. Community faith based organizations serving meals in parks.

How cruel do we have to be to say to the Catholic church or to any faith based, sorry, this is actually perpetuating homelessness. People are homelessness, are homeless because they don't have a home. It isn't because the meals that they're getting in the park.

Then it goes on to say, in reviewing the amendments, we still believe that this legislation would impact our ability to enforce the city's municipal court regarding unauthorized meal serving in the parks and would further encourage... I can barely speak. The distribution of blankets and sleeping bags that contribute to encampments.

So this makes me think of immigrants, which has been such a discussion and has polarized our country, and people crossing a border. And where we've had some laws at the federal level to say, if we give you water, you will be a criminal. So now we're telling people, if you give a homeless person a blanket or a sleeping bag or a meal, you will be, you can be criminalized. And yet we're criminalizing people for not having a home. I've seen a lot of things in my time here.

The opposition actually putting in writing is just appalling. I just can't even understand the thought process here. But I know what it is. What it is is we don't want these people here. We want to disappear people. We want to disappear homeless people. We want to disappear people from going into sober living homes. Because, by the way, that's another big effort.

We don't want sober living homes in our community. We want to disappear immigrants. We want to disappear anybody that causes us any concern. And this is where we are in the United States of America. We will just disappear you. We don't care where you go, but you're not going to be in our city.

We won't take any responsibility. We won't build shelters. We'll push it to somebody else. And this has been going on. And then who sits at the dais and complains? I was just in a hearing yesterday where actually an audit where it was talking about sexual offenders being released, and who was screaming about it?

I'm sorry, but our Republican friends saying, why are they being released? And they're being released into the communities they came from. So we don't want them either. So it's almost like going back in time where we used to have, we'd send people to islands. You know, this is where we're at.

If you had a disease, you would go to an island. So now what are we doing? We're sending people to Alligator... What is it? Alcatraz Alligator or whatever. We're sending them to El Salvador. So, yes, what you might say, what does this have to do with any of that? It has everything to do.

It has everything to do when municipalities, when counties think they can just disappear people and then make a case that the people trying to help them are actually the criminals. Thank you for your work. I'm really saddened to see the county I live in being listed as opposition. I'm not only saddened, but I'm disgusted. Thank you.

Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And I gotta say, I've always loved Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. I think this final term version is my favorite. And, you know, but she's right, you know, there's so much more focus on property values than the value of people. We attach value to people. What can they bring?

What can they do? How much money are they making? Oh, they're not doing it. They're homeless. They. Let's get rid of them, sweep them aside. Let's pretend they don't exist. And it's shameful. You know, the San Diego State University Human Rights Institute just came. Every year they come up with the pain index in Silicon Valley to show.

And every year it gets worse and worse on how much folks are struggling. And the discrepancy in the wealthiest county, the highest GDP, the wealthiest place and the wealthiest state and the wealthiest country on earth, where you have nine households that have 15% of the wealth. Not 9%. Nine households have 15% of the wealth in Silicon Valley.

0.1%. 0.1% have 71% of the wealth. And we wonder why people are homeless. And those same folks will fight tooth and nail and make the contributions they have to do, political and otherwise, to make sure their taxes don't go up five bucks so they can buy another yacht or another home.

And yet here we have municipalities looking to lock people up or cite them or in any way brand them negatively for trying to help their fellow human being. It's absolutely shameful. And you know, I don't talk about, in Sacramento about what I, this event I do in San Jose. Because it wasn't, it's not really an event, but it's kind of become one, I guess. For 15 years, I started, started in my house just on Black Friday, I call it Friday Holiday Warmup.

And literally just started with me making sandwiches, lunch bags at home. And a few friends came over and did it. We would go out the community. And it's kind of one of those things where the cliche is, you get more out of it than you give. And it's grown now for 15 years now.

We do it at a nonprofit called Community Seva that feeds hundreds of thousands of meals every year throughout the Bay Area, particularly Santa Clara County and Alameda County. We do their commercial kitchen now, and over the years, we probably had hundreds of folks come with their kids, come with their families.

On Black Friday, instead of going to the mall, they want to come and bring together blankets and gloves. And it's a beautiful thing. And the most beautiful thing about it is interactions we have with our unhoused brothers and sisters. Just showing love, showing that they're cared about, especially during the holiday season.

And I'm thinking about that now because it's the exact opposite of what some of these jurisdictions are trying to do. And so this bill is about love. It's about showing that we love one another, that we're not going to tell one another how we're going to take care of one another, that we're going to allow people to feed one another to keep them warm.

I mean, this people of faith, you know, there's many people that claim to be of faith that are probably on these city councils and board of supervisors that will go to their church on Sunday and yet pass something like this, which is absolutely appalling. Corona, the average rent is about $2,500 a month. They need to do something about that and not worry about someone's giving someone a bottle of water.

And so I also would like to be at it at any highest level of authorship you allow because I think that we need to make a statement here that during these difficult challenges we have trying to deal with homeless, and these are very difficult issues, we're not going to lose our empathy. We're not going to lose our love for one another. Thank you.

Mr. Patterson.

Great. Thank you. Well, I would, I'd like to agree with the characterization from my colleague, Ms. Quirk-Silva, about what we would like to do as sexually violent predators. It is true. I don't want them returned to my community, and I do want them disappeared to an island.

And it's not accurate to say that they are always from the community in which they're go to, despite the law saying they should be. But that was a little bit of a... But I stand by, whatever Republican said that, I stand by it. But on this bill of homelessness, there's a couple issues I have with it. First of all, I have a philosophical issue if people are offered services and refuse it. I don't think they have an automatic right for the local government to be unable to come up with some options.

I don't think if a local government offers shelter to people, which happens on a regular basis in my community, and it's rejected, that they ought to be able to sleep wherever they want on the streets, on the right of ways, on other public property, on private property, when they're offered a place to reside or sleep, temporary emergency shelters.

My counties put, a lot of counties here have put a lot of effort into that particular effort. But the one issue I have with the bill and the policy and the text is when we talk about, at the end of the bill, section 2, where it talks about other activities and items necessary for immediate personal health and hygiene. Those activities aren't well defined in the statute. And the state is giving millions of dollars in grants for.

Into my community and actually litigating one of my counties for trying to stop a nonprofit from, by the way, making a ton of money off the state to distribute needles into my community. And it could be argued that that it, at least by some people, that that's necessary for that that's necessary for personal health. So I would say that's where I'm at on this bill right now. That's my main concern with this bill. But I understand what you're trying to do. I think it's a little overly too broad for me to support it today. I don't think.

I know you're coming with the right place with the bill, so I don't want my criticism to, you know, be a reflection of what I think you're trying to do. But I do, I read the bills, as I'm sure you do. And that's my concern. And if you'd like to respond to my tirade, please do so. But you don't have to.

No, actually, I would love to. So first and foremost, I'll address the concern that you raised around the needle exchange program. So needle exchange programs are actually explicitly protected in state law under California public health code. So this bill has nothing to do with that.

In fact, we don't have the same protection for water, food, other types of services anywhere in California code. So this would actually be adding it. I believe there's separate legislation related to that issue that's moving, I believe, actually one of the Assembly Members is carrying a bill related to that.

I don't know the bill number. But that is part of the reason why I think you said it was a city or a county that's currently litigating that that is an explicit, as they call them, syringe exchange program. So those are explicitly protected. The first issue that you had raised in regards to... I'm forgetting. I think you were talking about sweeps and encampments and whatnot. This isn't related to that. This is related specifically to service providers.

The bill was initially much broader and we've narrowed it down to service providers that are, you know, providing the services that you see defined in the bill, of which that definition we worked on with the League of Cities, who is neutral on the bill. So hope that helps with answering some of those concerns. Thank you.

Mr. Tangipa.

Thank you. And you know, I just want to echo the same sentiment from my Republican colleague too, that, you know, I'm really proud of a lot of the individuals who stood up against sexual predators in our community and being released in our community. I don't think that's something to be ashamed about one bit.

As somebody who has been homeless before, who has bounced around, who has had to go through a fairly hard life, who's grown up through drugs, who's grown up on low income housing, I think that this bill is actually really dangerous for a lot of us here in the State Legislature. This removes a lot of the local control and it puts it on every single one of us here in this state body to solve homelessness when we know it is not working. And what we are currently doing today is not working.

This is removing some of the local control that they can have to set up for what they can do for their county and their residents. State of California has almost 40 million people and we are trying to create a one size fits all for a state that has more than the population of Canada, than Australia. We have almost 190,000 people. The amount of homeless that we have in this state is a major metropolitan city in a majority of the states across the board.

And we are taking away local control so that way they can help the residents of Fresno County, of Orange County, of Sacramento County, and all these other counties that have different people who believe in different ways and different lives in creating a one state fits all policy.

And we are failing monumentally by the majority party in this legislative body and the leaders in this state. And this is about we need to raise standards again. We have to. That's what we need to get to. We have led with compassion for the last 20 to 30 years.

And that compassion is killing California because it doesn't come with standards. When I was in my position, I fought like hell, fought like hell to pull my family out of the situation that they were in, to pull myself out of the situation I was in. And it was by raising standards again, not by weaponized compassion, saying that we feel good that this is going to work when it is clearly not working. We have an affordability crisis here in California that is leading people on the brink of collapse.

When my mother makes $24,000 a year right now, I understand wholeheartedly what the issues are here in California. And it doesn't mean that I'm not compassionate and I don't care about these people. It means it is time to raise the standard here in California because it is not working.

And what this bill does, it actually takes away that local control and puts it on us. All of us here in the Capitol saying that we need to solve it. We need to be able to prevent this from going to 200,000 homeless people in the State of California. Are we willing to take that up?

Are we willing to move the amount of legislation that is making it so hard to build more housing? We don't have a housing affordability crisis. We have a housing availability crisis because of the rules, laws, and legislation coming out of this body that is making it so hard to build.

When the average door is $900,000 for an affordable housing. It's better to just buy somebody a $900,000 house than build 100 units at that price. We're not doing that. And so now this is taking it away again from the locals, trying to find solutions to help them out and puts it on us. So I'd ask everybody here, and I challenge everybody here in this legislative body, if this is going to pass, then it's up to us to solve that homeless issue. And we can't blame the locals. We can't blame anybody else but ourselves.

Okay, so, Senator, welcome to close.

Yeah, thank you, Assembly Member. A couple of things. I think, first, I want to start off by just thanking the Assembly Members, you know, who spoke and offered their support and, you know, particularly, you know, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva's very powerful comments, you know, around the direction that we're going in terms of the demonization of the unhoused, not just the unhoused, but of those service providers.

It, I think, has been incredibly scary and incredibly concerning to watch the direction that we're going. And especially as someone that has experienced homelessness, as somebody that has lost several family members that live out on the streets, that has relied on the aid and the kindness of service providers, I understand the importance of the work that these folks do. It is life saving.

And I have unfortunately been in the position of not being able to locate my loved one and having to rely on somebody else being kind enough to provide them water or to help them with locating shelter so that they survive and they're okay. It is a terrible feeling.

But you realize how powerful it is, the work that these organizations do. And whether they are charity organizations, whether they are faith based organizations, we have a number of faith based groups that are supporting this measure because it is the right thing to do.

And the fact that we have even had cities go about criminalizing these organizations, I think is highly disturbing and concerning. The Assembly Member, you know, Assembly Member Tangipa, you know, talked about the weaponization of compassion. And you know, unfortunately, that is not what I have seen in my community and that is not what I have seen overall.

I've unfortunately seen us moving in the wrong direction. You know, I mentioned this in my comments, but in Los Angeles County, and respectfully, I won't name the individual. But we had a mayor literally suggest from the dais during a public council meeting that in order to resolve the unhoused crisis in his community, that we should give out free fentanyl to the unhoused and let the situation resolve itself.

That is literally wishing death upon people. So, you know, I truly, truly am just so disturbed when I hear comments like that. And you know, frankly, I've been really pleased with the work that we've done with several cities. We've had dozens and dozens of cities remove their opposition to this bill because of the work that we've done with them, the conversations that we've had, the amendments that we've taken. Very happy that the League of Cities is neutral.

But there are a number of cities and, you know, individuals that have shared with me that they believe unhoused service providers are actually perpetuating homelessness. And I just think that is entirely false. To say that somebody providing food or water to someone that's unhoused and living out on the streets is going to encourage that person to remain homeless is utterly ridiculous and absurd.

And as somebody that has actually experienced homelessness, who has watched my loved ones literally die out on the streets, I will tell you that that is inherently false. So, you know, we, it is my opinion that, you know, this is a very, very baseline and very straightforward bill. Definitely, you know, something that I think our body needs to pass to respond to this growing trend that we've seen.

You know, I knew when Grants Pass was decided at the federal level that, you know, it was going to have implications for local jurisdictions, but it has been highly disturbing to watch cities try to weaponize it in this way. So respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you.

Thank you, Senator, for your leadership and your compassion and your thoughtful approach to this bill. And I want to thank the witnesses, especially for sharing your experience and your story and how you were able to get through homelessness and get to where you are today. I think that's very instructive for our conversation here. All of us are here because someone helped us, because someone reached out a hand and lifted us up.

And especially those who are experiencing homelessness or who are struggling or who are in a position of vulnerability, we only get to a safer and better place because someone has supported us and helped us. And that's fundamentally what this is about. Yes, we have a homelessness crisis and a housing crisis in our state. But everywhere, as long as there's been humanity, there have been people who've been struggling, who needed somebody to care for them.

So this is very much, as you said, the most fundamental baseline thing that we can do, not only as California, but as human beings. When somebody is hungry, we give them food. When somebody is cold, we give them a jacket. When somebody is sick, we give them medicine. That should not be up for debate, and it certainly should not be up for criminalization or some folks in our state wanting to ban that from happening. You can read any history book. You can read the Bible.

This is one of the oldest and most important practices of humanity, to be there for someone who is in need, especially someone who is without a home. We know that. And so our efforts to ensure that those who help others are not criminalized for it is essential for our overall effort to respond to homelessness.

We don't have borders or walls on our cities. So if a city is going to say that you cannot provide any support to people here who are in need, that does affect all of us and it affects us negatively. It affects the surrounding cities. It affects our ability to respond effectively to this crisis. And I would also appreciate being added as a co-author. And we, I know, have a motion from Ms. Wilson and a second from Mr. Lee. All right, and we'll take a roll call vote. Thank you, Senator.

Motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. We will now call... Lee, aye. Mr. Cabaldon, SB... Senator Cabaldon, SB 772. All right. We hope you're in good health.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And yeah, appreciate the, appreciate the comments. I was scheduled for surgery tomorrow, but this bill is so important that the, that the surgeon put it off till Friday. So thank you. I'm here to present SB 772.

Let me begin by accepting the Committee amendments and the very thoughtful work that's been done by the Committee staff in the analysis and the amendments that result. So absolutely taking those amendments. And this bill is intended to continue the perfection, the evolution of one of the most important initiatives that California has had in promoting infill development.

It's the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program. This is now almost two decade old program that has provided funding for the infrastructure in areas to support the development of mixed use infill housing and commercial activities. And it is intended to do so in order to bring the, drive the both advance the development of those areas.

But also to drive down the infrastructure costs so that new projects, affordable housing, market housing, commercial projects, don't themselves have to bear additional development impact fee and development agreement expenses and to make that economically viable.

I know if you don't live in an infill infrastructure grant area, as I do, I know you and does, at least during session, Mr. Tangipa. But I know you've seen it. Because in my own City of West Sacramento, right across the river, whether you've been over across the river, you've been on Highway 50 and you look down, you can see one of the region's biggest success stories and that is that was largely the result of investments from the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program.

So this bill simply tries to continue that the evolution of a proven program by including additional provisions about how we promote and measure and secure the proper commitments for walking and pedestrian infrastructure, in addition to the transit and road infrastructure that are already covered by the bill. It also starts to look at the district as a district.

And this I think is an important issue for those of us that have done work locally, and I know the Chair in his work on downtowns. That it is sometimes it can be very tempting to say the whole issue is that one parcel we need to make sure that we build housing there. But here's the challenge is that you also need a laundromat. It'd be good if there was somewhere to eat nearby, get a cup of coffee, if you could actually work nearby.

And so once you have the right policies around affordability and access, it really is important that you then kind of relax your obsession with a parcel by parcel approach. They're really creating an organic, successful infill area means promoting a wide variety of uses that themselves support the roof, but then also the life that will take place under the roof. And so this bill is intended to continue that process.

Another element that we're trying to grapple with is also to look at clusters of parcels or adjacent parcels. I know I've experienced this in the city where we have, we'll have affordability requirements on three different parcels from programs like this that might say they're all 30% affordable.

And each one of them, let's just say they're each a thousand units. So each one is projected that we have to do 300 per parcel. Sometimes the financing in the market and just luck and lightning strikes and you can build a thousand on the first parcel.

But to do that you need, you need some, some in lieu fees from the second parcel. So you're better off building 100% affordable on that first parcel, get 1,000 units than you are in requiring each parcel to produce 300. But a lot of our current policies don't allow that.

They're just so partial obsessed that they don't allow you to look at a micro district. And so that's one of the areas that we're trying to move the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program to be able to look at the whole and not just the parcel alone. Otherwise, it's a very modest bill in terms of continuing to enhance the infill infrastructure program. And I'd ask for an aye vote. With me is Melissa Breach from Prosperity California, sponsoring the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm Melissa Breach, CEO of Prosperity California, speaking in support of 772. We're a fiscally sponsored project of Windward Fund, where we work to build more homes in our existing communities, mitigate climate impacts, and lower Californians cost of living.

We need to plan for 2 1/2 million more homes by 2030 to even begin addressing our housing shortage and affordability crisis. But at 120,000 new units per year, we're not on target to meet the ambitious housing and climate goals the Legislature has set. Our infrastructure can't handle the demand for the amount of housing we need to build.

In 2019, the American Society of City Engineers gave California a C minus on infrastructure, finding significant deficiencies in both conditions and functionality as well as an increasing vulnerability to risk. Today, too many infill sites sit empty and undeveloped because the needed infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. But we're fortunate to have the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, an effective yet oversubscribed program that funds affordable housing and mixed income housing.

We're proud to sponsor Senator Cabaldon's Investing in Climate Resilient and Affordable Communities Act, which makes valuable and targeted improvements to IIG. Specifically, it makes walkability matter. Currently, IIG prioritizes infrastructure for projects near existing high frequency transit stops. 772 will add in where transit is already planned for as well as include projects in high resource walkable neighborhoods.

It's a big win for both housing and working families. It will also make projects more feasible and resilient to climate disasters. Today, many if not most Californians are at risk at climate driven fires and floods. SB 772 makes nature based infrastructure eligible for IIG funding. This includes things like firebreaks, stormwater parks, levees, wetland restoration, the things that make new housing safer, more resilient, and easier to insure.

In closing, I'd like to thank the Committee consultants for their guidance on the bill Language and their offer to work with us in the coming weeks to explore how we can align IIG more closely with any recent housing legislation. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Other folks who are here in support?

Gabriel Tolson, Planning and Conservation League, in support. Thank you.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance as well as the Alliance for Housing and Climate Solutions in support.

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

All right, are there folks here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. Bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Tangipa.

Don't worry, I'll be nice. Well, I just, you know you forgot to say that if you take Cabaldon Parkway, make a left, you'll see a lot of the projects. I know you said 50. I know you said 50 but you go across the Tower Bridge at Cabaldon Parkway for a lot of what the former mayor is now Senator has done. And so I really do appreciate your systematic approach. You know, I think that some of these changes are necessary, especially in some of the infill houses.

Not only that, I think a lot of it helps downstream make it fiscally appropriate for how we can maintain, sustain, grow where we're trying to do what we can on the affordability side, but also making sure that we can maintain it for the future on that. And so I just want to say thank you to my neighbor. Thank you. And just take Cabaldon Parkway, and you'll see a lot of the projects that West Sacramento has been able to do with this. So thank you.

I thought that name sounded familiar. All right. Was there... Oh, yeah. Oh. Yeah.

Just want to thank the author for bringing the bill forward. Happy to make a motion. I don't know if anyone has. And your always prepared remarks, Mr. Prepared Legislator here. But also just like your doggedness to make sure that our government's working and it's being effective and we're actually maximizing the programs that we have and ultimately serving our constituents. Cause it is like in the weeds work that is very not glamorous, but super, super important. So just appreciate it, and happy to move the bill.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Senator, you may close.

Just want to thank the Committee, both my neighbor and also the best, most effective, hardest working question or comments by my colleague from the East Bay. And ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Absolutely. Well, thank you as always for coming prepared and for your hard, hard work on this critical issue and for your work with our Committee. And we wish you the best with your upcoming surgery. And the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

All right. 8-0. And we'll keep that open. Thank you. All right. We have one more bill for the year. Okay. Yeah, we'll take some votes while we're here. Why not? Just make you go a little bit quicker later.

Let's go ahead with consent calendar. And those are bills SB 484, SB 489, SB 686, SB 724. [Roll Call] 11 to 0.

11 to 0.

Item number three. Missing Members who was absent. [Roll Call] Item number four, SB 655. [Roll Call] Item number seven, SB 772. [Roll Call] And that is it.

There she is. All right. Welcome. Thank you, Senator. You are our last bill of, not only of the Committee, but of the... No, no. It's exciting. Of the year, potentially. So. Well, we'll see. I don't want to jinx it, but welcome. Item number nine, SB 838. Welcome, Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good morning. Good morning. I want to thank the Chair and the staff for all your support and deliberation on this bill. I will be accepting the Committee's recommended amendment later today in the Assembly Local Gov Committee.

This bill is about keeping our strongest housing law, the Housing Accountability Act, focused on what it was designed to do, build homes. The HAA was created to accelerate housing production, not to streamline the development of hotels and resorts.

But lately, we've seen developers using housing laws to fast track hotel projects, even in areas where hotels would normally be blocked by local zoning. Some hotel components have even been added late in the process, cutting down the number of homes originally proposed. We've seen this happen in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica.

We've also seen hotel proposals push forward in fire prone areas where zoning wouldn't normally allow them, like the Sonoma Development Center and the Mountain Winery in Saratoga. We've seen developers submit the same project and multiple versions, some with hotels, some without. In Sacramento, one version included a 300 room hotel and nearly 100 fewer homes.

The other version dropped the hotel and added 96 more homes. That tells us the project doesn't rely on the hotel to move forward. When housing streamlining laws are used to build hotels, not homes, a few things happen. We lose limited land that could have gone to permanent housing. We push low wage workers farther from where they work. We shift the focus of the HAA away from housing.

And we risk weakening public trust in the housing laws this Legislature has worked hard to pass and protect. Hotels also bring lasting impacts, which makes them better suited for normal local review, not fast tracking. This bill takes a clear step. It removes transient lodging from eligibility under state housing streamlining laws. And to be clear, SB 838 does not ban hotels. If you want to include a hotel, that part of the project should go through the regular local process.

This bill is a targeted pro housing measure that protects the integrity of the Housing Accountability Act and keeps our most important housing streamlining laws focused on building homes. Let's truly focus on housing production. With me today, we have two witnesses. Matt Broad with Unite Here and Huascar Castro, Housing and Transportation Director at Working Partnerships USA.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of Unite Here International Union, sponsors of SB 838. The concept behind this bill is very simple. We're just trying to clarify that streamlining under the HAA is for housing projects and not inadvertently hotels, which has been the status quo for pretty much the course of the last 50 years.

We have put similar language in a number of streamlining bills already seen by this Committee this year and last year, including AB 130, the infill budget trailer bill, AB 87, SB 92, AB 507, as well as AB 1893 and AB 3068 last year. And therein lies the need for SB 838. Instead of playing whack a mole with new streamlining bills, the idea is to cite to the definition of a mixed use housing project in the HAA, which many of our state streamlining laws flow from. This isn't a hypothetical problem.

The Senator mentioned a number of projects that we've seen really pop up just in the last year. And SB 838 will simply ensure that streamlining laws are being used appropriately, which is imperative to make sure we address the housing crisis. I want to thank the Committee and reiterate that we are removing retroactivity later this afternoon in Local Government Committee. And I also want to say I just for the first time had a chance to speak with the opposition in detail about their concerns.

And we're 100% committed to trying to address those concerns and make sure that we're not casting too broad of a brush here. We're not trying to stop the development of housing projects. We're just trying to say, with respect to hotels, let's think about the unique and sensitive impacts. And with that, I would just say we need the bill to move forward to be able to have that discussion. But you have our commitment. I'm here to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, Chair and Members. My name is Huascar Castro. I'm the Director of Housing and Transportation Justice at Working Partnerships USA. Working Partnerships is a Silicon Valley based community group that works primarily throughout Santa Clara County that tackles the root causes of inequality and poverty by leading collaborative campaigns for quality jobs, healthy communities, equitable growth, and housing for all.

We're proud to support SB 838 by Senator Durazo with this bill is crucial to ensuring that California's housing streamlining laws remain focused on the original intent facilitating the development of affordable housing for residents, not expediting hotel construction.

As we all know from discussions today and throughout all of your work, we are grappling with a very severe housing crisis where today alone we've discussed homelessness, habitability, and other really serious causes that are affecting folks ability to secure and find housing and stay housed.

These are all venerable efforts that we have been supportive of and continue to support. And for that reason we're here to ensure that any efforts to streamline or reduce barriers to create housing, our focus on just that, addressing our housing shortage.

However, there's a growing concern that the benefits of these streamlining laws are being extended to hotel developments, which diverts resources and attention away from building homes which we desperately need. Hotels, while beneficial for tourism, do not address the pressing need for permanent affordable housing.

SB 838 seeks to rectify by clarifying the streamlining approval processes that are intended solely for housing projects, which by doing so can ensure that our policies remain aligned with the goal of providing safe, affordable homes for everyone. When thinking about the quality of a project, it's important to weigh the ancillary community benefits. In other words, what do we think, what are we looking to bring to surrounding communities?

By clarifying the Housing Accountability Act with respect to hotel projects, we're incentivizing developers who want the benefits of streamlining to focus on desperately needed housing, and in the case of the mixed use component, to include grocery stores, local retail, and other types of non-residential space that will truly serve and add to our communities. For these and many reasons, we do urge your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Other folks who are here in support of this bill.

Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Unite Here Local 11 in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Orquídea Debroy Reyes on behalf of Inclusive Action in the City in support.

Thank you all. Can we invite up the main opposition witnesses, if there are any?

Good morning. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition to the bill. First, we want to thank the author and the Chair and Committee staff for accepting the amendments and agreeing to remove the retroactivity provision, which was our key concern. However, the bill continues to limit the development options on commercial use for all mixed use projects, which could limit the financing tools available to make mixed use development projects feasible.

And we really feel like all options need to be available at this time to bridge the state's housing supply gap, which has really resulted in the persistent lack of housing at all income levels, including market rate, rental, and affordable housing. We look forward to continued work with the author and hope to have these addressed. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move the bill, if there isn't a motion already. And thank the Senator for bringing forward. Thank you. Thanks to Mr. Castro with the Working Partnerships, who I've worked with for many years. And I just think this is incredibly important. Because when we pass these kinds of the legislation to expedite or help facilitate for housing development, it is for housing. And I think sometimes opposition tells on itself when they also show up saying, hey, we need to pass these bills for housing.

And then when we say, wait a second, it's not building, it's building a hotel. And in the luxury part, I mean, one of the highest real estate markets in the country, Saratoga, is building a hotel. That is definitely not what we had in mind. And so I appreciate us refocusing. And that if we're going to give developers the ability to streamline and build more quickly over local jurisdictions' say, it better darn well be for housing and particularly affordable housing. So I would love to be added as a co-author and appreciate you bringing it forward.

Sorry, before I go to Ms. Wicks, I did not allow other folks who are in opposition to come up and state their position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Holly Fraumeni de Jesús with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of SPUR. And just echoing the comments from the Realtors earlier. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We align our comments with those made by the Realtors. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Ms. Wicks.

Thank you. Okay, so we've had some robust conversation outside of Committee, and I wanted to just bring that conversation into public view now. And I'm happy to hear from either the author or the sponsors, whichever you're comfortable with, Senator. But I think I want to start off with first, maybe like a tangible example of the problem that you're all trying to solve for, to help kind of think through, crystallize I think some of the questions I'll have based on that.

Sure. Through the Chair. Matt Broad for Unite Here. The example we discussed in that hallway, I think is a perfect example. In Santa Monica, where you had 100% affordable housing project that was approved at the local level, and then the developer came back and for whatever reason, maybe it made more financial sense, decided to displace one third of the units for luxury hotel rooms, and in that case actually displace what would otherwise be affordable housing. You know, we think that's a prime example of where hotel development can be parasitic of our ability to use these laws to streamline housing and not hotels.

And I think the other example that I think you and I discussed, want to make sure I understand it, is after the project is built, there would be conversion of the residential housing units to hotels. You were mentioning kind of the studio layout of that being a concern.

Sure. So yeah, just to clarify for everybody, the concern is that the build of a hotel is very similar to a studio apartment. There are companies out there in California and other states that sort of specialize in converting what would be studio, empty, unoccupied studio apartments into hotel rooms.

And so you could game around the 1/3, 2/3 ratio within the Housing Accountability Act and potentially have a project that could become 2/3 hotel and 1/3 housing or 1/2 hotel, 1/2 housing. Additionally, one other thing I'd like to point out is that under the Housing Accountability Act, we're talking about square footage.

And the reality of hotel development is that the hotel rooms are smaller than one bedroom, two bedroom, or bigger apartments. And so potentially you could have a unit that fit at the time, fits into the 1/3 a hotel. But in terms of the amount of rooms it's actually creating, the project's more like half and half because you have so many small hotel rooms versus what would otherwise maybe potentially be developed as housing.

And so is that happening right now, what you just described?

Yes, yes. And you know, we've been working close with your office for the past year, sort of thinking about how to be proactive with streamlining laws and make sure that these aren't abuses are happening. The reason we decided to do this bill this year was not just because of whack a mole.

But for the first time, really at the end of 2023-2024, we saw a spate of these projects, whether it was in the Housing Accountability act, this Committee saw legislation related to the density bonus law where there was gamesmanship around using streamlining under these laws to develop a hotel because they could, not necessarily because it penciled.

And so, and just so I understand. So current law says under the Housing Accountability Act, mixed use, to qualify for it with mixed use has to be a third. Well, it can be anything on the commercial side. Right. But in this instance, a third hotel, 2/3 residential. That's current law. Right. And just so I understand, this bill as you're proposing it today basically says if you're going to enjoy the benefits of the Housing Accountability, hotel cannot be considered for part of this project. Is that correct?

So that's really actually not our intention. Our intention is to make sure that for the hotel component, it's subject to traditional zoning. And the way that zoning works for hotels is if you conform to the local community plan, you can actually develop that hotel by right. Our experience is that hotels that are very attractive for local communities.

I spoke with Assembly Member Ávila Farías yesterday, and she said her district would love, they would kill to get a hotel in Martinez. And I think that's a fair point. But what we're trying to make, we're not trying to even stop the development of hotels. Hotels can still be developed. They just, we don't want them to be streamlined under housing laws.

Right, but I understand the intent. But I, what I see is that this basically says hotels cannot be considered as part of the mixed use commercial portion of this to get the Housing Accountability streamlining for the housing portion of this. Right?

And again, that's not the intent. You and I talked about this outside the Committee room, and I just want to be clear that we are committed to working on clarifying amendments that really say we're talking narrowly about the hotel portion and not the rest of the project. We're not trying to blunt the development of housing projects under the HAA.

What we're trying to do is avoid coming back to every single one of these bills, whether they're your bills, whether they're the Chair's bills or anybody else's bills, and do this again and again when we could sort of set as a policy goal housing streamlining, good for housing, not for hotels.

Because I think what you're trying to solve for is a real problem that should be solved for. And I appreciate the author's work in this space, and I support that in concept. I think in reality of what I see in the bill, my concerns of it are right now is that it's too far reaching and you do have developers that are playing by the rules that are doing the 1/3, 2/3. And to take that tool away from them and take away an ability to make projects feasible for people that are playing fair to me is a bridge too far right now.

But I know we had conversations and it's my hope that if the bill moves out of Committee, that the opposition, the supporters, can work together on trying to come up with a solution that I think honors what you're actually trying to do without taking it too far. I'm going to lay off today because I'm not comfortable with the bill as is.

But it's my hope that if there's agreement reached on the floor, it's something I can support that will not have the negative unintended consequence of actually hurting housing production for folks that are actually using the Housing Accountability Act, the commercial portion of it, with hotel in the way it's intended to be. So that's... I just want to go on the record of where I am today, but again, I think there were some beginning fruitful conversations outside, if not late, at least they're started. And hopefully I'll be able to support it on the floor, but unfortunately I can't today.

Ms. Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. And my colleague and I have had some conversations about this. And so I think that some of the concerns that she brought up are valid in a sense of making sure that we don't cast so wide a net that we impact the good actors, so to speak.

You know, because we, we have to be nuanced in the policy that we do here is that we want to encourage housing. We don't want to discourage. We want to make sure people who are doing what they're supposed to do have all the tools at their disposal to be able to continue to do good work.

And the people who are not, that we stop them as quick as possible. I do think that there are lots, when it comes to hotels, even if they're one third of a housing unit, there are needs to have. There is a need for a local agency, whether city or county or whoever, to be able to mitigate the impacts of that hotel and that it is distinct and different than adding a store, a restaurant, or all of those things.

And so when it comes to streamlining, especially because streamlining automatically takes away local control, my question always is who should benefit and why. And so I will be supporting your bill today because when I think about streamlining, I think the housing should benefit, not a hotel, because of the impacts that a hotel has community.

And I think the natural inclination that a community has, that I've seen serving in local government for 12 years, sitting on a council, talking to my colleagues when I go to Cal Cities that I have yet to see some like, we don't like hotels. Everybody wants hotels.

And so typically there's this natural inclination to the process is find what you can do to expedite naturally, just because the incentive that you have as relates to TOT and then also, but also wanting to mitigate impacts like parking, you know, the ability to like, gosh, when you have a conference or when you have, you know, big buses on a street, and you know, all those kind of things.

And so I would say to the author, you know, thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you for your commitment to continue to work through this casting of a wide net to ensure that if there is a legitimate project where someone is keeping to the two thirds, one thirds and doing the affordable housing and doing all the right boxes, they are not negatively impacted.

Because we know that it is hard to get affordable housing projects to pencil. It is difficult. And when you can have a great commercial component in the mixed use concept that allows for it to pencil, you want to be able to do that and you want to be able to encourage that.

And like I said, cities will encourage hotels just because of the natural TOT. But we also see cities who are bad actors who will be like, yeah, I want the hotel, but I don't want the housing, and will use something like this to then put improper mitigation impacts on the housing that stops the housing altogether. And we don't want to see that. So I think it's definitely worth fixing, and appreciate the comments from my colleagues that flag that concern.

Ms. Quirk-Silva. Okay. Ms. Ávila Farías.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Senator. I did have an opportunity yesterday to meet and do what we call the housing acrobatics. And we went up one side back down on the public policy around this. And I think prior to my discussion outside the public space, I was leaning towards a no vote. But it took me a minute to kind of really understand the mechanics of this bill and what the spirit and the intent of it.

And I have full faith and confidence that as it goes through the process that we can have a balanced housing approach that allows thoughtful development on both sides of, you know, the innovation around mixed use developments with housing integrated with hotel where it's not being abused and also create the necessary housing stock that we need throughout our State of California.

So I feel comfortable today supporting the bill because I spent a good time amount really trying to understand what the intent and the spirit and why it may not be perfect at this precise moment. I see the loophole, and the loopholes are usually those gray areas in housing policy that are really hard to see unless you've practiced in land use development or actually developed it or financed it. And so when we went through that exercise, I was able to see and understand what you all were trying to fix.

And it's really very small, but I can understand it now, and so I have faith that you all will work through this as it goes through the process. And I will not support a bill that compromises housing production or even hotel production because I do come from a district that is desperately in need of hotel development in our county. So I hope that as it moves forward, that we see a balanced approach. So thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Great, thanks. As a former local elected myself, I think I agree with my colleagues that every local government official likes to see hotels built. But, you know, who doesn't are the people that live in that community almost every time. I love hotels, I think they're great.

But every time I see a hotel proposed, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it gets a lot of opposition in basically every community that I've seen, which I think is, you know, unfortunate in a lot of ways. But I think, you know, my concerns with this bill, and I understand where you're going, where you're going for, Senator, is that I could see, you know, if there were, if there was like a building where components of that building were hotel, I wouldn't have such an issue with that.

And this bill would preclude that from occurring or going through the normal process, as the sponsor said. But where I could see some elements that would concern me is, let's say there's a pretty big project, maybe, you know, let's say 10 buildings or something, and one ends up being almost like separate from the housing units. You know, where it's a standalone kind of hotel. And I think that somewhat.

I think that kind of would be an abuse from a resident perspective of, of the intention here. But, you know, if we're talking multiple buildings and one of those, or two of those buildings or whatever, have both components, I don't think I really have a concern with that. It's more of just like if it was an actual what I think is an abuse where there's a standalone hotel in an area that's intended for taking advantage of the housing. You know, the AB 2011, the author happens to be sitting pretty close to me.

So I think, if I think in today's form, I can't support the bill. I do think in circumstances though where there were standalone hotels kind of built into this project, I do think local governments and the people of that community ought to have a say in that if it's in an area that's intended for housing, you know. But I think it's a little too broad right now. So I'm going to lay off today, but and feel free to respond to that. Obviously you don't have to, but those are my concerns as they stand now. So thank you.

All right. Seeing no more comments. If you want to respond to that and also take an opportunity to close.

Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciate, Assembly Member, all of your, all of your comments. Clearly we started out thinking we want to do the most that we can for housing to be built, and that's what we want to protect under the HAA. And what we saw was an abuse of that and not working towards the primary goal of building housing and to use a hotel. You know, the leverage or the excuse that, well, we can't make it pencil out, so therefore you have to accept the hotel.

Taking that out of the hands of the local jurisdiction was just wrong. So maybe that changes are needed to this particular bill. But clearly what was intended by HAA was to build more housing and to streamline it to build more housing. And that's what we want to remain true to. So with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. So we thank you Senator. We had a motion by Mr. Kalra. We needed a second. Seconded by Mr. Lee. Thank you, Senator, for your leadership, and to the sponsors and witnesses as well and for the work that was done already to make amendments and continued work to accomplish what we know are the goals. Absolutely.

We want to make sure that these housing laws, these streamlining laws lead to more housing being built and are focused on building housing. There is also though, I think a reason why we do allow for mixed use projects and that is also an important part of it. But I would agree that hotels are different.

Hotels, because of their similarity to housing in various ways, can crowd out housing opportunities. There can be ways in which these laws are misused in that way. And for all the reasons that have been stated, whenever, wherever possible, the hotel portion should go through the regular local process and align with the zoning.

That's what I know that the goal is here. And all of our goals I think are shared in making sure we maximize the housing opportunities that are provided for by these laws. And appreciate the continued work with us on those issues. So we have a motion and a second. This is do pass to the Assembly Committee on Local Government, and we could take a roll call vote. Thank you. Welcome back.

[Roll Call]

All right, eight to two that bill's out. We're gonna run through all the bills for those folks who have missed any votes. Some, I think are all good.

I think we have Lee or Member Quirk-Silva. We have a couple votes already. On the consent calendar we have assemble Member Yep.

Have a good break.

[Roll Call] On the consent calendar. Item number three, SP634 [Roll Call] Item number four, SB 655. [Roll Call] 10 to 0. Item number seven, SB 772 [Roll Call] will be 120 and that is it.

All right, that is it for the foreseeable future. Thank you all. This means adjourned.