Senate Standing Committee on Housing

All right, welcome to everyone that's here. So this is the first Senate Housing Committee in 2026. So I do welcome everybody. I will also highlight that for the most part today we're going to cover a number of bills. Bills.

But more specifically, these are primarily two year bills that we are discussing as well as some of the bond bills that we have on the table. So if I can just ask for a quorum to be established and we can start calling roll Senators.

[Roll Call]

We have established a quorum. I would like for the Senate sergeants to just call the Members that are absent to remind them that we have to be here. So we are going to start with Senator Wiener is going to present two bills and then overall, all we have six bills that we are going to discuss today.

So Senator Wiener, if you are available and just for clarity, we're going to have presentations at that podium. No worries. And we're going to have witnesses at that lectern. And then all the witnesses will only have two minutes at the lectern. Too, right up there over there. So each witness will have about two minutes.

We will be timing speakers just to be fair, both for opposition and support. And then we will take all of the MeToos together. So whether you support it or oppose it, the me toos will come together. When we are discussing the me toos, I want to be very clear.

You state your name, the organization that you represent, and whether you support are opposed, there will be no further discussion. We'll bring it back to the Committee for full discussion and then eventually have maybe a little bit of Q and A and then come back to the Senator to close.

So with that, we have our very first Bill, SB222 by Senator Wiener. Senator Wiener, if you want to start.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm here Today to present SB222, the Heat Pump Access Act, which will make cost-saving heat pump, water heater and HVAC installations faster, simpler and more affordable by streamlining the permit process and ultimately allowing people to reduce their energy costs.

Heat pumps are highly efficient, zero-pollution option for HVAC systems and water heaters that make heating and cooling homes cleaner, safer and more affordable.

Because heat pumps are energy efficient, they can reduce electricity use for heating by up to 75%, customers will have the same or lower energy bills after installation and many customers across the state will experience significantly lower energy bills.

Replacing a fossil fuel HVAC or water pump system with a heat pump also eliminates harmful pollutants that those systems can release inside of homes, thus improving the health of Californians and slashing carbon emissions. Californians, as we all know, need relief from sky-high energy costs, air pollution, and climate change-driven extreme temperature changes.

Heat pumps are an essential solution for each of these problems. These are very well established systems and unfortunately at times there's variation by city. There are some cities that are very fast and efficient in granting permits. Other cities it can take months and can even cost thousands of dollars.

And also one of the issues that this Bill addresses is you never know quite when the inspector is going to come out. There could be a long window and then you have to have your contractor sitting out there all day, which can be expensive.

And so this allows for the contractor to be available by video or phone to speak with the inspector, so they don't have to charge you for hours and hours of waiting around. The bill is in this Committee because it also prevents HOAs from effectively prohibiting heat pumps.

So I respectfully ask for your aye vote and with me to testify are Sam Fishman with SPUR, a co-sponsor of the Bill, and Aaron Gianni, a heat pump contractor and owner of Larra Brothers Plumbing.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Sam Fishman and I work with SPUR, a non-profit in the Bay Area known for its nonpartisan public policy research. We work on decarbonizing the region's buildings, and we are co-sponsoring SB222 to help Californians smoothly and affordably replace health-harming, climate-warming gas appliances with high-efficiency heat pumps.

Unfortunately, finaling permits and inspections for heat pumps in California is often a time consuming and costly endeavor for contractors, homeowners and building departments, and SPUR has done some work to identify widespread issues. Local aesthetic and noise requirements often restrict where a homeowner can place a heat pump and can lead to costly equipment relocation.

In particular, I want to mention HOA rules, which often represent significant additional barriers for homeowners seeking to install heat equipment. Some HOAs require substantial architectural and aesthetic review and by panels that meet irregularly and may reject heat pump installations that do not conform with standards that are often unrelated to health and safety.

Some HOAs even have more onerous rules. In one recent example outside Sacramento, an HOA explicitly banned heat pump installations outright and the homeowner has been negotiating with the HOA since July. These kind of rules drive additional costs and uncertainty for installers and consumers.

Most heat pumps are installed when old equipment fails and where delays cause residents to go without essentials like hot water and heating. And in replacement scenarios, it is often permitting log jams and HOA rules that prevent consumers from making the decision to switch to a heat pump.

SB222 addresses these challenges by standardizing permitting requirements, streamlining permitting processes, and providing needed consistency. The California Legislature has already taken action to streamline permitting for solar PV and EV chargers, but to date, no state action has been taken to guide permitting for heat pumps. Despite their centrality to the clean energy transition.

SB222 would take that action and ensure Californians are ready to permit and install heat pumps. Thank you

Thank you. Next Speaker.

Good afternoon, Chairman Members of the Committee My name is Aaron Gianni. I'm the President of Larratt Brothers Plumbing in San Francisco. For 35 years, our team has helped families install the newest technologies that have become available to the plumbing and HVAC industry, most recently heat pumps, electric water heaters, and other clean appliances.

The current permitting process is difficult. As a contractor dealing with more than 109 different building departments in the Bay Area, we must navigate the nuances of each different inspectors, changing paperwork requirements, high fees, and strict setbacks, sometimes make installation impossible. When our current customers live within an HOA, the process becomes even harder.

Larratt Brothers Plumbing serves 20,000 customers within HOA-managed properties. Many HOA rules have outright prevented new electric equipment from being installed. Others require homeowners to go through long architectural and aesthetic review processes before any work can begin. These steps often add weeks or even months to what should be a 24-hour replacement process.

Most people replace their water heaters or heating systems only when the old ones break. HOA delays can leave families without hot water or heat for days or weeks. That's not acceptable. California is moving towards cleaner electrical appliances and the market is ready to support them.

But we need reasonable guardrails so customers can actually install them in a timely and affordable manner. SB222 directly addresses these barriers. It will make the process faster and less expensive for Californians who want to install heat pumps and electric water heaters. Please vote Aye on SB222. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition speakers timed at 2 minutes?

Good afternoon Chair and Members Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in respectful opposition to the measure, we found out about the Bill yesterday at 2pm so we apologize for the delayed implementation and want to collaborate with the author's office in addressing concerns.

We wanted to highlight to the Committee today that our concerns revolve around a couple things. One, there's a permit fee cap. That's an arbitrary number between 150 or $200. And we're wondering where that comes from and how that's done. Is it on the higher end of a city's fees?

Is it on the median fees or the lower fees? So we're concerned about that fee cap. Given that the fees are only used to provide the service, we can't go beyond that. So we are concerned about that fee cap. The other thing we're concerned about is the ability to do these virtually.

Although we understand that it's very efficient. It's a matter of if it's effective because a lot of times with inspections you need that hands on experience in making sure that the ducts and the foundation and the stuff is around for the inspections that may not be able to be done over a video call.

So we look forward to continuing those conversations. But for today we are in respectful opposition. Look forward to working with the author's office on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition speakers? Seeing none. We're going to move on to Me Too's either in support or opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Chair Members, Senators Mikhael Skvarla here on behalf of Carrier Corporation in support.

Good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Rewiring America in support.

Margie Lie, Samson Advisors, here on behalf of A.O. Smith Corporation in support.

Madam Chair and Senators Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute in opposition.

Hi. Madison Vander Klay on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition in support.

Allen Abs with the Bay Area Air District, co sponsor of the Bill, in support. And also with support from the Natural Resources Defense Council, U.S. Green Building Council California and Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley. Thank you.

Hi. Chloe Hsieh with the California Environmental Voters in support.

All right, seeing none, members do we have any questions? Senator Caballero, thank you very much.

Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Senator, I just. I had a couple of questions, but the big one is I did go through the letter from the League of Cities that came in late. They're willing to sit down and have conversations with you.

So I guess my first question would be is are you willing to have those conversations?

Of course. And I do just want to say we're absolutely happy to sit down with the league and talk about it. I do want to say this. I did a previous version of this Bill and both of the issues that the league flagged in their presentation were in that Bill.

And we met with the league at the time. We're happy to meet with them about this specific Bill. And, you know, I also want to say that the inspection issue that is now you can. The contracts are going to be available by video.

The original version of the Bill from before would have allowed them not to be there. It was much broader. So we're going to. We're happy to continue to work on it and we'll meet with the league.

I appreciate that. The only other issue I had just in terms of the language of the Bill is that it appears as if we're shifting and this gets again to the inspection is that it shifts the liability to cities if it ends up that it was an unsafe installation that would not have been maybe seen as clearly on a video as opposed to being there in person.

So I just flag that as one of the issues within what they had objections to or concerns about.

And happy to call my witness up. But the person who would be by video would be the contractor. The inspector would be there. And so the inspector will be there in person. We're not precluding that.

But it allows a contractor to be in by video so they don't have to hang around for eight hours waiting for the inspector.

Yes. That's great. And then the other thing, and this was just on a personal note, is that it was not clear to me when I was trying to replace a water heater that a heat pump requires redoing your. Shoot. I knew I was going to forget the name the. No. Now we'll start guessing.

But it's the panel, the electrical panel that you have. Is that true? See, it's going to get crazy. It's New Year's Eve. It's right past New Year's. The electrical panel.

And so the concern I have is that there may be a situation in HOA where the panel that is the installation into the whole mobile home park, it has to be replaced. It's not just the individual unit, but to the. So I don't know enough about it. It's dangerous. So I just. I'm asking a dangerous question.

I just pose it as an issue where the mobile home park owner may say, look, I gotta totally redo the electrical panels in all of the park. And that's I either have to run the cost across everybody.

So everybody has to pay for it, even though only one heat pump is getting replaced or where they have to bear the brunt of it. So I just, I put that out there. It was one of the things that occurred to me when I was looking at the Bill. I'm going to support it today.

I think it's a good Bill. But if we could ask that or get an answer by the time it hits the floor.

Well, I think we can get an answer because the HOA provisions in the Bill are primarily about, first of all, aesthetics and also about provisions in the HOA documents that effectively ban it. But eyewitness can perhaps elaborate

Architectural or aesthetic review.

Yeah, that's right. And we also, in some of the other provisions in the Bill around incident permitting, panel jobs that involve more complex work, architectural or panel upgrades are not required to have an instant permitting system.

So we're really honing in on jobs that are simple and straightforward and that can be permitted easily while allowing flexibility with jobs that get more complicated.

So I understand that and I really appreciate that as an explanation. I'll tell you where I'm really concerned is many times we take action in the legislation, that appears to fix a problem individually, but then ultimately it costs everybody.

Because what happens is that the unintended consequence is that you have to redo panels that nobody anticipated, and then the cost goes up for other residents. And I just want to make sure. I want to make sure that we're being careful about that kind of thing.

And so it was unknown to me that you had to replace panels in order to bring in a heat pump.

In the end, I went with the old traditional because it's just easier and I didn't want to spend that extra money, but I get people wanting to, but it's not fair if I live three doors down or three mobile homes down, and the whole thing has to be redone because one or two people in the park got heat pumps, and then all of a sudden we all have to pay a little bit more because of that.

Or the owner has to eat it, but, you know, they won't. They'll pass it on to everybody else.

Yeah, I can speak to that, actually. So one thing I'll just note up front is this Bill doesn't mandate heat pump installations in any way. So this won't require anyone to install a heat pump. It's purely focused, reducing costs and complexities where possible in the process when someone does choose to install a heat pump.

So that's one key thing. Also, just note that SPUR has done a lot of work around that panel issue, and we're discovering that a lot. Not every installation, in fact, it should be a rarity that panels are required.

It's not always the case, but there's a lot of work being done around that issue in the wider building decarbonization space. But not. It doesn't relate to this Bill, really, because this Bill is just about.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. I just want to ask on the question of capping the fees, if you could respond to that issue that was raised by the league, yeah. And this was also. I just raised it because, you know. Budget issues, everything's going to be tighter for everybody and government. So if you could respond and answer that or deal with it.

Absolutely. We'll sit down with them. Again, the fee cap was in the Bill previously that the league did not oppose, and so now they have an issue with it. We're happy to sit down and talk to them about it. It's a balance because you're right, governments are tightening belts, but so are, of course, individuals.

And so sometimes the permit fees can become exorbitant and, and a barrier. But we're happy to sit down and talk to them about it.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So I'm inclined to support this because it is a consumer choice, but I do have concerns about, you know, in the processing, the permit processing, does this treat heat pumps and things like that different than if you wanted to install a water heater or reinstall a water heater?

Did they have to go through the old process where heat pumps don't now? And the same thing for, you know, if you were in a HOA and you wanted to move your water heater outside instead of inside your garage, you'd have to go through this whole process.

So is this saying that if you do a heat pump, you don't have to, and for everyone else they have to.

This Bill does only address heat pumps and part of the reason this Bill was drafted is because of widespread concerns about process, specifically for heat pumps that are drawn out and complex, in part because the standards around them have their building departments have less experience and there are more instances of challenges that are particular to heat pumps. That's one of the reasons.

It's also kind of the connection with state priorities around the clean energy trend. Can you give me an example of one of those challenges? Yeah. There's one example is a water heat pump. Water heater, when installed in garages, some Cities still require bollards to be placed in front of them.

And that's related to rules around gas and the danger around explosions with gas. And those rules are sometimes applied to heat pumps, but when they're unnecessary. So there are things like that where old rules are kind of creating additional issues for heat pumps.

There are also cases like compressors for heat pump HVAC systems, which run afoul of setbacks, noise ordinances that are unique to heat pumps compared with or relative somewhat unique to heat pump equipment. And things like inverter technologies for heat pumps have gotten a lot quieter. So we addressed that in the Bill.

So a number of these issues that I just haven't kind of caught up in. Building Department

Are heat pumps installed outside?

The compressors for HVAC units are so that can create noise outside. Sometimes covered sheds are used for heat pump water heaters outside, but those are more commonly placed.

So I'm starting to see why the HOAs would have an issue with not having a say in where those are going or having them outside like that, their location. Because you do have to take into consideration in those type of environments that there are other people living around that.

And if you put your heat pump outside the window of the building next to you, they get to listen to your heat pump. And I don't know that that's fair to those folks. And that's something that local agencies need to have a say in. And so, you know that that causes me a little bit more concern.

The other thing that caused me concern is I just went through this process and I had a very good plumber who does all types of those things tell me, stay as far away from that as you can. So I'm hearing different things about the efficacy of heat pumps versus your other gas appliances.

And I had the same concerns and I heard the same concerns from some of our plumbers that gave us estimates as Senator Caballero. And the reason is if you're switching everything from a gas appliance to an electric appliance, you're going to pull more amps and you're going to need to upgrade your panels.

And that's what costs more money. And that's what she is talking about. So this isn't as easy as, hey, this is a really cool technology and people want it, should get it. And so we should waive all the rules so they can get it easy and everybody goes on living their lives. This, you know, that that's.

And I, you know, it's for us to sit up here and decipher all of that while we're hearing some of the testimony just from one side concerns me a lot because there's a lot more to it than what we're hearing and there are a lot more impacts to people than what we're hearing.

But given that and that this is a choice by consumers, I tend to land on that side.

Thank you. I do just want to remind everybody that this Bill will be going to local gov after it leaves this Committee, if it leaves this Committee. And so I'm going to move on to our next Senator. Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm very supportive of the underlying policy and for all the reasons that have been said earlier. The two issues I wanted to highlight, one of which is on the way to local government and the other is just to pile on the fee question, are both related to the California constitutions.

Provisions that are that constrain the legislature's actions in two different ways. So one is the requirement on state mandates. And it has become routine for us to just insert in every Bill at the end. There's no mandate here because of the local government. Government can raise fees to do it. This Bill does not have that.

But it's become more routine. When we impose fee caps, we make it impossible for the future bills for cities and counties to actually recover their costs. We'll still keep putting those clauses in later on, but the cities and counties don't have the authority to actually raise their fee in order to comply.

And so, just as already been said, I would encourage continuing to work with the league on that issue as to whether it's really necessary, given how the novel issues and other things have been raised as more legislation is likely to come.

And then second on that topic, the second topic is the constitution says that we cannot interfere in the municipal affairs of charter cities and counties. And that is the home rule provisions of the constitution are real. And the constitution does not prevent us from doing very many things, but that's one of them.

We have the authority to overrule that on matters of statewide concern. But it has become too routine here for us to just stick in legislation, whatever the topic is. You know, whether local parks and rec departments offer yoga on Tuesdays or Wednesdays is suddenly a matter of state concern. We just say that it is. And we are.

For urgency clauses, we are. We have come to expect ourselves to write the why? Why is the Bill urgent? We're not allowed to just say this Bill is urgent. And with respect to charter cities, the judges have said the same thing. Legislature, stop doing that. Tell us why this is a statewide concern.

And so this is a pure, it's purely technical, but it is a constitutional issue that I would, you know, ask that you look at between now and local government and beyond.

Is can that can the matter of statewide concern clause really articulate why heat pumps and not other forms of HVAC, for example, are statewide concerns? And maybe it is the state energy plan. It cannot be. Some cities are doing it well and some aren't. You know, it's kind of a hassle for people.

Those do not rise from municipal affair to statewide concern. But I do see a statewide concern here.

But I strongly believe we need to stop putting in generic statewide concern declarations and start describing what that actual concern is so that courts and others and the commission on state mandates can appropriately interpret and effectuate the laws that we're passing.

So I would just ask, and I know the league raised that issue in a generic sense, but just ask that between, you know, now and the next couple of stops that, that we just take, do the work to refine that, that, that clause to be clear about what it is that we are carving out when we're saying that cities and counties are no longer, they no longer have responsibility, period for heat pumps.

That's a big statement to make. I think it can be justified, but it must be be justified legally. The Bill should do that.

Thank you. Would you like to respond or we can go on to our next Senator. All right, Senator.

Well, I'll be in local government.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To follow up on the comments around the capping of the fees, I think as stated in the Committee analysis, some. Cities have a much more streamlined process. To permit heat pumps and some don't. So I understand the desire to have kind of a uniform fee cap, but.

My concern is cost recovery and the ability of cities to be able to actually have the staff and to invest in the technology to implement a more streamlined process.

And so would really want to encourage the author to continue to work with the League of Cities and to really give thought to whether the caps that are proposed are actually reasonable and allow for some reasonable amount of cost recovery to ensure that we can actually implement this law.

Because unless, unless we do that, we're actually creating another unfunded mandate that won't actually help local governments implement. But I think it's a very important and well intentioned law which I support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers again, I want to remind everyone this will go to local gov and I will say that you have worked on this Bill and we also know that this is through first hearing of the year.

So I know some of the folks that do want to speak on this Bill will have an opportunity next week to speak in the next Committee on it. So with that can I get a motion? Sorry, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Reyes. Let's call a roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill is 10 to. That's out. Thank you. Been a long day today. So we're gonna have item number two, SB 677 by Senator Wiener. I do just want to make a quick announcement for not only the Committee but for those of you who are here for this bill. Senator Wiener has agreed to the following amendments.

One, narrowing the scope of SB 677 to make only two changes that currently in SB 677 and I'm going to state them just for reference, supporting the mobile home exemption language that is in SB 722 that we're going to hear later on the agenda as well as introducing in the 2026 legislative session a new SB 79 change bill.

That bill will go through the regular legislative process and allow for time and input from implementing agencies, the author and sponsors, and the Committee to review and identify any necessary clarifying changes to ensure SB 79 is implemented in the way that the Legislature intended last year, which can include the remaining issues in SB 677.

With this agreement, the amendments to narrow SB 677 to the two provisions as stated if approved by the Committee today, will be processed by the Housing Committee amendments and allow Senate local gov time to hear the bill as amended next week.

So I know that was a lot, but I just want to say that it's a work in progress. And so Senator, if you would like to present the bill as is.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate it. Thank you to the Chair and also the Chair of local government for working with us. As in print, SB677 is follow up legislation to SB79, which is very common of course, with major complicated bills having to do follow up legislation with clarifications tightening.

There was one additional piece with some ferry stops that were being put in that was really the only new piece of it. And in conversation with the Committee, it became clear that it would be best just to start a fresh bill to give us more time to work through everything, not have to rush.

And so we will do that. I'll be introducing a new bill for that will be heard presumably hopefully in March or April with the items that are being removed from the bill today. And we look forward to working with the Committee on that.

And so the remainder of the bill that we're asking the Committee to pass today are adjusting, tightening two definitions of commuter rail and high frequency commuter rail. So a much, much smaller bill. But don't be disappointed. You'll we'll be back with the larger bill in the normal process. So with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

And I also just appreciate the Chair taking on the mobile home piece which we had agreed to at the end of session last year. So I respectfully asked for an Aye vote and with me today to testify. I don't know that we actually need testimony just in case anything comes up are Jordan Grimes and Mark Vukovich. So.

All right, thank you. Seeing no witnesses in support. Do we have witnesses in opposition, support or opposition? Okay, full witness. Okay, so we're going on to the #MeToos. Whether you support or oppose, please state your name, your organization and whether you support or oppose.

I was actually coming up to testify.

Opposition.

Yes. Sorry. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Senate Housing Committee. My name is Isabel Aguayo. I serve on the Paramount City Council.

The city of Paramount has been working diligently to implement and plan for the start of SB79, which will have significant implications for our community beginning in July of this year.

Although our city opposed SB 79 last year, we recognize that now that it has been enacted, a comprehensive cleanup is is necessary to ensure workable, viable implementation for our community. The proposed cleanup in SB 677 does not go far enough in addressing the challenges our staff and community need to implement SB 79 successfully.

Several important changes need to be addressed in any cleanup proposal, including aligning the implementation date with the seventh Regional Housing Needs Allocation rena cycle so our community can account for SB 79 within Arena, ensure we have the necessary infrastructure developed to support the increased residential density and capacity required by SB 79, and ensure our staff has all the available standards and data available to implement the law in our upcoming housing element plans successfully requiring clear guidance and technical assistance from the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Clarifying the expectations related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. Providing clear definitions and standards for implementation. One of the challenges our agency has faced is that the alternative plan option in the original SB 79 is not an option for our community due to the unique circumstances of the transit in our jurisdiction.

Specifically, our transit stops that qualify for SB 79 overlap because they are both within 0.75 miles of each other. So we have limited options for relocating Desert City as an alternative plan under current law as the author intended when the bill was moving through the legislative process last year.

Another challenge our community is facing is how to plan for the necessary infrastructure.

Parking needs two minutes where everybody's timed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Newberger providing comments on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We're opposed unless amended and we definitely want to thank the author, the sponsors, the Committee as well as the Committee staff for the work on this bill.

I just want to kind of keep it high level given the compromise that the author has announced just at the beginning of this hearing. We definitely want to our opposition is focused on the ambiguities and the definitions. We're asking definitely for more clarity around several of those definitions.

Our letter outlines what we're seeking and mostly specifically on this one it's around the transportation pieces and that's to provide more clarity for communities and provide more certainty where this development's going to occur. We look forward to working with the author and the sponsors on what that definition is going to look like in the follow up bill.

But definitely 677 is part of that and some of the narrowing of the bill hopefully as well as combined with the proposed cleanup that the author is going to present should hopefully resolve our issues. Thank you.

We're going to move on to #MeToos both in forward and opposition.

Madam Chair and Senators, Carlos Guterres here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. We'd like to remove our opposition with recent amendments and would like to thank. The author and move to position neutral.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Mark Fucsovich on behalf of Streets for All. We were one of the sponsors of the bill last year and we're in support this year.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Senators. Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association.

We don't have officially have a position on this bill but do want to thank the the Senator's intent on increasing housing near transit centers and his intent to ensure that SB 79 is implemented as is intended.

We do want to flag one issue with the unintended consequence of SB 79 intersecting with AB 98 previously passed two years ago by Senator Reyes and the housing being built on commercial sites could trigger AB 98 buffer requirements which would affect California's logistics facilities and goods movement process.

Sorry, it's #MeToos. I'm so sorry.

Good afternoon. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council, Proud co sponsor and the Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of T2 Original Co. Sponsors, SPUR and Abundant Housing Los Angeles both in support.

Good afternoon. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Government Sandag no formal position. Thank the author for providing more time for meaningful engagement. Still have concerns with this bill as well as concerns about the timing of. Implementation and urge the Legislature to address. It during one comprehensive SB 79 bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the city of Encinitas, also in this sort of limbo, we oppose 79. We have concerns with the commuter language trying to make heads or tails. Wanted to at least say something here today. We also appreciate the ferry issue being taken off the table right now.

On behalf of the Port of San Diego, thank you.

Faye Conley, with Weideman Group on behalf of Supply Chain Federation. Want to thank the author for his work work on this bill and moving forward. Just want to make sure that existing industrial sites are protected as we move forward and clean up on the next bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Members Brady Garden on behalf of the League of California Cities in oppose unless amended position. Our letter reflects the changes we're hoping for in a massive cleanup and look forward to those conversations. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance. We were a co sponsor of SB79. In strong support today. Really look forward to working with Committee on upcoming legislation. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Members. Aaron Eckhouse with California YIMBY, Proud co sponsors of SB 79 and SB 677 in support.

Good afternoon. Kira Rosoff on behalf of the cities of Glendale and Pasadena. Both cities have concerns and submitted letters with ongoing implementation issues on SB 79 that we're trying to work through but are making it very difficult. Thank you.

Yes, I'm last Julie Snyder representing the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. We don't have an official position but want to thank the Committee staff and the author and his staff for working with us in particular on the mapping requirements that apply to our agency and we look forward to Continuing engaging. Thank you.

All right. Do we have any other Members speaking on it? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much. And I, first of all, thank you for working with us. And I just want to say for the world in terms of the future bill that we put in print, we welcome all feedback, always want to get things right and this is a good opportunity to do it.

I want to be clear, this follow up legislation is not about gutting the bill or reversing all the decisions the Legislature made last year. That will not happen with any bill with my name on it. But we will work in good faith with anyone who comes forward and says this is an implementation challenge.

This is something that's unclear. We eagerly would solicit that input and we look forward to hearing about it. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? So, Senator, thank you. Appreciate that. So I do just want to remind everybody that this has been amended significantly. The full bill that we are talking about that a lot of people want to weigh in on will happen in roughly a month or so, most likely will be introduced.

And so people will have enough time. And we know that just because it's a two year effort that this has been amended narrowly. The Senator agrees to the amendments. We have a motion on the table for moving this bill as amended.

Yeah. Motion due passes amended to local government. [Roll Call]

So that bill is out 10 to 1. Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right, we're moving on to File item number three. Senator Cabaldon, SB417.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thanks so much for the opportunity to present SB417. This is a long time coming. California, over the last several years has enacted landmark housing policies to provide affordable housing developers with tools enabled to enable them to build hundreds of thousands of units across the state.

We have, through the Surplus Lands Act Reform and through SB79 and many, many other pieces of legislation, opened up tens of thousands of new sites, provided for their appropriate zoning and permitting, streamlined permitting of all kinds, including CEQA reform, and unlock many, many, many other tools in order to support the production of affordable housing.

But those homes don't build themselves and it's time to finish the job. So to unlock the full promise of these reforms requires cash. It requires sufficient capital, as it always has, to move these affordable housing projects from approval and permitting to construct. That's what SB417 does.

It proposes to place on the 2026 ballot a $10 billion Affordable Housing Bond Act, allowing voters to decide whether to make this critical investment in expanding California's affordable housing supply.

The bond would fund the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, permanent supportive housing, and home ownership opportunities, while enabling California to fully leverage the substantial matching federal resources through the tax code credit program. Collectively, these investments would support over 40,000 affordable homes.

There are 45,000 affordable housing units that are shovel ready but have not been able to make it to construction as a result of our lack of sufficient state resources.

And this would also generate tens of thousands of high-paying construction jobs and generate substantial tax revenue for both state and local government, and rescue 5,000 more than 5,000 units across the state in terms of preserving our existing stock of affordable housing.

So the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 represents a necessary and effective step toward addressing the housing crisis that Californians face every day. There is a companion measure that is also pending in the Senate from the Assembly, which is very closely related, although not totally identical.

That measure has achieved bipartisan support in the other House and we're hoping to achieve broad support in this House as well. Now, I'd like to introduce our two witnesses on SB417.

First, the Executive Director of the California Housing Consortium, Ray Pearl, and I believe we're also joint will be joined by Danny Curtin from the California Conference of Carpenters. And I respectfully, respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB417.

Thank you.

You will have two minutes. Thank you. Senator Cabaldon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ray Pearl, the Executive Director of the California Housing Consortium.

Today I am also here representing Shione Fleagle and her team at Housing California who are partnering up with us on this legislation, as well as a broad coalition of other organizations also supporting this bond. Our organizations work together to increase the supply of affordable housing in the state and also to prevent homelessness.

Together, we and our members are in strong support of SB417. Over the past several years, California has made real progress towards addressing our shortage of affordable housing. This is thanks in large part to state leadership.

From securing much-needed funding for housing programs and accelerating local approvals to opening new sites to development, you have demonstrated that when the state sets a clear goal and invests in it, we can make a meaningful difference. California has more than doubled the production of affordable homes over the past five years.

In a good year though, that means we're building approximately 20,000 units in our state. But after decades of underinvestment, the gap we are trying to close is substantial. Millions of hard working Californians are still struggling to find an affordable place to live.

And the state is far behind its stated goal of building 1 million affordable units by 2030. This is why SB417 is so essential. California has a robust affordable housing pipeline. As Senator Cabaldon said, 40,000 units ready to go as long as there's funding.

With the state's revenue picture getting tougher and resources from the state's last housing bond exhausted, California is in danger of momentum being stalled on housing production. Over the last few years, the state has relied on one time General Fund allocations to support affordable housing. But these resources, while incredibly important, cannot provide the scale or certainty needed.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. We're going to move on to the next speaker. Two minutes.

Again, thank you, Madam Chair. Danny Curtin with the California Conference of Carpenters. It's good to see you all. Brand new year. I do want to say that thank you for the focus on housing, but I've been involved in this Legislature at this role to some degree for the last four decades.

I was a product of the 1960s, so some of you may remember that. Most of you have probably read about it. It was crazy times and I believe today we are in a more difficult societal situation. And frankly, the homeless and housing crisis is the most destabilizing issue you have to deal with. And I thank you all.

By the way, the Legislature for the last 4, 5, 6, 8 years, more like six, has really been getting at this. I want to use one example to give you a sense of where I'm coming from. A working carpenter at the top of their game makes about.

I mean, at the top of their game makes $90,000, $100,000 if they're working a lot of overtime, maybe slightly more than that. They get health care, they get pensions, they get savings. But a working carpenter at the top of their game does not qualify for a 30 year mortgage for a bottom tier house in California.

Think about that. Sort of the top position in the blue-collar working class does not qualify for the bottom tier. There's something wrong with that. The upper-income housing is doing just fine. The wealth gap is a big portion of the problem we're facing. Environmental issues, climate change. This is a dangerous moment.

So while the recent housing legislation, as you mentioned, Senator Cabaldon, is beginning to show progress, it takes time. This bond will help provide, and I don't want to overplay it in a relatively small but important way, critical housing needs now at a time when they're most needed.

I know you're grappling with budget issues, et cetera, but this is the housing crisis. And so those of you who may be reluctant to look at a bond. Okay, well, I knew you'd cut me off at some point. Thank you very much.

Senator, two minutes. I've been very transparent. Okay, so we're going to move on to lead opposition.

Good afternoon. My name is Holden Weisman from Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco. Our position is that we currently stand in opposition unless amended. We are very supportive of the goals of this Bill of the housing bond in General, and for the inclusion of homeownership as it's mentioned in the Bill.

However, we respectfully ask that the Bill be amended to include a specific designation for investment in home ownership through CalHome. We respectfully ask for 10% of the bill's allocation.

So currently $1 billion be dedicated for this purpose so that we can make sure we have an ongoing funding for the state's only source of funding, support for affordable homeownership opportunities, production and preservation. So to move Habitat for Humanity and Habitat affiliates across the state to a position of support. We respectfully request that amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We're going to move on to MeToos both in support and opposition.

Good afternoon. Marshal Arnwine on behalf of the ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Paul Shafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing and on behalf of the California Association for Local Housing Finance Agencies here in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, Daniel Lurie, as well as the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Burbank Housing Development Corporation, all in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Hello. Harrison Linder with Leading Age California here in support.

Good afternoon. Chione Flegal with Housing California here in support.

Good afternoon. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Good afternoon. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, National Housing Law Project, Public Council and the Public Interest Law Project all in support.

Rachel Muller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment in support. Thank you so much.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the County of San Diego in support.

Natalie Spievack with Housing California expressing strong support on behalf of several organizations including Wakeland Housing and Community Development Corporation, PATH, MidPen Housing, Community Corps of Santa Monica, Resources for Community Development, People Self Help Housing, All Home Friends Committee on legislation of California End Poverty in California, Black Women for Wellness, Action Courage California, TRANSFORM California Coastal Protection Network, ASOOL and Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment. Thank you.

Hi, it's Tiyesha Watts with the California Housing Partnership in strong support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members Tasia Stevens on behalf of UDW AFSCME Local 3930, representing our 225,000 providers throughout the state in support. Thank you.

Chair and Member Jael Dantes on behalf of Alameda county in support.

Hello. Chloe Hsieh with the California Environmental Voters in support.

Hi, good afternoon. Leslie Rodriguez, California Strategies on behalf of Housing Trust Silicon Valley and Mountain View Community Land Trust in support.

Julie Snyder again with MTC ABAG in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Senators Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in support. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Chair Members Mariella Ruacho with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mike Shreve on behalf of the City of Anaheim in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members Jason Murphy on behalf of the University of California, we have support if amended position on this Bill. We've asked the Senator to consider an allocation available for higher educational institutions. Thank you.

Thank you again. Support or opposition?

Nathan Dietrich, on behalf of the California State University System, the CSU Support if amended position.

Good afternoon. Maddie Ribble, here to express strong support from the 60 Members of the California Community Land Trust Network as well as the 150 Members of the Housing Now Coalition.

Good afternoon. Chris Lee, on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments in support, particularly the infill infrastructure.

Good afternoon. Madam Chair. Gustavo Becerra, behalf of Regional Housing Authority. We are a housing authority that serves the counties of Sutter, Nevada, Butte and Colusa in support. Thank you.

Robert Copeland, Member of Sacramento Valley Tenants Union in strong support.

Good afternoon. Andres Ramos with Public Advocates and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Justine Marcus with Enterprise Community Partners and strong support. As well as on behalf of Members of the Stable Homes Coalition, including San Francisco Community Land Trust, Tenants Together and. East Bay Housing Organizations. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Gracia La Castillo Krings on behalf of a few organizations including Corporation for Supportive Housing, National Alliance to End Homelessness, Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing, SPUR, Prosperity California and Inner City Law Center. Thank you and strong support.

Good afternoon. Tom Kolishaw, I'm with Self Help Enterprises. Serving the San Joaquin Valley. Strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for having us. And my name is Ariane Daladea. I'm with Phoenix Act and in collaboration with the Housing California in strong support and please. California desperately needs housing, affordable housing and to prevent and alleviate homelessness. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Noor Koster with EAH Housing. We are a statewide affordable housing organization. Also in strong support by the Sacramento Housing Alliance. Thank you.

Ashley Coates, resident of Moraga. Not an official member of any of these groups, but I've lived here forever and I support.

Good afternoon. Susan Friedland from Satellite Affordable Housing Associates in the East Bay. Strong support.

Good afternoon and thank you. Amy Fishman with the Non- Profit Housing Association of Northern California in very strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kate Rogers with the Student Homes Coalition. Strong support.

Good afternoon. Alexis Rodriguez, a resident of San Jose. Senator Cortese's district and strong support.

Thank you. Nice shout out. So we're going to move on to Committee Members. We're going to start with Senator Durazo.

Great. Thank you. And if I may, Madam Chair, just on behalf of Senator Reyes, who had to leave, she asked me to just mention her concern or concerns about youth housing that's been brought up, the Calhoun issue and seniors. So that's on her behalf. She was very disappointed she couldn't stay. This is a really important measure.

I'm glad to see the author taking it up. It really is a more honest understanding of what our current moment requires, and that is sustained public investment that that centers affordability from the start and aligns our housing goals with our real resources. That's the key.

So I support this bond because California cannot solve a housing crisis of this scale by waiting for affordability to trickle down. And affordable housing has to be at the core of our housing strategy, not an afterthought. At the same time, home ownership matters deeply.

70% of my constituents are renters and that's why over the years I've prioritized funding for CalHome and CalHome because it builds new owner occupied homes for low and moderate income families. I support that program having a dedicated amount of funding under this bond. So I do want to ask of the authority, I mean again, very excited support.

I don't want this issue, this concern to in any way make less of my support. So tremendous support. But I do want to ask if under the bond, given that Calhoun funding is split with down payment assistance, does not have a set dollar amount, is there a risk that Calhoun may not ultimately receive any of these fundings?

Again, I'm very happy to support their BO because it acknowledges decades of underinvestment and we choose to act now. So thank you again. But if you could answer that one question. Thank you.

No. oh, did you want to respond? I was going to do it in my clothes, but I'm okay. That's fine.

We're going to move on to Senator Ochoa Bogh who has a number of.

Just comments. So I come from real estate, family of construction. I've worked with so many first time home buyers. I know how expensive the process of home buying is. I understand how expensive the rent is for many, many of our homeowners. I understand the unhoused situation that we have in our state.

There's so many issues that we have when it comes to housing and trying to analyze the root causes of why we're at right now. I think the concern that I have with adding another bond is just the incredible debt that we find ourselves in as a state.

And the concern is, you know, we have a projected $18 billion deficit that's projected for next year with bonds. It's just borrowing money obviously to help facilitate the construction of homes.

And according to my notes, it says here that in just in 2024, California voters approved the passage of Prop 1 to authorize the issuance of 6.4 billion in General obligation bonds for housing and supportive services. And Prop 1 barely passed with a 50.2% of the voters approving it.

And this bill well intended because we do need more funding for housing. But we already have something that is addressing some of these needs and now we're following, we're moving forward with another additional bond for for affordable rental housing and home ownership programs.

So I'm kind of curious as to why do you feel that we need to carry another debt in the form of a bond to address this issue when we just barely passed Prop 1 Last Year or not. Last year. I'm sorry, 24.

If I may through the Chair. She didn't say no. So two things I would point out. So I think first is that it is normal and typical given the states the size of our fiscal enterprise for us to be issuing general obligation bonds for hard assets on a fairly regular basis.

And we're relative to other states and to most audit and accountant standards, we are well within our limit. Even with the fiscal situation.

We find ourselves as a state and particularly in a bond like this where both the direct assets, the tax revenues that we would expect to state level government of a billion, you know, over a billion dollars at the outset that then also allow for the companies that we're trying to locate or keep here jobs, the other elements that are right now deeply threatened by our lack of a diverse housing supply that is absolutely essential for our ability to repay.

So at a billion dollars a year, for example of tax revenue, this bond would pay its in 10 years but it's actually a 30 year bond. So it's of all of the things that we finance through bond financing, affordable housing is one of the, is one of the best buys and it's entirely asset based.

It's not programmatic the other. With respect to Prop 1, I think it's a very fair point. But Prop 1's housing allocation isn't for the development of affordable housing in the sense it was specifically oriented to support the remainder of the homelessness and mental health services and transitional housing as part of that larger effort.

So they all, although they both deal with different forms of housing, this bond is not really about the transitional housing portion of the homelessness initiative. And that ballot measure did not affect financing for affordable housing on a long term basis.

It didn't allocate funding for that.

Is that correct? That was not the purpose of Proposition One was really a comprehensive homelessness measure of which housing was a component, but it really didn't attempt to try to deal with investment in affordable housing on a broader scale outside of that context.

Okay. And I think what, and you know, I respect your opinions quite often so curious with the debt that we have, with the projected debt that we have with the state with regards to paying off these, these bonds moving forward. What do you, what does that look like to you?

Is that, do you believe that that would be feasible?

I do. And you know, up until this month I've chaired the budget Subcommitee that is responsible among its duties is the state's annual repayment of bond debt. And because you know the bonds that were passed 30 years ago or, you know, thereabouts, those are constantly expiring too.

And so we are replacing and we've always been issuing debt for housing, for transportation, for education, for water and other critical infrastructure. That's why we've been successful as a state. So it isn't always just new debt, new debt, new debt, new debt. It's also old debt that is going away.

And now just like the last generation or two generations ago, now it's our turn to make the investment investments in that infrastructure.

But as I indicated, compared to other states, the relative amount of money that we spend on debt repayment for General obligation bonds is well within, it's well within a prudent and safe range, you know, to be, you know, the Chair, the Chair of this Committee has said like this bond's not big enough. And she is absolutely right.

Like the need, the need for a bond like this is easily $100 billion, not 10 billion. But we can't aff that we don't have the fiscal capacity to do $100 billion.

So $10 billion is about the limit of what for those of us are more conservative finance fiscally, that's about the limit of what we can afford to do.

And so the number may end up being a little less or a little bit more, but that is right in the range of what most analysts say is an appropriate debt target for California through the Chair.

So I think the only. So the other follow up question I would have is since you're the expert here, I didn't realize you were in that Committee. But what is the debt right now that we have as a state for bonds and you say we're within that range limit. What is it a percentage?

What's the amount of total bonds that currently that California carries and what percentage does that with it? What does that look like?

It's a good question and I appreciate the sign of respect that you think I might know that off the top of my head.

You preface your comments on the fact that you're on the bond.

Yes, but that is definitely a gettable number. So it's principally there is an absolute dollar figure as well.

But the principal measure, the principal metric that the state's accountants and the bond markets look at because bond markets are also not interested in buying bonds that we might sell if they're not absolutely convinced that we will be able to repay them. So it percentage and I just, I can absolutely get the number for you.

We can vote numbers today. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Seyarto.

It's $115 billion. Yeah. And our in our budget is 200 and our General Fund budget's 230. So we're past 50% bonded indebtedness. We have 35 billion that aren't sold yet, but they will be sold. So those are going to be brand new debt as it comes on.

This is part of a package of bond that started three years ago. And they didn't think that the public would be amenable to passing what at the time was, I think somewhere 80 to 90 billion dollars of bonds and taking on that kind of debt, just like you had said.

And so what happened was they spoon fed them a little bit in March in its own little thing and then they gave them a couple more later. So we did about 30 billion so far. And we keep taking these little bites.

This bonded indebtedness, the other figure you're looking for, and I believe it's now about $10 billion a year that we pay out of our General Fund for the interest on those bonds.

And mind you, just because the debt is $115 billion, that means by the time we get done paying it all, and that includes the ones that are coming to their, you know, getting paid off, it's about double what we wind up borrowing. And so the prudent question is this a smart way of spending our money?

Because at the same time, the things that we are paying for with this bond, we keep increasing the price. We increase the price to build through our labor laws, we increase the price to build through some of the other regulations that we are creating.

And we make the price to actually build a structure so high that even when you're building an affordable unit, and Chair has seen it in my community, we got 6,000 of them. And they're all coming online right now. And you know what, there's no line to get in. Half of them are empty.

So there's something wrong with our approach. The other thing that's wrong with this approach is that as we build all of these entry level units, you should see the price come down, but they're not coming down, they're holding steady. $2,300 in my region, $2,300 for a one bedroom apartment that is not affordable.

So I don't know what this bond is going to do that isn't already being done in terms of land acquisition and things like that, because it's already being done. They've already scooped up commercial property and made it into these massive apartments.

But what's not coming with them is all of the infrastructure that should be going with it because the cities can't afford to absorb all of that. And the units, the development can't absorb those costs because then the units will not be affordable. They're already not affordable. So our whole approach to this is broken.

And what we're doing is we're leveraging future dollars, hoping that somehow some magic is going to happen and that all of these people that are moving out, thousands and thousands of people, eventually they hope are going to move out to our warehouse. We don't have jobs for them, so this is a mess.

And the people that are being, well, they're being exposed to all of the issues being created by our policies, thinking that we're fixing affordable housing. They're really frustrated out there. They're frustrated at the traffic, they're frustrated at the lack of jobs, they're frustrated at the inability for people to move from those. Save money to what?

Go move into the. Somebody said that the upper housing market is fine. No, it's not. If it were fine, my kids wouldn't be living in Colorado. Paying $1.5 million for a thousand square foot house is not fine. So if there's no place for them to live, what's happening is our young kids are moving out.

That's our talent, that's our future tax base. They're all leaving. So we need to figure out why we have a bunch of apartments that aren't filling up. Why there are no big lines if there's such a huge demand for these, why there's no big lines for these apartments.

And before we start allocating more and more of our future dollars in bonded indebtedness, because that's $10 billion a year right now. We pay out. You know, if this is a priority, we can pay out.

We could take $230 billion of our budget and allocate a billion a year to take care of this and get more bang for our buck that way. You can't spend it all in one year. So there are other ways of doing this. This is the bailout way.

This is we spend all of the money that we get in from taxpayer dollars on other stuff. And then on the stuff that everybody thinks we really, really need, we go, hey, let's go borrow the money for that. That doesn't make any sense in anybody's financial world. And that's not how people become self sufficient.

That's how they become dependent until they move out. And that's part of our problem with the budget. We are becoming more and more Dependent on people that are leaving. And we're getting a lot of people that are dependent on us to help them afford a house, afford food, afford medical care, and afford all those other things.

So this isn't the answer. To me, more bonded indebtedness is, I think, irresponsible from a financial planning perspective for the state. And so there's no way I can support this approach. And I furthermore am really doubtful now of the whole approach to how we're handling the supply and demand issues of affordable housing.

If we had the supply, everything would be affordable. But we don't. And it's not because they're not building. They are building. We have 16 million units and counting for 39 million people. We have 3.7 people per unit. That's our average. So do the math. We seem to have enough housing, but somehow we just don't.

And we need to figure that out. We need a lot more thoughtfulness in this approach to our housing. So I will not be supporting any more bonds. I am very concerned about our budget in the future and I'm concerned about keeping our kids in our. In our state. I have three, and none of them live here anymore.

Thank you. If you would like to respond, because I have some commentary on that. But if you would like to respond.

Well, just a couple of key points and thank you for the. For sharing the specific numbers on the indebtedness piece. And just to observe, that reflects the point that I was making. That $10 billion worth of payments on debt compared to our overall budget is well within.

It's well within every corporate or government or city or county or school district, bonded indebted. So we're well within that ratio. This is not a new approach. And in fact, if we don't pass a bond, then all these programs have no money. This is the way in which we've, except for this last year, funded affordable housing.

And so this isn't like, let's try something new. This is. We've been. This Committee has been leading the way in passing more policies that have been driving down the cost by removing unnecessary permitting, removing unnecessary other procedural barriers by opening up additional sites and creating a more competitive market.

And so there has never been a better time to build more efficiently on the housing side. And that's why the bond is necessary. But we should make no mistake.

The programs that are already out there, that local nonprofit community, affordable housing developers and communities like mine and yours, they're trying to scrape together, they will, they will go out of business. And the projects that they currently have in queue will fall apart. And so it is about even maintaining the progress that we have always made.

Now just homeowners and small businesses do the same thing. If you are trying to build your capital stock, if you're trying to invest in a substantial asset, you almost always borrow to do so. In fact, homeowners, that's what homeowners are doing, but it's even what you're doing when you're remodeling your kitchen and getting a home equity loan.

Very few people and very few agencies have the resources to fully invest in massive infrastructure and asset building on just a pay as you go basis. And that's all. This is a normal way in which we support the construction of that housing. I do believe we have a housing crisis and we do not have enough homes.

There are waiting lists for every afford affordable housing project in my entire district. And I'm neither the poorest nor the richest district in the state. But the need is very clear.

And if we don't make these investments in affordable housing projects, then also cities and counties, market rate housing projects, everything else that is now in a single interconnected web because of all of our policies too.

Those collapse and our communities collapse and schools in my district will close and Napa hotels will shut down because there's no longer any, any local workers. It's a big impact when we don't make even the most basic of investments in affordable housing.

As I noted earlier, the chair has made it very clear to me, and I agree 1000%, this is nowhere near enough because the need is much deeper.

But this is an important investment in order to move forward, to build projects that are fully ready to go and to help to meet the affordable housing demand all across California, please.

All right, so, and I do have to correct the record. I hate admitting when I'm wrong, But it wasn't $115 billion. It's $130 billion of bonded indebtedness. So anyway, I was off by a cool $15 billion. And I want to make sure that the record reflects that. It was actually 130 billion.

All right, so we have a number of other speakers that want to speak. We're going to start with, with Senator Araguin and then Senator Cortese and then Senator Caballero and then Senator Padilla. So please, let's go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to pick up on the previous comments, and I really want to respect the work that's being done in Senator Sierto's district to provide affordable housing. I'll Just speak for the constituents in my district in Oakland. There is a line around the.

Around the block, if not down multiple blocks of people trying to just apply to get into affordable housing in the community that I represent. So there's a critical demand for affordable housing. And I think, as Senator Cabaldon had touched upon, the funds from the 2018 bond have been spent. They were exhausted in 2023.

So this Legislature has augmented money through the budget to, to provide funding in these programs. So we need this bond to just maintain funding for existing housing programs which are leveraged with federal and private sources to be able to build affordable housing in California.

I want to lift up the leveraging piece and just talk about sort of the economic benefits of this bond with federal tax credits and other revenue sources. It's been estimated that these investments would support the creation of 135 affordable homes in the state of California.

I do agree that the cost of building affordable housing in California is way too high. And there's a hearing happening right now just in the Capitol by the Assembly Select Committee looking at ways for us to support innovation in housing production and reduce costs and get homes built faster.

And I think that's work that we can lean into this year on this Committee and with our partners in the Assembly. Because it shouldn't cost 750,000 to a million a door to build an affordable home. We need to drive down those costs so that we can get more homes built with the money that we're investing.

But I also want to put this in the context of decreased federal funding by the Trump Administration.

It was just a few weeks ago that they were attempting to terminate funding for permanent support of housing through the federal cockpit, which would result in thousands of unhoused and housing insecure Californians from losing housing and our nonprofit partners having the resources to sustain their housing.

So that's why we as Californians need to step up and to do everything we can to make this investment so that we can build the shovel ready projects that thousands and thousands of units statewide that have been entitled, that have local matches, but need that little bit of state money to be able to make those projects happen.

So yes, every time we go to the voters and we ask them to approve a bond, we are increasing our indebtedness. But as Senator Cabaldon said, this is within the scope of how much indebtedness that we can incur. Bonds are typical ways for government agencies to be able to finance capital projects.

And many local governments in many counties have approved housing bonds for throughout the state. To be able to build affordable housing projects. Now we're asking the voters of California to approve a much larger bond to be able to help create, I think, this estimated 40,000 new affordable homes just through this money.

Not only, not in addition to the money that will be leveraged through other funding sources. So putting this in context, funding's already exhausted. We desperately need this money now.

With a $18 billion budget deficit facing our state government, we cannot expect that we as a state government are going to be able to fund this exclusively through the General Fund. That's why a bond is appropriate. We have a pipeline of existing projects and units ready to go. We need this money.

And the money will be leveraged to create even more housing in California. For those reasons, I am a proud co author and I strongly support this bill today.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just. I feel like this is kind of a correct the record type of thing. And I wish Senator Seyarto was still here. Maybe he'll come walking back in. I know all of us move around a lot on busy days like this, but it's not proper. It's not proper. Generally accepted accounting principles to.

To put in juxtaposition your debt to your revenue. Most people who dealt with public or private sector balance sheets understand income and expenses, or revenue and expenses, if it's public sector, are on one side of the ledger and assets and liabilities are on the other side of the ledger. So there's.

It's completely apples and oranges to say we have $130 billion in debt that somehow is encroaching on whatever revenue we have. 300 billion, 200 billion. It doesn't. They're two completely different things. You need to look at all of those, obviously.

And I know the good Senator, the author has done that, But I just think that needs to be clear. I think most people in this audience are sophisticated. There may be high school kids or college kids or somebody watching the streaming to write a report or something.

And I'd hate to see that mistake repeated or repeated over and over again or have people confused really almost a matter of basic accounting literacy. This state has so much in the way of assets.

We don't even know what those totals are, the magnitude of assets that the state has in surplus property alone, what we call excess property. There's 44,000 parcels in this state of excess property that HCD is trying to move out into the marketplace for affordable housing. That alone would.

The value of that property alone would dwarf, just completely dwarf the amount of indebtedness the state has, let alone the amount of indebtedness in this bill, which is even more dwarfed by the amount of opportunity out there at the value of real estate in the state.

I wouldn't even venture a guess, but I would say probably just the annex here and the property that the state owns in a couple squares blocks here far exceed in total or nearly match at least a 100 billion dollars. I don't think it would be put on the market for that amount of money.

So just to be clear, right. For those that I'm not trying to maybe it probably sounds like I'm trying to do a tutorial, but I just think we don't do rebuttal here and that's not the point.

And I actually agree with, with some of the things that Senator Seyarto said about supply and demand issues and the fact that we're behind on that. But this one issue we need to be clear on, this bond is a good idea. I'm of course supporting it.

And it doesn't in any way, shape or form put this state in jeopardy of insolvency from an assets to liability standpoint. Thank you.

Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make this really brief. I think this is really important. What we've heard is that Californians are really concerned about housing affordability. And in terms of the districts, I have always represented it. We've never had 3.2 people or 3.6 people living in the units.

The inequality between those who have and those who have not is just huge. And I drive by a bunch of homes where there's two people or one people living in the mansion and that qualifies, I guess, as part of the housing stock.

I end up in my district, people don't live in mansions, they live in apartments and very small housing units. And they're severely overcrowded and given an opportunity to move into their own place where they're not living with family members or other strangers or strangers, let me put it that way, they would do that.

So I'm going to support the bond. I agree with the comment that's been made about Calhome, actually the Calhome as well as the rehabilitation program to be able to rehab houses or homes that are not controlled by they're not officially low income, but they could be if they were rehabbed.

And this will be a fairly robust discussion with the Assembly and the Governor in the end. But I'd like to see as much of the money go into housing development rather than services at the front.

While the services are important, I want to see sticks, sticks in the ground, because I think that's what's going to make a difference in terms of the affordability and in terms of some of the communities.

A number of cities that have housing projects that are ready to roll, but they're not funded, and they're desperate for rooftops because that's how they get the commercial benefit of new stores coming in and economic development. And if we don't get that, then these communities remain stagnant, and it's not a good thing.

So thank you for doing this. And I'd like to be listed as a Co when you get, when you do an amendment. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And real quick, the voice of opposition that spoke, of course, the preferential position would have hopefully have been support unless amended. Maybe we can get them there. But I would just ask for you to make that commitment.

To have that further conversation with any of those, the affiliates or those that are participating in the CalHome ownership is very important. We need that to be affordable as well. And there's really good work that is happening under that program. So I just would ask, are you willing to make that commitment to have further conversations?

I think it's worthy of that conversation. I hear your head nod. Thank you.

Okay. He has made that commitment and we're going to go with Senator Padilla

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the author for taking this up and for, I think, a pretty well articulated defense of the proposed bond.

Much work remains, obviously, when we get into the details further down the session, but well articulated defense, the soundness of this as a potential financial instrument, certainly with respect to the yield here in the context of the crisis that we face, I say again, and I said it many, many times in this conversation, that the affordability crisis in housing and sheltering for Californians is not just simply a function of scarcity.

So there are many, many multiple dimensions that affect whether people can afford to put a roof over their head.

And that not the least of which are markets that we operate in and material costs and regulatory impacts, and most of all, the incredible continuing and persistent gap in wages and wealth that continues to worsen in this state and allows fewer and fewer Californians to even participate in this economy or even have a reasonable chance of, to even look at achieving either rental product, never mind being a homeowner.

So we have a very complex multidimensional challenge in front of us. It is acute, it is severe. And I just want to say that this element of getting at that here, for these purposes, this is sound and has high value and is more than appropriate.

And I'm happy to be supportive and would like to be added at the appropriate time as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I would like to highlight a couple of things. Number one, we have two Senate bond measures regarding housing in the Senate. We have one in the Assembly. And through our analysis and through Committee staff, we have talked a lot about what we are truly funding.

We've also had, I personally have had conversations with the author as well as the authors of the other bonds. I will say that there is going to be an effort to kind of, I don't want to say marry the bonds, but make sure that we are tackling the issues that actually matter to California.

The way that it's going to work largely is that the authors obviously present their bonds and there is going to be some negotiation amongst the three authors, if you will. I do want to highlight this. Housing in California is unaffordable. My district in particular, especially representing Silicon Valley, is very difficult to purchase a home.

Average home cost is about $1.4 million. Right. These are homes that, you know 20, 30 years ago cost $200,000. I will also agree with Senator Seyarto, as I have traveled to his district, that when we discuss housing policies or any policies, you know, all communities are not the same and our policies need to reflect that.

One of the concerns that I have historically have had was that when we are talking about affordable and development. Affordable to who and what are we developing and who are we developing for? We have been focused very much on development. We have been very much focused on making sure that we streamline efforts for increased development.

However, we have not focused as much on affordability. And the average homeowner or individual that buys their first home, the age now is 40 years old for their very first home, where during our parents generation it was 24 years old. That is a disappointing fact and statistic that is out there.

I also want to highlight, and I share this with my colleagues over and over and over again, that the fact that fastest growing demographic amongst our homeless population is our seniors. I say that a lot because you guys have all heard me say it. Our fastest demographic going into the workforce is also seniors, in particular, women. Right.

And with the affordable, you know, affordability crisis, we are having a problem with the cuts to medical and the rise in the cost of everything has been extremely difficult for so many folks.

But I specifically want to say the vulnerable communities, those that are disabled, those that are on a fixed income, those that are seniors and much more, they have to play an unfair balancing act of ensuring that they don't make a certain amount more so that their benefits get cut off. Right? That is not fair.

So yes, I am, you know, very concerned about our debt ratio. Obviously. I do also agree with some of the commentary here that the cost of development keeps going up and there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to hold that into place.

But at the same time that this is a long term investment, the money is utilized for a good effort. And you know, I do want to highlight two of the bonds are very similar. And then there, there's going to be one that we're going to hear from in a short moment of time.

The reality, though, is that we do need to prioritize affordable housing and ownership. And I will say, Senator, that your particular Bill is actually trying to prioritize a little bit of home ownership, which I think is missing from the conversation in housing today.

I also want to highlight that it's another effort for, and I want to be very clear, wildfire prevention, rental assistance and affordable housing construction. So very specific to the issues that matter today to many Californians. Right. So I am more than happy to support this. I want to thank you for the work.

I want to thank you for just kind of negotiating and continuing to work as this Bill moves forward. There are timelines for bond measures and we're going to kind of, you know, keep our eye on this. So if you would like, like to close.

Yeah. Madam Chair, thank you so much. And thanks for your leadership and your partnership on this effort, and just to draw to a close. And thanks for all the comments. I agree with all of the supportive comments, but also many of the concerns as well.

And we're trying to, in the construction of the bond and in all the other policies, try to drive down the cost of production. We're trying to make sure that we're serving the broad range of, of needs and the interaction between affordable housing and the rest of the market and the rest of our communities.

So I definitely hear and agree on many of those concerns as well. And it's clear that this is absolutely needed. We tried this last year to fund in the budget as these programs were running out of money. We tried to fund it year by year and we can't. That is not a financially.

It's like me going to the, try to buy somebody's house. Let me just buy the, let me just buy the bathroom. Not even the whole bathroom, just the entryway bathroom this year. And then can I come back next year and buy the bedroom? It doesn't work like that.

We have to make investments in these projects as the whole. And at 40,000 units of production, this is actually a very good deal. This is not a million dollar per unit subsidy in this program. It's really about trying to close the gap. Everybody else is stepping up.

The Federal Government, the local governments, the nonprofits, the banks, everybody is stepping up here. They just need us to like, just close the deal, bring it, bring it home. And that's what this, this bond measure is all about.

I do want to also emphasize that and commit, you know, directly both to, you know, Senator Grayson has said to Senator Durazo and others, you don't have to oppose the Bill to come to the table. We are trying to make sure that we.

That the package reflects both where the capacity is to build, you know, those sectors where there are, you know, ready to go, shovel ready projects and what the needs are and what the voters are prepared to and want to support.

And although this Bill is very similar to the Assembly version, that should not be taken as a suggestion that this is in stone at all. And so very much appreciate and concur with the emphasis on home, on youth, including foster youth, seniors habitat and rehabilitation. Those were some of the clear themes today.

So very much appreciate that we will continue to work with all of the stakeholders in order to bring forward a bond that will pass and that will help to meet the need and take advantage of the substantial efforts by both US and state government.

But really at the ground level, in communities of people trying to solve their own problems, their own needs, and meet that need. I will say just to Senator Cortese's point, just very briefly, because it was a big kind of slap in my face when we were in budget Subcommitee taking this up.

And we brought DGs forward to talk about their excess sites program because we have all these sites that could be used for housing. And DGS said we've done all the marketing, we've done all the economic analysis, worked really closely with a lot of developers, including, know what? It turns out there's no money. There's no money to build.

We have sites and they have everything they need, except there's no cash to bring it home. So even for the big, bad, powerful state of California, imagine if you're the nonprofit housing collective in West Sacramento or in Hayward. It's almost impossible.

These are critical resources in order to bring that home and make real the promise that we have made to accom to attack all of the challenges the chairman, other Members of the Committee have outlined. And so with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Padilla moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

So the final vote is eight ayes, one no. That is out. Thank you. We're going to move on to the next bond we're going to go a little bit out of file order just to make sure. We're going to ask you to speak at the lectern. This was the random thing.

So SB492 is the Youth Housing and Youth Center Bond Bill. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Totally forgot we only do that in Assembly. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I am so glad Senator Cabaldon went first and took all the punches for the bond and all the questions that have been answered.

No, but I'm here to present SB492 and I want to preface by saying you probably have already mentioned a lot of this is listen, these are the vehicles in place right now. Negotiations are going to be happening with leadership. The bond conversations happen in respective caucuses. Moving forward.

This is part to ensure that it's part of the conversation. What you see right now is probably not going to be the end for what the housing bond is going to look like.

The ultimate goal, the ultimate goal is for this my Bill to be absorbed by the major Housing Bond Bill and not for it to be a standalone Bill.

But as it is right now, SB492 is looking to establish the Youth Housing Bond Act which would authorize the sale of general obligation bonds, as we all know, to fund youth centers and youth housing projects, for individuals up to the age of 25 years old. This is the transition population which I'll be speaking to as the Tay population.

It will allow both public agencies and community based organizations with specific youth expertise to apply for the youth bond funds. Madam Chair, you spoke about the need for the Silver Tsunami as we continue to call it, and sub three. That's all we talk about, the Master Plan on Aging. The number one goal was to house these individuals.

And I think as as the Legislature we have fallen short in housing seniors. But this is a data point that sticks out to me as to why we need to also make sure we focus in the beginning stages of life.

50% of adults who are homeless now, 50% of seniors, all of that who are homeless now say that they were homeless when they were young kids, that they started their homelessness pathway as young individuals. And if we invest in young individuals now, we can prevent the Silver Tsunami from being in our California's history for years to come.

So this is why my approach to helping foster youth, previous foster youth, those are at risk, those are currently homeless to house them in what we're calling transitional because it's up to the age of 25 to get them on their feet to ensure that the youth center provides them connection to jobs so that after the age of 25, they will go off on their own.

The cost right now in California just to help an unhoused youth is 755,000. Sorry. For an unaccompanied minor, homeless is $755,000. And for a Tay population, unhoused is $704,000. That's a cost that we continue to pay for every single year. This investment, while I know that our capacity for bond is really, really tight. I heard you, Senator.

I heard you, Senator, in your remarks before. I understand that we cannot pull it from the General Fund right now. We have no money. This is an investment that is really going to help us save money down the line. So I'll share there. I'll stop there.

And Madam Chair, I'd like to turn over to my two witnesses to speak in support of this.

Thank you again. You will be speaking at that lectern in two minutes. We do time. Thank you.

Members, my name is Ami Rowland. I am the Chief Program Officer at Covenant House California, and I'm here to speak in support of SB492. At Covenant House, we provide sanctuary housing and support to young people experiencing homelessness between the ages of 18 and 24. We believe that no young person in California does not deserves to be homeless.

And every young person deserves an opportunity for housing, for shelter, for food, clothing, and most importantly, to be loved and to work towards their educational and professional goals. Covenant House provides a full continuum of care and support. And we believe that the young people in the counties that we serve in really benefit from transitional housing.

Currently, we're operating housing in Anaheim, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Hayward and Oakland. Young people experiencing homelessness, as you've probably heard before, are exposed to many challenges and barriers that often chronically homeless adults do too. But maybe in a different way.

Some of those are victimization, being pulled into human trafficking, a lot of mental and emotional strain, the lack of affordable housing which we've heard here today, and also the gaps in foster care.

I think we've done great work in California, but currently at Covenant House California, 32% of young people that walk through our doors every year touch the foster care system. But our transitional housing programs give young people an opportunity, the time and space of two years or more to really heal, to work towards their goals.

A lot of them are educational focused or vocational focused. They're also building school skills around money management, life skills, how to build community and be in healthy relationship and be a contributing member to the community that they choose to live in. Currently, across our continuum of care of housing.

Over 80% of our young people exit our transitional housing programs into stable housing every year. Thank you.

2 minutes. Yeah. It goes by fast when you're on a roll.

Thank you. Thank you.

My goal is for you not to have to say that to me. Thank you. My name is Jody Ketcheside. I'm the chair of the board for the California Coalition for Youth, a co sponsor of the Bill. I am also an assistant Director of supportive housing with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority.

I have over 25 years of experience working with all homeless populations in both rural and urban settings in various parts of California. I've also chaired and served on local continuums of care. There are various kinds of interventions needed for youth to address the complex challenges that young people face.

Shelter time limited supported rapid rehousing coupled with services all be pathways out of homelessness for youth. As a young person, it's extremely challenging to find and compete for affordable housing.

The barriers include no rental history, no established credit score, sometimes credit scores that were damaged when they were just children by family Members opening credit in their names and often little to no financial security. These are all factors that that are beyond their control and simply due to age and the stage of life that they're in.

We desperately need more housing for youth. Youth are an underserved population, oftentimes because they are invisible compared to other priority populations. It's also important that we allow nonprofit organizations and community based organizations to apply for capital funds. They can often get things done much cheaper and it really should be more competitive than it has been historically.

So I would ask that you vote aye and let's help keep our kids in California.

Conversation. I mean, less than two minutes. I appreciate that. Do we have any opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any me toos? State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in Support. Thank you very much.

Dr. Coco Auerswald, faculty lead for Youth and Allies Against Homelessness at UC Berkeley School of Public Health, registering my strong personal support for this Bill.

Nicole Morales, on behalf of Children Now Proud co sponsor and in strong support.

Hi. George Cruz, on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association in support. Thank.

Krista Esquil, on behalf of the YMCA Of San Diego County, strong support.

Sherilyn Adams, Larkin Street Youth Services, in strong support. Thanks.

Kristin Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights, a co sponsor, obviously in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So I think there's nobody that can argue with you that this is something that is desperately needed the housing. I love Covenant Houses. Your guys commercials are awesome. They really bring that issue home.

It's just again, when you're talking about bonds versus just allocating money in your budget, if you're going to borrow $10 billion, and I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, you're going to pay about 300 to $500 million a year for the next 20 years in interest on that bond.

Why not just allocate $300 million a year out of your budget that you're going to be paying anyway for this particular issue for the next 20 years and we'll be using the entire amount for this particular issue instead of using half of it to pay somebody interest. That's what my point is about bonds.

And I wanted to also clarify, bonded indebtedness of $130 billion isn't something you pay every year. You only pay the interest on that and some of the principal. So, you know, those are, you know, it's not that I don't think there's a time and place for a bond.

It's just when you get too many of them, then you're eating up. Like in our case, eight to $10 billion a year is paid in interest for these bonds that we have out. And if we keep increasing that amount, that's money that we cannot spend on this stuff.

And this is the stuff that we should be spending some money on. And yet instead of just allocating, because you're not going to spend the entire $10 billion in one year, you do need it every year.

And that's the bigger problem is with the way the budget works is one year you might have it and then the next year you don't, and then everybody can't plan.

But if we're going to be paying it, because instead of doing the bond, we decide, hey, we're going to do 250 million a year or 300 million a year instead of paying interest, we're going to do that for 20 years.

I'd rather do that because at least we're getting some bang for our buck and we're actually allocating most of the money towards fixing the problem.

And if we would do that more often, I think we would be a lot more successful in addressing these needs, that these organizations that are doing great work out there to be able to get to that point where they can count on the money and they can do what they need to do and we can, you know, help they can help us solve that problem.

So that is my clarification for bonds. So I don't want people to understand or think that somehow I think that's 130 billion a year we're paying. We're not. Okay. Thank you.

Senator Ochobok.

So I'm conflicted. I'm conflicted because of the concerns that have been expressed with regards to bonds versus.

I think my colleague here from Murietta has made excellent points on, you know, whether or not we pay interest, you know, twice a year, or do we actually allocate that funding directly to the grants and the, you know, getting a better return on our investment.

On that note, especially when we look at the overall bond debt that the state finds itself in, I think those are incredibly valid points. But on the other hand, I also.

I don't know whether or not, you know, the Legislature, which, you know, we're a minority in, super minority in, would actually make that a priority in the budget. Right. You know, you, as a Member of the majority party, would probably have a better voice or a strong voice in advocating for that allotment.

But you can't even guarantee, you know, whether or not that would be made. But I would rather see that. I'm conflicted because I have historically supported anything for our foster youth. I have voted for previous efforts in providing funding for our unhoused youth and especially foster youth.

Unlike the first bond, which I did, I abstained because obviously, in principle, I agree we need to have more funding in these programs. It's how we fund them.

And I think if the public, the general public understood the way that bonds work, which I don't think the average California does I have learned more about bonds while in this position than I think I knew prior to coming to the Senate. And I believe that is the majority of California. Californians. But I think a great.

You know, there are certain areas where it really does make sense to actually create that infrastructure bond funding available. There are other areas where you go, well, you know, it would probably be better if we did it, you know, in a different way.

I'm going to support your bond today because in principle, in my district and the districts that I border, it is desperately needed.

And being that I am the super minority, I can't just go to the budget chair and Committee Members and say, hey, this is what we want, and know that it's going to be guaranteed funding for them. And that's what bothers me is that I don't have that guarantee. You probably would have a better voice in that effort.

But because I don't know whether or not they will allocate that funding, I'm going to support this particular bond because when it comes to our foster youth, our folks with disabilities and our seniors, which are the most vulnerable in our state, and there's no guarantee whether or not we're going to allocate funding for their housing and residential needs, I am going to support this particular bond because.

Because especially with foster youth where they've had blow after blow and they're facing circumstances that are beyond their control, I think we do need to step up and this is just a small way of guaranteeing that they get some assistance and help, and especially when it comes to housing, which provides you so much comfort and security, to be able to then be able to get the other needs and prepare you to, you know, be better prepared for a future.

So I am going to support this. This bond particularly, but I do want to wholeheartedly express the concern that I have about putting it in a bond and not getting it from a General budget allocation, which is not guaranteed at this point.

And if it were, I would be 100% supportive of that effort rather than this particular effort in a bond. But I think the points that have been made today with concerns with bonds I think should seriously considered, reconsidered moving forward.

Thank you. We're going to move on to. And I just want to flag. Senator, that is officially the first bipartisan bond regarding housing. So. Hoorah there. Right. So, Senator. And she also voted on it as well. Yeah, see for this year, though. Right. So, Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, thank you for doing this bond. I think we could all agree, all agree that children shouldn't be homeless. I mean, no human should be homeless. But if there's a category where the Heartstrings are pulled and where we know that it creates danger for the individual or the family with children, this is it.

I support what you're trying to do here. The one footnote that I would add, and it's my apologies to the different organizations that showed up and that do terrific work in providing services to youth, homeless and not homeless. But bonds are not traditionally used to provide services.

The reason is because bonds are used specifically for, for buildings, for construction, for things that are, that are going to be, are going to last for years. And so one of the benefits of bonds is that it creates economic opportunity for people to work and it generates good jobs and that's good for the economy as well.

So it's a stimulus. It also provides an asset and a resource. It's why we do bonds for hospitals, why we do bonds for schools, why we do bonds for dams. Those are the kinds of infrastructure that's really, really critically important. So I expect there will be a negotiation on this one.

But services should not be included because it really creates a challenge because it's not the way bonds are. They're not issued for that kind of thing. That ought to come out of our budget. I agree with what's been said about our budget. Madam Chair, thank you.

Point well taken. Senator.

Senator, would you like to provide any clarity on the services question or.

Yeah, it's so part of the bond and I haven't allocated any percent dollar amount as I would continue negotiation was to do youth house, youth centers as well, to be able to connect youth to these housing facilities.

But also understanding that just providing a home for a 19 year old, a 20 year old, is not going to suffice for them to be as successful as we wanted them to be once they transition out of the home. Which is why we included that. Recognizing that more than likely this will be absorbed.

Negotiations are going to have to occur to see where we land there.

If I could make a suggestion, it's that recently we have funded, I believe through the state budget, housing for college students for the community college partnership with the UCS or the CSU.

It's transitional housing so you can start off as a community college student and then move to the university, but stay in the same housing in the community.

And that may be that relationship between housing for foster youth or for youth that are homeless to be able to then go into the college, community college, four year college housing would be a great relationship. And we probably don't need to do much now, but we should just be thinking about it for the future.

I just think the whole idea is to. It's a promise to young people that will go to community college, that there's a place for you for your college in the same community, and you can stay in the same housing at the same rental rate. And I just think it's a powerful.

And one thing I think I also need to clarify, it's the infrastructure of the youth center, so not the actual services itself. Okay, Yeah, I got it.

Thank you. All right. And with no, Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward and really having it on the table as we go forward here. And the author knows that I've worked hard in a different but similar way on transitional age populations in terms of homelessness.

And I just wanted to put out there that as we've done that work over the last couple of years, the numbers of high school graduates has nearly doubled. I think it's more than doubled, actually, now that I think about it, in the five years that I've been here. But it's.