Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Two of those bills are on consent. The two on consent are item number two, SB 406 by Senator Cortese, and item five, SB 477, by the Housing Committee. We'll take a motion on that on the consent calendar once we establish a quorum. So we're going to begin as a subcommittee until a quorum arrives. And I want to welcome our first presenter, Senator Rubio, for item number one, SB 20. You may present.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Today I'm proud to present SB 20, an important bill that will help local governments address California's affordable housing shortage homelessness crisis. The idea for the Bill comes from incredible success we've had in the San Gabriel Valley with a housing trust that I created several years back. In 2019, Governor Newsom signed my Senate Bill 751 into law, authorizing communities of the San Gabriel Valley to come together and create a regional housing trust.

And since then, it has yielded a lot of success and a lot of opportunity. It creates a framework for new regional housing trusts modeled after the successful San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust. I know it's a mouthful, but that's the name. This will also allow governments to create their own not only housing trust but without needing to come to the Legislature every year. Since 2019, where I created the original one, there's been about three to four that come before you.

And so we decided that instead of putting the burden on you, we would create a statewide regional housing trust. So this is just optional opt-in. That means any community that wants to take advantage can. The bill is supported by over 25 pro-housing groups, local governments, and community organizations from across the entire state. It also passed unanimously, bipartisan support in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee last month. I want to thank the Chair and the committee.

I know that my staff has been working closely with your committee, so just want to thank you for the opportunity to work with you and take input and get to the right place with this bill. And I also want to today introduce someone that's supporting the bill. My lead witness is Jordan Panana Carbajal from California YIMBY, and when you're ready, he will proceed.

Thank you very much. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jordan Panana Carbajal, legislative advocate for California YIMBY, and here to speak in support of SB 20. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family for all Californians.

The establishment of a regional housing trust is a proven solution to help finance affordable housing projects for homeless and low-income populations. As evidenced through the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust, which has been an incredible success story in just a few short years, nearly two dozen small cities have joined together and leveraged their collective resources to fund several affordable housing projects and open the first tiny home village for the unhoused in their region.

While some cities in California are not meeting their fair share of housing and underproducing new supply, the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust proved that there are many more local governments working productively to solve California's housing crisis. SB 20 would allow other regions around the state to replicate the success of the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust.

It does this by establishing a state framework for local governments that want to expedite the creation of their own regional housing trust without the requirement to pass implementing legislation prior. By providing local governments with another tool in their toolbox, SB 20 will offer Californians another path toward achieving our shared goal of addressing the housing crisis, creating a future where every person has access to a safe, affordable home. It's for these reasons, we respectfully request your support for SB 20. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any additional support in the hearing room? Seeing none, is there any opposition in the hearing room? Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Senators. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is John Scribner. I'm with the California Association of Realtors, and we respectfully have an opposed unless amended position on this bill. Our concern is about moving forward and constructing housing with the available funds that you have. It isn't about using those funds to deny potential homeowners the opportunity to buy that house or that duplex.

The issue is without a clear guardrail, if you will, on acquisition, these groups will be competing with the Californians who are trying to buy a home. For the want of that one amendment that is our only issue with the bill is to allow Californians to buy a home rather than having more groups competing and taking them away from the housing stock for people to purchase.

I mean, just last year, this body approved and funded a major program to help Californians buy a home, the California Dream For All. And this year's proposed plan from the Senate Democrats even calls for continued funding and to make it, I guess, basically a continuous appropriation or self-sustaining. But my colleague, who testified a little earlier, talked about that toolbox, right?

Well, when I worked in both houses years ago, we would evaluate these bills based on whether the proposal was a new program to present a different paradigm or philosophy, or whether it complemented an existing program, or whether it caused problems with those programs already available and working. In this case, for the want of that one amendment, this bill runs counter to everything this body has done last year in the budget. I mean, you have in past actions, acknowledged big groups buying up homes, entry-level homes.

And this has that same potential. However laudable, it still has the same potential. We're saying if you're going to put money build, let's deal with the shortage by building our way out of it. Otherwise, we're simply transferring one set of stock housing to restricted housing, and there's nothing for those renters who want to move up to buy. That's our problem and that's our issue we have.

And at a time when California's homeowners, new homeowners, are beginning to more accurately reflect the diversity of California, our actions are basically going to start saying, yeah, hold off. We may have other plans that prevent you from buying that in a defacto manner. So I would ask you, please have a discussion about amendment that limits it and excludes one to four. That's all we are asking for, and then we will gladly walk away. But I thank you very much for your time. Thanks again.

Thank you so much. Is there any additional opposition comment in the room? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines.

If you would like to provide public comments in support or opposition of SB 20, please press one, zero at this time. And we have no comments.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chair. Senator, would you like an opportunity to respond to the concerns of the opposition?

Yes, I would. Thank you. And thank you for this opportunity. I think, and I'm happy to say my goals are the same as the realtors and that is to ensure that there's enough housing. It's not putting at a disadvantage one group over the other to make sure that people move up. And so I am working with my staff, and we will continue to work with the realtors. My intention is not to disadvantage them.

So I just wanted to share a little bit of what the housing trust has done. The housing trust has built 105 tiny homes for the homeless and has housed, again, approximately over 100 folks that get fed three times a day. For those families that have children, there is a community center so they can do their homework. These are families that would have been on the streets had it not been for the housing trust.

So I just wanted to share a little bit aspect of that housing trust. The other aspect is we are completing 650 affordable housing units that were not taken from anywhere. These are projects that were sitting there stalled for years. I knew that as a council member. When I was a council member for 13 years, we used to run into financial deficiencies. And some of you have served locally. You don't always have the funding.

And again, we have great ideas, great plans, and a lot of the ideas just stay on the table because we can't afford to fund it. So the 650 housing units that we're building were projects that were already done, that were shovel-ready. And when cities have a difficult time finishing the project, they will approach the regional housing trust and we give them the funding to complete it.

So in these cases that I've highlighted, we haven't taken one home away, and then we have another 400 in the pipeline. So that's over 1000 homes that are being created that would give opportunities for folks not only to be housed but for the realtors to have more opportunities to sell. I do understand the concern. I just want to highlight the regional housing trust because we're so proud of it. But I do want to work with the realtors. I will continue to work with the realtors. And quite frankly, as my colleagues know, it has been a very busy time. And so it was just a matter of getting to the table and trying to figure out what that looks like. So once it passes this committee, they have my full commitment that I'll continue to work on it.

Thank you very much. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Sorry, just to follow up. So if I understand correctly, I just want to make sure that I have clear what the concerns are with regards to realtors. Your concern is that the trust will take properties that are currently already built, be refurbished, and be able to be allocated for this particular purpose. That's your concern. Right. Okay. In your purpose. And what you just explained is that as it exists right now, not once has that happened prior to.

Well, let me correct the record at this point, the only case where it happened, and I think we all have Habitat for Humanity in our communities. They do their own thing on their own time, and they acquire houses on their own time with their own nonprofit funding. So because we had so much success and we had money, they came to us and said, can you help with a couple of projects? So, yes, Habitat for Humanity has benefited to finish their projects.

It's not that the housing trust is taking them away. It's just that we're helping a nonprofit like Habitat for Humanity. So I was thinking of some kind of middle ground where we may exclude some of these nonprofits because we know that they do good work and they actually place families in homes that would otherwise never have the opportunity to be homeowners. So we're not there yet. Like I said, these are just ideas. But I do want to sit with them, just know that I'm fully committed to working with them because I want to make sure that they're okay with it. Mr. Chair.

Just as a follow-up. So more of the witness in opposition. Does your concern apply to Habitat for Humanity scenarios, or is it completely aside from the habitat?

The issue is without regard to Habitat or New York REIT. It's the issue of taking existing housing and converting it to rental and no longer having it available for someone to purchase.

So it's not directly with those particular pros? It's not a?

Whether it's a New York REIT or Habitat, it's the issue.

So it's just having clarification on the language that would exclude units from one to four, but not necessarily implying anything that has.

We don't have a problem with apartments, anything like that. It's the one to four where you could have a homeowner trying to get in.

Got it. Thank you very much. I appreciate your feedback. And I will be supporting the bill at this time, and I'll be happy to move the bill when appropriate. But I do would love to see the accommodation, and I don't see a conflict of interest based on the examples that you gave and your goals for this particular bills.

And I do see the concern, as far as a former realtor, I do see the concerns that they conveyed this afternoon with regards to taking away current inventory, which is very limited, and at times it becomes very limited for our first time home buyers on that end. So in my little world, in my mind, I don't see a conflict of interest, of being able to find language that's accommodating to both. Would love to see that at the end and we'll reserve my vote, my desire to change or keep my vote depending on the final language. But thank you very much for this bill and bringing it to light, and I am happy to move the bill when an opportunity comes.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. I want to thank you for this bill as well. I think it's important to stress that this is a purely local control bill. This is simply authorizing, but not requiring, two or more cities to come together and create a joint powers authority as a housing trust. It's a tool that they can decide locally how they want to do it. And I don't think we should tell them, you can do it here but not there. I think it makes sense to give them flexibility. And I appreciate you bringing this forward. And you may have already closed. You gave some eloquent remarks, but you're welcome to close now.

Thank you. And thank you for pointing that out. As I mentioned, I was a council member locally, so it's very important for me not to be too prescriptive. And that is the point. There's 22 cities that have now joined my housing trust. They're not in my Senate district, but that just speaks to the success and how they saw themselves being aided when they had projects that were stalled. That's how they get their housing done. And so, yes, I want to make sure that there's flexibility. I don't want to be too prescriptive, but I do want to make sure that I work with the realtors, and let's find a middle ground. And so I'm willing to do that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we do now have a quorum. So let's establish a quorum.

Senator Wiener. Present. Wiener, present. Ochoa Bogh. Present. Ochoa Bogh, present. Blakespear. Caballero. Cortese. Here. Cortese, here. McGuire. Padilla. Here. Padilla, here. Seyarto. Here. Seyarto, here. Skinner. Here. Skinner, here. Umberg. Wahab. Quorum.

Six. We have a quorum. Actually, we'll now take a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I want to make a comment.

Oh, my apologies, Senator Skinner.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Rubio, for bringing this forward. I have a bill that's somewhat similar that would enable for local jurisdictions, local governments to come together to create regional housing finance authorities, because we know that just as your bill recognizes, that one of the biggest obstacles to affordable housing is having enough, basically, the subsidy to make the housing affordable because affordable housing needs subsidy.

Private market does not, whatever, limited in what they will do regarding that because obviously, profit developers need to be able to have their projects pencil out. And one of the ways of course, that we've been trying to incentivize affordable housing through market-rate development is with density bonuses, with many of the bills, we've done a variety of things like that, but we still have not only a severe housing shortage, but a severe affordable housing shortage.

And so mechanisms like this to be able to get the financing to do it is very essential. Now my point of speaking is to the realtors. I appreciate that there's not a lot of inventory and there's a lot of reason. Number one, because we haven't built enough housing. Number two, because with higher interest rates, people are fearful that if they sell their house, they can't afford the next house. So I appreciate that realtors need inventory in order to do their jobs. However, to oppose this because of the fear that trusts like this would buy up all single family homes.

I mean, I know you didn't say all, but with the type of changes that we, the Legislature have made in various of our land use policies, if this would enable some trust to buy up a single-family home property and then utilize it for larger, more units, then that benefits us and it benefits. And there is also nothing in here that says that the program couldn't do housing for ownership. There's nothing in it. So there could be ownership opportunities with this program. And while I again appreciate that everyone who comes before us is always looking out for their important interests, more homes are in the realtor's interest. So I just wanted to make that comment.

So can I just add, I'm sorry, you opened the door. May I make just one comment? Would that be okay? And I should have said that I was trying to streamline it, but some of the projects that we have built are not just all affordable housing. And so I believe that actually, they will benefit from 1000 units that are coming up in the near future. It's just a small percentage. They'll be available for market rate where it would benefit the realtors. But again, my intention is to work with them to see if we can find a solution.

Okay. And yes, I believe you've already closed. Yes. Okay. We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. The original motion was before we had a quorum, and that is to pass this bill to the Senate Floor and we'll call the roll.

Senator Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Blakespear. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. McGuire. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. Seyarto. Aye. Seyarto, aye. Skinner. Aye. Skinner, aye. Umberg. Wahab.

Okay, that has six votes, and we'll put it on call for the absent members. Thank you, Senator Rubio. We'll now go to the consent agenda. Again, there are two items on consent. Items 2 and 4. That's SB 406 and SB 477. May I please have a motion on the consent agenda?

Moved.

Motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and we'll call the roll.

Senator Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Blakespear. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. McGuire. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. Seyarto. Aye. Seyarto, aye. Skinner. Aye. Skinner, aye. Umberg. Wahab. Six to zero.

Okay, that has six votes, and we'll put the consent agenda on call. I will now present the item number three. SB 593. I'll hand the gavel to the Vice Chair.

All, thank you. Welcome. Senator Wiener, you are about to present SB 593, when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I'm here to present SB 593 San Francisco Replacement Housing Act, which opens up funding to replace more than 5800 units of low and moderate income housing that were demolished in a truly atrocious period in San Francisco history. From the 50s to the 70s, a period known as quote unquote, urban renewal which was really urban demolition and displacement of largely communities of color.

During this period, San Francisco, through its redevelopment agency, demolished a significant portion of the Fillmore area in the western edition which had been known as the Harlem of the West. It was a truly iconic neighborhood, and it was largely demolished, pushing out thousands of residents and businesses.

It was an epicenter nationally of our black community and it was just simply torn down. In addition, we saw Japantown experience demolition as well as portions of south of market in the Filipino community.

The plan actually proposed to demolish Haight Ashbury and Duboce Triangle, for those who know San Francisco. Unfortunately, it was stopped before this additional damage was caused. In 1980, the western edition had 5000 fewer homes than it had in 1950, a 30% decrease. San Francisco's black population in 1970 was 13%.

Today it's 5.1%. Somewhere between 20 and 30,000 people overall were displaced, simply bulldozed out of their neighborhoods. 883 businesses were displaced, 4729 households were displaced, and 2500 Victorian homes were demolished.

1100 senior citizens just in one zone were displaced from their homes. SB 593 provides a narrow and tailored funding source through the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, a limited continuation of existing tax increment financing that will not impact any other priorities like education, nor will it have any impact on the state General Fund.

It is long overdue for San Francisco to make amends for the destruction of affordable homes in neighborhoods predominantly populated by people of color.

The Bill is simply putting together a plan and authorizing San Francisco to take this step. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today to testify are Maddie Scott from Freedom West Homes and Dr. Veronica Honeycott from the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Hunters Point shipyard.

She is the chair. We also have for any technical questions, Thor Koslowski, the Executive Director of the San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, which is our redevelopment successor agency. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. We'll now continue with our lead witnesses in support of SB 593. When you're ready, ma'am. Welcome

Welcome. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Maddie Scott, and I am a resident of Freedom West Homes. I've been a resident there for over 45 years. I've raised my three children there, and my first time buying my home was Freedom West Housing Cooperative.

I've seen my families in the Fillmore community houses be picked up and moved to other neighborhoods when they were told that those houses were not fit to live in.

And then they would come in and lift up these houses on trailers and move them to Pacific Heights and other neighborhoods. But you told the majority of black folks in that neighborhood that those houses were condemned and not fit for living.

I watched that as a young child growing up in the Fillmore community. My aunt was one of those people that lost her home on Fulton street, down the street from the African American Art and Culture Complex.

I watched many families, many families in our community just be uprooted and leave with no place to go. We don't want that for Fillmore and for Freedom West to happen again. I have been an advocate for Freedom West and for the Fillmore community all my life.

I raised my children there. We have a beautiful, diverse community of people of all color. Majority of us came there to buy our first home. We're very proud of that community, very proud of it.

Many of us lost our children in that community. I lost my youngest son to gun violence in 1996 in that community around the corner from my house, along with a lot of other neighbors. And we continue to stay and to fight to maintain our community because we love San Francisco.

We love the City of San Frans. My children went to school in that neighborhood. I raised them in that community. I went to work in that community.

My house was 20 minutes away from California Pacific Medical Center. And now is the time for us to really think about reparations in the right way and to give SB 593 the go ahead to move forward, to right the wrongs of the past, of what happened.

We know what happened was wrong. Let's make it right. Let's make it right again. There's so many people leaving San Francisco because they cannot afford it. I don't want to leave. I love my community. I love my neighbors.

I love the diversity. I love the children in my neighborhood. And I love being, serving on the board at Freedom West to help our community to be stronger and to be better. And I thank you, Senator Scott Wiener, for all that you've done and what you're doing for affordable housing and all of you. So I ask you today to do the right thing.

Let's build our communities back up. We can make America great again when we get people back in affordable homes and off the streets.

When we do that, then we have served righteously. We can and will build America the way that it was. But better, stronger together, in unity with affordable housing, with love, and with justice. So I ask you today to please honor this Bill for affordable houses in San Francisco. Thank you.

Thank you very much, ma'am, for your testimony. We'll continue with our lead witnesses in support of SB 593.

Chairperson Ochoa Bogh and members of this esteemed housing committee. My name is Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt. I am the chair of the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee, as well as the chair of the Minnie and Lovey Board Community Recreation Council.

I represent various stakeholders, including the Bayview Hunters Point community, the city and County of San Francisco, and community organizations.

I have worked on affordable housing, workforce education, and community empowerment initiatives for over 50 years. And I would like to thank you, Senator Wiener, for presenting this Bill for approval. SB 593 is a long awaited action to correct discrimination and injustice that has decimated African American lives in San Francisco.

And this suffering continues to this day. When I was a young girl, many years ago, in the Fillmore western edition areas, I remember the neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood.

I remember the Smiths, the black couple who owned the dry cleaning establishment on Fillmore street. The German deli, where my family bought Hoghead cheese. The Rexall drugstore at Fillmore and Gary, where my family purchased medicine from Ben, a Japanese pharmacist.

The Yugoslavian bakery, where we ate pastries. Helen's restaurant, where we purchased delicious Chinese food. New House's clothing store, which featured plus sizes. And, yes, Honorado's meat store, which featured oxtails, pig feet, frog's legs and rabbit food, which working class people and folks of color could afford.

All of this is a distant memory. Redevelopment forced African Americans and working class folks out of the neighborhood. Senator Wiener has through this Bill mitigated San Francisco's ongoing housing crisis. Everyone in San Francisco stands to benefit from SB 593, especially low income workers, African Americans and at risk families.

The replacement housing financing is a necessary and urgently needed source to jumpstart targeted housing replacements. Please keep this in mind. Your yes vote and approval of SB 593 will keep hope alive and uphold justice.

Please keep this in your mind. Thank you.

Thank you very much, ma'am, for your testimony. We will now continue with any witnesses in support here in room 1200 for SB 593.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee. My name is Bobby Sisk. I'm a Member of Bethel AME Church, San Francisco. We're celebrating 171 years in the city and County of San Francisco. Our church, over 51 years ago, built and sponsored the properties in which they're talking about today, freedom west homes.

We simply say to you, we have an opportunity here. This is not all the money in the world. When you look at it over time.

We feel it's of urgency not to spend a lot of time trying to look back 60 years and do a profile to try to convince you of the losses that have been sustained in that neighborhood by the families and by those children's, the descendants of those families.

We simply say to you, we have an opportunity here. This is not all the money in the world. When you look at it over time. And if we did a reversed analysis, we would see that the amount of money that we're dealing with when we're talking about 5000-6000 families doesn't go much.

But this does do something to right the wrongs. So as our church has sent me to ask you to support this Bill, it's badly needed and certainly would benefit persons of color. Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you very much. And just as a reminder, at this time we will be taking a Me Too motion for testimony. So just your name, your position on the Bill and the organization that you represent, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Mel Assagai for the California African American Chamber of Commerce and strong support.

Thank you, sir.

And Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership in support of this creative mechanism to finance a long unmet obligation. Thank You.

Thank you, sir.

Niccolo De Luca, on behalf of Nonprofit Housing of Northern California, in support. Thanks.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Senator. Thor Kaslofsky. I'm the Executive Director of the successor agency of San Francisco. On behalf of the mayor of San Francisco, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, we offer our full support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any other witnesses in support of SB 593 here in room 1200? See, none will now continue with lead witnesses in opposition to SB 593 here in room 1200. Do we have any? Seeing none will continue with any witnesses in opposition to SB 593 here in room 1200. See, none will now continue Moderator, right. Is it Mr. or Mrs?

Okay.

Moderator, if you would please queue up any witnesses waiting to testify in support and opposition to SB 593, and we will continue. And just as a reminder to our witnesses in waiting in queue, please state your name, your position and the organization that you're presenting. Thank you.

If you would like to provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 593, please press 1-0 at this time. And we have no comments.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. We'll bring it back to the dais. We have a motion by Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very supportive of the Bill and even more so after hearing the testimony, if that's possible. I had a chance to have a little exchange with the author, and I was a little concerned because of the obvious.

Perhaps, maybe it isn't obvious, but for those of us that were around local government with the dissolution of redevelopment, the obvious concern in my mind that any Governor might look at this as sort of an end run around the dissolution.

I would like to see the Bill succeed without people having to have those kind of concerns. That, this is somehow going to open up the floodgates to maybe less honorable situations where people would come in and just try to start running redevelopment all over again without the guardrails.

Is there any way to fashion something in the Bill that is such a strong statement of intent that it just reassures everybody from here on out that that's not a problem.

We all have our opinions about the end of redevelopment. I think it was problematic. There were abuses of redevelopment. Instead of fixing it, the state decided to get rid of it. And that is what it is. It happened. I wish there had been a little more of a surgical approach, but that's not what happened.

This situation, just looking at the Bill and looking at the history is fairly unique.

San Francisco was not the only city that engaged in demolition, but San Francisco was a particularly extreme example in terms of what it did. And San Francisco, for decades has had a legal responsibility to replace the units that were homes that were lost.

For decades, we've been legally obligated, and we had started replacing them and were on a path, and then redevelopment was eliminated. So it sort of shut the gate.

And so what this does is, for this situation, San Francisco allows us to comply with our long standing legal obligation. We have 5,800 homes to go, and this will help us get that done. So I think it's fairly unique.

I'm not going to say that no other city would ever come forward, and cities are entitled to come forward and say we have a situation, and the Legislature can evaluate that. But this, on its merits, I think, warrants support.

Thank you. For the record, I didn't mean to imply that I would object to using tax increment again for housing, specifically for housing. But I do know it raises some eyebrows or concerns.

I think one other thing to point out here, is this is not, one of the complexities of trying to put redevelopment back together again is once it ended, the tax increment all spread out to the community colleges and the school districts.

And so it's very hard to amass that back again because you have a lot of stakeholders who would not be happy about that here. This is really about San Francisco's allotment of it. So it's much more focused than traditional redevelopment.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Thanks.

Thank you. Senator Cortese. Do we have Senator Skinner?

I just wanted to thank the primary witnesses and support. You were very eloquent with both the history and the case and wanted to express my appreciation. Thank you. Supporting.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. Any other comments from the dais? Seeing none. I just want to thank you for the Bill and thank the witnesses for coming here and testifying and support very compelling stories that you've shared today.

Thank you very much for sharing with our committee, as well as with the audience that's watching. Senator Wiener, would you like to close?

I appreciate the conversation, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion by Senator Wahab. Madam Secretary, if you would please call the roll.

This is SB 593. The motion is do pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

The measure is at 70. We'll leave it open for our absent Members. Thank you very much.

That's seven to zero.

Caballero aye. McGuire. Skinner. Oh, sorry. Umberg.

Okay, so, thank you, everyone. We're going to open the rolls for our recently arrived Members. We'll start at the top. Item number one, SB 20. Please call the absent Members.

Senator Blakespear. Caballero.

Aye.

Caballero aye. McGuire. Umberg.

Aye.

Umberg aye. Wahab.

Aye.

Wahab aye. That is nine to zero.

It's nine to zero. We'll put that back on call. Blakespear is absent, right?

Correct.

Okay, put that back on call for Senator McGuire. Next, the consent agenda. Item two, SB 406, and item five, SB 477. Please call the absent Members.

Senator Blakespear. Caballero.

Caballero aye. Umberg

Aye.

Aye.

Umberg aye. Wahab.

Aye.

Wahab aye. That is also.

Okay, that's nine to zero. We'll put it back on call. And then finally, item four, SB 593.

Senator Blakespear. Caballero.

Aye.

Caballero aye. McGuire. Umberg.

Aye.

Umberg aye. That is also nine to zero.

Okay, nine to zero. Put it back on call. So, I think everyone has voted except Senator Mcguire, and we'll just. The majority leader gets some extra latitude. Okay, we'll now open the roll. Sorry.

There's, like, three of them.

I know. They take care of me. It's measured. We're going to open the roll. Item number one, SB 20. Please call the absent Member.

Senator Blakespear. McGuire.

Aye.

McGuire aye. 10 to zero.

Okay, 10, nothing. That Bill is out. We'll now go to the consent agenda. Item two, SB 406, and item five, SB 477. Please call the absent Members.

Senator Blakespear, Mcguire. Aye. McGuire aye. 10 to zero.

Okay, the vote is 10 to nothing. The consent agenda is approved. And finally, item four, SB 593, please call the absent Members.

Blakespear. Mcguire. Mcguire aye. 10 to zero.

Okay, that vote is 10 to nothing, and the Bill is out. And with that, we've completed our agenda, and the Senate Committee on Housing is adjourned.