THINK HAVE A QUORUM. NOT YET.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, ONE SHORT OF
QUORUM, SO CAN ESTABLISH QUORUM
YET. WE GOT IT. WE DO HAVE A
QUORUM. OK, LET'S ESTABLISH
FORUM. SENATOR SKINNER. I AM
HERE. SKINNER PRESENT A BUG. A
BUG PRESENT BLAKESPEAR. LIKE
FAIR PRESENT, CABALLERO. GIVE
YOUR PRESENT. CORTEZ CORTEZ
PRESENT MANJAR F SARTO. THEY ARE
TO PRESENT UMBERG WAHAB. GREAT
ALL RIGHT, SO WE NOW ESTABLISHED
A QUORUM AND, UH, WE'LL GO WITH
THE, UM WE HAVE A NUMBER OF
MEMBERS HERE TO PRESENT WHO HAVE
BILLS, BUT WILL GO IN THE ORDER
THAT THE MEASURES ARE LISTED, SO
WE'LL START WITH ITEM THREE. S¼
B 1438, SENATOR NEO, SO YOU CAN
COME TO THE WHATEVER THAT'S
CALLED. PODIUM. YES, YOU CAN
COME TO THE PODIUM. I DID SAY
THAT THE PODIUM THERE THAT
RIGHT? YEAH THAT'S WHERE HE
PRESENTS. I'M SO SORRY. OK, GO
AHEAD, SENATOR. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT S¼ B
1438 A BILL WHICH WILL PROVIDE
CLARITY ON HOW RECOVERY HOUSING
CAN WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH
HOUSING FIRST IN SIMPLER TERMS.
THIS IS A BILL ABOUT PROVIDING
SELF-SUFFICIENCY OPTIONS, WHICH
I BELIEVE IS A KEY INGREDIENT IN
HELPING PEOPLE SUCCESSFULLY GET
OUT OF HOMELESSNESS.
SPECIFICALLY S¼ B 138 WILL HELP
ENSURE RECOVERY RESIDENTS ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING BY
CLARIFYING IN STATE HOUSING LAW
THAT RECOVERY HOUSING IS IN FACT
ALLOWED UNDER THE STATE'S FIRST
HOUSING MODEL HOUSING FIRST
MODEL. THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN
THIS BILL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE U S¼
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HUD,
AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SB
1438 WAS EVEN COLLABORATED ON BY
SOME FIRST HOUSING FIRST
ADVOCATES. HUD'S GUIDANCE FOR
RECOVERY, HOUSING OR SOBER
LIVING ENVIRONMENT. OPTIONS ARE
TO HELP PEOPLE HAVE EFFECTIVE
HOUSING AND SERVICES FOR THOSE
WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN HOUSING FIRST
IS NOT IN PLAY, BUT RATHER GIVES
INDIVIDUALS A CHOICE. SOME
INDIVIDUALS PURSUING RECOVERY
FROM ADDICTION. WANT A CHOICE?
AN ABSENT FOR AN ABSENT
ABSTINENCE FREE, FOCUSED
RESIDENTIAL OR HOUSING PROGRAM,
WHERE THEY CAN BE SUPPORTED BY
THOSE WHO ARE ALSO FOCUSED ON
RECOVERY FROM ADDICTION. BE
CLEAR. THIS DOES NOT DISMANTLE
HOUSING FIRST, BECAUSE IF A
PERSON CHOOSES AN AB ABSTINENCE
FOCUSED OR SOBER LIVING PROGRAM
AND RELAPSES, THE BILL DICTATES
IT CANNOT BE AN AUTOMATIC CAUSE
FOR EVICTION OR TERMINATION,
RETURNING THEM TO THE STREETS.
CURRENT FUNDING FOR A PROGRAM
WITH AN ABSTINENCE FOCUSSED
FOCUS IS TYPICALLY LIMITED TO
PERSONS EXITING INCARCERATION,
WHERE A SUBSTANCE FREE
ENVIRONMENT IS REQUIRED. TO MEET
POST RELEASE ORDERS. THERE ARE
MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY
VOLUNTARILY WISH CHOOSE TO LIVE
IN A DRUG FREE HOUSING MODEL AND
YET ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCEPT
THIS. SELECT THIS OPTION. THIS
IS PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT FOR
PARENTS WHO ARE DENIED THIS
CHOICE AND ARE SEEKING A DRUG
FREE HOME FOR FAMILY
REUNIFICATION PURPOSES. THIS
APPROACH PUTS COUNTLESS FAMILIES
AT RISK. AND POTENTIALLY PUSHES
CHILDREN INTO FOSTER HOME
SITUATIONS RATHER THAN STAYING
WITH THEIR PARENTS WHILE THEY
SEEK TREATMENT OR OR ARE IN
EARLY RECOVERY AFTER COMPLETING
TREATMENT FOR ADDICTION. THE
CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY
PROVIDED IN S¼ B 1438 WILL HELP
RECOVERY RESIDENTS ACCESS THIS
FUNDING. THE MEASURE ALSO
INCLUDES VALUABLE SAFEGUARDS,
INCLUDING STATE OVERSIGHT AND
STATES THAT IF A RECOVERY
RESONANCE PARTICIPANT NÓ LONGER
CHOOSES TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG
FREE LIVING, THAT PERSON IS NOT
PENALIZED OR RETURNED TO
HOMELESSNESS. EXPANDING CLARITY
ON THE OPTION OF PROGRAMS THAT
WORK TO HELP PEOPLE AND
ESPECIALLY PARENTS. BECOME SELF
SUFFICIENT. BY ADDRESSING THEIR
ADDICTION ISSUES, GET THEM THE
SERVICES THEY NEED AND SET THEM
ON A PATH TO STABILITY. NOW. A
POINT. THAT I'VE MENTIONED A FEW
TIMES SO FAR. IS SELF
SUFFICIENCY. YOU SEE IN
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT
HOMELESSNESS. SINCE I'VE BEEN
BACK HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE NOW
FOR A YEAR FOR A YEAR, I'VE
RARELY HEARD THE TERM. SELF
SUFFICIENCY. I HEAR SHELTER,
HOUSING, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. BUT
RARELY SELF-SUFFICIENCY. MY
EXPERIENCE. WITH SOCIAL SERVICE
PROGRAMS. DATING BACK OVER 20
YEARS WHEN I WAS ON THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IS THAT THE GOAL OF
SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS IS
GETTING PEOPLE TO SELF
SUFFICIENCY. THAT IS WHAT OUR
GOAL SHOULD BE WITH HOMELESSNESS
, NOT A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD,
NOT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, THOUGH
THOSE ARE WORTHY AND IN FACT,
INDEED NECESSARY STEPS IN A
PROGRESSION, BUT THE PROGRESSION
MUST LEAD TO SELF SUFFICIENCY.
AND SELF SUFFICIENCY IS QUITE
SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE. NOT
POSSIBLE IF A PERSON IS STILL
DEPENDENT UPON DRUGS OR HAS
UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS. WE
MUST BE GUIDED BY ENCOURAGING
AND MORE LIBERALLY ALLOWING THE
MOVING OF UNHOUSED ADDICTS AND
MENTALLY TROUBLED PEOPLE TOWARD
TREATMENT. THIS PROPOSAL IS JUST
ONE WAY TO AT LEAST ALLOW
CHOICE. TO THOSE WHO NEED A
DISTRACTION FREE OPTION TOWARD
THEIR DESIRE. TO ACHIEVE SELF
SUFFICIENCY. TODAY THE BILL'S
SPONSOR IS WITH ME. SHERRY DALEY
FROM, UH, CALIFORNIA COURT
CONSORTIUM OF A OF ADDICTION
PROGRAMS AND PROFESSIONALS, AS
WELL AS LAURIE NEWMAN, WHO RUNS
RECOVERY RESIDENCES IN THE
MERCED AREA FOR WOMEN AND
CHILDREN. THANK YOU, SENATOR. AM
I OK, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
NOON. HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBER
SHERRY DALY WITH CALIFORNIA. I
DON'T THINK THAT MIC'S ON. I
DIDN'T THINK SO. EXCUSE ME.
BETTER. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, HONORABLE CHAIR AND
MEMBER SHERRI DALEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CONSORTIUM OF
ADDICTION PROGRAMS AND
PROFESSIONALS REPRESENTING OVER
20,000 ADDICTION COUNSELORS MORE
THAN 100 TREATMENT PROGRAMS, 350
RECOVERY RESIDENCES AND
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN RECOVERY
THROUGHOUT OUR STATE, ALTHOUGH I
TYPICALLY TESTIFY IN COMMITTEE
ABOUT THE AMAZING BENEFITS THAT
MY INDUSTRY AND PROFESSION BRING
TO CALIFORNIA AND REDUCING THE
DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF ADDICTION
IN OUR STATE, UNFORTUNATELY,
FIND MYSELF HERE THIS AFTERNOON
DEFENDING THE WORK WE DO AND THE
AMAZING CONTRIBUTION PEOPLE IN
RECOVERY MAKE IN OUR STATE.
GIVEN THE SOMEWHAT INCOMPLETE
ANALYSIS YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED
AND THE DISPARAGING COMMENTS
MADE ABOUT RECOVERY RESIDENCES,
HOUSING PUT FORTH BY THE
OPPOSITION. I WILL USE MY TIME
TODAY TO GIVE YOU A MORE
COMPLETE PICTURE WITH WHICH TO
ASSIST YOU TO MAKE YOUR
DECISION. THE ANALYSIS AND
OPPOSITION PUT FORTH THAT THERE
IS NÓ STANDARDIZATION OR
OVERSIGHT OF RECOVERY RESIDENCES
. THIS STATEMENT LEAVES OUT
IMPORTANT FACTS. THERE ARE
NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THIS
HOUSING TYPE, AS EVIDENCED BY
THE BEST PRACTICES MODEL FOR
RECOVERY HOUSING THAT WAS JUST
PUT OUT BY SAMS. SUBSTANCE ABUSE
AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION. THERE ARE
NATIONAL STANDARDS SUPPORTED BY
ABU FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE THAT ARE
USED IN DOZENS OF STATES,
INCLUDING CALIFORNIA AND THE
RECENT ADOPTION OF THE RECOVERY
OF RECOVERY HOUSING IN THE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ADDICTION,
MEDICINES. A SAM CRITERIA FOURTH
EDITION THAT WAS JUST PUBLISHED
THIS WINTER FOR THE FIRST TIME
INCLUDES RECOVERY HOUSING. THESE
DOCUMENTS AND PUBLISH STANDARDS
RELY ON DECADES OF ACADEMIC
STUDY SIMPLY PUT IF THE NATION'S
TOP DOCTORS AND ADDICTION
MEDICINE HAVE ENSHRINED RECOVERY
HOUSING. THEIR CONTINUUM OF CARE
. THIS RESOURCE IS OBVIOUSLY
MUCH MORE THAN HOMES WITH
DEPLORABLE LIVING CONDITIONS AS
ADVANCED BY THE OPPOSITION. THE
ANALYSIS ALSO POINTS OUT THAT
RECOVERY RESIDENTS ARE NOT
REGULATED. THIS IS TRUE. THEY
ARE NOT REGULATED BECAUSE THEY
ARE HOUSING, JUST LIKE THE
HOUSING PROVIDED UNDER THE
HOUSING FIRST UMBRELLA. THAT IS
NOT TO SAY THAT THIS HOUSING
TYPE CANNOT MEET STANDARDS OR
ABIDE BY CONTRACTS JUST AS OTHER
PROVIDERS DO. THESE HOMES HAVE
HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE EXACT SAME
RULES AS CURRENT PROVIDERS.
CURRENTLY PEOPLE LIVING
INCARCERATION ENVIRONMENTS ARE
ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN
RECOVERING HOUSING UNDER THE
PROGRAM. OBVIOUSLY THE
INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESS
ALREADY HAS A MEANS OF ENSURING
THAT ALL OF THE RULES ARE
FOLLOWED. ADDITIONALLY MANY
COUNTIES HAVE BEGUN TO USE SOME
OF THEIR VERY LIMITED BLOCK
FUNDING TO PAY FOR RECOVERY
HOUSING, THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO
CREATE COMPLIANCE TO STANDARDS
THROUGH CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS,
THUS PROVING THAT THIS RESOURCE
CAN BE ADEQUATELY OVERSEEN BY
OFFENDING ENTITY. FINALLY I
WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE WITH A BRIEF
COMMENT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
RECOVERY HOUSING, THERE IS SO
MUCH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS HOUSING
TYPE THAT HARVARD UNIVERSITY HAS
A CLEARING HOUSE DEDICATED TO
IT. THE RECOVERY RESEARCH TO
PARTNER BY MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL
HOSPITAL AND HARVARD MEDICAL
SCHOOL HAS COMPILED LITERALLY.
HUNDREDS OF RESEARCH PAPERS AND
FINDINGS ON THE EFFICACY OF THIS
HOUSING. I COULD USE THE REST OF
THE HEARING TO GO THROUGH THEIR
FINDINGS FIVE MINUTES TOTAL. SO
WE WANT TO GIVE YOUR OTHER
SOMETIMES YOU SHOULD WRAP UP.
YES, I WILL WRAP UP ANYHOW. THE
A S¼, A CRITERIA IS CREATED BY
THE MOST ADVANCED DOCTORS,
EXPERTS IN THE WORLD AND THEY
HAVE, UM STANDARDIZE THIS THIS
TYPE OF HOUSING. YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, HONORABLE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, LAURIE NEWMAN HERE AS
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY SOCIAL MODEL ADVOCATES
INC. WHICH OPERATES LICENSED AND
CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND RE RECOVERY
RESIDENTS, FACILITIES FOR WOMEN
AND WOMEN WITH CHILDREN IN
MERCED COUNTY WHO ARE AT RISK OR
ARE HOMELESS, THEIR PROPERTIES
FOR BOTH TREATMENT AND RECOVERY,
RESIDENTS. PROGRAMS WERE DEEDED
AND TRANSFERRED TO THE NONPROFIT
CORPORATION FROM THE FEDERAL
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE ACT
UNDER TITLE VÆ. I HAVE A 29 YEAR
CAREER IN EXPERIENCE WORKING
WITH RISK WITH AT RISK OR
HOMELESS WOMEN AND WOMEN WITH
CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN
EXPERIENCING A SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER. I'M HERE TODAY TO GIVE
A VOICE TO THOSE WHO NEED DRUG
FREE OPTIONS FOR HOUSING. THE
BEST TESTIMONY I CAN GIVE TO
ENSURE THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE HAVE ENOUGH
INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED
DECISION IS TO TELL ASHLEY'S
STORY. ASHLEY'S STORY IS COMMON
AMONGST THOSE WHO ARE RECOVERING
FROM A SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER.
ASHLEY WAS ADMITTED TO MY
PROGRAM WITH THREE DISTINCT
DIAGNOSES. SUBSTANCE USE ALCOHOL
, SEVERE, A MENTAL HEALTH
DIAGNOSIS. DEPRESSION ANXIETY,
MODERATE TO SEVERE AND ELATE AND
LATE STAGE CIRRHOSIS OF THE
LIVER. AMONGST OTHER ISSUES
ACTUALLY ARRIVED AT OUR FACILITY
HOMELESS WITHOUT HER CHILDREN
AND SUFFERING FROM CURRENT
TRAUMATIC EVENTS. ASHLEY STAYED
IN TREATMENT FOR 120 DAYS AND
GRADUATED, HER MENTAL HEALTH
STABILIZED AND SHE WAS REGULARLY
SEEING HER PRIMARY CARE DOCTOR
AND SPECIALIST FOR HER LIVER.
DURING THE DISCHARGE PLANNING
PROCESS WE DETERMINE ASHLEY
LACKED ANY FINANCIAL RESOURCES,
AND WE NEED HOUSING ASSISTANCE
TO NOT BE HOMELESS, POST
DISCHARGE. ADDITIONALLY ASHLEY
WAS REFERRED TO OUTPATIENT
SERVICES TO CONTINUE HER
TREATMENT FOR SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER. AND MEN HAVE A SORRY
YOU HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS.
SADLY, WITHIN SIX MONTHS, ASHLEY
RELAPSED. AND HERE WAS WHAT SHE
SAID. WHEN I ASKED WHAT
HAPPENED. LAURIE WHEN I LEFT
HERE LAST TIME, I WAS FULLY
INVESTED IN MY RECOVERY AND
STAYING SOBER. I UNDERSTOOD THAT
IF I DRANK AGAIN, I MIGHT DIE
AND NEVER SEE MY CHILDREN AGAIN.
I HAD COPING SKILLS, AND I HAD
DEVELOPED A SOCIAL SUPPORT
SYSTEM FOR SOBER FRIENDS AND
SPONSOR I WAS HOPEFUL FOR MY
FUTURE AND I THOUGHT I COULD
REUNITE WITH MY CHILDREN.
UNFORTUNATELY THE HOUSING
PROGRAM I WENT TO DID NOT
REQUIRE ANYONE TO STAY CLEAN AND
SOBER. I WAS CONSTANTLY
SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO DRANK
AND USED. I TRIED TO SOBER AND
DID FOR ABOUT 30 DAYS. YOU COULD
WRAP UP BUT BEING AROUND OTHER
PEOPLE WHO USED STAINED SOBER
BECAME IMPOSSIBLE. SHE UM, CAME
BACK INTO THE PROGRAM FOR A
SECOND TREATMENT EPISODE AND IS
NOW RESIDING IN A RECOVERY
RESIDENCE. DOING WELL. MENTAL
HEALTH IS STABLE. THANK YOU
APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT, UM, SO WE'LL HAVE THE
WITNESS IN OPPOSITION AND THE
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
AGAIN. THERE'S FIVE MINUTES
TOTAL FOR THAT, AND THEN WE'LL
ADD THE ME TOO. SO IF YOU'RE
SHARING BETWEEN EACH OTHER, JUST
HELLO, SCARED. IT'S I JUST
CALLED YOU SCARE CHIN OR HELLO,
SKINNER MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
RACHEL BW, AND I'M A LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE AT A èC LU CALIFORNIA
ACTION. THE OPPOSES SB 1438,
ALONG WITH SEVERAL PARTNER
ORGANIZATIONS WHO DO HOUSING
FIRST AND HOUSELESS THIS WORK
ACROSS THE STATE. WE DID OPPOSE
THIS BILL AS PROPOSED TO BE
AMENDED IN OUR LETTERS, BUT IT
WAS ACTUALLY AMENDED DIFFERENTLY
THAN WE ANTICIPATED. SO I'LL
SPEAK TO THAT IN MY TESTIMONY
HERE. THE STATED PURPOSE THAT
YOU'VE HEARD FOR THIS BILL IS
NOT WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO, AND
THE TRUE IMPACTS ARE VERY
HARMFUL. THIS BILL WOULD
ENDANGER CALIFORNIA'S FIDELITY
TO HOUSING FIRST RETURN FORMALLY
UNHOUSED PEOPLE TO THE STREETS
AND THREATEN FUNDING FOR
EXISTING HOUSELESS PROGRAMS. IF
SB 1438 WAS PASSED, IT WOULD
MAKE IT SO THAT ALL HOUSING
PROGRAMS FOR THE FORMERLY
UNHOUSED OR UNSTABLY HOUSED
COULD EVICT SOMEONE FOR THE USE
OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS IF CHILDREN
ARE HOUSED IN THE SAME LOCATION.
A PERSON COULD BE EVICTED EVEN
IF THEY ARE FOLLOWING ALL LEASE
CONDITIONS AND ARE NOT
DISRUPTIVE OPPOSITE TO THE BILL
STATED PURPOSE. THE LANGUAGE
ENCOURAGES LANDLORDS TO RETURN
FORMALLY ON HOUSE PEOPLE WHO USE
DRUGS OR ALCOHOL TO THE STREET.
THIS COULD BE A CASE OF RELAPSE,
WHICH IS A NORMAL PART OF
RECOVERY OR FOR RECREATIONAL
USE. BY SINGLING OUT HOUSEHOLDS
WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT. THIS
LANGUAGE ALSO INVITES BLANT
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A
PROTECTED CLASS, NOT TO MENTION
HOW TRAUMATIC AND DISRUPTIVE
EVICTIONS ARE FOR CHILDREN.
FURTHER THE VAGUENESS OF THE
TERMS, USE OF SUBSTANCES AND IN
THE SAME LOCATION AS IF OR
CHILDREN ARE HOUSED IN THE SAME
LOCATION COULD BE INTERPRETED TO
ALLOW LANDLORDS IN THESE HOUSING
PROGRAMS TO EVICT ANY PERSON WHO
HAD ONE GLASS OF WINE IN THEIR
HOME IF THE HOUSING UNIT WAS
RECEIVING STATE FUNDING AND IS
IN THE SAME BUILDING OR COMPLEX
AS A CHILD, THIS IS NOT WHAT OUR
STATE SHOULD BE DOING TO RESOLVE
OUR HÌ THIS CRISIS. EVEN THOUGH
IT WAS RAISED TO THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE OF THE LANGUAGE. I JUST
DESCRIBED APPLIED TO ALL HOUSING
PLACEMENTS FUNDED BY THE STATE
HOUSE, ASSIST DOLLARS AND HAD
BROAD IMPLICATIONS. THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL DID NOT
CLARIFY THIS OR REMOVE IT, WHICH
LEAVES US DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE BILL'S INTENT. TO MOVE ON TO
THE AMENDMENTS ON THE ADDED NEW
LANGUAGE S¼ B 138 WOULD ALLOW
COUNTIES TO TAKE 25% OF THEIR
LIMITED STATE PROVIDED HOUSELESS
FUNDS AWAY FROM EXISTING
SUCCESSFUL HOUSING FIRST
PROGRAMS AND GIVE THEM TO
ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES
RUNNING RECOVERY. HOUSING OR
SOBER HOUSING. UM WHO ARE NOT,
UM, APPLYING OR NOT USING THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES, ALL OF THEM
AS AS STATED AS A HOUSING FIRST.
THE POOL OF STATE FUNDING
AVAILABLE FOR HOUSELESS PROGRAMS
IS FINITE. AND IN THIS BUDGET
YEAR, WE KNOW IT IS NOT GROWING,
ALLOWING PART OF THAT FIXED
AMOUNT TO BE SIPHONED OFF WOULD
NECESSARILY FORCE EXISTING BEST
PRACTICE PROGRAMS TO CLOSE
DURING AN ACUTE CRISIS. THE
OPPOSITION SHARED INFORMATION
ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF RECOVERY
HOUSING. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF
WHAT IS EFFECTIVE TO RESOLVE
ADDICTION IS A QUESTION OF THESE
ARE HOUSELESS AS DOLLARS. IT'S A
QUESTION OF WHAT IS EFFECTIVE
AND HAS THE PROVEN STATED TRACK
RECORD TO RESOLVE HOUSELESS. WE
URGE A NÓ VOTE ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO YOU
HAVE ABOUT TWO MINUTES. GREAT
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
GREGORY KRAMER ON BEHALF OF
DISABILITY RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA
AND REGRETFUL OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. WE'D LIKE TO ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH THOSE OF A èC LU
AND WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT
HOUSING FIRST IS THE GOLD
STANDARD FOR GETTING PEOPLE
HOUSED AND STAYING HOUSED IN THE
STATE. THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
DEMONSTRATED SERIOUS CONCERN
ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORS ON THE
STREET. WHO ARE USING SUBSTANCES
, AND THE DATA SHOWS THAT
CATEGORICALLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE
APPROACHES IN HOUSELESS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE HOUSING FIRST
PROGRAMS. IT'S NOT SO MUCH A
QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE IS A
POTENTIAL KIND OF RECOVERY
HOUSING THAT COULD BE GOOD FOR
SOMEONE TO LIVE IN. IT'S THAT
SOBER LIVING AND RECOVERY
HOUSING JUST DON'T HAVE THE SAME
DEMONSTRABLE OUTCOMES OF GETTING
AND KEEPING PEOPLE OFF OF THE
STREETS. AND THE STATE HAS NÓ
EXPERIENCE OR CAPACITY IN
OVERSEEING THESE OUTCOMES. WE
MUST PRIORITIZE OUR SCARCE STATE
HOMELESSNESS FUNDING RESOURCES
FOR TRUE HOUSING FIRST MODELS
WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF
ENDING HOMELESSNESS. WHILE THERE
ARE OTHER COALITIONS, INCLUDING
THE WESTERN CENTER AND LAW AND
POVERTY AND THE NATIONAL
ALLIANCE IN HOMELESSNESS AND
OPPOSITION. THEY JUST ASKED FOR
ME TO SHARE THEIR OPPOSITION AS
WELL. SOME CONCLUSION. WE JUST
URGE YOU TO PROVIDE A NÓ VOTE
FOR THIS BILL. AND WITH A NÓ
VOTE, YOU COULD PROTECT CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES FROM BEING EVICTED
TO THE STREETS, REAFFIRM YOUR
COMMITMENT TO HOUSING FIRST AND
SAFEGUARD OUR EXISTING AND
EFFECTIVE HOUSELESS PROGRAMS
FROM BEING DEFUNDED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO UH, NOW IF THERE
ARE ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION WHO
WANT TO COME AND ADD ON AS ME
TOO? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE.
WE'LL TURN TO THE DÍAS. COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS BY COLLEAGUES. YES,
SENATOR MINIBAR. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. UH, MADAM CHAIR. YOU KNOW,
SENATOR I? I WOULDN'T. I'M NOT
HERE TO ARGUE WITH THE
IMPORTANCE OF EVERY KIND OF
SOLUTION WE CAN BRING TO THE
TABLE TO ADDRESS WHAT WE'RE
SEEING ON OUR STREETS. UH, YOU
AND I HAVE BEEN VERY PASSIONATE
IN ADDRESSING A LOT OF THESE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NEEDS, UM,
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS AND SO
FORTH. UM, I AGREE WITH WHAT
YOUR SPONSORS HAVE SHARED
REGARDING THE NEED TO REALLY
HAVE A LOT OF THESE CENTERS OPEN
MY CONCERN, AND I MIGHT BE
PUTTING MY SUB THREE SUB CHAIR.
ON IS REGARDING THE, UM OUR
OVERSIGHT OVER A THE PROGRAMS
THAT WE AS A STATE BRING FUNDING
TO, AND I WANNA SHARE THAT WE
ALREADY STRUGGLE WITH THE
OVERSIGHT OF PROGRAMS. UM, THAT
ALREADY RECEIVED SOME OF OUR
FUNDING. UM AND IN AN ARRAY OF
DIFFERENT THINGS. UH, RIGHT NOW,
UM, EVEN IN MY DISTRICT, WE'RE
HAVING ADULT CENTERS, PLACES
WHERE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ARE
BEING TAKEN CARE OF BEING ABUSED
, AND IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR
YEARS. AND WE HELP FUND THOSE,
UM, ENTITIES AND IT TAKES US A
WHILE. TO INVESTIGATE TO KNOW
WHAT'S GOING ON. SO MY BIG BIG
CONCERN WITH THIS BILL IS OUR
LACK OF OVERSIGHT OVER IT. I
UNDERSTAND THAT, UM IT'S BEEN
CERTIFIED UNDER A SAM AND
EVERYONE WITH EXPERTISE UNDER IT
, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE OVERSIGHT
UNDER IT, I'M WARY AS TO WHY WE
WOULD PROVIDE FUNDING TO AN
ENTITY AND LET THEM ROAM FREE.
WHETHER WE HAVE EVEN THOUGH WE
MIGHT HAVE MORE GOOD APPLES AND
BAD APPLES. SO WITH THAT, UM,
UNFORTUNATELY, WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO VOTE YES, ON YOUR BILL,
GIVING CONCERNS. ANY OTHER. ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR. SO, UM I'M
ACTUALLY GRATEFUL FOR THIS BILL.
AND I'M AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR
THIS BILL. UM BECAUSE AS WE
CURRENTLY STAND IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AS WE'VE INVESTED IN
ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS OVER 20
THREE BILLION DOLLARS, THE
MAJORITY OF THE STATE IN MANY OF
OUR RESIDENTS WITHIN OUR STATE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THE NUMBERS HAVE NOT
ACTUALLY DECREASED WITH REGARDS
TO HOMELESSNESS. AND, YES,
HOMELESSNESS IS MULTIFACETED.
THERE ARE VARIOUS REGARDS TO IT.
BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE
HAVE IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS
NÓ ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE CURRENT
PROGRAM THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
AND BECAUSE THERE'S NÓ
ACCOUNTABILITY AND, UM REQUIRING
PEOPLE TO GET SELF HELP IN ORDER
TO RECEIVE HOUSING. UM WE SEE A
REVOLVING DOOR COMING IN AND OUT
OF PEOPLE, UM, HAVING ADDITION
PROBLEMS COMING IN LEAVING AND
COMING BACK, BE AFFECTING
IMPACTING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AS
WELL. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I
BELIEVE IT WAS SAN FRANCISCO,
THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO THAT
CAME IN AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD
BE STARTING TO LOOK INTO OR LOOK
INTO OR FOLLOW THROUGH WITH, UH
REQUIRING ASSISTANCE OR
SELF-HELP WHEN IT COMES TO
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND OPIOID
ADDICTION. UM, I'M VERY
SYMPATHETIC. TO THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS THAT
NEED TO HAVE A SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH
THEY CAN THRIVE AND HELP BUILD
THAT RESISTANCE AND BE ABLE TO
BE HEALTHY. AND I THINK THE MORE
RESOURCES AND OPTIONS THAT WE
HAVE AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING. TO
MEET THE INDIVIDUAL'S NEEDS.
JUST LIKE IN EDUCATION, NOT
EVERY CHILD LEARNS THE SAME. WE
HAVE TO HAVE DIFFERENT
MODALITIES IN WHICH WE PROVIDE
THE EDUCATIONAL, UM, CONTENT
JUST THE SAME HUMAN BEINGS. WE
ARE ALL DIFFERENT. WE LEARN
DIFFERENTLY. WE, UM WE SELF
TREAT DIFFERENTLY. UM I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE OPTIONS
FOR PEOPLE THAT NEED THAT. AND
IT DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T THINK
THAT THIS BILL WOULD NECESSARILY
UM CREATE A THREAT. THOSE
PROGRAMS ARE EFFECTIVE IN
PROVIDING HOUSING FOR
INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED THAT SORT
OF HOUSING. BUT I THINK IT WOULD
BE GREAT TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL
MODEL FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT
CAN'T THRIVE IN WHAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE. AND IT'S OUR
DUTY AS A STATE IF WE'RE TRULY
TRYING TO ADDRESS IN A AAA
CRISIS IN OUR STATE TO DO TO
PROVIDE AS MANY OPTIONS AND
CHOICES FOR PEOPLE TO CHOOSE
WHAT'S GOING TO HELP THEM BEST
IN BEING SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR
SELF HELP, UM, JOURNEY, AND I
THINK WITH THAT IN MIND, I THINK
THAT YOU KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO
PROVIDING OPTIONS. IS IT THE WAY
TO GO AND ANOTHER THING WHEN IT
COMES TO OVERSIGHT? IT IS OUR
JOB. AS AS AS, UM AS MEMBERS IN
THE LEGISLATURE HAVE OVERSIGHT,
BUT THIS DOES HAVE OVERSIGHT. IT
HAS NATIONAL OVERSIGHT. MAYBE
NOT STATE, BUT NATIONAL, AND
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD
ADDRESS MOVING FORWARD AS PART
OF THE ACCOMMODATION IS OK. HOW
DO WE CREATE OVERSIGHT IF WE
WANTED TO STATEWIDE IN ADDITION
TO WHAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE
NATIONWIDE? NATIONALLY SO FOR
THOSE PURPOSES, I'LL BE HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD FOR
BRINGING OPTIONS AND CHOICES FOR
PEOPLE TO, UM, TO CARRY ON THEIR
JOURNEY ON SELF HELP, UM IN
HOUSING, AND WITH THAT, IF I'M
NOT A CO-AUTHOR WOULD LOVE TO BE
ADDED AS A CO AUTHOR. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. YOU MOVING THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR CORTESE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN HEARING
YOUR COMMENTS. BEFORE WE
CONCLUDE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE
SOME MY THANK YOU, MY, UM FIRST
OF ALL, I APPRECIATE A COUPLE OF
THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF
WITH WHICH IS FIRST OF ALL THE
AUTHORS PRESENTATION OVER YOU
KNOW, KIND OF A METHODICAL
PRESENTATION OVER A LOT OF
PIECES TO THIS, I GUESS FOR LACK
OF A BETTER WORD. ALSO HAVE
WORKED CLOSELY WITH SOME OF, UM
THE FOLKS IN SUPPORT. MAINLY
BECAUSE OF YOU KNOW? 3035 YEARS
OF WORK LEGISLATIVELY. BUT IN
TERMS OF VOLUNTEERISM AS WELL.
WITH THE RECOVERY COMMUNITY, BUT
THEY'RE THERE ARE PARTS OF WHAT
IS BEING PRESENTED HERE THAT ARE
ARE ALARMING. TO ME SO MUCH SO
THAT II I DON'T FEEL LIKE I
COULD SUPPORT THE BILL IN THE IN
THE SHAPE THAT IT'S IN RIGHT NOW
ONE OF THOSE BEING SORT OF THE
INHERENT DEFAULT TO SEGREGATION
OF FOLKS WHO UM, POTENTIALLY ARE
IN RECOVERY OR ARE IN RECOVERY
OR TRYING TO STAY IN RECOVERY.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING I VIEW AS A
GOOD THING. AND IT'S NOT
SOMETHING I VIEW AS A GOOD THING
FOR SOCIETY TO BE SORT OF
SEPARATED BY DESIRE FROM I THINK
SOME OF THE WORDS THAT WERE USED
WERE TO THEIR OWN LIFE OF
RESIDENCY WITHOUT DISTRACTION.
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN RECOVERY OR
TRYING TO STAY IN RECOVERY OR
HAVING AN ISSUE WITH SUBSTANCE
ABUSE OR ALCOHOL FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME. THEY'RE NOT A DISTRACTION.
THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE
ENTITLED TO LIVE IN A MAINSTREAM
SOCIETY. WITH ALL THE SUPPORT
THEY CAN GET THAT SAID. WERE I
AGREE. WITH SOME OF THE BASIC
PRETENSE OF THE BILL HERE AND
I'M SURE OTHERS IN THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE WILL DISAGREE WITH ME
ON THIS IS I DON'T THINK THAT
HOUSING FIRST SHOULD BE EVER
DEFINED. IS CUTTING SHORT
OPPORTUNITIES ALONG THE
CONTINUUM TO MOVE PEOPLE ALONG.
YOU KNOW, INTO THE PERMANENCY
THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS
OF HOUSING AND A ROOF OVER THEIR
HEAD, AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN A
PROBLEM. IN ALL THE YEARS THAT
I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THE HOUSING
SPACE, SO IN SHORT, THERE ARE
SOME THINGS I LIKE ABOUT WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
SINCERELY BUT THERE'S SOME
THINGS THAT THAT TROUBLE ME SO
MUCH MOSTLY FROM, UM, YOU KNOW,
COMING LESS FROM THE HOUSING,
FIRST SIDE AND MORE FROM THE
SIDE OF NOT HAVING UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES WHEN IT COMES TO
FOLKS IN RECOVERY, AND I DON'T
WANT TO SIT HERE BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN A
COMMITTEE HEARING ALWAYS AND
GIVE EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE
SUBJECTIVE THINGS THAT I, I
THINK MIGHT SEEP INTO THIS THE
WAY IT'S STRUCTURED RIGHT NOW,
IN TERMS OF PEOPLE GETTING
PUSHED OUT. BASED ON WHAT
ULTIMATELY WOULD TURN INTO A
COMPLAINT DRIVEN PROCESS. YOU
KNOW THIS PERSON IS A
DISTRACTION. THIS PERSON IS A
THREAT TO MY CHILD. THIS PERSON
WALKED INTO THE BUILDING. YOU
KNOW, INTOXICATED. UH THOSE ARE
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'M NOT
SURE HOW TO MEASURE THEM IN A
WAY THAT WOULD CUT SOME SHORT
SOMEBODY'S OTHERWISE BASIC
ENTITLEMENT TO HOUSING AND A
ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD. THAT SAID.
I'LL STOP THERE, MADAM CHAIR AND
I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU. SO I WILL MAKE MY
COMMENT AND THEN I'LL ASK FOR
SENATOR NILO TO CLOSE. UM THE WE
HAVE NOTHING IN STATUTE THAT
THAT PROHIBITS A RECOVERY
FACILITY FROM BEING SOBER. ONLY
WHAT WE HAVE IN STATUTE IS
HOUSING FIRST FOUR PROGRAMS THAT
THE STATE PROVIDES FUNDING TO
AND AS WE KNOW THE STATE WHILE
WE ARE TRYING TO PUT ADDITIONAL
FUNDING TOWARDS THIS PROBLEM OF
OUR UNHOUSED PEOPLE, WE IN NÓ
WAY, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH
PEOPLE THINK WE HAVE PUT FORWARD
TO DATE. IT IS NOT EVEN
EQUIVALENT TO WHAT THE NEED IS
SO WE ARE NOT FUNDING EVERY
FACILITY WHETHER SHELTER
RECOVERY, YOU NAME IT. WE ARE
NOT FUNDING ALL OF THEM. AND SO
WE ARE, BUT WE HAVE THROUGH THE
ADOPTION OF HOUSING FIRST MADE A
POLICY THAT STATE FUNDING WILL
GO TOWARDS THOSE PROGRAMS THAT
IN AND IN THE HOUSING FIRST
CONCEPT, AND SO IN THAT RESPECT,
I FEEL THE BILL IS TOO BROAD. IT
UNDERMINES THAT, AND IT ALLOWS
FOR EVICTION OF EVEN FAMILIES
WITH CHILDREN OR JUST OR A
FACILITY WHERE THERE IS
CHILDREN. IF SOMEBODY IS NOT IS
NOT SOBER, SO, FROM THAT RESPECT
, IT IS TOO BROAD AND I JUST
WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION
ABOUT THERE IS NOTHING IN
STATUTE THAT SAYS A RECOVERY
HOUSING FACILITY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA CANNOT REQUIRE IT A
SOBER LIVING. IT'S JUST THAT THE
STATE WE WOULD NOT PROVIDE THAT
FUNDING IN TERMS OF OUR HOUSING
FIRST POLICY, SO THAT IS WHY I
WILL BE VOTING NÓ ON THE BILL
AND SENATOR NEO YOU MAY THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. FEW THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, I AM PERFECTLY
WILLING TO FURTHER DISCUSS
ISSUES THAT CAUSE CONCERN TO SEE
IF THE BILL CAN BE AMENDED TO
SATISFY THOSE CONCERNS, SUCH AS
OVERSIGHT AND THE LIKE. BUT I,
UH I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S
NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT PREVENTS
THIS OPTION, BUT PRACTICALLY IT
IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD
CHOOSE THIS OPTION AND WOULD
NEED THIS OPTION. THEY CAN'T
AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT, AND THAT
MEANS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NON
PROFIT PROGRAM TOTALLY PRIVATELY
FUNDED, OF WHICH THERE ARE A FEW
, SUCH AS THE ST JOHN'S PROGRAM
LOCALLY HERE, WHICH DOESN'T
RECEIVE A PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ITS
FUNDAMENTAL BUT IT HAS
TREMENDOUS SUCCESS AND IT
REQUIRES SOBRIETY. UM AND IT
ISN'T ONLY WITH REGARD TO
CHILDREN NOW. UNDER HOUSING
FIRST IF THERE ARE CHILDREN
PRESENT, AND PEOPLE ARE USING
YOUR DRINKING, THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO BE EJECTED BECAUSE THEIR
CHILDREN THERE AND I'M NOT WELL.
I DON'T APPROVE OF THAT. I'M NOT
I'M NOT HERE. THAT IT IS NOT
ONLY FOR PARENTS ATTEMPTING TO
KEEP THEIR KIDS IT'S FOR ANYONE
THAT WANTS TO PURSUE. CLEAN. UH,
LIFESTYLE ENVIRONMENT. GET TO
SELF SUFFICIENCY, WHICH THEY
CAN'T AS LONG AS THEY'RE
ADDICTED, UH, BEING A PROGRAM
WHERE THEY AREN'T PROVIDED THE
DISTRACTION OF OTHER PEOPLE
USING AMIDST THEM. NOW THAT
POINT DISTRACTION. UM THE THAT
WAS PERCEIVED BY SENATOR CORTESE
TO BE SOMEHOW A SEGREGATION AND
I GUESS YOU COULD CALL IT THAT
IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE HAVE
CHOSEN BE IN AN ENVIRONMENT
WHERE THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO
RECOVER AND THE DISTRACTION OF
OTHER PEOPLE USING IN FRONT OF
THEM IS A NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON
THEIR ATTEMPT AND ON THEIR
ATTEMPT TO RECOVER. I WANNA
EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT THIS IS A
CHOICE. SENATOR OCHOA. BOGUE
USED THE TERM SELF-HELP. THESE
ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO HELP
THEMSELVES. IN A CLEAN
ENVIRONMENT. TO GET CLEAN. AND
SOMETIMES THAT, AS THE AS MY
WITNESS TESTIFIED, SOMETIMES
THAT'S DIFFICULT, MAYBE EVEN
LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO RECOVER
FROM A SEVERE ADDICTION WHEN YOU
HAVE SOMEBODY NEXT TO YOU EITHER
DRINKING OR USING AT THE SAME
TIME. SO I WANT TO EMPHASIZE
IT'S A CHOICE. NOW. IN TERMS OF
HOMELESSNESS GENERALLY IN THE
ANALYSIS. IT WAS CITED THAT
HOUSING FIRST WAS ADOPTED BY THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THROUGH
2016 NATIONALLY SAW A 27%
REDUCTION IN HOMELESSNESS.
THAT'S TRUE. BUT IT STOPPED AT
2016. IN CALIFORNIA. SINCE 2016
HOMELESSNESS HAS INCREASED BY
ABOUT 90. INCREASED. IT WOULD
SEEM TO ME WITH THAT KIND OF
EXPLOSIVE INCREASE THAT WE'D
WANT TO TRY PERHAPS SOME OTHER
THINGS, OR AT LEAST OPTIONS. TO
TRY OTHER THINGS BECAUSE AGAIN I
WANT TO EMPHASIZE, AT LEAST IN
MY OPINION. THE OBJECTIVE OF
HOMELESS PROGRAMS. THE END GOAL.
THE FOCUS. HAS TO BE SELF
SUFFICIENCY AND SELF SUFFICIENCY
CANNOT HAPPEN IF AN INDIVIDUAL
CONTINUES TO BE ADDICTED TO
DRUGS OR HAS UNTREATED MENTAL
ILLNESS. SELF SUFFICIENCY, SO I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN I VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION.
WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL. THIS IS S¼
B 1438 BY SENATOR NILO. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AND WE REFER
THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY.
SENATOR SKINNER SKINNER, NÓ A
èC I A èC I BLAKESPEAR
BLAKESPEAR NÓ CABALLERO. CORTESI
NÓ MANJAR NÓ MANJAR NÓ PADILLA
PADILLA NÓ CERTO I UMBERG WAHAB.
WILL PUT THE BILL ON CALL. IT'S
UH, 2 TO 5 RIGHT NOW. BUT WE
WILL PUT IT ON CALL. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NOW GO TO
SENATOR MCGUIRE. THIS IS ITEM
NUMBER ONE SB 1187.
THANK YOU SO. ALRIGHT LET'S TRY
THIS AGAIN. THERE WE GO. WE'LL
GO TO AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I JUST
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH,
UH, FOR YOUR WORK. I WANNA SAY
THANK YOU TO YOUR COMMITTEES,
UH, STAFF FOR THEIR EXCELLENT
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL TO THE
GRATEFUL MADAM CHAIR AND IT'S
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT FOR MANY WHO HAVE BEEN
ON THIS COMMITTEE. THIS BILL MAY
SOUND FAMILIAR TO EACH OF YOU,
UH, WE'VE REINTRODUCED S¼ B 18
FROM LAST SESSION BECAUSE OF THE
ACUTE HOUSING CRISIS THAT EXISTS
IN NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
UP AND DOWN THE GOLDEN STATE AND
LET'S BE CLEAR THIS BILL
RECEIVED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
BECAUSE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
IMPACTS EVERY CORNER OF
CALIFORNIA WOULD LIKE TO TALK
ABOUT SOME OF THE FACTS THAT
FACE NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
. HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW. NATIVE
AMERICANS IN CALIFORNIA ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED
AMONG THE STATE'S HOMELESS
POPULATION AND HIGH RATES OF
POVERTY, OVERCROWDED AND
SUBSTANDARD HOMES CUTS COMPARED
TO ANY OTHER POPULATION HERE IN
THE GOLDEN STATE. THE RATE OF
TRAVEL POVERTY IS MORE THAN
TWICE THAT IN THE REST OF
CALIFORNIA'S POPULATION, AND
WHAT WE KNOW IS HOMELESSNESS
AMONG INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IS UP TO
DOUBLE THAT OF THE GENERAL
POPULATION AND ONE THIRD, ONE
THIRD OF TRIBAL RESIDENTS LIVE
BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY RATE.
AND DESPITE THE CLEAR NEED, THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF TRIBES
ARE UNABLE TO ACCESS EXISTING
STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS. BECAUSE
OFTEN THESE PROGRAMS ARE TOO
RESTRICTIVE FOR TRIBES TO BE
ABLE TO MEET THE THRESHOLD IN
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS OR THEY
ARE MISMATCHED TO THE NEEDS THAT
THIS UN TRIBAL LAND AND IN
COMMUNITIES, NOT TO MENTION MANY
STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS, CONFLICT
WITH TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND EVEN
WHEN THERE IS ONE TIME DEDICATED
MONEY FOR TRIBES WITHIN THESE
PROGRAMS, IT OFTEN ACTUALLY GOES
UNSPENT OR SIGNIFICANTLY DELAYED
IN REGARDS TO DISBURSEMENT.
HERE'S A STATISTIC FROM THE
HOUSE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IN 2019, IN AN EFFORT TO BE ABLE
TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, THIS
LEGISLATURE ADOPTED A B Tð Tð,
AND IT MAY TRIBES ELIGIBLE FOR
MOST OF CALIFORNIA. PROGRAMS
EVEN WITH THAT BILL, PASSING OUT
OF THE 109 TRIBES THAT PROUDLY
CALL CALIFORNIA HOME ONLY 3030
HAVE BEEN AWARDED STATE FUNDS.
SO LET'S BE CLEAR. WE KNOW THAT
THE CURRENT PROGRAMS DO NOT FIT
TRIBAL NEEDS. S¼ VÆ 1187 WOULD
ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES BY
CREATING A NEW AND SEPARATE
HOUSING PROGRAM FOR TRIBES
SPECIFIC TO TRIBAL NEEDS, WHICH
WOULD BE CREATED IN CONSULTATION
WITH TRIBES AND TRIBAL LEADERS.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE
ALREADY DO FOR FARM WORKER
HOUSING WHERE JOE CERNA FARM
MARKET HOUSING GRANT PROGRAM IS
DESIGNATED EXCLUSIVELY TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSING NEED OF
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN THE
GOLDEN STATE. THIS BILL IS GOING
TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW HOMES AND THE RENOVATION OF
EXISTING ONES IN TRIBAL
COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE THE
GREATEST NEED AND SIMPLY PUT 187
IS A HOUSING PROGRAM DESIGNED BY
TRIBES FOR TRIBES AND WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AND I VOTE
AND MADAM CHAIR. I'M REALLY
GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE JAMES, ONE
OF THE HARDEST WORKING TRIBAL
LEADERS IN THE COUNTRY WITH US
TODAY, CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBE AND
RYAN MCGILL AND I JUST WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH MISS
MCGILL FOR STICKING WITH US. AND
FOR ALL OF HER WORK, UH, SHE IS
WITH THE NORTHERN CIRCLE INDIAN
HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND BOTH HAVE
A FEW ITEMS TO SAY, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU. WHICHEVER ONE WANTS
TO START AND WE ALLOW FIVE
MINUTES FOR THE YOU SHARE IT.
YEAH. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH,
MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS, UH,
JOSEPH JAMES. UM CHAIRMAN OF THE
TRIBE. I COME FROM THE VILLAGE
OF SHON, LOCATED ON LOWER
KLAMATH RIVER. I'M HERE TO TALK
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE AND SUPPORT
FOR S¼ 1187. I'M HERE TO
ADVOCATE WHICH WOULD CREATE THE
FIRST EVER DEDICATED TROUBLE
HOUSING GRANT PROGRAM IN
CALIFORNIA TRUST THE HOMELESS
ISSUES CONFRONTING OUR NATIVE
COMMUNITIES. CALIFORNIA HAS THE
LARGEST MOST DIVERSE NATIVE
POPULATION IN THE COUNTRY WITH
OVER 109 U S¼ FEDERALLY
RECOGNIZED TRIBE HOUSING HUGE
CRISIS FOR OUR PEOPLE. AS A AS A
TRIBAL CHAIRMAN. AS I MENTIONED
HOUSING IS A CRISIS FOR US. I'M
ALSO LEADING WITH MY FELLOW
BROTHER AND SISTER AT CALIFORNIA
ARE MM IP, UH, THIS IS ALL TIED
IN YOUR INTERTWINED WITH EACH
OTHER. YOU NEED HOUSING WHEN YOU
GO AND MISS FIND OUR MURDER,
MISSING PEOPLE, HOUSING IS A
CRITICAL COMPONENT OF IT. I JUST
WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT MANY
TRIBES HAVE LONG WAITING LISTS
FOR NEW HOMES. MANY FAMILIES
WILL NEVER HAVE ACCESS TO A HOME
GIVEN THE CURRENT LOW LEVEL OF
FUNDING FOR FORMER HOUSING ON
TRIBAL LAND, A RESULT, THOUSANDS
OF TRAVEL HÌ ARE AFRAID TO LIVE
IN OVERCROWDED AND SUSTAINED
HOUSING. S¼ B, 11 8 S¼ B, 11 8
AND FIXES BY CONTRACTS HAS BEEN
SIGNED BY TRIBES AND DRIVEN BY
TRIBES. UH, FOUR TRIBES. IT'LL
PROVIDE A FLEXIBLE,
COMPREHENSIVE FUNDING SOURCE. IT
IS A PROGRAM TO ADDRESS THE
STATE STANDARDS, ACTUAL
COLLABORATION WITH THE TRIBES
AND JUST HOUSING AND HOMELESS IN
OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH INCLUDE ALL
PEOPLE NATIVE AND NON NATIVE
PEOPLE AGAIN IN CLOSING. I'M
HERE TO SUPPORT 1180 1187. WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO HAVE
A TROUBLED HOUSING PROGRAM TO BE
DRIVEN, UH, BY TRIBAL PEOPLE
WITH WITH WITH OUR SUPPORT
LEGISLATORS AND AGAIN, WE'RE
DOING A LOT OF GREAT THINGS HERE
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
HERE'S ONE THAT COULD HELP US IN
REAL TIME TO ADDRESS THE MANY
ISSUES THAT ARE FACING INDIAN
COUNTRY HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. HØI GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M MARIA MCGILL AND I WORK WITH
NORTHERN CIRCLE INDIAN HOUSING
AUTHORITY, WHERE A TRIBAL
DESIGNATED HOUSING ENTITY THAT
CARRIES OUT HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES ON BEHALF
OF NINE FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED
TRIBES IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IN
MY 10 YEARS AT NORTHERN CIRCLE,
WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN BEING
AWARDED A HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GRANT FOR
920,000 THROUGH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IT TOOK FIVE YEARS
TO GET A STANDARD AGREEMENT. AND
TODAY WE STILL HAVE NÓ HOUSES
BUILT AND FOUR CHRONICALLY
HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE
STILL LIVING IN STORAGE
CONTAINERS IN HOTELS AND IN
THEIR VEHICLES WAITING FOR A
HOUSE. THAT HÌ èC Dð. SO WE
HAVE OF THE NINE TRIBES THAT WE
REPRESENT. THERE'S OVER 6000
TRIBAL MEMBERS AND WE HAVE A
HOUSING SHORTAGE FOR LOW INCOME
HOUSING, LOW INCOME FAMILIES OF
2111 HOUSEHOLDS. JUST TO BUILD
THE HOUSING ALONE. IT WILL COST
$1.2 BILLION. NOW, IF YOU'VE
EVER BEEN TO A TRIBAL LANDS,
YOU'LL KNOW THAT WE HAVE LIMITED
SPACE. LIMITED ACCESS TO
RESOURCES SUCH AS INFRASTRUCTURE
, AND THAT 1.2 BILLION DOES NOT
INCLUDE ACQUISITION OF
DEVELOPABLE LAND, NOR DOES IT
COUNT THOSE DOLLARS NECESSARY
FOR WATER, SEWER AND
ELECTRICITY. THIS 187 MEANS SO
MUCH TO US BECAUSE WE HAVE
TRIBAL MEMBERS LIVING IN STORAGE
CONTAINERS. WE HAVE TRIBAL
MEMBERS THAT HAVE DIED ON OUR
WAITING LIST. WE HAVE TRIBAL
MEMBERS LIVING IN HOTELS. AND
THEY ARE THIS STATE. FIRST
HOMELESS POPULATION. LET THAT
SINK IN. THIS GRANT PROGRAM IS
BY TRIBES FOR TRIBES. AND IT
WOULD REALLY MEAN A LOT TO MANY,
MANY PEOPLE IN THIS GREAT STATE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. LET'S SEE IF THERE IS
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN THE ROOM
WHO WANT TO ADD ME TO GOOD
AFTERNOON, ALEX ALLEN ON BEHALF
OF THE ABOMINABLE POMO OF UPPER
LAKE IN THE KO TRIBE IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KATHERINE
CHARLES ON BEHALF OF HOUSING,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS GÂY
AND DOBBINS FOR THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR RURAL HOUSING AND
STRONG SUPPORT. RACHEL MUELLER
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT, AND THE RURAL
COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE
CORPORATION. IN STRONG SUPPORT,
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS, CHRIS LINDSTROM WITH
THE CALIFORNIA TRIBAL BUSINESS
LINE IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. AND YOUR DA FROM THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
AND SO ON IN SUPPORT. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS, GREGORY KRAMER ON
BEHALF OF DISABILITY RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT GREAT.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE IF THERE'S
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE. LET ME BRING IT TO
THE DIOS. ANYONE HAVE ANY
COMMENTS OR GO AHEAD, SENATOR
PADILLA. WE HAVE A MOTION. UH,
WHO SAID DOWN HERE? MOVE IT. SO
THERE'S A CTO. OK SARTO HAS
MOVED. SERIA GO AHEAD. UH, MADAM
CHAIR THANKS AND MEMBERS JUST TO
JUST TO EXTEND MY GRATITUDE TO
THE PRO TEM FOR YOUR OBVIOUS
PERSISTENCE IN THIS SPACE AND
GETTING US TO A PLACE WHERE
THERE COULD BE A PROGRAMMATIC
FRAMEWORK THAT WOULD ENSURE A
GREATER AMOUNT OF STATE SUPPORT
FOR HOUSING AND SOVEREIGN PLACES
THAT ARE OFTEN OVERLOOKED. SO I
JUST I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
PERSISTENCE AND LOOKING AT THE
HISTORY HERE. IT'S PRETTY
OBVIOUS THAT'S TO TAKE SOME. I
AM HAPPY TO BE SUPPORTIVE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. CREATE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR
MCGUIRE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
AGAIN? MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU
FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU,
SENATOR PADILLA, UH AND, UH,
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
NIGHT VOTE, SO WE DO HAVE THAT
MOTION AND WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL.
MOTION IS AND TO APPROPRIATIONS
TO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. SENATOR SKINNER BY
SKINNER, I A èC BOGUE I A èC B
A BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR A
CABALLERO. CORTEZ CORTEZ. I
MANJAR MANJAR IFI èC R èC R TO
I UMBERG SWAB. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
KEEP THE BILL ON CALL. SO THANK
YOU SO MUCH. I GOT SOME MAPS AND
MEMBERS. THANK YOU ALL. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO UH, SENATOR
RACHEL, AND I KNOW YOU'RE DYING
TO DO IT. BUT MR BRADFORD IS FOR
S¼ IN THE ROOM. APOLOGIES YOU
SNUCK IN. RIGHT. GO AHEAD,
SENATOR BRADFORD. S¼ B 1007 ITEM
TWO. THANK YOU, MA'AM. HERE.
MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT. S¼
VÆ 1007, AND THIS BILL IS A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE. UH TASK FORCE. I SPENT
THE LAST TWO YEARS OF MY LIFE ON
AND THESE ARE SUGGESTIONS FROM
THE FINAL REPORT UPON
APPROPRIATIONS, PROVIDE
FINANCIAL AID AND ASSISTANCE TO
DESCENDANTS OF ENSLAVED PERSONS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING,
OWNING OR MAINTAINING A HOME.
THIS CAN BE DONE THROUGH
SUBSIDIZING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS.
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE INSURANCE,
I SHOULD SAY AND ANY OTHER MEANS
TO ASSIST DESCENDANTS WITH
OWNING AND MAINTAINING A HOME.
S¼ B 1007 IS ABOUT STARTING A
LONG PROCESS OF PAYING BACK A
DEBT THAT'S NOT ONLY OWED THAT
IS PROMISED AND 160 YEARS
OVERDUE TO AFRICAN AMERICANS. IT
IS THE FIRST STEP IN CLOSING THE
WEALTH AND EQUITY GAP CREATED BY
CENTURIES OF SLAVERY. AND RACIAL
DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES. EVEN
AFTER THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY
, FEDERAL, STATE AND STATE AND
LOCAL LAWS ENABLE RACIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES TO
SEGREGATE BLACK AMERICANS FROM
THE REST OF SOCIETY PRACTICES
LIKE REDLINING, DISCRIMINATORY
ZONING, RACIALLY RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING COVENANTS AND EVEN
OUTRIGHT PROHIBITIONS. TO THIS
DAY, DESCENDANTS OF ENSLAVED
PERSONS STEAL, FEEL THE EFFECTS
OF THESE POLICIES. THERE ARE
MANY AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES.
WHO HAVE THE SENATE WHO HAVE
BEEN HERE FOR OVER 100, 100 AND
60 YEARS WHO HAVE NEVER OWNED
PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OR ANYWHERE IN THIS
COUNTRY. THE REPARATION TASK
FORCE. FINAL REPORT DOCUMENTS
THAT STATEWIDE A TYPICAL BLACK
OWNED HOME IS 22. LESS VALUE
THAN A WHITE OWNED. UH FAMILY
PROPERTY. AND WE'VE SEEN JUST
RECENTLY. UH WHAT HAPPENED? UH
IN THE BAY AREA WHEN WE HAD A
ACTIVITY CALLED WHITEWASHING
WHERE A AFRICAN AMERICAN HAD
THEIR HOME APPRAISED AT ALMOST
50% LESS THAN THEIR WHITE
NEIGHBORS UNTIL THEY REMOVED ANY
REMNANTS OF BEING AFRICAN
AMERICAN HOME AND HAD A WHITE
PERSON COME IN AND ACT AS IF
THEY WERE THE HOMEOWNERS, AND
THE APPRAISAL WENT UP BY ALMOST
A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. SO
STATEWIDE AFRICAN AMERICANS
AGAIN MAKE UP 6% OF THE
POPULATION, BUT 40% OF THE
UNHOUSED POPULATION IN MAJOR
CITIES LIKE LOS ANGELES,
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO AND SAN
JOSE, THERE ARE GAPS RANGING
BETWEEN 20% TO 57% BETWEEN THEIR
RATES OF WHITE HOMEOWNERSHIP
COMPARED TO BLACK HOME OWNERSHIP
AND THESE SAME CITIES. THE VALUE
OF THE HOME IS FORMERLY REDLINED
NEIGHBORHOODS COMPARED TO GREEN
LINE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE, UH,
GAPS RANGING FROM 50% TO 125% IN
PRICING DIFFERENCES. THESE LARGE
DISPARITIES IN INAC AND EQUITY I
SHOULD SAY SHOW IN PLAIN NUMBERS
, THE ONGOING DAMAGE CAUSED BY
RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING
POLICIES AND A CLEAR FIX IS
NEEDED. THIS BILL IS THE
BEGINNING OF THAT. I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THIS
TESTIMONY AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. UH, SENATOR BRADFORD.
WE'RE GONNA SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY
MAIN WITNESS AND SUPPORT YEAH. I
DON'T THINK WE HAVE WITNESSES,
BUT I DON'T THINK OK, SO
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT WHO WANT TO
JUST COME UP TO THE, UM AND
INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT AND THEN
WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY IN
OPPOSITION. MEANWHILE I'M GOING
TO HAND THE GAVEL TO THE VICE
CHAIR WHILE I GO AND PRESENT A
BILL AND ANOTHER COMMITTEE. BUT
YOU GO AHEAD. $100 ON THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
IN SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE STEPHANIE
ROBERSON, ON BEHALF OF THE BAY
AREA REGIONAL HEALTH AND
EQUITIES INITIATIVE, ALSO KNOWN
AS BAHAI, AND, UH, THE COALITION
IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY 12. OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS THAT REPRESENT THE
COALITION. UH ORGANIZATIONS FOR
REPARATIONS. ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHRIS LAWSON, UH,
COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA. UH, ALSO
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
REDRESS COALITION OF CALIFORNIA,
SACRAMENTO AMERICAN REDRESS
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA BAY AREA
, THE LINEAGE EQUITY AND
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT OUT OF L, A
AND THE CALIFORNIA BLACK LINEAGE
SOCIETY ALL IN STRONG SUPPORT.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, GREGORY
KRAMER ON BEHALF OF DISABILITY
RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
HELLO? RACHEL B, A èC LU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT
HELLO, ADAM BIONIS, CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BUILDERS AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO
WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF S¼ B 1007. SA WILL
NOW MOVE ON TO ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO S¼ B 1007 HERE IN
ROOM 1200. SEEN AND WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE DÍAS. SENATOR
CORTESE. THANK YOU, UM JUST A
COMMENT IF I MAY. THE AUTHOR
WANTED TO COMMEND YOU FOR THE
PORTION OF THIS BILL THAT IS
GETTING BEYOND. BEYOND THE
INDICES OF PAST HARM. THE HARM
CAUSED BY SLAVERY AS WE IN LAW,
SCHOOL AND OTHER PLACES LEARNED
AS AS THE PROBLEM THAT WE NEED
TO CORRECT WITH WHATEVER
PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE
IN LOOKING AT THE ONGOING
REDLINING THAT'S GOING ON. I
THINK THAT'S A MAJOR SHIFT HERE
IN PUBLIC POLICY FOR THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA THAT YOU'VE
EMBEDDED, YOU KNOW, IN THE IN
THE INTENT BEHIND THE BILL, AND
I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU
FOR THAT SORT OF TRY TO DO MY
PART TO HELP. ELEVATE WHAT WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR OWN
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE BILL. THANK
YOU. THEN I'LL BE SUPPORTED. ALL
RIGHT, UM, SENATOR PADILLA. WE
HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS FROM OUR DÍAS SEE NONE.
UH MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. OH YES. I'M SORRY,
SENATOR BRADFORD. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND I
WANT TO THANK UH, COLLEAGUES ON
THIS COMMITTEE AND THANK, UH
SENATOR CARTE FOR HIS COMMENTS.
AND, AS STATED, I SPENT TWO
YEARS OF MY LIFE ON THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE, AND THE
FINAL REPORT HAD 115
RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE COULD
START CURING THE HARMS OF
SLAVERY. THE VESTIGES OF SLAVERY
THAT STILL EXISTS TODAY. UH,
THIS WAS JUST ONE OF 100 AND 15
SUGGESTIONS, BUT REALLY AT THE
CORE OF WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO DO,
UH, AS WE ALL KNOW, THE PROMISE
OF 40 ACRES OF THE MURAL REALLY
NEVER MATERIALIZED. BUT
REPARATIONS HAS ALWAYS BEEN
ABOUT LAND, AND, UH, THIS HELPS
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NEVER OWNED
PROPERTY OR WHO HAVE OWNED
PROPERTY BUT HAVE HAD THEIR
PROPERTY RED LINED OR
UNDERVALUED. UM HOLD ON TO THIS
PRO PROPERTY, SO I LOOK FORWARD
TO I VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. THANK
YOU. THIS IS S¼ P 10 AND SEVEN
BY SENATOR BRADFORD. THE MOTION
IS YOU PASS AND REAFFIRM THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SENATOR SKINNER A BUG.
SHAKESPEARE. BLAKESPEAR I
CABRERO. CORTEZ CORTEZ. I
MENJIVAR MANJAR. I MANJAR, A
AAR. HAMBERG WAHAB. IT'S 4 TO 0.
WE'LL PUT IT ON CALL. THAT
SUPPORT A ZERO WON'T LEAVE THAT
ON CALL FOR YOU. THANK YOU
APPRECIATE IT. AND THEN WE CAN
GO TO SENATOR ARCHULETA.
WELCOME AND YOU'LL BE PRESENTING
S¼ B 1465. GOOD. PLEASE BEGIN
WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS AND, UH, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO FIRST
OFF BY SAYING AND ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN THE
COMMITTEE AND ANALYSIS AND I
THANK THE CHAIR FOR HER
ASSISTANCE AND WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE AND GOING FORWARD WITH
THIS BILL. I REALLY APPRECIATE
THAT HER TIME AND EFFORT REALLY
PAID OFF. TODAY I'M PRESENTING
SENATE BILL 1465, WHICH ALLOWS
ANY STRUCTURE USED FOR HUMAN
HABITATION TO BE DECLARED A
SUBSTANDARD BUILDING, REGARDLESS
OF ZONING OR APPROVED USE OF THE
BUILDING. SENATE BILL 1465 ALSO
MAKES CHANGES TO CODE
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES TO EXTEND
TENANT PROTECTIONS TO BUILDINGS,
NOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL, UH, THAT
ARE BEING USED FOR HOUSING.
CALIFORNIA STATE HOUSING LAWS
ARE SOME OF THE STRONGEST IN THE
NATION, ESTABLISHING CRITERIA
FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY
PROTECTIONS THROUGH BUILDING
STANDARDS TO ENSURE DECENT, SAFE
AND SANITARY HOUSING FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. CALIFORNIA IS
EXPERIENCING A HOUSING SHORTAGE
OF SIGNIFICANT PROPORTIONS,
PARTICULARLY IN THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING SECTOR, INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES UNABLE TO FIND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MAY RESORT TO
LIVING IN BUILDINGS THAT HAVE
NOT BEEN ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
CURRENT LAW PROVIDES PROTECTIONS
FOR RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN A
DWELLING THAT IS NOT UP TO CODE
AND PUTS THE RESIDENT OR THE
PUBLIC. IN HARM'S WAY. HOWEVER
THERE'S AMBIGUITY IN THE LAW
ABOUT WHETHER THESE PROTECTIONS
APPLY TO BUILDINGS, NOT
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED, EVEN IF
THEY ARE BEING INHABITED BY
TENANTS. DESPITE BEING RENTED AS
HOUSING, MANY WAREHOUSES,
FACTORIES AND EVEN BUILDINGS
THAT ARE NOT IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES AND HAVE BEEN EVADED BY
MUCH NEEDED SAFETY INSPECTIONS
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THAT
THE PROBLEM THEY'RE EVADING THE
NEEDED SAFETY INSPECTIONS AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT. TENANTS IN
THESE BUILDINGS ARE AMONG THE
MOST DISADVANTAGED RENTERS IN
CALIFORNIA. THEY DO NOT CONTROL
OR MAY NOT EVEN KNOW THE ZONING
IN THE BUILDING. THEY RESIDE IN
SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS AND THEIR
ASSOCIATED DANGERS FOR TENANTS
DO NOT CEASE TO EXIST JUST
BECAUSE OF THEIR BUILDING
ZONING. WE NEED TO EMPOWER LOCAL
AND STATE AGENCIES TO BETTER
DEAL WITH DILAPIDATED COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS BEING
USED AS HOUSING. THIS BILL HAS
NÓ OPPOSITION AND TRULY IS A
NONPARTISAN TENET PROTECTION
BILL AND WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY OUR FAITH BORGES AND
LARRY BROOKS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR CODE
ENFORCEMENT, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE AND I THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. CLIO AND WELCOME. UM
PLEASE, STATE YOUR NAME AND, UM,
PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, SENATOR ARCHULETA AND THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS FAITH BORGES WITH AEM
AND I'M HERE TODAY, PROUDLY
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS I HAVE WITH ME HERE
TODAY. MR BROOKS, WHO IS A CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, A Kò èC Ó
BOARD MEMBER IN THE CURRENT
DIRECTOR OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
HEALTHY HOMES DEPARTMENT,
HEADQUARTERED IN OAKLAND AND
PREVIOUSLY MANAGED CODE
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND YELLOW
COUNTY, HE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. I'M
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF S¼
B 1465, WHICH WILL ALLOW
EXISTING INSPECTIONS FOR CODE
ENFORCEMENT TO BE APPLIED TO ANY
STRUCTURE THAT'S USED FOR HUMAN
HABITATION, REGARDLESS OF THE
BUILDING'S ZONING OR APPROVED
USE. SB 1465, ADDITIONALLY
APPLIES HABITABILITY IN LANDLORD
TENANT PROTECTIONS TO THESE
PROPERTIES, ENSURING THAT
TENANTS HAVE ACCESS TO VITAL
RESOURCES SUCH AS RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE AND RETALIATION
PROTECTIONS FOR RAISING
HABITABILITY COMPLAINTS.
CALIFORNIANS WHO HAVE BEEN
DRIVEN INTO WAREHOUSES OR SHEDS
AND OTHER UNPERMITTED RESIDENCES
BY CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING CRISIS
ARE CURRENTLY CUT OFF FROM
RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO TENANTS
IN BUILDINGS PROPERLY ZONED FOR
HOUSING, THANKS TO THE WORK OF
MANY OF THE LEGISLATORS ON THIS
COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDERS IN
THIS ROOM CALIFORNIANS AT
CALIFORNIA'S INSPECTIONS AND
TENANT PROTECTION LAWS ARE AMONG
THE STRONGEST IN THE NATION. AND
YET THESE PROTECTIONS STILL
EXCLUDE MANY OF THE STATE'S MOST
VULNERABLE TENANTS. TENANTS DO
NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE
BUILDING THAT THEY ARE LIVING IN
IS ZONED AND USED PROPERLY.
CALIFORNIANS SHOULD NOT BE
PUNISHED FOR RESORTING TO LIVING
IN MAKESHIFT UNAPPROVED HOUSING
UNITS DUE TO THE STATE'S HOUSING
CRISIS. A LACK OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS THE CRISIS OF A
GENERATION. AND WHILE THERE ARE
MANY POINTS THAT WE CAN MAKE ON
THAT, AT THE MACRO SCALE, WE'D
LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SHARE
THE IMPACT OF THE CONSEQUENCES
OF TREATING UNSAFE HOUSING AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. THIS WEEK, I SPOKE WITH
A GRIEVING MOTHER WHO LOST HER
DAUGHTER IN THE GHOST SHIP FIRE
ON DECEMBER 2ND 2016. OUT OF
RESPECT FOR HER PRIVACY WILL
KEEP HER IDENTITY ANONYMOUS.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE HER PERMISSION
TO RELAY THE FOLLOWING MY
DAUGHTER WAS A VIBRANT SOUL WHO
LOVED HER COMMUNITY IN OAKLAND.
SHE WAS ONE OF THREE DOZEN
PEOPLE WHO PASSED AWAY IN THE
PREVENTABLE FIRE AT THE GHOST
SHIP WAREHOUSE. FOLLOWING HER
DEATH, I TOURED THE DILAPIDATED
WAREHOUSE AND SAW THE ALARMING
CONDITIONS THAT PEOPLE WERE
LIVING IN. I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW
DIFFICULT IT IS TO KNOW THAT
THAT IS WHERE MY DAUGHTER DIED.
I DON'T WISH TO ATTACK ANY OF
THE RESIDENTS OF THE WAREHOUSE
OR ANYONE WHO FINDS THEMSELVES
LIVING IN THESE HEARTBREAKING
CONDITIONS, BUT I DO URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION AND OTHER EFFORTS TO
PROTECT PEOPLE WHO FIND
THEMSELVES LIVING IN UNSAFE
CONDITIONS LIKE THOSE OF THE
GHOST SHIP FIRE. S¼ B 1465 IS
ABOUT FAIRNESS FOR CALIFORNIANS
WHO, THROUGH NÓ FAULT OF THEIR
OWN, HAVE HAD TO RESORT TO
LIVING IN BUILDINGS THAT HAVE
NOT BEEN ZONED RESIDENTIALLY.
DANGEROUS SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS
EXIST REGARDLESS OF ZONING. THE
STATUS QUO HURTS TENANTS AND THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES FIRST BY
A LACK OF PROPER INSPECTIONS AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT AND AGAIN BY
NOT ALLOWING TENANTS ACCESS TO
NEEDED RESOURCES WHEN UNSAFE
CONDITIONS ARE IDENTIFIED. BILL
1465 EMPOWERS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO DEAL WITH DILAPIDATED
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS USED AS HOUSING TO
PREVENT FUTURE TRAGEDIES LIKE
THE GHOST SHIP FIRE OR IS NOTED
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, LIKE
THE SHOOTINGS IN HALF MOON BAY.
FOR THESE REASONS AND MORE WE
URGE YOUR I VOTE TODAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FAITH. UM BROOKER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND
PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU. HONORABLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
. LARRY BROOKS, DIRECTOR OF
ALAMEDA COUNTY HEALTHY HOMES
DEPARTMENT, A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND I
SIMPLY URGE OR I VOTE ON THIS
BILL. HE HELP US TO HELP OTHERS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR BROOK. DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF S¼ 1465
HERE IN ROOM 1200. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, ANTHONY MOLI ON
BEHALF OF ANDREW MENDOZA FROM
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING
OFFICIALS IN SUPPORT ANDREWS
CURRENTLY AT JURY DUTY TODAY, SO
HE ASKED ME TO GIVE HIS
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SB 1465?
SEEN NONE WILL TURN TO ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1465. AND DO WE HAVE ANY ONE
HERE IN THE ROOM? IN OPPOSITION.
OK SEE YOU, THEN WE'LL BRING YOU
BACK TO THE DÍAS ANY QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS AND THEIR BIKES
HERE. YES, THANK YOU. VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE YOU ATTEMPTING TO
ADDRESS THE TRAGEDY OF THE GHOST
SHIP FIRE AND THE STORY OF THE
MOTHER AND TOURING THAT IT'S
REALLY HEARTBREAKING TO HEAR
THOSE STORIES AND REMEMBER THAT
TRAGEDY AND I IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT. I THINK WHAT THE THING
THAT I'M PREOCCUPIED BY AND I
JUST LIKE TO ASK IF YOU MY
ADDRESS IT. IS THAT WHAT THIS
WHAT YOUR BILL DOES IS IT ALLOWS
THAT ANY STRUCTURE THAT'S BEING
USED AS HOUSING WE DECLARED
SUBSTANDARD AND THEN A SERIES OF
THINGS WOULD START TO UNFOLD. I
AM CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE
BECOMING HOMELESS BECAUSE, FOR
EXAMPLE IN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL AREAS, A NUMBER OF
BUILDINGS HAVE KITCHENS AND THEY
HAVE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO REST,
AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE
ARE LIVING IN THOSE PLACES.
MAYBE NOT AT DENSITY AND SCALE,
BUT JUST HERE AND THERE AND THAT
THERE WOULD BE SOME, UM, YOU
KNOW THEY'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE
THEY NEED HOUSING AND THEY'RE
WHATEVER THEIR LIFE
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE HAVE RESULTED
IN THEM NEEDING TO STAY IN THAT
ENVIRONMENT AND WANTING TO UM
AND SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
NEIGHBOR TURNING IN THEIR
NEIGHBOR BECAUSE THIS IS THE
TYPE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT
YOU HAVE A LOT WITH ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS. IT'S THE
NEIGHBOR TURNS IN THE PERSON WHO
DOESN'T LIKE THE PARKING OR THEY
DON'T LIKE THE NOISE OR WHATEVER
. AND SO THEN THAT PERSON WHO'S
LIVING THERE IN THAT INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL SPACE ENDS UP
HOMELESS BECAUSE THE LANDLORD
BASICALLY KICKS THEM OUT AND
GETS INVOLVED IN THIS NEIGHBOR
DISPUTE. SO I WONDER IF YOU
COULD JUST ADDRESS THAT. HOW IS
HOW HOW ARE WE PREVENTING OF
PEOPLE LIVING INSIDE OF THESE
PLACES THAT MAYBE THEY THEY
DON'T MEET CODE BECAUSE THE
CEILING IS NOT HIGH ENOUGH OR,
YOU KNOW THINGS AREN'T UP TO
CODE. I MEAN, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY
. THINGS AREN'T UP TO CODE ONCE
THEY'RE BUILT BECAUSE THE CODE
IS ALWAYS BEING MODIFIED AND
CHANGING, AND WE HAVE ALL SORTS
OF THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THINGS
THAT YOU KNOW AREN'T REALLY
NECESSARILY CRITICAL TO HEALTH
AND SAFETY, AND IT'S BETTER THAT
SOMEONE IS LIVING INSIDE IN A IN
AN APARTMENT OR A SPACE THAN
THAT. THEY'RE LIVING OUTSIDE IN
A TENT. SO I JUST LIKE HEAR
ABOUT HOW THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED
. THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR YOUR
COMMENTS, AND I THINK WE ALL
HAVE TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING
WE'VE HEARD TODAY HAS TO DO WITH
HOUSING AND HELPING PEOPLE AND
SO ON. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS WE
HAVE TO BE PROACTIVE. SO THE
PERFECT SCENARIO WOULD BE THAT
THE CITY IS NOTIFIED THAT THIS
BUILDING THAT HAS, YOU KNOW
30,000 SQUARE FEET. UH, I'M
GONNA CONVERT IT INTO
RESIDENTIAL. THAT WOULD BE
PERFECT. SO THEN THE OWNER WOULD
MAYBE GET THE INSPECTOR AND
ARCHITECT AND SAY, HOW DO WE
SUBDIVIDE THIS AND GIVE IT
ADEQUATE? EVERYTHING RIGHT? THAT
WOULD BE THE PERFECT SCENARIO,
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS PEOPLE WILL
EITHER, UH, OCCUPY THE BUILDING
OR THE HOMEOWNER, UH OR THE
BUILDING OWNER WILL ALLOW PEOPLE
TO COME IN. AND YES, THAT CALL
SHOULD BE MADE. AND MAYBE IF
SOMEONE WOULD HAVE MADE THAT
CALL, WE WOULDN'T HEAR THAT
STORY. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
TRYING TO PREVENT ANY TRAGEDY
FROM HAPPENING AND TO PROTECT
PEOPLE AND TO MAKE IT EQUITABLE.
NOW, REMEMBER, THESE ARE NOT
THESE NOT LONG TERM HOUSING THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TEMPORARY. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HOUSING THAT GOD
WILLING, IS AROUND THE CORNER
THAT WILL BE HAPPENING BECAUSE
OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE, MENTAL ABUSE
, WHATEVER, AND WE ARE ALL
TRYING TO PUT THEM INTO THESE
PERMANENT HOUSING. SO SOME OF
THESE THINGS ARE JUST TEMPORARY.
BUT IN THAT, UH, LOCATION,
YOU'LL FIND THAT MAYBE THINGS
ARE OFF SO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO COME IN
AND TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THESE
THINGS THAT MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL
TO HEALTH AND THAT'S ALL IT DOES
. IT OPENS A DOOR FOR THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO GO IN
WORK WITH THE BUILDER, HOMEOWNER
, WHOEVER IT MIGHT BE THE
BUILDING OWNER AND TRY TO MAKE
IT AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE FOR THE
TERM THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE
TENANTS WILL BE THERE BECAUSE
THEY WILL BE TENANTS AND THEY DO
HAVE RIGHTS AND THEY SHOULD BE
TREATED WITH DIGNITY. AND IF
THERE'S AN ISSUE, THERE'S THE
OTHER THING. THAT A STORY?
THERE'S A PROBLEM IN A QUARTER
OF THE BUILDING. WELL THE THREE
QUARTERS, UH, ARE STILL WORKABLE
, SO THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO USE THAT. BUT THE, UH, THE
BUILDING OWNER WILL TAKE CARE OF
THAT ONE QUARTER THAT NEEDS SOME
RENOVATION OF SOME SORT, SO IT'S
A WIN WIN WHEN WE ARE CALLED TO
ABOUT TENANT PROTECTION AND
BEING THE HUMAN BEINGS THAT WE
SHOULD BE TO TRY TO PROTECT
EVERYONE AND JUST BECAUSE
THEY'RE IN IN A DIRE STRAITS,
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO
PUSH THEM ASIDE AND IGNORE THEM.
I THINK WE SHOULD STEP FORWARD
AND WHAT WE CAN TO HELP HIM AND
THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE BILL.
RIGHT I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF
THE BILL. I GUESS YOUR ANSWER. I
DIDN'T EXACTLY HEAR THAT IT WAS
RESPONSIVE TO MY QUESTION ABOUT
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION. I
WONDER IF THE SPONSORS MIGHT
WANT TO HELP ADDRESS THAT.
THAT'S REALLY I UNDERSTAND.
THERE ARE LOTS OF GREAT THINGS
HAPPENING WITH THE BILL. BUT MY
SPECIFIC QUESTION IS ABOUT THIS
BILL DRIVING MORE HOMELESSNESS.
SO CAN MAYBE THAT. WHAT DO YOU
THINK? THANK YOU FOR THAT. GOOD
QUESTION. UM THIS BILL SPECIFIC
TO SUBSTANDARD HOUSING, AND
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE
THERE COULD BE MANY REASONS A
BUILDING COULD BE DECLARED
SUBSTANDARD. I YOUR CONCERN IS
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A RED
TAG SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE
BEING EVICTED FROM A BUILDING
BECAUSE IT'S SO UNSAFE AND WE,
UM WENT THROUGH A LENGTHY
EXERCISE WITH THE COMMITTEE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT
HAPPENING FREQUENTLY. IN FACT,
MOST RED TAG BUILDINGS ARE FOR
WHERE THERE'S A FIRE THAT'S
OCCURRED WHERE OBVIOUSLY YOU
CANNOT PERMIT PEOPLE TO GO BACK
INSIDE FOR STRUCTURAL REASONS.
CODE ENFORCEMENT IS DONE WITH A
COMPLIANCE BASED EMPHASIS. WE
JUST WANT, YOU KNOW IF THERE'S
MOLD FOR THE MOLD TO BE TAKEN
OUT. IF THERE IS BAD WIRING
THAT'S YOU KNOW, COULD CAUSE A
FIRE FOR THAT TO BE. STUDIED
IT'S A LOT OF STEPS THAT WOULD
OCCUR BEFORE YOU WOULD SEE A RED
TAG SITUATION AND IN FACT, UNDER
CURRENT LAW, THE CONCERN IS THAT
IF ONE OF THESE UNPERMITTED
HOUSING BUILDINGS IS USED, WHAT
HAPPENS IS RIGHT NOW THE TENANT
WOULD BECOME HOMELESS BECAUSE
THEY HAVE NÓ TENANT PROTECTION
BECAUSE THE LANDLORD COULD THEN
SAY AT THAT TIME THIS IS THIS IS
NOT A HOUSING SITUATION. THESE
TENANT PROTECTIONS DON'T YOU
KNOW? APPLY HERE, THEN THAT
INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS FIRST, YOU
KNOW, HARMED BY BEING IN AN
UNSAFE SITUATION IS NOW HARMED
WITH NÓ ABILITY TO BE PROTECTED
BY ANY OF THE FANTASTIC LAWS
THAT WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA, SO
THIS IS ACTUALLY HOPING TO STEP
IN IN THAT SITUATION WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN HARM TO THE INDIVIDUAL
TWICE AND WE'RE DOING SO, UM,
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
COMMITTEE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING
VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR FRIENDS AT
THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION WITH
REALTORS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
NOT INADVERTENTLY LOOPING IN
GOOD LANDLORDS WHO MAY NOT KNOW
THAT SOMEONE'S IN THERE, UM,
BUILDING AND WE'VE WORKED ALL OF
THAT OUT. OUR CONCERNS HAVE
BEEN, UM THERE. THERE'S NÓ
CONCERN THERE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. SPECIFIC INSTANCE WHERE A
LANDLORD IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
SOMEBODY KNOWING THEY'RE UNSAFE
CONDITIONS AND THAT THEY CAN'T
REPORT THEM BECAUSE THE ONLY
THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO THAT
INDIVIDUAL IF THE SITUATION IS
SO BAD IS THAT THEN THEY'RE
HOMELESS. SO THIS BILL, IN FACT,
WOULD PREVENT THE CONCERN THAT
YOU'RE SPEAKING TO ANDY. I'M
SORRY. I APPRECIATE THE ANSWER.
AND I FEEL THAT WAS THAT THAT
WAS RESPONSIVE TO MY CONCERN. SO
THANK YOU. OK WELL, I JUST
WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE RED
TAG. I DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THAT.
IF THE BUILDING'S RED TAG NOBODY
SHOULD BE IN THERE PERIOD. SO
THIS IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE TAKE CARE OF AS MANY
PEOPLE AS WE CAN. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR I VOTE. DO
YOU HAVE ANY? UH, SENATOR
PADILLA? YES THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR JUST BRIEFLY. I APPRECIATE
THE VALUABLE DISCUSSION THE
POINTS RAISED BY MY ESTEEMED
COLLEAGUE AND I WOULD JUST SAY,
I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT
IT'S SORT OF AN INVERSE WAY TO
EXTEND PROTECTIONS, BOTH ON
TENANCY THAT WOULD NOT TYPICALLY
APPLY HERE, BUT ALSO FOR HAZARDS
AND NUISANCE AND OTHER THINGS. I
THINK THE AUTHORS INTENT HERE
IS, UM ADDRESSING SITUATIONS
WHERE FOLKS WHO ARE
INAPPROPRIATELY ZONED OR
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING FACILITIES
OR I USE THAT TERM LOOSELY
STRUCTURE, SO I'LL USE THAT TERM
MAIN FACT BE IN AS EQUAL OR
GREATER RISK OR HAZARD FROM A
HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDPOINT,
THAT THEY WOULD BE WHERE THEY
COMPLETELY UNSHELTERED AND
TRYING TO GET AT THOSE CASES.
ALSO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOME
OF THESE SCENARIOS. THERE IS
KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE
PROPERTY OWNER AND THERE'S
EXPLOITATION INVOLVED BASED ON
THE FACT THAT THEY KNOW THAT
THESE PROTECTIONS DON'T EXTEND
TO HOUSING THAT'S MISSED. THAT
IS BEING UTILIZED, YOU KNOW,
STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEING
UTILIZED FOR HOUSING THAT ARE,
IN FACT, NOT ZONED AS SUCH. I
THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE TRYING
TO GO. I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE
YOU, SENATOR TO TRY TO CONTINUE
TO WORK TO SHARPEN THE LANGUAGE
TO DRAW THAT DISTINCTION. BUT
BUT I DO SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO GO. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO
COMMENTS, RIGHT? I JUST HAVE,
UM, I THINK FOR ME IT'S JUST
CLARIFICATION. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF
THE BILL, BUT I AM JUST
CLARIFICATION. UM I KNOW THAT
YOU FOLKS WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS
THE PROBLEM WITH WAREHOUSES AND
FACTORY SPACES BEING USED, UM,
FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WHEN
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COMES IN
WITH THAT REQUIRE THE OWNERS OF
THE PROPERTIES TO SAY, UPGRADE
THE BUILDINGS TO A HOUSING LEVEL
OF RESIDENCE. UM ON THAT END,
WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF REQUIREMENT
OR BY THE LANDLORD, ESPECIALLY
IF THEY HAVE PEOPLE LIVING IN
THE IN IN THOSE WAREHOUSES, OR,
UM, WHERE HOUSES ARE. WHAT'S THE
OTHER ONE? SHIPPING CONTAINERS
ARE LOOSELY DEFINED STRUCTURE IS
WHAT THE BILL APPLIES TO AND
THANK YOU FOR THAT GOOD QUESTION
AS WELL. WE WERE SPECIFIC THAT
THERE ARE SEVERAL INSTANCES YOU
AGAIN MAY HAVE AN INSTANCE THAT
ORIGINALLY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
WERE CONCERNED. YOU MAY HAVE
SOMEONE TRESPASSING ON PROPERTY
AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO YOU THEN
HAVE TO REHAB THE BUILDING THAT
THEY WERE NEVER INTENDING TO BE
USED AS HOUSING. SO WE HAVE
CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE WITHIN
THE BILL THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT
ISN'T MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY
ENFORCEMENT, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING
ANY UPDATES IF THE LANDLORD IS
DECLARING THAT THAT PERSON
SHOULDN'T BE THERE. THERE'S
USUALLY AN ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW,
FOLLOW A TRAIL AND SAY THIS IS
ACTUALLY A TENANT. UM A LAWFUL
TENANT. IF YOU WILL, THAT'S
OCCUPYING THE PLACE. UM THE
QUESTION AT HAND SPECIFICALLY
WAS ABOUT IF THERE'S SO WHETHER
OR NOT WHEN THE LEVEL OF
RESPONSIBILITY BY THE LANDLORDS
IF THEY OWN WAREHOUSES AND OR
WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE? SORRY. YOU
RESTORED MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. I
THINK I GOT DOCTORY SPACES, SO
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY NOT DWELLING
AREAS, SO IF PEOPLE ARE FOUND TO
BE LIVING IN THOSE AREAS WOULD
THE LANDLORD BE REQUIRED TO
CONVERT THOSE AREAS INTO ACTUAL
RESIDENTIAL FIT CALIBER OF
BUILDINGS FOR PURPOSES OF THE
BILL DEALING WITH SUBSTANDARD
THINGS, SO THINGS THAT ARE
TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, RODENT
INFESTATIONS OR BLACK MOLD OR
THINGS THAT ARE UNSAFE. A
SAGGING BUILDING. UM, WE AGAIN
COMPLIANCE IS THE GOAL TO WORK
WITH THE LANDLORD TO BE ABLE TO
REACH COMPLIANCE, UM, TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT BUILDING IS SAFE.
BUT IF IT IS, YOU KNOW
COMPLETELY UNSAFE LIKE WE SAW
WITH THE GHOST SHIP FIRE WHERE
THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE LIVING
THERE THAT THEY YOU KNOW,
RUNNING EXTENSION CORDS THROUGH
WALLS AND DRILLING HOLES TO TRY
TO, YOU KNOW, GET ELECTRICITY
SOMEWHERE. THEY'RE NOT PROPER
LAVATORIES, OR, UM, HEATING
THINGS OF THAT NATURE BUILDINGS
WERE NEVER CONCEIVED. THAT WAY.
WE WOULD BE TRYING TO BRING THAT
INTO COMPLIANCE. UM SO I GUESS
MORE MORE CLARITY ON THAT IF THE
BUILDINGS ARE ZONED FOR, SAY,
WAREHOUSES OR, UM, FACTORY
SPACES THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR BRINGING THAT BUILDING UP TO
THE STANDARD OF WAREHOUSES AND
IN FACTORIES, NOT NECESSARILY TO
A RESIDENTIAL, UH, LEVEL OF
STANDARDS OF LIVING IF THEY
WANTED TO USE THE BUILDING AS
HOUSING, AND MR BROOKS CAN SPEAK
TO THIS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THEN WE WOULD BE WANTING TO
ENFORCE HOUSING STANDARDS AGAIN.
THINGS LIKE PROPER LAVATORIES,
HEATING, COOLING THOSE THINGS
THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, UM, FOR
LAWS FOR GOOD REASON FOR THAT,
BUT MOST LANDLORDS ARE NOT
WANTING TO RENT OUT COMMERCIAL
SPACES RIGHT NOW AS HOUSING, UM,
THE ONES THAT ARE TYPICALLY
DOING IT OR DOING SO AND IN A
FASHION THAT'S EXPLOITING PEOPLE
WHO THAT'S ALL THAT THEY CAN
AFFORD AND NOT PROVIDING ANY OF
THOSE BASIC THINGS THAT WE
REQUIRE AGAIN LIKE HEATING, OR,
UM, MAKING SURE THERE'S NÓ
INFESTATIONS IN ORDER TO LIVE
THERE AND I THINK TO SPEAK TO
THE POINT OF THE QUESTION
BECAUSE CODE ENFORCEMENT IS
LARGELY COMPLAINT BASED,
OFTENTIMES IF SOMEBODY WAS
LIVING IN A WAREHOUSE, UM,
BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THEY COULD
AFFORD. THEY WOULD NOT CALL CODE
ENFORCEMENT ON THEMSELVES. MOST
PEOPLE WHEN THEY HAVE A
CHALLENGE THAT IS SUBSTANDARD.
TALKING TO THE PREMISE OF THE
BILL, YOU KNOW, THEY PLUG IN
THEIR OUTLETS, AND EVERY TIME
THEY DO, THERE ARE SPARKS
FLYING. TYPICALLY A PERSON
REACHES OUT TO THEIR LANDLORD.
THAT'S THE ENGAGEMENT THAT
HAPPENS, THE LANDLORD ENGAGES
WITH THE TENANT. IF A LANDLORD
IS COMPLETELY REFUSING TO DO TO
ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT THE
TENANT HAS SAID, YOU KNOW, IS
MAKING THEM FEEL UNSAFE. SO
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT USUALLY
PRETTY HARSH LIVING REALITIES.
THEN CODE ENFORCEMENT IS
TYPICALLY WHERE WE'RE CALLED,
UM, AND AT THAT TIME BECAUSE THE
TENANT HAS HAD NÓ LUCK. WITH THE
LANDLORD ADDRESSING THEIR SAFETY
CONCERNS, BUT IF IT WAS THIS
TYPE OF A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE
SOMEONE KNOWS THIS IS WHAT THEY
CAN AFFORD. THEY'RE JUST ISN'T
EVEN THE RESOURCES FOR CODE
ENFORCEMENT TO BE GOING AROUND.
YOU KNOW, TO EVERY BUILDING.
IT'S REALLY IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT'S
ELEVATED WHERE SOMEONE FEELS
THAT THEY'RE SAFETY, THE SAFETY
OF THEIR CHILDREN IS AT RISK
CONTINUING TO LIVE THERE, AND I
THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART I
THINK THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED TO
HIGHLIGHT THE DIFFERENCE IS THE
FACT THAT YOU ARE, UM THIS WOULD
REQUIRE MORE RESPONSIBILITY IF A
TENT OR A BUILDING OWNER IS
KNOWINGLY LEASING THE SPACE THAT
IS NOT DEEMED RESIDENTIAL TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING IT UP TO
CODE TO THAT STANDARD. BUT IF
PEOPLE ARE JUST SAY, SQUATTING
IN IN THOSE IN THOSE BUILDINGS,
AND THE OWNER IS NOT INTENDING
THAT TO BE USED OR LEASED, THEN
THEY WOULD JUST BE REQUIRED TO
PUT IT UP TO CODE TO THE
STANDARDS OF THE WAREHOUSE. AND
THE IF THERE WAS A PROPERTY
OWNER WHO HAD SOMEONE WHO WAS
SQUATTING IN THEIR BUILDING CODE
ENFORCEMENT WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED
AT ALL. THIS BILL DOESN'T
TRIGGER THEN THAT'S A SITUATION
WHERE YOU HAVE AN ISSUE OF
TRESPASSING THEY WOULD BE WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT AT THAT PART AT
THAT POINT, SO THEY'RE DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES. VERY VERY WELL.
WELL THANK YOU. AND I MAY ADD
MADAM CHAIR THAT THE PERFECT
SCENARIO AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO AS CLOSE TO IT AS
WE CAN. THE LANDLORD PROPERTY
OWNER WOULD BE NOTIFIED AND HE
WOULD WALK THROUGH THE BUILDING
WITH THE INSPECTOR AND WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SANITARY CONDITIONS BECAUSE
THEY ARE GOING TO BE TEMPORARY,
SO WE DON'T EXPECT THEM TO
REMODEL IT, BUT JUST MAKE IT
SAFE AND SANITARY. AND IT
CONFORMS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
WITHIN THE LAW. AND IF WE CAN DO
THAT WE CAN KEEP THE TENANTS
SAFE UNTIL OTHER AGENCIES TAKE
OVER AND MOVE THEM. AND WITH
THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A MOTION. MOVE
IT. OK? UM SO WE HAVE A MOTION
PASSES AMEND. JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE DO A ROLL CALL.
SENATOR SKINNER SKINNER. I Ó
BUG I, A CHUG A BLAKESPEAR.
CABALLERO. EVER I CORTESI
CORTESI, A MANJAR PAD PAD A
SERATO. UMBERG WAHAB. A èC ZERO
ON CALL. ALL RIGHT. THE BILL
RIGHT NOW IS 50. WE'LL KEEP IT
ON CALL FOR OUR MISSING MEMBERS.
AND WE WILL GO TO THANK YOU,
SENATOR. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND WE WILL GO TO ITEM SIX. S¼ B
120 THREE, SENATOR CABALLERO.
GET TO SIT IN THE GALLERY. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
S¼ B 1120 THREE, WHICH BILLS ON
WORK THAT I DID LAST YEAR TO
STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR
COMMUNITIES TO BUILD SMALL SCALE
, MORE AFFORDABLE INFILL
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECTS, THE HIGH
COST OF HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND
THE REGULATORY DELAY HAS
CONTRIBUTED TO THE STATE'S
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS BECAUSE
SUPPLY IS JUST NOT KEEPING UP
WITH DEMAND. THIS CONSTRUCTION
GRIDLOCK CONTINUES TO DRIVE UP
HOUSING COSTS AND DOWN
CALIFORNIA'S HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES
AND, UH, MADAM CHAIR YOU SPOKE
ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THIS IN ANOTHER
COMMITTEE. TODAY WE'RE ALL
LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS TO BE ABLE
TO SOLVE, OR AT LEAST REDUCE THE
AFFORDABILITY ISSUE. THIS
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS HAS BECOME
SO EXTREME THAT HOMES NOW COST
MORE THAN 8.5 TIMES THE AVERAGE
FAMILY SALARY VERSUS ONLY 2.5
TIMES IN THE EARLY 19 SEVENTIES,
JUST LIKE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
HAS DRIVEN HOME OWNERSHIP RATES
DOWN. COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
LOCAL PLANNING RULES HAVE ALSO
CREATED BARRIERS TO
HOMEOWNERSHIP. MANY COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE HAVE
ENACTED POLICIES THAT RESTRICT
DENSER DEVELOPMENT IN SINGLE
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH
PREVENTS THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SMALLER STARTER HOMES WORKING
FAMILIES CAN AFFORD. THE
AMERICAN DREAM OF HOME OWNERSHIP
IS NOW OUT OF REACH FOR MANY
CALIFORNIA FAMILIES, ESPECIALLY
FAMILIES OF COLOR TO ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES. LAST YEAR, I
INTRODUCED SB 684 TO STREAMLINE
THE SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SCALE
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECTS OF UP TO
10 UNITS OVER THE COURSE OF THE
FALL. I HEARD AND SO THAT BILL
WAS PASSED AND SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR AND OVER THE COURSE OF
THE FALL. I HEARD FROM A VARIETY
OF STAKEHOLDERS ON THE NEED TO
INCLUDE A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT
TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING CHANGES
. S¼ B 1120 THREE, INCORPORATES
THE FEEDBACK THAT I RECEIVED IN
ORDER TO IMPROVE S¼ B 684.
SPECIFICALLY THIS BILL WILL
CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF
HABITABLE SQUARE FEET RELATED TO
THE HOUSING SIDE. SIDE SIZE
ALLOW HOUSING UNITS TO BE PART
OF A TENANCY IN COMMON AND
CLARIFY THAT WHEN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS, THEY DON'T COUNT
TOWARDS THE S¼ B 684 PROJECT 10
UNIT CAP THAT IT'S SEPARATE AND
APART FROM THAT ADDITIONALLY, SB
1123 REESTABLISHES THE
SUBDIVISION AND PROJECT
STREAMLINING BENEFITS FOR SMALL
PROJECTS OF 10 UNITS OR LESS ON
VACANT PARCEL ZONE FOR SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THIS, UM WAS, UM THE BILL
HAD GONE THROUGH ALL THE POLICY
COMMITTEES WENT TO A PROBES, AND
YOU KNOW HOW THINGS MAGICALLY
DISAPPEAR IN APPROACH. UM THE
ABILITY TO DO THIS KIND OF
CONSTRUCTION ON, UM, PARCELS
ZONED SINGLE FAMILY WAS
ELIMINATED, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL. QUITE
FRANKLY, YOU CAN DO IT ON HIGHER
DENSITY ZONED LAND. BUT THIS THE
REAL PURPOSE OF THIS BILL WAS
FOR SINGLE FAMILY. HOMES SO I'M
BACK TO ADD THAT BACK IN AGAIN
AND WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL AS FRANCES
MARTI WITH THE CALIFORNIA YIMBY
AND ADAM BON IS WITH CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BUILDERS. GREAT YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SHARE.
THANK YOU. CHAIR SKINNER,
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS FRANCESCO MARTI, AND I'M
THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY
AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT
CALIFORNIA, YMB AT GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION WITH OVER 80,000
MEMBERS DEDICATING DEDICATED TO
ENSURING THAT CALIFORNIA IS A
PLACE OF ABUNDANT, SECURE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL TODAY
, I STAND BEFORE YOU TO EXPRESS
OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR SB 1100.
THREE AUTHORED BY SENATOR
CABALLERO HAS B 1120. THREE
BUILDS ON THE PROGRESS MADE LAST
YEAR BY S¼ B 684. IT IMPROVES
THE STREAMLINING OF STAR HOMES
AND IT EXTENDED TO VACANT
PARCELS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES.
THIS BILL REPRESENTS A STEP
FORWARD IN OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORT
TO COMBAT CALIFORNIA'S SEVERE
HOUSING SHORTAGE, WHICH
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS LOW
INCOME FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR. IN CALIFORNIA. THE
DREAM OF HOMEOWNERSHIP HAS
BECOME INCREASINGLY ELUSIVE. IN
2020. THE AVERAGE HOME COST WAS
8.5 TIMES A FAMILY'S ANNUAL
SALARY THAT PUT HOMEOWNERSHIP
OUT OF REACH FOR MANY AND
EXACERBATES THE RATIO WEALTH
GAP. THIS BILL ADDRESSES THESE
CHALLENGES HEAD ON BY
FACILITATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SMALLER, MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES
IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY
NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S NOT JUST
ABOUT BUILDING HOUSES, IT'S
ABOUT BUILDING COMMUNITIES,
FOSTERING DIVERSITY AND
PROMOTING ECONOMIC MOBILITY FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS. IN ADDITION TO
EXTENDING SB 684 STREAMLINING
TWO SINGLE FAMILIES OWNED VACANT
LOTS. THIS BILL ADDS CLARITY TO
MAKE IMPLEMENTATION MORE
EFFECTIVE. FOR INSTANCE, IT
ENSURES THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS A WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST
THE MAXIMUM 10 UNIT COUNT IN THE
BILL. A TENDENCY IN COMMON
BUILDINGS ARE ELIGIBLE PROJECTS,
AND IT ALSO ENSURES THAT
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST CAN MAKE
USE OF THIS BILL. SO ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA EMB I URGE YOU TO
VOTE I ON SB 1120 THREE. LET'S
WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE A
CALIFORNIA THAT WELCOMES
EVERYBODY WHERE EVERY PERSON HAS
THE CHANCE TO LIVE IN SAFE,
AFFORDABLE HOME IN A THRIVING
COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND CONSIDERATION, AND I'M
ALSO JOINED HERE BY MY COLLEAGUE
AARON ECKHOUSE. SHOULD THERE BE
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL?
DOING GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
ADAM BIONIS AND I'M èC E Ó OF
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BUILDERS, A
NONPROFIT WORKING TO CLOSE THE
RACIAL WEALTH GAP FOCUSING ON
HOUSING AND HOME OWNERSHIP. AS
AN ORGANIZATION LED BY AND
SERVING PEOPLE OF COLOR. I'M
HERE TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
SB 1120 THREE. CALIFORNIA FACES
A HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
THAT HAS SLAMMED THE DOOR SHUT
ON HOME OWNERSHIP FOR MILLIONS,
WHILE S¼ P 1120 THREE AND SMALL
LOT HOMES WILL NOT FIX OUR
HOUSING HOUSING PRODUCTION
CRISIS ON ITS OWN BY BUILDING ON
S¼ P 684. THIS BILL WILL
EXPEDITE MORE HOMES THAT ARE
LOWER COST AND MORE ACCESSIBLE
TO FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS BY
ENABLING THE PRODUCTION OF
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TOWN
HOMES ON LOTS THAT ARE SMALLER
AND LESS EXPENSIVE. THIS IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE CALIFORNIA'S
MEDIAN LOT SIZE IS ABOUT 8000
SQUARE FEET AND RESEARCH HAS
FOUND THAT LAND COSTS MAKE UP
ABOUT 50 TO 60% OF THE PRICE OF
A HOME IN PLACES LIKE LOS
ANGELES, SAN DIEGO, SAN JOSE AND
SAN FRANCISCO. THE MATH DRIVING
S¼ P 1120 THREE IS SIMPLE. A
HOME THAT COMES WITH LESS LAND
WILL COST LESS. MANY FAMILIES
WANT AND CAN AFFORD A LARGE HOME
WITH A LARGE BACKYARD. THOSE
FAMILIES HAVE PLENTY OF OPTIONS
IN TODAY'S MARKET, BUT FAR TOO
MANY CAN'T BUY A HOME AT ALL,
BECAUSE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS DON'T
EXIST. MANY FAMILIES AND I WOULD
ARGUE MANY MORE FAMILIES OF
COLOR WOULD LOVE TO BUY A HOME
WITH LESS LAND IF THAT MADE THE
AMERICAN DREAM OF HOME OWNERSHIP
POSSIBLE FOR THEM, S¼ P 1120
THREE DOES JUST THAT. MAKING
THESE TYPES OF HOMES MUCH MORE
COMMON, GIVING DIVERSE FAMILIES
A GREATER DIVERSITY OF HOUSING
CHOICES. ORGANIZATION IS DEEPLY
INVESTED IN THIS TOPIC BECAUSE
HOMEOWNERSHIP IS THE WAY IN
WHICH MOST AMERICANS BUILD
INTERGENERATIONAL WEALTH. ONLY
FOUR IN 10, BLACK AND LATINO
CALIFORNIANS OWN THEIR OWN HOME,
COMPARED TO SIX IN 10 WHITE
CALIFORNIANS, WE CAN DO BETTER.
HOME OWNERSHIP IS A BROADLY
SHARED VALUE IN CALIFORNIA, AND
THIS WILL REPRESENT ONE
IMPORTANT STEP IN IN CREATING
THE IMPORTANT ADMITTEDLY
TECHNICAL CHANGES NEEDED TO
PRODUCE LOWER COST FOR SALE,
HOUSING AND MAKING THAT SHARED
VALUE A REALITY. THERE ARE NÓ
SILVER BULLETS WHEN IT COMES TO
ADDRESSING CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING
AND HOME OWNERSHIP CRISIS, BUT
S¼ 1123 CREATES AN IMPORTANT
TOOL FOR BUILDING MORE
AFFORDABLE HOMES AND BUILDING
WEALTH FOR EVERYDAY CALIFORNIANS
. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION, AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE
IF THERE'S ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT ANY ADD ONS. HELLO
SEAMUS GARTY WITH LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UM, HERE FOR
HABITAT. HUMANITY CALIFORNIA
SPUR AND BUILD CASA IN SUPPORT.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S
SEE IF THERE'S OPPOSITION. OH,
AYE. YOU'RE LUCKY TODAY. ALL
RIGHT? NÓ OPPOSITION. UM ANY
COMMENTS OR MOTION FROM THE
COMMITTEE HERE. I'M LOOKING FOR
A MOTION. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.
OK I'VE GOT A MOTION FROM
SENATOR CORTESE SEE NÓ HANDS. I
WILL ALLOW YOU TO CLOSE SENATOR
CABALLERO. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE TO THE EXCELLENT
, SO LET'S DO A ROLL CALL AND A
MOTION IS TO PASS THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. SENATOR
SKINNER SKINNER, I OTRO BOGUE.
BLAKESPEAR CABALLERO HØI. EVER I
CORTESI CORTESI, I MENJIVAR
MANJAR IP AM AMBER. S¼ AMBERG
WAHAB. IS THERE ONE CALL ALL THE
BILLS GOT 50. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON
CALL. MAYBE SHOULD WE REOPEN THE
ROLE? THERE ARE SOME. I WASN'T
ON ONE BILL, AND MAYBE SENATOR
CABALLERO WASN'T ON A BILL.
WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR SENATOR
UMBERG, SO LET'S JUST YEAH,
LET'S DO THAT START FROM THE
TOP. YEAH. PERFECT. THIS IS S¼ B
1187 BY SENATOR MCGUIRE. THE
CURRENT VOTE IS 7 TO 0 WITH THE
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR VOTING I
CABRERO CABRERO. I AM BURKE
WAHAB. 80 OK? THIS IS S¼ B 10 Ó
SEVEN BY SENATOR BRADFORD. THE
CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 0, UH,
SENATOR SKINNER. HØI SKINNER, I
LATRO BOGUE. CABRERO CABRERO, I
SARTO. BG WAHAB 60. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT BILL ON CALL AT
6 TO 0 AT THE MOMENT. IS S¼ 1438
BY SENATOR OLO. THE CURRENT VOTE
IS 2 TO 5 WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
NOW AND THE VICE CHAIR. VOTING
I, SENATOR CABALLERO. BG WILL
SEE IT 2 TO 5. RIGHT. THAT BILL
WILL STILL LEAVE ON CALL. AND
THIS IS S¼ 1465 BY SENATOR
ARCHULETA. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 5
TO 0 WITH THE CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR. VOTING I, SENATOR
BLAKESPEAR. MENJIVAR MENJIVAR A
CTO UMBERG WAHAB. 6 TO 0. ALL
RIGHT. THAT VOTE RIGHT NOW SEEKS
TO ZERO, BUT WE ARE LEAVING IT
OPEN. JUST THE NÓ. I DON'T THINK
WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE. THAT'S OK.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE ARE WAITING FOR
AN AUTHOR CG. WE'RE ALSO WAITING
FOR UH, A COUPLE MEMBERS TO
RETURN. TO BE ABLE TO CLOSE OUT
THESE VOTES. I'LL RUN IT BACK TO
A JUDICIAL SAID HE'D COME WHEN I
GET OVER. EXCELLENT, GREAT. AND
SHOULD BE SO. YOU ASK YOU ON A
BRIEF RECESS TO SO IF I DO START
TO EAT, AND THEN WE SURE THERE.
HØI SENATOR UMBERG. WE'VE JUST
HEARD IT WILL BE DOWN IN A
MINUTE. SOON AS SENATOR
CABALLERO GETS UP THERE HE WILL
COME DOWN.
LET HER GO. ON THE COMMITTEE.
SHE SHOULD HAVE GONE OUT THAT
WAY. SENATOR CAVIAR. YOU CAN GO
OUT THIS WAY. YOUR OWN
COMMITTEE. GET STRAIGHT TO THE
MEMBER'S ELEVATOR AND GO RIGHT
TO UM GUMMY PARTS RIGHT NOW, I
KNOW.
THEY'RE A LOT FASTER. THIS WAY.
GO THROUGH THAT HALLWAY. YOU GO
THROUGH THAT HALLWAY SHOULD BY
EVERYBODY. COME TO MY.
WELL WOULD IT HELP IF I TURN MY
MIC ON? YES WE WILL LET YOU
PRESENT ON S¼ P SKINNER. LET ME
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
CERTAINLY NOT NOT NOT ONLY FOR
BOTH HERE AS WELL AS IN SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, UH, I WANT
TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF IN
PARTICULAR MADE YOU, UH, TAYAR,
WHO I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS
HER LAST HEARING THAT I'M
WONDERING WHETHER IT WAS BECAUSE
OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BILLS
THAT CAUSED HER TO DECIDE THAT
SHE COULD FIND PAST YEARS, BUT
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM I'M
HERE TO PRESENT S¼ B 900, WHICH
PERTAINS TO HEALTH AND SAFETY IN
COMPLEXES GOVERNED BY HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS AND THEIR BOARDS.
THIS BILL WAS GENERATED BY AN
EVENT THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN
MY DISTRICT WHERE A VERY LARGE
CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WAS WITHOUT
GAS. THUS THEY COULD NOT
BASICALLY BATHE OR COOK FOR, UM
100 DAYS OR MORE, AND THERE WAS
THIS CRAZY SITUATION WHERE NÓ
ONE WAS RESPONSIBLE. SO WITH
THIS DOES IT HOLDS THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD
RESPONSIBLE? THEY'VE GOT TO FIX
IT WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF NOT, THEY
CAN BE SUED. AND THEN IF SUED
THEN THEN THE ENTITY FILING THE
LAWSUIT IS ENTITLED TO THEIR
ATTORNEY'S FEES. UM, THIS IS A
DIFFICULT SITUATION, AND I'M I'M
WELL AWARE OF THE FACT BY SUING
THE HOMEOWNERS BOARD. IN SOME
SENSE, YOU'RE ALMOST SUING
YOURSELF. BUT IF THE BOARD WON'T
ACT, AND THEY'RE IN A POSITION
OF PARALYSIS WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T
GET EXAMPLE. HOT WATER. THEY
CAN'T COOK. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO DO
SOMETHING. UM, AND IF NECESSARY,
THEN THEN THE BOARD NEED TO BE
REPLACED. I URGE AND I VOTE.
GREAT LET'S SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. I MEAN,
I'M THE WITNESS. OK, GOOD. AND
YOU INDICATED. YOUR MAIN WITNESS
IN OPPOSITION IS NOT HERE. BUT I
SEE. OH THE MAIN THERE IS A
WITNESS IN OPPOSITION. BEEN
WAITING PATIENTLY GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. YEAH.
MY NAME IS TOM. SIR I'M ON THE
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION LAW, WHICH IS A
NONPROFIT 501. èC THREE THAT
PROTECTS THE CONSUMER AND CIVIL
RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNERS
STATEWIDE. WE ARE HERE TO SPEAK
FOR HOMEOWNERS. SOME OF WHOM
HAVE TRIED RECENTLY TO WEIGH IN
ON THE BILL, BUT REPORT TO US
THAT THEIR PHONE CALLS TO
VARIOUS SENATE OFFICES HAVE NOT
BEEN TAKEN SERIOUSLY. SO WE'RE
HERE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.
AND ON THEIR BEHALF. WE OPPOSE
THE BILL BECAUSE NUMBER ONE IT
IMPOSES NEW HEAVY COSTS ON THOSE
WHO ARE LEAST ABLE TO AFFORD
THEM. THAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNERS. AND IT ELIMINATES
THE HOMEOWNERS' ABILITY TO HOLD
RESPONSIBLE. THE PARTY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE THAT
IS TYPICALLY THE UTILITIES. UH,
IN ADDITION, HOMEOWNERS WOULD
UNLIKELY UH, WOULD BE UNLIKELY
TO HAVE ACCESS TO ANY INSURANCE.
TO EVEN PROTECT THEMSELVES
AGAINST THIS POTENTIALLY HUGE
NEW LIABILITY. THAT'S THE FIRST
POINT SECOND POINT. THIS IS A
HUGE GIFT. EVERY UTILITY IN
CALIFORNIA BY INSULATING THESE
UTILITIES FROM ANY FORM OF
RESPONSIBILITY, KEEPING IN MIND
THAT THE UTILITY IS THE PARTY
WITH THE MOST RESOURCES AND THE
EXPERTISE TO FIX ANY PROBLEMS
WITH UTILITY LINES. THIRDLY, THE
BILL EXTENDS AND OFTEN ABUSED,
TAXING POWER OF HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION BOARDS. KNOWN AS THE
EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT. AND IT
EXPANDS IT TO A WHOLE NEW CLASS.
OF SITUATIONS, QUOTE THREATS TO
HEALTH. IT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE
MAIN THINGS THAT THIS BILL DOES
IS IT ADDS THREATS TO HEALTH AS
A GROUND FOR IMPOSING AN
EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT. THE BILL
DOES NOT DEFINE THAT TERM. HE
DOES NOT INDICATE WHO DETERMINES
THAT A THREAT TO HEALTH EXISTS.
AND KEEP IN MIND THAT EMERGENCY
ACCESS LIKE UNLIKE ALL OTHER
ASSESSMENTS ARE UNLIMITED. AND
THERE'S NÓ INPUT FROM HOMEOWNERS
. HOMEOWNERS HAVE NÓ SAY ABOUT
THIS. IT CAN BE IMPOSED BY THE
BOARD ALONE, AND WE'VE SEEN THIS
POWER ABUSED IN A NUMBER OF
SITUATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
AND FINALLY THE BILL ATTEMPTS TO
REGULATE PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHERE
THERE'S ALREADY A STATE AGENCY
KNOWN AS THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION. THAT
RIGHTS AND ENFORCES A HIGHLY
COMPLEX REGULATORY SCHEME,
MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND
LIABILITY. YOU ARE SHARING THE
TIME WITH YOUR OTHER KEY, AND
THE TOTAL TIME IS FIVE MINUTES
AND YOU'RE THERE'S TWO MINUTES
REMAINING TWO MINUTES I'M DONE
ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS. WE
ASKED FOR A NÓ VOTE. CHAIR
SKINNER AND MEMBERS JENNIFER WAA
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY
MANAGERS. THEY'RE THE
PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS OF COMMON
INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS. WE
CURRENTLY HAVE AN OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION ON THE BILL.
UH, WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THAT 30 DAY TIMELINE. WE
CERTAINLY AGREE THAT THIS
SITUATION SHOULDN'T BE REPEATED
AND THERE SHOULD BE SOLUTIONS IN
PLACE. HOWEVER. FOR EXAMPLE, ON
THE 30 DAYS, UM, GETTING AN
EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT ALONE
REQUIRES NOTICE TO HOMEOWNERS
AND IT REQUIRES A 30 DAY NOTICE.
SO WE JUST THINK THAT THERE
NEEDS AND THEN IN ADDITION TO
THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE
INSPECTIONS MADE TO EVEN
DETERMINE YOU KNOW, THE MOST
COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REPAIR AND
REPLACE SO WE, UM, HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THAT. WE ALSO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT PLACING ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY ON THE ASSOCIATION IN
ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, REGARDLESS OF
THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND
REGARDLESS OF THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE UTILITY.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE DO HAVE
AN OPPOSING LESS AMENDED
POSITION ON THE BILL. WE ALSO
SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
AFFORDABILITY AT THE TIME WHERE
HOMEOWNERS ARE FACING, YOU KNOW,
EXTREME INCREASES EVERYWHERE YOU
ALL KNOW ABOUT THE INSURANCE
PREMIUM INCREASES THAT
HOMEOWNERS AND ASSOCIATIONS ARE
FACING. SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR
BALANCE. UM WE WANNA THANK THE
AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF FOR
CERTAINLY BEING WILLING TO HAVE
DISCUSSIONS AS THIS BILL MOVES
FORWARD. GREAT. ALL RIGHT, ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT WE'VE ALREADY
THERE WERE NÓ WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. MS.
SENATOR WBB. THANK YOU. I'LL
MOVE THE BILL. OK UM, I
UNDERSTAND SENATOR UMBERG THAT
YOU ARE CONSIDERING SOME AMENDS
AMENDMENTS, POTENTIALLY TO
ADDRESS OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS
AND THE BILL. WE DON'T HAVE
AMENDS THAT WE ARE IN, UH,
INVOLVING IN THIS COMMITTEE. BUT
IT DOES GO TO JUD. NEXT THAT IT
THAT IS THE MOTION TO MOVE TO A
JUDICIAL SO IF YOU WANT TO. I'M
HAPPY TO TALK WITH THE JUDICIARY
CHAIR ABOUT WHATEVER. SO UM, NÓ
AND I. I DON'T WANNA MAKE LIGHT
THERE. THERE ARE CONCERNS AND I
UNDERSTAND THOSE CONCERNS. UM,
I'M NOT SURE THAT SOME OF THE
COMMENTS PERTAIN TO THIS BILL
DOESN'T UTILITIES OFF THE HOOK
IN ONE IN ONE SENSE OR ANOTHER
AT ALL. IT IS THIS UNIQUE
SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT A
BREAKDOWN IN, YOU KNOW, NÓ ONE
IS RESPONSIBLE. AND SO THE
RESULT IS NOTHING HAPPENS AND AS
A POLICY, THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA CANNOT BE IN A
POSITION WHERE THERE NÓ, FOR
EXAMPLE, GAS. THE GAS COMPANY IS
NOT RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THEY'RE
ONLY RESPONSIBLE UP TO THE
COMPLEXES BASICALLY EDGE AND
IT'S THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
AND THE MANAGEMENT. SOMEBODY'S
GOT TO DO SOMETHING, AND WE
SIMPLY SAY, I'M SORRY THERE'S NÓ
FIX. SO, YOU POOR PEOPLE, YOU
KNOW, YOU GOTTA GUT IT OUT AT 24
HOUR FITNESS. SO ANYWAY, UH AND
I VOTE. OK GREAT. SO WE HAVE A
MOTION AND IT IS DUE PASS TO
JUDICIARY AND WE WILL TAKE ROLL
CALL. BROKE UP. AND SENATOR
SKINNER, AY SKINNER IY LATRO
BUG. SHAKESPEARE OH, NÓ NÓ
BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR A
CABALLERO CORTEZ CORTEZ. I
MANJAR MANAR I PAD PAD A CTO CTO
NÓ UMBERG UMBERG IW. WILL HAVE.
I ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME OPEN THE
ROLE. UM SENATOR ROB AND SENATOR
UMBERGER. THERE'S A COUPLE OF
BILLS FOR YOU ALSO. TO ADD ON
TO, SO LET'S OPEN THE ROLL
AGAIN. UH, THIS IS S¼ P 1187 BY
SENATOR MCGUIRE. CURRENT VOTE IS
8 TO 0 SENATOR UMBERG UMBERG AY,
WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. THAT'S 10 TO
0. FILL US OUT. ALL RIGHT, SO S¼
B 180 7-ELEVEN 87 IS OUT 10 TO 0
OK, NEXT ONE THIS IS S¼ VÆ ONE,
Ó SEVEN BY SENATOR BRADFORD.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO 0,
SENATOR OCHO. THE TO NÓ èC R Tð
NÓ UMBERG HUMBERG I WAHAB. AYE,
WAHAB. AYE. AND IS HE TO AND
THAT BILL IS OUT? STATE THAT THE
VOTE AGAIN PLEASE. UH, THE
CURRENT VOTE. THE FINAL VOTE IS
8 TO 1. RIGHT? S¼ B 10. 1007 IS
10 TO 1 AND THE BILL IS UP. 8 TO
18 TO 1. EXCUSE ME. SO YOU JUST
SAY THAT LOUDER WHEN YOU FINISH,
OK, GO AHEAD. THIS IS S¼ P 1438
BY SENATOR NELO. THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 2 TO 5, SENATOR
CABALLERO. B. WHAT. IS 2 TO 5.
THAT BILL IS 2 TO 5. THE BILL
FAILS. YOU WANT TO GRANT HIM
RECONSIDERATION AS A YES, WE ARE
. SENATOR NILA WASN'T ABLE TO
ASK FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE
HE WASN'T IN THE ROOM WHEN WE
TOOK THE VOTE, SO I WILL WITHOUT
OBJECTION. RECONSIDERATION IS
GRANTED. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW LET'S
GO TO THE S¼ B 1465. PASS THIS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY. THE
CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO 0, SENATOR
BLAKESPEAR. SORRY. THIS IS WHO
ARCHULETA BLAKESPEAR I èC R TWO
èC R TWO. I UMBERG UMBERG I
WAHAB WAHAB, A 10 TO 0. ALL
RIGHT, S¼ 1465 IS OUT. THE VOTE
IS 10 TO 0. UH, THIS IS S¼ 120
THREE BEST SENATOR CABALLERO.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO 0
SENATOR. BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR I
èC RTO. HOMBERG UMBERG. I WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE. ALL RIGHT. S¼ B 1120
THREE IS OUT. THE VOTE IS 8 TO 8
TO 08 TO ZERO. OK NOW COME BACK
FOR THE BILL, AND THEN WE'RE
DONE OK? RIGHT SO YOU COULD SEND
, UH, SENATOR CABALLERO DOWN TO
ADD ON TO YOUR YOUR BILL, AND
THEN I'LL COME BACK UPSTAIRS.
IT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. AND. COUNTER VERY
HEALTH.
SIMILAR CERTAINLY THANK YOU.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WAITING ON SO
CLOSE. ABOUT 1438 0. NOT 1438.
0. SHE DOESN'T GET A YEAH. 1438
YEAH, WE'RE JUST WAITING ON THAT
BECAUSE HERE. YEAH.
HAVE A YEAR. YEAH, YEAH. MEMBERS
TO KEEP TRACK. YEAH. WE WANT TO
GET COMMITTEES. YEAH, OK. YEAH,
YEAH, YEAH.
STUFF. THAT IS THE WAS CALLED
THEIR OFFICE.
OK?
CALL ON? UH S¼ B 900 SENATOR UM,
BILL, WHICH IS DUE PASS TO
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 7 TO 2, SENATOR
CABALLERO CAB, I THAT IS 8 TO 2.
ALL RIGHT, SO S¼ B 900 PASSES OR
ITS YEAH, SUCCEED, AND IT'S THE
VOTE WAS 8 TO 0. SO WITH THAT WE
HAVE DONE ALL OF OUR BILLS AND
APPRECIATE. UH, AND WE WILL NOW
CONCLUDE THE HOUSING COMMITTEE.
ADJOURNED.