THE UH, SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE
WILL START NOT FORMALLY BECAUSE
WE DON'T WELL, WE'LL START BUT
WE WILL NOT TAKE ROLL YET
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM.
BUT WE WILL. WE CAN HEAR WE CAN
BEGIN TO HEAR OUR BILLS, SO WE
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ANY
MOTIONS ON THOSE BILLS UNTIL WE
HAVE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM, BUT
WE CAN STILL BEGIN TO HEAR THEM.
SO UH, LET ME SEE WHO IS IN THE
ROOM. I SAW MR BECKER. SO THE
FIRST BILL THAT WE HAVE UP IS S¼
B. UM 1095, SENATOR BECKER. SO,
SENATOR BECKER, YOU MAY COME AND
PRESENT. YEAH, WE'LL DO THAT.
BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A CO AND
YEAH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR. UM HAPPY TODAY TO PRESENT
SB 1000 THREE 195. THIS IS BILL
WE BELIEVE WILL SAVE LIVES BY
BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN
UNSHELTERED AND FINDING
PERMANENT HOUSING. WE ARE NÓ,
CALIFORNIA HAS A LARGE HOMELESS.
UM, POPULATION. WHERE PEOPLE
OFTEN DON'T KNOW IS THAT 67% OF
OUR HOMELESS POPULATIONS,
UNSHELTERED. NATIONALLY. THAT'S
ABOUT 20. NEW YORK STATE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS 5. AND EVERY NIGHT
IN OUR CAPITOL. I SEE PEOPLE
SLEEPING IN DOORWAYS. I WALK
PAST THE SLEEPING DOORWAYS TO
WHERE I SLEEP AND PEOPLE ARE
SUFFERING ON OUR SIDEWALKS IN
ENCAMPMENTS, AND WE KNOW THERE
ARE HIGH RATES OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE. UM
AND DEATH IN THESE, UH, IN THESE
ENCAMPMENTS AND ON THE STREET,
THERE WAS JUST A VERY LARGE
STUDY IN THE JOURNAL OF HEALTH
AFFAIRS. IN THE PAST 10 YEARS
THERE'S BEEN A 238% INCREASE. IN
MORTALITY RATES FOR HOMELESS
COMMUNITIES. UNSHELTERED
HOMELESS COMMUNITIES DUE TO
EXPOSURE AND LACK OF ACCESS TO
CARE. SO THIS IS, UM A
HORRIFYING AND UNACCEPTABLE
SITUATION AND IT IS A CRISIS.
IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BILL
DOES SAY THIS IS A CRISIS AND
EXTEND THE èC EL Tð A CRISIS
ACT. UM AND IT REQUIRES A
STATEWIDE SOLUTION. THAT'S WHY
I'M UM, REALLY EXCITED TO
PRESENT THIS BILL THE INTERIM
HOUSING ACT, WHICH WHICH FILLS A
REALLY A MISSING GAP ON THE
LADDER BETWEEN AGAIN UNSHELTERED
HOMELESSNESS AND PERMANENT
HOUSING. THIS BILL ON POWER.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO WANT TO
INVEST IN INTERIM HOUSING AND
PUT A ROOF OVER THE HEADS OF OUR
OWN HOUSE. NEIGHBORS QUICKLY, UH
SAFELY AND AT SCALE. FOR
SPECIFICALLY CUTS TO RED TAPE
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
EMPOWERS THEM TO BUILD INTERIM
HOUSING BY EXPEDITING APPROVALS
THROUGH S¼. SIMPLIFIES THE
PROCESS FOR A STREAMLINED
HOUSING, THUS REDUCING
CONSTRUCTION TIME AND COSTS AND
BUILDS ON CURRENT LAW.
IMPORTANTLY IT EXTENDS THE
SHELTER CRISIS ACT AND THE LOW
BARRY NAVIGATION CENTER LAW. UH,
BY EXPANDING AND EXTENDING, UM,
THEIR ABILITY TO STREAMLINE
PROJECTS AND PROVIDE LOCALS MORE
ASSURANCE THAN THEY CAN UM, UH,
THROUGH THE CURRENT TIMELINE FOR
THESE BILLS TO, UM SUNSET.
LASSIE MAKES FUNDING AVAILABLE
FOR INTERIM HOUSING AS A
NECESSARY COMPONENT TO OUR
STRATEGY. SENATOR BECKER, UM OK,
OUR AGENDA HAD THE COZY HOMES
CLEAN UP 10 TO 95 ON BUT YOU'VE
ALREADY GONE SO YOU ARE ACTUALLY
PRESENTING SB 1395. I APOLOGIZE
HERE, SO IT'S OK. I JUST WANT IT
FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS ITEM
TWO. SO YOU MAY PROCEED WITH
ITEM. OK THANK YOU. THANKS FOR
THAT. CLARIFICATION UM, I KNOW.
OK I APOLOGIZE. I YEAH, BUT WHY?
WE NEED COZY HOMES. NÓ UM,
ANYWAY, I APOLOGIZE. UM, SO,
YES. 1395 THESE ARE ALL THINGS
THAT 1395 WILL DO THAT I JUST
MENTIONED AND BY DOING SO. 1395
LET US QUICKLY AND INEXPENSIVELY
CONSTRUCT MODULAR NON CONGREGATE
UNITS ON UNDERUTILIZED LAND. AT
LOW COST, AND TODAY I HAVE WITH
ME TWO EXPERTS, WITNESSES,
ADRIAN COVERT FROM THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL. ELIZABETH FUNK FROM
DIGNITY MOVES. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM PRESIDENT. THANK YOU.
SENATOR CALIFORNIA TODAY
PROVIDES FEWER THAN FOUR SHELTER
BEDS FOR EVERY 10 HOMELESS
CALIFORNIANS THAT IS THE SECOND
LOWEST RATE IN THE UNITED STATES
AND FAR BELOW THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE OF EIGHT BEDS FOR EVERY
10, HOMELESS RESIDENTS AND THE
CHRONIC SHORTAGE OF SHELTER
OPTIONS IN CALIFORNIA DIRECTLY
CONTRIBUTES TO THE STAT THE
SENATOR MENTIONED OF CALIFORNIA
HAVING THE HIGHEST RATE OF
UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS IN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE
PROLIFERATION. OF UNSHELTERED.
HOMELESSNESS IN CALIFORNIA COSTS
THOUSANDS OF LIVES EVERY YEAR,
NEEDLESSLY LOST TO THE ELEMENTS
TO ACCIDENTS AND TO CRIMINAL
VIOLENCE. THE LONGER A HOMELESS
RESIDENT IS WAREHOUSED BENEATH
OUR STREETS ARE BENEATH OUR
OVERPASSES ON OUR STREETS OR IN
OUR RIVER OR OUR RIVER BEDS OR
AND OUR WATERSHEDS, THE MORE
TRAUMA THEY ENDURE AND THE MORE
LIKELY THEY ARE TO DEVELOP A
SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER OR A
PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER. SB 1395
WILL HELP ADDRESS THIS CRISIS BY
EMPOWERING CITIES WITH
ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO QUICKLY
SCALE HIGH QUALITY, NON
CONGREGATE INTERIM HOUSING TO
HELP BRING PEOPLE INDOORS AND
SAVE LIVES WITH DIGNITY. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ELIZABETH FUNK. I'M
THE èC E Ó OF DIGNITY MOVES, A
NONPROFIT THAT IS FOCUSED ON
ENDING UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS.
SO I'M HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY
TO TALK ABOUT THE INTERIM
HOUSING ACT AND WHY IT'S SO
ESSENTIAL AIM. HOUSING IS A
SPACE THAT HAS EMERGED RECENTLY
BETWEEN SHELTER AND PERMANENT
HOUSING, AND IT'S EMERGED OUT OF
A NECESSITY BECAUSE SHELTER HAS
BEEN FOUND TO BE. IT'S A IT'S
REQUIRED TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF
THE ELEMENTS, BUT IT'S NOT A
PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE REALLY
REBUILDING LIVES. PERMANENT
HOUSING IS FORTUNATELY, SO
EXPENSIVE AND IT'S TAKING SO
LONG THAT FOR EVERY ONE PERSON
WHO'S GETTING PERMANENT HOUSING,
THREE ARE FALLING INTO
HOMELESSNESS. THERE'S A VERY
OBVIOUS MISSING GAP THE INTERIM
HOUSING CAN CAN FILL.
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE FIGURED THIS
OUT, AND THEY'RE DOING IT.
THEY'RE DOING IT ON THEIR OWN.
AND YET THE LAWS ARE CONFUSING.
THEY'RE SCHEDULED TO SUNSET.
THIS ACT WILL FORMALLY VALIDATE
INTERIM HOUSING AS ONE TOOL IN
THE TOOLKIT FOR ADDRESSING
UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS. IT
EXTENDS THE LAWS THAT THESE
THESE HOUSING PROJECTS RELY ON
IT IS A PIVOTAL MOMENT IN OUR
STRUGGLE TO END IN SHELTERED
HOMELESSNESS FOR THE CITIES THAT
ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY
UNDERSTANDING THAT UNSHELTERED
IS ONLY ONE COMPONENT OF A VERY
COMPLEX ISSUE, BUT IT'S THE MOST
VISIBLE THE MOST INHUMANE AND IT
IS THE PART THAT IS SOLVABLE. IF
WE LEAN IN AND DECIDE TO DO IT,
THIS MODEL WORKS AND I HOPE THAT
YOU'LL VOTE TO SUPPORT IT. ALL
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE OTHERS IN
SUPPORT? AND THIS IS, UH, NAME
AND, UH, JUST THE ADD ONS GO
AHEAD. MICHAEL LANE WAS SPUR
BILL CO SPONSOR AND STRONG
SUPPORT. HØI CATHERINE CHARLES,
WITH HOUSING ACTION COALITION
AND HOUSING CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
SYLVIA. SOLE HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF GOLIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE
ANY, UH, OPPOSITION? RIGHT,
SEEING NONE. MEMBERS ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO BEFORE
GO AHEAD, SENATOR CABALLERO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT,
UM I SUPPORT THIS 100% I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT. UM, A SITE
THAT, UM, IS REALLY FANTASTIC.
IT CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
STABILITY AND REALLY PROVIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO CHANGE
THEIR LIVES. AND SO WHEN WE GET
A CORM, I'LL BE HAPPY TO MOVE
THIS BILL AND I LIKE TO ADD TO
BE ADD ON AS A CO AUTHOR.
ALRIGHT WITHOUT THE COMMENTS. WE
WILL LET YOU CLOSE, SENATOR
BECKER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
THOSE, UH, COMMENTS AND, UM YEAH
. ENCOURAGE UH, ANYONE ELSE WHO
WANTS TO COME AND VISIT SOME OF
THESE NEWER, UM INTERIM HOUSING
PROJECTS WE INVITE YOU TO DO SO
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. GREAT SO YOU CAN NOW MOVE
ON TO YOUR NUM BILL NUMBER ONE,
OK, WHICH IS SB? 1095, THE COZY
HOMES CLEAN UP ACT. WELL, THANK
YOU. I WOULD LIKE NOW TO MOVE
TO, UM MY OTHER BILL. I
APOLOGIZE AGAIN. FOR 1095 THE
COZY HOMES CLEAN UP ACT AND I
START BY SAYING THAT I WILL
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS ON PAGE
FIVE. UH, OF THE ANALYSIS TO
AVOID CONFLICTING WITH THE
FEDERAL A MANUFACTURED HOME
DEFINITION. A 1095. THIS BILL IS
A PERMISSIVE BILL. TO MAKE IT
EASIER FOR HOMEOWNERS TO CONVERT
FROM GAS TO ELECTRIC APPLIANCES,
MAKING IT EASIER FOR CALIFORNIA
THEREFORE, TO ACHIEVE OUR
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS GOALS RIGHT
NOW, LEGAL AMBIGUITIES OR DELAYS
IN APPROVAL OF INSTALLATION FROM
A COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT,
SUCH AS A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION,
OR HÌ, Ó A CAN ADD TIME OR COST
TO THE PROCESS OF ALLOWING
RESIDENTS TO MAKE THAT SWITCH
FROM GAS TO ELECTRIC APPLIANCES.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY BURDENSOME
IN CASE OF CHANGES OF APPLIANCES
AT END OF LIFE. WHERE FAMILY
WILL NOT WAIT AND TAKE COLD
SHOWERS FOR 3 TO 6 MONTHS FOR
THEIR HÌ, A TO PROVE REPLACEMENT
WATER HEATER INSTALLATION. THEY
ALSO CODE AMBIGUITIES AT
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. THAT MAKE
IT A CHALLENGING FOR
MANUFACTURED HOME RESIDENTS TO
CONVERT FROM GAS TO ELECTRIC.
THIS WILL CLEAN UP THOSE
AMBIGUITIES THE SPILL WILL BY
MAKING IT EASIER TO TRANSITION
BY FIRST AVOIDING ANY POLICIES
WITHIN A COMMON INTEREST
DEVELOPMENT THAT PREVENT THE
PLACEMENT OF A FUEL GAS BURNING
APPLIANCE WITH AN ELECTRIC
APPLIANCE. SECOND THAT REQUIRES
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO UPDATE
GUIDELINES TO FACILITATE THE
TRANSITION. FROM GAS TO ELECTRIC
APPLIANCES. IT DOES REQUIRE THAT
UM WITH THAT? I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES HERE TODAY. ALLEN ABS
FROM THE BAY AIR AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND SAM
SHAMEL ON BEHALF OF THE
BUILDING. DEAR COALITION. THANK
YOU. YOU MAY AGAIN. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR SKINNER AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ALAN EBBS AND I'M, THE
LEGISLATIVE OFFICER FOR THE BAY
AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE LOCAL AIR
REGULATORY AGENCY FOR THE 7.5
MILLION PEOPLE OF THE NINE
COUNTY BAY AREA REGION AND THE
SPONSOR OF SENATE BILL 1095 S¼ B
1095 SEEKS TO ELIMINATE BARRIERS
TO HOMEOWNERS WANTING TO
TRANSITION FROM NATURAL GAS TO
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES, WHICH WILL
ASSIST CALIFORNIA IN ITS GOAL OF
HAVING 6 MILLION HEAT PUMPS
DEPLOYED BY THE YEAR 2030.
REDUCING FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION
, RESULTING IN REDUCING
GREENHOUSE GASSES AND AIR
POLLUTION AND PROVIDING HEALTH
BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC. S¼ B
1095 DOES THIS IN TWO WAYS THE
FIRST BY ENSURING THAT
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS IN
COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS
CAN'T PROHIBIT OR UNDULY DELAY
THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC
HEATING DEVICES IN PLACE OF
NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES, AND THE
SECOND IS BY DIRECTING THE STATE
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO UPDATE
GUIDELINES FOR APPLIANCE
INSTALLATIONS AND PERMITTING AT
MANU. HOMES AND MOBILE HOMES TO
GIVE THE SAME DISCRETION TO
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES IS CURRENTLY
EXISTS FOR NATURAL GAS
APPLIANCES, ENSURING ACCESS NOT
JUST TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN
N HÌ HÌ Ó A COMMUNITIES BUT TO
ALL HOMES, INCLUDING
MANUFACTURED AND MOBILE HOMES,
IS KEY FOR EQUITABLE
DECARBONISATION ACROSS THE STATE
. THE BAY AREA A QM Dð STRONGLY
SUPPORTS THIS GOAL AND PLANS TO
BE INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE IN THE
YEARS TO COME. AND IN CLOSING.
I'D LIKE TO THANK SENATOR BECKER
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO STAFF
HAS DONE A GREAT JOB CAPTURING
THE ISSUES IN THIS ANALYSIS, AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR EYE VOTE. GREAT. GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
SKINNER AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SAMANTHA
SAMUELSON ON BEHALF OF THE
BUILDING DECARBONISATION
COALITION, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS B
Dð èC IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL
1095 B Dð èC IS AN ASSOCIATION
OF MANUFACTURERS, UTILITIES,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NONPROFITS ALL
FOCUSED ON ELIMINATING POLLUTION
FROM BUILDINGS TO IMPROVE
PEOPLE'S HEALTH, PRIORITIZE HIGH
ROAD JOBS AND ENSURE THAT OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE MORE RESILIENT
TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE. WE THINK SENATOR BECKER
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORING
S¼ B 1095, WHICH WILL CLEAN UP
OUTDATED BUILDING AND SAFETY
CODES, LANGUAGE INHIBITING OR
DELAYING BUILDING AND HOME
ELECTRIFICATION. B Dð C'S
MEMBERS FIND REAL BENEFIT TO
THIS LEGISLATION. SEAN ARMSTRONG
OF REDWOOD ENERGY REPORTS THAT
MOST MANUFACTURED HOMES BUILT
BEFORE 1980. MANY BUILT SINCE
THEN HAVE MULTIPLE BARRIERS TO
INSTALLING HEAT PUMP UNITS
INSIDE THE BUILDING COVENANTS
THAT RESTRICT INSULATION CAN
LEAVE OCCUPANTS WITHOUT ACCESS
TO THE COOLING BENEFITS OF HEAT
PUMPS. FREQUENTLY EXISTING WATER
HEATER CLOSETS CAN ONLY
ACCOMMODATE 30 TO 40 GALLON
UNITS, LIMITING THE ABILITY OF
HOME OCCUPANTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS THAT
IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY OF THE
UNIT TO THE OCCUPANT AND THE
GRID. BDC IS ALSO HEARD FROM AN
EXISTING MOBILE HOME OCCUPANT
WHO CITES AN EXISTING HO A
LIMITATION KEEPING THEIR PARK
FROM ALLOWING EXTERNAL
INSTALLATION IN MOBILE HOMES. A
COVENANT THAT REQUIRE WOULD
REQUIRE MORE THAN 70% OF HÌ Ó A
MEMBERS TO AGREE TO CHANGE. THE
OCCUPANT EMPHASIZED THAT IT IS
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THIS
NUMBER OF OWNERS TO PARTICIPATE
AND THEN VOTE TO CHANGE THE CðC
N R S¼, LEAVING HÌ Ó MEMBERS
WHO WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL A HEAT
PUMP WITHOUT THE OPTION. AS
BUILDINGS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ROUGHLY TWO THIRDS AS MUCH KNOX
POLLUTION AS THE STATE'S 16
MILLION PASSENGER CARS. WE MUST
REDUCE BARRIERS TO
ELECTRIFICATION AND ENCOURAGE
EQUITABLE BUILDING
DECARBONIZATION TO ENSURE A
STATE'S MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES ARE NOT LEFT BEHIND.
S¼ B 1095 BUILDS UPON
CALIFORNIA'S LEADERSHIP IN
REDUCING FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION
AND WILL ALLOW MORE CALIFORNIANS
TO OPT FOR COZIER AND HEALTHIER
ZERO EMISSION HOMES. THANK YOU,
SENATOR BECKER, CHAIR SKINNER
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF S¼ B 1095. I RESPECT
THEY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. GREAT.
THANK YOU. LET'S SEE IF THERE'S
ANY ADD ONS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHRIS ROSA ON BEHALF OF N R, Dð
èC ACTION FUND. N èC R CLUB,
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT ANYONE
ELSE? RIGHT SO IF THAT'S ALL IN
SUPPORT, DO WE HAVE ANY IN
OPPOSITION? GOOD EVENING, MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CHRIS
SAKI, REPRESENTING W MA. AND WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S INTENT
TO MOVE TOWARDS ELECTRIFICATION
OF HOME APPLIANCES AND EXISTING
MOBILE HOME PARKS AND MOBILE
HOMES. BUT THERE'S A FEW
PRACTICAL ISSUES THAT WE HAVE
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL ON AND
UNTIL THOSE ARE ADDRESSED. WE
MUST REMAIN OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. UM THE FIRST THING THAT
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IS THE
AMPERAGE OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK
ITSELF. CURRENTLY, A LOT OF THE
PARKS ARE OLDER. AND ONLY HAVE
30 AMP. SYSTEMS IF YOU MOVE TO
AN ALL ELECTRIFICATION OF ALL
ELECTRIC SYSTEM OF GAS HEAT OF
MOVING GAS HEATERS TO ELECTRIC
HEATERS, AND ALL ELECTRIC
APPLIANCES ARE CONCERN IS THAT
IT WILL REQUIRE AN EXPENSIVE
UTILITY UPGRADE OF THE ENTIRE
PARK. UP TO 100 OR 200 AMP.
SYSTEM. AS MANY OF YOU MIGHT
KNOW THAT THESE UPGRADES ARE NOT
CHEAP. THEY COULD RUN WELL OVER
A MILLION DOLLARS AND WHO'S
GONNA ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE
UPGRADE OF THE OF THE PARK?
FURTHER THE ONLY OTHER
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THAT WE HAVE
IS INSTALLING APPLIANCES OUTSIDE
AS A BIG ISSUE FOR HÌ, èC, Dð
AND PARK MANAGERS AND PARK
OWNERS ALIKE. IN FACT, THE
MOBILE HOME TASK MOBILE HOME
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION PROGRAM
TASK FORCE MEETING JUST CAME OUT
AND RELEASED A REPORT IN THE TWO
OF THE TOP FOUR RESIDENT
VIOLATIONS. UM, WHERE ONE
OUTSIDE APPLIANCES. AND TWO,
WHICH WAS INTERESTING WAS A
FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. AND
EXTENSION CORDS BEING USED FOR
PERMANENT WIRING. UM SO UNTIL
THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE DEALT WITH
A èC Dð AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHORS, THIS
BE MOOSE THROUGH THE PROCESS,
BUT THOSE ARE TWO OF OUR BIGGEST
CONCERN. YOU KNOW, BASICALLY
WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR THE UPGRADES
. I'LL TELL YOU IN 100 SPACE
PARK AMATEUR IZING AMORTIZING. A
MILLION DOLLARS OVER 100
RESIDENTS CAN BE A VERY
EXPENSIVE AND PASSING THAT ON
THROUGH RENT MAY NOT BE
PRACTICAL. SO WHO'S GONNA
ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT IN TWO HÌ
CDS GOT SOME MAJOR WORK IT NEEDS
TO DO TO RE UP AND REVAMP ITS
CODES. SO SENATOR. THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE JOHN MOFFITT ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURED
HOUSING INSTITUTE. WE REPRESENT.
WE'RE THE TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR
THE BUILDERS AND SELLERS OF
MANUFACTURED HOMES IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR WORKING WITH US AND
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY'RE
OUTLINED IN THE, UH IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, AND ONCE
THOSE ARE IN PRINT, WE'RE
PREPARED TO MOVE TO NEUTRAL ON
THE BILL. UM ALTHOUGH WE DO WANT
TO ECHO THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE
BEEN RAISED BY THE PARK OWNERS,
UM, YOU KNOW PARKS THAT ARE
BUILT WITH, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, MANUFACTURED HOMES. UM
WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE
INTENT OF THE BILL. WHAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO DO, WE HAVE AND CAN
BUILD ALL ELECTRIC MANUFACTURED
HOMES. UM BUT MOST OF THOSE
HOMES HAVE 100 AMP PANELS IN
THEM CORRESPONDING WITH YOU KNOW
WHAT WE'RE SEEING AT THE PARKS
AND SO THERE ARE GONNA NEED TO
BE SOME MAJOR UPGRADES BOTH TO
THE HOME TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE BELIEVE HÌ èC Dð HAS A ROLE
IN THAT AND SHOULD HAVE A ROLE
IN THAT MOVING FORWARD. BUT
AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENT ON THE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEFINITION, AND ONCE THAT'S
IN PRINT, WE'LL BE MOVING TO
NEUTRAL ON THE BILL. GREAT ANY
OTHER OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT. SEE
YOU, THEN. UM BACK TO THE DICE.
GO AHEAD, SENATOR CABALLERO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, MADAM
CHAIR. I'M GLAD WE'RE ON THE
RIGHT BILL. THIS TIME. UM LET ME
JUST, UM I WANNA MAKE SURE I. I
UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND THEN
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HÌ èC
Dð CODE. UM, ISSUE UM IT IT AS I
SEE IT. YOU'RE NOT ASKING THE
èC I Dð S¼ OR THE, UM HÌ Ó A
S¼ TO DO ANYTHING NECESSARILY,
RIGHT? SO THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO ME, JUST IN TERMS
OF UNDERSTANDING. UM BUT I WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DATE THAT'S
IN IT'S IN THE ANALYSIS. UM AND
I WAS LOOKING FOR IT IN THE BILL
AND UNFORTUNATELY COULDN'T FIND
IT. BUT IT WAS AUGUST 15TH 2025
YOU GIVE HÌ èC Dð EIGHT MONTHS,
UM TO ISSUE REGULATIONS, UM UH,
IT DOESN'T DOESN'T SAY
SPECIFICALLY IN THE ANALYSIS
THAT, UH, THEY CAN DO EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS. I DON'T THINK THIS
QUALIFIES AS AS, UM, A PROCESS
THAT WOULD ALLOW EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS SO THEY HAVE TO
COMPLY WITH THE A P. A UM WHICH
IT IT IT THE FASTEST YOU CAN DO.
REGULATIONS IS A YEAR AND
USUALLY TAKES ABOUT A YEAR AND A
HALF, AND THAT'S PROBABLY
APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THESE
CHANGES, I THINK HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THE BUILDING STANDARDS
COMMISSION IN ORDER TO BE
APPROVED THAT THEIR SAFETY
ISSUES INVOLVED IN, UM UM
ELECTRICAL, UM, A ACCESS. UM UH
AND THERE IS PROBABLY A REASON
YOU DON'T PUT UH, THE EQUIPMENT
ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE TRAILERS,
PROBABLY FOR SECURITY, BUT ALSO,
UM UH, WELL, WHO KNOWS? I, I I'M
I'M GUESSING AT THIS POINT, BUT
SO I I'M GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR
BILL. I THINK IT'S A GOOD BILL.
UM I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I JUST
THINK THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL
ISSUES I MAY MAKE SENSE TO MEET
WITH HÌ èC Dð AND FIND OUT THEY
LIKE EMERGENCY REGULATION
AUTHORITY. FRANKLY I DON'T THINK
IT'S THE WAY TO GO. WE REALLY
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM THAT
WE'RE DOING IT, RIGHT? UH UM,
BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT,
UM, A LOT OF MONEY AND I THIS
DOESN'T ADDRESS THE, UH, THE NEW
EQUIPMENT THAT MAY BE REQUIRED
AT AT THE, UM AT THE PARKS AND
I. I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?
YOU DON'T WANNA PASS ON A VERY
EXPENSIVE UPGRADE TO THE
ELECTRICAL. CAPABILITY OF THE
PARK TO THE PARK RESIDENTS WHO
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE
AFFORD LIVING THERE, BUT IT IS
AN ELECTRICAL ISSUE. WE'VE GOT
TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. AND IT MAY
BE THAT THIS MIGHT WE MIGHT, UH
IN ANOTHER BILL NEED TO SET UP A
FUND TO HELP PARKS SO THAT
THEY'RE NOT AS THEY DO THE RIGHT
THING AND AS PEOPLE DO THE RIGHT
THING AND SWITCHING OUT THEIR
OLD APPLIANCES THAT THEY THEN
DON'T GET SOCKED WITH THE GREAT
BIG COST BECAUSE OF THE, UM
INCREASED AMPERAGE THAT'S
REQUIRED, SO IT'S JUST MY TWO
CENTS WORTH ON ON SOME OF THESE.
I THINK THIS GOES TO JUD NEXT.
YES UM AND SO WE NEED SOME OF
THE ANSWERS. FOR THAT, UM, FOR
MY VOTE IN JUD. BUT I THANK YOU
FOR DOING THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE
RIGHT THING TO DO. WE WANT
EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S AVAILABLE TO, UH, HAVE
GREEN APPLIANCES, BUT THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES. UH, SENATOR CHUNK
SO MY CONCERNS LIE, UM SORT OF
ALONG THE LINES AS, UH, SENATOR,
UM CABALLERO, I I'M KIND OF
CURIOUS AS IN YOUR MIND AS YOU
WERE WORKING THROUGH THIS BILL,
UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE EXPRESSED ABOUT THE
COST OF THE IMPACT THAT IT WOULD
HAVE ON THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS,
AND THIS COULD GO FOR ANYTHING
ELSE WITH THE OLDER PARKS, RIGHT
. THE WATER SYSTEMS, THE SEWER
SYSTEMS, UM THAT AT SOME POINT
WILL HAVE TO BE UPDATED IN MANY
OF OUR PARKS, ESPECIALLY THE
OLDER ONES. BUT IN THIS CASE IN
YOUR MIND, HOW DID YOU SEE THIS
BEING WORKED OUT? FINANCIALLY UM
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TAKING
CONSIDERATION THAT SOME PARKS
HAVE, UH, RENT CAPS. UM AND WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE COST OF WHAT IT
WOULD ENTAIL, YOU KNOW, MOST OF
THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PASSED ON
TO THE TO THE TO THE HOME, UM,
TO THE HABITANTS OF THESE HOMES.
SO HOW IN YOUR MIND? HOW DID YOU
WORK THAT IN YOUR MIND, WE COULD
MAKE THIS WORK. YEAH, WELL,
THANK YOU. AND I THINK SENATOR
èC HERE. I KNOW SHE TO, UH UM,
RNET. WE'LL HAVE SOME OF THAT
FOR HER IN IN JUDICIARY. UM I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. THIS IS
A PERMISSIVE BILL, RIGHT? THIS
IS REALLY ABOUT LETTING PEOPLE
UM BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE
UPGRADES. UH I THINK THERE
PROBABLY ARE SOME CONVERSATIONS
ONGOING. I MEAN, SOME OF THIS
WILL BE FIGURED OUT. UM, WITH
YOU KNOW, THE èC èC AND OTHER
UM, YOU KNOW BODIES AS THEY LOOK
TO MORE GENERAL TO HIT OUR STATE
GOALS, RIGHT? THESE ARE ALREADY
WE ALREADY HAVE GOALS OF 2030
60% YOU KNOW, CLEAN ENERGY AND
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OTHER GOALS
THAT THAT WERE MENTIONED
EARLIER. UM SO, UM, YOU KNOW
SOME OF THAT IN TERMS OF THE
FINANCIAL PIECE, UH, WILL HAVE
TO BE A PART OF AN ONGOING
DISCUSSION. BUT THIS IS THIS
REALLY MEANT TO BE A PERMISSIBLE
TO BASICALLY SAY, HEY, WE WANT
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO, UH, YOU
KNOW, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY AS IT WAS MENTIONED,
AND, UM, SO IT'S SILENT RIGHT
NOW ON THE FINANCIAL PIECE. UM
AND UM, BUT THAT COULD BE PART
OF SOME ONGOING DISCUSSIONS. SO,
UM THROUGH THE CHAIR. JUST UM SO
I'M I'M CONCERNED ABOUT I HAVE.
MY DISTRICT HAS QUITE A BIT OF
MANUFACTURE AT HOME. MOBILE HOME
PARKS, UM, IN THE AREA, AND AS I
SEE MANY OF OUR GOALS THAT WE
HAVE AS A STATE AND MUCH OF THE
POLICY THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY
SUPPORTING AND PASSING ON, ALL
WELL INTENDED ALL WELL INTENDED,
OF COURSE, UM, I SEE THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON
EVERYDAY WORKING CALIFORNIA,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MY
MOBILE HOME. AND SO THOUGH, I
SEE THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO BE BE
PERMISSIVE. I DO SEE I'M LOOKING
AND I'M ALWAYS LOOKING FORWARD
AS TO THE IMPACT OF EVERY POLICY
THAT WE HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW 5
1020 30 YEARS FROM NOW. WITH
THIS. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE
ON THE MOBILE HOME PARKS, WHICH
THEN WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR
HOMEOWNERS OR ARE ARE RENTERS IN
OUR IN OUR IN OUR MOBILE HOME
PARKS, SO I'M GONNA LAY OFF. UH,
ON THE SPELL, UH, IN GREAT
CONCERN. AND WHAT IT WILL
EVENTUALLY COST OUR RESIDENTS.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY ITEMS THAT
WE'VE IMPLEMENTED IN PAST IN
THIS LEGISLATURE THAT ARE
TOWARDS OUR, UH OUR GOALS FOR
2045, BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT. UM ON THE COST
OF LIVING FOR CALIFORNIANS,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO
CAUSE FOR PARKS IN THOSE, UM
AREAS WHERE WE HAVE, UH CAP FEES
AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO RESOLVE THAT. SO BASED ON
THAT I'M GONNA RESPECTFULLY LAY
OFF. BUT I DO COMMEND YOU ON
WORKING TOWARDS HELPING. UM OUR
FAMILIES UPGRADE THEIR THEIR
SYSTEMS AS A REAL TOUR. I
COMPLETELY APPRECIATE THAT. BUT
I AM I. I WANNA SEE MORE. UM, AS
FAR I. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WAS
VERY INTERESTING. UH, SENATOR
CABALLERO'S COMMENT WITH
REGARDING, UH MAYBE PLACING A
FUND BUT WITH THE DEFICIT THAT
WE CURRENTLY HAVE. I'D LIKE TO
SEE HOW THAT WOULD WORK IN
REALITY, BUT THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS MEASURE FORWARD.
ALRIGHT ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UH,
NOT YET. WE KNOW HAVE QUORUM SO
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE OUR
MOTION BUT YOU CAN CLOSE. WELL,
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION AND YOU KNOW, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO AN ONGOING DISCUSSION
ON THE FINANCIAL, UH, PIECE OF
THAT, YOU KNOW, ALONG WITH SOME
OF OUR OTHER, MAYBE SOME INPUT
FOR SOME OF OUR OTHER
REGULATING, UM, YOU KNOW,
BODIES. I JUST DO HOPE THAT WE
CAN MOVE FORWARD. I WAS ACTUALLY
I. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY. I THINK
IT WAS AROUND FLOODING. I
KNOCKED ON THE DOOR OF A OF A
MOBILE HOME RESIDENT. AND, UM
AND THEY KIND OF SMELL SMELL AND
LIKE, OH, YOU'RE YOUR YOUR GAS
IS ON. YOU KNOW HIS GAS STOVE IS
ON, HE SAID. OH, THAT'S HOW I
HEAT MY HOUSE. UM BECAUSE
FURNITURE GONE OUT AND HE
COULDN'T REPLACE IT. AND SO WE
HEATED IT BY HAVING THE GAS
STOVE ON, YOU KNOW, LIKE, EIGHT
HOURS A DAY, AND WE ALL KNOW
HOW, UM HOPEFUL THAT, UM, THAT
NOW CAN BE SO, UM, I THINK WE DO
HAVE TO KIND OF FIGURE THIS OUT.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH, UH, THE INDUSTRY
BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE AS YOU
SAID, WE DON'T WANNA HAVE, UM UH
, YOU KNOW, COST BURDEN NOW ON
THE RESIDENTS, SO I LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING OUR
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. GREAT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR BECKER. YOU,
UH, WE'VE DONE BOTH YOUR BILLS.
SO WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO, UH
OKAY. WE COULD DO EITHER ONE.
OKAY UM, WHILE WE ARE, UH WE'LL
USE ONE OF THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. BUT IN THE MEANTIME,
I'LL ANNOUNCE THAT S¼ B 1357
ITEM EIGHT IS ON CONSENT. SO UH,
AGAIN WHEN WE GET QUORUM AND ALL
THAT WE CAN, UM, ACT ON THOSE SO
, SENATOR PADILLA, YOU ARE YOU
READY TO, UH PRESENT, OK?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M
HERE TO PRESENT SB 1032 AND
FIRST, UH, BEGIN BY ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE, UH, AMENDMENTS
AND INDICATING ACCEPTANCE AND A
COMMITMENT TO WORKING THE
BALANCE OF AMENDMENTS THAT MAY
BE TAKEN AT APPROPRIATIONS. S¼ B
1032 WOULD PROVIDE Dð HÌ èC,
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITH
AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE LOANS.
PROVIDED TO HOUSING PROVIDERS
THAT THE LOANS ARE IMPEDING THE
BORROWER'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN
AND OPERATE PROJECT FOR
AFFORDABLE PURPOSES OR SENIOR
HOUSING PURPOSES. IN THE 19
EIGHTIES AND THE 19 NINETIES, HÌ
èC Dð PROVIDED SEVERAL LOAN
PROGRAMS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVIDERS TO PRESERVE EXISTING
UNITS ACROSS THE STATE. WELL
WITH THE TIME IT WAS FAIRLY EASY
TO OBTAIN LOANS, WE'RE PAYING
THEM. IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT
BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN ECONOMIC
CIRCUMSTANCES AND LATER
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS. THE
PREMISE THERE WAS THAT HOUSING
DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ABLE TO
REPAY THE LOAN BALANCE THROUGH
PROFITS MADE ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. HOWEVER
THERE IS OFTEN LITTLE TO NÓ
PROFIT AT THE END OF THE DAY TO
BE MADE, AND PROVIDERS OFTEN
FIND THEMSELVES IN AN ENDLESS
CYCLE OF DEBT. SB 1032 WILL HELP
ADDRESS OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE BY
ALLOWING HÌ èC Dð TO FORGIVE
THESE LOANS IN ORDER TO HELP,
UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS
CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND TO BE IN
A BETTER POSITION TO ACCESS
CAPITAL. THIS IS CRITICAL AS
MANY OF THESE HOUSING AGENCIES
WHO WOULD QUALIFY HERE AND
BENEFIT FROM LOAN FORGIVENESS,
SERVE AS A MAN OR SOLE SOURCE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A PREMIER
PROVIDER IN THEIR REGIONS. IF
THESE LOANS ARE NOT FORGIVEN
PROVIDERS CONTINUING TO OPERATE
WITH THEM ON THEIR BOOKS WOULD
HAVE A MORE DIFFICULT TIME
ACCESSING CAPITAL COULD HAVE TO
CLOSE DEVELOPMENTS. UH AS WELL
AS OPERATIONS AND LEAVE MORE
CALIFORNIANS ON THE STREET. THIS
BILL WOULD MAINTAIN THE
AFFORDABILITY OF UNITS AND
INCREASE ACCESS TO CAPITAL, AS
INDICATED SO THEY CAN MAINTAIN
SUPPLY, UH, THAT THEY ALREADY
OPERATE AND POTENTIALLY QUALIFY
FOR ADDITIONAL CAPITAL TO
PROVIDE MORE PRODUCT. WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT, AS
IN YOUR COUNTY SUPERVISOR, JEFF
GRIFFITHS. THANK YOU, SENATOR
FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL IN
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. UM MY
NAME IS JEFF GRIFFITHS. I'M A
INIO COUNTY SUPERVISOR. I'M ALSO
THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. AND I'M ALSO A BOARD
MEMBER FOR INE MOO ADVOCATES FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION AND SO
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY SERVING
INY MOO AND ALPINE COUNTIES IN
EASTERN CALIFORNIA. UM AND, UH,
I MAA IN 1981 TOOK A $500,000
LOAN FROM HÌ èC Dð IN ORDER TO
CONVERT A HOTEL INTO LOW INCOME
HOUSING AND FOR MORE THAN 42
YEARS NOW THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN
MAINTAINED FOR BELOW 30% AM,
VERY LOW INCOME, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED
PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY 19 UNITS
UM, WHILE IT WAS A VERY LONG
TIME AGO, IT WAS, UH, EVERYONE'S
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WAS A
FORGIVABLE LOAN. UM, IN FACT,
THERE HAS BEEN NÓ PAYMENTS, UH,
REQUIRED OR PAID FOR PRINCIPAL
OR INTEREST. UM DURING THAT TIME
, SO AFTER 30 YEARS HAD GONE BY
IN 2011. IT WAS A SURPRISE WHEN
HÌ èC Dð PRESENTED A MAA WITH A
BILL FOR $1.1 MILLION FOR
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THIS
NOW, UM, FOR THE RENTS. ARE
REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED IN ORDER
TO MAINTAIN THAT IS BELOW 30% VÀ
AMI VERY LOW INCOME. AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. UM THAT DOES NOT EVEN
COVER THE COST OF MANAGING THE
PROPERTY. UM AND THE UTILITIES
MUCH LESS HAVE ANY MONEY LEFT
OVER FOR, UM, REPAYMENTS OF THE
LOAN. AFTER A DECADE OF
NEGOTIATIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO
FIND SOME SORT OF WORK AROUND ON
THIS, A èC Dð PRESENTED THIS
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY WITH A
NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN 2021 DURING
THE PANDEMIC, WHICH LED TO THE
DOWNFALL OF THE ORGANIZATION,
WHICH WAS THE èC Ó èC FOR THE
ENTIRE REGION WAS PROVIDING ALL
OF THE HOMELESS SERVICES FOR THE
ENTIRE REGION. AND THROUGH THAT
PROCESS, UM AND, UH, NEGATIVE
EFFECT ON THE BALANCE SHEET OF
THIS NON PRO. THAT IT LED TO AN
END OF ALL HOMELESS SERVICES IN
THE AREA AND TO THE HEAD START
PROGRAM AND END TO
WEATHERIZATION AND LOTS OF OTHER
PROJECTS. AS OF TODAY, EVEN
THOUGH THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN
MAINTAINED, UM AS INTENDED FROM
THE BEGINNING, UM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THROUGH HÌ èC Dð IS
THREATENING FORECLOSURE AND THE
EVICTION OF 19 ELDERLY AND
DISABLED. UM PEOPLE FOR AMOUNT
OF $1.2 MILLION THAT WAS NEVER
INTENDED TO BE COLLECTED IN THE
FIRST PLACE. THIS BILL WOULD
GIVE HÌ èC Dð THE INSTRUMENT OF
BEING ABLE TO FORGIVE THAT LOAN.
IT'S A REVENUE NEUTRAL POSITION
IN THAT THAT MONEY WAS NEVER
INTENDED TO BE COLLECTED IN THE
FIRST PLACE. UM THIS HAS NOT. WE
WERE ONE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS
THAT WERE AFFECTED BY THIS, BUT
THERE ARE PROJECTS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. DOZENS OF THEM IN
RURAL URBAN AND SUBURBAN
COMMUNITIES AND THAT AFFECT
THOUSANDS OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE
. UM RESIDENTS, AND SO FOR THE
19 PEOPLE THAT ARE MY
CONSTITUENTS AND FRIENDS, I URGE
THE SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL, BUT
ALSO FOR THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER
CALIFORNIANS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. UM OTHER ADD ON, UH
SUPPORTERS TO THIS BILL. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS RAN INTO MARTIN ON
BEHALF OF THE AIDS HEALTHCARE
FOUNDATION AND ITS HEALTHY
HOUSING FOUNDATION IN VERY LATE
SUPPORT OF THIS IMPORTANT, BILL,
THANK YOU. REBECCA MARQUES,
REPRESENTING LEADING AGE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS, ELIZABETH ESPINOSA HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS IN THE COUNTIES OF
COLUSA AND SANTA BARBARA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON JUST FROM 1100. ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL
AND SPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. BRUCE
GIBSON, SAN LUIS BISPO COUNTY
SUPERVISOR AND AS PRESIDENT OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES, A PROUD SPONSOR AND
IN STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
KAREN LANG ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND
STANISLAUS, FRESNO AND TULARE
COUNTY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GREAT BEFORE WE, UH GO FURTHER.
I'M GONNA ESTABLISH QUORUM. CAN
WE TAKE THE ROLE? SENATOR
SKINNER. I MEAN, WE'RE HERE.
SCARY HERE. WE THROW A BOGUE A
BUG HERE. BLAKESPEAR CABALLERO
CABALLERO HERE. CORTEZ CORTEZ
HERE, MANJAR PAD PAD HERE. SARTO
SAY OUR TO HERE. UMBERG, WAHAB.
ALL RIGHT. WE'VE ESTABLISHED
QUORUM, WHICH MEANS WE CAN, UH,
A Tð THE APPROPRIATE POINT
ENTERTAIN MOTIONS, BUT WE'LL
KEEP GOING. UM, ANY OTHER ADD ON
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL? ALRIGHT
THEN LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A, UM
KEY OPPOSITION. ANY OPPOSITION.
WIENERS. ALRIGHT, SO NAN LET ME
LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUES. OR GO
AHEAD, SEND AND THEN CENTER.
CORTESE WANTED TO COMMENT OR YOU
WANT YOU WAIT. OK GO AHEAD,
SENATOR TO, UM THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. UH I WAS WONDERING IF I
COULD ASK A QUESTION OF THE, UH,
SUPERVISOR THAT SPOKE WITH
REGARDS TO, UM WHAT WAS IT IN
WRITING THAT WE HAD THAT SAID
THESE PAYMENTS WERE NOT GOING TO
BE REPAID. AND HOW IS IT THAT HÌ
èC Dð CAN ACTUALLY ENFORCE THAT
RIGHT NOW, WHEN IT WAS WAS IT IN
WRITING IT? I MEAN HOW I WILL
GIVE THE CAVEAT THAT I WAS IN
SECOND GRADE. WHEN ALL OF THIS
STARTED, UM BUT, UH UM UM THE IT
IS, SO THERE'S DOCUMENTATION,
THE, UM IN IN MINUTES OF
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS BACK IN
THE EIGHTIES THAT IT WAS THE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE AGENTS OF
THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY THAT
IT WAS FORGIVABLE, BUT THERE IS
NOTHING IN WRITING THAT SAYS
THAT IT THAT IT WAS FORGIVABLE.
NÓ NÓ NOTHING IN WRITING IN
CONTRACTS. NOTHING JUST IN THE
MINUTES THAT THAT'S CORRECT. AND
IN THE COURT OF LAW. HOW IS THAT
? HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT? NÓ? IT
PLAYS OUT THAT, UH, THE MONEY IS
DUE. INTERESTING AND I'M I'M
KIND OF CURIOUS AS IF WE WERE TO
PURSUE THIS COURSE OF ACTION
WITH THIS PARTICULAR BILL, AND
I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS FIRST
THE PA UH UM OR IF THE CHAIR UH,
CONSULTS HAVE ANY ANSWERS TO
THIS, BUT, UM, IF WE WERE TO DO
THIS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS
PARTICULAR BILL, AND FOR GIVING
THESE LOANS THAT WERE WE HAD
NOTHING IN WRITING, EXCEPT FOR
IN THE MINUTES AS WE LOOK INTO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
MOVING FORWARD. WOULD THAT HAVE
ANY IMPACT ON THE FINANCING OR
ON THE AND HOW THESE PROGRAMS
ARE STRUCTURED, MOVING FORWARD.
AND I'M SURE IT'S A èC Dð LOVE
THE AUTHOR TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. I'M SURE AND SENATOR
YES, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD
ENABLE EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS
THAT ARE BOTH DEVELOPING AND
OPERATING VARIOUS PRODUCT
DESIGNED TO SATISFY THIS MARKET
AND PROVIDE ACCESS TO HOUSING TO
BE IN A BETTER CREDIT POSITION
TO ACCESS FUTURE CAPITAL AND TO
KEEP EITHER THE DOORS OPEN AND
THE HOUSING AFFORDABLE. UH,
THROUGH THE TYPICAL FULL TERM OR
LONGER TERMS OR TO PRODUCE MORE
PRODUCT AND THE SOME OF THESE
TYPES OF LOANS WERE UNDERWRITING
THAT OCCUR. MANY DECADES AGO.
UH, AND THE THEORY AT THE TIME
WAS THAT THE, UH, RESIDUAL
RECEIPTS OR PROFIT? UH, AFTER
ALL WAS SAID AND DONE WOULD GO
TOWARDS MORE PRINCIPLE ON THESE
INITIAL UNDERWRITING THAN WAS
THOUGHT. THE REALITY IS WITH THE
PASSAGE OF TIME. THAT HAS NOT
BEEN THE CASE, AND SO YOU HAVE
VERY SUCCESSFUL PRODUCERS AND
OPERATORS THAT ARE CARRYING THIS
THIS DEBT ON THEIR BOOKS. UH,
BUT BECAUSE OF VARIOUS CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT ACTUALLY HAS
PUT THEM IN A LESS CAPABLE
POSITION TO ACCESS NEW LENDING,
UH, TO BUILD MORE PRODUCT AND TO
KEEP THE PRODUCT THROUGH FULL
TERM OR BEYOND THAT, UH, THAT
THAT HAS COVENANTS ON IT TO MAKE
IT REMAIN AFFORDABLE FOR
TYPICALLY 55 YEARS OR MORE. SO
THE SHORT ANSWER IS, UH, THIS,
UH, FLEXIBILITY ON THE PART OF
THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCY HÌ èC
Dð TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THIS
TYPE OF EVALUATION AND
FORGIVENESS ACTUALLY HELPS KEEP
THIS PRODUCT. OR MAKES IT EASIER
FOR, UH AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE
MORE PRODUCT. DID THAT DID THAT
ANSWER ADEQUATELY, THAT THAT
HELPS QUITE A BIT. AND THEN MY
QUESTION, MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION
WOULD BE, UM I'M JUST KINDA
CURIOUS. I'M JUST A LITTLE
NERVOUS ABOUT MOVING FORWARD IN
THIS ON INCENTIVIZING THE WRONG
BEHAVIOR MOVING FORWARD
PRACTICES MOVING FORWARD. DO WE
KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WHAT THE PROFIT MARGIN
IS, UH, FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND
THE BUILDERS. I JUST WANNA MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING A
SYSTEM IN WHICH WE ARE, UM IN
WHICH WE ARE CREATING A SYSTEM
WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE
DEFAULTING. MOVING FORWARD ON
ANY ON ANY MARKET OR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS. I THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
SOMETHING OF THIS. YOU WANT TO
RESPOND? UM, THIS IS TY
TYPICALLY OFTEN PUBLIC
UNDERWRITING, AND THIS AND THE
AGENCY WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY THAT
IT DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE TO GO
AHEAD AND WRITE OFF SOME OF THE
RESIDUAL, UH, DEBT THAT'S ON THE
BOOKS, SO IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR
THEM TO ACCESS NEW LENDING THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT NEED THE SAME
KIND OF SUBSIDY. UM AND SO I
DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A
TYPICALLY TREMENDOUS ISSUE. UM
THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED AND
TYPICALLY, THE BROADER QUÊ. THE
ANSWER IS THERE'S NOT A LOT OF
MARGIN LEFT. AND THE PRODUCTION
OF THESE UNITS THE WAY THAT
THEY'RE FINANCED TODAY AND WITH
THE ADVENT OF BOTH LOCAL AND
STATEWIDE RENT RESTRICTIONS, ET
CETERA, THE KIND OF MARGINS THAT
WERE ANTICIPATED IN THE EIGHTIES
AND NINETIES SIMPLY WEREN'T
REALIZED. AND WE DON'T ME
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW THE POINT OF
UNDERWRITING HERE FOR AFFORDABLE
PRODUCT IS NOT THAT GET THE
PRODUCT ON THE GROUND SO PEOPLE
CAN HAVE HOMES. SO UM, UH UH UH,
NOT MUCH, AND THAT IS PART OF
THE PROBLEM AND WHY? I THINK IT
IS WISE TO GIVE HÌ èC. THIS
FLEXIBILITY. LET ME JUST CLARIFY
, ALSO, UM, AND THE AUTHOR IN
HIS, UH, OPENING INDICATED HE
WAS TAKING THE AMENDMENTS. IF
YOU NOTICE IN THE ANALYSIS
COMMENT SIX THAT THIS, UH THE
AMENDMENTS INCLUDE THAT THE LOAN
FORGIVENESS WOULD ONLY BE USED
FOR LEGACY. HÌ èC Dð PROGRAMS
THAT ARE NEAR THE END OF TERM
AND THAT, UH, THERE WOULD BE, UM
, MONITORING IN THIS. THE
AFFORDABILITY COMPLIANCE
CONCERNS IN ORDER TO AGAIN MAKE
SURE THAT SUCH LOAN FORGIVENESS
IS BEING DONE. FOR THE TYPE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT IS, UH,
THAT THE BILL INDICATES THAT IT
IS TRYING TO ADDRESS AND TO
MINIMIZE THOSE TYPE OF, UH, THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT
MIGHT AFFECT THE FUNDING OF
OTHER HÌ èC Dð PROGRAMS. UH ONE
SECOND BEFORE I CALL AN WELLS.
UM, SENATOR OCHO BOOK. DID YOU
WANT TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION OR
MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT. UM, I
THINK I THINK WHAT? JUST OUT OF
RESPECT, I. I THINK I WANNA SEE
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WHAT THE
LANGUAGE IS GONNA LOOK LIKE. AT
THE END BEFORE I ACTUALLY
SUPPORT I'M GOING TO LAY OFF ON
ON ON THE BILL. UM BUT II I KEEP
ME AWARE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION ON THE BILL. UM I
JUST MY MIND JUST THINKING OF
THE LONG TERM UNINTENDED, BUT I
APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION BY
THE CHAIR WITH REGARDS TO THE
AMENDMENTS AND HOW NARROW IN
FOCUS, UM THE BILL WOULD BE
ENTAILED. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. UM UH,
SORRY, SENATOR MENJIVAR. UH, ONE
MOMENT. UM. I'M ABOUT TO GIVE
YOU THE MY, UH, EXCUSE ME THE
GAVEL, BUT I WOULD NEED TO ASK A
QUESTION FIRST.
I.
APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY THAT
SOME OF US INCLUDING YOURSELF,
HAVE TO GO DOWN TO BUDGET TO
VOTE. BUT MAYBE WE WILL FINISH
YOUR BILL BEFORE WE RUN DOWN
THERE. OK, SO, UH UM ALL RIGHT.
SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, SENATOR
OCHO, BUT YOU'VE GOT OK, GOOD.
AND THEN, UH, BUT SENATOR
MENJIVAR, YOU HAD A COMMENT OR
QUESTION? GO AHEAD. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. UM AND I MISSED THE ENTIRE
BEAUTIFUL CONVERSATION. SO I
APOLOGIZE. IF THIS IS
REPETITIVE, UM CAUSE I. I, UH, I
GOT THE LAST PART OF, UH CINAR,
VOGUE'S COMMENTS AND THE
ANALYSIS. I AM A LITTLE
CONCERNED THAT THERE ISN'T IT'S
NOT FULLY FULLY COOKED. BUT ONE
OF MY QUESTIONS IS. ARE WE
FORGIVING? ARE WE INTENDING TO
FORGIVE KNOWS THAT THE STATE
LOANS THAT THE STATE ANTICIPATES
NEVER ARE GONNA GET PAID BACK
ANYWAYS? IN THIS CASE, WE'RE
ADDRESSING A LOT OF LEGACY
UNDERWRITING LOANS THAT WERE
TYPICALLY IN THE EIGHTIES AND
NINETIES THAT REMAIN ON THE
BOOKS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF
TIME THAT HAVE ACTUALLY HAD THE
EFFECT. CONSTRAINING EITHER THE
COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL
COVENANT PERIOD FOR THE
AFFORDABLE PRODUCT OR BEING ABLE
TO QUALIFY FOR NEW CAPITAL BY
THESE AGENCIES TO BUILD MORE
PRODUCT, SO IT IT ACTUALLY IS
SORT OF AN UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE BECAUSE OVER THE
YEARS, THE CHANGES IN RENT
RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER STATE AND
LOCAL POLICIES HAVE ACTUALLY
REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS
OR PROFIT TO THE AGENCIES THAT
THEY'RE REALLY NOT HAVE NOT BEEN
IN A POSITION TO PAY PRINCIPAL
SO THEY'RE CARRYING THESE LOANS
ON THEIR BOOKS, AND THE EFFECT
OF THAT IS, UM IT'S IF IN FACT
IN WOULD ADDRESS IT. UM AS YOU
SEE IN THE ANALYSIS THAT I IF IT
IS, IN FACT, UH, A CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT'S INHIBITING THE
CONTINUATION OF AFFORDABLE
PRODUCT OR THE BEING ABLE TO
QUALIFY FOR NEW CAPITAL FOR
PRODUCT. THEN THEY ARE ABLE TO
FORGIVE THE LOAN. BUT APOLOGIZE,
SENATOR. BUT IS THERE AN
ASSUMPTION THAT THESE LOANS IS
LIKE A LEGACY LOANS ARE NOT
GONNA GET PAID BACK EITHER WAY.
I WOULD THINK. YEAH IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WE'RE SEEKING TO
ADDRESS BECAUSE THE ASSUMPTION
INITIALLY WAS THAT THEY THERE
WOULD BE PRINCIPAL PAID IN
ADDITION TO THE INTEREST AND NOW
OR VIRTUAL, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS
LOAN, UH, VERY LOW, THE RECEIPTS
THAT WERE TYPICALLY RECEIVED,
UM, WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE
PAYMENT AND ON THE COMMITTEE AND
ON THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU SHOW
THAT YOU ACCEPTED REGARDING THAT
THEY'RE TOWARDS THE END OF
THEIR, UM, TERM. ARE YOU GONNA
BE? DOES THAT COME WITH AN
ACTUAL NUMBER OF HOW CLOSE TO
END OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT
YOU'RE GONNA CONTINUE WORKING ON
? I WILL CONTINUE WORKING ON THE
SPECIFICITY, BUT WE ARE MAKING
COMMITMENTS AND TO BE SURE THAT
WE MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE
WITH THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE
PRODUCTS BEING MAINTAINED OR
BEING RENEWED. UM THAT WE ARE
MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS THE
ONLY NARROW PURPOSE FOR WHICH
THE VALUE OF THE LOAN
FORGIVENESS CAN BE UTILIZED, AND
WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE
MAINTAINING THE ABILITY TO
MONITOR THE PROGRAM AND THE
PROJECT. UM MORE CLOSELY, AND SO
THAT WASN'T AS NARROW OR CLEAR
IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. AND SO
I'VE COMMITTED TO NARROWING THAT
LANGUAGE AND TAKING THAT UP IN A
PROBE. SENATOR DID YOU MAYBE I?
I MISS HIS PART DID YOU ALSO
COMMIT TO WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOAN
FORGIVENESS, FORGIVENESS TO
ENSURE THAT THOSE UNITS MEAN
AFFORDABLE. INITIAL LANGUAGE IS
A 50% AT A MINIMUM, BUT WE'VE
COMMITTED TO 100% OR THE SAME
AMOUNT THE SAME NUMBER OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS. THANK YOU,
SIR. THANK YOU, MADAM. CHAIR,
SENATOR. RIGHT, SENATOR
CABALLERO. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. UM SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
WHAT YOU'RE, UH, ATTEMPTING TO
DO WITH THIS BILL? UM THE I HAD
SOME ISSUES IN RE I. I THINK
THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR TO THE
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED,
UM AND IT IT IT'S UM THE WAY I
INV. SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT
WHENEVER YOU GIVE DISCRETION TO
A DEPARTMENT IT'S A Dð. IT'S A
DANGEROUS THING. AND I SAY THAT
HAVING BEEN AGENCY SECRETARY
OVER DEPARTMENTS IS THAT NUMBER
ONE IS IT ENCOURAGES
INCONSISTENT APPLICATION. AND IT
ALSO ENCOURAGES, UM WHAT LOOKS
LIKE FAVORITISM EVEN IF IT'S NOT
FAVORITISM. AND SO I WANNA BE
CAREFUL THAT WE SET THE
PARAMETERS. UM UM SPECIFIC
ENOUGH SO THAT IT PERTAINS TO
THIS, BUT IT'S NOT SEEN AS A, UM
AS SOMETHING THAT A DEPARTMENT
CAN DO ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT
HAVING TO COME BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE ON ON, I THINK, AND
LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE, UM,
FUND THAT WE JUST SET UP THE, UM
, HOSPITAL, UH, DISTRESS
HOSPITAL LOAN PROGRAM. THAT'S A
LOAN AND ALREADY THE CZECHS ARE
STILL FRESH. THEY'RE ASKING FOR
THE LOAN TO BE FORGIVEN FOR NÓ
FOR NÓ ON NÓ NÓ BASIS OTHER THAN
WE JUST REALLY CAN'T AFFORD
THIS, AND THAT BECOMES
PROBLEMATIC. UM, IT MAY BE WELL.
THE HK WILL BE SETTING UP THE
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH
THOSE LOANS MAY BE FORGIVEN IN
THE FUTURE, BUT, UM, BUT YOU
WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
SOME BEEN SOME ACTION TAKEN IN
OTHER WORDS, THAT THE COMMITMENT
THAT THEY MADE IN GETTING THAT
LOAN IS FULFILLED FOR A PERIOD
OF TIME. SO UM, ON THIS THIS THE
WAY I ENVISION IT IS THAT, UM
THEY HAVE A LOAN. IT CAN BE
TURNED INTO A GRANT. AS LONG AS
CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE THEY
AGREE TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND
THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL A LOT
MORE COMFORTABLE AND THE
DEFINITION OF WHEN THAT CAN
HAPPEN BECOMES REALLY IMPORTANT
SO THAT WE'RE NOT THIS DOESN'T
BECOME PRECEDENT. OTHER LOANS
WHERE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS GO.
WELL YOU GAVE ME A LOAN, AND WE
THOUGHT MAYBE BECAUSE YOU DID IT
HERE. WE COULD DO IT THERE AS
WELL. UM THAT MAY MAKE SENSE IN
THE LONG RUN, BUT I THINK THE
REASON THESE ARE PAY BACK A LOT
OF TIMES IS BECAUSE IT KEEPS THE
FUN SOLVENT AND ON A ROTATING
BASIS. I'M GONNA SUPPORT YOUR
BILL. I THINK IT'S GOING IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. I LIKE THE 100%
I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY
IMPORTANT. UH BUT IT SHOULD BE
FOR ANOTHER PERIOD OF TIME. SO
THAT WE KNOW IT WILL BE 100% FOR
25 YEARS AND WITH THE MONITORING
BY HÌ èC Dð TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT'S THAT'S THE CASE. SO IN MY
IN MY MIND IT IT'S UM IT'S NOT
QUITE AS EGREGIOUS AS JUST
SAYING. OK, WE'RE WE'RE GONNA
FORGIVE A LOAN. THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN NICE IF YOU HAD PAID
OVERTIME. UM EVEN THOUGH THAT
MAY HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE IT IT'S
MORE LIKE A GRANT NOW BECAUSE
WE'LL TURN IT INTO A GRANT AND
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY IT BACK.
MÀ SURE WE CERTAINLY WILLING TO
LOOK AT CLARIFYING THAT LANGUAGE
THAT I WOULD JUST KNOW. I THINK
WE'VE PUT A PRETTY CLEAR AND
STRINGENT THRESHOLD TO ADDRESS A
VERY, VERY SMALL MINORITY OF
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE AND AS WELL
AS WITH THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THE
NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT
ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE
COVENANTS AND COMMITMENTS FOR
THE PRODUCT TO BEGIN, WHICH
WOULD COVER MANY OF THOSE
ELEMENTS YOU ARTICULATED. THAT'S
GREAT. THANK YOU. I DO
APPRECIATE THAT. UH, YES. IN
QUOTATION. I'M WILLING TO MOVE
THE BILL WITH THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. GREAT. UM, GO AHEAD. YOU
I'LL LET YOU DO THAT. YOU CAN
MOVE IT AS, UH, WITH THE
COMMITTED AMENDMENTS DO PASS AS
AMENDED. OKAY? UM ALL RIGHT. NÓ
OTHER COMMENTS YOU MAY CLOSE.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
EXCELLENT SO WE CAN DO A ROLL
CALL ON THE BILL. OK? SENATOR
SKINNER. AYE. SKINNER I A BUG.
SHAKESPEARE. LIKE SPIRIT EYE,
CABALLERO CABALLERO, I, CORTEZ
CORTEZ. I MANJAR MENJIVAR I PAD
PAD A CERTO. UMBERG. WE HAVE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE THAT BILL WILL
BE ON CALL AND, UH, SENATOR
PADILLA. YOU AND I HAVE TO GO TO
BUDGET. UH, SENATOR BOGUE. I'M
HANDING YOU THE GAVEL. WE WILL
BE BACK. UH, WE'VE NOT EVEN HAD
OTHER, UH UH, THAT WAS THE VERY
FIRST EVEN VOTE BECAUSE WE'VE
NOT UNTIL JUST THEN WE DIDN'T
HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE HAVEN'T
EVEN WE HAVE TO START. YEAH. N
NÓ. I THINK YOU SHOULD PROCEED
WITH THE YEAH, YEAH. YEAH.
SO WE WILL WE WILL CONTINUE WITH
, UM, ITEM NUMBER SIX. S¼ B 1079
FROM SENATOR MANJAR WHEN YOU'RE
READY.
ALL RIGHT. MÀ MOUSE VICE CHAIR,
FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M
HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT MY S¼
B 1079 YOUTH HOUSING BOND OF
2024 BY CREATING A DEDICATED
FUNDING SOURCE FOR YOUTH HOUSING
PROJECTS. S¼ B 1079 WILL HELP TO
COMBAT HOUSING INSECURITY FOR
ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATION THAT
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH WHICH
MOVING FORWARD IN THIS
CONVERSATION NOW JUST, UM, UH,
REFERRED TO AS TAPE POPULATION.
IN 2023, CALIFORNIA COUNTED
10,173 YOUTH EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS ON THEIR OWN. AND
ANOTHER 2219, WHO WERE HOMELESS
AND PARENTING ON THEIR OWN.
THOSE NUMBERS PUT THE STATE IN
FIRST PLACE ACROSS THE NATION
ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN YOUTH,
HOMELESSNESS, ACCOUNTING FOR 29%
OF THE CASE CASES, UH,
COUNTRYWIDE. THAT IS WHY THE
YOUTH HOUSING BOND OF 2024 IS SO
CRITICAL BECAUSE ONE IN FOUR
FOSTER YOUTH WHO HAVE EXTENDED
CARE WILL EXPERIENCE
HOMELESSNESS. AFRICAN AMERICAN
YOUTH HAVE AN 83% INCREASED RISK
OF HAVING EXPERIENCED
HOMELESSNESS OVER YOUTH OF OTHER
RACES. 50% OF CHRONICALLY, UM,
HOMELESS POPULATION HAD THEIR
FIRST EXPERIENCE. WHEN THEY WERE
UNDER THE AGE OF 25. AND IN THE
LAST POINT IN TIME COUNT THAT
HAPPENS IN THE BEGINNING OF EACH
YEAR OVER 68% OF YOUTH WERE
UNSHELTERED, MEANING THEY WERE
SLEEPING ON LOCATIONS NOT MEANT
FOR HUMAN HABITATION. SB 1079
WILL CREATE THAT DEDICATED
FUNDING SOURCE ALLOW BOTH PUBLIC
AGENCIES AND COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS WITH SPECIFIC
YOUTH EXPERTISE TO BE ABLE TO
APPLY DIRECTLY FOR THE USE
THESE, UH, YOUTH BOND FUNDS.
CALIFORNIANS CONTINUOUSLY RANK
HOMELESSNESS AND THE LACK OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS THE NUMBER
ONE ISSUE THE MOST PRESSING
ISSUE FACING OUR STATE. IT IS
TIME FOR CALIFORNIA TO COMMIT TO
OUR YOUTH AND THEIR NEED FOR
SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING,
BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY,
OFTENTIMES IN THIS GRAND SCHEME
OF HOMELESSNESS, THEY ARE
FORGOTTEN IN THE CONVERSATION.
AS WE CONTINUE TO RANK
HOMELESSNESS LIKE I MENTIONED AS
ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING ISSUES,
LET'S LET LET'S LET CALIFORNIANS
DECIDE IF WE SHOULD MAKE THIS
VERY IMPORTANT INVESTMENT IN THE
FUTURE OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE
YOUTH. SO, MADAM WEISER WITH
YOUR PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO
TURN TO MY WITNESSES WHO WOULD
THEN, UM, TESTIFY ON ON ON THIS
BILLS BEHALF? FIRST I'D LIKE TO
WELCOME THE èC E Ó OF HOMES.
START UH, LAURA TRAN TRAN. TAN
BASIE PROBABLY BUTCHERED IT. GOT
IT. PERFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UM, GOOD. DISTINGUISHED
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LAURA TANCREDI BASIE. I AM THE
èC E Ó AT HOMESTART, WHICH IS
IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. UH, WE'RE A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT'S
BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 52 YEARS,
AND WE PROVIDE SERVICES FOR
TRANSITION AGE, YOUNG PEOPLE,
UH, INDIVIDUALS, UH, PREGNANT OR
PARENTING AND FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH. AH WE KNOW THAT MANY
YOUTH ARE FACING HOMELESSNESS.
UM AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS WORK
FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I'M UH, VERY
PLEASED TO SAY THAT I HAVE
STARTED SEVEN CAPITAL PROJECTS
MYSELF IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. I
WELCOME YOU TO COME VISIT AND,
UM, WE KNOW THAT THIS WORK IS
IMPORTANT, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL TE
1079 WITH SENATOR MEAR. I JUST
WHAT? YOUR NAME MENJIVAR. IT WAS
PAYBACK. IT'S OK. WE'RE EVEN WHY
? WHY IS FUNDING CAPITAL
PROJECTS FOR AGENCIES SO
IMPORTANT? THESE SEVEN PROJECTS
THAT I COMPLETED WERE DONE
QUICKLY. UH, THEY WERE DONE WITH
THE MIND AND HEART ABOUT YOUNG
PEOPLE. AND HOW DO WE SERVE
THEM? AND WE CAN TURN THESE
AROUND REALLY QUICKLY.
NONPROFITS WE HAVE TO BE NIMBLE.
WE HAVE TO DO MORE TO MAKE
THINGS HAPPEN FOR THESE
POPULATIONS. AND SO THESE
PROJECTS WERE ALL COMPLETED
WITHIN A YEAR OR THIS TIME.
OFTEN NONPROFITS CAN SOMETIMES
LEVERAGE PHILANTHROPY, WHICH WE
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THROUGH.
LOCAL FOUNDATIONS, UM,
INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS
BECAUSE THEY LIKE SEEING CHANGE,
AND THEY LIKE SEEING CHANGE
QUICKLY, AND THEY KNOW THAT
THEY'RE HELPING TO STEM YOUTH
PIPELINE OF HOMELESSNESS TO
PREVENT THEM FROM BECOMING ADULT
CHRONIC HOMELESS POPULATION AS
WAS MENTIONED. NONPROFITS ARE IN
NEIGHBORHOODS AND WITH THESE
PROJECTS WE OFTEN AND MOSTLY
PURCHASE BLIGHTED AND NEGLECTED
PROPERTIES. WE FIX THEM UP.
THEY'RE THE BEST LOOKING
PROPERTY ON THE BLOCK IN OUR
NEIGHBORS ARE VERY HAPPY ABOUT
THAT. UM THE IMPORTANCE OF BOND
FUND IS CRITICAL IN ADDING VERY
DESPERATELY NEEDED YOUTH
SPECIFIC FRONT DOORS AND WARM
BEDS FOR OUR YOUTH, AND THAT'S
THE ONLY WAY TO COMBAT YOUTH.
HOMELESSNESS UM, BY ALLOWING
NONPROFITS LIKE US, UH, AND MANY
OTHERS TO APPLY DIRECTLY FOR
THESE FUNDS, UM, IT WILL REALLY
QUICKEN THE STREAMLINE, UH, AND
THE PROCESS FOR ENSURING MORE
BEDS FOR THIS AND TO DO IT
QUICKLY. UM 10. YEARS AGO, WE
APPLIED FOR AN E HÌ, A èC Dð
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT, WHICH
WAS A 10 YEAR FORGIVABLE LOAN,
AND WE JUST COMPLETED THAT 10
YEAR PROJECT. WE'VE DONE
ADDITIONAL RENOVATIONS AND
UPGRADES, AND WE CONTINUE TO USE
THIS PROPERTY FOR HELPING, UH
YOUNG MOTHERS PREGNANT OR
PARENTING, YOUNG WOMEN, WHICH IS
THE PROGRAM I STARTED FOR HOME
START, UH, 13 YEARS AGO. OVER
THAT 10 YEAR PERIOD. WE'VE
SERVED OVER 100 FAMILIES WHO ARE
NOW SUCCESSFULLY INDEPENDENT AND
WE PROVIDE A CORE RANGE OF
SERVICES. WE KNOW CASE
MANAGEMENT COUNSELING TO DEAL
WITH THEIR TRAUMA, PARENTING
EDUCATION FOR OUR PARENTS AND
SOCIAL SKILLS, TRAINING AND AS
WELL AS EMPLOYMENT. WE ACTUALLY
HAVE A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE THRIFT
BOUTIQUE WHERE THESE YOUNG WOMEN
CAN WORK AND BUILD THEIR UM,
CONFIDENCE. UH, YOUNG WOMAN
RECENTLY SPEAKING TO, UM, A
LOCAL FOUNDATION THAT A TOUR
CAME FOR. HER NAME IS ARIA. SHE
WAS IN AND OUT OF THE FOSTER
CARE SYSTEM MOST OF HER LIFE.
SHE HAD HER LITTLE DAUGHTER AT
THE AGE OF 19. SHE'S NOW 21
LIVING IN OUR PROGRAM, AND SHE
SAID I FINALLY FEEL LIKE I HAVE
A FAMILY. I NEVER HAD ONE. YOUR
STAFF HERE REALLY CARE ABOUT ME.
THEY WRAP ALL THESE SERVICES
AROUND ME. THEY SUPPORT ME AND
MY DAUGHTER AND I'M SO GRATEFUL
TO FINALLY IN BE IN A PLACE
WHERE I FEEL SAFE THAT I CAN
CALL HOME. SHE'S JUST ONE OF
MANY. MANY UM WE MENTIONED THE
PREGNANT AND PARENTING OVER OVER
2100 YOUNG WOMEN LIKE HER IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND I JUST
ASK ON BEHALF OF HER ARIA AND
THE MANY OTHER YOUNG PEOPLE WHO
ARE WAITING FOR A SAFE, WARM
PLACE TO CALL HOME THAT YOU VOTE
YES, AND VOTE I ON S¼ B. 179
THANK YOU. AND VICE CHAIR. I
HAVE ONE MORE WITNESS HERE TO
TESTIFY IF WE COULD WELCOME FROM
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR YOUTH,
KI¾M LEWIS. UH, YEAH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. KI¾M. LEWIS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR YOUTH.
I'M MADAM VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME TODAY. UM, WE HAD A
FORMERLY YOUNG PERSON WHO WAS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS WHO
WAS GOING TO BE HERE BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, UM, SICK, SO WE
TOLD THEM TO STAY HOME TODAY.
THANKFULLY UM, JUST WANNA SHARE
A BRIEF BIT ABOUT HIS STORY.
ZACH UM, AT 15 LOST HIS MOTHER
ON CHRISTMAS DAY IN A CAR
ACCIDENT. AND AFTER A PERIOD OF
INSTABILITY, UM, SPENT ANY TIME
ON THE STREETS AND FOUND LARKIN
STREET AND SPENT TWO YEARS IN
THEIR TRANSITIONAL LIVING
PROGRAM, WHICH WAS VERY
TRANSFORMATIVE FOR HIS LIFE, AND
THERE DEDICATED CASE MANAGEMENT
TEAM WAS ABLE TO HOLISTICALLY
SUPPORT HIS GOALS CONNECT HIM TO
THE RESOURCES HE NEEDED TO
ACHIEVE THEM. THEIR
COMPASSIONATE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
TEAM PROVIDED THEM WITH
THERAPEUTIC RESOURCES AND TOOLS
TO COPE WITH HIS TRAUMA, AND HE
DEVELOPED MEANINGFUL
RELATIONSHIPS WITH HIS PEERS AND
NEIGHBORS THAT HE STILL HAS TO
THIS DAY. AND HE HAS AN
ENVIRONMENT THAT SUPPORTED HIM
AND THE FINANCIAL FREEDOM HE
NEEDED TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE
EXPLORATION AND PROFESSIONAL
GROWTH. ZACH'S STORY IS REALLY
JUST A TESTAMENT OF THE POWER OF
THESE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
PROGRAMS AND WHAT WE HOPE TO DO
TODAY WITH SB 1079. AND WITH
THAT, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. THOSE
CONCLUDE MY WITNESS. SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN.
KAREN LANG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF ADOLESCENT
AND CHILD PSYCHIATRISTS IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. KRISTEN
POWER WITH THE ALLIANCE FOR
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS. A COSPONSOR
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MAGALI SAGAL WITH
GREENBERG TRAURIG ON BEHALF OF
THE EQUAL CALIFORNIAN SUPPORT.
SHAME IS SCARY FROM LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF
POWER, CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL?
ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE. LET ME
BRING IT BACK TO THE DÍAS. UH,
SENATOR SARA. THANK YOU. AND UH,
THANK YOU FOR TACKLING ONE OF
THE ISSUES THAT'S AFFECTING OUR
YOUTH, AND, UH, AND ESPECIALLY
WHEN YOU KNOW, KIDS MAKING THAT
TRANSITION FROM FOSTER CARE AND
INTO YOU KNOW ALL ALL OF THAT
MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. UM BUT
IT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT SHOULD
BE A CALIFORNIA PRIORITY. UH
WHEN WE'RE DOING ANY OF OUR
BUDGETS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, UH,
MY QUESTION IS, UH SO. HOW BIG
IS THIS BOND? BECAUSE WE HAVE A
LOT OF BONDS THIS YEAR THAT ARE
GONNA BE COMPETING. WE'RE WE'RE
STILL WORKING ON THE EXACT
NUMBER AND I'M VERY AWARE OF THE
COMPETING BONDS AND, YOU KNOW,
STILL HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH
OTHER BONDS THAT PERHAPS MATCH
THIS ONE, SO WE'RE NOT AT THAT
NUMBER JUST YET. OK DO YOU HAVE
ANY IDEA HOW MUCH PER YEAR UM
THESE AGENCIES NEED TO BE ABLE
TO BUILD BECAUSE YOU CAN'T YOU
CAN'T DO $5 BILLION AND THEN
BUILD IT ALL IN ONE YEAR. UM, IS
THERE AN ALLOCATION THAT CAN BE
SPACED OUT OVER SEVERAL YEARS
THAT WE CAN COMMIT TO THROUGH
OUR GENERAL FUND SPENDING AND BE
ABLE TO ENABLE THEM TO BUILD THE
FACILITIES THEY NEED WITHOUT
GOING DOWN THE BOND PATH AND
INCREASING OUR BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS. PAST 100 AND $9
BILLION LIKE IT IS NOW. YOU
KNOW, SENATOR, I WISH I WISH
THAT COULD BE THE THAT WOULD BE
IDEAL, RIGHT? BUT WHEN WE'RE
FACING A BUDGET THAT IS
ESSENTIALLY ALMOST CUTTING EVERY
SINGLE HOMELESS PROJECT AND EVEN
IN FOSTER UM, PROGRAMS CUTTING
TWO INSTRUMENTAL HOUSING PRO
PROGRAMS FOR FOSTER YOUTH TO
STAY HOUSED ARE BEING PROPOSED
TO BE CUT. UM IT'S GONNA BE EVEN
HARD TO ADD THIS WITHIN THE
GENERAL FUND. I UNDERSTAND, BUT
WHEN WE'RE SPENDING 500, OR $500
MILLION ON ELECTRIC BUSES AND
THEN A PROGRAM LIKE THIS THAT WE
COULD ACTUALLY FUND AND GET SOME
SOME THINGS ON THE GROUND, AND
THEN TWO YEARS LATER, WE'LL
STILL HAVE MONEY, MORE MONEY TO
SPEND ON THOSE BUSES. IT JUST
SEEMS TO ME. THAT THIS SHOULD BE
A PRIORITY OVER A LOT OF THE
THINGS THAT WE'RE SPENDING MONEY
ON. AND UM AND SO YOU KNOW, FROM
A BOND PERSPECTIVE, MY CONCERN
IS THAT MOST BONDS ARE ARE ARE
GOING TO FAIL? UM, BECAUSE
THEY'RE ALL COMPETING AGAINST
EACH OTHER. AND PEOPLE ARE
STARTING TO SEE. YOU KNOW, THEY
HAVE WE HAVE. WE HAD THIS
DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT A BOND,
AND THEY HAVE A DISTRUST IN
BONDS NOW. AND WE HAVE TO
REBUILD THAT TRUST. THE ONLY WAY
WE CAN REBUILD THAT TRUST IS TO
ACTUALLY DELIVER ON SOMETHING.
WE'VE HAD TROUBLE DOING THAT.
AND SO I DON'T WANT TO PUT ALL
OUR EGGS OF HELPING THE YOUTH
AND BUILDING THESE YOUTH CENTERS
AND THINGS LIKE THAT INTO A BOND
BASKET. I WOULD RATHER MAKE THE
COMMITMENT FROM THE LEGISLATURE
BECAUSE WE CAN DO THAT. TO SPEND
THE MONEY FROM HERE AND HOW
HOWEVER MANY YEARS IT TAKES A
CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF MONEY
EVERY YEAR SO THAT THEY CAN GET
THEIR PROJECTS DONE. UH, WITHOUT
THE ARDUOUS PROCESS OF GOING
THROUGH THIS THIS, UH BOND, UM,
PROCESS AND ALSO THE UNCERTAINTY
OF A BOND. SO THAT'S WHERE MY
ISSUE LIES. IT'S NOT ABOUT DO WE
NEED IT OR NOT? WE ABSOLUTELY
NEED IT. BUT IT'S ABOUT IF IT'S
A PRIORITY, THEN THIS THIS
LEGISLATURE CAN MAKE IT A
PRIORITY. THEY DON'T WANT TO.
WELL WE DON'T WE DON'T GO BACK
AND SAY LET'S JUST, YOU KNOW,
LET'S PUT IT INTO THE BOND
BASKET AND HOPE IT PASSES. SO, I
. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US. UH UH,
MAKE THESE THINGS A PRIORITY
FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH MONEY THEY
NEED OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
AND THEN AND THEN BUDGET THAT
INTO OUR BUDGET THE RIGHT WAY.
UM AND NOT NOT THIS WAY. AND
SENATOR, YOU KNOW, AND I AGREE
WITH A LOT OF THE POINTS THAT
YOU'VE MENTIONED, AND I THINK
YOU KNOW, I'VE COMMITTED, UM, AT
LEAST IN MY SUB COMMITTEE THAT I
CHAIR THAT HAS SOME OF THE
HOUSING PROGRAMS ARE BEING
PROPOSED TO DELAY FOR FOSTER
KIDS COMMITTING TO HOLD THE LINE
ON THAT, AND I THINK A LOT OF
THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT
UP ARE GONNA BE HOPEFULLY
HANDLED WITHIN THE BUDGET
PROCESS WHERE WE'RE REALLY GONNA
FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO
PRIORITIZE OUR PRIORITIES
ESSENTIALLY RIGHT, AND THAT
THOSE NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE TO
HAPPEN. AND UH, THIS BUDGET THIS
YEAR SO VOLATILE IT JUST IT'S
JUST YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT NUMBERS
LEFT AND RIGHT. I WANNA MAKE
SURE THIS THIS BILL AS A WHOLE
RIGHT NOW MOVES FORWARD AND
STILL IS A VEHICLE THAT WE CAN
LOOK AT. IF WHAT WE CAN'T IF
WHAT WE WANT CAN'T BE
ACCOMPLISHED, ACCOMPLISHED ALL
WITHIN THE BUDGET. AND I THANK
YOU FOR THAT. AND UH AND PLEASE,
THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO BE
INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION AT
ALL, 100% BECAUSE AS WE GO ON,
AND YOU GUYS HAVE THE
NEGOTIATIONS, WE ARE WE ARE NOT
INVOLVED IN THOSE. AND SO, UM,
AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO BRING
IT UP NOW AND I WELCOME THAT
100% APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
JUST UM I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE
BILL. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE,
UH, FROM, UM TO MAKE YOU LAUGH.
UM JUST WANTED TO DO JUST ONE
TECHNICAL. UH UH. ATTENTION TO,
UH, LINE PAGE NINE LINE 22. UM,
IT SAYS IT STATES. ANY MONEY
THAT HAS BEEN AWARDED TO HOUSING
FOR HOMELESS, YOUTH OR CURRENT
YOUTH OR FORMER YOUTH. WE'VE ALL
BEEN FORMER YOUTH, SO WE'RE
GONNA ADD FOSTER YOUTH. I'M
ASSUMING, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT
WAS CAUGHT OR NOT ON THAT END,
BUT THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME
WE'RE HEARING OF THAT LINE. I
THINK WE WERE SHAKING OUR HEADS
THERE. I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD
CATCH RIGHT THERE. UM I DIDN'T
CATCH IT. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO
ME LIKE OK. I CAN'T TAKE CREDIT
FOR THAT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT BECAUSE WE'VE ALL
BEEN FORMER YOUTH, UH SO WE
SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE ADD UM
OR FORMER FOSTER YOUTH ON THAT
END, SO IF WE COULD JUST HAVE
THAT CLEAR, BUT OTHER THAN THAT,
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE BOND. UH,
I THINK WE'VE WORKED QUITE A BIT
IN SUPPORTING A LOT OF OUR OUR
FOSTER YOUTH AND UNDERSTANDING.
UM THE ISSUE WITH THEIR HOUSING,
UM, INTERSTATE. AND I KNOW FOR A
FACT THAT IN OUR COUNTY, MY SEO
COUNTY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
ESPECIALLY IN SAN MARINO COUNTY,
WE HAVE A HUGE POPULATION OF
FOSTER YOUTHS OR ANYTHING THAT
WE CAN DO TO HELP ON ON THAT
ENDEAVOR. I'M WITH YOU AS ALL
FORMER YOUTH HERE. I AM SO GLAD
THAT WE'RE ALL. UM ON BOARD WITH
THAT, BUT THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR
CATCHING THAT. AND 100% WE'RE
GONNA BE LOOKING THAT AND
SENATOR CTO. I ACTUALLY READ A
LITTLE BIT MORE. AND WHILE THERE
IS I WAS RIGHT IN SAYING THERE
IS NÓ, UM, DOLLAR AMOUNT RIGHT
NOW IN THE TAX. UM, WE ARE
ANTICIPATING SOMETHING CLOSER TO
$1 BILLION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
, IS MAYBE ADDING INTO THE THAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING INTO THE
TEXT. IT'S A LANGUAGE. I'LL BE
HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL. SO WE
HAVE A MOTION ON THE BILL, AND
IT'S DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
JUDICIARY. UH, NÓ SORRY. SORRY
DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
EXCUSE ME. I WAS READING FROM
THE WRONG LINE. UM AND WITHOUT,
UH, SEEING A FURTHER, UH,
COMMENTS BY THE, UH DÍAS. UH,
SENATOR MANJARI MAY CLOSE AND
THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR ENGAGING ON WITH
ME ON THIS CONVERSATION WITH
YOUR SUPPORT. WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD IN TRYING TO ELIMINATE,
UM HOUSING INSECURITY FOR OUR
YOUTH. I RESPECT THAT. I ASKED
FOR AN I VOTE. OKAY, SO LET'S
TAKE A ROLL CALL. SENATOR
SKINNER. HØI SKINNER. AYE I'LL
THROW A BUG I THROW BUG AY
BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR I
CABALLERO CABALLERO I CORTEZ
CORTEZ. I MANJAR MANJAR A PAD
PAD A CERTO CERTO NÓ UMBERG
WAHAB. WELL, HAVE I. ALRIGHT
THAT BILL HAS, UH, THE VOTE IS 8
TO 1, BUT WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE
IT OPEN ONE CALL. WE HAVE SOME
OTHER MEMBERS WHO ARE GONNA
COME. SO THANK YOU, AND NOW WE
WILL MOVE OVER, UH, SENATOR SAY
TO YOUR PRESENTATIONS AND WE'LL
START WITH S¼ B 968. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. I HAVE TWO BILLS
THAT ARE VERY HELPFUL. UH, ONE
OF THEM IS A HELPFUL BILL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. UH S¼ VÆ 968
OFFERS A SOLUTION TO THE HOUSING
CRISIS OUR STATE FACES BY
ALLOWING LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO
ROLL OVER SURPLUS UNITS FROM
THEIR CURRENT REGIONAL HOUSING
NEEDS ALLOCATIONS, WHICH IS
ARENA ASSESSMENT, UH, CYCLE TO
THE NEXT YEAR'S CYCLE, SO WHEN
THEY GO OVER THE AMOUNT THEY CAN
CREDIT THOSE JUST LIKE WHEN
THEY'RE UNDER THE AMOUNT THOSE
GET STACKED ON TO THEIR NEXT
YEAR CYCLE. SO THIS DOES IT THE
OPPOSITE WAY. AND THE REASON FOR
DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS TO
INCENTIVIZE CITIES TO CONTINUE
TO ALLOW GROWTH AND BUILDING.
WHILE THE BUILDING IS GOOD AND
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
IS GOOD UM AND THEN THEY'LL BE
ABLE TO APPLY THOSE TO THEIR
NEXT ARENA CYCLE. UH, SO IN
CALIFORNIA FACTORS SUCH AS
LENGTHY LITIGATION PROCESSES,
HIGH LABOR COSTS AND THE
INTEREST RATES DISINCENTIVIZE
FURTHER PRODUCTION AFTER
ACHIEVING A GOAL. FURTHERMORE
DUE TO THE EVER CHANGING STATE
REQUIREMENTS, LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS FACE A DAUNTING
TASK. MERELY TO SUBMIT A
COMPLIANT HOUSING ELEMENT. NON
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE
HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS CAN
LEAD TO LOSS OF STATE FUNDING,
WHICH ULTIMATELY HINDERS THE
JURISDICTIONS TO, UH, THE
ABILITY TO MEET THE ARENA. SOME
ARGUE THAT SB 968 MAY LOWER
HOUSING PROTECTION YET BY
CARRYING OVER SURPLUS UNITS FROM
THE CURRENT CYCLE TO THE NEXT
RENA CYCLE. CITIES ARE
INCENTIVIZED TO SURPASS THEIR
HOUSING TARGETS. INCENTIVES LIKE
THESE HELP FOSTER THE
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS THAT IS NECESSARY TO
EFFECTIVELY MEET OUR STATE
HOUSING GOALS. AND TODAY I DO
NOT, AS IS MY CUSTOM DID NOT
BRING ANY WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.
AND LET THE BILL SPEAK FOR
ITSELF. AND, UH, SO WITH THAT
MADAM CHAIR. AH WELL, LET ME
CHECK AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY,
UH, WITNESSES EITHER IN FIRST
STARTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. OK ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? OK,
UM LET ME TURN TO THE DIOCESE,
SEE IF THERE IS ANY COMMENTS
FROM MEMBERS. GO AHEAD, SENATOR
CABALLERO. SENATOR I. I, UM I
HAVE ONE COMMUNITY IN MY, UM IN
MY DISTRICT. THAT I'M CARETAKING
THAT HAS DONE A YEOMAN'S JOB OF,
UM BUILDING HOUSING AND THEY'VE
MET BY FAR EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY
EVEN DOWN TO THE EXTREMELY LOW.
UM AND THE, UH SO THAT ONE
COMMUNITY IT REALLY LIKES THIS
BILL BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN
THEY'VE BEEN REALLY FOCUSING ON
HOUSING. IT'S A FARMER COMMUNITY
. LO, LOCATED IN THE SALINAS
VALLEY, UM I KNOW THAT, UM THAT
THERE'S A CONTROVERSY OVER THIS
BECAUSE IT IT, UM YOU KNOW YOU,
YOU, YOU YOU, UH THERE'S BAD
ACTORS OUT THERE AND WE END UP
DOING THINGS BECAUSE OF THE BAD
ACTORS. THAT'S QUITE FRANKLY
WHAT WHAT? WHAT HAPPENS? I THINK
THAT THE BILL, I DON'T THINK THE
BILL IS IN, UM I THINK IT NEEDS
SOME SOME ADDITIONS, UM, IN
TERMS OF PER PROTECTION, SO THAT
WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT UM
THEY'RE ACTUALLY UH, DOING WHAT
THEY NEED TO DO, UM UH, BUT, UH,
BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO, BECAUSE THIS
COMMUNITY, UM REALLY WENT ABOVE
AND BEYOND IN IN TERMS OF
APPROVING HOUSING AND BUILDING.
UH WHAT? UH, WHAT THEIR
RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN DEMANDING,
WHICH IS TRULY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING? UM AND UM AND TO THEIR
DETRIMENT. SO I WOULD SUGGEST,
UM, IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT
THIS, THAT WE CREATE AN
INCENTIVE SO THAT THEIR FIRST IN
LINE FOR GRANTS, BECAUSE AS YOU
KNOW, WHEN YOU BUILD HOUSING YOU
BUILD THE DEFICIT IN YOUR
INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH PARKS. YOU DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH LIBRARIES, POLICE
SERVICES SUFFER, AND SO, UM, UH,
I WOULD SUPPORT YOU MOVING IN
THAT DIRECTION. UM, IN ADDITION
TO WHATEVER ELSE NEEDS TO BE
DONE, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM
THAT WE'RE INCENTIVIZING BECAUSE
IN IN MOST OF THESE
JURISDICTIONS THEY HAVE NÓ NÓ
SAY IN THE NUMBER RIGHT? IT'S A
LOCAL. UM UH ENTITY IN THAT
AREA. IT'S AMBA THAT THAT
DIVIDES UP THE NUMBERS AND THEY
GOT QUITE A QUITE A HEFTY NUMBER
FOR A SMALL COMMUNITY UNDER, UH
SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER 20,000
RESIDENTS, AND SO I LIKE WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. THEY WOULD
LIKE IT AS WELL. UM, I THINK IT
NEEDS SOME WORK. SO THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, SO NOT OUR CASE, AND
MEN OF OUR SENATOR. YOU KNOW THE
ARENA NUMBERS I FEEL LIKE ARE
THE FLOOR. UM AND THIS CRISIS
ARE WE DEALING WITH? I DON'T
THINK I THINK WE SHOULD. WE
SHOULDN'T REMOVE OUR OUR FOOT
FROM THE FROM THE PEDAL FROM THE
GAS PEDAL. UM I, I THINK AS A
STATE, A STATE AS A WHOLE, WE
JUST HAVEN'T MET THE NUMBERS
THAT WE NEED TO MEET. I'M JUST
WORRIED THAT THIS ISN'T MOVING
US IN THE STEP TOWARDS MORE
HOUSING. I RATHER GIVE BREAKS.
UM AND POTENTIALLY MAYBE MOVING
BACK BECAUSE AGAIN FOR ME. I
MEAN THE READING NUMBER. THEY'RE
JUST THE FLOOR. I THINK THEY
SHOULD BE SUPERSEDING THEM. UM
SO I'M CONCERNED WITH THIS BILL.
I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IT'S NOT
MOVING US IN THE DIRECTION THAT
WE NEED TO MOVE TOWARDS. OKAY?
UM WE'LL WE'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
YOU DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION. SO
WE'RE JUST GONNA, UM SEND èC TO
GO AHEAD. SO I AM, UM SO I'M
GOING TO, UH SORT OF TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM FIRST OF
ALL, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
MEASURE FORWARD. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING BE HAPPY TO MOVE IT
FORWARD WHEN THE TIME IS
APPROPRIATE, UM AND I DO
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
NUMBERS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THE
FLOOR. BUT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT,
UM, IT'S BECAUSE THERE AREN'T
ENOUGH INITIATIVES TO BUILD
HOUSING. UM JUST TODAY I MET
WITH ONE OF MY CITIES IN MY IN
MY DISTRICT TODAY, AND THEY'VE
BEEN APRIL HOUSING. UH, CITY.
THEY'VE EARNED THEIR DESIGNATION
. THEY THEY'VE BEEN INCREDIBLY,
UH, UH, EFFECTIVE IN IN DOING
ALL OF THEIR HOUSING. HOWEVER
I'M JUST RECENTLY THEY STARTED
LOSING BUILDERS FOR MOVING
FORWARD IN BUILDING THEIR HOMES
AND BUILDING THE HOMES THAT HAD
BEEN PROVE BECAUSE THEY LOST
THEIR FINANCING. BECAUSE OF
INTEREST RATES, THEY COULDN'T
GET THE LOAN. SO MANY A TIMES WE
BLAME OUR CITIES FOR, UM FOR NOT
BEING ABLE TO BUILD, BUT A LOT
OF THE TIMES THERE ARE MANY
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
ACTUALLY COME INTO PLAY THAT
EVEN THOUGH THE CITIES ARE
WILLING AND ABLE, AND HAVE BEEN
VERY PRODUCTIVE IN MEETING THEIR
THEIR HOUSING, UH, THE ARENA
NUMBERS, UM THINGS HAPPEN BEYOND
THEIR CONTROL. AND SO IT MAKES
ME A LITTLE NERVOUS TO THINK
THAT, UH, WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO PENALIZE THOSE
CITIES THAT ARE ACTING THAT ARE
GOOD ACTORS RATHER THAN
INCENTIVIZE AND SAY, HEY, KUDOS
FOR DOING THAT AND MOVING
FORWARD. SO I THINK, UM, BECAUSE
I JUST LITERALLY HAD THIS
CONVERSATION THIS MORNING WITH
ONE OF MY CITIES THAT HAS BEEN,
UM AND WE DO WE HAVE AMAZING
CITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE THAT
ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY OR
SENATOR CARER MENTIONED THAT
I'VE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN DOING
THEIR THEIR WORK, BUT I DON'T
WANNA SEE AND WE HAVE BEEN VERY
PUNITIVE ON OUR CITIES, UM, IN
IN THEIR IN IN THEIR INABILITY
TO, UM TO BE ABLE TO MEET THEIR
THEIR ARENA NUMBERS, WHICH BY
THE WAY IS THAT WE THE NUMBERS
PER CITY BECOMES VERY, UM
RELATIVE. IT'S NOT LIKE AN EXACT
SCIENCE THAT IS GOING ON. AND
I'M LOOKING INTO THAT AS WELL.
SO TODAY, HAVING SAID THAT, UM,
I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO SUPPORT
YOUR BILL TODAY AND THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD
AND I HOPE I HOPE THAT, UM WE,
UH HAVE MORE MEASURES THAT
REALLY INCENTIVIZE AND COMMEND
AND PROTECT THOSE CITIES THAT
ARE GOOD ACTORS. UM, WITHIN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU OK? UM UH,
PRETTIEST. GO AHEAD, CAUSE I WAS
GONNA MAKE MY COMMENT, BUT I'LL
LET YOU GO FIRST. GO AHEAD. UH,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. UH AND
SENATOR I APPRECIATE INITIATIVE
AND PUTTING A LOT OF THOUGHT TO
YOUR BILLS IS ALWAYS UH AND I
JUST WANTED TO ADD MY COMMENTS
ON THE RECORD. I'M NOT GOING TO
BE IN A POSITION TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. AND HERE'S WHY, BECAUSE IT
MAY APPEAR ON THE SURFACE TO IN
QUOTE, REWARD A JURISDICTION
THAT MEETS A STANDARD OR ARENA
NUMBER FOR A GIVEN CYCLE.
CREDITING THAT FORWARD ACTUALLY
WILL CREATE PERIODS OF TIME
WHERE THEY'RE ON THE HOOK TO
PRODUCE LESS IN THE FOLLOWING
YEAR BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DO
LESS TO MEET THE SAME STANDARD,
AND IT IS A FLOOR AND I HAVE TO
TELL YOU I SPENT MANY, MANY
YEARS IN LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENT BEFORE THEN WORKING
IN OTHER AREAS OF STATE
GOVERNMENT. AND I'M GONNA BE
BLUNT THE PERPETUAL DEBATE.
AROUND REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCIES CONCERNING
AFFORDABILITY IN HOUSING. I CAME
FROM A REGION WHERE THE
PREDOMINANT AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION
FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, LOW INCOME HOUSING. OR
IN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT
WERE UNDER INVESTED. AND WEALTHY
, MORE HOMOGENEOUS COMMUNITIES
IN MY COUNTY CONSISTENTLY EVERY
YEAR FOUGHT AND RESISTED AND
FOUND WAYS TO GET AROUND THE
REQUIREMENT TO BUILD HOUSING
THAT WAS AFFORDABLE. FRANKLY,
LARGELY BECAUSE THEY HAD CERTAIN
SOCIAL ASSUMPTIONS. STEREOTYPES
ABOUT THE KINDS OF PEOPLE IT
NEEDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND
THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT IN THEIR
COMMUNITY. I HAD A AN EMPLOYER.
70% OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THEIR
THEIR NORTH COUNTY COMMUNITY,
HOMOGENEOUS, WEALTHY COMMUNITY
CAME FROM MY COMMUNITY IN THE
SOUTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY. AND I
USED TO ARGUE WITH THAT MAYOR
EVERY YEAR ABOUT WHY HE WANTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HIS
COMMUNITY. UH, WHY? AND HE DID.
HE DIDN'T HAVE AN IDEA WHY HE
DID OR SHOULD EXCEPT THE HOUSE'S
WORKFORCE. THIS DEBATE IS OLD.
AND THERE ARE CONTINUOUS
CREATIVE WAYS. UH, TRY TO GET
AROUND AN OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE
PRODUCT ON THE GROUND. AND LET'S
REMEMBER THE RENA STANDARDS NOT
TOO LONG AGO. ONLY REQUIRED
DESIGNATION AND NOT PRODUCTION.
AND THAT WAS A PROBLEM FOR A
LONG TIME. AND SO I JUST HAVE TO
SAY THAT I ECHO MY COLLEAGUE.
THIS IS A FLOOR WE SHOULD BE.
AND WHILE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
WE WILL JUST SIMPLY BUILD OUR
WAY TO AFFORDABILITY THAT CRISIS
IS NOT JUST A FUNCTION OF
SCARCITY. UM IT IS AN IMPORTANT
ELEMENT AND WE HAVE TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENCOURAGE
COMMUNITIES TO GO ABOVE AND
BEYOND. UM BUT NOT COUNT THAT
TOWARDS THEIR FLOOR. SO FOR
THOSE PURPOSES, I CAN'T SUPPORT
TO ALL RIGHT, UM I WILL
ENTERTAIN MOTION, BUT I WILL
STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM
NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL AND
I WILL BE VOTING NÓ. AND WE HAVE
, UH, WE I ALMOST SEEMS LIKE A
BROKEN RECORD TO EVEN STATE IT
THE HOUSING CRISIS. THE
INCREDIBLE HOUSING CRISIS THAT
CALIFORNIA IS IN, WHICH IS DUE
TO AN UNDERSUPPLY. SO TO EVEN
THINK THAT THERE IS AN
OVERPRODUCTION. UH IT'S JUST WE
DON'T HAVE AN OVERPRODUCTION
ANYWHERE. WHETHER SOMEBODY HAS
PRODUCED WHETHER SOME LOCAL
JURISDICTION HAS PRODUCED A
LITTLE HIGHER THAN THEIR READ,
THE NUMBER REQUIRED COULD STILL
NOT BE CONSIDERED AN
OVERPRODUCTION. WHEN YOU
CONSIDER THE SUPPLY CRISIS THAT
WE ARE IN, SO, UH, AS HAS BEEN
COMMENTED BY OTHER PEOPLE. RENA
IS THE FLOOR, NOT THE CEILING.
UM THIS KIND OF ADJUSTMENT, IN
MY OPINION IS NOT APPROPRIATE
THIS TIME, BUT LET US SEE IF
THERE'S A MOTION SO WE HAVE A
MOTION BY, UH SENATOR OCHO AND
YOU MAY CLOSE MUCH. UH, SO, UH,
PART OF THIS ISSUE IS ACTUALLY
BROUGHT UP BY COUNCIL MEMBERS,
UH, THAT ARE ARE GOING THROUGH
AND IN VARIOUS STAGES, BUT I DO
I, TOO, HAVE A LONG HISTORY. OF
BEING INVOLVED IN COMMUNITIES
AND ALSO BEING THE CHAIR OF A
COG THAT THAT HAD TO DO THE
ARENA NUMBERS AND DEVELOP THOSE
THROUGH THE 19 NINETIES. THE TWO
THOUSANDS, THE 2000 TENS AND
THEN ALSO THE 2000 TWENTIES. SO
THE 2010 RENA NUMBERS THAT THEY
ALL SET UP UM, NOBODY ACHIEVED
THOSE AND THERE'S A REASON THEY
DIDN'T ACHIEVE THEM IS BECAUSE
WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
RECESSION. YOU GUYS WILL ALL
RECALL THAT THERE WAS A
RECESSION AND NOBODY WAS
BUILDING ANYTHING. THERE ARE
VERY, VERY FEW THINGS THAT WERE
BEING BUILT. AND THAT RECESSION,
THE BUILDERS DIDN'T HAVE
CONFIDENCE IN THE ECONOMY UNTIL
2016 OR 17, AND THAT'S WHEN WE
STARTED TO SEE THE BEGINNING OF
THE PROCESSES TO START BUILDING
AGAIN. AND YOU KNOW HOW LONG
THAT TOOK ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. SO
NOW YOU TAKE YOU FLASH BACK TO
TWE 2022. AFTER THOSE ARENA
NUMBERS GOT PILED INTO 2020. THE
2020 ARENA. UM THERE ARE SOME
ASTRONOMICAL NUMBERS THAT
COMMUNITIES WERE FACED WITH UM
AND ALL OF IT WAS BECAUSE OF
RECESSION. AND THEN THE
INABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET
THROUGH OUR PROCESS. SO THAT WAS
A STATE MADE PROCESS THAT THAT
SLOWED DOWN HOUSING. NOW, A LOT
OF COMMUNITIES IF YOU'LL GO OUT
THERE AND LOOK AND YOU GO OUT
AND LOOK IN MY DISTRICT, YOU
WILL SEE LOTS OF APARTMENTS
BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW. BUT THEY
DON'T ALL FALL INTO VERY THEY.
THEY FALL INTO DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES BECAUSE THAT'S HOW
RENA IS SET UP. YOU HAVE THE LOW
MOD THE LOW LOW THE LOW MOD THAT
ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES. SOME OF THEM ARE
DOING BETTER THAN OTHERS. AND
THE REASON THEY DO BETTER IS
BECAUSE OUR ECONOMY IS SUCH THAT
BUILDERS ARE ABLE TO BUILD THEM
RIGHT NOW. IF WE HAVE ANOTHER
RECESSION AT THE BEGINNING OF
2030. WELL, I WOULD HAVE RATHER
HAD THEM BUILD MORE UNITS NOW
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE INCENTIVIZED
I. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M NOT
UNDERSTANDING THE FLOOR. THE
FLOOR ARGUMENT. THEY'RE
INCENTIVIZED TO BUILD THEM WHEN
YOU CAN GET THEM BUILT. IF WE
HAD DONE THAT IN 2010, WE
WOULDN'T BE SO FAR BEHIND. IN
OUR HOUSING PRODUCTION AS WE ARE
NOW. IT ALSO ENABLES CITIES WHO
HAVE A LOT OF GROWTH IN THE
MARKET RATE UNITS TO BE ABLE TO
FOCUS MORE IN THE NEXT DECADE.
ON THE OTHER CATEGORIES OF UNITS
THAT WERE NOT WERE NOT BEING
BUILT, OR WE'RE NOT AS FAVORABLY
BUILT BY THE DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHO
BUILDS THOSE CITIES DON'T BUILD
THOSE BUT THEN THEY CAN FOCUS ON
THOSE AND IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T
CREATE A FALSE FLOOR OR CEILING
FOR ANY OF THAT. SO IT ENABLES
CITIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
ECONOMY. AND THE TIMES WHEN IT'S
RIGHT TO BUILD VERSUS HAVING A
RECESSION AND A DOWN ECONOMIC
CYCLE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO GET
ANYTHING DONE. SO THIS ACTUALLY
CAN RESULT IN MORE UNITS BEING
PRODUCED? NOT YET NOT LESS. SO
UH, WITH THAT, UH, I ASKED FOR
YOUR I VOTE. I ASKED. YOU THINK
OVER THIS CAREFULLY BECAUSE THIS
IS ACTUALLY A HELPFUL BILL FOR
CITIES AND FOR HOUSING
PRODUCTION. AND, UH, SIMPLY
ASKED FOR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, WE
WILL. HAVE A ROLL CALL. ON THE
MOTION. MOTION IS PASS THE
PREPARATIONS COMMITTEE, SENATOR
SKINNER NÓ SKINNER, NÓ A èC A
BUG. AYE. A COW BUG A LAKES,
BEA. HØI ABOUT E. CORTEZ.
CORTESI NÓ MENJIVAR MENJIVAR NÓ
PAD. THE DEAR NÓ CTO. I CTO I
UMBERG. WAHHAB. RIGHT. THE VOTE
NOW IS 2 TO 4. WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS
, AND NOW WE WILL MOVE TO SB
1052, SENATOR SARTO. YOU HAVE
THE, UH, FLOOR THANK YOU.
HONORABLE CHAIR. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT S¼ B 1052. LAST YEAR, I
REQUESTED AN AUDIT OF THE MOBILE
HOME RESIDENCY LAW PROTECTION
PROGRAM TO CONFIRM SOME OF THE
ALLEGED INEFFICIENCIES I HAD
HEARD ABOUT THE PROGRAM. AND
AUDIT. 2023 112, THE STATE
AUDITOR, CONFIRMED THESE ISSUES
BY FINDING INSTANCES IN WHICH
LEGAL SERVICES OR LEGAL SERVICE
PROVIDERS WERE INAPPROPRIATELY
DENYING SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE
COMPLAINANTS. THE BILL. THIS
BILL IMPLEMENTS THE STATE
AUDITORS RECOMMENDATION OF
ALLOWING HÌ èC Dð GREATER
ACCESS TO INFORMATION NECESSARY
TO ENSURE THAT LEGAL SERVICES
ARE PROVIDED TO ELIGIBLE
COMPLAINANTS. THE AUDITOR ALSO
FOUND IN MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF
FINANCIAL PROJECTION MODELS THAT
THIS PROGRAM HAD A SUFFICIENT
BALANCE TO FUND THE PROGRAM
THROUGH THE END OF ITS SUNSET
DATE WITHOUT THE $10 PER LOT FEE
APPLIED TO PARK RESIDENTS. THERE
HAS BEEN SOME CONCERN THAT THE
ELIMINATION OF THIS FEE WOULD
HAVE REMOVED THE ABILITY OF THE
PARK RESIDENTS TO FUND THE
PROGRAM. TO BE CLEAR. THE BILL
DOES NOT DO THIS. IN FACT, THE
BILL SPECIFIES THAT THE FEE CAN
ONLY BE REMOVED AS LONG AS
SUFFICIENT FUNDING REMAINS IN
THE PROGRAM'S BALANCE. AND THERE
IS SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO BE ABLE
TO TAKE THIS THIS PROGRAM RIGHT
THROUGH TO ITS SUNSET CLAUSE. I
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROGRAM IS
IMPLEMENTING NEW CHANGES FROM
THE A 312, WHICH PASSED LAST
YEAR. HOWEVER NONE OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THAT BILL ADDRESS
ANY OF THESE AUDITORS FINDINGS.
THE STATE AUDITOR, VERY CLEARLY
IDENTIFIED TWO ISSUES. THE
PROGRAM IS UNNECESSARILY TAKING
MONEY OUT OF RESIDENTS WALLETS.
AND APPLYING IT INTO A FUND
THAT'S ALREADY OVER FUNDED. AND
SOME RESIDENTS ARE BEING DENIED
PROGRAM SERVICES THAT THEY ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR. THIS BILL
ADDRESSES THOSE TWO ISSUES, THE
ALTERNATIVES TO DO NOTHING AND
LET THOSE PROBLEMS PERSIST. I
WOULD RATHER SAVE RESIDENTS TIME
AND MONEY BY DOING SOMETHING
RIGHT NOW. AND WHEN THE TIME
COMES, I WOULD ASK. I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
AND I DO HAVE A, UH, A PROPONENT
, UH, WHO WILL SPEAK AS THE
PRIMARY WITNESS? MR CHRIS SAKI.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GO AHEAD. YOU
MAY BEGIN. OH, I'M SORRY, MADAM
CHAIR. CHRIS SAKI WITH WM, MADAM
CHAIR. SENATORS UM, APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THE WESTERN
MANUFACTURERS. HOUSING
COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION WERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF SB. UH, 1052.
AS THE SENATOR MENTIONED LAST
YEAR IN AUDIT WAS CONDUCTED OF
THE MR LP P, AND IT FOUND
SEVERAL DEFICIENCIES THAT THIS
BILL IS BASICALLY JUST TRYING TO
FIX. THERE'S NOTHING MORE
NOTHING LESS THAN THE AUDITOR
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BILL, SO
IT'S VERY CLEAN. IT'S VERY CUT
AND DRY. BUT IT FOCUSES DOWN TO
TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES. THE FIRST
INVOLVES THE $10 PER LOT FEE
THAT ARE PAID BY RESIDENTS AND
WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS RESIDENT
MONEY. BUT THE $10 FEE HAS BUILT
OVER THE YEARS. TO WHERE THE MR
LP P HAS NEARLY AN $8 MILLION
SURPLUS. IT SEEMS TO ME IN WM.
THAT ALLOWING THAT FUND TO
CONTINUE TO GROW. UNCHECKED AND
UNFETTERED. JUST PROVIDES MORE
MONEY FOR A èC Dð. FOR WHATEVER
REASON, THEY CAN'T SPEND IT ON
ANYTHING ELSE. BUT WHY CONTINUE
TO LET THE MONEY GROW? YOU KNOW,
FURTHER, SINCE IT IS RESIDENT
MONEY, I KNOW IT'S ONLY $10 PER
LOT. BUT IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES
WOULDN'T $10 AND SOMEBODY'S
POCKET. MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A
DIFFERENCE. WHY COLLECT A FEE IF
THE FEE IF THE PROGRAM IS BEING
UNDERUTILIZED? AND THE AUDITOR
IN THE HÌ èC Dð ACTUALLY
RECOMMEND RECOGNIZES. WHEN THE
MP WAS PUT INTO PLACE. HÌ èC Dð
PROJECTED IT. 4500 COMPLAINTS
PER YEAR. WELL, THAT'S BEEN 95%
UNDERUTILIZED. SO THE PROGRAM
DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING AS
INTENDED, AND THAT'S WHAT THE
AUDIT CLEARLY SHOWED. GO FURTHER
WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDERS, UM, ASSEMBLY
BILL 318. REMOVED A PROVISION
THAT REQUIRED HÌ èC Dð TO
EVALUATE AND MAKE DECISIONS AS
TO WHETHER COMPLAINTS WERE VALID
BEFORE SENDING THEM ON TO A
LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDER. UM THAT
WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE ML P'S
MISSION AND OBJECTIVES. SO RIGHT
NOW, EVERY COMPLAINT THAT'S
FILED WITH THE M LP GO STRAIGHT
TO THE LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDER.
AND HÌ èC Dð HAS ONLY A
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION AND
ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM. FROM
THAT STANDPOINT. SO THE OTHER
THING THAT WAS KIND OF
MENTIONED. WAS THE ATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGE BETWEEN HÌ èC
BETWEEN THE LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDER AND THE CLIENT. THEY
WERE CITING COULDN'T BE THEY
COULDN'T SHARE WITH HÌ èC Dð.
WHAT THE WHAT THE L S¼ P WAS
ACTUALLY DOING ON BEHALF OF THE
RESIDENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
SOMEBODY SHOULD KNOW. BECAUSE
ULTIMATELY IT'S THE RESIDENT
MONEY THAT'S BEING USED TO
ACTUALLY PAY FOR LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDER SO WHAT 1052 DOES IS IT
REQUIRES SOMEBODY AT HÌ èC Dð.
HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT ABOUT HOW
THE L S¼ P IS SPENDING RESIDENT
MONEY. SO THAT ACTUALLY SEEMS TO
MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO US. UM
KEEPING A PROGRAM ALIVE JUST FOR
THE SAKE OF KEEPING IT ALIVE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A CALL THAT
THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO MAKE.
BUT IF WE CAN IMPROVE THE
PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATE AUDITOR RECOMMENDATIONS.
WHY NOT MOVE TOWARDS THAT
DIRECTION? YOU HIRE AN AUDITOR
TO DO AN AUDIT OF A PRIVATE
SECTOR BUSINESS? AND THEY MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THE
ORGANIZATION OR THE COMPANY THAT
HIRED THE AUDITOR. THEY DON'T
FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WHETHER YOU'VE EXCEEDED YOU'VE
EXCEEDED YOUR MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.
AS FOR AN I VOTE AND S¼ B 1052.
THANK YOU. RIGHT THIS IS, UH
PEOPLE I SUPPORT CONTINUE ME
TOO. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
JASON EART, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MOBILE HOME PARK
OWNERS ALLIANCE. APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR BRINGING THE BILL
FORWARD. WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF IT,
AND WE WERE NEUTRAL ON THE
ORIGINAL STATUTE. I THINK THAT
THEY'RE A PROGRAM CAN EXIST
SHOULD EXIST, BUT OBVIOUSLY
THERE WAS AN AUDIT
RECOMMENDATION FOR A REASON. SO
WE APPRECIATE THE SENATOR
BRINGING FORWARD A BILL TO
IMPLEMENT IT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER
PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL?
NÓ. LET'S GO TO THE OPPOSITION.
WE HAVE A KEY OPPOSITION
WITNESS. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.
ROGER JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF G S¼
M Ó L, A RESIDENT BASED
ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING FOR OVER
60 YEARS FOR SENIORS ON FIXED
INCOMES AND LOWER INCOME
CALIFORNIANS LIVING IN MOBILE
HOMES. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE S¼ B
1052 FOR OVER TWO YEARS, GSM AND
MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS WORK TO
ESTABLISH THE MOBILE HOME
RESIDENCY LAW PROTECTION
PROGRAM. THIS WAS A FIVEYEAR
PILOT PROGRAM. THAT RESIDENTS
PAID FOR OUT OF OUR OWN MODEST
INCOMES TO PROTECT OURSELVES
FROM PARK OWNERS WHO VIOLATE THE
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCY LAW.
GOVERNOR BROWN AGREED WITH US
AND SIGNED A B THREE Ó 66 INTO
LAW AND THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME
IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY PARK
OWNERS OPPOSED THE PILOT PROGRAM
OVER THESE TWO YEARS. LAST YEAR
WAS THE THIRD YEAR OF THE PILOT
PILOT PROGRAM, AND WE WORK WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AT US. AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING TO BEGIN
MAKING IMPROVEMENTS BASED UPON
THE COMPREHENSIVE DATA THAT HÌ
èC Dð WAS REQUIRED TO GATHER
AND PUBLISH. THE IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDED EXPANDING THE PROGRAM
TO INCLUDE ALL MRL VIOLATIONS BY
PARK OWNERS. GOVERNOR NEWSOM
AGREED WITH THESE CHANGES. AND
SIGNED A B 318. INTO LAW, WHICH
TOOK EFFECT JUST 2.5 MONTHS AGO
IN JANUARY. PARK OWNERS HAVE
TRIED AND FAILED TO STOP
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ADDISS BILL, AND
INSTEAD THEY PURSUED A STATE
AUDIT FOR A PILOT PROGRAM THAT
HAD BEEN IN EFFECT FOR ONLY
THREE YEARS AND HAD ALREADY HAD
ENOUGH DATA AT HÌ èC Dð TO
BEGIN MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH
WE DID. THIS BILL IS THEIR
LATEST ATTEMPT. MOBILE HOME.
RESIDENTS WANT GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER ADDIS BILL
TO BE ALLOWED TO TAKE EFFECT.
INCLUDING THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE
TO THE PILOT PROGRAM. G S¼ M OIL
IS IN STRONG OPPOSITION OF S¼ B
1052. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
BEVERLY PURCELL AND I LIVE IN A
MOBILE HOME SENIOR PARK WITH 120
SPACES. WE ARE VEHEMENTLY
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LYNN
MCKIM AND I LIVE IN A MOBILE
HOME SENIOR PARK WITH 531 SPACES
, AND I, TOO AM STRONGLY IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MICHELLE
MONING. I OWN A MOBILE HOME IN A
PARK OF THREE 120 HOMES AND WE
ARE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M LYN
AND I AND I AM ALSO THE GIZMO. G
S¼ M Ó L STATE PRESIDENT. AND I
AM STRONGLY IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL, AND SO IS J S¼ M Ó
L. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? ALRIGHT.
UM NÓ. I HAVE A QUESTION? UM
SENATOR, UH, THE STAFF? UH,
THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION
BETWEEN, UH, COMMITTEE STAFF IN
YOUR OFFICE. REGARDING THE FEE
SECTION. AND YOU HAD, UH UM
INDICATED, UH, UM, THEN LET ME
JUST CLARIFY WITH STAFF. IT WAS
THE YEAH, YOU RIGHT? YOU REMOVE
THE ELIMINATION OF THE FEE AND
YOU HAVE NOW, UH, YOU ARE NÓ
LONGER WILLING TO DO THAT. IS
THAT MY UNDERSTANDING, RIGHT? WE
WORKED WITH A COMMITTEE TO TALK
ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS SOMETHING
THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT
THEY STOPPED TAKING $10 FROM
EVERYBODY. UM AND ACCUMULATING
AND INTO THAT POT, RIGHT? SO BUT
BUT BASICALLY THE WHAT WAS AT
ISSUE AS YOU WERE GOING TO
SUSPEND THE FEE FOR A CERTAIN
PERIOD OF TIME, BUT NOT
ELIMINATE IT AND PUT YOUR BILL
NOW GOING TO STAY WITH THE
ELIMINATION NÓ. IT DOESN'T
ELIMINATE IT. IT'S STILL ALLOWS
IT TO BE REINSTATED. IF THERE IS
A DRAWDOWN OF THE ACCOUNT,
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IF THERE'S A
DRAWDOWN OF THE ACCOUNT, THAT'S
FINE. BUT IF THIS ACCOUNT
CONTINUES TO ACCUMULATE, IT'S
BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. THERE
WOULD HAVE TO BE A STATUTORY
ACTION, TOO. SO IT IT'S OK IT
IT'S STILL IT'S WHILE YOU'RE, UH
, FINE POINT IS TRUE. IT'S STILL
ELIMINATE THE FEE UNLESS THERE
WAS A STATUTORY ACTION TAKEN.
YEAH. SO THIS SUSPEND THE FEE. I
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE
EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT ON THE
RECORD INCREASE ACCESS AND
SUSPEND THE LET ME SEE IF ANY,
UM, ON THE THAT'S THE WAY THE
BILL IS WRITTEN. HE YES, AND
HE'S NOW NOT HE'S NÓ LONGER. I'M
NOT TAKING THAT HE'S NÓ LONGER.
BASED ON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE
WERE GETTING. IT WASN'T WORTH.
I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY FOR
THE RECORD. GO AHEAD, SENATOR,
MS BAR UH, SENATOR, CAN YOU
CLARIFY, CAUSE UH, YOU KNOW, YOU
MENTIONED 11 OF MY QUESTIONS WAS
REGARDING THE ADDIS BILL. BUT
YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR TALKING
POINTS THAT YOUR BILL THAT BILL
HAS NOTHING TO DO DO NOT ADDRESS
ANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOUR
BILL IS LOOKING TO ADDRESS. UM,
BUT THEN I'M HEARING FROM THE
OPPOSITION THAT THEY'RE WANTING
THAT BILL TO PROCEED BECAUSE IT
IS WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT, UM
THINGS THAT THAT BILL ADDRESSES
BUT THIS PARTICULAR IT DOESN'T
HAVE THE THESE TWO THINGS IN IT.
UM ONE OF THE CONCERNS FOR OUR
MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENTS, AND
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY IT IS
THAT THEY'RE OPPOSED TO. THIS IS
IF THIS ACCUMULATES AND
CONTINUES TO DO SO AT THE END OF
THE FIVE YEAR PROGRAM WHEN WE RE
EVALUATE WHETHER WE SHOULD EVEN
HAVE A PROGRAM IF IT DOES NOT
HAVE THE PARTICIPATION. AND IT
HAS $20 MILLION IN THE ACCOUNT.
IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY GOING TO
GO AWAY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NÓ
REASON SUPPORTING IT TO CONTINUE
. WHAT THIS DOES IS ALLOWS THEM
TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION BY
HAVING HÌ èC Dð INTERVENE WITH
THE LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDERS.
WHO ARE ON RETAINER BUT AREN'T
TAKING CASES FOR WHATEVER REASON
, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS
THERE IS IT'S SHOWING A LACK OF
PARTICIPATION BECAUSE PEOPLE
AREN'T ABLE TO ACCESS THE
PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY KEEP
GETTING THEIR CASE IS TURNED
AWAY FROM THE L S¼ P. AND YET
THEY CONTINUE TO PAY THE $10,
WHICH IS STACKING UP IN THE
BANK. SO ALL THIS DOES IS HAVE
THEM SUSPEND PAYING THE $10 IF
THERE'S A DRAW DOWN ON THE COUNT
, BECAUSE ALL OF THE SUDDEN THE
PARTICIPATION INCREASES AND THEY
START USING THAT MONEY. AND THAT
$10 JOKES BACK IN WE HAVE SOME
TIME PRESSURE, SO I'M GONNA UH,
I JUST WANNA AGAIN CLARIFY FOR
THE RECORD WHILE YOU ARE
EXPLAINING THAT, IN FACT, IT
WOULD REQUIRE THE WAY YOUR BILL
IS WRITTEN AND THE WAY WITHOUT
THE AMENDMENT, IT WOULD REQUIRE
STATUTORY ACTION TO START IT
AGAIN. SO, UM UH, èC M OF OUR
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU CAN
CONTINUE ASKING QUESTIONS. BUT
LET ME JUST CLARIFY THAT, UM, I
WAS, UH I AM. I DON'T LOVE THIS
BILL I HAD INDICATED IN MY
INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I
WOULD MYSELF BE VOTING NÓ. BUT
THE COMMITTEE OBVIOUSLY SHOULD,
UH, THINK ABOUT HOW THEY WANTED
TO APPROACH IT. BUT NOW THAT
IT'S IN THAT THAT AMENDMENT IS
NOT TAKEN AND IT'S ACTUAL
ELIMINATION OF THE FEE. I AM
VERY CLEARLY NOT IN SUPPORT, AND
I WANT TO ALSO BE, UM, CLEAR
THAT THE ADD A SPILL AND IT'S
COVERED IN THE, UH IN THE
ANALYSIS WAS COGNIZANT OF THE
FACT THAT HÌ èC Dð YOU REMEMBER
THAT THE, UH PANDEMIC OCCURRED
DURING THIS RIGHT WHEN THE
VIOLENCE STARTED, WHICH
INTERRUPTED A LOT OF THINGS. AND
SO THE ADDIS BILL WAS FOCUSED ON
IT WORKED WITH, UH THE MOBILE
HOMEOWNERS AND ALSO WITH THE, UH
WITH HÌ èC Dð TO MAKE SOME
IMPROVEMENTS TO SO THAT THIS
COULD REALLY ACHIEVE THE PROMISE
OF ITS, UH, ORIGIN. THE
STONEVILLE BACK FROM 2018. AND I
THINK, GIVEN THAT THE OUT OF
BILL JUST GOT SIGNED INTO LAW
LAST FALL THAT IT DESERVES THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO EFFECT
BEFORE WE MAY CALL èC CHANGES
AT THIS POINT, SO I JUST WANTED
TO EXPLAIN ON THE RECORD. WHAT
THE WHY MY WHERE AM I THINKING
WAS AND WHY MY RECOMMENDATION
WAS AS IT IS, SO LET'S SEE IF
THERE'S UH ANY EITHER ANY OTHER
COMMENTS OR EMOTION? AND. TWO
I'M JUST GONNA, UH, TIME IS OF
THE ESSENCE. I'M JUST GONNA GO
AHEAD AND MOVE THROUGH A BIT.
OK, SO WE HAVE A MOTION WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YOU KNOW,
I'VE GIVEN MY CLOSING IN SOME OF
MY ANSWERS, SO I JUST, UH SIMPLY
ASKED FOR AN I VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
EXCELLENT. OK, UM THE, UH UH,
MOTION NOW, BUT YOU GO AHEAD AND
READ. IT WOULD JUST BE DUE PASS
NOT AS AMENDED AS ORIGINALLY
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENT. SO GO AHEAD AND LET'S
CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
SENATOR SKINNER NÓ A èC. AYE. A
TR BOGUE? AYE, BLAKESPEAR. HOW
ABOUT YOU? CORTEZ. MENJIVAR.
PAD. DEAR NÓ. THERE ARE TWO HØI
02 I, AMBER WAHAB. OK THAT, UM,
VOTE WILL STAND CALL. IT'S UH,
CURRENTLY AT 2 TO 2 AND
CONSIDERATION WHEN WE YEAH, WE
WERE NOT EVEN FINISHED THE ROLE
SO, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT
ONE. AND WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW
IS, UH TAKE A RECESS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. AND ONCE THE. OH, WE
CAN. WE'VE BEEN TOLD. OK ALL
RIGHT, SO WE WILL NOT TAKE OUR
RECESS YET. WE HAVE STILL, UM
WELL, THERE'S WHO'S BESIDES MIND
WHO'S OK, SENATOR CBO. LET'S GO.
YEAH. THEY'RE GONNA LET US
FINISH. YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE
GONNA BE EASY. IT'S EVERYBODY.
JUST BE CLEAR WE WERE. THIS WAS
COMMUNICATED FROM THE FLOOR THAT
THE COMMITTEE SHOULD CONTINUE.
OK SO IT'S NOT. YEAH WE'RE NOT
JUST TRYING, SO WE ARE
CONTINUING BECAUSE WE ARE
COMMUNICATING FROM THE FLOOR.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR WORKING WITH MY STAFF TO
IMPROVE THIS BILL. I'M HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENTS THAT CLARIFY THE
BILL'S INTENTION TO PREVENT AS
MANY MOBILE HOME EVICTIONS AS
POSSIBLE. A 2020 THREE STUDY BY
HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S JOINT
CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES FOUND
THAT MANUFACTURED HOMES PRESENT
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS DUE TO
THEIR GREATER EFFICIENCIES IN
PURCHASING PRODUCTION AND
INSTALLATION IN COMPARISON TO
TRADITIONALLY BUILT HOUSING.
THESE UNITS ARE OFTEN THE MOST
AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVE AND LAST
RESORT FOR MANY FACING
HOMELESSNESS UNDER CURRENT LAW,
IF A MOBILE HOME RESIDENT FAILS
TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION, SUCH
AS A BROKEN WINDOW WITHIN 60
DAYS, A MOBILE HOME PARK OWNER
IS NOTIFIED OF THE VIOLATION AND
HAS ESSENTIALLY NÓ OTHER OPTION
THAN SERVING AN EVICTION NOTICE.
THIS IS BECAUSE A PARK OPERATOR
HAS ONLY 30 DAYS TO ENSURE THAT
THE VIOLATION IS CORRECTED
BEFORE THE PERMIT TO OPERATE CAN
BE REVOKED. THEIR REVOCATION OF
A PERMIT TO OPERATE IT AND WITH
IT, THE ABILITY TO COLLECT RENT
JEOPARDIZES THE HOUSING OF EVERY
RESIDENT IN THE PARK. S¼ B 11 Ó
, EIGHT, AIMS TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF MOBILE HOME EVICTIONS
BY EXTENDING THE TIME TO CURE
VIOLATION TO 90 DAYS. S¼ B 11 Ó
EIGHT, WILL ALSO CODIFY ALREADY
REQUIRED DUTIES OF ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES TO ENSURE THAT EVERY
ALTERNATIVE IS EXHAUSTED BEFORE
A PARK OWNER HAS COST TO IT.
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT.
IS CHRIS WEAK WITH THE WESTERN
MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES
ASSOCIATION. UH, I MAY SEND OK?
UM GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. CHRIS
HOY HOY WITH W MA AND THANK YOU,
SENATOR FOR INTRODUCING SENATE
BILL 108. THIS IS A COMMON
SENSE, BILL. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
NOBODY IN THAT OWNS A MOBILE
HOME PARK WANTS TO EVICT
TENANTS. WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS
OF COLLECTING RENT. AND
EVICTIONS ARE COSTLY, TIMELY AND
STRESSFUL FOR NOT ONLY THE
RESIDENT BUT ALSO FOR THE PARK
OWNER. SO ANYTHING THAT CAN BE
DONE TO HELP THE PROCESS BY
WHICH WE CAN AVOID EVICTION IS A
GOOD THING. THE WAY THE CURRENT
LAW IS WRITTEN. WHEN A RESIDENT
GETS A VIOLATION NOTICE FROM HÌ
èC Dð. PARK IS NOT NOTIFIED
UNTIL 60 DAYS AFTER THAT.
VIOLATION IS NOT HAS GONE ON
CURED. THEY ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS
THEN TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND THAT REALLY TO PRESERVE THE
P Tð Ó. THE PERMIT OPERATE
REQUIRES US TO SERVE IN NOTICE
OF EVICTION. WE DON'T WANNA DO
THAT. SO GIVING U S¼ A FULL 90
DAYS. GIVES US MORE TIME TO WORK
WITH THE RESIDENTS ON HOW TO
IDENTIFY SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS
THAT THEY MIGHT NEED TO FIX A
BROKEN HANDRAIL. THESE ARE NOT
HEALTH AND SAFETY EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS. IT'S ACCUMULATION OF
TRASH AND RUBBISH. UM THESE ARE
EASILY FIXED SOMETIMES. UH YOU
KNOW, IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF
MONEY. BUT IT'S JUST EASIER TO
DO IF WE KNOW EARLY ON WHAT THE
PROBLEM IS. SO FOR THOSE REASONS
WE THANK THE SENATOR FOR
INTRODUCING THE BILL. IT'S
PRETTY SIMPLE. A LOT OF THE
AMENDMENTS, UH, REMOVED. I THINK
SOME OF THE OBJECTIONABLE
LANGUAGE AND WE'RE PROUD TO
SUPPORT AND I'M AVAILABLE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IN IN
COGNIZANCE OF TIME. WE ASKED FOR
AN I VOTE. THANK YOU. LET ME SEE
IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE IN
SUPPORT. ALRIGHT. SEEING NAN IS
THERE ANY IN OPPOSITION? ALL
RIGHT, SEEING NONE. ALRIGHT WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR WBB,
PLEASE CLOSE SENATOR. MIN, UH,
SENATOR CIOBO. UH, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
RAHAF FOR MOVING THE BILL BY
ALLOWING VULNERABLE RESIDENTS
ADDITIONAL TIME TO RECEIVE
ASSISTANCE AND CURE VIOLATIONS.
S¼ B 11 Ó EIGHT WILL ENSURE
FEWER CALIFORNIANS FACE FACE. HE
WILL ENSURE YOU CALIFORNIANS
FACE THE THREAT OF EVICTION. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION. UM
LET US UH IT IS DUE, UM, PASS AS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY. LET'S CALL
THE RULE. SENATOR SKINNER.
ALRIGHTY. SKINNER. I Ó B. A
èC. I BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR, UH
CABALLERO. CABRERO. UH, CORTESI.
F. I MANJAR MANJAR I PAD PAD I
SARTO SARTO. I UMBERG UMBERG. I
WAHAB HAVE I AND ALL RIGHT. THAT
BILL IS OUT, SAY THE NUMBER
AGAIN. 10 TO 0. UM AND I WILL
PRESENT IN HAND THE GAVEL. YEP.
WHAT WE LIKE. I FORGET. YEAH. I
MICROPHONE.
ANYWAY. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MEMBERS I'M PRESENTING S¼ B 1211
AND I WILL DO A SPEED VERSION,
UM, ALREADY IN EXISTING LAW,
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS ALLOWED
TO HAVE A CERTAIN PERCENT OF A
Dð S¼. BUT INTERESTINGLY IN THAT
LAW, SO IT'S THAT PERCENT 25%
IT'S BASED ON THE NUMBER OF
UNITS IN THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
, BUT THAT LAW PUT A WHAT ONE. I
CONSIDER AN ARBITRARY CAP ON THE
NUMBER OF DETACHED ADS. ARE A
NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES
UP AND DOWN THE STATE THAT HAVE,
UM WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER
SURPLUS LAND LAND THAT COULD BE
USED FOR A DETACHED A Dð U
VERSUS JUST ONE THAT'S IN, UH,
SAY IN A, UH, BASEMENT OR WHAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT KIND
OF, UH UH BUILDING SPACE
INTERNAL TO A BUILDING. SO WHAT
MY BILL DOES IS JUST ALLOW FOR A
LARGER NUMBER OF THE DETACHED
UNITS AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE
PROPERTY, BUT STILL STAYING
WITHIN THAT 25% CAP. IT DOES NOT
LIFT THE CAP AT ALL. SO IT
DOESN'T EXPAND THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF A Dð U S¼ ALLOWED ON ANY
MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES. IT JUST,
UH, FIXES THAT LITTLE DETACHED
ISSUE AND, UH, I'M TAKING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMEND. WHICH CLARIFY
SOME LANGUAGE AND WITH THAT I
WOULD LIKE MY, UH, KEY WITNESS
IN SUPPORT. UH M CARLA GUERRA
FROM THE UNITY COUNCIL HERE,
SENATOR SKINNER. I'VE JUST BEEN
INFORMED. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT
. I JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THE
PERSON HAS ASKED FOR A WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE A RECESS. WE ARE
GOING TO TAKE A RECESS. OK OK.
UM I THINK THAT THEY'VE ASKED US
TO GO HERE, OK? SO WE WILL
INDICATE THAT WE'RE FORMALLY ON
THE MIC SAY WE'RE GOING INTO
RECESS. WELL NOW CAN, UH, GO
INTO RECESS AND WE'LL RECONVENE
AFTER THE STATE OF THE
JUDICIARY. THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD. OKAY, UM. SO RIGHT
BEFORE WE ARE IN RECESS, I HAD
OPENED MY PRESENTATION ON S¼ B
1211. SO LET ME JUST QUICKLY
RECAP THIS, UH, I'M TAKING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDS THAT ADD THE
TECHNICAL, UH, CLARIFYING
LANGUAGE. AND AS I OPENED ALL
THIS, UH, DOES IS ALLOW FOR
WITHIN THE CAP. IT ALLOWS FOR
THE, UH IT TAKES OFF THE LIMIT
FOR THE DETACHED A Dð U S¼ ON
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. AND UH,
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE MY, UM
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TO PLEASE
PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE IN
THE ROOM. MY MAIN WITNESS IS
PROBABLY NOT EVEN HERE. BUT
THERE ARE OTHERS. WHO CAN HAVE
OTHERS IN TESTIFY. COME ON UP TO
THE MIC. YOU GOT SO HOWEVER LONG
MISS SKINNER WANTS TO GIVE YOU.
HOLLY FOR ME IS LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR
AND BILL COSTA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. WE HAVE ANOTHER PERSON
SCRAMBLING TO THE MIC, ALL
RIGHT. BOB NEIL, REPRESENTING
FIELDS AND COMPANY THAT'S AN
ORANGE COUNTY. UH ENTREPRENEUR
WHO IS SUPPORTIVE OF HOUSING AND
REALLY SUPPORTS SENATOR
SKINNER'S FINE AU BILLS, ALL OF
THEM THANK YOU, UH, DO YOU HAVE
ANYBODY ELSE? WE'D LIKE TO ADD
ON THEIR SPORT. GREAT. BROOKE
PRITCHARD ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA, YIMBY IN SUPPORT.
RIGHT. THANK YOU. A RE. WE ALL
SCRAMBLING AM FOR SUPPORT ADD
ONS. JARED BAESLER KITA
COALITION COSPONSOR AND PROUD
SPORT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ANYBODY ELSE? THERE ARE NÓ.
OTHERS WILL GO TO OPPOSITION. IS
THERE ANYBODY TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL AS THE
MAIN WITNESS? IF NOT, WE'LL GO
TO ANY ME TOOS FOR OPPOSITION.
SINCE THERE ARE NONE. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAAS.
ANYBODY, UH WE HAVE A MOTION TO
MOVE THE BILL. ANYBODY WANT TO
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT? I DID, BUT I'M NOT
GOING TO ASK SO. UH, WITH THAT,
UH, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU. I
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
MUCH AS YOU PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE COMMITTEE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, SENATOR SKINNER. AYE
SKINNER. IY ATRO BUG BLAKESPEAR.
CABALLERO CRO I, CORTEZ CORTEZ.
I MANJAR MENJIVAR. IFI èC èC
NÓ UMBERG. UMBERG. I WAHAB WELL,
HAVE I 7 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GONNA KEEP THAT OPEN UNTIL WE
HAVE EVERYBODY HERE AND WE CAN
HAVE THEM ADD ON THAT'S A 7 TO
1. THIS TIME. GREAT. WE WILL NOW
START LIFTING CALLS, SO LET'S
START. ITEM ONE A MOTION FOR THE
B S¼ B 1095. WE NEED A MOTION
FOR THAT BILL. GREAT. WE HAVE A
MOTION. IT'S, UH, DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
SENATOR SKINNER, HØI. SKINNER IY
A BUG BLAKESPEAR. CABRERO, I,
CORTEZ CORTEZ. I MANJAR PAD. THE
DEAR I CTO CERTO NÓ UMBERG.
UMBERG I WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. AND
TO BE CLEAR HE ACCEPTED. YES.
YEAH. UH, 61. THAT, UH, BILL IS
6 TO 1. WE UH I'M NOT SURE.
WELL, IT'LL BE ON CALL FOR RIGHT
NOW. OK LET'S UH DO THE ROLL
CALL ON S¼ B 1395 DO WE NEED A
MOTION ON THAT? ALL RIGHT, WE
NEED A MOTION ON S¼ B 13,000
THREE 195 GREAT. IT'S BECKER DUE
PASS TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE. SENATOR SKINNER. AYE
SKINNER. I OCHO BOGUE BLAKESPEAR
BLAKESPEAR I CABALLERO
CABALLERO, I CORTESI CORTESI, I
MANJAR PAD. THE DEAR I SARTO. TO
I UMBERG UMBERG. I WAHAB WHAT
HAVE I THAT'S 801 CALL. WHAT 8
TO 0. OK THE BILL IS NOW 8 TO 0
ON CALL. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE
THIRD ITEM. S¼ B 968 SARTO IS
DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. WE
ALREADY HAD A MOTION GO AHEAD
AND WE'LL CALL THE MISSING
MEMBERS. SENATOR BLAKESPEAR.
CABALLERO. HUMBERG WAHHAB. YEAH.
THAT WAS JUST 2 TO 4. OKAY?
VIDEO. TWO EYES FOR THAT WAS
OKAY. ALRIGHT SO THE, UH, VOTE
ON THAT BILL IS 24. UM UH, AS
FOR RECONSIDERATION, ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR HAS ASKED FOR
RECONSIDERATION. WE. WITHOUT
INJECTION RECONSIDERATION IS
GRANTED. OKAY? SO NOW LET'S GO
TO SB 1052 SE RTO AND IT'S DUE
PASS NOT AS AMENDED BECAUSE THE
AUTHOR DID NOT TAKE THE
AMENDMENT. SO IT'S JUST YOU PASS
TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE
CHAIR VOTED NÓ. GO AHEAD,
SENATOR BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR NÓ
CABALLERO. MENJIVAR. UMBERG.
WAHAB. RIGHT THAT VOTE. IT
WASN'T. UH, IT WAS NOT
INITIALLY. BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT
BUT. UH YES, BUT I ALSO LEFT IT
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. BUT YEAH,
WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT. I VOTED
NÓ. YEAH. CORSINO. YEAH, HE CAN
ADD ON OR YOU CAN CHANGE. ALL
RIGHT. RECONSIDERATION ON THAT.
ALSO OK, WAIT. I HAVE NOT EVEN
CALLED WHAT THE SO THAT VOTE WAS
TWO FOR ALSO UM AND SENATOR
SEYARTO. AND ASKED FOR
RECONSIDERATION. ALL RIGHT,
WITHOUT OBJECTION,
RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED.
ALRIGHT. WE WILL MOVE TO S¼ B
1032 SENATOR PADILLA THAT IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND,
YES, THE SENATOR TOOK THE
AMENDMENTS. VOTE IS 6 TO 0 A
BUG. èC TO UMBERG. UMBERG, I
WAHAB WAHHAB. AYE. RIGHT. THAT
VOTE IS EIGHT TO 08 TO ZERO. WE,
UM BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY OUT. THAT
BILLS OUT. SB 1079 SENATOR
MENJIVAR DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. THE
CURRENT VOTE IS 8 TO 1. SENATOR
UMBERG. UMBERG. AYE. 9 TO 1.
ALRIGHT THAT BILL IS OUT AND THE
VOTE WAS 9 TO 1. NOW WE HAVE, UH
S¼ B 108. OCHOA WAS OK. WE
FINISHED THAT. ALL RIGHT? AND UH
, CONSENT. WE DIDN'T VOTE ON
THAT YET. WE NEED A MOTION ON
GREAT S¼ B, UH, CONSENT. I IS
MOVED. WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SENATOR
SKINNER AY SKINNER I AO BOGUE AY
Ó AY BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR I
CABALLERO CABALLERO, I CORTESI.
MENJIVAR. PA. DEAR I SARTO SARTO
. I UMBERG UMBERG. I WAHAB
CONSENT. YEAH. WELL, HOW I OK?
THAT VOTE IS 8 TO 8 TO 0. THE
BILL IS OUT. AND WE DO MISSING
FOLKS. ROLL CALL ON S¼ B 1211
SKINNER DO PASS IS AMENDED TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 7 TO 1, SENATOR CHUG A
CHOKE NÓ BLAKESPEAR. SENATOR
SKINNER. IT'S COOL. UH,
BLAKESPEAR. I THANK YOU. ALL
THAT. THAT VOTE IS 8 TO 2. UM
OK? I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS RETURNING
I DID. OH, YEAH, IT'S SENATOR
JOE BUGS HERE. OK, SO ON SENT ON
OH, YEAH. BUT SENATOR HUMBERG IS
ON ALL DID YOU GET HIM ON ALL OK
, THEN. WE WANNA DO S¼ B 1095
BECKER. CORRECT? YES. OK, GO
AHEAD. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO
1 SENATOR èC BOOK. SO WHICH ONE
IS FIRST? BECKER 1095, OK? UH,
BLAKESPEAR. BLAKESPEAR I AND
MENJIVAR. OKAY, SO ALL RIGHT.
THAT VOTE IS 7 TO 1. THE BILL IS
OUT. UM NOW BECKER S¼ B 1395
CURRENT VOTE IS 8 TO 0 GO AHEAD.
SENATOR CHUG A CHUG I MANJAR 9
TO 0. ALL RIGHT. THE UH S¼ B
1395 IS OUT 9 TO 0. UH, I
BELIEVE YOU. ALREADY VOTED ON
968. YES AND 1032. OK 1032. DID
YOU GET TO VOTE ON THAT? I THINK
. OK YOU'RE HERE. OK GREAT. OK,
AND WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT
YOU MISSED OR WANTED TO WEIGH IN
ON YOU DON'T YOU GOT THEM ALL
OK? YOUR DISCUSSION. OK, WHAT? I
DON'T HAVE S¼ B 1108 ON ONE OF
THE COUNT ON THAT. 11 Ó EIGHT
OF 10 TO 0, OK? 11 Ó 810.
SENATOR OCHO B¢O, UM, THAT BILLS
OUT. I NEVER SIT IN BEFORE THAT
IT WAS OUT, BUT THAT'S OK. ALL
RIGHT. IT IS SO WITH THAT
HOUSING COMMITTEE IS COMPLETED
ITS BUSINESS AND IS ADJOURNED.